Planning Commission - Special Meeting

She can talk.

She's gonna come up. Oh,

I'd like to call the January 5th meeting of the Spring Hill Planning Commission to order. And uh first first item is uh call to order. Pledge of Allegiance, please. To the flag of America and to the republic for it stands nationisible for all. Thank you. Roll call.

Miss Dobson, Mr. Airheart. Mr. Mitchell here. Mr. Aravalo here. Miss Kier here. Mr. Sly here. Miss here. Mr. Morris. Chairman, we have a quorum. Thank you. I'd like to call for uh review and approval of the agenda.

I'll make a motion to approve the agenda as it stands. Second.

Second. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. citizen participation. We usually have uh an opportunity for citizens to talk about any of the uh that might be of interest to the uh planning commission. I don't believe we have anybody signed up. If there's any of you that want to speak during the uh uh hearings, feel free to let us know. Thank you. Uh the first item on the agenda is a public hearing uh related to Spring Hill Car Wash.

Oh, sorry. I'd like to open the the hearing on that particular item and a discussion by uh our city planner.

Good evening. Uh Ian Trefer, city planner. Uh this evening I'm presenting application oops got to have myself. Uh CU um uh CU25-2 and SP25-9 a conditional use application with site plan uh for the Spring Hill Car Wash located at 1908 Madison Street. The applicant is proposing a 100 foot long car wash. Uh they're at the norththeast corner of Madison Street 191st. Uh the applicant is David Escov of Escov Architecture with the engineering enterprises and the owner of the property Quick and Clean Incorporated. Uh the subject property is about an acre in size uh with the building itself being about 4,300 uh square feet. Uh the application meets all development standards that are set forth in the unified zoning ordinance. Uh looking at the surrounding properties, uh the location where this property is uh centered is predominantly commercial in nature. Uh it has commercial C2 zoning districts to the northeast and south with M1 industrial to the west across Madison Street. Um the only thing really of note for this application in terms of development review was the landscaping. Um because this project is of a similar land use, the way that our zoning code is worded, it does not require landscape buffering between it. Um so because of that, you won't see that along the north and eastern sides. Uh but they do meet all landscaping requirements that are set forth. Otherwise, it just does not have that buffering standard applied to it. Um in terms of the architectural uh provided uh the building is primarily constructed out of CMU bricks it's noted as having gray and black bricks with matching route as well as ephus which is tentatively listed as gray. Um other than that that's all that there really is to say. So I'll see for any questions.

Um first question I have is is it what is it on the other side like north of Moody's? I'm trying to get a bird's eye view exact. There's two spots there. It's where? Okay. Just trying to get get a handle on where it's at over there. So, directly east directly east of across from the entertainment venue. Yeah. There. Well, the the fireworks stand. Oh, from Meadow. Okay. Directly east of Metal. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Yeah. So, it's this this property located right here,

right? Okay. Gotcha. Okay. Is there there is no landscaping required along 191?

Uh there is landscaping provided along 191st. Uh there's standard yard tree requirements which Oh, did I just break it? I don't know what I did. Yeah, I did. Oh, it just needs to be swapped back over. Thank you so much. Yes. So, there is landscaping provided there. It's kind of hard to see, but it's those light circles south of the park, south of the drive aisle. Uh those are trees provided as well as some shrubs throughout. Um so, there is there are trees provided along 191st and uh Webster or sorry, not Webster, Madison. Can you talk to me about the filtration system and oil and gas separators and what type of chemicals we're using? What type what I mean? Tell me about that part of all of this, please.

Yeah, I can't speak too much to that. That'd be more of a building code side of things. Um, I do know that they'll have to meet the building code as it's designed. I'm not sure if that try. So, um they have an oil and grease interceptor that's kind of like what you would see like in a restaurant that had like oil or something that uh with the deep fat fryer. They have um a containment unit that is going to take all of that and um take that to the wastewater. Okay. Say that again. It will take it to the wastewater or

Yeah, it will be treated within the um and maybe the applicant can um expand a little bit more on it, but it is going to be separate from the storm water uh system. So, it will be captured in this uh separator system that will specifically, you know, uh take it to the the wastewater system after it has treated it. I didn't help, did I? No.

Let's let the applicant talk a little bit more about it. The fact that um this is no different than any other car wash that um they have to have their own containment units um correct to take on the SSI water and everything and they have their own containment unit, but there's several different styles and types. I've set through a class on that. So, I'm very curious as to what we're using and how that's going to

that will be reviewed by our uh building official. Um, GBA will be taking a look at that uh in depth to make sure that it meets all the building codes and meets all the requirements uh whenever this goes to uh final permit. We'll see what he can educate. Thank you. Yes. I'm just saying if there's any notes in here that might speak to that a little bit. There was nothing that I could find looking through the packet. Okay. Yeah, it was okay. Because I just know there's several different styles of that and different things that can happen. Is it Oh, mind stepping up real quick?

Oh, that'd be perfect. Yeah. Thank you so much.

Thank you. David Esco as um so we haven't gotten into I the civil engineer is not here but yes we will have a sand oil separator and typically it's a multi-tered sister system that allows to flow to the top to be se sucked out the the sand and soil sediment to go to the bottom so that you're getting clean water. Um again that'll be taken care of during the permit portion. We don't usually get that in depth during the planning phase, but yes, we'll meet all applicable codes and requirements for um state and local. Okay. I just would be very curious of what type of drainage system we're using, whether we're using slots or um if there's a paddle system, what we're doing with runoff, what we're doing with chemicals. Um, we went through all of this with the other car wash that came into town and um just would like to have more insight on what's going to happen

than us meeting the code requirements. Yep. And just just to be clear what your all's role tonight is is I understand. Right. So I understand that the details and whether it meets code, whether that section of the code is something you all would prefer to be a little different or above and beyond is not part of our application and consideration before,

not to be disrespectful, but we've also gone through some other code issues that some of the planning commissioners current and former had questions with. So I it's fair only fair to question what they're going to do when we were able to question another facility that went through the same planning process.

You all are welcome to ask questions. Part of the reason that there aren't answers at this stage is that as he's identified, the applicant has identified at this that's the next step past the planning phase and into our our code phase. The good the good thing is the engineering the conditions of approval for the engineering section are very nice and well written out. One of the things says uh prior to issuance of the permit provide a copy of the signed permit from KDHE approving the industrial storm water permit and also have a copy of the storm water pollution prevention plan outlined. Right? So that'll

it's helpful but when I read when even when I was reading through that prior to doing homework, it doesn't give you a looked it up. It doesn't even give you a lot of detail as to what we're talking about that I was able to find. So, I'm just curious. I had a question about the topographical map. It shows the building on the south side instead of north side. Was that going to make any change for you're talking cut fill on the site? Yes. Um, we'll have minor cut and fill, but it should, it's a fairly level pad site. So, the topographical map shows the building on the south side of the parking lot instead of the north side. And so, that's why I was asking

um all the other all the other maps show it on the north side. And so, I'm just It is on the north side. We originally had it on the south side. I figured that was probably the case. Yes. So, I was just asking if there's going to be any significant changes after that. No. Okay. Any other questions? Would you like to add anything else to I have nothing. I'm just here for answering questions. Okay.

Thank you. Uh is there anybody in the audience that would like to comment on this uh particular item? No. Okay. Then we're uh the members asking for further clarification. Anything else? If not, I'll close the public hearing at this point and members can deliberate or ask other questions regarding this item. If there are no other comments, stand for motion. Close the public hearing. We can now enterain a motion. You said it's the yellow. Okay. I move to recommend approval the conditional use permit with site plan subject to the condition that city staff shall conduct an annual review of the use and site and provide a written report of that review to the planning commission.

Second it. Uh we'll take a ro on the left. I I I I I 508.

Uh next item is uh open a public hearing on preliminary plant uh or Woodland Ridge subdivision. Are there any uh of the commissioners that have exparte contacts with the uh agent? Not resigning, right? Oh, okay. Any conflict of interest, staff?

Perfect. Yep. So this is application Z25-4 PP25-7, a resoning and preliminary plot application for Woodland Ridge, which is located at 207th in Woodland Road. The uh applicant is requesting approval of a reszoning from R1 and R2 to RP1. Um I'll kind of start with the resoning component and then I'll move over to the uh primary plat. So when it comes to the resoning itself, the subject property is located uh directly adjacent to uh R1 single family to the east, uh rural residential in the county to the south, uh M1 industrial to the west across Woodland Road, and then uh rural residential uh to the north across 207th once again in the county. Um, in terms of the golden factors are laid out by Golden. City of Overland Park, the 1978, uh, Kansas Supreme Court case. Uh, the staff report goes over each of the different factors that weigh into staff's decision to recommend approval or denial for application, including things such as Jason zoning, neighborhood character, uh, public gain, and things of that nature. Um, I can kind of get into each of those if it's requested, but the long and short of it is this application does meet all the standards that have been laid out and the staff does not have an issue with this resoning request. Um, moving over to the preliminary plat, the applicant is seeking approval of 158 single family lots and approximately 58.87 acres of land. Um with that the pro or the lots themselves vary in width uh between 50 feet and uh above the minimum standard set by the R1 zoning district of 75 ft. Uh specifically the ratio is 44 lots at 50 uh foot width, 94 lots at 60 foot and then 20 that are at or above that minimum. Um water service is going to be provided by Johnson County Water One and

sewer by the city of Spring Hill. Um important to note that there are a number of modifications being requested along with this application. Uh specifically those reductions in lot width, lot area and front and side setbacks. Um specifically the lot area reduction is going from 9,000 square feet as the minimum in the R1 zoning district to 6,400 as the smallest found in the subdivision. In terms of front setbacks, it goes from 35 foot front to 25 foot minimum. And uh for sideyard setbacks, there's a standard that says that you have to have at least 7 foot sideyard setback or 20% of the total width of the lot. The applicant seeking just five foot sideyard setback flat. So there's no uh modifying based off the width of the lot. Um associated with these modifications that are requested. Staff worked with the applicant. We were able to come to a nice agreement where we uh found some additional things that went above and beyond what the zoning code requires. So namely the applicant has provided uh substantially more open space than is required by ordinance. Uh within the code uh if a reduction in lot area is requested at least 15% of the property must be dedicated as open space and 50% of that open space must be considered active. Uh the applicant provided significantly more than that with amenities such as soft uh playgrounds, a pond, lots of trails, trees. In addition to that, um, additional concessions that were granted include additional landscaping within that open space, specifically around areas such as the play surface and, uh, benches along the trail, uh, as well as additional trees along Woodland Road uh, to the east or west. And then lastly, uh, they widen sidewalks from 4 foot as the standard to 5 foot. It's still on one side except for along well, just one side in general because there's no collectors within this, but they w them So, uh, because of that, staff was willing to support something like this

where there's a a give and take between the applicant and the city to have modifications, but then also gain some additional public benefit from that. Uh, other than that, the elevations that are provided, it's important to note these are not hard set elevations. These are conceptual in nature. The applicant can speak to the actual um business strategy specifically, but my understanding is that these lots are not intended to be built by the applicant. Uh so this grants some leeway for the ultimate home builders to uh kind of flex with market demands. That being said, uh the buildings will have to maintain these major design motifs. They can't radically alter what they're going to be building. Uh but this is more of a conceptual set of elevations provided rather than a hard set. This is the only thing that's going to be built. So, if there's any questions about that, I can defer to the what that looks like in in practicality. Um, but at the end of the day, uh, staff does recommend approval for this application. I'll stand for any questions. Thank you.

The the letter was good. Uh, I noticed some uh, and the table's always good, right, to show I noticed they had an error in it. It says RP2. It should be RP1. Oh, the minimum lot size for RP1 is 5,500, right? Uh, so you're trying to compare their minimum lot size to what you're reszoning to RP1, right? I think what they were saying with that is that the standards that they're proposing are that of the RP2 district. So the RP2 district has smaller lot size. Oh, what's what's the RP1? I forgot. Uh RP1 is just base R1. So it would be that square area is it sorry. Um the for the R1 zoning district or for what

RP1? RP1 is it has the same base uh lot area requirements. All the standards are the same as R1. The RP just grants the ability to seek modifications. Oh, I thought I thought it was smaller. Yeah, it it it actually just inherits that of the base zoning district, but then grants the option to there's a table in our code that has a bunch of standards, but it's very misleading because those aren't actually the standards. It's just recommended standards, but it actually inherits the Bay zoning district. See, I thought R1 minimum lot size was 9,000 square feet. It is one is smaller, right? Yeah, it's it's misleading like that. I realized that like time somebody changes RP1. It's because they want a smaller lot size,

right? That's kind of the main reason. Yeah. Okay. I didn't have any questions. What is the minimum width of these lots? Uh the smallest come down to 50 foot width. 15 foot 50. Y it's a small lot. Yeah, that's why I was looking at that table. It's got 50 for the lots width the setback 25 and 20. So I thought that was comparing the RP1 and that they're Oh yeah, I see. I see what you're saying. And

I think it says something like that in our comprehensive plan. We'll have to look summary is for that. Can you tell me where I'm missing the materials that they plan to use for the homes?

