Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We'll call the June 18th Reno County Board of Zoning Appeals meeting to order.

Staff, will you please call the roll? Lindley. Here. Strand. Here. Schaefer. Here. Seltzer. Here. Macklin. Here. Martin. Here. Gerson. Here. Welcome to everyone here. In your packets, we've got to review from staff. I hope you had a chance to review the minutes from the May 14 BZA meeting. The chair will entertain a motion on those. I move they approve. Moved and seconded. Moved and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? All in favor of approval of the May 14 BZA minutes say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. To ensure the rights of all parties of interest and to provide an opportunity for each party to address the Board of Zoning Appeals in an orderly manner, the BZA will follow the fact-finding procedure which is outlined in the handouts in this chair. Your attention to this procedure is appreciated. All decisions by the BZA are final. Decisions may be appealed to the District Court within 30 days of the decision. If a decision is made tonight, that decision will be based upon the record of information presented to the BZA. I'll now formally open the public hearing regarding case number 2026-05, a request by Timothy and Joyce Helton, Agent Mark Helton, for a variance from Article 2-107, Paragraph 2 and Article 13 of the Zoning Regulations and Article 3-104. Paragraph 5 of the subdivision regulations. Regulations require a new parcel in the Ag Zone District contain a minimum of 200 feet of public road frontage. The owner requests no more than two parcels to contain less than the minimum 200 feet of public road frontage. The property is located on the north side of East Schmutz Creek Road. Approximately one quarter mile east of the intersection of East Smooch Creek Road and South Jerry Lynn Road. Have any VZA members had any outside contact regarding this case?

No.

Do any VZA members have a conflict of interest in this case? No. No. No. Will the applicant please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. You have 10 minutes to present your case. Additional time may be allotted to the applicant at the discretion of the chair. BZA members may request clarification at the end of your presentation or may have questions.

This is a real unique shaped piece of property.

There is an attachment there.

There are two additional entrances, which is also spelled out in the presentation here and the paperwork that I've got in front of me. Basically, it was in CRP for years. My youngest son, Mark, is here with it. That's my son. He wants to build a house on the property at 71 acres. piece of property in front of it was sold off. Actually, it was my wife's grandparents that owned that property for years, and it's still in the family at this point with us owning it, and Mark wants to put a house on it. I mean, eventually that entire 71 acres will be Mark's, but it's not at this time. He can't afford to buy the whole 71 acres from me right now, but he wants to put a house on it. I don't have a problem with that. I'm going to continue to bale the grass off it. What I use it for now is to put With that being said, that's really all I've got to say. I mean, it's not like I'm developing it or anything like that. It's just that he wants to put a house there. I don't know if you have any questions for me.

Questions for the applicant?

I have one. Okay. Sir, just for the record, can you state your name and address?

Are you Tim? Okay. Jay. My address is 35200 West 21st Street North in Cheney, Sedgwick County. I live about a mile and an eighth as a crow flies from this property. And my wife Joyce is here as well. Like I say, the people that live in front of that are people that we've... Pat and Tom. Pat is Joyce's sister. So, I mean, we've had a lot of ties to that. All of the area around that are the adjacent properties.

County Planner. To help orient the board here a little bit, we are located on the South County line. The Spoon's Creek is the county line road. North side is our county. South side is Sedgwick County. Cheney Lake is just a little bit to the north and west on the other side of Titan Road. So we're have on the east side of the lake. And as you heard, this is a request for a variance in order to create an additional lot on this parcel number 17, which is zoned agricultural. The blue lines that you see on the zoning map is the creeks taken from the USGS quadrangle map to kind of help orient you a little bit on that. And I will have some other pictures to help show the actual creek. And so the owner wants to create an additional lot. The zoning regulations as stated in the staff report require 200 foot of road frontage. 200 foot of parcel depth, and that is something we just recently changed here in the last six months. Also with that, you have to have the other parcel, what we would call the parent parcel. That also has to maintain that 200 foot of public road frontage. We don't have a survey of the property yet. We can do an estimate that there's probably about 300 foot of road frontage. 400 foot of frontage in order to give each parcel at least 200 foot of public road frontage. We don't have that. We had many discussions before we got to this point on potential issues that we could resolve with that. We settled on needing to do a variance from our bulk regulations, which is Article 13 of the subdivision regulations. This is the side plan that was submitted here. The proposal right now is to create an approximate five acre lot that you see right here. It would have the 200 foot of public road frontage and the other two side property lines would be greater than 200 foot. So if this is approved, that parcel would comply with the current zoning regulations. What would be left over would be an approximate 100 foot access road to lead to the rest of the person in discussing this The option was brought up by the owner that if the border zoning appeals felt a better option would be is to have two parcels that had say 150 foot of public road furniture or something in between you know your your options are really wide open You know at this point the request is to do this however if the border zoning appeals feels like a better option would be to have each one of these parcels have 150 feet you have that option or something in between. The way I noticed this in the paper as you may have seen there is to create no more than two parcels out there with less than that public road frontage of 200 foot. You can certainly do one and you can approve it as this if you so choose or if you think it's a better option to have at least 150 foot say for example of public road frontage you can also do that as well. There's no issues with the white This is kind of an aerial view of the parcel. You can see the creek that's coming through here, it comes up, and then it actually does a split, and so you got part of the creek here, and then you got the other part of the creek that comes here, and then follows the east property line. That was a big factor in my analysis of that. You can kind of see how that creek kind of splits in there because our initial discussions with the applicant was to potentially purchase a portion of the land over here or a portion of the land over here to give him that 400 foot of frontage. If he would have done that, That's something that could have been approved internally by staff. He would have had at least 400 foot of public road frontage and he could have done a lot split and we wouldn't be here tonight. But as you probably can read in my report and as you will see here with some of these aerial photos that we have, the practicality of having a triangle piece of ground here on the other side of the creek or over here on this side of the creek doesn't seem to make a lot of planning sense. And this picture here will kind of help show what I mean by that. You've got probably a box here. So you can see that the creek is pretty deep in this side. So if he would have to purchase, say, another 100 feet here, you're going to be owning land over on this side of the creek that's probably, for all intents and purposes, going to be worthless. Similar as if you go over to the east side and you purchase on the other side over there. Is that really something that's going to be worthwhile, in fact, just to kind of meet the zoning regulations and that 200-foot requirement? He wouldn't be able to access that portion of the land from his property. He'd probably have to go out on Smooths Creek Road and go over here, mow this, or do anything else he'd want to do with it. The only purpose of that would be just buying that land in order to meet our 400-foot public road furnish requirement in order to give him that split. Pictures of the land now, these are taken in 2023 and taken from Google Earth, but you can kind of see this is on the west side of the property line. You can kind of see how deep the creek is right in that area. So he'd be purchasing land that would be over to the west of this picture here. Center of the property. And then the east side of the property, and it's not on the property line. The property line would be kind of off screen here, but you can see he'd be purchasing a portion of somebody's yard. And the creek kind of runs through those trees here. And so it's kind of impossible to get to that area without clearing out all the trees. And then you've got the creek that you have to deal with as well out there. And so when I looked at that and discussed that with the... I didn't think that that would be a practical solution to what we were trying to accomplish here. And so we were left with the issue of just applying for a variance and seeing what this board believes In order for you as a board to grant a variance, as we discussed last month in our training, there are five factors that you must review and find in favor of the applicant. If even one of those factors is found to not be in favor of the applicant, then the variance must be denied. I've included a very lengthy discussion of all those factors in your staff report here. At the conclusion of my analysis, I have found and recommend that the variance be granted to the applicant because I believe that all five factors are found to be in his favor. The board, at this point in time, really needs to have a discussion after you take any kind of public comment on what you want to do with the board. Would you want to have one parcel that is completely in compliance with our zoning regulations and have the rest of the land be dedicated to what I call the parent parcel? Or do you want to have a situation where you have say approximately 150 foot of public road French I had a pretty lengthy discussion in my report as well on on that scenario and I believe that the better option would be to have one brand new parcel completely in compliance with the zoning regulations that would avoid any kind of potential issues with banks and getting loans when they see a parcel with, say, less than 200 foot of public road frontage, and they read our regulations, they're going to start questioning, well, why does this parcel have 150 foot? We'd have to have that documentation, approve that to a lending institution, a bank, and so I feel like, in my opinion, it's better to have one parcel completely in compliance, have the farm ground that does not have a house on it, doesn't have structures, but that one can be the parcel that has less than that 200 foot of public If the board decides to go another route and have each one of these parcels be split and have a 150 foot of road frontage or something in between, what I would suggest that for the farm parcel that you maintain at least a minimum of 70 feet of public road frontage and The reason I say 70 feet is because currently in our subdivision, that is the minimum width that we require for a public road to be constructed. So, if Mr. Helton in the future would want to develop the rest of that parcel, then if he wants to access that subdivision through Smoot's Creek Road, at least he would have enough public road fringe to build a true public road out there instead of how to get that in there. 70 foot will allow us to get a standard subdivision road with ditches in there. So my suggestion is to, if you go that route, to at least make sure that this parcel has at least 70 foot of public road frontage. Right now, as it stands, it would probably have around 100. We don't know the exact number because we don't have the survey completed. So, and you see, it's kind of a complicated scenario issue. There's a lot of moving parts, but the way I noticed it, I was trying to give the board enough options. You know, your first decision really as a board is to decide Then your next discussion will be, do we do one parcel in compliance or do you do two parcels? If you do two parcels, then what is the frontage? You have to articulate to me and the owner what is the frontage that you want. So if it's approved, he can go back to his surveyor and he can draw the survey and the split according to your order. With that, I would stand for any questions at this point. Did I do a good enough job explaining? So if we go with the 100 foot on the one property, that leaves plenty of room for any ingress, egress issues?

