Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

green is go. Okay. And we are likely to be in the other building next time. Just so you guys know, I'll make an announcement. We'll wait till next time. We are live. Thank you. Okay. I call the meeting to order. Do we have the roll call, please? Commissioner Alexander, Commissioner Means, Commissioner Crosby here. Commissioner Brava here. Commissioner Ellis here. Commissioner Haidider. Commissioner Man here. Commissioner Copeland here. Do we have a forum? Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um, first item of business is the approval of the agenda. Anybody have changes to the agenda that we need to discuss? Motion to approve the agenda. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Call the role, please. Commissioner Copeland. I. Commissioner Man. I. Commissioner Ellis. I. Commissioner Drava. I. Commissioner Crosby.

I [clears throat] uh now the minutes from the November 3, 2025 uh meeting the planning zoning commission. Um, have you anybody have changes, additions, subtractions from the minutes? Motion to approve. I have a motion to approve. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you. Um, call the role, please. Commissioner Man, I. Commissioner Copeland, I. Commissioner Dava, I. Commissioner Ellis, I. Commissioner Crosby, I. Okay. [clears throat and cough]

We have three public meetings, three public hearings and uh other business following that. Um Chris, are you reading the uh or Stephanie will be reading tonight?

Need the meeting procedures read, please. The Planning and Zoning Commission holds public hearings as required by law and provides recommendations to city council on all matters relating to land use, planning, zoning, and the subdivision of land. Any person who has an interest in the subject matter of the hearing will have the opportunity to provide testimony and present evidence to the planning and zoning commission during the public hearing. Speakers are required to conduct themselves in an orderly and respectful manner. Disruptive [clears throat] behavior, including applause, yelling, speaking out of turn, and other inappropriate behaviors, will not be tolerated. Additionally, the following applies to any person addressing the commission. Speakers are limited to five minutes unless authorized additional time by the chairperson. Speakers must speak at the lectern unless provided unless previous arrangements have been made by the chairperson. Speakers must legle legibly print their name and address on the sign-in sheet at the lectern prior to speaking. Speakers must begin by stating their name and address. Speakers should speak clearly and into the microphone. The chairperson will announce the subject of the hearing followed by a report from staff. The chairperson will then open the public hearing to the applicant followed by those in favor of the application and those opposed to the application. The chairperson will close the public hearing. During this time, the commission will discuss amongst themselves. The public may not address the commission after the close of the public hearing unless requested by the chairperson. The planning and zoning commission shall base their recommendation and/or decision on information and evidence presented during the public hearing. This decision, if required by the application, [clears throat] will be forwarded in writing to the city council for further consideration.

Thank you. The first u call the first uh hearing which is reszone 25-00004 public hearing and possible vote to recommend the approval of an application to change the zoning classification of approximately 0.33 acres of real property located at 641 North College Avenue from medium density single family residential to two family residential R2. Chris, are you giving us the lowdown? Yes, I will. Thank you.

Thank you. Chris Taber, principal planner. Blake Cantrail Real Estate and Investments LLC has applied to change the zoning classification of approximately.33 acres of property located at 641 North College Avenue from medium density single family residential R1M to two family residential R2. The subject property is a [clears throat] newly created lot consisting of.33 acres of vacant land recently split from the parcel directly north through the minor subdivision process. The city's comprehensive plan generally encourages the expansion of residential and commercial development through proactive reszoning of land at appropriate locations. Appropriate locations are described generally throughout the plan with regard to the relationship of land at particular locations to infrastructure capable of supporting various intensities and densities of uses. This reszone meets the following goals. Goal: Support market conditions to develop a greater variety of residential and commercial options. Objective: Support a variety of housing developments and styles to ensure a range of options are available. Goal: Support new development well connected to the existing community. Objective: encourage development that improves and expands upon existing infrastructure. goal potential infill sites as opportunities for development while mitigating I'm sorry recognize potential infill sites as opportunities for development while mitigating impacts to adjacent established properties objective to support the development of vacant parcels as opportunities for densification harmonious with surrounding development. Reszoning of this parcel is consistent with the city's adopted plans. The subject property is adjacent to the following zoning districts. Medium density single family residential R1M to the north. Medium density single family R1M and two family R I'm sorry and two family residential R2 to the east. Medium density residential R1M to the south and