Um, so there's not there's like LP sighting listed here. It's on the elevations themselves. Um, I didn't really get into specifics because it was more about massing the materials. Uh, because the builder or the developer is not going to be the builder. I didn't really get into that information. Um, certainly if that's something that you want to setting a condition for if there's certain materials something that can be discussed but um as of now there's not a hard set material standards and these are the only four home styles

so these are just conceptual so it's these aren't the home styles are going to be built this is going to be a guide for what will come so the idea here is that in the future say market trends adapt and instead of having um I don't know the same gables uh it's a different style with no gables. They still have the latitude to change that, but not go so crazy as to have a contemporary postmodern Cuba's house. That's not what we're used to doing. I understand. And this was at the request of the applicant, so they're welcome to speak to this a little bit more, but this is something that is is getting more common throughout the area.

The plan development, that's the privileges of that's the privilege that we have is being able to know that this is a house style that we want. This is a home style that we do not want. This is home style that goes along with our comp plan. Um, we've rejected home styles up here before. Sure. And that you still have the latitude to do that. Um, this is just how do how do we have the latitude to do that if we don't have the home styles in front of us? Well, sorry about that. You're you're giving us a generalization. You're not giving us home styles. Well, I think we're getting ahead of ourselves because it's prezoning and a preliminary plat. Then we go into a site plan for We will not. So, this will this will final plat after this. So, well, this this is the time to talk about it.

I see. This is it. We don't know the materials. We don't know our home styles. This is way different than anything that we've approved under a under under an RP before. We've not done this. Yeah, that's been the that's been our Yeah, we've always had a site. Yes, that's been our privilege of having that that's one of the benefits to a planned unit. No, I know the site plan is usually what's brought before us before after the preliminary plat and final platter approve. We typically don't get Yeah. Right.

It is a deviation from how things are typically done. I will say this sort of general guideline for residential developments, I kind of alluded to before, it is becoming more common throughout the Casey area and that's understandable if that's something not something that you're comfortable with or something that you want to avoid and certainly we'll take that under adisement for future projects. We'll come back with that. Um, but at this moment, you know, you have the option to to have that opinion and definitely

I'll be real honest with you. If the if the planning commission does not have a say on the uh look who decides who decides so staff will review the building permits as they come through um and to some extent it's it's a matter of looking at the bulk form masting of the buildings themselves which is what we'll be basing our decisions off of as permits come through um and at that point when the permits come through administratively if it's determined that the buildings are so far off and beyond the pale of what was intended to be approved at the time planning commission, they'll be rejected or they'll be required to go back through for a new approval with new sets of elevations to match what they're proposing.

I think that's what he ask is who's making that decision? Staff is like myself. Okay. The building tax is that Amy or is that inspectors? Is that it's building permit tax? So, whoever is doing the building permit review, they'll have these elevations on hand and it'll be there'll be a call that's made and that's something that we can certainly talk about with having more oversight within the department itself, which we're getting a director. Certainly something that we can do. We've done that in past cities I've worked for. We've had staff like myself, planners, permit techs, review those permits as they come through. Yeah, we've never bypass the site plan before. That's understandable.

I mean, we've we've been given home pictures, home drawings before that we've that have come through staff, planning department, whoever presented by the developer, whomever that we've set up here and said this does not meet what we believe the heart of the comp plan was or what we are asking for in our communities. So, I'm real uncomfortable just giving a nod to I I guess what I'm trying what we're trying to understand is so you've given us four general ideas here. All of them show some sort of rock in the front. So if they didn't have rock in the front, would that mean that it would be significantly different?

Not necessarily. So if there's an inclusion of materials that are present here, that would be okay. Um so if instead of having Well, I guess actually in this case, yes, because there's rock coursing along that base. Let me back it up here. No, you're okay. You're okay. You said you're giving us a generalization. I should defer to understand what you're what you're saying because when it comes to what is going to be the intended I'm going to defer to the applicant if they're present. Yeah. Why don't why don't we have the applicant speak at that section of the public hearing and then after you have heard from the applicant, we can come back to you all and keep working through things rather than as much as I love watching Ian guess.

This is only the second hearing, guys. I don't mean to be disrespectful because No, no, I completely understand. Yeah, we are getting used to you. You're getting used to us and there's a a give and take there, but yeah, this is something I'm really uncomfortable. Sure, absolutely. I understand. So, so is it all or I mean, so is it all or nothing? Like can't just do rezoning and then typically the public hearing is for the reasonzoning, correct? So, in this case, yeah, I don't know if you're So, when you reszone to a plan district that comes with this type of development site plan, I think what way are we on here? So again the question is all or nothing like you don't do the reszoning first you do you have to approve the resoning and the preliminary plan. It came in to us that way with with the designs.

So in this case yes not really the way we've been doing. Yeah. In this case, we've been on this for going on uh seven years and we've always approved the the plan first and then the resoning and the reasoning rather and then we approve the plan. So, and we're open-minded, but Cindy's been here how many years? Sure. Don't tell. Have you ever seen this process before? Okay. It's been a long time.

Sure. So, I will say with the resoning to a plan district, kind of like what Spencer was referencing there, these two do come together. The final plot will come separate, but since this is resoning to a plan district, it has to come with that plan. So, that's why you're seeing both them together. That's why they're kind of they're joined at the hip. It's hard. You can't remove them from one another. Uh so, in this case, yes, the reasoning is necessarily tied to that that plan that you've got before you. Okay. So certainly one option here would be to uh just provide options. Tabing the item to a future date and then having a further discussion with staff and the applicant can certainly be something that can happen here. Um so it's not like you have to make a decision of yes or no immediately. There's still options that are kind of a third route. So I just want to put that out there as well.

I have a question. When was this um land originally zoned R1 and R2? Um, I'll be honest. I tried to find and I could not find that information. So, I'm not entirely certain. It's long time. Yeah.

Okay. Is this So, I know um the housing edition is at Fox Hollow across the street on 7th. That's not the same developer or anything is this. Okay. Um Okay. Sorry. I'm just trying to get clarity. Make make sure I'm What's going on here? Is it I guess the question would be if I can ask what the reasoning for changing the zoning is like what the desire. Yeah. So what

from R2? Yeah. Yeah. R1 and R1. So with from R2 like So with the current zoning district since it's base zoning just flat zoning they do not have any ability to seek modifications. In order to grant modifications it has to be resoneed to a plan district but yeah in this case they're reszoning to RP1 just to consolidate that zoning district but then granting

well we've always looked at it as and this is just and Spencer's familiar with this but we've always looked at it as it's better because we have even though it's smaller lot size we have more control over it. we have more control of the aesthetics of how it looks, you know, as long as it's with within code, but they have to come and improve the site plan. That's why we always like the reasoning RP1, not just so they can have lot smaller lot sizes and put on a general, you know, house. Yeah. With a slab underneath. So, it's like we we've always had Yeah. You know, a lot more detail.

That's certainly Yes. That's your prerogative as the planning commission to have have that desire. That's good for me to know. You're okay. You're okay. If we don't have any more questions of you, why don't we have the applicant please come up?

Good evening, planning commission. My name is Harold Phelps, Phelps Engineering, 1270 North Winchester. Been here once or twice u and uh obviously've seen a number of these as well. And I I just want to make sure everybody understands maybe we can answer some of the questions that are being asked. uh the project. Uh so I do have Caleb George with me here as well uh with uh Chris George Custom Homes. They started the project in about 2003. Uh so and they have been there the entire time. It's not changed hands. They've continued to to go and develop the property uh as what's out there today. The intent here is not to just go smaller lots. The intent here is to get rid of the duplex lots. So, it's currently zoned for duplexes. Uh, and that's not the market that they want to build or that is really that the customer wants today. Uh, the customer wants a freestanding uh freestanding home. Keep in mind, we are transitioning from industrial uses across Woodland. Uh, and then then we have the creek and then we come up the hill uh to the the existing subdivision at the top of the hill. We are transitioning the the lots that back up to the existing subdivision will be R1. So those are the ones that are staying R1 and the same size lots as what's adjacent to them. Uh at the very north end uh along 207 Street we have about 45 lots I believe that are the 50 foot lots and then uh the rest of the lots from there south are the 60 foot lots. and really trying to do u the idea is to develop different markets uh so that everything isn't all 75 foot lots uh we have some 50s 60s and 75s uh because as you all seen the 75s have not moved real quickly uh so you know and I think I

think you all have seen a number of times now uh almost all the plans now are coming in in plan district now uh to Msquire's point uh the building elevations uh we are giving you know we're just being honest with you when we say these are examples okay because because uh Chris George Custom Homes is not going to build all these houses okay so to dictate what houses a another builder is going to build is really pretty difficult uh but the intent was to give you a good example uh of the houses and architectural style that will be built. Uh right now, you know, I think maybe the difference between this subdivision and maybe some of the others uh is this subdivision all right now has basements. Um and they intend to build basements. Uh so I understand the point. You know, a plan district, we're required to come in and give you the houses that we're going to build. The problem with that is is we're not a national builder uh that has six houses that they build and that's all they build. Uh we're going to have three or four builders in there. They're all going to build a different house. Uh so the idea is is we've got and and not to say you don't uh but we've got confidence in this in the staff u they look at this plan uh and look at the materials the type of the house uh and we know what the expectation is and uh if it doesn't meet if it doesn't meet this expectation then they won't they won't permit the house. So with that I hope I've answered the questions that were asked specifically but I have a I have one. You mentioned that and so did Ian that there would be other builders besides the the George family.

If I was to come in and say I'm going to come in and I want to bring my own builder, is that allowed as well or is it just three or four or five pre-approved builders that would be in there? Do you know? I'm gonna let answer that. Yeah, I'm happy to answer a few questions. Sure. Sure. I'm just curious because that that would also help with understanding how strict we get and how lenient we get. Uh just like Caleb George, Chris George Homes, uh 1595 54 uh sweet 207. Um in regards to that, the goal would be to have two or three builders and have it remain a closed community where they are the exclusive builders.

A lot of that depends on lot velocity and market. Um, up until now, up until nine months ago, we were the exclusive builders out there. We built, right,

220 houses. It was supposed to be a 10-year plan and we're on year 20. Um, but, you know, we're following the market. Um, we do not specialize in this home, these homes anymore, and we found a really good partner who's selling houses out there for us currently, and he's looking for more places to build. And, um, so we're excited. We're trying to keep some runway in front of them and get some momentum. Um, we do we as developers have final say in terms of like materials like we don't allow vinyl sighting. I mean, there's a lot of stuff currently in place with the with the HOA. We're going to continue that because we do whether the footage gets smaller or the price point, you know, if we hit can hit different price points. We still want the home aesthetically to look the same and to look like we personally I would not allow like a modern home or something, you know, because it doesn't fit the neighborhood. From when we started this, maybe our first, you know, HOA meeting with when we had a couple, you know, you know, 50 buyers or owners, they were concerned about the duplexes. I've had a million conversations about duplexes and always just being like, "Hey, we don't know what it's going to be like when we get there. we don't know what the market's going to be like. We just we I can't commit to not putting duplexes in. But that was the concern that we heard over and over. So to to us when we engaged Herold, we were very excited for this to be an option, you know, in terms of like, hey, this is a really good buffer that keeps the integrity of the community. Um we can rely on good local builders. Um again, we would love to come in and say, "Hey, we're going to take down 100 lots." I mean, this is going to be 25 30 lots, you know, 40. I mean, it's not going to be we, you know, it's not going to be just rolling out and putting up a 100 homes in a year. Like, it is going to be just hopefully slow, you know, steady and in a good pace. Um, so again, I we are excited about the opportunity, but I understand now even hearing this like, you know, I understand every other RP1

you've seen has been probably more builder or developer builder combination partners that already had everything aligned. We just aren't I mean, I couldn't even our builder right now. I mean, he could we could put plans that he's planning on building, but you know, for him to be like, I'm going to come in and build 20 of these in, you know, 2027. He couldn't commit to that. I mean, we could tell you, but it just there's no I mean, yeah. So, um, again, we we've been building in Spring Hill since I think Victory Woods in 1997. So, we've been out here for a really long time. Um and and this is a kind of a legacy pro project for us to to finish off as developers u because it makes more sense with our current business model. So

help me remember do and Mr. Phelps may remember as well. Didn't all of this come in at the same time with our different zonings because we had planned on I remember were you here when Woodland came in? Yeah, I was. I was gonna say I think you're right there on that teeter. We had we had this piece up against Woodland and 207 down there. We had that in the original scope, did we not? In the original scope as as R2 that corner had it was not something that came in at a later time. No, no, no. That was

been around since then and that's why neighbors have been very focused on it, which I completely understand. Um but so yes, it it was in the original. We have not done anything in terms of changing that. So, I mean, that's what I thought. I thought that it came in all at the same time. Not. It's good memory. Well, there's some things that might be. Do the number is there an increase in the number of doors? I don't know. Comparing it to an R2. I I don't know if I don't know if we had that, but I'm sure we could put that together quickly in terms of uh you know, x amount of R2 lots versus, you know, those doors versus the total. You alluded to basement.