It would.

Is there, there's no roadway on the back of that property?

As you can see up here on top, there's two roads as part of this other subdivision. I believe it's called Eastside Subdivision. However, those roads aren't in. The right-of-way is there, but they're not maintained. They're almost treated like private driveways, if you will. So there is a planted road right-of-way up here. And we discussed that, but again, right now with where our regs, in order to split that, you need to have the 200 foot of public road frontage. Those are only 60 foot wide roads, so we wouldn't be able to split it. Now, if he wanted to build on the whole 70 acres, then certainly you could probably use that road if it's in all the way. So, yeah, there's multiple. You can see it on his drawing here. It's called Maxwell Road and Smith Road. Those are two planted subdivision roads, but they just were never constructed with the subdivision that is over here to the west. can kind of see. I don't know if I have a zoning map. We'll probably have the picture. Yeah, so this area here is a planted subdivision. Now, over the years, lots have been combined, but they're all small lots, similar to what you're seeing right here. They've just been combined for taxing purposes. So these are two public roads, technically, right there, but they're not open public roads, if you will.

So if that right-of-way was for the sufficient amount of frontage or is it since they

Even if the roads were there, it still doesn't count. Even if the roads were there. If the roads were in and he wanted to build on the entire 70 acres, then the answer is yes. But it still doesn't count for a lot split. It doesn't count for a lot split because a lot split has to have 200-foot public road. That's the issue. We had that discussion. If he wanted to build on the 70 acres, if he wanted to build up here or if he wanted to build down here, get a permit and build but he's wanting to split and so because of the split has to have the 200 foot of public road frontage so if one or both of those roads would have hypothetically like curved to the north or south then they might have counted sure if he would have had 200 foot of yeah if these were if these for that reason connected in that scenario then certainly yeah he could have split that off because he would have had 200 foot of public road frontage So it's an unusually shaped parcel, as I discussed in my staff report, but I think in looking at it and looking at some of the areas, you can probably understand why this parcel is split off the way it was, because of the way the creek goes through that area.

Mark, does the applicant know approximately where this new home is going to be located on this property?

I have not discussed that with the applicant. We were mainly focused on We were mainly focused on can we get a split on this property, so this is his proposal right now. It can certainly change. It can be greater than what is shown here. It can be less than what is shown here. The lawn's not less than three acres.

Approximately how big is that new lot there in this? Probably five, I believe is what our discussions were.

The applicant can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was around five is what he was looking at. Is that the goal? About five acres for them. I believe so, yeah. He can maybe answer that in rebuttal or so, but yeah, I believe that was the goal that we discussed.

Of that 71 acres of zone A, what is it presently used for? Is it pasture? Is it cultivated land?

I don't know. I don't know. It's just agricultural land, so it could be used for either. I'm not sure if it's hay or...

So, Mark, we're going to make one compliant parcel, and the other one will be noncompliant. Is this correct? If that's the board's decision. As presented?

As presented. As presented, he wants one compliant parcel and one non-compliant parcel. He did, in the application, indicate that they'd be willing to have two non-compliant parcels of approximately 150 feet or whatever the board's wishes are. So that's why I notice it that way. If I only notice it as creating one parcel, now you're locked down into this scenario. If the board feels like 150 foot for each of those parcels is more appropriate, then you have that option of granting that with your variance.

So to correct the noncompliance in the future, they would just have to merge the two parcels. not in the future you've got right let's just say we have just put in a scenario together we approve as as submitted yeah but you have a compliant with 200 feet of red frontage you have a non-compliant with 100 as in the future He becomes ownership of the full parcel, the non-compliant also. He can make that all compliant. He can make that all correct.

Yeah, he could go back and he could correct it, and he could put it all back together and do that. But with your decision, if you go that route, he could also have another person build a house on the rest of that farm ground. So, you know, This house would sit in here. You could have another house sit anywhere else on that parcel if you want because you're granting a variance. And even though that only has 100 foot of public road furniture, it's still now a legal parcel because of your He can do that a lot now any more than that any further divisions like if he wants to use these roads and Build those out and create a subdivision now. We're talking about a whole different scenario We're talking about rezoning and planning and building public roads under our current regulations. So yeah, so You're still our when we develop the regulations usually two houses per 40 acres We're not creating any more little parcels out there than two

But he could, in the future, do a subdivision in there because that's wide enough to do a town shift.

standard road. That's my recommendation is to leave enough road frontage on whatever decision the board makes if they want to come off Smoots Creek. Certainly they can come off these other roads that are already platted, extend the road, and create a subdivision. Creating a subdivision is a whole different story because you're going to have to rezone that property to residential of some type of residential. That has to get passed the Planning Commission. And then if it does pass the Planning Commission and the County Commission, then he'd have to develop a subdivision plot under our current regulations.

Mark, if you can go back to the oblique imagery. Yeah. Did you have one closer to the front of the property?

Yep.

I'm trying to remember what the driveways looked like. It won't work. Just delay it. Yeah. Yep, that one. Okay, so that driveway... Nothing surveyed here, but it looks like that under the proposed solution there, that would stay with that hayfield. And then there would be another driveway constructed for the house.

Possibly. Maybe not. We haven't got that far in our conversations.

Would we have to have another driveway? Yeah.

Yeah.

Good.

Would we have to have one? Is there... Yeah. Yeah. He didn't have to. Okay. So he could just... It's like... It's like a scenario like on easements. I want 200 foot, the regulations, 200 foot of public road French. I don't care how you access it. Okay, you can access it off of somebody else's property if he gets permission. As long as I have 200 foot of public road French, so if something goes wrong here, he can't put another driveway in to access his property. So, yeah, as Mr. Chairman said, yeah, he could... He didn't have to put a driveway in here. I believe he was intending on using that. Same family still, so not an issue now. If this gets sold and somebody else's, then he may have to come back and put it down.

That's what I was wondering. If we get to a point down the road, 50 years, and the properties go their separate ways, if we made a smaller frontage for the new parcel, like 150 feet,

Yeah, that'd be something we'd have to look at. I mean, you know, if you wouldn't want a driveway, you know, close to the bridge, I don't know the exact distance away, 40 foot.

Right, but a 200 foot frontage, so we'd probably have enough room to squeeze in another driveway. I think there'd still be enough room potentially to get a driveway in, but that original driveway probably is within 100 feet of the property edge.

Yeah, that's what you might guess. Yeah. You can always do the legal easement, you know, you record the deed. Yeah, there's other options.

If the other owner will grant that easement. So that's why we require the frontage. I mean, you know, this new owner may not want that. So that's why we require the public road. I just perfectly fine use this now, but If in the future something happens, then he can still come back in and put his own personal driveway in.

Yeah, that was my worry. Say somebody wins the lottery and moves to the mountains and the parcels go their separate ways.

So in my report, I gave you a suggested motion. I also gave you an alternative motion. I also put in there two conditions of approval. The first one would be the parcel proposed for the construction of the single-family dwelling shall comply with the zoning and subdivision regulations, meaning And then the agricultural parks should contain not less than 70 feet of public road range, such as what we've been discussing here. That would allow for the potential future, whether that ever happens or not. Regulations can change, but at least right now it's a 70-foot right-of-way is what we require for subdivision roads. That would allow for this to happen. We could build a standard road, have enough room for the traveling public, two-way traffic, and

Any other questions for staff? Thank you. Thank you. If there is anyone in the audience who would like to comment on this case, you may have five minutes to comment. Please come forward to the podium one at a time and state your name and address for the record before commenting. Audience members are only permitted to address the BZA from the podium. Audience members are permitted only one time at the podium. In the interest of time, if you agree with the comments previously made by the audience members, please don't repeat the comments. Simply state that you agree with the previous and then present new information to the BZA. Statements and questions should only be directed to the BZA, not the applicant or staff. The BZA may choose not to answer questions or engage with the public. Questions regarding the application can be asked to the BZA and answered by the applicant or staff during the rebuttal phase of the public hearing. One that would like to comment. Does the applicant wish to rebut any statements made? Have any additional comments? Staff, do you have any additional? No, Mr. Chairman, I do not. Okay. Does the BZA have any further questions for the applicant or staff? No.

I guess I want to... Just to ask for clarity purposes, do you have a preference on the 150 and 150 or 200 and 100? No, not particularly. I mean, I'm...

