Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, it's 4:00 straight up. I'm going to call to order the planning commission meeting for March 17th. Happy St. Patrick's Day to everybody. Uh, I'll turn it over for uh making sure that or confirming that the Kansas Open Meeting Act requirement notice has been properly provided. Yes, I can confirm the packet was posted notice was provided. Perfect. And roll call please. Commissioner here. Commissioner Rogers here. Commissioner here. Commissioner Al here. Commissioner Van here. Vice here. six out of seven members we have a forum receive business.

Fantastic. Has everybody had a chance to look over the minutes from um I have January 10th on here, but isn't that January 20th? Right. January 20th meeting. I'd move that be approved as printed and second. Have a motion and second of approval of the minutes of January 20th, 2026 planning commission meeting. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed?

And that carries. That will bring us to new business. Okay. So, the first item that we have for new business is a resoning request. And I'm going to start with the background of the property. The property that that we are talking about for this reasonzoning request is the former Kansas Gas facility. That property has a plan development district that was originally approved in 1979 for utilities storage yard. So the the property itself has a split zoning. the east 200 feet where the building the existing building is located and and a large portion of the parking lot is zone C3 while the remainder of the property is PDDI2. So, we have an isolated situation where we have um specifically customized and tailored zoning for a use that is now obsolete on the site as Kansas Gas has has moved on from the site and the Salina uh education or health education foundation has purchased the property and is looking to redevelop it. So, the proposal is to take the C3 zoning that currently exists on the east 200 ft of the property and extend it all the way across the property and unify the zoning under one zoning district and that's the C3 zoning district. So, that's what's being proposed here today. In looking at the zoning regulations, the packet goes into great detail of what the C3 zoning district is. I'm going to highlight the differences between the I2, which is our light industrial zoning district, and the C3 zoning district. So, the primary differences that are going to impact the development standards and how this

property would be developed in the future is the I2 district allows for outdoor storage, display, allows for gravel, allows for um it doesn't require landscaping where the C3 district requires that all uses be contained inside of an enclosed building. It requires that all surfacing be paved with asphalt or concrete and it requires landscaping along your front yards and then also any bufferings that may or may not be required. So the development standard in the C3 district is is much higher than what you would typically see for an I2 zoning district. and looking at the surrounding area and the suitability of the site and the character of the neighborhood. If you were to look at the zoning map, you'll notice that the east side of Ohio, which I've got the zoning layer on, so it's kind of hard to make out the streets, but here's Ohio here. So, the line that you see that has pink on one side, yellow on the other, that's that's Ohio Street. The east side is all R1, so that's our single family residential zoning district. while the west side is solidly commercial with the surrounding areas primarily being C3 with a PC5 to the north. So you have Waters True Value to the north which is PC5. You also have Carson uh funeral home to the north and then to the south you have Ablardos or not Ablardos but Lurerva and then you also have the state property to the south as well. And so those are all zone C3. So the proposed C3 zoning would be in conformance with the character of the surrounding area for public utilities. I'll turn the zoning layer off so that you can see the utilities a little clearer. But what we have is an existing 24in insert conference uh sanitary sewer line in Ohio. That's the green line that you

see on the map. We also have an 8 in water line in Ohio that would serve this property and current and or historically has. In addition to those lines as part of the replat, which we'll get to later, a 6-in water line is being proposed to connect the 8 in line in Ohio down Edison Place, then down Westbin Avenue, and then connecting into the water line that we see to the south at Westchester Drive. So the the site has adequate services. It's been in development. It has access to all of our police police protection as well as fire protection. So there are no issues with the uh utilities on the site. Looking at street and access, this is an area where um there's been some concern. And so there was a traffic study that was conducted by the project's engineer that was submitted to our engineering team and reviewed. And there were a number of conditions that are being proposed by our staff. And so those can be found in the traffic study that's included in your packet. But to summarize them, the first is the applicant must hire a qualified traffic engineer conduct conduct a formal traffic count at six months and 18 months following the opening of the new access. And what that is speaking to is as part of the replat, which is the next agenda item. There is a restricted access that is being broken or being proposed to be broken on the north 150 ft of the property which I'll pull up the plat even though that's not what we're talking about just yet but just so you have some context. So here's the proposed plat. There is a break-in access that is proposed along the the north 105 ft of the property and

this is to alleviate some of the congestion that was anticipated with the full buildout of the site on Edison and Ohio. So the concern is that if you don't have a break in access along Ohio that Edison and Ohio become overundated with congestion. And so one of the conditions again is that the traffic be studied six months after a certificate of occupancy is issued for the proposed um development of that for line of family. The second is that the applicant is responsible for funding 100% of the first two monitoring periods. And the third is that additional counts may be required within the first 5 years which would be funded on a 50/50 cost share basis. And so this would be an agreement that we would have to work out with the city commission once this item uh gets to them in conformance to the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan has this area uh being shown as part of the commercial land use category which the commercial land use category does have C3 zoning as an appropriate zoning district for that for that land use. Additionally, the resoning meets the specific location criteria set out in the comprehensive plan which dictates that commercial sites should be located adjacent to arterials to avoid congestion which Ohio Street is one of our main arterials that we have within the city of Salena. So in in summary, resolving the split zoning is a foundational best practice in current planning and it would ensure that uniform application of the zoning code across a single development lot instead of currently we have two different zoning codes preventing administrative burden and enforcing two different distinct sets of development

standards on the property. Furthermore, retiring the 1979 PDD is appropriate and that the C3 uses would reinforce the commercial and institutional character along the west side of this corridor of Ohio Street. And there is no compelling planning rationale to reserve the isolated PDD I2 zoning for the property as it's become outdated and no longer necessary because the use is has changed or is changing. So we do have on page 10 a list of findings that that I'll read to you just so everybody's clear of what they are. Um, the first is that the proposed map amendment replaces an obsolete 1979 PDD tailored to a vacated utility storage yard. The second is that the property is currently split zone which inhibits unified site planning and cohesive redevelopment. The third is that extending the existing C3 zoning across the entire 9.274 274 acres, which is the entire site, is a logical expansion of the commercial corridor along Ohio Street. The reasonzoning eliminates the pocket of industrial zoning in the immediate area, bringing the site into conformity with the uniform commercial and institutional character of the west side of South Ohio Street. Number four, the C3 district has a higher development standard than the I2 district. Specifically, the uh C3 district requires that all businesses, service, and storage activities within the district be conducted within a completely enclosed building, whereas the I2 district permits exterior operations and outdoor storage yards. Furthermore, the I2 district allows for unpaved gravel parking and storage surfaces and does not mandate site landscaping. In contrast, the

development under the C3 district requires fully paved off street parking and formal street frontage landscaping. Because of these stricter development standards, the applicant's proposed resoning will result in a aesthetic and functional upgrade to the neighborhood, ensuring the replacement of existing chain link fences, gravel surfacing, and exposed utility materials with a fully enclosed commercial institutional facility paved with paved parking spaces and landscaped front yards. Number five, adequate public infrastructure already exists to serve the redevelopment. and six, the proposed C3 zoning district classification is consistent with the future land use map designation of the comprehensive plan which indicates this property as commercial a category that supports both like the location criteria as well as the uses. So with that planning does have a few uh alternatives for the commission. The planning commission could one recommend approval of the C3 zoning for this request area. Number two, the planning commission could recommend a lesser change or a planned commercial uh district such as PC3 with a list of prescribed limitations instead of the requested C3. The planning commission could recommend that the applicant be postponed if additional information is needed. This action would require the planning commission to site a specific date and time of their postponement. Number four, the planning commission could recommend denial of the resoning request providing appropriate findings are made. Staff would recommend approval of the requested zoning map amendment from C uh PDD I2 toC3. We'll take any questions you might have. And we also have representatives from Sina family in the room as well as city staff um for any specific questions that may come up. Thank you, Dustin. Um, I know that was a

lot of information. Uh, any questions specifically for staff from commissioners before we hear from the applicant? Uh, one on the, uh, park or the, uh, traffic counts. So, if they do these counts at 6 months, at 12 months, what's the guideline on whether they're going to require different traffic patterns or anything? Yeah, we we do have public works engineering staff in the room to help address answer that question. Brian, if you would.