medium density single family residential R1M to the west. The two family residential R2 zoning district is intended to accommodate two family residential dwellings on properties with direct access to arterial or collector streets. The general land uses and zoning in this area are characterized by a [clears throat] varied mixture of districts that includes high and medium density single family residential, two family residential, zero lot line residential, multif family residential, local commercial and general commercial. The requested reszone is considered harmonious with the with surrounding zoning and uses. [snorts] Development of the property will require connecting to existing municipal water and sewer mains located near the site. Both the water and wastewater systems are in proximity to the site. Both water 4 in and sewer 8 in mains run down College Avenue. An 8 in gravity sewer main runs through College Avenue. [snorts] Effluent would travel through gravity directly to the wastewater treatment plant. The water and wastewater treatment the water system and wastewater treatment facility currently have the capacity to serve the intended use. The subject parcel is accessible from College Avenue. A traffic impact study was not required for this reasonzoning application due to the size of the parcel and the low intensity of the proposed use. The subject parcel does not contain any special flood hazard areas or flood plane. The subject parcel does not contain any identified sink holes. Staff considers the proposed zoning map amendment reszoning to be generally consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan consistent with the trend of development in the vicinity of the site, compatible with surrounding land uses, and able to be adequately served by municipal facilities. Based upon this analysis performed without the benefit of evidence and testimony of a public hearing, staff recommends the approval of this application.

Thank you. [snorts] Uh is there anyone here uh who wishes to see speak in favor of this application? Seeing no one come forward. [snorts] Is there anyone here who wishes to be who is opposed to this application? Now's the time to tell us why. Seeing no one come forward, I'm going to close the hearing. That's the end of it. Um, we discussed now I have questions. Um, there's a a list of things that you read, a list of types of structures that you read that could be built on R2 that in Good.

That included um a single lot line or um No, I I'm sorry if that if I was unclear in what I was reading. You probably were not. I probably what I was stating it at that particular time was [clears throat] the character of the neighborhood um such as College Street. I listed a variety of zoning districts that are present within a very close proximity to that site. Um, just trying to characterize the neighborhood

and that's borne out by what you have in the in the packet. It looks to me like there are [snorts] in in the that side of is it summit? that side of Summit there's only that that we have pictured here only two lots that are R2 and and one of those is a for lack of a better term ginormous lot. It's a looks like it's a double lot. I I mean it may not be a double lot but it looks like it could be. Go ahead. it it may be larger than what's required. Um but before the reszone, we do um make sure that the lot will meet the minimum requirements of the zoning district. So it is, you know, [snorts] it's very likely that it won't look exactly like that one simply because it'll be on a smaller lot. Additionally, they do have um a greater setback that they would have to adhere to on that street side. So that lot, you know, wanting to build the same size house would need to be larger for that reason as well. What buffer, if any, is there a require required when you put an R2 in the middle of an R1?

So, they will be required to have um a buffer between the single family uh R1M which is on three sides of it. Yes. So like a six foot opaque fence with an intermittent buffer of up to 12 feet. Anybody else have questions? Not on this one. Okay. Anybody want [clears throat] to make a motion? [snorts] Motion to vote to recommend the approval of reszone 25-004. I have a motion. Do I hear a second?

Second. All right. Call the role, please. Commissioner Crosby, I. Commissioner Ellis, I. Commissioner Drava, I. Commissioner Copeland, I. Commissioner Man, I.

Okay. Thank you. Next item. Next hearing is ordinance 26-00001 public hearing and possible vote to recommend the approval of an amendment to title 4 land use chapter 410 subdivision regulations section 410.700 sinkholes and carst features of the municipal code of the city of Republic Missouri. Chris, is this you as well or is this Stephanie?