I run my own machinery, and as far as that's plenty of access for me to get in there and put a pay and remove, I would add that if you notice that drive follows back through there, there's a couple parcels behind there that were already farmed by somebody else when I purchased that, and I maintain that with that farmer. I don't have any issue with maintaining access. I know that's not in writing for him or me or anybody for that matter, but We just want to use it for the grass that I'm putting up. I probably had 3,000, 4,000 trees on that thing when I purchased it and I cleaned it up. I can bail 100% of it right now except a little bit in the creek. But I don't need any special access for what I'm doing, no.

Any other questions for the applicant or staff? Seeing none, the public hearing is now closed. This is the time for the BZA to discuss the case and ask procedural questions of staff only. Acceptance of a variance shall be based on the finding the applicant has satisfied all five factors. If one or more of the factors is found to be against the applicant, the variance shall be denied. The five factors under consideration are the proposed development would not be contrary to public health, safety, and public interest. The literal enforcement of the zoning regulations would result in an unnecessary hardship because of the special conditions. There exists some condition which is unique to the parcel in question and is not commonly found on other parcels in the same district and was not created by the actions of the owner or applicant. The proposed development would not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners. The proposed development would not be contrary to the general spirit and intent of the land development regulations. Is there any further discussion or questions of the BZA? If not, Chair, we'll entertain a motion on this case.

Chairman, I move that case number 2026-05 is a request by the Timothy and Joyce Helton Living Trust, Agent Mark Helton, requesting a variance from Articles 2-107-2 and 13 of the zoning regulations and Article 3-104-5 of the subdivision regulations to permit a parcel of land to contain less than 200 feet of public road frontage as required in the AG. agricultural district be approved based upon the owner satisfying all five factors as stated in the staff report and heard at this public hearing and subject to the two conditions of approval.

Second. Been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on this motion?

Yes. Awesome.

Go to it. Any other business to be brought before the BZA? I don't have any, Mr. Chairman. Does the board have any? The chair will entertain a motion to adjourn the BZA. I'll second. Move to second it. All in favor of adjourning the BCA, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. BCA is adjourned. We'll call the June 18, 2026, Reno County Planning Commission. Meeting to order. Staff, will you please call the roll? Knisley? Here. Strand?

Here. Schaefer? Here. Seltzer? Here. Macklin? Here. Martin? Here. Edgerson? Here.

Any packets? We had minutes from the May 14, 2026 meeting. If you've had a chance to review those, the chair will entertain a motion for those minutes. So moved. I second. Moving to second. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor of approval of the May 14 Planning Commission minutes, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Kansas Supreme Court has defined a rezone or conditional use permit public hearing as a quasi-judicial function. To ensure the rights of all parties of interest and to provide an opportunity for each party to address the Planning Commission in an orderly manner, the Planning Commission will follow the fact-finding procedure which is outlined in the handout in each chair. Your attention to this procedure is appreciated. If a recommendation is made tonight, that recommendation will be based upon the record of information presented to the Planning Commission. The county commissioners will not conduct a separate public hearing or accept additional written documents. The county commissioners will consider written requests for additional public comment or documents based only on valid claims that the public hearing process was incomplete or based upon new information which has become available since the public hearing. For purposes of this county commission's policy, a public hearing is considered incomplete only if the planning commission failed to follow its procedural guidelines, which resulted in a denial of due process to a party of interest, or if the planning commission failed to allow an interested party an opportunity for public comment. For purposes of the county commission's policy, new information shall pertain only to germane information which did not exist at the time of the hearing or was unknown or could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence. An example may be a traffic study completed after the planning commission recommendation. Planning Commission recommendation to the County Commissioners will be accompanied by a summary of proceedings before the Planning Commission at its public hearing, along with a report and recommendation to the County Planner, letters, informal petitions, and other information constituting the record of proceedings provided by the Planning Commission before and during the public hearing. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation after tonight's public hearing, this case will be presented to the County Commissioners at their next available meeting after the protest period expires. Contact Planning staff or visit the website for County Commissioner agenda items. Any party who wishes to require the county commissioners decide this case by a supermajority vote may file a protest petition pursuant to KSA 12-757 at the office of the Reno County Clerk, 125 West First Avenue, Hutchinson, Kansas, within 14 days following the decision by the Planning Commission. The form is on the Reno County website, Planning Department page. We will now formally open. Case number 2026-04, a request by Sam and Marjorie Miller, Agent Lance Yoder, for a conditional use permit to establish a retail store that sells a variety of backyard structures on Land Zone R1, Rural Residential District. The property is located at the northeast corner of East Red Rock Road and South Yoder Road. Have any Planning Commission members had any outside contacts regarding this case? No. Do any Planning Commission members have any conflict of interest in this case? No. Will the applicant please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. You have 10 minutes to present your case. Additional time may be allotted to the applicant at the discretion of the chair. Planning Commission members may request clarification at the end of your presentation or may have questions.

My name is Sam North, 5203 East Trail West Road Haven Residence. Looking at this rezoning that we're requesting for just a bit of history, we were able to purchase the 40, or it had been 30 acres, to the east earlier and then my uncle Jay Schrock and Dan Garber had owned this with the intent of splitting it off into smaller lots. Dan would have obviously been the guy to do that if he could have, you know. But they opted just to, I shot him a price and they opted to sell it. Had numerous requests already to buy a portion of that for development and have... chosen to decline, kind of worried about the appearances and the nature of the businesses that we're requesting. But looking at doing a development where we would maintain ownership of this building and merely rent out for a lawn and garden type lawn and furniture retail location for Lance Yoder. Not related closely. Looking at the structuring a building in, there is a waterway coming through. So it would, actually right here, it does show a little bit. So it's a natural lot, if you would, on this side, structuring a building in there. There we go. It shows possibly a little bit of the waterway. It shows some of the implements and pieces of furniture that are there without permission. He had asked earlier, I get just tons of requests to set things there to sell. It's frustrating. If we do it this way, I could eliminate all of that and go into more of a commercial area. business, commercial retail location. Setting the building in like that, a 50 by 50 office, 50 by 60 warehouse right on the back side of it with a wraparound porch on the Yoder Road side. Be a two tone gray or black, darker gray. I don't know if And if it had been by Jerry Yoder's building just to the north, it would come in an appearance very much like that, where you put some cedar in along with that. The building should be a very attractive building. Looking to do the permit, and then obviously there's more decisions that need to be made as far as, I think there's city water available. But city sewer would have to be requested or work through that. If that's not available, owning the property to the east would probably say we've got the option or should have an option to do a living or something there if need be. But my first choice would obviously be if we could get in on rural. That was fast. Any questions left, probably? Feel free to ask. Are you going clear to the east property line with what is rented in this particular deal? Yes. When I say property line, I also do own this, but there is a fence I see it as a move to the positive as far as, like I said, cleaning up the lot and what it's, by default, a used equipment lot of some kind.

Any other questions for the applicant? Yeah, I had one on parking. I think we're looking... property is there the possibility that This building might get used for a more intensive like a more customer intensive Retail establishment in the future where more parking might be necessary At current I would I would think the parking would be

Very minimal concern, but I do hear where you're going.

Is there, the way this is set up here, is there going to be the possibility of having room for additional parking down the road?

Envisioned possibly an outdoor storage shit, but not not in the plans at all now And so there'd be definitely room for truck parking unload in that in the area here it does play area but Still give room for truck unload party and then likewise I would envision still having ample room for additional parking The display area, would that be fenced? That's not. We are looking at an outside area here where it is fenced with access for vehicle to load or walk in as an additional display area for him to show setups of swing sets or whatever it is.

This display over here, is that good?

Probably more in the maybe a combination. Some rocked area and some grass. Originally we had envisioned being allowed to have more display in the front how that looks to you but obviously we'd need to stay off the road right away but it's the nature of the business it's like a car lot I mean you can't your display almost needs to be on the outside for a lot of it so if you do display outside display area based on square footage of the building and then pretty soon you get yourself in a jam on something like this because you've got quite a quite a demand for outside display area.

And you're drawing there the diagonal parking spots on the west side of the building. Is there adequate room in there for people to park? Because I assume they're going to have to back up, turn around, and get back out on Red Rock Road. They would, but there's no guys in your room. That would be a concern where I don't know how much room there is there between the parking spot and the road right away for them to maneuver to get back around.

At least 100 foot here. Is that 100 foot? Oh, okay.

Is that 100 foot from the road right away or from the asphalt surface?

Especially the side of the building is 100 foot, right? Yeah. What is that blue line you have around that?

Yeah, that's more just the grassed area for the road right of way. Oh, okay. And that's not growing to scale. Earlier, this doesn't enter into this permit at all, but earlier I had envisioned being able to cross waterway and going over out back on Yoda Road, but getting it far enough away from the intersection where the flow would be more. And that may still develop with time if we choose to do more lots on further north in the shopping mall in there. And if I do that, then parking or driveway access becomes a real deal then.

parking to two scenarios come into play with something like this once the building is built if this is approved if the existing land you should go away and somebody else wants to buy that property they should submit a site plan review to me showing me the parking what they're going to need it was a similar land use of what's going on here another retail outlet, antique shop, for example, they may have to add additional parking However, if it's a totally different land use, if it's something that's like, say, a restaurant, for example, that's a brand new conditional use permit. So now it's going to come back before this board again for review, and that's when we're going to be reviewing parking. So similar land use, they may be able to use that parking. I may request additional parking, but totally different land use. It's going back before the conditional use permit.

it go before it becomes a new because we're talking about establishing a retail store like if the if that retail store you know if they decide and they go out of business decide to move do something different and then a different tenant moves in so there's no ownership change and it's still a retail store Like at what point does it have to come back before the planning commission? Like if it's an antique store or say they're selling... Antique store, no. Like they're selling side-by-sides or something.