Hi, my name is Brian Clint and I'm a civil engineer in the public works department. And um what we're looking for is just any negative type of traffic scenarios that that come up. And so if there's a a significant increase in the amount of traffic over what was projected that the development was going to projected to go into that development, that would be one consideration. If we see an increase in accidents, that might be another consideration where we need to address the traffic in a manner, whether it's a a signalized intersection, whether it's modifying that access point onto Ohio, whether it's adding um a a turn lane on Edison to allow right turns and left turns and and separate those. So, those are kind of all the things that we would be looking at. And it's all based on the traffic counts and the traffic study. looking at how what that level of service is um for the traffic that's traveling on Edison at and also at that entrance um onto Ohio.

So if that warrants a a traffic light or something different is that the city's cost then to implement that?

No. So that's one of the the conditions in in the that we're along with the traffic counts. The other condition would be a share of that cost or and identifying is it just the traffic that's being generated by the um Salina Family Health Center that's adding to that uh traffic or are there other developments that have occurred since that time that are also adding but um so we would have to evaluate where that traffic's coming from, who's generating that traffic and assign the costs appropriately. But I didn't want it to just be fall all on the city if there was an increase in traffic that is different than what the traffic study had projected. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you, Brian. Any other questions?

All right. I would offer a chance for the applicant to come and speak on this. And if you would please state your name uh just for the record and uh we will listen intently. Good afternoon. My name is Max Taylor. I'm an architect with Health Facilities Group out of Witchaw, Kansas and the project manager for the proposed project. Uh my firm began our involvement with Salina Health Education Foundation in 2021. Part of our initial process was evaluating the constraints of the existing building surrounding site and then reviewing alternate locations within the city. In 2021 and 2022, several alternate locations for the new building uh were looked at, which eventually led the project team to this piece of property that we're meeting on today. We believe this property on Ohio Street best equips Salina Health to continue supporting the health of this community and meeting the needs of people and patients of all backgrounds. Um just here in support of the preliminary plat and the resoning and happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Taylor?

What are your thoughts on the U traffic study?

I am glad that we did one. Um I think it's fair to ask with the increase of the volume. Um I know the previous concern was that uh the energy building had 50 or so employees there. um and that people coming in and out of the site. I think the other thing that we looked at is is was dumping everybody to the south back onto Edison going to help or worsen the situation. I think providing the access onto Ohio, the way the current plans are drawn, um we'll have if you're coming southbound on Ohio, be able to take a right-hand turn directly into the site at that new access break. We also have when if you're exiting the site back onto Ohio, a lefthand lane out where cars can queue up a little bit more. We'll have a righthand lane where you can turn right onto Ohio. Uh that'll help traffic flow overall more smoothly is my belief.

Thank you. How many employees will they have? Do you plan on 170? Yeah. Start with 150 up to Yeah. 170. Yeah. Grow. Yeah. With growth up to 170.

Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody in the audience? Go ahead. Who would like to speak? I'm uh Trevor Splel with BHC Civil Engineering um a Pape Dawson company. We've been recently uh acquired uh 7101 College Boulevard Overland Park. Um so I'm the civil engineer project manager on the team. So I wanted to give you guys a chance um to ask questions. Otherwise, I'm in support of the resoning. As the city's mentioned, it is an upgrade to aesthetics. Um we also handle landscape and grading. So, um, that is things we've taken into consideration for the neighbors and the site in general. Um, yeah, as Mac said, in in support of the reasonzoning and wanted to give you guys a chance for any traffic questions or or anything else uh site related.

Thank you. Uh, any specific questions for Mr. Sple? Did I say that name correctly? Sple. I saw it several names in the report and or several times and I wanted to know I I have to ask do you have relatives in North Central Kansas? Uh I do that is I assume that's how you know how to say the name honestly. Yep. Uh Belffell area. Yeah. We'll make sure we get that in the record for you. Anybody else who would like to speak on this topic? Anybody online? Dustin,

we do have one representative online. And I'm not sure if they'd like to speak on the topic or not, if they're just observing. So far, they haven't indicated any any desire to speak. All right. With that in mind, I will bring it back up to the commission for discussion or a possible motion. Mr. Chairman, I this looks pretty straightforward. I uh would make a motion that we approve application ZMA25-004. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second for approval of application ZMA25-00004. All in favor, let it be known by saying I. I.

Any opposed? And that carries. We'll make that recommendation to the city commission. Uh that is all of our um and that was based on staff's findings. Is that correct? I want to based on those. Okay. I don't want to speak for the motion maker, but yes, that is based on the findings that staff presented. Yes. And the second concurs. Yes. You concur on that. Yes.

All right. Very good. All right. That'll lead us to our our next item, which is a companion item. Along with the proposed resoning, Selena family is also working to replplat the property. So, the existing property is part of the surveyor's plat number 52, which is a 1938 uh subdivision. And since that time, and I've got that on the I've got the plat on the screen. Since that time, Edison Place has been dedicated through separate instrument and isn't shown on the plat. Additionally, you'll notice that the west boundary is just simply the Smoky Hill River. And so it's it's a little bit undefined or lacks a little bit of clarity on the west end and there are no utility uh easements and there is no breakin access. And so in order to address all of those separate items, what the Sonic family organization is proposing is a replat that would kind of clean up the plat so to speak speak. It would have the dimensions of the south boundary of with Edison Place. It would have the proposed breaking access that we talked about particularly with the resoning at the north end of the property along Ohio. It would have a marked and measured and dimensioned west boundary along the river and it also have proposed easements for all of the public utilities as well as the drainage easements. So that's the nature of the request and why the uh reszone or the replat in this case is is important. So the subdivision design the particular property is 9.274 acres. It's a single lot and block subdivision and it would be uh compliant with the proposed C3 zoning that you just voted on just a moment ago. Street access, it would have street access. It would retain existing existing street access along Edison

Place and there's a proposed break-in access along the north 105 ft of Ohio Street. And the street itself, the streets are existing streets, so they meet all of the existing criteria for the subdivision regulations with the exception that a sidewalk along Edison Place needs to be extended. So if you can see on the aerial photo, the sidewalk does wrap around coming south on Ohio, comes west a little bit and then then ends. And so a sidewalk, a public sidewalk would have to be extended along the entire frontage of Edison Place on the south end of the property and then it would be in full compliance. Again, the traffic study does have um some conditions that the city engineer would like to have carried over uh as part of this development. Again, it's the applicant must hire a qualified traffic engineer to conduct the formal traffic count 6 months and 18 months following the opening of the proposed development or the certificate of occupancy basically being issued. Number two, the applicant is responsible for 100 for funding 100% of these first two monitoring periods. And number three, additional counts may be required within the first five years, which would be funded 50/50 in a cost share basis. There are no proposed street name changes because both streets exist and are not the names are not being changed. The lot itself meets and exceeds the C3 district requirements. Um the C3 district requires at least a minimum area of 1 acre for that district. In this case, the the site alone is over 9 acres. And so uh it has ample space to meet the C3 district requirements as

well as the proposed development that's Salina family has in mind. Utilities and service. There is a 24 inch sanitary sewer on the east and Ohio Street. There's also an 8 inch line. And again, I mentioned earlier there is a proposed line, a 6-in water line that would connect to Ohio, run down Edison Place, and then go to the south on westbound and connect to Westchester. So there is a looping that is being proposed for water line to have water redundancy for um the property that's especially important in emergency situations where there's a fire or or some other need for water on the site. Drainage because the existing site has the large gravel storage yard. The engineers in their drainage study have concluded and determined that there will be a decrease in water runoff from the current development pattern that is on the site and most of the water is going to the Smoky Hill River. Although there is a slight increase going to Ohio, it is it is within tolerances of what the system can handle. So there is no additional detention going to be required for the site. And for the services, we did send out the proposed redevelopment or replat of the property to all of our local agencies and confirm from USD 305, the Sena Fire Department, Cox Communications, Kansas Gas Services, uh, Sena Parks and Rec, Selena Police, as well and, uh, Salena Utilities that the proposed replat uh, will have um, no issues according to what their needs are and that The layout and location is