Is that going to be a requirement to have basements or what is I I think so. I mean, we we have every I mean, every house out there has a basement. So, we've never done anything on slab. Um uh our our builder like builds them on I mean builds them with basements. So, you know, the the I mean I I don't think there's enough cost savings to do it on slab, but you know, builders would say otherwise. No, my personal thank you. Yeah, I'd rather see him on either that or have the safe room. Yeah. Thank you.

Thanks. Thank you. That's very helpful. Yeah. Now, did did I read somewhere in the in the specifications that there was going to be a review of uh woodland to see if the street needed to be widened or eress or

that was one of my stipulations that um yeah, we're going to look at the uh condition of Woodland Road. Currently, it's I believe a 24 foot edgetoedge um asphalt road. There's not much of a shoulder. So, um we'll work with the applicant to figure out at least um a minimum standard to put in some safety shoulders along Woodland. Now, I know it would be weird, but would there be uh curb and gutter along Woodland? We'll work with the applicant to figure out what exactly those improvements look like.

Yeah. Um we've got some some we would prefer to have complete streets and all of those things, but that's something that we haven't required in the past with some of the other applications. So, at a minimum, we're um we're going to continue to work with the applicant to see uh what that minimum standard's going to be. So, that's why I put the stipulation in there so that we could um mutually agree upon what those improvements would be.

Now, once all the building occurs, there's going to be more runoff. Which way does the does the flow the creek go or the flow go once it hits Woodland? I would have to look at the the drainage study, but um yeah, Harold Harold's coming up here. You can explain that a little. So that that it's developed to the top of the hill right now on the east side. So it'll all drain down to the creek down by Woodland that what is the rightway through there for Woodland and what is the future plans for Woodland? That is a really good question. Um because I an arterial if I remember right.

It is an arterial. We're very limited um on you know what's out there today. Um again uh our future plan would be to you know have more of a complete street you something like that. I don't think there's much of a rideway that's out there right now. We will be dedicating our half of the rideway. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So is it going to be 100 foot rightway for an arterial or is it 120 or it would be 120 60 foot on each side. And what do we have now? I don't think there's I Well, there's right away there now. We have a road. So, right away. There is right away. I just I I don't know what that exact dimension is.

I mean, now is the time to when you're before you start building things. It's the It's much cheaper to do it now than We always love to get that stuff on the plat. Yep. It's cheaper now instead of having to pay for it later. Yeah. Yep. So, is there a plan to do that to improve woodland? No. No. to get the to to acquire the right away. Now it's it should be shown on the plot. Yes, it'll be dedicated on the Thank you. both for 207.

Just don't want to tie our hands later. Well, part of the problem with Woodland though is that part of that is still county. As you go, there are sections that are still in county. But not this section. No. Are there any members of the public that would like to speak on this particular item?

Can you come? Can you come to the My name is Tom Van Kursbell. I own the property immediately to the west of there, the industrial slot on the west side of Woodland. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm just saying this is a very good use of this property. I didn't I'm not attuned to all the details, but sounds like the developer has gotten some push back from duplexes. So, is bringing in, you know, the whole country talks about affordable housing. These are two-story homes with two story garages. They seem to me and I have a lot of history and with development and hope and homes. I'm I'm not it anymore. These are the perfect thing if he's experiencing push back from duplexes. So anyway, like I said, I I don't have an investment. I have nothing in it. I just run my business across the street. This looks like a good thing.

Thank you, sir. Would you give Miss Long your address? We have that number. 20 900 South Woodland. Thank you so much. Anybody else? If not, we'll close the uh public session. Uh any for any further questions or clarifications? I don't I don't know about question or clarification. Oh, before before No. If not, we'll close the hearing and request. Okay.

Comments. Um, I first of all, I like the idea of the going RP1 from R1 R2 just because it's potentially less density, less traffic. All the residents of Hland Ridge have been very outspoken about not multif family homes. However, I know when Fox Hollow was being built, they approved the R, was it R3 zoning in that housing edition because there was R2 zoning in Woodland Ridge housing edition and that's despite all of Woodland Ridge, well, not all of Woodland Ridge, many Woodland Ridge residents being very outspoken against it and voicing their opinions, wanting to change that. I feel like it's, for lack of better phrasing, a slap in the face to the residents that that R3 R3

the town homes in Fox, they don't have town homes. I don't think so. Where's Hidden Hills at? You're talking about Oh, that's that's what I'm talking about. Yeah. cross from Wen Ridge. I'm sorry. I thought I had Fox Hollow stuck in my head. Oh, okay. Okay. That's why I was confused. But I think they're only 15%. The rest is like Yes. But that got approved because this was R2. And so now to change it back, I just to change it to something different

to change it. Yes. to change it to something different that's not multif family homes like I said feels like it might be a slap in the face to those residents that were outspoken. That being said, I do like that it's less density, less traffic potentially, those kind of things that just I feel like I would have been remiss to not bring that up for those residents. think about I I remember the conversation that there was conversation around what was neighboring

and also too sorry can my brain's going now um just as we're planning these housing additions it makes sense to have multif family across from industrial just because that's what we're wanting to go to these land neighborhoods. Um, I don't know. Just trying to think through. I'm just Sorry, guys. Thinking through, but I don't know. Yeah. All right. I think I'm done. We're done for now.

I think it's a good thing. It's always good to go to the single family plan district from an R2. We've always liked that when the developers come in and want to do that. This just the first time we haven't seen this before and I think it's fine. especially when Mr. Phelps and Mr. George came up. I actually own one of the original homes, Mr. George, on 220th Street that was built in 1997. So, that's one of the homes I own. So, it's I'm glad you came up and spoke about that. I I do feel a lot more comfortable after they came up with designs they're going to do. They're going to have basements. They're going to be two stories. They're going to fit the area most likely pretty well. And we're not going to have any duplex concerns for the public. So, I think it's a good use of the land exactly as the other citizen came up and said, um, so thank you for coming up. I'm I agree with it right now.

Yeah, I believe that it's a good concept. You know, I think the the variety of what you're going to have there is going to be appealing to a varying kind of customer. So, I think it's going to be good

if these four I agree with the gentle came up from the public that these four homes I would never veto any of these four. My concern is and I don't know what we call I'm lost for that term. See I do have memory loss. Um the biggest thing that planning commission or the most of us have been against goes against the community development part of the comp plan is when those front door for lack of another word come out and that front door is hidden. That's the design that we have

mixaid so much saying that's not the welcoming environment that we wanted on the home fronts. You know, still we wanted that meet your neighbor over the back fence, the doors open, you can see a front porch, you it's an inviting front, not a right hidden front door. Recessor al cove is what I kept thinking of recess. So, that would be my number one concern on on that type of home. And it is to your disadvantage that you've not heard all these other comments and we've not had many chances to have any type of meeting to get you brought up to where Sure. and and you've not been through a lot of plans to

to know that yet to have that opportunity as well. So I will say specifically related to the aloves or recessed ent interest ent interest ways how you want to describe it um because that is something that's in the comprehensive plan and it's something that we're aware of that could be considered one of the things that would kick this over into the design being substantially different because at that point not only are they going against whatever conceptual elevations that are present but also the idea of the comp plan and some requirements are set forth in the complaint related to um recess entrances, garage widths, things of that nature. So if that's something that would like to be, you know, as a condition or something that we look at during the pering process, that can be.

And the other is like Troy mentioned, Mr. M. Mitchell me mentioned is the materials. There's not a materials thing. And I understand the different builders. I I understand that and that is a good thing into a development as long as they're continuing that cohesiveness of what the George family has already started and a modern would be a thumb out looking different. But when these plans reference brick or rock or mortar of some sort, I think that that is where we would be leading that we would want that. But we're not privy to the HOA regulations to know that vinyl sighting is not an option. So moving forward, I don't know if it is or isn't a good thing to have include those HOA requirements so that we would have that prior knowledge going into a meeting that that we would go oh well they can't use

sighting we see that from an HOA standpoint I don't know the point yeah and generally when you are going to see a development an HOA is not created yet so there won't be an HOA set of guidelines because that comes right when it's done so yeah with something like this maybe that would be a beneficial piece if it's allowed I I mean

we would have to revise the the submitt requirements within the zoning code in order to have that but yeah I mean theoretically that could be typically uh communities require that as part of the final plat process because at that point they're assigning tracks and then HOA maintenance responsibilities. So I've seen final plats go concurrent with um like a draft version of the CCRs that get plat. So that could be something that could happen but um specifically relates to like if that were applied to this circumstance it probably wouldn't help because you still wouldn't have seen those. you might see a draft version um but you're not approving that set of CCRs that would have to come during final which at that point these would already be approved. So it's a I'm just saying yeah I I know exactly what you're talking about. Yeah, it it just helps prior knowledge absolutely

that teachers coming out that prior knowledge information is greatly appreciated and helpful. I would either say table it and they have to bring in designs but at but according to what we were just informed with Mr. George it I understand that you know three or four builders are not going to want to submit 12 pictures. I I understand that but and I don't like the saying that we've always done it this way. You know we've always done it this way that just because it's new doesn't mean it's wrong. I know. I know. And I'm thinking outside of the box. Trust me, I'm going there. It's just

this is different and it's hard. But if we can make sure that we have an understanding with that that with staff. Yes. That and gaining that trust with someone new. Sorry, Ian. No offense. We I would be okay to go to move forward with is what I'm trying to say. I just we have got to build that working trust between the two of us and that's being presented a different way is not wrong. It's just different different and we have to take baby steps. So are you willing to give up that control? I if I can trust if I can trust Ian. Okay. You know trust me what the what the heck?

And I know that I know Mr. Phelps well enough having been here that he's probably also not going to submit something to Ian that Ian's gonna have to go well. Yeah. Cower is not in the plans to my understanding. So I I know the public hearing is closed, but I I I would like to say though, we still have to come back for a final plat and uh Caleb is willing to bring those HOA docs uh with the final plat and you can review those materials. Okay, great. That's considerate. That's I mean I appreciate that. Georgees have always been more than helpful and considerate in working with so Yeah. Yeah. Since it's a local developer, local get great company. I mean, I feel like Is it going to take another 20 years?

I hope not. You hope not, dude. Just checking. Or it'll be another generation. That's what I thought. Um, going back to the topic of Woodland, will there be sidewalks added to Woodland with this new zoning potentially? What do you mean? Well, like for kids walking to and from. Are you saying within or along the 207 Woodland? Um, I mean along Are you saying within within I know there sidewalks within on woodland like is there any way to add sidewalks or like do something there with all of the

I know there's been some talk in the past about um along frontages to make sure that there's sidewalk. Um that is something we can um add to the improvements uh with the uh improvements along Woodland um just to make sure that those get in. There are currently no sidewalks on Woodland. So it may be a discussion with legal counsel laying the developer to figure out what exactly that looks like. If that's going to be some sort of um payment to the city at which time woodland gets improved with curb gutter storm drains then we can add those sidewalks in. It may benefit district similar to what we did along 207 street. So again, we can have those conversations um as we start moving forward in the improvement agreement yet and that may be a discussion that we have as we move forward with the improvement agreement with the develop

look at some options and look at some options. Um, I know that there's been some other developments that, um, along Ridge View, along 199th Street that, you know, I know city council is very, um, interested in getting sidewalk along some of these thoroughare areas as these subdivisions build out. Awesome. I just know it's been so rural or industrial along there that it hasn't really been an issue and now if we're bringing in homes to that area, more homes, then it starts to become that. So, it's really difficult just because it is an unimproved roadway. There's, you know, ditches along there. Really hard to put sidewalks along streets like that. Yeah. And especially if you put sidewalks in right now along the current alignment.

They're just going to tear it up. Whenever we go to make improvements to Woodland and who knows when that's going to happen. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I've heard it referenced several times that the density is going down. We didn't I didn't hear how many doors there were. I don't know that the density is going down because we're going to smaller lot size.

Yeah, it I don't know. Was there a plan beforehand of And I think we can compare it to a prior number of doors. I don't know there's ever a proposed number of lots or doors. It was just Was it right? Was it just zoned to R2 and R1? Yeah. Yeah. We don't have a plan up front that we can use compare and contrast. I will say so hypothetically it's being compared to infinity and or zero. So it's either up or down. Several people have referenced that the density is going down and I'm not sure that the density is going down. So that's why that's what I about um I would almost think it would be almost a

yeah an even swap because they were putting the 60 foot lots along Woodland versus the 50 foot. I would think if the 50 foot were going there that it might be more dense. You know what I'm saying? The 60 foot lot it might not be. But the only place that 60 foot lots are at the top of the hill. I thought you said the 60 foot along Woodland. All 50 foot lots are down below. 60 foots are up adjacent to the existing R1.