It's like a cardio ship or selling side-by-sides. Oh, yeah, that's totally different than just a retail store. You know, antique stores... landscaping, supply, you know, that type of stuff. I think something similar to that category. That's really my call as a zoning administrator where I believe that that can be a similar land use to what's occurring. So what happens in that scenario is this business goes away, a new one wants to come in, they talk to me, they tell me what they're wanting to do, and they say it's going to be you know, a retail store that sells side-by-side. I look at that and I make a determination as a zoning administrator that says, no, that's not similar to what was there before. You have to go through the conditional use permit process. If that applicant doesn't agree with my decision, like what we did with our training last month, one of the options is that person can apply to the Board of Zoning Appeals, and then you as the Board of Zoning Appeals can determine is a side-by-side jet ski business similar in nature to what was there previously, and then the Board of Zoning Appeals determines whether it has to go before the Planning Commission or as it can just be permitted by... by right. So long process, that's something that's never really happened here, but that's the way it would determine. Usually it falls on my shoulders to determine is that similar use or not. If the applicant agrees with me, then we're fine. If the applicant doesn't agree with me, that's his option is to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. You as a board determine if that's a similar land use or not.

How do you monitor that, Mark? Because in this case, as I understand it, Mr. Miller would own that building and lease it out. So if the initial tenant with the lawn and furniture and whatnot doesn't make it, he's going to re-lease it to somebody else at some point. Is there a requirement that before they can open the business up, they come in to talk to you?

Yeah, I mean, the zoning regulations is the requirement. How do I monitor that? It's very difficult to monitor that being one person or so, one person without building costs, because usually, okay, if you think of a city scenario, you're going to buy a building or lease a building and open up a new business, you've got to go to the building official and get a CO or certificate of occupancy. to be able to get the utilities to be turned on, to be able to have the power turned on. That's what they require when you have a certificate of occupancy. In the county, we don't do that, and so it's usually... trusting of an applicant, drive-by, people calling, hey, what's this new business? The appraiser's office is always a good resource. They call me all the time on certain land uses. And so it's not a foolproof method. I mean, you kind of rely on, in this case, Mr. Miller here, hey, I've got a new tenant wants to come in to move this building. What do we have to do to make this happen? And then we can go from there. I apologize for hijacking your presentation. I wanted to answer that question while it was still in my mind because I may forget and I didn't want to interrupt Mr. Miller's presentation either for that matter. Any other questions here so I can get going a little bit on mine? As was kind of in Mr. Miller's presentation here, we're at the northeast corner of Red Rock and you're right south of where we listened to the JY construction presentation. His parcels are parcels 11 and 15 to kind little bit. This area of Yoder is really transitioning to more of a commercial corridor. Parcel 40, as you may recall, is the coffee shop that was approved last year. Parcel 16 is a grocery store. You go on up to Parcel 1 and Parcel 8, that's Yoder Meadows. So you can kind of get the understanding and feeling that, yeah, this is turning into a commercial corridor here and so this request as you heard is to construct a building for outdoor lawn ornaments and structures here it's a situation where I step in the kind of monitoring a little bit as you heard in the presentation it is currently a zoning violation for many years if you drive that road you've probably seen structures out there for sale A few structures here and there, yeah, maybe technically a violation. I didn't do anything about that due to staff constraints and time here. Now it's kind of getting to the point where, yeah, it's time to do something, and then that's when Mr. Miller came in and approached me about doing a building out there, and so I kind of mentioned to him that, yeah, this is technically a zoning violation right now. It's ongoing, although he hasn't been put on official notice by me to do that, so... Site plan, as we looked at. The proposal is to have the 50 by 50 sales office area. That's going to be the area that's going to be available to the public to come in and purchase items for sale. The 50 by 60 shop area is where in their staffing report they said that they're going to be assembling products there. The applicant is proposing a large display area on the east side of the building. You heard him testify that it's not proposed to be fenced or anything. It's kind of hard to see on this drawing. Another storage area is going to be on the north side. That is going to be fenced by... six-foot fence And then he's also proposing an outdoor display area on the northwest corner of that building You see the parking stalls here that he is proposing to have on the west side and on the south side of the building here Talking about the parking regulations that you know, I had a fairly lengthy discussion in my report and When you take into consideration the office land use and the warehouse land use, I calculate a total of 19 parking spaces that are going to be required for this development. As you can see in the site plan, he is proposing to have 10 spaces. The plan of operation also said that he could have between one and three employees there. here. Assuming that was going to be the case, now you're down to seven parking spaces for the public to be able to come into that building. Without more spaces, you could have potential of people parking all over the place, hopefully not parking on the road. There's some pretty concise ditches there, but you could have that situation or parking in areas of the property where they don't really belong. In my recommendation here, I believe that we should have at least to do that the reason I came to that conclusion it's less than the 19 or 20 that is proposed by the regulations and it's greater than the 10 that they are requesting so I'm kind of in the middle of that I believe that seven parking spaces left over once the employees are there He certainly, Mr. Miller, may have some additional thoughts on that here, but that's kind of where I landed with the parking. He's also requesting a waiver of the permanent paving requirement, the parking space requirement as well. Regulations also require a loading space be installed out there, and they don't have a use for that at this time, and so he's also requesting requesting a waiver of that requirement. One sign is proposed to be located on the property. It was not shown on there. It may be located on the building. A lot of the other write-up has to do with this is a corner property, and so any kind of structure, structures could be a fence or it could be a sign. He really should come and talk to me in public works to make sure that we're not locating it in the side triangle. And the side triangle is going to be obviously near this intersection. This intersection should be kept free and clear of structures to avoid the public having to look around those structures. What you're looking at here is the aerial of the property here. Again, additional businesses along Yoder Road there. We notified the whole entire parcel. As you had heard, he's not proposing to sell the property at this time, and so the conditional use permit is for the entire property. However, we're only going to be utilizing that south portion of the property. That's where the business is proposed to be located. The rest of the property will remain vacant at this time if he chooses to proceed on with a shopping mall type scenario or another type of business out there, another condition I'll use for that, possibly a lot split or possibly planning at that point in time. The last part of my report has to do with the factors that you need to consider when making a recommendation to the county commission. As you probably have read in here, I have reviewed that the majority of them are in compliance with our comprehensive plan and support this application here. Talk a little bit about public sewer and public water. You heard him testify that his preference is to have the public sewer and public water The property is in the water district, so there's no concerns on that end. He will have to work with the environmental staff on tapping into there and do that, and he's aware of that. The property's not in the sewer district, so in order for us to extend sewer to him, he is gonna have to petition the county commissioners for inclusion of that parcel, or at least a portion of that parcel, within the sewer district. There is a process that he has to go through to do that. He can work with me and the environmental division on trying to get that accomplished here. He'll probably wait until he has full approval of this, but yeah, he would have to petition to get in. It's my understanding, I believe the mantle for the sewer is across the street, so he will have to bore under the road to be able to get access to the sewer with that, but Our preference, and I believe it's his preference as well, and public water. As you may or may not know, we're in the process of doing a sewer project as well as a water project. The water project is more further along than the sewer project, but we are doing a sewer project. As you saw comments in the staff report that there's really plenty of capacity to be able to handle this property with our sewer expansion. So there's no concerns on that end or anything. Other pictures that I have of the property. This is a blow-up area. Here's the waterway that he's talking about. There's a pipe that's right there. That's the natural waterway that's on that property. As you can see, at that time, there's some display items out there right now in violation of the regulations, but they are there. I'll have some... updated photos for you. This is a photo from 2025 if you have not been by the property here in some time. That's what he's proposing to have on the property for sale. This is the updated picture from, actually it's from yesterday. So that's what it looks like right now out there. That is the view looking north across Red Rock. This is the sales office, I believe, that's been recently put out there in the last two to three months against the regulations. It's not requiring a permit if it's a 10 by 12 structure or less. use the area as a sales office, especially when you're going through the conditional use permit. Probably in years past, it's my understanding, you know, he was doing everything, just transactions on site or at his house. That was recently put out there against my advice. I had advised Mr. Yoder that 10 by 12 buildings Biggest concern, I guess, in my mind, that I think the board needs to have a discussion on, and you probably saw a lengthy discussion, is on the outside storage areas. You're looking at an 80 by 80 area potentially. You got this area here, which I believe in my report I said was like about a 30 by 50. And then you're looking at an area up here that's gonna be outside storage. I wasn't necessarily in favor of having outside storage along Yoder Road, a major corridor leading into the City of Hutch, leading out. I was not in favor of having something like that. So my recommendation was to remove that from the site plan and have a new site plan submitted This board certainly has the prerogative to go against my recommendation. If you are fine with that area being used as outdoor display, that is your right as however I believe I gave you an analysis at that time of the other businesses that go along Yoder Road and not any of the other ones have a tremendous amount of outside storage especially close to the road you certainly have outside storage up here and there's a few things that are scattered The mercantile shop not shown on this picture has a few Adirondack chairs, but there's not a large display. Nothing like what is being seen in the one picture. Nothing like that is along Yoder Road. I was not in favor of having that, especially if we're granting an 80 by 80 area. I understand that Yoder Road is a high visible road and you want to display your products, but I don't know if that's... But I think that's probably the biggest concern that I have with this proposal. It's in a commercial corridor. I don't have any issues with that. It fits the area and it's perfectly fine. I just don't know if we should have a large display area scattered along Yoder Road like that. So I think that's something that this board needs to have a discussion on, certainly with me, certainly with Mr. Miller as well. But staff is recommending approval of this request. First one is no visible display or storage of merchandise for sale shall be located along the right-of-way of Yoder Road. Display items for sale along Yoder Road is not permitted. Other displays or storage area is permitted per the site plan. And then the owner, we want to make sure we say that he's permitted to exceed the outdoor storage requirements per Article 9, 104.2. In my report, I said I think he's limited to 20% of the floor area. That equates to about 1,100 square feet of outdoor storage area. So he's got way more proposed than what is currently permitted by performance regulations. And so he's permitted to exceed that. 30 by 50 display and storage area shall be entirely enclosed by a minimum 6 foot high fence. The owner shall provide 15 parking stalls available for customers and employees. Again, prior to any kind of fence installation, especially on the perimeter of the property or at that corner, then he shall have that proposal reviewed by Public Works to ensure that there are no site triangle issues. Any lighting of the sign, parking area, or the building shall be shielded and directed onto the property. No lights on the sign shall be directed onto South Yoder Road or East Red Rock Road. If the board chooses to go with my recommendation, then number seven on the conditions of approval will apply. Prior to placement on the county commission agenda, for final consideration, the owner shall submit a revised site plan showing the installation of 15 parking stalls the removal of the storage area along Yoder Road, and any other modifications this board chooses to implement here with your recommendation. If you choose to go with the applicant's proposal, then your motion could be to eliminate condition number seven, because if you're going to approve it per his request, there's no need to have this on here. Conditions 8, 9, 10, and 11 are standard conditions of approval that we place on all condition use permits. Instruction is subject to approval of all divisions under public works. The applicants show me any applicable federal, state, or local regulations, and we reserve the right to rescind the conditional use permit if there's any kind of violation perceived out there.