sufficient. Easements and rightaway. There are no additional right rights of way being dedicated for this particular plat. As I noted earlier, Edison Place was dedicated through separate instrument. And so this plat is going to clean it up with the south boundary matching that dedication. So there is no additional rightway being dedicated. There are some utility easements that are being dedicated and all of those easements are at least 20 feet in width. There's one along the north property boundary. There's one along the south and and east. And there's also a drainage easement of varying widths along the river channel to to the west. the proposed improvements. There is the waterline improvement and the sidewalk improvement and those would be the only uh public improvements that would be part of this development and all of that would be phased in a single development when the uh Selena family develops the property. Special assessments and cost recoveries. There are no special assessments or cost recoveries. The only expense or fee that would could potentially impact this project is the traffic study and potential traffic improvements that we've discussed with the proposed access from the traffic study. Conformance with the comprehensive plan. Again, the plaque conforms to the comprehensive plan's locationational criteria and the project reinforces the commercial and institutional character along the west side of South Ohio. So, the proposed replat is a necessary and logical step in redeveloping an obsolete industrial site. Resolving split zoning is a foundational best practice. From a subdivision perspective, the site design is favorable. It utilizes existing infrastructure, improves pedestrian

connectivity, decreases storm water runoff impacts um of the surrounding basin. We do have uh a full page of criteria or suggested findings based on the criteria that are reviewed uh by the board on page eight. And the planning commission has the following alternatives. One, you could approve the preliminary plat of the Selena family edition subject to staff recommendations. Number two, you could postpone consideration of the preliminary plat to a specific date if the commission requires additional information. Um, number three, you could deny preliminary plat uh the preliminary plat citing specific findings as to how the plat fails to comply with the plat review criteria and attachment number five which is in your packet and we do have a number of recommendations or conditions that we would recommend with uh with approval. So staff would recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions and all of these are in the staff report with a six that was recently added based on a memo we received from the utilities. So number one is approval of publication of the ordinance for the zoning map amendment ZMA 25004 by the city commission establishing uniform C3 zoning district across the entire lot. So that is the item that we just previously heard. Uh number two is the developer should submit public improvement plans for the design and construction of the new public water main and Edison place to be approved by the city engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of public sidewalk of the public sidewalk along the north side of Edison Place adjacent to the property frontage. Number four, prior to the issuance of

any permits, the applicant shall enter into a formal agreement with the city incorporating the binding conditions of the traffic impact study approval letter dated August 14th, 2025. And those are the potential impacts that u Mr. Clinton spoke about in uh his assessment of the traffic impact study. Number five, submission and approval of a final plat for or that substantially conforms to the approved preliminary plat layout prior to issuance of any building permits. And number six, this is new and not in your packet, is prior to the installation of the construction of any new public utilities, the Kansas Department of Health and Education, KDHE, must review and approve the proposed construction plans for all new public utilities. And with that, staff would take any questions you might have.

Thank you, Dustin. Uh, any commissioner have a question for staff in regards to this item? Seeing none, uh, does the applicant wish to speak on this? I know you've already been up once. Do you wish to add anything to it? I'm good. got two thumbs up for those online. Uh, anybody in the in the audience who would like to make a comment on this item?

Yes. And I don't see anybody here or online. We do not have anyone online that appears to want to speak on this item. Okay. All right. All right, I'll bring it back to the commission uh for discussion or possible motion. I'd move we approve application PP25-004 as presented with the conditions including number six that Dustin mentioned. Second.

We have a motion and a second to approve application PP25-004. This is with the five conditions that are laid out in the packet and the number six that was added uh verbally by Dustin. All in favor, let it be known by saying I. I. Any oppose? Same sign. And that carries. We'll move us to 3.3.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before we get started, I'm going to pass out a couple of handouts. That being a paper copy of the fire marshal Joe Kvassic's memo as well as Brian Clinton's memo and then a sidebyside comparison of the final plaque conditions from the October 15, 2024 meeting along with the proposed conditions for um the current resolution. So, I'm going to pass those out and then we'll get started. Trevor, they need to go out.

Are you related to Ed? Yeah, he is uh my great uncle great. So my grandma's Raymond, but I know that I know your dad and I serve the school board up there with your uncle. Yeah, they want to have they want to modify the conditions of approval so they can have a footing foundation. So I would

stick around for this one. Yeah. Sorry, Brian. Thank you for being here. All right. Good afternoon, commissioners. The item before you is case number P24-1A. And just a quick note, it is uh the application has been sign assigned that case number to reflect its direct connection to the October 15, 2024 final plat approval under that same case number. Just wanted to note that for the record. This is a request to consider the adoption of resolution number 26-01 modifying conditions one condition number one and condition number four of the conditions of approval of application P 24-1A for lot one block one of the Windy Creek edition final plat which was approved on October 15 2024. This resolution incorporates the previous conditions of approval and establishes new conditions to allow the issuance of a building permit for nonvertical construction work which includes construction of footings and foundations for the building and fuel canopies, installation of underground fuel tanks, extension of site utilities, and various grading activities to occur on lot one block one prior to issuance of a certificate of completion for all required public improvement improvement serving phase

one. To provide some background, on October 13th, excuse me, October 15th, 2024, the planning commission approved the final plat of the Windy Creek edition, a one lot commercial subdivision located on the west side of I35 north of Waterwell Road. As part of its action, the commission adopted conditions of approval. This included condition number four which states which requires issuance of a certificate of completion for all public improvements serving phase one including public streets, sanitary sewer line, operational water line and fire hydrants by the city engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit for a lot one block one of the Windy Creek edition. Southlands Development LLC was the applicant for the final plat application back in 2024. Maverick Convenience Stores has since acquired lot one block one of the Windy Creek edition and is the owner and applicant for the current request. The developer, Maverick Convenience Stores, seeks authorization to commence with the construction of footings and foundations, underground fuel tank installation, site utility extensions and grading activities concurrently with the construction of Marcella Drive and public utility installation. The intent is to ensure efficient coordination of site development activities and minimize delays in the overall project timeline. Because the conditions were originally adopted by the planning commission, modification of these conditions requires your review and approval. The engineering division and fire department have reviewed this request and provided conditions for approval. The engineering division's comments require that the site construction entrance must be relocated as far south as po as as practicable to minimize construction

traffic traveling over the aggregate base for Marcella Drive. And so if you see on the west or on the right left side of your screen um the red where Dustin's cursor is that is Marcella Drive. So, engineering is requesting that the access road for construction purposes be located as close to as far south on the lot as possible to avoid having to drive up the entire extent of Marcella Drive. Um, if the city determines, additionally, if the city determines the subgrade that subgrade damage occurs or soil is tracked onto the aggregate base, the roadway contractor shall be responsible for corrective measures. Those measures include removal of the affected aggregate base, recompaction of the subgrade, and placement and compaction of new aggregate base prior to placement of the concrete pavement. The fire department also reviewed the request. The fire department's conditions stipulate that no vertical construction can take place until the fire hydrants are in service. Um that will provide fire protection to the lots being built on and meet the distance requirements from the 2018 IFC. Um there must be a 500 ft maximum distance between fire hydrants. And then additionally, per D102.1 of the IFC, the access road will need to be able to support a load of 75,000 pounds and must be confirmed by an engineer prior to the city per the city amendment for D102.1. So that would mean that um before any vertical construction was permitted, the fire hydrants um would need to be in place. And furthermore, in order to drive on the aggregate base um for