It is. Um, if you give me a minute to locate a sta a staff report. Um, do your copies have staff have the staff report in it? Okay. I have an older copy.

I got Um, so the city is applying for consideration to approve amendments to chapter 410 of the subdivision regulation. The city is requesting amendments to chapter 410 subdivision regulations, specifically section 410.700 sinkholes and kar features to provide some flexibility towards development in and around sinkholes. Within the city limits, there are 573 acres of mapped sink holes, which represents more than 5% of the total area within the city of Republic. Our current regulations do not have a process for permitting any projects within 30 ft of those sinkholes. Primarily, section 410.700 contains rules and regulations surrounding sinkholes as they concern property development. This section of code has been in place for more than 20 years, and during that time, new methods for construction have been devised. New materials have been invented and experts have learned more about the topic generally. This has necessitated a need to update the section. The proposed amendment addresses these changes by laying out a a process for a sinkhole remediation permit. Each sinkhole is unique and may need to be addressed differently. The purpose of this permit is to provide a path for the applicant to study and potentially remove some of the constraints on the development presented by a particular sinkhole. The process outlined in the ordinance leans heavily on the employee of subject matters or geotechnical engineers in this case as consultants for the applicant and for the city. These third parties will determine the feasibility of remediation, outline the plan when one exists for remediation,

assess the allowable uses, if any, for a remediated sinkhole, and oversee the work conducted on site to ensure it meets their plan. Most importantly, during the course of the permit and subsequent construction work, community development staff will work closely with the applicant's team to ensure their focus prioritizes the health and safety of the community. Staff is recommending approval of the referenced amendments. [snorts]

Thank you. Is there anyone here who is in favor of this application who wishes to speak? Seeing no one come forward. Is there anyone here who's opposed to this uh ordinance change proposed ordinance change? Who wishes to speak? Having no one come forward, I'll close the hearing. questions.

So, this is keeping everything at a standard of 30 feet and just giving an allowance for an option to investigate and possible do remediation. Yes, there's no application or even um commencement of the permit does not guarantee any particular structure could be built anywhere within that 30 ft and or within the sinkhole. Um it's just a process by which the applicant can study the sinkhole and um a greater determination of what's under the ground can be made and we can get an expert in there, you know, to actually assess what's going on there.

Does this permit give allowance to have approval just within staff if there is a change to what that buffer zone is or does that go out to somebody else? So um ultimately what we will do is we will require a geotechnical engineer on the applicant side and in depending on the complexity of the project uh we will also employ our own um third party consultant as a geotechnical engineer um as an you know an independent check on that on the applicant's uh side

then um depending you know we will use a consensus of those experts ideally to determine you know what is really safe out there or what should be allowable. Um staff has the ultimate say based on you know that information and this isn't required for every single just when they want to make a modification to what that buffer is. Correct. You can just stay out of the 30 ft. Okay.

I have some questions about procedure. I'm assuming and I haven't read this section around it to see what the procedure is, but I'm assuming if there's a this let's talk about new construction bare lot go on it. It's determined there's a sinkhole on it. What happens then? I mean, somebody identifies it. this process immediately initiates or the construction, you know, the construction stops until the process in initiates and we issue a sinkhole uh remediation permit for that project or it just stops.

Your hope would be that would be caught by the inspector, city inspector at least.

Um yes, I mean there's no guarantee that you know someone can't act without our knowledge. Um that I'm sure that happens has has and has happened. But um you know we've also got a number of times when we've been notified by various people and the third part you know people don't want to build something necessarily where they know it's safe that developer has incurs that liability. Certainly the construction uh team does. So a lot of times those individuals alert us or hire a third party that we work with in the area. They alert us. There's there's a lot of ways that we get that information, you know, secondhand if we don't get it firsthand.

Okay, [clears throat] let's take the situation where there's a structure on the property and a sinkhole makes itself known. I mean, opens up like what happened on Main Street not that awful long ago in the driveway, I think it was, of that house. Um, h how how does this permitting I mean, does this permitting situation come into effect at that point?