Mark, as I see, there's basically two or three main differences between your proposal and what Mr. Miller's is. First, parking spaces, you want 15 and he has 10. Secondly, you have proposed that all the display areas and outside storage areas be fenced. for the six foot fence, is that correct?

Not the 80 by 80 display area. My intention with that condition was the display area north of the building, Shelby Fence, which was also included in his

application the display area or the storage area storage area fence the display area did not have to be fenced and then his proposed one on the road not fence not fence but you're also recommending that there would not be a display area out there between the right-of-way and the building correct that would eliminate that display area correct my recommendation is eliminate this

Fence the storage area per his application and permit this 80 by 80 area per his application. No fencing required. Five more parking areas. And the additional five parking zones.

Mark, did you have those sorts of discussions with the applicant prior to this meeting? Yes.

We had a discussion. I said I wasn't necessarily in favor of that. I did not have a discussion on the additional parking at that time.

Is there room for more parking spaces south of the building?

Yeah, right in there. Yeah, you could put additional parking. Okay.

Yeah.

So, I mean, a little... Yeah, this is a draw to scale. I believe... I think he was talking and putting the building in the middle of the lot, so yeah, you could put additional parking, create a drive aisle, let's say 20 foot, whatever, and then you could have an additional five parking spaces south of there.

You can move those five down south and have ten down at the bottom. Yeah. I've got on

Does this section, well, talking about the building, have a wraparound porch that faces South Theodore Road? Yes. And under that wraparound porch or on that wraparound porch, product display would be okay?

Okay. Yeah, it'd be on, I believe he's looking at a concrete apron around there. So if you want to put chairs or other smaller items, that would be acceptable. I think it's a lot of the items. Yeah, if there's other small, I mean, I don't, we don't have a list of every single potential item that's going to be displayed. It could be chairs or it could be other smaller items that would fit under that porch roof there. Something like that on that concrete apron would be acceptable. You know, porch canopy can be, you know,

quite high. So I guess I'm just recognizing the marketing value of this location and wanting to find some compromise for product display that doesn't look like what we've got going now.

So is it aesthetics then that people are bothered with with this?

all this, it's probably close to the road right away, but I believe it's all out of the road right away, so it doesn't affect public works operations as far as mowing or anything like that. The sign is probably pretty close, but the other products I believe are set back enough to where it's not going to affect operations or anything. It's just more of an aesthetic thing.

So that's what I guess the individual being running this business is envisioning the display area would be very similar to what's there right now.

I think Garth makes a good point that a lot of the commercial value of that property is the Yoder Road. Visibility. Yeah. Because I know my wife and I, you drive by and you notice those kind of things. And if it's over on Red Rock Road. You're not going to see it. No. We'd never see it. If it's over behind the building, you're not going to see it. Yeah, exactly. Yeah.

back to my question the applicant understood what you were recommending but did not come up with an alternate plan to bring before this hearing we did not discuss the parking but I did discuss my concerns with having storage out here when he came back to submit the application so I did discuss that with him In the end, the applicant can propose whatever he would like, you know, to try and pass. And so, you know, this is perfectly acceptable to me to submit as an application. Upon my further review, I believe if we're permitting an 80 by 80 area, and that now we're also permitting that, I just felt like the aesthetics of that, we should not allow something like that.

Is the 80 by 80, I mean, just... The traffic count on Red Rock Road, in my mind, that's not where you want to really emphasize displaying your products. So if that could be fenced, thinking there is a need for outside storage of unsold product, if that would be fenced, maybe not in total, but would that create some flexibility for the west side of the property?

To fence the display area on the east side? I'm not requiring that area be fenced.

Yeah, I know, but if it was, that would minimize the amount of outside product display And I'm just thinking if that would help, that would give you more ability on the west side of the building and not so much on the east side. And I don't think that the value of display where that 80 by 80 area is shown in my mind is not nearly as important as it is on Yoder Road.

Like I said, I don't know all of the products that wasn't articulated in the application of what he has in mind to store out there. Those to me are probably extremely large. outdoor structures, wherever that is. So that's why he has that out there and did not want to have that area fenced. He didn't see the need for something like that. Fencing that, if you're saying fence that, give flexibility over here, I don't see where that benefits anything. I'm not following that.

I don't see any real benefit from fencing that 80 by 80 area at all. But I do understand that it would be desirable by the tenant, in this case, to have some display area over along Yoder Road because that's where all your traffic is. The kind of stuff he's selling, outdoor play sets, hunting blinds, and things like that you know you're going to be there be a lot more visible there than tucked away back behind the building over there in the in the other display area.

I was just thinking if if our concern is about what's visible from both The fence would just reduce some of that visibility. Because there is a limitation on outside storage based on the square footage of the building? Correct, yeah.

In our performance regulations, there's a limited amount that you can display. Going through the conditional use permit allows us to greater amount of outside storage.

So if you could fence Red Rock Road, would that eliminate that from that calculation? No, because it's still outside storage. Whether it's fenced or not?

Whether it's fenced or not.

Okay.

Yeah. Whether it's fenced or not, whether it's in trees, no, it's still outside storage. Inside storage would be inside a building. I understand the value of having that, but no other businesses, and that's why I did the analysis that I did, that no other businesses have that amount of outside storage. Now, no other businesses maybe sell those types of products, but there's still other businesses down there that could potentially have outside storage. And I think I said in my report, J.Y. Construction, he was not proposing to have buildings set outside, examples of what he builds. The other, Gilbert Metal doesn't have samples of what he does out there. There is Yoder Furniture.

It's on the old highway. I know they have typically a lot of product sitting out. The outside storage

I was just trying to present the facts of what the road looks like right now.

As far as outside storage, you're looking at for the raw materials storage for construction of these products? Is that what this is intended for? No. This would be outside storage of finished products?

Finished products. In his plan of operation, I believe all of the, you call it raw material, all of these products will be constructed inside the warehouse and probably brought out to display.

Raw materials, lumber, whatever, stored outside and all be stored inside the building, assembled, then brought out. So the storage area is actually a display.

bad display area, outside storage could, but it's fenced, so that could be potentially some raw material, but yeah, it wasn't specified in the application what outside storage is, although they indicate that it's going to be fenced for some reason, so it could be a product that's more valuable, I don't know. I'm just speculating.