Marcella, that aggregate base would need be able need to be able to support a 75,000 pound um firet truck. Staff would note that there was a sentence from condition one approved by the planning commission at their October 15, 2024 meeting that was omitted in the approval letter. The emitted sentence states, "An internal public water line and fire hydrants must be installed and operational prior to the issuance of any building permits in phase one. Staff recommends the planning commission include modification of this condition as part of their request. Um staff did speak with the director of utilities as well as um engineering and fire once we noticed this um sentence in condition one. And we would note that the water the water line for the site is being located in the right ofway west of where the yellow line is on the east side of Marcella Drive. So it's right around right where Dustin's cursor is. Um, and so the extension of utilities is connecting like water running water from the existing water or the water line that's going to be constructed to the building. So, um the director of utilities felt comfortable um with the fire department's condition that um all fire um safety measures must be in place before vertical construction commences. In analyzing this request, the proposed modification is specific to nonvert the non-vertical stages of construction and does not permit vertical construction or occupancy prior to the completion of the necessary public infrastructure. The proposed modification does not eliminate the requirement for a certificate of

completion for all phase one public improvements prior to vertical construction in the intent of the original condition ensuring or the intent of the original condition ensuring adequate public infrastructure is in place before the building is constructed is preserved. Um, the staff has found the possible findings in support of approval. Those can be found on pages three and four of your staff report. Number one, the applicant Maverick has requested modifications to the conditions of approval of the Windy Creek edition final plaque from condition number one and number four to allow the issuance of a building permit for early stage construction activities, specifically the construction of footings and foundations, installation of underground fuel tanks, extension of site utilities, and grading prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion for all phase one public improvements. ments. Two, the requested early construction activities do not constitute vertical construction and do not by themselves generate the occupancy load, fire suppression demand, or emergency access needs that the original condition was designed to ensure were met before construction began. Three, the public works department engineering division has reviewed the request and has determined that the subject that subject to conditions protecting the integrity of the aggregate base for Marcella Drive during construction, there is no objection to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of footings and foundations for the building and fuel canopies, installation of underground fuel tanks, installation of site utilities and various grading activities prior to the completion of the road infrastructure. Four, the fire department has reviewed the request and supports it subject to

conditions requiring that no vertical construction occur until fire hydrants serving the development are operational and meet the spacing requirements of IFC 2018 table C102.1 and that the construction access road meet the load capacity requirements of IFC 2018 section D102.1. Number five, the proposed modification does not eliminate the requirement for a certificate of completion for all phase one public improvements prior to vertical construction. The intent of the original condition, ensuring adequate public infrastructure is in place before the building is constructed is preserved. Six, the conditions recommended by the engineering division and fire department provide adequate safeguards to protect public infrastructure and ensure fire and life safety during the early construction period. And seven, the proposed modification is consistent with the public interest and with the general purposes of the subdivision regulations as set forth in section 364 of the Salena code and that it allows orderly and efficient development while maintaining the protection of public infrastructure and public safety that the original conditions were intended to provide. The planning commission would have the following options in consideration of this request. Number one, you could adopt resolution number 26 01 as presented, finding that the modified conditions of approval for lot one block one of the Windy Creek edition for non-vertical construction activities are reasonable and establishing a comprehensive list of final plaque conditions that incorporates the original plat conditions with modifications and the new conditions included in staff. pass recommended conditions by the engineering division and fire

department. Two, you could adopt resolution number 261 with amendments if the commission finds that additional or modified safeguards are necessary to protect the public interest. Three, you could postpone consideration of resolution number 26001 to a future meeting if the commission determines that the additional information is needed from staff or the applicant to make an informed decision. Or four, you could deny the request to adopt resolution number 2601. This action would leave the original condition in full effect and a building permit could not be issued until a certificate of completion for all public improvements serving phase one is issued. Staff would recommend that the planning commission adopt resolution number 2601 modifying condition number one and condition number four of the conditions of approval of application P24-1A for lot 1 block one of the Windy Creek edition final plat approved on October 15th 2024 incorporating the previous conditions of approval and establishing new conditions to allow issuance of a building permit for work including Construction of footings and foundations for the building and fuel canopies, installation of underground fuel tanks, extension of site utilities, and various grading activities to occur on lot one block one prior to issuance of a certificate of completion for all required public improvements serving phase one subject to the following conditions. And um as I handed out to you um as we're covering the conditions on the um comparison document, the the four-page staple document, you'll find the original plaque conditions as were

approved in October of 2024. Next to it, you'll find the proposed plaque conditions. Um, for the proposed plat conditions, we have maintained the same eight plat conditions that were listed in the original final plat with two modifications. One being to condition number one where the line previously stated, an internal public water line and fire hydrants must be installed and operational prior to the issuance of any building permits in phase one. And number two, the revised condition states an internal public water line and fire hydrants must be installed and operational prior to the issuance of any building permits for vertical construction in phase one lot one. Condition number two um is the same condition that a temporary turnaround shall be provided on the northern terminus of Marcella Drive on the final plat drawing. Three is the same condition that all utilities in the subdivision shall be placed underground. Four, the original condition stated a certificate of completion for all public public improvements serving phase one public streets, sewer line, and waterline loop must be issued by the city engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for lot one block one of the Windy Creek edition where the new condition 4 states a building permit may be issued for non-vertical construction activities on lot one block one of the Windy Creek edition limited to the construction of footings and foundations for the building and fuel canopies, installation of underground fuel tanks, extension of site utilities, and various grading activities prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion for all required public improvements serving phase one. Condition five remains the

same. Condition six remains the same. Condition seven remains the same. Condition eight required to revised final plat drawing containing all the revisions. This has condition has been satisfied and the plat for Windy Creek has been recorded. And then the new conditions. Condition number nine, the site construction entrance must be relocated as far south as practicable to minimize construction traffic traveling over the aggregate base from Marcella Drive and to reduce the potential for damage prior to final roadway construction. 10. If the city determines subgrade damage occurs or soil is tracked onto the aggregate base, the roadway contractor shall be responsible for corrective measures. These measures include removal of the affected aggregate base, recompaction of the subgrade, and placement and compaction of new aggregate base prior to placement of the concrete pavement. 11. No vertical construction can take place until the fire hydrants providing fire protection to the development are in service and meet the distance requirements of table C102.1 of the IFC 2018. This condition establishes the minimum fire protection standard that must be satisfied as part of the certificate of completion required prior to vertical construction. It does not authorize vertical construction independent of that certific certificate of completion requirement. 12. The maximum allowed distance between hydrants per table C102.1 of the IFC is 500 ft. 13. Per section D102.1 of the IFC 2018, the access road must be able to support a load of 75,000 pounds and

must be confirmed by an engineer per the city's amendment to section D 102.1. In condition 14 that is certificate of completion for all public improvements serving phase one public streets, sanitary sewer line, operational water line and fire hydrants must be issued by the city engineer prior to vertical construction taking place. And with that, um, staff is available for any questions you might have and representatives from public works engineering and the fire marshall are here to answer any questions as well. And the rep or the engineer for Maverick, um, Kase Schwam is on Zoom.

Thank you. Any questions for staff after that presentation from the commissioners?

I got one. I just wonder if there's a a sufficient water line running down Waterwell Road that could that it's going to feed the fire hydrants and the water line to the place and how far away does it have to come from and is there a timeline for when that's going to be put in? Yes, this is Kase Swallen with Olen working with Maverick on this project. I do want to point out there are a couple of Maverick representatives in house there with you as well. So, I can't tell if somebody's stepping up to the mic or not, but I can definitely address um if I need to

please go ahead. Uh yeah. So the the water line, I'll tell you they are having to extend uh basically from the middle of the street to to feed the line that's going to feed the Windy Creek development. I mean you can kind of pick it out on your screen there. I mean there is a sufficiently sized water mane that we are using to to feed the whole development. Um and we are currently showing just for our site development. I think we've got it uh listed as basically a 2-in branch off of the I believe it's an 8 in water line. I'd have to open up these separate public improvement plans just quickly to double check that and I will here. Um, but there those facilities will be in place. I mean I mean the work is under already underway on the road and uh c certain aspects of the utilities are already you know being being put in place. We're kind of stuck uh close to the rideway line there, but I know they are getting some some work for further north of water well accomplished. Um, and then just back checking here, 2.3. Yeah. So, that will be a new 8 inch main that is fed there along the uh east side of Marcella Drive that extends north.