Okay. So it it would be a definitive reduction in density. Um the R2 zoning district. This just kind of document out the deviations form there. Uh the minimum lot size for the R2 district is 5500 foot. What's being provided here is a minimum lot size of 6,400. So at the very least you're getting that about whatever that divided between each other would be. So it is 20% roughly. Yeah. Without having exact plans at the very least that. Yeah. And then just clarification. So the the R1 are up on the very east side adjacent to the existing and then this the 50footers are along 207 street and then to the south of there are the 60footers.

Yeah. What's going along what would be along the woodland? 50 or 60? Well, you got a stream in between there, but you started uh the 50footers uh and then you transition transition. So both, right? So it's not like it would be all 50. I would think foot would be could potentially be more dense where 60 foot might be a fairly close swap with duplex doors. Yeah, but on a square footing basis and there's not an existing plan. Right. So, Right. Right. It's hard to say that exactly, but I I would just I was just trying to clarify that we don't know exactly what that the density is lower. So, right.

That's all that I was fair point. I do agree with what they're talking about the RP1 because you're coming from a much more commercial on the other side of Woodlands and then you're giving more of a transition as you're going up the hill. Yeah. So it it makes sense to do it. I agree. And I won't trust you.

You got two votes from the two oldtimes. Okay. Any other questions, comments? If not, I stand for a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the application C 254 and AP 257 resoning with the preliminary platill governing body, including any conditions as presented in the report. Second. Got a motion and a second. We'll start on the left. I I I

I item approved. 500. And Mr. George, Mr. Phelps, thank you for working through that with us. Thank you. Thank you.

Item three, final plat application, Aendale Meadows. Third plat. Okay. So, this should be pretty short presentation. Uh, application FP25-14 Aenddale's Aenddale Meadows Third Plat. Uh, this is a final plat of the Aenddale Meadows. Um, located approximately northwest of US 169 and 215th Street, North Aenddale Meadows First and Second. Uh the preliminary plat was approved back on June 5th, 2025. Uh as presented here, there are no deviations from that previously approved plan. Uh just as a reminder of what this all is, it's about 117 single family 117 single family tracks or lots with two tracks uh on approximately 30 acres of land. Um water service is being provided uh by rural water district 7 and uh sanitary sewer by the city of Spring Hill. Um there will also be an HOA/POA uh that will maintain the tracks associated with the storm water and sewer infrastructure. They're on track A um which will be a detention basin. But long and short of it, there are no uh changes from the plinary plat and subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report, staff recommends approval, questions move to recommend approval for SP-5-14. Second.

Got a motion and a second. If there are no any other questions, we'll start on the left. I I I I I

motion passes 500. And now we have item four, preliminary plan application for Orzark real team readiness. Okay. So just to clarify before I begin here, there will be three applications this evening related to this project. The first two are going to be related to the ministerial application for the platting process. This is not to do with the actual development itself. So the merits of the project are not as relevant here. This is just about the legal subdivision of the land. So we'll get to the public hearing portion, but for now that's what we're going to be talking about. So to begin, this is PP25-8, the preliminary plat for the uh subdivision. Uh located on approximately southeast of 183rd and K7 Highway, about one lot south of that, southeast of the intersection. Uh this is a 15.11 acre piece of land or approximately 650,000 square feet. Uh which it's not 117 single family lots as no doubt or it's just one. Um it's zoned M1 general industrial uh utilities will be provided uh by uh Johnson County Water One for water and Spring Hill for the sewer service. Um, right ofway will be dedicated along the western side of the property to K dot at a future point in time. It's not detailed here. Um, there will be a slide actually in the applicant presentation, but it just kind of diagonally cuts out towards the west end. Um, that's not being dedicated as part of this application. It's being reserved for future purchase by KOT. Um, but if that that'll be included in the final plot or at some other point by separate instrument, it will not need to be adopted or accepted by city council since it's going to KOT. So, you probably won't see that. Just know that that's happening. It won't affect the

layout of the site. It's just happening. Um, and that's all that I got. Sorry for any questions. Thank you. Any questions? clarifications.

I don't see in the final PL where you're talking about the dedicated to K dot. Yeah, it's on the applicant presentation which um I can pull up quick. This will have the site plan on it. Just ignore that. This is just for visualization purposes. Uh so you can see where it's located approximately. I don't know if this is very accurate, but that's the idea.

Okay, thank you.

And you mentioned that this is on only on the uh one side of the property and the rest will be developed later. Uh with respect to what exactly, sir? that the actual uh use of the property will only be using one half of it.

Well, we we'll get Yeah, we'll get to that with the subsequent applications, but yes, the the actual project that this is associated with is going to be on the west side. And then real quick, there is an amendment to the motion here. Um, it'll be moved to final approval instead of recommended approval for this since y'all are the final deciding body for the preliminary plan. Just assuming that's what you do. the comments. If there are not, I will entertain a motion. My mouse died. I can't get to anything.

I had to turn mine on and off. That not work for troubleshooting. What did you say was a amended approve amended motion suggested motion? Uh it's for final approval.

Make a motion that says move approve recommendation to city council. Yeah. I'll bite. What happens if this is positive and negatives come up later? Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. Yeah, this is and this just starts all over. What's with

Okay, that's what I'm thinking. I just want to make sure that I'm just making sure that I'm on that same track. I was concerned or wonder the same. Yeah, I I thought that was true, but I'm just wanting to dot eyes cross teeth. Yeah, we're we're doing this first, but the ladder is is the power, right? Thank you. I just wanted to make sure I was right. I should have looked to you, but that's building the trust.

Oh, great. Yeah. No, that's exactly right. So, if you let's just say hypothetically this were to be approved along with the final plat and then an item later on were to be denied, this would not change anything associated with the actual project itself. not being presented here. This is just for legal subm and doesn't grant any development rights in itself.

Going for it. Sure. I'll move to recommended approval of application PP25-8 ready mix preliminary plat of the planning commission. You said final approval of the final approval of the planning commission. Second. Is that a motion and a second? We'll start the vote on the left. I I I I motion passes 500. Okay. Um,

our next item is a final plat application.

Perfect. Yep. So, this is application FP25-15. Uh, final plat for the same application you just saw. Shockingly, no changes between 30 seconds ago and now. So, no comments or anything else from staff. Any questions? If there are no questions or comments, we'll entertain a motion on this item.

So, the suggested motion change for this one. Yes, it does. I move to recommend approval of application FP25-15 of our ready mix final plat to the Spring Hill governing body including any conditions as presented in ST. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor we'll start on the right. I I I I That was tricky. I was bad.

Like Cindy, it's not your turn. Now we'll take uh open the public hearing conditional use application with site plan CU2593 Ozark readymates. Are there any exarty communications with the agents or applicant on behalf of the board? Any conflict of interest?

Nope. The staff present.

Perfect. Thank you. So, this is the the big show. So application SP25-10 CU25-3 a site plan with conditional use application for Ozark Readymix located approximately at US69 Highway at 183rd Street approximately one lot to the south of that intersection. The applicant uh Neil Jackson of Ozark Readymix Company along with the engineer Mark A Brewer of Schlaggel uh has submitted for approval of a site plan application uh for a concrete batch facility. Uh the subject property is zoned M1 general industrial on approximately 15.1 acre lot. Uh the project uh building area is about 5,000 square feet. of that uh 3,200 approximately belongs to a maintenance building located on the western side of the lot. Uh about 1,200 or 1250 square feet uh is the size of the plant building itself and 600 square foot for the office that's associated with the project. Moving into adjacent zoning, uh the subject property is surrounded and enveloped by M1 General Industrial to the northeast south. Uh to the west is K7 rightway which is not entire through zoning. So there's no zoning to speak about there. Um the applicant is not requesting any modifications from development standards as listed in the unified zoning ordinance. Um kind of getting into the elevations themselves. Um we'll start with the maintenance building here. Uh it is constructed out of prefinished metal and is 24t 8 in in height. again 3200 square feet in size. Um, let me swap over to my laptop here because it was noted that the other elevations are not added. So,

sorry about that. So, this is the plant building itself. Uh, the plant, this middle portion right here is 55 ft tall and is also constructed out of prefix metal. All the buildings are in this development. Uh, these silos themselves are are approximately uh 86 feet in height uh on either side of the uh plant building. Um additionally kind of like right here see the outline of the office building which is 24 foot 8 in tall also out of that prefinishing metal construction. Swapping back over to the site plan. The uh actually let me go to the phototrics here. So with respect to the phototrics um the only lighting that is present on the site well I guess the tallest lighting on the site is is 30 feet high. There are a number of lights located around the uh maintenance building and the plant building itself at varying heights. They're detailed here. Can't zoom in unfortunately. Actually, you know what? I can. I lied.

Sorry. So, here on the photometrics, there we go. You can see you got type SL2 lighting here. These are vertical cut off lights that point downwards. That's on the plant building. And then 20 foot uh mounted lights on the office and the uh maintenance building on the other side. And all these are uh downfacing lights. The details specified are here. So none on the silos

as far as I'm aware. No, they're at least not in the phototric. And the applicant can speak to it, but there shouldn't be because this is a photometric that's been submitted. um all the uh foot lumens zero out or come below one foot at the property line limits. So the ground illumination is very very low. Um let's see with respect to the requirements for a traffic study. It was determined by staff and alongside contract traffic engineers uh that a traffic study based off of the proposed volume was not going to be required. Um I will have Allison speak to the specifics of the of that. But uh long and short is that it was not required by staff uh at the suggestion of the contract engineer. Um important information surrounding properties are a mix of light and heavy industry. Uh notably there is an existing batch plant to the immediate east northeast of this property across Webster Road. Um pull that up on this map. So adjacent land uses are compatible and similar to the proposed batch plant. The subject property is located on the southern right here and the batch plant that's existing is to the immediate caddy corner. With that, um last thing, uh landscaping is very similar to that which you saw during the car wash application because of similar land uses adjacent to in terms of intensity or not intensity but in terms of industrial land use. Uh buffering requirements are not imposed. That being said, they are required to meet all base landscaping standards as defined in zoning codes. So, you can see that there are rows of trees uh along

the north uh east and south as well as uh landscaped grass pads uh kind of flanking the parking lot and along that entrance to the development. Um so with that because the application uh or because the property supports industrial in terms of its zoning future land use designation uh because it meets development standards without requesting modifications and because it is compatible and similar to existing adjacent land uses staff does recommend approval of this application subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Thank you. And then the applicant has a presentation as well but first if there's any questions.

Yeah. Actually, we'll do that after the presentation and come back. We can do questions. Let's do that first. So, how how tall is the monarch plant right now? I'm not certain off the top of my head. I can pull that up. Isn't it thought it was 123 or 12? 121 or something. Is that right? 114. So, this one's about 40 foot lower. The silos. That's correct. And then the lights are only 30 feet high pointing down. That's correct. The lighting not on the silos because plan has significant light pollution. That is a huge problem. I'll the applicant confirm that that is the case. Okay. Yes, that's correct.

First admit that that was a bad decision. We didn't realize how bad those lights were going to be. It's uh it's brutal. I don't know if you drive by there. And all the lights are on the face in the east towards the homes over there where the steps are. They could have had it on the other side maybe where the lights aren't on that side or they could have put the dual light system, you know, the wiring in there so they could shut them off. Even the plant managers told Chuck that they could have built it that way to shut off the lights at night. So, I don't know. There's a problem there we need to address sometime. Yeah. I don't want the same thing happening. Yeah. And that's something that we were acutely aware of when Chuck brought that up. That's something that we

So, I appreciate you telling us the lights are to the point down. Y the next big problem is the road system there and the trucks potentially going back instead of towards the highway and getting into there's always been there's already been accidents there that I know of. You mean going to the east? Yeah, going to the east instead of residential to the west to the to 169. Right. Have I don't know if you've heard that Ian, but there's been already an accident or two with the trucks. I know that it was discussed in Chuck's email. There's just no shoulders and go back to Ridge View. There's no shoulders there. They shouldn't be driving back there. They should be heading towards the highway.