Um, I'll let Karen correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we would look at that as a dangerous building situation. um and judge whether or not that that is the case and the city would act under an ordinance that allows us to address, you know, dangerous buildings that need to be Okay, let's go back to then where you have a a empty lot. [snorts] Um you said staff would make the determination ultimately. I mean, if you have conflicting experts, so to speak, then you're going to make a determination in conjunction with the city's

expert. The the goal is to give um the city the flexibility to work out some, you know, consensus or agreement between those parties. They don't, you know, they might not necessarily agree. Ultimately, we are the ones who are going to sign the permit. Um and so we need to determine you know through the best of the research and experts that we can employ what you know what the best course of action is. And so if it's if the permit is denied it would be the staff that initially denies it.

The the the uh the third party they do not interact with the permit at all. um they're not they're not necessarily a part of the the permitting. They're a part of um determining the remediation plan, the inspections, and how that goes forward. They aren't they aren't making determinations on denial or um approval only as much as we're asking them to. Okay. And that's covered by some other section besides the one we have in front of us now? No, this procedure is this procedure is in this um in 700. No, not 700. Uh 410.700,

right? That's what I mean. So, it's in the subdivision section um for sinkholes and carsts where that section's been and we've added a, you know, a process for a permit within there. Okay. So, is there a possibility that the city could say no, you can't build on this lot? Absolutely. Okay. So, who where where does the applicant go? If the applicant feels that you're wrong, um ultimately if the applicant wanted to appeal a decision uh made by staff, they would go to the board of adjustment. Okay. And then on up to the council.

Um then on to I I assume they go to court. Yes. Okay. But you're keeping us out of it, correct? Yes. There's [laughter] there's no public hearing on sync calls. Okay,

Chris, I with a case of aa like uh being like accountable for that. So like we're making changes here. We we do approve a permit and then let's just say something happens on that uh that parcel and due to the sinkhole and we are the ultimately the ones that put that stamp of approval. or city staff with the change of permit. Who is liable for that? Was it would it be the builder or would it be us for approving the permit? Us as a city or us as the commission? Sorry, the city. I have to

um so the the goal for the goal in the operation and the processing of the permit is to diffuse that um liability so that the city isn't the one making that sole decision. you know, geotechnical engineers are going to be required to stamp and observe the process that they've laid out and then sign off on on a letter that it was the process that was followed. Um, you know, we are not experts in this area and we don't want to be, but we do want to employ those people to make the best decisions there for safety and health. Now, you're only the city's only paying for the not that it matters to me, but the city is only paying for its own.

We won't pay for either party. Okay. So, the the applicant has to to get pay to go. If if we if we do um decide to bring in a third party um as a consultant on our side, then we do bill them back that cost and that's part of the agreement that they're aware of upfront.

To clarify, the contractual agreement with the city's third party is a contract between the city and that third party engineer. um they are not directly employed also by the developer but we do recoup the expenditures for any type of consultants for services that we could not provide in-house. So we would bill back the developer for our expenses related to the review. Okay. Is there has have you considered the possibility of having a a third expert that would be a tiebreaker? We haven't really considered that. Um, this could get real messy.

Ultimately, the responsibility for the uh mitigation design of the sinkhole lies within the responsibility of the design engineer. Yeah. So, you got at least three uh insurance policies out there. We do. Malpractice policies. We also have the opportunity to work with Green County and their geologist if we do feel like it's appropriate to bring in another external party that is impartial to the conversation um to assist us with any very technical conversations. [clears throat]

And so the only reason we're presenting this and discussing this is we're in the link of changing the ordinances on these kinds of things. Yes, you are responsible for the subdivision section um in chapter 400. And so anything in chapter 400 comes before this body. It was Chris that was this Chris. And one further point, you're you're responsible for it. That's fine.