And then I'll just go ahead and comment that as you noted on here the the map, it shows the existing water line there. There's a hydrant icon right about in the middle of the screen there. Uh and as we discussed with uh with Martha Tasker, the director of utilities about this to make sure that that they could um write a memo stating that it was um was good or make a statement that it was it was good to approve. Um she did note that these are just service lines that are going to be going in. So when they talk about extending utilities, as far as we understand off of the main, it's just service lines going into the property. So, as they do footing and foundation, they they get the lines to the to the point where they can um then work finish everything off in vertical construction. So, there will be water to that hydrant um off of that main right there. And it's possible that fire mar that our fire marshall could speak to that if he knows any more specifics about the um about the hydrant itself and the fire flows there. Um, but I do know that that main will be there with sufficient pressure to serve the hydrant that's going to be in the the rightway as far as I know. Um, and then any water lines going into the property are just being put there now as part of the footing and foundation work of getting them in so that you can finish off once you get to vertical construction. So, I don't know if that answers your question or did you

I will I will note from my my end as well. I it it does sound like that water man is active. It sounds like the hydrant is the only thing that is still to be accomplished on that. So it sounds real close. Yeah.

Did you have more spec anything else with that to answer? Okay. Anybody else questions for staff? All right. Uh I would invite applicants or representatives of the applicants if they wanted to speak uh to this and again if you would please just state your name for the record. Uh Lee Hollitz uh the Hansen Company uh 5665 Greenale Road, Johnston, Iowa. Uh speaking on behalf of the contractor out there doing the work we're brought on by Maverick and the developer to try to do these both these projects simultaneously to help expedite the whole overall process. So, um, as your question was earlier, we currently have that new extension of the water man off of Water Road all the way up Marcela Drive. It's activated and live. The only part that we still need to do is just tag on the fire hydrant um, just right off the ride away. So, there's no additional fire lines going into the site towards the building, but that fire protection will be serviced off that hydrant that's, you know, can be put in in a few days. So, very close. And then the other other item, we can work on getting enough egg base rock road through the site to support a fire truck and make sure everybody's safe. So,

thank you. Great. Thanks. Thanks. Any uh specific questions for the applicant? I know we have one online as well if you need answers. I don't hear any. Anybody else from the public care to comment on this item? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the desk.

Mr. Chair, before you um before decision, I just want to um reiterate that um your approval today is to approve resolution number 26-01. Um that resolution, the draft resolution can be found in your packet and I have a copy here as well. Um but it outlines the whereases um specifically relating to the changes to condition number one, condition number four um states that the the applicant's request um and that the public works and fire department have reviewed it. And then and then now therefore be it resolved. Um it has the 14 conditions that we reviewed. Um and then there is a place for um the chair, Mr. Farber to or shall shall you approve it. There's a spot for the chair to sign. So um once this was established, that would effectively um adopt all 14 conditions for the final plat of lot one, block one. But just wanted to clarify that.

Mr. Chairman, I'll make a swing at that if you're ready for a motion. Go ahead, sir. In regards to application P24-1A, uh, I move that planning commission adopt resolution number 26-01 modifying the conditions of approval of the final plat of the Windy Creek edition approved October 15, 2024, and establishing an updated list of final plaque conditions as set forth within the resolution. And is that is that with the is that with the findings as listed in the staff report?

Second. All right, we have a motion and a second uh to approve resolution number 26-01, which is going to modify the condition number one and condition number four of the conditions of approval uh from that prior application P24-1A and uh is going to not only supersede but replace that uh motion and second. All in favor, let it be known by saying I. I.

Any opposed? And that carries. And you guys have do have a copy of the newer or the updated conditions on that. Correct. I want to make sure everybody's on the same on the same page with that. I'll make sure we get a copy.

Perfect. Thank you. That will bring us to item 3.4. Thank you, vice chair. Uh, application M2260001 is a application filed by filed by Derek Lee on behalf of Overlook Estates edition. Um, and it is requesting approval of a resolution modifying the findings of fact and conditions of approval for the overlook estates edition that was originally under application P 034D to re to release a restrictive covenant requiring automatic fire sprinklers in all new dwellings based on the city's adoption of the 2018 international fire code. And we do have some slides here.

Okay. Okay.

All right. So, to give a little bit of background, Overlook Estates Edition is a 52.9 acre residential subdivision. Um, it's lots 1 through 12 in block one of the Overlook Estates Edition. It's located to the south of Riverrun Edition and west of Great Life Golf and Fitness at the south end of Overlook Drive. Uh this was approved in 2022 and 2023 under application P 034D for the final plat and application PDD03-1D for the for the PDD zoning. Uh the PDD zoning was established through ordinance number 22-1134 which uh the only variations include the only var variations from the zoning regulations in that ordinance were really for sideyard setbacks and some setbacks in the subdivision. Uh the fire sprinkler requirement was not part of the PDD zoning ordinance. So, this is a just to give a little bit of a of a heads up here. This the action itself is fairly simple, but the there are a few different uh pieces of of code and regulations in place. And so, there are a couple cases involved in this. So, if I'm jumping back and forth in case numbers is just to try to explain certain ones come into play and certain certain ones um um kind of relate to each other and how this all comes together. Okay. Uh kind of continuing with that background, the original approval, uh there was a a challenge in the design based on topography and the geography of the the subdivision that created a challenge with fire access. So the site, the overall subdivision is a peninsulaped um geometry and topography. It prevented meeting the two access separation requirement under the uh then

applicable IFC which was the 2012 version. U the 2012 IFC appendix D104.3 required a secondary access road at a distance of no less than 1/2 of the maximum diagonal dimension of the property from the primary access. So that was a standard that the site could not physically meet. Um you have to go find the primary access, find the furthest point from it and then basically your your two entrances have to be separated by half of that distance. So it varies by subdivision. So it's a formula you have to apply to each subdivision into individually and then work out what your separation requirement is. So, a secondary access route exists. Um, a secondary access exists on Overlook Estates edition. It existed at that time. It was intended to go across the Great Life uh golf and fitness property and connect up to the roundabout at MRy Mount Road. Um, the Overlook Estates edition plat actually platted an access easement on lot 11 of the subdivision, but that access just terminates at the boundary of the subdivision. that was never that was never followed through on to establish an easement across Great Life at that time uh because the remoteness of those two access points didn't meet the IFC. So uh like I said that secondary access route existed. It was a plan. It didn't get completed. Um the fire marshall granted a modification under the 2012 IFC section 104.8 eight for the remoteness requirement based on practical difficulties posed by the topography. So uh compliance with the 2012 IFC the two access roads required for developments uh exceeding 30 units was

achieved via an exception exception one which waved the two access requirement when approving when approved automatic fire sprinklers are installed in all dwellings. So, oh, that text is very small, but the real short timeline here of the case is on March 21st, 2023, the planning commission approved the final plat of the Overlook Estates edition, and that included a condition number 10 that required automatic fire sprinkler systems in all new dwellings in the subdivision. Then shortly thereafter, staff uh noted that these there's a state statute that actually prohibits that. So on prohibits the requirement of fire sprinklers in residential dwellings. So on April 18th, 2023, the planning commission repealed uh condition 10 uh that that was placed on the final plat approval because KSA 12-16219C prohibits municipalities from requiring sprinklers as a plat condition. Uh they then made new findings of fact that devel that the developer voluntarily offered a to record a restricted covenant requiring fire sprinklers in all dwellings within the subdivision. So that covenant was recorded on November 9th, 2023. And then in on November 4th, 2025, uh the planning commission adopted resolution number 25-01, which adopt or they adopted that modifying the conditions uh of approval for the plat to allow issuance of a building permit for vertical construction on lot to prior to the completion of a waterline loop is not related to the fire sprinklers. It's just a case history here. Um, prior to the completion of the waterline loop to

Markley Road. Then on December 22nd, 2025, the city commission adopted the 2018 International Fire Code via ordinance 25-11266, including a local amendment to section D104.3 establishing a flat three 300 ft minimum separation u standard for secondary fire apparatus roads. So essentially in December of last year, we adopted a new IFC and we made a local amendment at that point that just established a flat 300 ft distance that's required for fire access roads instead of having to apply that formula that was the half the diagonal distance of any subdivision. It's just a flat number now. So that is really what sets the groundwork for this request here is that change. Um, so the secondary emergency access road located is located on lot 11 of Overlook Estates Edition and it it carries you from Overlook Drive across lot 11 and it ends at the east boundary of Overlook Estates Edition which is adjacent to Great Life Golf and Fitness. Okay, try to pull up the Okay,

sure. Yeah, we'll we'll we have a graphic of the an easement that was recorded on Great Life and that one might show a little bit better here. So, we can look at that. So, there's a red line here on this graphic that we're looking at and there's a dashed vertical line there. So, to the west of that is the Overlook Estates Edition. Can you go down right there? So, right where that connects just to the west is lot 11 and there is an established access easement. Um, I believe it's 30 ft wide across lot 11 that gets you to Overlook Drive. So, we have the plat here just for reference. North Oh,

I'm trying to turn it so it works. You can just do it like that. It's fine. North is to There it is. Okay. North is up now. You want? So, this is looking at the access easement. There's a red arrow there that takes you over into Great Life Golf Fitness. You want to switch back there? So, then this establishes an access path that gets you through the Great Life Golf and Fitness parking lot uh and up to Marry Mount Road. So, you connect to a public street. So, it takes you up here to this roundabout. Yep.