Unless they're developing that direction. There's no reason for them to be driving, you know, to take a shortcut so they can tear up our roads and community. They already had to develop 183rd because they tore it up, right? That was my concern is the weight of the vehicles on roads that are not designed huge problems. I'll let Alison speak to

anyway that those are some things I want to bring up initially because there complaints by I think uh Chuck that wrote in um had some concerns there. Also the dust that it could create. There's already been complaints I think from residents around from the dust, you know, that is a lot more prevalent now in those areas from the residents that live in the back there. So that's another thing. I think that's really the main concern, the light pollution potential, which is is already mitigated, but we still have to do something about Monarch maybe in the annual review. Uh the the traffic going back to our the residential area instead of towards the highway

and then the uh I think that's about it. The main and then the dust. So anyway, somebody can those I'd be happier. There's some big issues there that need to be addressed in my mind. I don't know if everybody else sees those are my primary concerns as well. Those are those are on the list. Yeah,

I can address some of those concerns. So, um I received the email from Chuck about the traffic whenever we originally reviewed this traffic study would not have um the amount of traffic uh in and out of this uh development would not have triggered a need to have a full-blown traffic study with traffic counts and turning movements and all the big things. Uh so after receiving uh Mr. Morris's email. Uh we consulted with our on call traffic engineer just to confirm uh what we already knew and they confirmed that a traffic study would not have been uh required at this time even with the proximity to the other uh plants. Uh we did uh get a recommendation from our traffic engineer for them to provide a traffic memo that further explains the volume of traffic. the um intent with the traffic and everything. So, we communicated that to the applicant and they uh will be providing that information. So, that's just going to be a simplified uh traffic memorandum that explains the traffic flows for the developments. Uh the other issue uh that was brought up was the uh ability for the public roads to take on public traffic. Uh the roads are built to a standard. Our um uh collectors, our arterials, those are uh built to a standard um and those are all through the American Public Works Association recommendations for pavement thickness and truck traffic, fire trucks, all the different vehicles are allowed to travel on the public streets. Our public streets are designed to be able to take that traffic. Uh there were concerns about um some of the shoulders. A lot of those roads are within the county, within Johnson County. So, we really don't have any control over making

improvements to Johnson County roads. Uh I don't believe we have any plans in the future for some of those uh other segments along 183rd Street except at K7. I'll let the applicant uh address some of the concerns about the trucks going within the residential subdivisions. We do know that there's a lot of development that's going on in the in the area and there's a need for those concrete trucks to come in and pour the foundations for those homes just like they poured foundations for everyone else's homes. So, um that would be the only reason that I would think that they would be driving in residential areas is to deliver uh a load of concrete to um a residential home. Uh, and I would think that the most direct route would be for them to take K7 and unless there was a concern for safety since that is not a signalized intersection. They may want to um take another route. But again, I'll let the applicant talk about the traffic flows and the concern for traffic safety. Was there anything else you want?

No, that's I have a question to follow up with on that. If if we're trying to persuade KOT or the powers that be up there that we would like something done on 169, would it not behoove us to have as many traffic studies as we can to say this is this is going to operate at a D a D minus intersection? I just would think from past experiences that the more ammunition you have or the more information you have and can provide

would be beneficial. So why would we not even though I understand what you're saying? Why would we not go ahead and ask for a traffic set? So I'm going to jump in because that's two separate related issues. showing the traffic on 169 for any potential interchanges, stop lightss, whatever KOT may ultimately put in there is not a part of the use permit before you all today. So having this applicant pay for a traffic study that would then benefit the city's application for improvements of an intersection that they don't but up to would would not really be fair and proper to them. Would not be an appropriate use city code.

I get that. But at the same token, when you think of what was the math, 270 or 275 trucks, you think that's a substantial increase in the potential amount of traffic and not just residential type cars or pickup trucks or SUVs. We're talking about a concrete truck. I would think that that would definitely have an impact on what is happening at that intersection. and it's happening at that intersection because of concrete trucks, not residential builds that would be residential type traffic. So, I do feel like it's a direct impact on on the applicant.

Um, so this is separate from this application, but I will give you a little bit of a project update. Um, KOT is working on uh a study for K7 and it's going from uh I35 to the Johnson County line which would include the center section. They have done traffic counts in that area. Uh they've also met with staff and reviewed our um draft comp plan as well as our adopted comp plan from 2010. Uh they've met with staff to figure out what is going on in the various areas around the intersection. We met with them last week and brought up some of the newer development applications. So, uh, KAT is aware of what's going on in this particular area. Uh, they are including that in their K7, uh, corridor study that they are currently doing right now. So, um, we do have K dots here as far as some of these development concerns, but that is completely separate from this application. But I thought that that would be meaningful for you to know that the city is working on things like that.

It it is helpful. But in that conversation then they were aware that this was something that was coming to planning commission tonight. We talked about some of the recent development applications including this one. Uh can I ask if whether the applicant uh has a presentation?

Good evening, commission. Uh Neil Jackson on behalf of Ready Mix. Uh, address is 440 College Boulevard, Overland Park, Sweet 240. Uh, I, uh, I manage Ozark Ready Mix along with my brother there in the back and and the older gentleman back there in the in the far left, Steve Motto. Um, we managed the the plants here in Kansas City. We are a ready mixed concrete company. We don't form it, we just deliver it. Um, we started back in the 60s and we've operated ever since. We have five plants in the metro area all around the the outskirts mainly. Uh we have a plan in tha uh off Highway 169 and 151st Street right next to the Home Depot. The plan is to um effectively move move that plant down here. And with that, I'll I'll give it to our engineer, Mr. Mark Brewer, to to give you guys the plan.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Mark Brewer with Schlegel Associates. Her address is 1492 West 107th in Alexa. Um, just a brief kind of background of of Ozark Ready Mix in addition to what Neil just mentioned. This is kind of their footprint in the Midwest, if you will. So, kind of mainly in Missouri and and recently to this Kansas City area. Um, I think everybody's familiar with the location of where this is at based on the comment so far. But just a little bit of an aerial view in case we need later where the site is in reference to the local street network. It's there highlighted in yellow. Um, and then a little bit closer view in of where the site is. Um, so yeah, close proximity to the existing ready mix facility and cement storage silos that has been mentioned already. And there's the intersection with 183rd and K7. And you can see kind of the uses around around the site. Um so our here's our site planned. Uh as as Ian mentioned already, we have been in conversation in the last couple weeks through this application process with KOT um on what that interchange looks like in the looks like in the future. Um, so that red line there represents um what they've asked us to reserve on our site for future rightway needs. Uh what eventually is I understand to be a a separated interchange and o overpass there at that intersection. But until we get there, it's it's uh like was mentioned more than likely going to be a signal in the interim until the capacity warrants that overpass. Um, so then zooming in a little closer on what our site plan is actually just to give you an idea of how traffic's going to circulate on site and the fe and the individual features on site. Oh, I don't

have a mouse. Um, so uh generally trucks are going to come from 183rd and K7 come down Webster there and then enter the site from that access road along the north portion. Um from there you'll see the two different drive vials that come on the north end and head south. So that gives um there's actually two options for the trucks to load on this site. So they can choose either the east or west um drive to come in and load up. Um those kind of rectangles there on the north end is where the aggregate storage will be. And so that's your rock and and sand. Those will be in um kind of those uh cast in place or concrete uh bunkers for those uh and those um will will be loaded with a wheel loader. Trucks will come in load those and then wheel loaders will load those the aggregate bins just to the south and then those and along skinny diagonal lines are where the conveyors will load the hoppers for the plant. So um I did my work here right. Yeah, there you go. So that's kind of the circulation path. the red line where a driver chooses, you know, they'll contact the dispatch in the office. Driver will choose which will be instructed which side of the plant to enter. They'll load the plant or load their truck and then right um as uh they before they exit, they'll hit um what's called a load and go, which is um kind of a truck car wash for lack of better terms. It sprays all the any dust or aggregate that's loose on the truck. sprays that off. All that water is considered processed water from the plant. It's captured on site. It is not discharged to the surrounding storm service system. Um it's all part of the required KDH permitting for these types of industrial facilities. So all that all that is captured on site before it leaves. Um there's also a wash out bay

when the trucks at the end of the day return um where they back up to wash out their trucks before the end of the day. All that retains on site. Much of that water is captured and recycled on site um to use for washing out the next day. So we're not using potable water over and over again and wasting that water. It's is captured and filtered off on site and reused. Um and then at the 3200 foot maintenance facility, um they're on kind of the the western edge of the site. um these elevations um what uh staff kind of presented as well and did a good job covering kind of the important elements. Uh many plants don't um cover that kind of center portion where uh much of the aggregate is loaded into those hoppers. So that one of the reasons that you do that is um number one weather and and temperature conditioning of those aggregates. The more consistent those temperatures are, the more consistent your aggre concrete mix is. It also controls dust um those conveyors as they dump into those hoppers. There's also on the silos for the cement storage and there's a dust recovery system on that as well. Um we've covered the kind of the maintenance building what that looks like. The gray kind of the gray enclosure on the right's a trash enclosure for the project. This is not the exact facility, but it is a as a representative um image of what this facility may look like except for that center kind of portion where you see the aggregate hoppers. That's the portion that's going to be covered inside that building with this site. So all that will be enclosed, but you can kind of see the the plant elements of the cement silos on both sides. Um the aggregate storage in the middle, the office and batch plant. And then um kind of on either side they have those uh load and goes that I mentioned. Those are those kind of industrial truck car

washes that hose everything off before it leaves the site. And again all that water flows on the concrete surface to um basins that that capture that water before it leaves the site and it and retain it on site. So, um, understandably there's a lot of questions we've heard about, uh, traffic. The information we presented on the preliminary plat and and site plan when we made this application were the best information we had at the time and conservative. Um, after talking with Ozark ready mix and how they use their um, plant, these are more realistic numbers on what the traffic is. A point important distinction to make is when um, Traffic engineers talk about trips. So if a delivery truck makes a delivery, that's technically two trips. They leave and come back. So um you know if if right now they're anticipating 15 trucks that they'll have at this facility making three deliveries per day. So that's 45 deliveries, 90 trips. So that's how that that we get our total trip count. Um cement and aggregate deliveries are about eight trucks or 16 trips. So truck traffic is about 106 trips max per day. Uh employee traffic about 20 employees or 40 trips. So a a total of 146 daily trips max. And a lot of times traffic engineers when they talk about uh traffic volumes and traffic the capacity of adjacent roadways. It's usually in terms of the peak hour of the adjacent roadway. And thresholds for traffic studies are typically around if your if your site is generating a 100 trips in the peak hour. That's when you really start looking at, okay, we need to make look at traffic study for this for this site. We're at 25 trips and that's probably generously

estimated. Most of the delivery trips and employees will arrive and leave prior to to 7 o'clock in the morning. These trucks are leaving before dawn to get to the site where they got to everybody's got to show up before that, load the trucks and then leave. And they're gone before well before 7 o'clock and then they're usually getting back um you know the last truck is usually even their their job site at 3:30 and back before 5. So these are really these trips are really a lot of times outside those those peaks. So that 25 peak hour trips is really pretty generous. And it it bears mentioning that the cement deliveries are coming from across the street. So that that does save some of the trip uh but the trips on site. So they're staying right there on Webster. So um I know there were some questions about dust. I think I've alluded to how the the aggregate bins being covered helps with that a little bit and there is a dust capture system on the cement when they load the trucks. Um I think I've kind of given a better summary on traffic, but as um Allison mentioned, we can we're happy to provide additional study if if that helps staff get comfortable with where these trips are coming from. Um and then I think we've covered the lighting of the other concern. These these silos will not be lit. Um as others are in the area um you know from dust to dawn. So um we've read through the stipulations that staff presented and are in agreeance with all those. So, other than that, happy to answer any other questions you might have.

I had a question about the um exterior um elevations. Okay. They showed 122 feet. So, that's what I was confused on because I was like, well, that didn't scale because I I know a garage door isn't 60 ft tall. Um it's one that shows the north, southeast, and west. Oh yeah, the base elevation is 100. Think I follow what you're saying. Okay. Because it it didn't make any sense. Yeah. Instead of it being zero, it's 100. Okay.

That's an architect thing, not an engineer thing. Now, is this plant very similar as the one you have in? Um, I may let Ozark um respond to that, how that might be functionally different. Um, I don't think it's covered like this.

Good evening. Uh my name is Kenny Jackson with Ozark great mix um 4,400 College Boulevard Park is 66211. Um these plants will be different in the sense that they're 35ish years newer. Um we don't have we we do have an enclosed uh location in in THA that you drive by, drive in and take a look at it if you want. Um uh it is enclosed. Um something to note also about this proposed new site. The site will be fully paved um with concrete. So that'll take that should take away most of you know the the dust concerns with a gravel lot. Um like Mark mentioned, we have a loadand go wash system before our trucks leave. So 45 gallons is used in that system to wash down a readymix concrete truck. Um so minimal water usage, but it does it does a great job to get our trucks clean and make sure there's no on them once they they do hit the roadway. Um yeah, other other than that, um our our conveyors are are generally the same. It's just a different different design. It's

Well, the reason I asked is because I hate to drive my car past the one in tha because sometimes you can't see across the street. I because of the

we I myself don't like taking a left turn out of our location in tha let alone readymix trucks. Um that's a very busy spot for ourselves and we've outgrown our space. Um you know if we need to go north we usually take a right and head back north. Um, you know, with with this um plan, the access road to the north on this piece of property was kind of our idea just to get as much truck traffic off of Webster as we could and facilitate it on our our own lot. So, thank you.

So, how will how will your trucks get south then? Go south when they because that that's what the concern is. Yeah. Well, There's a light. Um, we're going to have to shoot across 169 and take a left. You know, it's safety. I'm not I'm not I'm not questioning. I'm just asking. Yeah. Yeah. So, are they going to are they going to go The concern, I think, of the residents is that they're going to go up and take a right and go over to Woodland and then go down south to come down to the next stoplight, which would be 199th Street.