One further point of clarification. Um the reasoning for addressing this is we are beginning to see um opportunities open up for properties that do contain sink holes and a desire in the development community to um have a standardized procedure for addressing a mitigation effort if they so choose. As land becomes more scarce um and sink holes um are fairly prevalent uh within our jurisdiction um many of the properties that would be considered along our main corridors for industrial commercial development do contain um sink holes. So what this ordinance does is it provides a standard procedure that we can um outlay to the developer. So, the costs associated with the review, the expectations for what to expect [clears throat] um are very clear at the onset of a project.

Okay, I'm good. Anybody else have questions? All right. Motion to vote to recommend the approval of ordinance 26-001. Thank you, sir. Do I hear a second? Second. [clears throat] Motion, a second. Call the role, please. Commissioner Ellis, I. Commissioner Crosby, I. Commissioner Man, [clears throat] I. Commissioner Drava, I. Commissioner Copeland,

I Okay. Third hearing, ordinance 26-002, public hearing and possible vote to recommend the approval of an amendment to title 4, land use, chapter 415, sign regulations, section 410.120, commercial sign overlay districts of the municipal code of the city of Republic, Missouri. Chris,

thank you. Um, staff is asking uh for consideration to approve the amendments to chapter 415 sign regulations, specifically section 415.120, the commercial sign overlay districts. The intent of this section is to provide flexibility of the restrictions on detached signage in proximity to major thoroughare fair intersections such as US60 and state highway 174, James River Freeway and State Highway MM and I44 and State Highway MM. The existing code um also creates an overlay district at state highway M and US Highway 60. Property within 1,200 ft of the center of that intersection may construct on premises detached signs with a maximum effective area of 350 square ft and a maximum height of 45 ft. in contrast to the general guidelines of the sign code which only allow um an on- premises detach sign to have an effective area of 300 square feet and a maximum height of 40 ft. The Missouri Department of Transportation is preparing to break ground on the MM realignment project soon. This project will see the intersection of MM and US Highway 60 moved. So the relocation of the intersection impacts the need to allow the added height and effective area for signage in both the current and the future intersection. So our goal is to remove it from the intersection that is being where the uh the the existing connection to MM from US60 and to move that overlay district over to where the new intersection will be. Did you get that?

Yeah. Is that you quit talking? Is that the end? Um, staff's recommending approval. Okay. Thank you. I'm happy I'm happy to simplify that if there's [laughter]

So, there's several busy there's several busy intersections within the city. Um, they're at highways and freeways that intersect. At those points, um, a decision was made at some point in the past to create these overlay districts. These create um a buffer around that point on the intersection which all properties within that buffer get an allowance to build a higher and larger sign. Um what we are what we are addressing is particularly the one that is up here at the gas station um the new the Maverick. Um, that one is not is not for very long going to be the point at which you get onto MM from US Highway 60. That intersection will be um the one by the apartments, the new intersection with the stoplight. So, we are moving that overlay district, the point in the middle, that one that creates that buffer to the new intersection. So it it's no longer needed on this one because there's not an intersection of um highways and it will be needed on the new one.

Now are these commercial signs or any sign? These are um on premises detached signs which are um their general business commercial signs. Okay. But only affecting the people within so many feet of that intersection. Yes. Within 1,200 ft of that intersection. Okay. So, we're not going to see a Wendy's sign down at M at the new M. Just uh just just to There's no Wendy's store. Oh, no, no, no. These are only on premises businesses. The business has to be located there. This will allow them to make a sign five minutes or five feet higher than what they can build now.

And 50 feet larger. And 50 correct. And 50 feet larger. Do they need to be larger? Um, I'm not a good judge on what they need to be, but I think if you ask the business community, they would always say yes. Of course, it would [snorts] be like this. All right. Any other questions with this modification? Are there any signs within the current section of M and60 that would need to be modified if you're if you're going to remove it from that location? Will not be creating any non-conforming signs.

Okay. And then you had mentioned that there won't be an intersection of state highways there. When the movement of MM does take place, will M Highway cease to exist as a state highway at that location and change over to a city road or what's going to happen with that section? So, I'll I think Karen knows specifically what MDOT intends to do with that road.