I just think of, like, oh, is it Wichita Ford and South Hutch, they're another Polaris deal, right there along Main Street. Oh, yeah. Kubota tractors, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, I'm struggling. I'm struggling going against Mark, but I'm starting to feel the placement of that building could facilitate having display in between. You don't want to pinch your parking. Nothing driving me more crazy than going into a tight parking place that I got to watch out for every, you know, I want to be able to, I'm not a, I'm not a, I'm not a ruthless driver. You need a smaller truck. I need a smaller truck, but no joke. Well, that is a consideration, but you know, you're not coming in there with a VW bug anymore either. We talk about signage and we talk about site triangle. So as we talk about that signage, that site triangle is rolling in my mind about the display on the frontage of there. How is that going to impede site along, you know, between Red Rock and the Yoder Road? You know, there's a lot of factors that need to be played into this. Where it's located right now, would not be, you know, a concern. I mean, side triangle here. But if it would expand, let's just say, for instance, I'm looking at future, maybe not this use, but maybe future use. There is potential for that to come clear to the corner. If that building is placed such to where traffic patterns would allow it, I could see items creep clear to the right.

There's a room in there parking.

That's what I say. If that building was sited to accommodate it, I could see it.

Yeah, I understand, Mr. Chair, but if the board's preference is to approve this site plan... I'm going to expect to see his outdoor storage area to go really no farther than the front of a quarter of the building. You start leaking down here, down here, definitely down here. He's getting a letter. He's getting a phone call from me saying, yeah, yeah, the conditional use permit did not grant you permission to line Yoder Road with Sales Island. The conditional use permit, per his site plan, says it's going to be up in this area. Now, there's not dimensions on that, but you can infer right here, well, here's his building. There's the first parking spot. It better not start creeping down here.

Let me ask you this. If we would say, okay, we're going to... Let's say I'm leaning towards that outside storage. Not the outside storage, excuse me, the outside display between the building and the right-of-way. If we specify that it cannot come further south than the north, north edge of the building. I mean, that gives a specification that you can measure. If you just say outside display area, it could go, that's kind of where I'm headed with it, with my whole question and comment piece. If we specify what that display area is supposed to be, then because if we just say, yeah, there's going to be a display area up in that northwest corner, it's going to stretch

And the thing, the way it's penciled in now, it's not the scale, but the storage area or the display area actually comes over to one or two parking spaces there right now. So I think if we... I think that's a good idea, Russ, is they just limit it to the north edge of the building. I don't know. I'm just throwing that out there. But I understand the desire to have display along Yoder Road because that's where all the traffic is.

Just trans-visibility. Trying to see, if we're going to define it, we've got to be able to measure it.

I didn't do that because of my proposal to this board. I appreciate your thoughts and I hope the rest of the board feels that way too. If you're going to approve it, you've got to... If you're going to enforce it, you need to have a definition. If not, I'm going to go off of that. And if I start seeing it creep down the middle of the property, for example, yeah, Mr. Miller is going to... It's going to be up for interpretation. It'll be definitely up for interpretation. It will be, yeah. It'll be a point of contention.

I would say if this board decides we need to define it. My question is, though, I mean, if the outside... Storage is basically for finished product That's it. That's a display area. So why is why is it designated separately?

Well, that's that's my privacy fence right what that in the application, so that's not being displayed by definition chain link Okay

Mr. Miller will be able to maybe answer that more. A storage area could just be storage or lumber.

I guess my interpretation was that was stuff that wasn't to be displayed since it's behind it. Stuff that's not for sale. I mean, it could be... Storage. Storage.

Mr. Kierman. Yes, Mike. I'd like your north edge of the building as a place. How about going north? I mean, we may have the same situation now where, I mean, this is quite a long track here along Yota Road, and it could just extend north. But it's no safety concern.

No. As far as side triangles, stuff like that, no. If it went on north, there's no safety concern. But that's the problem that

What's there now is just... Bring back the proposal picture. Okay, not to exceed the dimensions of the outside storage fence. The north is the waterway. So if you define it... You know, I agree. We're giving them kind of carte blanche going north. Yeah. We probably need to limit that to some extent. And if we just go to the edge of that outside storage area from the north edge of the building to the north edge of the outside storage building as display area, then you can define it because then that would give a square to the right-of-way and to the north edge of the. would be the northern edge of the outside storage.

I don't know what that distance is. Probably almost what he has right now. It's going to be darn near. It's just going to be defined. It's going to be defined. And again, per the site plan, there's not going to be anything going on the north side of the waterway.

Right.

That's not part of this. So you're not going to have the whole 10-acre parcel lined with product without coming back before this board.

Because really everything that happens outside of this site plan is not a part of this conditional use permit, right? Everything, say that again, everything that... So even though it's one parcel, the conditional use permit is focused only on what's on the site plan. So there's no possible way to line it with a half a mile of play toys and hunting blinds because that's outside of the conditional use permit.

Yes, my biggest concern, even though I have a great promoter of expansion of business and growth of business and new business, is if we come to a conclusion and recommend this, I don't know what I'm going to see two years from now. I have no idea what I'm going to see. That concerns me, it seems to me, almost to the extent that our recommendation is the applicant take all of this information that we've shared with each other and with our planner, and give us something that we can put our teeth into and say, I like it or I don't like it. Right now, I don't know what I'm going to get.

What you're seeing here... may be a pretty good example of the types of products that he would sell that would require outside display. Maybe during the rebuttal phase or after my presentation, you could ask Mr. Miller if he has an idea of the types of products that you could expect to see out there as far as his lawn structures, if you will. and maybe that would provide you some clarity, or you can do as you originally suggested.

My mind is going into the corner of 30th and Lorain, and you've got a Dodge dealership there that parks a truck up on the rocks. and he's got an area that they display a vehicle for that month or that week or that day, and it could be a similar thought process with an area like we were proposing. I don't know. I'll let you finish, Mark, and then we'll ask the applicant or both.

I've concluded, unless the board has further questions for me. What if he would decide to start selling lawn equipment Keith gets a competitor. Is that going to be a different... Now Keith will have to recuse it. Does that take us back to our opening discussion about a new conditional use permit or not?

I wouldn't commit to an answer right now. I'd have to probably have further discussions with him. something like Mr. Knightley's business where we're going to have 50 or 60 of them, or are we talking about two or three? Those are the discussions, and that's part of my job is to review that and discuss that with the applicant and then make a determination.

Plus, I'm pondering Harley's comment about it. You don't know what we're going to see there in two years, so I'm trying to... Do you mean the building or exactly how this is going to

He's going to rent it out to somebody building stuff, as I understand it. And we don't know what they're building. We don't know what's going to be displayed there two years from now. It may be a bunch of deer stands, and it may be a bunch of decorative lawn furniture, and it may be children's play places. I don't know.

Well, I don't like tabling things, but I think we need to have the applicant come back with a drawing to scale of where that waterway is, where the parking spots are, where it is located off of the roads, and a clear spot of where this outside display needs to be, and then we can go from that. Because right now it's just a circle. And it's a circle blocking a parking spot.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say. I think we ought to table this, give the applicant a chance to sell us on his project.

Do we need to give any advice on the number of parking spots?

The advice has already been given here.

I'd say 15 is a good number to shoot. You're looking down the road. what this might be in the future. I mean, now we're minimal and, you know, if it studies retail, it could need more parking spaces. So I'm agreed with 15, yeah.

But if it becomes a different use and then they have to come back to that traditional use permit, we can't... I mean, we find out about it. front display area, did you have a specific article in mind when you recommended not doing that? Or was that just more of an aesthetic?

No, it was more just an aesthetic thing. Your prerogative, my prerogative is to say, no, that's not appropriate for this location based off of aesthetic. There's not a specific zoning regulation that says no display or anything like that.

All right. I feel like that's part of the market value of that property, and so I would like to see a compromise of some kind. If we can give a definition, I think that would be helpful.

Any other questions for staff?

It's the board's priority. I think you could continue on, at least right now, and see if there's any public comment. If you want, you could listen to Mr. Miller because we've had a lot of conversation during his rebuttal. I think ultimately if the board decides, whatever you decide, decides to table, you're going to want to continue the public hearing until the next available meeting, which will be in July. give full direction to Mr. Miller and Mr. Yoder on what you're wanting to see with this, and then continue that public hearing. You'd still have that ability to listen to staff. You'd still have the ability to listen to the applicant explain further, plus you would have the ability to listen to anybody in the public that would also want to further comment on that.

That way we can give some admonition to the applicant what we'd like to see coming back. Yeah, I think that's it. Thank you, staff. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment on this case?

No.

Nope?

Okay. I have a suggestion. Sure you can.

You have five minutes.

I've driven by this and I think for display he could build that building and have a lean to all the way around that building and have his display against the building. Plus the parking could come up against all this display. They could park right in front of what they're looking at. Goodbye.

I don't know if he has a word for that or not.

But that's cool. He'd have more than 15 parking spots if he did that. So that's just an idea. Thanks.

Anybody else? Mr. Miller, would you have any additional comments you'd like to make?