Right. I mean, it's it's hard to say because each each address, each delivery point is different. You know, we want to be be safe. We also want to be efficient, right? Um if if you know if I'm pouring your driveway, uh does your contractor want me going 45 minutes out of out of the way so I'm going down? I understand. I I I'm not questioning. I'm just I'm just talking about what the concerns are. Yeah, I understand. And and we we you know, my best answer is we we try to make it as as safe and as efficient for us as possible. Um does that mean we're going to avoid every every street every I don't know that's that's that's hard to say.

Sure. Thank you. It was good presentation to guys up. So just a question I had between the different trucks though and just this is just for me because I don't know much about cement plants difference between the trucks and the weight of the ready mix. You said 15 trucks then maybe eight of the cement trucks. Correct. What's the weight difference and what uh on each. I I'm assuming the cement truck is just like a cement truck ready to pour. A concrete truck is Yeah, concrete truck is is roughly 70,000 pounds, give or take, when it's full with 10 yards of concrete on it.

Um cement a cement and aggregate trucks are going to be less than that. Um they're just a different frame, but your your weight comes from the the materials inside the concrete truck. Gotcha. That's that's what I thought. Do you have a comment? Okay. Any other questions? Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any members in the public that would like to comment? Hi guys. Hello. How are you guys? All right. So, I'm just going to read Oh,

yes. Cat Canal 18154 South Sunset. Good to see you all here. Um, I'm going to read what I wrote. Some of it has sort of been addressed. Um, and I say sort of and I'll explain why. All right. I'm here to speak about traffic safety, dust, and light pollution related to the proposed Ozark Readymix plant. My primary concern is how heavy trucks will safely enter and exit Highway 169 at 183rd Street. That access point is already difficult for passenger vehicles and unsafe for frequent 70,000 lb concrete trucks attempting to merge or turn. When highway access isn't safe or efficient, trucks divert onto nearby roads, and that is already happening. Trucks from the existing concrete plant regularly travel east on 183rd Street and also west past Lone Elm uh and north on Ridge View. And I personally witnessed an accident involving track uh truck traffic in a passenger vehicle. I will say I know that they had mentioned 199th Street, but I see it from where we live more frequently going and turning north on Ridge View, taking 175th Street, and then I also see them turning on 175th Street, taking View, and then turning west on Third Street. That is a very consistent route that I see daily. Um, staff report described that the traffic impact is low, but traffic impact isn't just volume. It's weight, turning movements, stopping distance, and safety. There is no sidewalks there. There are people on bicycles. So, if you have, you know, every two minutes a big large truck and they are now stacking up every two minutes and you've got one biker that's just trying to get from 183rd Street to 175th Street, that's quite a few trucks that are going to accumulate in a short amount of time. Uh if this project moves forward, I urge the city to prohibit heavy truck traffic east of Webster Street outside of the industrial park and require a safer uh access route, maybe to 181st Street, where a signalized intersection is

planned and highway access is more appropriate for industrial traffic. I also want to address the dust impacts and I appreciate talking about that. Um concrete plants generate dust during mixing, loading and material handling. Residents near the existing plant have reported noticeable increases in dust on homes, vehicles, and our windows. This is a real concern for families. My 10-year-old plays outside daily. She has asthma, and many nearby families share similar health considerations. I would respectfully ask what specific dust control measures and monitoring practices the applicant plans to implement to minimize dust distribution into surrounding neighborhoods that makes it better than what it is now. Finally, there is going to be light pollution. I appreciate you talking about it not being above uh 30 feet. The proposal includes the 87 foot silos. I'm guessing that they would be similar to the Monarch plant and I say that because I feel when the Monarch plant was coming in, we were told that the light pollution was not going to be an issue. We were reassured of that many times. So, it's hard for me to believe. I'm sorry. No fault to you, but it is hard for me to believe that we're not going to have light pollution from these silos at 87 feet. Um, anyone who lives nearby understands how significant the impact of the nighttime lighting already is. Without proper shielding and buffering, tall illuminated structures can create glare that affects nearby residents and driver visibility along Highway 169, raising additional safety concerns. Taken together, the noise, truck traffic, dust, and nighttime lighting, the area already feels like a constant construction zone for nearby residents, and approving an additional facility would only intensify those impacts. I'm not opposed to industrial growth, but it needs to be done responsibly. I respectfully ask the commission to require enforceable conditions addressing safe truck routing, dust mitigation, and light buffering. Thank you guys for your time. I feel like I had other things I was going to add to that after listening to some of the things they said, but I feel like I've

emailed you all and I appreciate you guys reading my email. So, thank you.

Okay. My name is Andy Lundberg, lu n db e r g. And you want my address? Yes.

18222 South Brenwood Drive. So, first of all, two or three of you guys mentioned something about the lighting in the current one. Bless you. I live my back is 183rd Street. So when they put that in, I had no idea that they were going to light up my backyard so I could have barbecues because when you walk out and I look straight my towards 183rd right there is that plant and there's just no way to get it's crazy. I thought planes can't don't need a light that big. I don't know what's going on. But thank you for bringing that up. If you can do something fantastic. So I've lived there for 13 years on with my back to 183rd. So, I've kind of seen the traffic and I know that the streets are supposed to support these big trucks, but within two months after that first plant, the bridge right behind my house, something happened to it. And every time a truck or not just those trucks, but then any big vehicle, it almost sound like an explosion. I mean, it was just bang bang bang. And I called Johnson County and it took them a few months and they got that fixed. They also had to fix the railroad tracks within a couple months. They also had to fix the intersection from 169, turn it on 1830 because they tore up all those roads that are supposed to be good enough to handle that traffic and now we want to double it. So there is something to be said about that. I you know what what the roads are supposed to do and what they will do might not be the same because I've been there and I've seen it. So that was pretty and and they're coming. They do come quite a bit, you know, up and down the street and what I gather from what was said, I

think a lot of those trucks are going to come down and turn on Ridge View. And if they come down and turn right on Bridge View towards 207th, you got to remember and I see them do it, you know, when I'm when I'm home. I'm retired now, so I have a lot more time to just look at the trucks. It's not really much fun. But if you turn right there to go to 207, you're going to go by two schools. Besides this new subdivisions they're trying to put, there's a church and two schools that they're going to be driving by. And I can tell you from trying to get out, uh, it's 8:00, 7, 8:00 in the morning and 3:00 in the afternoon. It's tough because there's no stop lights at 175th or all the way up. So, it is kind of difficult. And I don't think you want those trucks going past the schools during school hours. It's just, it's crazy to me. They're closer to 169. 169 is built for a lot of traffic and for big trucks. I'd like to see them have to go that way unless they do. You know, if you got to you got to come into a neighborhood and put concrete in, you got to come put concrete in. Now, how you enforce that, I don't know. But I think that they should not be coming down 183rd. And man, as soon as that truck, as soon as they went in, they were going like crazy. And I knew at first every time one went by because they announced themselves when they went over the bridge. It's directly behind my my house. They have fixed that now. So, I know they can I know they can fix them. But anyway, but thank you for addressing that like thing because that's a that's a booger. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Patrickall. The last name is S P L I C H A L. Address is 18255 South Brentwood Drive. That's and THAA addressed. So, basically, I just want to echo um the other um citizens concerns. My biggest concern is really the truck traffic um coming in out of that plant. We've lived out there now about 20 years, and with all the other uh development that's occurred right there along Webster between there and the railroad tracks, the amount of just general truck traffic in that area is probably tenfold what it was even five years ago. Um so, I would echo a couple things. First of all, and I know you only have so much power, this uh planning commission does, but I would advocate for none of the trucks to be able to go east on 183rd across the railroad tracks. And secondly, whatever you have in your power to um increase the safety of the intersection there at 169 and 183rd needs to be done because I've seen multiple cases of of near accidents there. And you know, we've we've already heard several times about how a traffic study doesn't need to be done, but as um other people have already mentioned, it definitely depends on the size and the type of the vehicles that are going through that intersection. I've seen semis trying to turn left there that completely block the interchange at 169. You can't even get across. Or I've seen the other night I was coming home from work. I travel that way every day to go back and forth to work. those um those turn lanes on 169 are not long enough anymore because they can't accommodate all the truck traffic trying to turn there. The other day I basically had I couldn't turn left off of 169 because there were two semiis and a flatbed truck pulling a trailer that had that had the left turn lane completely blocked. So I had to go all the way down to 191st and come back. So every time we just add more truck traffic along that intersection, it just makes it more and more and more unsafe. And right now on 183rd, if you travel that way, there's not even turn lanes on 183rd. So when the traffic in the morning, all those concrete trucks and all the other trucks coming and off

there, it backs it up something terrible because there's not even turn lanes there. And until until either the city or the county or KOT came in and improved it like Chuck or um sorry, like Andy said earlier, it was completely washed out there from all the the truck traffic. So, I would not be an advocate for going forward until there's significant improvements made to that intersection. Thank you.

I can address the 183rd Street intersection. The city does have um in RCIP in uh future plans to uh have a signal at 183rd Street. There is going to be some movement here soon. So, um anyway, those issues are going to be addressed. There uh eventually will be a signal there and it will include turn lanes and for cars cars to queue up. Thank you. Any other is Kat going to cooperate with you and give additional turning lane link coming on to 183rd Street?

Uh I believe the uh design has already been or the conceptual design has already been approved for a previous development that was in this area. Uh we're going to utilize that same design. It's going to have longer uh turn lanes and um queuing uh queuing space for multiple vehicles. One or two lanes turning because I believe the previous I think there was two the previous project was two. Yeah. Yeah. So yeah, it's going to be the same. Okay. Thank you. Any other members of the public that would like to speak? If not, did you want to respond?

Yeah. Okay, I'll respond to it. A couple of points that um that were brought up to have written down. Um so first up the dust. Um I I want to make sure we're all on the same page here. So across the street at at the Monarch plant, there's really two things going on. So there's a a readymix plant similar to what we propose, but there's also a cement terminal. And so what a cement terminal is, cement is one of the ingredients that goes into concrete along with rock and sand and and add mixtures if you if you want to put it in there and then water. Um so cement's the key ingredient. And so that's what those those 100 I think you said 120 foot silos are with with the lights. Um we're not going to have those here. We just we have the smaller silos that do keep our cement there, but it's not the it's not the distribution center that you see over at Monarch. um if you look to the left or to the right or or wherever their actual plan is with the littleer silos, that's that's more of what we're looking at. Um so that's that's the difference there. And then on that same note, so because that's a a cement distribution center, you're getting uh cement tanker traffic um coming from the north and then down and loading up and then going back out. And that that includes us. So, we come down 169, we grab cement, and then go back up to our plant. Uh, with this plan, we cut out our our cement traffic because we're simply going across Webster. We're not going on to 1003rd and then or 183rd and then going up 169. We're simply going across the street. Um, if we could put in a pipeline from the plant to the terminal, we would, but unfortunately, we can't. So, um, I wanted to make those two points. Um, as far as the the concern for the truck traffic and

heavy truck traffic going up 169. We we fully support the the imposition of of a overpass there. Uh that that'd make our lives a lot easier. So, as you guys know, there's a difference between highway miles and city miles, right? And it's it's even more true with a a big truck. We'd much rather prefer to be on a highway as opposed to the city the city roads because when you slam on that brakes with that kind of weight, it tears the truck up faster. So, a lot of times, you know, if if we have a route, we prefer the highway route as opposed to the city route. The highway route gets us there faster. Concrete's a perishable product. So, that's one concern. And then the the wear and tear on the truck. It's it's less on a highway. um with regard to the dust. So again, what we have is different from across the street. And I'll I'll bring another guy up here and I'll show you. So we have we have what I from what I can tell three or four separate um separate modes to control the dust. So our actual plant in in the silos that go on the plant, we have what's called a dust collector. We we've got uh Mark talked about it briefly, but to expound on, we've got the the building that will control a lot of the dust. We've got dust collectors on the silo and with our pave lot uh and the the wash system. We really think it's a different story than old time ready mix with with gravel parking lots. So, um that's we've got a lot of mechanisms in place to help the dust. We've got, you know, it's it's three or four or maybe five different mechanisms to attempt to control the dust. We're paving the lot, enclosing the plant, putting dust collectors on. We have the the truck wash. Um, it's I I'm not sure what else we could do to to attempt to control the dust. Um,

I think I covered the lights again with the with the taller silos across the street. you know, I don't know if it's an FAA requirement or what happened, but um there's there's the lights on top. We're not going to have that here. As you can see, it's only um halfway up. Um yeah, it's not an FAA requirement. Oh, yeah. Um just let you know.

So, as far as the the truck routing and the truck traffic, again, um from what I understand, this, you know, this area is zoned industrial. The whole um across Webster and and and the rest of the area is zoned industrial. We don't really have another place to go. You know, I understand the concerns about going through school zones and and things like that, but um you know, the city's developing, it's growing. U you know, I I'm not sure where to go on that one. Um and then and finally, you know, with the noise, I understand, you know, some of the some of the residents are concerned about the noise. Similar to the lights, we are enclosing the plant. Um we have the dust collectors, we have our maintenance shop enclosed. Um, we're in an industrial zone, so I'm not sure, you know, you know, I understand there's noise, but we're we're trying to enclose and and take every step we can to kind of mitigate any of those concerns.