So, the Edgrade crossing um at the current location near Maverick will close permanently. The stubbed out road um serving Maverick will become a city street. Um as will the other side of MM um also referred to as Brooklyn Avenue. That will become a city street at some point in the future. Okay. So you won't be able to go over the railroad tracks. Correct. But you can come south on that road and continue and and it curves there and goes into whatever farm road. Farm Road 68 whatever's there. Yes. Okay.

Just the atra crossing will close but not until the construction of project D um has been final. Was that railway track is going to stay put? I mean it's they always stay put. I know that because they got an ement and they've owned it since they were here first, but allegedly that is a steal steam engines when they started using that. That is a very busy VNessa um section um that travels through Republic. Yeah, I agree.

Okay, any other questions, comments? Motion to vote to recommend the approval of ordinance 26-002. Did you have a question? Yes. Go ahead. Sorry. This uh proposed over pass and the closing of of that uh 168 that's right there by the Maverick going all the railroad tracks. Won't that kind of tend to push everything to the north and bottleneck all of that in there? Are you asking whether the closure of the Maverick at Great Crossing will create additional bottlenecks um on the county road?

Yeah. Further north where where we're going to have the overpass over the railroad, won't that just push all of that traffic in into that section there? And instead of perhaps having two ways to get across, you still have the just one and it's further north. Does that make sense?

I think so. the the intent was to move uh any opportunity for vehicles and trains to interact at a at great crossing to alleviate that completely at that location. So yes, it will shift all of the burden of the traffic to the new highway. But the new highway project D is a five lane highway. Um it is expanded and designed to accommodate the additional traffic now and in the future um for that segment of mm at five lanes. Yes. Lanes in a turn. Very helpful. All right. Thank you.

And they're going to dump all that out on 60 or on whatever it is now. Correct. At the location of the current stoplight. It's going to be interesting. It'll be different. Motion to vote to recommend the approval of ordinance 26-002. Just going to say we had that, but thank you for restating. Second. Thank you. I got a second from Chris. Commissioner Crosby. I. Commissioner Ellis. I. Commissioner Man. I. Commissioner Copeland. I. Commissioner Draa. I.

Okay. We move to other business. Uh, subd pre 25-002, possible vote to approve a preliminary plant for Town East Crossing, a commercial subdivision consisting of approximately 10. 81 acres located at 1193 North Oakwood Avenue. Chris,

thank you. Town East Center LLC and O Shamrock Richards LLC have requested review and approval of a preliminary plat town East Crossing consisting of two commercial lots across 8.97 acres zoned general commercial C2 along with streets and infrastructure. Preliminary plats are reviewed for their conformance with the following review criteria to ensure the development is in in the proposed location. [snorts] Will not endanger the public health or safety. Will not injure the value of adjoining property or abuing property. Will be in conformity with the comprehensive plan, transportation plan, zoning code, water system master plan, wastewater system facility plan, or other plans officially adopted by the city council and will be in harmony with the area in which it is located. Preliminary plats are reviewed by the city planner and the city engineer in conformance with the the requirements of chapter 410 of Republic's municipal code, the comprehensive plan and all applicable city adopted codes and regulations. The property subject to this preliminary plat um application is again comprised of approximately 8.97 acres of land at 1193 North Oakwood Avenue. The zoning district that has already been assigned to the property is general commercial C2 and is appropriate for the use for the proposed plat. Proposed lot one is the current location of town east commercial strip center. Lot two con contains two existing homes to be demolished as the subdivision moves forward and one existing home um present in the right of way where a where a road will be built. The reference preliminary plaque contains two commercial lots total. The preliminary plat also consists of streets, open spaces, and storm water infrastructure. The preliminary plat proposes a new local street connection