So, the secondary emergency access road is located on lot lot 11 on the overlook estates edition plat and that connects over to Great Life Golf and Fitness. Then on February 5th of this year, uh there was a grant of permanent emergency access easement that was executed across the Great Life Golf and Fitness property by Pestinger Enterprises LLC. uh and that's been estab executed and recorded and that establishes a continuous 20 foot wide route for a fire apparatus um from lot 11 across Great Life property up to Mry Mount Road. So there is a connection from Overlook Drive across the that and up to Mry Mount Road. The separation distance between the primary entrance at the Riverrun Parkway and the secondary emergency access is approximately 1130 ft. And so un that 1130 ft does exceed the 300 ft minimum requirement under the new locally amended uh 2018 IFC. So that's just to establish that under the current code it does meet the requirement. Previously it did not. Um the applicant's request re is requesting release of the declaration of restrictive covenant and the basis is that the city's adoption of the 2018 IFC via ordinance 25-11266 and the local amendment to section D 104.3 eliminate the regulatory condition that necessitated that voluntary covenant. Um, the overlook estates edition now satisfies the two access separation standard by right under the currently adopted fire code and so the applicant wishes to withdraw the voluntary offer of the covenant that they previously had in place. Uh, the covenant's own terms require approval of both the planning commission

and the governing body of the city of Salina to to prior to any modification or release. And then in chapter 42 of the zoning regulations, the PDD provisions uh require more or less the same requirement, which is that covenants may be modified, removed or released only with the consent of the board of commissioners after a hub public hearing before and recommendations by the planning commission. So holding a public hearing and we have we would have to take a recommendation from the planning commission forward to the city commission for them to make a decision on this. This public hearing satisfies that procedural requirement and the planning commission's recommendation would be transmitted to the city commission for final action on the covenant release. Uh so the planning commission today is being asked to consider a single action with two related components. First is to determine whether the Overlook Estates edition now satisfies the fire apparatus access requirements of the sub subdivision regulations under the currently adopted 2018 IFC without the need for residential fire fire sprinklers. Second, based on that determination, uh the planning commission is considering adoption of resolution number 26-02, which memorializes a revised findings of fact and recommends that the city commission approve release of the recorded restrictive covenant uh requiring fire sprinklers in new dwellings. So the planning commission is not being asked to amend the PDD zoning ordinance. Uh and no changes to land use density setbacks or any other zoning conditions are are being proposed with this. Um, so as far as staff analysis, uh, adoption of the 2018 IFC, uh, including the local amendment to section D 104.3 is the changed condition that forms the basis of of this request, which is that a flat, uh, 300T minimum separation replaces the prior diagonal

formula. uh existing secondary access route now supported by the recorded um easement uh provides approximately 1130 ft of separation between the two access points for the subdivision which satisfies that 300t minimum requirement. The fire marshall has reviewed the proposal for for compliance with the 2018 IFC requirements and the fire lane designation requirements. So there is a memorandum in your packet from or that was that was uh sent out to you with this item uh that provides more detail on that from the fire marshall directly and essentially the fire marshall is is in support of approval subject to some conditions. Uh, the applicant states that the voluntary covenant was offered solely to address the 2012 IFC remoteness hardship, which has been eliminated by the 2018 IFC adoption. And staff agrees that continuing to require the covenant could impose an unnecessary burden that no longer is really supported by the the conditions of the regulations themselves. Um, the PDD modification process is is what is being followed here. We're somewhat we are looking at uh the findings of fact from the final plaque case here, but we're following a process that comes more out of the PDD uh part of chapter 42 because it requires a public hearing. So it has a slightly different standard than a typical final plat. So So just to kind of explain that part, we're holding a public hearing. you're looking at a final plat finding of fact. The approval of that does have some new conditions of approval wrapped in, but just a it's a little bit unusual as far as the the process we're going through here. Uh the subdivision's compliance with the subdivision regulations and the

currently adopted fire code is the substantive determination before the commission today. So, as far as staff's recommended findings, these are too small to see on the screen. We have nine findings. These are integrated into that resolution that's in front of you as well. So the original plat approval relied on a finding that the fire protection requirements under the subdivision regulations were satisfied through the voluntary sprinkler covenant accepted in lie of a fully conforming secondary access road under the 2012 IFC. Uh at the time of the original approval, the existing secondary access via the great via the Great Life property, which again that was a that was a plan to move forward with that, but that easement was only across Great Life was only established actually this year because that access didn't meet um the 2012 fire code. Uh so that that secondary access could not be satisfied at the 20 satisfy the 2012 IFC remoteness requirement. So it could not serve as the basis for meeting fire protection requirements without the sprinkler covenant at the time the final PL plat was approved. The adoption of the 2018 IFC uh including the local amendment establishes a flat 300 ft minimum and constitutes a changed regulatory condition that eliminates the the deficiency that necessitated the covenant in the first place. The existing secondary access road uh supported by the additional easement that was was granted um across Great Life provides an approximately 1130 foot separation between the two access points which satisfies the 300T minimum. Uh the fire marshall's memorandum com uh confirms that the secondary access route satisfies the applicable physical requirements of the 2018 IFC and the subdivision has adequate emergency and

fire apparatus access without residential fire sprinklers and the planning commission would find that the overlook estates edition satisfies the requirements of section 3654 through the existing secondary access road under the currently adopted fire code and that automatic fire sprinklers in dwellings are no longer necessary as a means of meeting those requirements. The declaration of restrictive covenant for the easement across Great Life uh requiring or I'm sorry, the declaration of restrictive covenant that required the automatic fire sprinklers in all dwellings is no longer necessary as a means of meeting the subdivision regulations. And resolution number 26-02 serves as a formal record establishing findings of fact that the overlook estates edition satisfies those subdivision regulations via the secondary access. And the last finding would be that the planning commission recommends that the city commission approve the release of the declar declaration of restrictive covenant consistent with the applicant's request and the findings established in resolution number 26-02. So with that again text is too small on your slides but I will go through the four alternatives that you have before you. Number one is to adopt resolution number 26-02 as presented with staff's recommended findings which again are incorporated into that resolution confirming that the overlook estates edition satisfies the requirements of the subdivision regulations through exi through the existing secondary emergency access road under the currently adopted fire code and recommend that the city commission approve the release of the declar de declaration of restrictive covenant recorded in book 1432 pages 980 through 983 consistent with the applicant's request and the findings established in resolution number 26-02.