Thank you. Anybody else? I have a question for them. Sure. This is a 6:30 to 5:30 operation or I mean, I'm just trying to figure out. Yes, there's lights there. Yes, they're lower is what you're telling us. But are they able to be shut off at night or are they there for safety reasons throughout the night? What time, you know, what type of times during the day and what can happen with lights after hours?

It's a great question. So, from my understanding, I could be wrong, it may be a better question for our engineer or architect or the phototric individual, but if if we can put the lights that turn on and off there, we we'd be happy to do it. Saves us a little extra money from keeping them on the whole time as far as the hours go. So, um concrete is is it's kind of its own niche industry because, uh you want to pour, you know, as early as you can because you got to wait for the concrete to form and set and everything else. And so generally we we start, you know, in the summer we'll start, you know, our employees will get there 5:30, 5:45, and then we're loading at 6:15 and then 6 6:15 and then we're out the door. Um some some days it may be earlier, some days it may be later. Just kind of depends on the business. If it's hot out, guys want to go early because they want to get out of the sun. If it's cold like it is now, you're looking at an 8 o'clock start time, if not later.

Summer hours could be longer. Yes. It's not a 24-hour a day operation. No. Is it just Monday through Friday? Yeah. So, we're unique. Uh some of the other readymix companies in the in the metro area work Saturdays. We're a a voluntary Saturday company. We're usually Monday to Friday. If we have somebody who wants to go on Saturday and we get enough volunteers to work, we'll do it. If not, we're strictly Monday to Friday.

That helps. Thank you. just to leverage the lights. That's completely your prerogative for security or whatever. So, there's likely a level we can turn those lights off um when they're not in operation. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, I'll close the hearing and move to Member deliberations question for Amy. You're still on the safety committee, correct?

In conversations that you have had with them during those type meetings, has there ever been a time that we have been able to limit traffic of one type or another into a certain area? Is that something that would have to go to the safety committee before anything could happen? negative or positive. Is that a conversation that goes there first? Can you limit the weight limit? Can you do a weight limit on the roads? I say what you want to

It's a It's a question. I'm not I'm just saying if any of those conversations were to happen, I'm asking Procedurally, does that go to safety committee first or is that just something that goes through an attachment on a planning commission to a city council? I'm asking what that proceed that go through the standard traffic ordinance.

Yeah. So, what we would do is if there was a concern that was brought up to staff, our first level of concern is to talk about it amongst the staff. If it's something that we feel that um you know meets our ordinances and the intent and everything, we would engage traffic safety committee which has our on call u traffic engineer, chief of police, you know, we'll engage other people uh depending on you know what that concern is. Uh we'll get recommendations from that committee and then we would take it forward. So something like that um we could consider it um as staff and then see if that's something that we want to move forward with. Webster is the adjacent street that is a you know thorough that is a major collector street that is built to the standards. It's feeding onto 183rd Street that is also a major thoroughare that's feeding on to K7. Like they mentioned there is you know the the truck is going to take the most direct path to go to wherever their delivery is. If we were this as a no truck route, then those trucks that are delivering concrete to Dayton Creek could use Lone Elm. Uh the ones that are delivering concrete to some of the other areas within those within um those streets, they can take those local streets in order to get there if that is the most direct route. So I I don't know. We we could take a look at it.

Yeah, the city only has out to Woodland. So there's about we we tried to map it uh what we it's about 350 ft east of the what eastern most entry into the Monarch plant that we would be able to ban truck traffic. And after that it's county road. And unfortunately uh Johnson County does not let us dictate much to them. Depending on your if you wanted to turn it into a truck no truck route, there's about 300 feet of space we could turn into a no truck route and then it would no longer be our gen jurisdiction. Same thing. Yeah. No, it's not the same thing. A no truck route is much different than a weight limit.

She's not asking are they the same thing. She's asking what can we apply those limits to? And it would be that same level of we can only apply those limits within city limits. Correct. So, we can't we can't go do a weight limit out on a county section of 150. I understand that. But yeah, if you if you put a weight limit on there and they're when they're empty, they're below that weight limit and when they're full, they're above that weight limit, that's a much different thing. Weight limits are usually dictated whenever there is infrastructure that is substandard. Well, it sounds like

if there was a bridge that if there was a bridge that could take the weight, that's the only time that I've seen a weight limit imposed. Um, so anyway, that's something that we could bring to the traffic committee. But, um, again, I, you know, 183rd Street eventually does dead end. It doesn't go all the way to 16. It doesn't go all the way to 69. Well, if they're going to 69, they're probably going to go down to 68 highway anyway. Mhm. I think I I think I think the critical issue though is that they're they're not our that that the county I mean folks would have to go to the county and ask for that. That's true.

So my question then is no, we cannot attach anything recommendation to city council. It would be it would not behoove us in any way to do any type of an attachment. That is correct. It would have to go through the standard process of starting with staff, going to the traffic committee, and then getting a recommendation from the traffic. That was that was my whole Thank you. Yes. Spencer, did you have something? No. Okay.

Well, and I've heard a lot of concern, same as myself, is that on the coming 183rd, you turn right past the schools. I know there's development out there. You have to deliver some concrete out there. That's really a dangerous spot. There's no shoulder on that ridge view. And I heard one of the guys say get a vice behind there. There's so many on View. It's kind of crazy. Shouldn't be cycling on there. But I don't know if there's any way to control that either. If they have to I mean, if they don't have to deliver, they shouldn't be on that that area.

And I think falls into the same category. Portions of that is within the county. So that's outside of our control. The part that is within the city, we do have that on our long range CIP to make those improvements from 191st to 199th. Who pays for all the road maintenance? Like one of the citizens brought up the significant road maintenance caused by the heavy trucks. Do the companies help share in that? This is just a question for me. Spencer, maybe you can answer it. Does the city part of that or is it all of that or does do they share in the cost or how does that I think yeah I think in the past some companies have contributed to that but typically cities are responsible for maintaining their roads

paying tax okay right well they're paying the taxes there may be a benefit district that is part of that you know there's different mechanisms to get some of that financing because 183rd is great now but it was terrible before right I take that every day. You promise me my truck won't get dusty if I drive on 183. Well, we'll have a we'll have a car wash nearby. You can go get a car wash. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, exactly. That's right. And stop at Moodies and get some

So, to piggyback on the traffic issue, so one 80,000 pound truck is equivalent to 5 to 10,000 passenger cars. 5 to 10,000 passenger cars. Yeah. They said so it's a significant impact. One trucks are 70,000 pounds, right? Yeah. The eight of the cement and then the other ones are lighter. Yeah. That's a lot of Okay. No wonder the road got torch. So that's why that's why it gets damaged so bad. Which

so it has nothing to do with this situation, but my husband was working out in Abalene for like a year and the highway got shut down and ve or um highway traffic had to divert off of what the I7 go through Abalene and he was working on the jail at the time refurbishing it and so the sheriff was telling him that he was incredibly concerned because he's like these roads are not meant for semi-truckss to come through they're just residential streets they're not meant for this it's going to tear up our streets so it does have a huge impact even though because they're not they're not meant for traffic and semis and heavy loads like the highways are like they were saying and it

well like the one resident that came up and spoke he said just because they're designed that way doesn't mean that they're they're supposed to be but they won't be or will not be or potentially could not be. Right. What is supposed to be and what is is two different things.

Yeah. And so then then it begs the question of on quality of life with driving in your vehicles and maintenance and things like that. But then also is who's covering the cost of that and the repairs and things like that, especially on Rididge View where some of it's city, some of it's county, some of it city, some of it's county. And it's it just brings up that concern of the cost, the additional cost of maintenance and and things like that. Um and then my next question I guess now a question that was a statement but my question would be is Webster does not connect right from like that 183rd section. Okay. Are there plans for Webster to connect and be like a frontage road?

Yeah I I don't think there's been anything finalized to use a bad pun. There's nothing concrete on it. Um Oh, Spitzer. Bad pun. That's a dad joke for it. Uh I I think there's been discussions over extending that, but nothing past really discussions. I think it ultimately depends on what happens to the north there, right? You know, it that development is ripe for just about anything depending on, you know, what it's zoned for. So, I think it ultimately depends on whoever purchases that and wants to develop it. You're talking Webster North. It's Webster North of 183rd Street. No, I'm sorry. I meant connecting south. Oh, between like 191st and

um there's plans to do there are plans to do that. Okay. Sorry. Okay. Yes. I'm sorry that I did not clarify. That's I thought you were having fun, too. I was looking at the map, so you guys should have just known what I was talking about. I'll know next time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, there are plans to eventually do that. Okay, which that would help alleviate some of that or ridu 183rd traffic at some point potentially. Okay. Well, and that would take it through the industrial area to the south. Yes, thank you. Okay. I already did. Okay. Yeah, you closed it.

Yeah. So, there's two or three different things that I can see that let's just let's just talk about them. Think outside the box here. If you're going to if we're all going to suppose that the roads fail, then is it not possible that we ask for an escrow account of some sort that funds would go into for repairs when those roads do break. We've asked for escrow accounts for other things and maybe the escro escrow is not the correct word, but fund set aside for repairs.

I don't know whether that's within our

purp. I just said let's just let's just I'm throwing out ideas because I I have had other conversations and there have been there have been instances where we have done that and it has worked. We have talked about for years a frontage road north to south Again, I find ourselves, the city in a predicament where we have the cart before the horse. We're not keeping up with our infrastructure and it's being put back on taxpayers to take care of it. So, I think that at some point we do have to think about that. I don't want my taxes to go up. I don't think anybody on the commission does, nor do the general public to pay for the growth for Spring Hill. That's been spoken over and over again.

I feel like that's such a rock and a hard place, though. It is absolutely business to come in. That's why I said we're putting again the cart. We need to at some point Spring Hill has got to stop and catch.

I'm sorry, Cindy. We we probably should move away from this part of the conversation because it's it's not gerine to what's being reviewed today. I understand I understand your concerns, but we're getting into the financial component. Listen, listen. At the same token, if we recall, not many months past, it's already been brought up tonight by Miss Ael that the other entity that was there, we said that came in with him with a proposal. We said, "Put in the traffic light first and then you can build." And they agreed to that. I'm not so sure that with any of these other answers that are out there that anybody has come up with that that may not be the best answer is this is tabled until the traffic she's saying the traffic light has the conceptual plan has been approved that we say we'll wait

for the traffic light to go in it is a public safety issue at 183rd you're not going to convince me of anything any different place was going to have 72 overnight parking places. This is 100 plus trips a day. This is more than what the other one was. Not even close. Well, it's half. It's half of No. No. The a truck stop. I'm saying I'm saying overnight parking. We're not talking about overnight parking. We're talking about trips. Just trips. I Right. But I'm saying you had 72.

Well, hang on. I'm just and to clarify in the way the applicant discussed a trip is a trip in and a trip out is each one. So if it's 72 spots and assuming each spot is only used one time, that's 140, right? Yeah. I understand that. I'm not I'm sure I I'm not done. I'm just saying.

Right. That's a Hang on. That said, when that applicant was discussing a stoplight at 183rd, they were talking we were looking at a 12-month runtime, right? 18 months to get that stoplight in. That is no longer something that KOT has promised within that time frame. And while we're working with them, they are going to wait until the entire study is done. If you're going to hold every development that comes close to 169, waiting for KOT to finish that study, that's a broader discussion that needs to be had rather than on this. That's why I would say that we table would table this. That is where I'm headed with all of these other considerations. I think that

it is a traffic issue at 183rd. I am glad that I don't have those teenage drivers and I am one of those senior drivers that it is going to I I don't trust that we're not going to have light pollution or that we will not have significant increase in tragic accidents up and down that road. And we're just asking for one more place to be put in That is going to be a taxpayer issue to pay for road improvements and road upkeep. So why do we let any cars come in? Why do we why do we build any new houses?

Yeah, that they're passenger cars, not not cement trucks. It's the same thing. How do you think those how do you think those houses get built? Troy, I understand. But I'm just telling you my every one of those houses has multiple cement trucks that go to it. I understand what you're saying, but I'm saying I am not I am not I have a very hard time with this. Okay. I understand exactly what Kendra said as well. It's a between a rock and a hard place. It is. I don't I I It's a traffic problem. That's every every project that we have is a traffic problem.

I understand that. That's why at some point we have got to give the city a chance to get infrastructure in place. And I know that's a if they come, we do this. They don't come, we don't do this. We'll put the monies towards a project that's already up and going. I understand that. I'm not new to the game. I know. I'm just saying I have a hard time with this. Okay. And again, stopping projects to let the city catch up is a governing body function and it is not part of this CUP. I understand that. But it also lets them know the a planning commissioner or the planning commission's thought behind what their decision is.

Allison, did you have a comment?