from the termination of Republic Commons Drive to Oakwood Avenue. This new public street will be dedicated to the city during the final platting process. No lot will have access off of US Highway 60. No new connection to US Highway 60 is being proposed. The referenced parcels are currently connected to municipal utilities. The development will be served by two existing water manes, a 10-in main on US Highway 60 and an 8-in main along Oakwood Avenue. Wastewater service is also available on site from an 8-in gravity sewer main. Effluent flows from the site to the Scholer Creek lift station before being pumped to the wastewater treatment facility. The water system named lift station and wastewater treatment facility have capacity to serve the intended use. [snorts] The preliminary plat of town east crossing has been platted for the construction of the two commercial lots and the necessary associated infrastructure which consists of public streets, sidewalks and storm storm water conveyance. The largest of the two lots is 5.15 acres. The smallest of the two lots is 2.39 acres. These lots as designed meet the minimum requirements of the city of of Republic zoning code. The subject parcel does not contain any special special flood hazard area or flood plane. The subject parcel does not contain any identified sink holes. The preliminary plat does not include um does does include depiction of the planned storm water detention area. Currently, the detention serving the proposed lot one of this subdivision exists outside the subject area and is located on lot two of the town east subdivision directly north of the property and sits on the southwest corner of US Highway 60 and Oakwood intersection. The preliminary plaque contains a conceptual layout of the stormwater conveyance system. The exact size and placement of detention areas may be constructed as property develops. These areas will be designed to mitigate

the existing conditions to reduce the amount of post-development flow to less than pre-development flows. A storm water report will be reviewed by the city engineer during the city's review process. The design of infrastructure as it relates to streets, sidewalks, water, and sanitary sewer systems and storm water will be reviewed and permitted during the infrastructure permitting process. Staff considers the proposed preliminary plat in general conformity with the requirements for preliminary plats and is recommending approval of the application.

Is there anyone here that uh is in favor of the application that wishes to speak? Please identify yourself and sign in. [clears throat] My name is Don Barry. I'm a professional land surveyor with Lee Engineering 1200 East Woodhurst sweet D200 Springfield. Um we prepared the engineering report and the preliminary plat and I am available for any questions that you may have. Anybody have questions? [snorts] So,

so lot one's already built, correct? Lot one is the site of the strip center. Yes. And then there are two housing or I I think are housing units on lot two. There are there are three three housing units. Uh one stain or going one in one is in the future right away. It will be going. The other two are intended to be demolished at some point in the future. Okay. satisfy you. Yeah. Any other questions? Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here that uh is opposed to the application who wishes to speak? Seeing no one else come forward. I close this hearing and we go to discussion.

Any discussion? Is everybody ready to vote? Motion to vote to approve a preliminary plot for subdivision pre25- 0002. All heard. Second. Second. Second. Thank you. [clears throat] Commissioner Man. I. Commissioner Copeland. I. Commissioner Ellis. I. Commissioner Drava. Hi. Commissioner Crosby.

I. All right. Motion carries. Next item of business is citizen participation. Anyone that wishes to come forward now and tell us uh anything of interest to the planning zoning commission that has not otherwise been discussed during the meeting thus far. Please feel free to [snorts] come forward. No one I'll move on to the next item community development update. Um, I will go ahead and let you guys know that we are expect we're anticipating um moving the next meeting um to the new city council chambers. I'll make a announcement to you know solidify that make sure you guys all know that. Um and explain to you how to get into the building as well when it's time. Um, also the uh we will be holding the first city council meeting on January 20th there if you guys are interested in you know coming to see that.

We also will have a new addition to our team um replacing Patrick after his departure um back in November. Um, Katherine will be joining um the comdev team on January 26. She'll be coming to the next um PNZ commission meeting. So, was that a trade up or a trade down? You don't have to. We'll tell you in a month. I'm [laughter] sure it was a trade up, but don't tell Patrick. We wish him the best. Yes, we'll take a lateral trade.

Okay. Okay, guys. We wouldn't want to hurt anybody's feelings. Okay. Uh I could hear a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. Second. Second. Did you got it already? Yes. Second. Call the role, please. Commissioner Copeland. I. Commissioner Ellis. I. Commissioner Man. I. Commissioner Draa. I. Push.