Option two would be to adopt resolution number 26-02 with amendments subject to any conditions that the commission finds are necessary to ensure adequate access for emer for emergency services and fire protection purposes and recommend that the city commission approve the release of the declaration of restrictive covenant recorded in book 1432 pages 980 through 983 consistent with the applicant's request and the findings established in resolution number 26-02. Option three would be to postpone consideration of resolution number 26-02 to a specific future meeting date if the commission determines that additional information is needed from staff or the applicant to make an informed decision. Uh option four would be to deny adoption of resolution number 26-02 and recommend that the city commission deny the release of the declaration of restrictive covenant. This action would leave the original findings and the declaration of restrict restrictive covenant in full force and effect. If the commission chooses to deny the request, the commission needs to state the specific findings that support that denial. And as far as staff's recommendation, staff recommends approval of application M26-001. uh the adoption of the 2018 IFC uh including that local amendment does establish a flat 300 ft minimum and that essentially eliminates the the condition that caused them to need to place that voluntarily place that covenant in the first place. The existing SE emergency access road satisfies the separation requirement of the 2018 IFC and the fire marshall has reviewed the access route for compliance uh under the 2018 IFC and the request is supported by uh the information provided in the staff report and is consistent with the currently adopted fire code and the subdivision regulations.

With that, there are four conditions of approval that are recommended. Uh these are all based out of the fire marshall's memo and it would be that the maintenance and upkeep of the access road and gate shall be of the responsibility of overlook Estates and the great and great life golf and fitness. Number two, signage displaying no parking fire lane is required on the access gate prior to the completion of the first structure in the overlook estates edition. Number three, the fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support a minimum load capacity of 75,000 pounds and shall have an all-weather C driving surface. And number four is that fire lane markings shall be consistent with the existing markings uh uh used to used to designate no parking areas and that relates to some of the markings that are existing on at Great Life Golf and Fitness. Just making those consistent. With that, staff is available for any questions that you have and we do have the applicant here in the room who can speak to any other details.

Thank you, Dustin. Thank you, Dustin. Um, any specific questions for staff before we have the applicant come up? I have a question. Uh, Dustin, can you pull up a map for the to see kind of where that area actually is is at just to kind of clarify a point that I So, where is the entrance to the fire access at? Go ahead and go to the parking lot on Great Life. So, that line there, there's a there's an existing access easement right where his cursor is at. It's on the north side of that yellow line that's going east west. It's a 30 foot wide platted access easement on Overlook Estates Edition.

The the easement kind of exactly how Dustin's following that cursor. It goes up through that driving lane, goes up around there and connects into that driveway and takes you up the driveway to the north to MRy Mount Road. Okay. And then where is the entrance for the subdivision at? Yeah. Go zoom out a little bit. And it's where Riverrun Park I think it's Riverrun Parkway. Uh that roundabout to on on the left side of the screen there. Okay. And so that distance kind of between the two roundabouts, that's the no 1300 one to the west here down to where the ax the the platted access easement

there goes into there. Yeah. So if you think if you can see where the the roundabout is that would get you into the subdivision. When you had to apply that formula, you would have to take the distance all the way down to like the the south corner of the subdivision and then you have to take half that distance and that would have been the the separation requirement previously. That was the old that was under the 2012. Yes. And so the distance between the Overlook Drive roundabout and down to Great Life where the platted access easement was at that didn't satisfy that requirement. Okay. At that time

I guess I was just checking make sure that the entrance to both places were not in the same roundabout. That's where I was going. No, they're not. Okay. And it's really about getting you out of the subdivision. And so that path does bring you back up to Marry Mount Road, but there they are separate streets and and it's really about getting the the the entrances in and out of the subdivision for emergency access. Okay. Yeah. I just if it was in the same roundabout, that's where it didn't make sense to me. But since So So this just seems like a housekeeping type of a an action that we're just getting up with the modern fire code and we're we're making our our conditions meet what the modern fire code says. Is that right?

Yes. Yes. And we're we're not um you aren't actually going to be modifying you aren't modifying a condition of approval because that's that's why they had to remove one uh after the final plat approval. So that was incorporated as a finding of fact in your decision for the plat approval.

The thing is is the under chapter 36 there's 12 criteria that have to be met by a subdivision by for to approve the plat and it's actually at the preliminary plat stage. But your final plat review is making sure that it conforms to the preliminary plat and that all those requirements are met. So this became a chain of going back further and further to make sure that every piece of it was um was buttoned up uh because your findings of fact in in approving that final plat are really saying that it meets all of the subdivision regulations. And if we're going to allow them to remove that covenant without anything in place to establish that it meets the subdivision regulations, you you kind of run into a a problem. So what we're trying to do is is establish that whether or not whether you decide that it meets the subdivision regulations under the current code um which it to staff appears to to meet and um then you'll establish that finding of fact through that resolution which then gives them the justification needed to take forward to the city commission and have them decide on whether they release that covenant or not with with your recommendation. To clarify Commissioner Rogers's question, this culde-sac here is the south terminus of Mry Mount Road. And so the entrance to the Riverrun Edition and Overlook Estates comes off of this roundabout here. So this this would be if you were heading west, you'd be entering Riverrun Edition. And that would also take you to uh Overlook Estates, which is at the south end of Riverrun. And if you were to continue south, you would take the entrance into Great Life Golf Course and also the um

easement for the emergency access. So, you do have to go through the same roundabout area. You have to go through the same roundabout. Yes,

you do. But but that roundabout is not part of the of how you apply that fire code. Um, we're talking the the way that reads, the way the fire code is set up is it it's the access to the subdivision. And so that part where that road connects from Mry Mount over to the other roundabout is actually in Riverrun. So you could extend that out to say you had to take a same same road to go into two different entrances to any subdivision. It's uh this one's just closer. You're yeah, you're going down Marry Mat Road through this, but that's just not the way the fire code requirement is applied.

So, this is just semantics that actually is the entrance to this. It's not the entrance to the subdivision. It's not the entrance to Overlook Estates, but it's the entrance to the other, right? Which is actually the entrance to Overlook Estates. Yeah. Yeah. Um, you take the same road to get to it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So this here is the entrance to Overlook Estates. I guess I would disagree with that then if you if that's blocked then you can't get to any other point. So,

I think that was our discussion before when this originally came up was if this roundabout is blocked, there's there's zero access that that emergency access point would be moot because you couldn't get to either access point.

Um, chomping at the bit. Uh let's uh let's hear from the applicant or Mr. Lee representative from the applicant there.

Good afternoon and commission. Thank you for allowing us to be here today. So clearly through this development, the original intention was always to use the same secondary access that was granted for Riverrun, right? The roundabouts always been adequate. As the fire marshall would be happy to tell you, you there's two sides to go around a roundabout. There's there's no blocking them. They're they're going to get through. there's zero issue on in their opinion um and elsewhere where you have two sides to go through there's no possibility of them being blocked by that. So they they have zero issue with that. The only reason we added this condition or this covenant I guess is what we had to change it to um was because the code was not current at the time. So for us to move forward, we had to add that covenant with a mechanism to remove it once code was updated and our secondary access the same one Riverrun uses um was was within code. So you know we have already built the access road. We did that initially under the assumption that would eventually be an access road. We went and helped the city secure the easement to the secondary entrance. Um certainly feel like we have done everything that we should and um eyes dotted, tees crossed. Uh again, I see the fire department is here today. I'm sure they would be happy to give their input, but they have certainly reviewed it, signed off on it, and believe that it 100% meets code without question.

And you're okay with the four conditions that they've laid out for this? We are absolutely accept accepting of the four conditions. Yes, sir. Do you know if that signage is on that gate already? The no parking signage and fire lane? I currently I I do not know. I know that apologize. I should have driven by to look at it myself. From from there up, that's been our responsibility. We did meet the weight standard of the newest fire engine um to make sure that there was all weather surface there and that we meet those requirements and we engineered that in from the beginning. Um again, secured the easement to there. Um, and of course to have a sign up, we can we can meet that condition very quickly.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Lee? Thank you. Thank you everybody. Uh, and I I do see the fire department representative here and I would welcome his input on this as well.