I did. So, there are existing safety issues. They were brought up earlier today by some of the residents. It was brought up whenever we went through the safe streets for all study last year. Uh we are addressing some of those issues. give us time to do that, but don't impact an application that has 140 trips per day uh for truck traffic. That is not a significant amount of truck traffic uh compared to the truck stop that that we were originally talking about for 183rd Street. So, I think we're talking about two totally different things. We are addressing some of the safety issues with the infrastructure, but that should not of this application. Uh KAT is fully aware of that. That's why they're studying that K7 corridor study right now to figure out what other safety improvements can be done along that corridor.

Okay. Well, I think the applicant mentioned that a lot of the deliveries would be just across the street. Is that correct? Well, filling up would be across the street. Yeah, just filling up but not filling up long distance. Right. Right. That shortens a lot of bless strips a lot less.

Any other comments? Not I stand for a motion. I move to recommend the approval of the conditional use permit with the site plan. Subject to this condition, the city staff shall conduct an annual review of the use and site and provide a writt of that review to the planning commission.

Second. I hear a motion and a second. We'll start on the left. No pressure. Can I comment? Sure.

Sure. I I was kind of skeptical coming in here, but uh since it's only 87 foot for the silo, 30 foot lights high, promised to be pointing down. Um I'm still concerned about the traffic just as Cindy brought up. Um I'm especially back on Ridge View. Um hopefully it's more enclosed with this new facility. It's enclosed, so I like that. and the dust control should be better. So, they've kind of addressed that, too. Um, I think it's in a good spot, you know, for the where it's at and I don't think it what else is going to be going in right next to the where the plant is. So, um, I'm going to say yes. I'm going to say I for those reasons. Uh I guess in a lot of similar ways as as Sly said uh I think uh they've they're doing the best they can maybe more to mitigate uh dust to mitigate actually traffic because now they have easier access to where they get some of their material. So, I'm going to vote yes.

I understand your concerns about traffic, but those cement trucks are already coming down 169 just right up the street. So, I I'm voting yes. Um, the traffic was definitely a concern for me, but with hearing that the Webster Street will be connected south of 183rd to 181st makes me feel a lot better about the res. streets. South it will be not north. Okay.

South it will be but not north. So that makes me feel a lot better. So um I'm voting I. My vote's going to be no because of traffic safety. I don't disagree with some of the comments that have been made. I came in very concerned about lighting. There was other points that I had and questions I had on that. I appreciate the lighting. I appreciate appreciate the enclosure pieces. It's just simply I don't I I'm think at some point we have to address traffic and safety concerns. The vote is 4 Z I mean 41. Motion passes. Thank you. Discussion items. Y'all want to talk? Got a couple It's been two and a half hours.

Can we take Can we uh five discussion quickly? Five minute break. Break. Yes. Okay. It's kind of

What' you do to your hand? Oh, I cut it today at work and I scratched it and it opened up. Sorry. Sorry about that. I was gather, you know, occupational hazard. It is, isn't it? You ready?

Yes. Okay. So for announcements and reports, uh number seven and eight, no agenda items were approved uh at the city council meeting on December 11th and the uh city council special meeting on December 30th, respectively. Uh and on January 8th, uh city council approved the final plat for Whiz Farm's fourth plat. So those are the news updates. Um we have as staff one very cool new thing that we wanted to share. So we have revised the application submitt schedule. Uh so going forward there is a new uh approval timeline that applicants will be following. Let me pull it up here so you can take a look at it. The idea is to give staff a little bit of extra lead time in the review process uh to ensure that we're getting a complete uh application submittal and review done before it comes before you. Uh up until this point, you may have noticed that we often have quite a lot of conditions of approval. We wanted to kind of get away from that to where we're coming to you with a little bit more cohesive application. So, let me pull up what that looks like here for you. Um I thought I had pulled up. I guess I didn't.

Oh, yeah. Yeah. So, one of the reasons why we did this is because there is a uh a statemandated timeline for approval of final plats. not preliminary plats, but basically once an applicant has made a complete submittal to the city, uh there are a certain number of days before we have to get it scheduled on to planning commission and a certain number of days after that that it has to go to city council for approval. Um, one of the issues that we're running into is that we did not Thank you so much. we did not uh have a very effective way to determine whether or not an application was submitted. So, what this does is it gives us an opportunity to receive a submitt um and then do a round of reviews, take a look at it, uh and then determine whether or not we have a complete submitt. At that point, we can then have what we call like a go no-go meeting where we can determine whether or not it's going to be time for us to schedule it for an agenda hearing. So, uh it basically just makes sure that we're coming to you with the best possible plan at that point. Um you can kind of see what it looks like here. that thick dark line running uh north to south. Uh that's the the moment where we decide whether or not an application is going to come before you or if it's just not quite ready yet. Needs to go through another round of internal reviews. Um so going forward, this is what's going to look like. It won't affect y'all too much, but just know that this is happening on the back end. We want to keep you guys apprised of it. Um I don't think there's anything else from like a news standpoint. I did want to following the conversation that we had today specifically related to Aenddale. Um, I understand that, you know, the architectural elevations of the idea of a conceptual plan, it's it's a little new, a little shaky. We can definitely work through some of that. I wanted to know if we were to investigate that a little bit more and kind of formalize what sort of things we'd want for a conceptual elevation packet, if you will. Um, what sort of information do you guys want to see? I know that we kind of had a conversation about, uh, materials, uh, the massing in terms of like the front entrance. Um what what are some things that I can kind of have to guide my my direction as we look into this assuming this is something that we

So I know that we really can't require like you were asking about for storm sewers or storm pipes or storm pipes storm sellers or safe room stuff but that that is something that we have been talking about for years. Okay. Okay. That's something I can we can bring up with the uh oncoming code official. Yeah. Yeah. We brought up last time the code official, you know, the it's in the permit phase where they they could actually put a slab home and not a basement. We didn't even know they could have put Yeah, put a slab home and put the the thing in the bathroom or in the garage. That's should code should be changed.

Yeah, that's something that uh well, whenever we get our code official when we go to revise the code because we're going to be doing some code updates, that's something we can look at. Um I think you included either you or or Miss Ael included information about the the playground upgrades and all of those type of things. I think those are the other things that we were looking for, but it was included. I mean, oh, like with the uh facility like the amenities that were included with that project. Any of any of those type of things, but I think that that was included in I mean those are the things that were Yeah, I know sidewalks came to mind, right? Oh, yeah.

My soap box. I think it's just so that we can see that whole overall picture of what it potentially would look like. And then one of the others, I don't know what it's called, and Chuck's not here to to pick his brain. Remember when we were talking about a conceptual idea of of having those homes that had the common use area and they whatever that I mean, so that we can visualize and no, is it like the front loaded homes? It was in Colorado. Yeah. So, it's just a set of homes and they are it's like a little community and they had a common area where they use picnic areas and barbecue pits and pits.

Is it one of those where it's kind of like rear loaded and then like the front door so to speak is facing inwards towards a center. Yes, I know exactly what you're talking about. So, just so that we could see that overall so like renderings maybe is kind of community is going to look like or what the feel for it or the vibe. Yes. The kind of vibe. Yes. Well, I mean it's that give and take like you said, you know, so what are we getting? What are they we're giving this? What are they giving? What are they bringing to us? Well, I like the idea too if there are like multiple developers or something. The HOA like yes, regulations and what they require and things like that just so we do get an idea of this is what's fine, this is what's not. Just

more broad but also slightly more detailed. Something to picture. Yeah. Okay. Because yeah, I I totally like how can you control what each house is going to look like when you do have multiple builders coming in? And I really do like the neighborhoods that have multiple builders because the home styles are different and things like that. Yes. But also, you want to make sure that you're not going to have super modern next to this rustic cottage and just Yeah. Right. looking out of place and so also who's to say you can't have moder like you know it's hard but

one thing that I I've seen before when I was working for the city of Le Summit we had an applicant come through for a residential subdivision that had a it was like a design guide book in a way and it had like prohibited materials permitted materials um sample photos I guess and then like prohibited designs so they would have like prohibited contemporary postmodern you know all this stuff kind of like you know broader birds, but I think in the end it worked towards that idea of painting a picture of what that is going to look like or what it won't have. Is that something kind of along the lines of what you're thinking of? Because yeah, we're trying to find a way to strike the balance between how to give them flexibility but also not let them just go that sort of thing. Yeah. Anything to help narrow down the idea of what it's going to look like I think could be helpful. Yes.

Okay. Now, I'm not saying this is something I can like just do because a lot of it's gonna have to be probably codified, but by two o' go to bed, but okay, that's good to know. Very good to know. Thank you. I could not. Thank you. So, those type words just give us that insight.

Sure. Sure. And yeah, I don't know how often we're going to run into this thing where we're going to have a developer that's not the builder. It's obviously pretty common to have these larger companies come through and just do them all, but whenever it does, it's good to have that flexibility if we can work around it. Okay, perfect. Well, that's all that I had. Um, was good good guidance. I appreciate it. Thank you for being willing to put you through. I had I had a question or request if it's possible. I know we got a new director.

Is it possible to get a copy of a resume or a summary of who this person is? That way we know we probably could who we're going to be interacting with. I don't know. Maybe I want his references. I want you have a bio or something. Um I think that there has been some talk about maybe trying to do greed or something like that. So that might be more appropriate. No, we have February 5th. February 5th. March 5th. Yeah. February February 5th. Oh, I thought the updated email said March 5th and I was like, I think No, that was that was the first email that was just referenced to now we're moving it up a month.

Apparently, I struggled with some of your emails this week, right? It's probably No, I don't think it's you. You had to read something that was going to be on the website. Even if it could be sent to the planning commissioners ahead of time, it doesn't should be his personel file. That's we'll do a bio. Just like a bio just a bio. Bio that that introduction thing maybe even if that was sent to planning commission ahead of it being published to the public or something even if it was two hours. You'll get to we'll get to meet him on Yeah, I'm sure that our PIO I think that's what Ralpho was asking something like that.

Yeah. So, uh we've got a new public information officer. I don't know if you've met Jenna Gant. She has done a wonderful job with some of our communication. I don't know if you've seen some of her videos on Facebook and Instagram, but I'm sure that there's going to be plenty of information. You're going to get to know Mike very well after all this. You're going to, you know, probably wish you didn't wish that you didn't have that much information, but I'm sure that there's going to be some sort of bio or some feature uh in the newsletter uh on the website, that kind of thing. So, you guys will have plenty of an opportunity to make that introduction. And yes, definitely at the work session on February 5th. Now, my question to that is Ian's still going to be the one coming, not this new person. Correct. I'll still be presenting cases.

It's gonna be all of us. Ian or no one? Um, I'm just saying it's not been the one that replaced Amy that now this new person's going to replace. No. No. So, it's this is the crew. Basically, Mike will he may he'll be present. What's his name? I don't even know his name. His name is Mike. Mike. What? Min. Yeah.

Yeah. He he comes from Blue Springs, so that was his his last position. Um, in fact, fun fact, I had a old planner in Lisum that worked with him loves him. So, he's got a good reputation. Yeah. Um, that being said, yeah, he he'll probably well, he will be president at some of these meetings and then he'll be kind of there to defer to if there's something that might be from a policy perspective that would be kind of his purview. Uh, or if something's just like super controversial, you'll know because he's going to be the one that's going to be talking a lot more than me. Okay. Yeah, that's good. I mean, I didn't We just not trust you and you're leaving us. Is that I know. I would never leave. I got Stockholm sent already.

Well, thank you. Yeah. Somebody can find something. It would be nice to know who it is. Exactly. We didn't do minutes tonight. We didn't have a meeting last night. We have still have to approve the previous minutes. Well, I forgot. Okay, that's fine. No, I just that was a new appreciate the honesty. No, that's my problem. No, it's okay. I just was trying to figure it out for me. I'm I'm not letting you off that easy. Just because we didn't have a meeting last month doesn't mean we don't think that it's to approve. Amy, I'm being nice. I just didn't know. Is it a different thing that we're doing?

We got a different proposal with changing. And well, and the whole present your new craziness. The whole praise the whole presentation looks different. So, I mean, it's okay. Got a staff letter. It's going to change again, too, probably because I can't settle on design. So, well, that's okay. I I'm I'm flexible for the most part. There you go. I'll entertain a motion to Oh, I I one Oh, you have a question? Sorry. No, not a question. Just a comment. On November, the last time we met, um, we talked about They were building the slab homes right next to me, you know, and right across from the high school. Lo and behold, I don't know if you said something to them, but they started building the basement within a week. Oh,

I did not because you didn't. That wasn't You didn't say anything? No. I was just coincidence maybe. But they put in the basement. They did it. Yeah. Um, but they didn't change the sign yet. Did you tell them to change the new It's Newcastle. They have one word. It's supposed to be two words. Newcastle. Okay. Just checking. You might tell them to turn down the Spanish music when they're over there. Oh, come on. Those are the workers. No, they're they they're late at night playing it and early in the morning. Steve, we know you're out there dancing. Okay, we can move to Oh, I All those in favor?

It's a wild wild west out here. There are no rules. rule. The rule stopped