Actually, I might. I wish really bad that Lance could have been here tonight. He's the one doing this. He's an extremely professional young kid starting out this business. He's looking at doing a lot more in the line of a pinned gazebo type lawn furniture, bigger structure type things along with the play sets and things. He would very much be making a difference between the word outside storage and outside display. There's a huge difference in this deal. I did call him just before the meeting and mentioned these for several comments about no visible display or storage of merchandise for sale between the location between the building and Yoder Road right away and I don't want to he don't want to be threatening and I don't want to be threatening but also that homeless may be a game changer on the location as a whole because that is what he's going after is originally the design would have been more the parking has been a sore spot for us because we weren't we did this just to try to get spots available. Originally, it would have been more this entire area in front of the building would be into more of a grass and more of a display area in front of the building. The building with the wraparound porch, I would expect to be loaded down with anything from barbecue grills to any kind of outside lawn furniture. I do hear the concern about visibility. However, it is obviously the most open portion of this intersection. The other buildings are really tight to the intersection. I'm not saying I want equal treatment, but it is a legitimate concern. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be concerned about it, but the discount is right close, and the coffee shop has... parking space issue is big time and it's tight and it's close and here I feel like we've got a fairly wide open area and there's the employee parking would be no problem to do those in the back that's not an issue and in lieu of some garage doors even giving up some garage doors to get this but I can hear the comment about trying to get it cleaner for presentation if we need to do that. We've been pushing, so obviously we'd like to move on if we could. Lance Yoder is from the Pleasant View area. If the display isn't an option in the front, I'm not sure how much appeal the property will have for it. If I can say that kindly.

I guess we're just going based on the schematics you provided us with. It's also possible for you to reimagine in this a little bit to try to move those parking spaces to the south possibly or move the location of the building a little bit to try to accommodate you know, the parking issue that we're looking at, but also provide for, you know, the display area that I think we realize is an attractive part of that piece of crap, you know?

It is drawn somewhat to scale as far as the 355 feet here, the building being 110 feet, the building being off of Yoder 100 feet, so now you are at 210 feet out of 355. But it doesn't, it makes it look like it's really tight here when it really isn't that tight.

Sam? If your staff, if staff's going to park in the back, then show the parking. And that adds to your parking. Gotcha.

Yeah. Yeah, because I don't know about anyone else, but I think if the parking, like if there were ways to accommodate the parking, then I think we could come to a, at least I think I feel I could come to an agreeable conclusion on the display area that I think everybody can accept in one form or another. I don't know about anyone else.

Working spaces on the back of the building.

Yeah. There you go.

You saw that building made for a future roadway going through there.

Is that kind of... That was the purpose of doing it that way. His question is a good question. This is immediately across from the bus barn, which is a school bus barn, so it allows... A truck swing wide if he needs to. It does make those two driveways line up very nice. If we were to do a waterway crossing there through the waterway and go out and have an exit further north on Yoder Road getting away from the intersection, that was the reason for putting the building locating the way we did. It's not fair that Lance, I wish he could have been here. He's a very professional kid. I do not expect anything but a very, very clean lot coming from him. He's a good kid. He does high-end work. He does very nice high-end work. Yeah, he does very much high-end work. I see him actually being able to grab some very good, high-quality work. Not just the swing set or the hunting blinds, but more of the gazebo type things.

Is there room for parking along the north ditch line on Red Rock Road there?

Right in here?

Yeah, or on the west side of the driveway.

Here, definitely.

Just extend the rock a little further closer to the ditch line.

And I could easy see where a proposal from the group could be to do even a decorative type of a fence to make so that the road right away is completely off limits. Because I do see that concern where it would tend to creep into the Yoder Road right away.

But any fence, make sure it doesn't affect the side triangle. Gotcha.

And that's particularly true on signage. Yeah.

Do you think that Lance would be able to be here next month if we were to table this? I'm sure he wants to push, but rather than getting a...

comment that we've just about, I'm afraid we can't stay in compliance on that no visible storage in between the building and Yoder Road. That's just almost going to be a game changer. I would rather wait.

I'm kicking the can down the road another month or two before you get it through.

I'd rather get it right the first time. I think we're pretty much in agreement he needs outdoor display. I think you just need to come up with a plan. It just doesn't look right because it doesn't look like it's drawn to scale. And if it was just drawn a little better and we knew where the north boundary was and stuff like that, it'd be a lot easier to approve it.

Possibly be able to have it drawn in off of an aerial to where it is truly in scale. The lot is also 155 to the waterway, and there again, if you're talking 50 feet. 50 feet on the other side of the building. So it's closed, but still doesn't.

Let's go ahead and continue it or whatever. Senator, do you need a motion to continue? If that's the pleasure of the board.

Have you given the applicant know the direction and what is requested? Parking is a big piece. Parking, display area, better defined. So the board, it sounds like the board is wanting a revised site plan showing... I just want to make sure the applicant's aware.

Even in your conditions, you're going to rely on the submission of our... of the CUP to the county commissioner's priority. We're going to submit it prior to seeing a revised site plan anyhow. Right. So let's get that first. So let's get that first.

If there were some changes made to that document, such as the removal of the display area or additional parking, we need to have that because the county commissioner has to be able to see that revised site plan. I think we're...

So revised site plan, including the minimum of 15 parking stalls, the defined display area that's going to be that you are proposing in the northwest corner of this project. And what was the third piece? I want to add one more. If you mentioned here, just at the last, this fence along, this is the first time we're hearing of it, too, proposing and putting a fence along the right-of-way. If you are proposing, if that is going to be part of the new proposal, we need to know what you're going to put in there, how tall it's going to be, what it's going to be made of. That's fine. Just complete it into that proposal.

like the distance from the intersection or where it's gonna end, because I say, is the site triangle 90 and 60? Probably. If it's a split rail, yeah, that'd be fine. If you're talking, you know, enclosed or something or greater than three or four foot, then yeah. Put that on the type of fence you're proposing, the height of it, and the distance from the intersection.

Is that something that you would like to see ahead of the next meeting?

Submitted to your desk is what I'm definitely submitted to me as soon as possible Then we can get that to the board for our next meeting. Yeah. Yeah, we need that before then Yeah, I know don't bring it.

Yeah, submit it to me You know if you put a fence along there that we won't be mowing right up next to it So you're gonna have to maintain all around it underneath it

It would be clean and definitive on we would not be responsible for anything in the obstructing path or whatever if the fence is back on the personal property. I would make one comment on the display area.

what he does. So his whole building that we approved.

It's a display. Lance will cry a foul ball anyway because right down the road, Stan's got all kinds of stuff out in the, you know, the odor.

Yep. Clean her up and we'll take a really closer look at it. Thank you very much for your time. Appreciate your patience. So Okay, cheers gonna. I'm gonna try.

I'm gonna try to state this and you kind of help me out here So we're gonna continue the public hearing on this case Until July what is July 16 16 16? Here's we got a new place time Yeah, yes, okay, so it'd be continue the public hearing on this case to July 16 here at the Public Works Center for Thursday That'll be the motion, so if you guys want.

I would make a motion that we continue the public hearing on case number 2026-04 until our next meeting on July 16th. The meeting will be held at 4.30 p.m. at the Public Works Building in South Hutchinson. Second.

Okay, staff, any discussion on that?

Any additions? Staff, you can call the roll on that motion, please. Knisley? Yes. Strand? Yes. Schaefer? Yes.

Seltzer?

Yes.

Macklin?

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

And Gerson?

Yes. We'll see you next month, Sam. Thank you for your patience again. Appreciate it.

Okay. Is there any other business you brought before the Planning Commission? Yeah, we got Item B. Oh, Item B, sure enough. I was getting Item B, discussion and possible action on setting a public hearing date on proposed text amendments to Article 10, parking regulations, Article 11, off-street loading regulations of the zoning regulations.

Staff, you gave us two copies, one a clean and one with... Yeah, the proposed changes are highlighted in yellow, and then after that I took out all the strikethroughs and all the yellow and gave you a clean copy. We had, I believe, three changes. If you look at the yellow copy, the yellow highlights, I believe last month under Article 10, page 10-3, it was Mr. Seltzer's suggestion to change the word from reduced to the word change. So change the word reduced to change. It'll say the parking requirements in this article do not limit special requirements, which may be imposed in connection with conditional uses, including adjustments to change the minimum number. So like the case we just heard, now we don't necessarily have to issue a waiver. That word, I would hope, would give us the flexibility to modify our regulations without formally having to issue a Other change, and I think I have another change, was on the last page, on page 10-5. Number four, that didn't quite read right after further discussion, so then I modified it to say parking of vehicles shall not be permitted within a required setback except in a single-family residential permitted driveway. Or except in single-family residential permitted driveways. So then upon further review this afternoon, I don't think single-family is appropriate. Because what about multifamily or agricultural or triplex? So what about just residential? Well, what we're trying to say is if you're a residential property, you can park anywhere. your car in the setback area, but we're trying to eliminate that happening in commercial, industrial situations. Get rid of the single family and say residential. So does that meet the board's liking on that? Does that make sense? We just say except in a residential permitted driveway. Right quick then, if you go to Article 11, I made the same change to that on page 11-1. put it in the word change. So same thing under Article 10, where parking will apply to off-street loading spaces. Both of them with the intent of eliminating the need for us and the County Commission to issue a waiver, a formal waiver of those requirements. Now, my hope is that we can look at that. If we don't believe a Loading space is required. If we don't believe a certain number of required parking spaces required, now we can say 10 spaces is perfectly acceptable and not issue a waiver. That's really my intent of these two text amendments is to avoid having to formally issue waivers.

condition that's all struck I think I can understand that but are we just saying we don't care anymore or is it because we don't really have any enforcement or code patrol or

Yes to the second. I'd say we care, and I know what you mean by that, but yeah, we care, but it's more about the enforcement. I mean, we're not out there trying to say that a property owner has to maintain their driveway to their business in good condition. It should be expected of that property owner to do that. And then again, we're not in the business of making sure that there's no weeds in the driveway and the dust and the trash is all picked up. We don't have those types of regulations that we can go out there and cite somebody because there's trash in the driveway. So it's more about... We don't have those types of nuisance code regulations, and we don't have the staff to go around and monitor and make sure that people's commercial driveways are free of potholes.