Uh, good afternoon. Joe Kassic, fire marshall. Um, so I guess one, um, piece to this that access road was already put in for the Overlook estates. Um, it was designed that way when Overlook or not Overlook, uh, Riverrun. Um, it was there. It wasn't improved to what they've improved it to now. Um, so to go back to the question of going through that same roundabout when Riverrun was established, they're doing the exact same thing. It's always been our access. So my confusion and you know, how is this any different now that we're adding 12 lots, 11 lots? Um, and now we can't use that same access road that we had before for the other houses prior to this because it was all it used to all be Riverrun until they split that. Um, so it's been established, it's been that way since Overlook or Riverrun was even platted. Um, so that was one reason why. um we're okay with that. The other um side of that is we've had discussions with the ICC, the International Code Council, um specifically on the half the distance of the diagonal. Um and from the people on those committees, they tell us that um is designed and works for square or rectangle lots. And

when we have oddshaped lots like this one and a few others in town, it blows that um uh formula just to pieces. and you really can't um apply that to some of these and we've always tried to. Um so that's kind of where we went to the 300 ft. 300 ft is a standard um separation distance that we have downtown and other places. Um you know we went through BAB subcommittees public hearings with um no issues with that and support on it. Um, and I can tell you last night, um, I received a phone call from the National Fire Sprinkler Association, uh, specifically on this issue. Um and they are in support of of it also because um we didn't do concessions like a lot of places would do when they put the sprinkler requirement on. Uh if you a lot of times when you put the sprinkler requirement for houses onto some somebody's um covenants or whatever um you're able to have less hydrants. You can space your hydrants out further. Um you can narrow your streets. Um your fire flows could go down. You know, they have several things that um you could put as um will let you do this if you put sprinklers in. We didn't do that from the get-go. Um, and so they are very pleased with the size of lines, uh, water line that's already up there, uh, water flow, uh, the loop being put in,

um, and that we didn't take any concessions. So, um, to have a phone call, an hour conversation with representatives from the National Fire Sprinkler Association supporting this also is is another, um, reason why it's no heartburn to us. As far as the roundabout goes, um to block the entire roundabout, um one side to the other, um there's really nothing up there that's going to do that. If there is, um we've said it multiple times, we're going to push, pull, uh drag, cut, whatever we have to do to get around it. Um drive through a yard, whatever. Um, it's hard to stop our guys. Um, I'm sure at some point somebody probably could do it, but they're going to have a fight on their hands um to keep us from from getting there. Um, and as far as an EMS call, um, the ambulances always have backup from the fire trucks and battalion chiefs and chiefs of staff. Um, if we had to pull something out of the way, it wouldn't be the first time because we have pulled vehicles from places they shouldn't be with our vehicles already. So,

very good. Anything else I can answer for you? Yeah. Any other questions? Go ahead. You're you're happy with the distance between the two access points? Yeah, that's uh the 1100 ft is more than what we have most other places. And you're happy with the construction of the access, the secondary access? Yes, it they've improved it. Um, prior to when if when it was just um riverr run, right, it was gravel and it had some wash outs in it and it wasn't in the best shape and they have improved that tremendously from what it was. And you're happy with the gate that's that's there. That's

correct. Yep. Yep. It's that gate's been there for years and years. Um the only other thing that I was going to discuss with them um Mr. Pinger called me today about a lock on the gate and so we might just add number five to that list of putting a Knox lock on that gate so we can have access to it. So and everybody else just can't use it for general access. So, um, but that'd be one that, um, Mr. Pestinger brought up this morning. Makes sense. And Mr. Lee, you'd be okay with that? 100%. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Just to give the commission a heads up if you if you wanted to incorporate that fifth condition, what we might suggest is to look at option two where it's approving it with an amendment and we would uh edit that resolution, incorporate that condition if you feel that you want that to go into your decision and we'll have the vice chair sign that resolution um you know after we edit it. Yeah. I'd think we could just make the motion with with that e extra condition, couldn't we? Well, it has to be.

Yeah. Yeah. So, your So, your action is really about approving the resolution either as written right now in front of you or as amen as amended, however you direct us to amend it. So, so the the findings that I went over and the conditions of approval that I mentioned from from the fire marshall, those are those are in the resolution itself. We were trying to have one, you know, clean way of of forwarding all of this from you to memorialize that, you know, for the plat for the subdivision itself, but also to take forward to the city commission with along with how you vote on the recommend along with your recommendation to them. So, yes, you're you're right. But I would I'm just saying that I would suggest doing option two. You can still vote and act on it just with option two with the direction of how you want to amend it. And if that is to amend it with added condition five, then then we will get that done. Um it may be best to work out the exact language of that. um if you have any feelings on anything different from what Joe um said and then we would update that resolution and we would get it signed and but you would still act on it right now.

Go.

Yeah. So Lauren just director of community development services just for a little technical protocol. So you can take like a fivem minute recess and let staff work through that language. But in speaking with a fire marshal in the back, if what you're seeking is a fifth condition to simply require a knockbox pad a Knox box padlock be associated with the access to that road. Somebody could literally say, I make a motion that there's a fifth condition added to that body acts on that condition. you'd make a motion to amend the resolution to section three to include those pieces and then you'd now have amended resolution and you could adopt said amended resolution. And I will say it's a little different to have both the covenants being addressed and you're acting on the plat. So that's one of the reasons staff kind of bundled those together in one resolution. The difference between an ordinance and a resolution is a resolution is you as a supporting board in this case to the city commission. It's your voice and it's very specific. Sometimes a motion and a set of minutes is not enough to specifically capture all the pieces. So that's really what the resolution does. It gives you all the leadup the where's and then at that bottom part it says now therefore what are those things exactly that you're amend you're recommending to the body. So those are all highlighted and packaged very clearly there. It makes a very good record.

I concur what she said. So if it's that simple that you would like to include or require that a Knox box padlock be used for the gate to the emergency access road, somebody can literally make that motion. Okay. Um Mr. Chairman, my battering average is pretty good here today, so I'm going to take another swing at this one. That's okay. That's right. Um I I would make a motion that we amend application or resolution number 2602 to add a fifth requirement, which would be the addition of a Knox box. That's the first part. A Knoxbox padlock.

Knox padlock. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second to amend resolution 2602 to add a Knox box padlock as condition number five. All in favor? I I Any opposed? And that carries. Okay. So, the amendment or the resolution is now amended. Next step.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the planning commission adopt resolution number 2602 with staff's recommended findings confirming that the overlook estates edition satisfies the requirements of the subdivision regulations through the existing secondary emergency access road under the currently adopted fire code and recommend that the city commission approve the release of the declareration of restricted covenant recover recorded in book 1432 pages 980 through 983 of the salina Selen County Register of Deeds consistent with the applicant's request and findings established in resolution number 2602. Second that.

All right, we have a motion and a second uh to adopt resolution 2602 uh as amended. All in favor? I I. Any opposed? And that carries as well. Nice work. Thank you, Mr. Driscoll. All right, that takes us to the end of our business on my agenda. Any unfinished or other business needs to be brought up? We do not have any other unfinished business. Um,

I wanted to bring up one thing. Um, I don't know if this is the position of the planning commission or or what needs to be done, but the intersection of Schilling and Ohio is getting more and more dangerous uh with the traffic that is going through there right now. Uh, with the new subdivisions being built out, I I don't know if if we could recommend a traffic study or recommend uh some type of traffic control or what have you down in that area. I will be willing to see what direction needs to be going from there.

Mr. Chair, commissioners, Lauren Driscoll, director of community development services. Again, maybe one place to start is even to add just a non-action item of business to your next agenda where maybe representation from public works comes to talk to you about that intersection. There are things that the city has adopted such as long-range transportation plan and other components that would at least give you some background and then from there maybe more exploratory work or specific direction or communication to the city commission. Yes, we could do that as like a preliminary discussion item on the next uh meeting if you want. Is that what you're Yeah, I think that'd be a good spot to start

motion for that or just just address. I'm writing a note down and and we can get that on. Thank you both of you. I'd like to make a comment as well. I u reading through well downloading this packet onto my computer was quite an extensive thing and and I can just imagine we've saved about 20 copies of War and Peace and paper, you know, over over this. I I love the fact that we're using laptops now. Thank you very much.

Yeah. Anybody else? And just give you a heads up, we do have a couple cases, a couple applications for the next meeting. Uh we have two resonings. Um one of them is going to be a reasonzoning from a regular commercial to planned commercial and then we do have one preliminary PDD application. So yeah, and that'll be for April, correct? April 7th. 17. All right. I would accept a motion of adjournment. So move second. All in favor? I I you are ajourned. Thank you guys.