I understand the challenge, but to me it's not unlike this situation we just discussed. You know, you noticed this a few years ago, and it's just been a growing problem and a growing problem. And we do have something in the code somewhere that says planning and zoning can tell you to do something about it. And so it feels like, to me, we're sort of just throwing in the towel on this issue. Unless there's something somewhere else that says we can address... the safety of the situation, if nothing else.

In that case, it's more about operating a business without a conditional use permit, more about land use, I think. Everything in here, talking about weeds and dust and trash, those are more nuisance codes, and the county doesn't have nuisance codes, and so I'm not going after... a person that has trash in their yard. I'm not going after a person that has weeds or tall grass. Those are nuisances. The county has not adopted nuisance codes. And so, to me, those types of concerns need to be put in nuisance codes, not in zoning regulations. And so that's why I'm proposing to eliminate that. It doesn't mean that we don't care and it shouldn't be taken care of, but yet, where's our enforcement on something like that? To me, it's To me, this is a nuisance code that was put in zoning regulations that should have never been put in there to begin with.

I understand that. I was wanting to hear it. I don't necessarily like it because, frankly, I think we do need some kind of nuisance something somewhere. Well, I could agree with that somewhat, too, but...

Current situation is yeah, we don't have nuisance codes and one man planning a zoning department, you know, he can't The establishment of nuisance codes that would be a County Commission action, right? Yeah, that's not that's outside of our lane It would be impossible to enforce with the county designers.

Well like the guy in Medora What how were you approaching him? I?

Salvaging. Operating a salvaging business.

So, yeah. Which that's getting cleaned up.

Is it? Yeah.

Oh, really?

Okay.

I think the guy that owns that old hotel, I think he bought that property. Maybe. That's what I heard. But anyway, it's getting cleaned up.

That was a situation where... He was being accused of operating a salvage yard.

Yeah.

And so that's a zoning... So that's a land use issue. That's a land use issue. Okay, I'll go with that. All right. I mean, if he had a bag of trash just sitting out in front of his house, that's just trash, that's just a nuisance.

And so we don't have nuisance, so I would not be able to do anything about that. Okay. Yeah, salvage yard, yep.

Yeah, because unlicensed vehicles are one of the few, if not the only, nuisance that we have in zoning regulations still. That did not get removed. Junk cars is a nuisance code violation. Unless you're salvaging the vehicles for a business or parting the cars out to sell parts, then that's a business. But if you just have 10 junk cars, and probably just because you do, that shouldn't be a zoning violation. That's more of a nuisance code violation. But we still have that in our zoning regulations still.

The required parking spaces for manufacturing or industrial establishment, that's a lot of spaces if you have a big building. I mean, my building is 40,000 square feet, and I only got 23 employees and about six or seven customers at that time.

But that building could then be sold where you would have maybe 100 customers. Yeah, that seems like that's a lot. But, you know, like I say, if you're manufacturing something and you've got 100 employees, well, maybe not. If you're running your type of operation, that seems like a lot. The change that we made right below in 10-1023... would permit the Planning Commission to say, yeah, you know, you're required to have 150 parking spaces, but you've got 23 employees, you don't need that much, 25 parking spaces is good. That's the exact intent on why we're trying to make that change. Okay. And then not issue that. And I didn't, and like, yeah, I think you were, you might have been gone too for part of that discussion, you know. I didn't look at the required number of parking spaces for all these land uses. I just kind of left that alone as is because that's meant to be like a starting point for a developer on here's what our regulations say. If you don't like that, then you can propose something different and then this board can look at that and possibly make that approval. We were just having to do it through a waiver situation, which is kind of cumbersome. And now I hope this change says, hey, you're required to have 100 spaces, but you really only need about 20. 20 is good with us. Go for it. It gives you the power of the pen. Yes. Okay. That's like I said, that was the number one intent for these text amendments. have any other questions or comments so we need to set it we need a motion to accept them and then we wouldn't that same motion create a time to accept the changes as we discussed with that one removing single-family and just leaving it as residential If you want, the board would move to accept these changes as presented by staff.

And would that be at the July meeting then also? That'll be the second motion, and we can discuss that after.

That'll be the second motion we would make, but I'll have some comments before you do that motion.

So chair will will entertain a motion on the text amendments Mr..

Chair I move that we accept the proposed text amendments to article 10 and article 11 presented by staff Including the one change that we've discussed here tonight Second and moved and second any discussion

Staff, you want to call the roll? Knisley? Yes. Strand? Yes. Schaefer? Yes. Seltzer? Yes. Macklin?

Yes. Martin?

Yes.

And Gertsen?

Yes. Okay, tell us about your plan for public hearing.

So, as you may recall, we do public hearings for text amendments, same as a conditional use permit. 20-day notification in the newspaper. It requires me to send notification to all of the cities and all of the township boards that are affected by the zoning regulations. Obviously, out west, we're not sending them notices. That's a lot of notices to send out. Public hearing notice repairs. Really, the July public hearing date is really too close to it because we're already... June 18th, July 16th is our next meeting. That timeline is pretty close and I don't know if this is super imperative that we get this done, so my preference would be for the board to make a motion to set August 20th, 2026 at 4.30pm as the public hearing date. That will give myself and Liz time to get the notices out to the township and also to the Cities. Notices don't go to property owners on text amounts, but then we would also put these proposals out on the website for people to view if they have any questions at that point. And so that's a lot of work to get done in amongst trying to keep up with the cases that we're doing. So if you can give me that leeway, I would greatly appreciate it. Any more? That's good. We'll give you 60 days. Thank you. I appreciate it.

You are so kind. You're going to be more or less unsupervised.

I'm sure it would be easier on you.

Don, is that date okay with you? It's okay.

You can make that work. Chair will entertain that motion.

Chairman, I would move that we set a public hearing date of August 20th for the proposed text amendments to Article 10 parking regulations and Article 11 off-street loading regulations and zoning regulations to be held at 4.30 p.m. at the Public Works Building in South Hutchinson.

Second. Second. Claim none. Staff, please call the roll. Knisely?

Yes. Strand? Yes. Schaefer? Yes. Seltzer? Yes. Macklin? Yes. Martin? Yes. Gerson?

Yes. Perfect. Now, I'm ready for other business.

Mark, I think you said you had some other business. I just have one item for... This is the time of year, even though it's only June, that we put out advertisements for Planning Commission members. As you may or may not know, this is Russ's last year as Planning Commission. He's turned out, and so we will need to appoint a new member. Just today or late last night, I know the advertisement's out on the website, and it'll soon be put out on social media. So if you know of anybody that might be interested in succeeding Russ, not necessarily as chairman, but succeeding Russ on the planning commission, encourage them to go to the website and apply or contact me, and I can get them the application. The person is eligible to be in the city or in the unincorporated area of the county. We just have two people right now that are inside the city limit, and we can have three maximum inside a city limit. So pretty much any citizen is eligible. to do that and I would remind you if you do talk to anybody to say that the county commission is the governing body that makes the decision on who is appointed. It doesn't have anything to do with staff, doesn't have anything to do with you as a board. It doesn't make any difference where the person lives. The person could live right next door to you and if the county commission chooses that, then that's their prerogative. That will be out there right now, the deadline for that application. We set for October the 16th of 2026, and then soon after the county commission will have to make a decision on that. We were required by their policy to publish at least 90 days in advance, so that's why we do it always, you know, usually in June. And what we try and do is let that run at least that 90 days. Hopefully get somebody appointed and then be able to get them in for a one-on-one training with myself. And also hopefully maybe be able to attend a meeting in November or December to kind of see what it's like to be on the planning commission. I just wanted to make mention of that to the board and to the public. And then also, I don't want to put you on the spot, Jack, or so, but your second term is ending, and so if you would like to reapply, then I can send you that link, and then you can consider reapplying. If you're returning on the plan, if your term is expiring and you want to come back, you still have to apply and formally be accepted by the county commission. It's not necessarily a given, but... Yeah, so that's the only thing that I have for the board.

Anything else from the board? Okay, we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Been moved and seconded to adjourn. All in favor of adjournment say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign.