Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Before I call the meeting to order, I wanted to uh welcome two new members to the planning commission. Uh Nate Nace, Travis Nace, I'm sorry, and Rachel Jones. Thank you for being here. I'd now like to call the meeting to order. Uh, February 5th meeting of Oh, sorry, wrong wrong. March 5th, 2026. And we'll start with uh pledge of

allegiance of algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. [clears throat] Have a roll call. Mr. Nace. Mr. Hehart here. Miss Jones here. Mr. Aravalo here. Miss Kier here. Mr. Sly here. Miss Squire here. Mr. Morris here. Chairman, we have a quorum. Thank you.

I'd like to ask for approval of the agenda. [clears throat] Second it. A motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I I I. Any opposed? Nay. Thank you. 8 Z.

Let's see. Next uh item on our agenda is citizen participation. Uh I have two names on the list. Uh and the first uh person is Joan Waterman. Please state your name and address. John. Yeah. Yes. Uh John Waterman.

Uh 21110 West 186 Terrace uh in Dayton Creek subdivision. So uh appreciate the opportunity uh to to speak tonight. Um, and my what I'm talking about is the comprehensive plan. And I want to thank uh uh you know, first Mayor Young, um the the city council, and finally the planning commission for finally kind of re redirecting attention back to the comprehensive plan that's that's fairly outdated at this point. Um, you know, this this is very important to me, uh, as a relatively new citizen of Spring Hill. Moved here in 2021, uh, December 2021. Um, moved from THAA, uh, saw this opportunity of, you know, getting out, you know, a little further away from the metro. Got to, uh, have some growth opportunity of the city. Kind of, you know, really, really saw that as something interesting for me, you know. in in my life and my wife's life and the you know they were talking about the comprehensive plan needing to be you know restarted and that excited me got got involved you know started participating in surveys and everything and then it kind of find kind of stalled it just it just died out meanwhile there's been a lot of activity continuing to go on development without a a good sense of of direction or purpose and that concerns me as a citizen because I feel that that that's very important to have that plan and that guidance to kind of guide you into the future. So I want to relate back to the April I believe it was April 2024 planning commission meeting uh so almost two years ago where uh where the last kind

of real conversation of the comprehensive plan took place and it was at that time that the consultant displayed a future land use map uh that was kind of developed by them that took the And and I believe someone uh mentioned at the time on the council or on the commission that uh the future land map looked more like a hundred-year plan than a than a 10, 20 or 50 year plan, which it which it definitely did. Very very massive. Uh not really tangible. Uh so then things kind of died and and in that future land re map along the BNSF rail were identified industrial areas of of growth which that in of itself actually was the the the thing that made the most sense with the with that future land m use map was the fact that the industrial area was along the railroad track which which made which made good sense. So, where where I'm going with this, I only have one minute left. Okay, I will make it quick then. So, I will now talk about the intersection 191st Street, Rener Road. Um, it's not a great industrial area and there's three land use maps, Overland Park, Spring Hill, and THA that don't identify that as an industrial growth area. And Overland Park defines it as residential. Tha currently defines it in their interactive land use map as a conservation in a clustered neighborhood area. And Spring Hill identifies it as a rural residential area. So

I don't I'll let I'll let my fellow citizens, you know, tell you on the 25th, you know, why data centers are bad. I'm not necessarily for against the data center. I just know that this plan doesn't line up with land use planning in the area in in the o overall area. Um, I know there's going to be couple months of voting, you know, on this. Just I urge the commission, I urge city council and I urge the mayor to really pay attention to what what you're setting yourselves up for because if if we identify that that is a targeted industrial growth area, we need to notify the other cities. We also need to notify and provide guidance to the to the owners who just built those massive homes there in the area to the east and the area to the west that you know we need to compensate them somehow and say you know we we didn't realize that this was going to be an industrial growth area and you know there has to be some you know some sort of you know guidance there or something to to to help help help them out. So, I just I I urge you in the coming coming months um you know that we that we all look and make sure that we're we're doing what is going to be best for the city, not not immediate not immediate gain for the city. It's what what's gonna what what's the city going to look like in 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, 100 years. So with that, I will I will end. So I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Uh our next speaker, and I hope I don't mispronounce your name, Alexandra. revoke at this time. She's revoking at this time. Oh, okay. Uh, those are the only people on my list, but if there are other members in the audience that would like to speak, please come forward. Mr. Peterman, evening. Good evening. This is a good looking group here.

Bill Peterman, 1943 West 200 Street. I just wanted to come up here and say that this group here is not the problem. This group here has always voted and and passed on to the city council the right way. I remember when you voted 08 to zero uh about the uh what was it? It was the planning commissions. They voted it down. City commiss uh city council came in and started saying they got it wrong. They got it wrong. You guys remember that? They got it wrong. I kept asking what did they get wrong? Oh, they got it wrong. So, they voted zero uh 600 to pass it. So, it was one of them deals that uh nobody wanted. It went against the whole theme of what's been going on in Spring Hill forever. The way you guys have laid things out, you've done a good job. uh you haven't had any closed meetings uh like city council has and they just voted for $128 million wastewater treatment. What does the data center need? Electricity and wastewater. So they're not letting us know. They're not letting you know probably. But this is coming. this is coming and they want you to take everybody's lecture about why it shouldn't come because they've bought spent their last dollar to buy land and build a house that they're comfortable with so they can die in it and be happy for the rest of their days on earth. No. Yeah. They want to take that away from them. So I honestly think that I just wanted to come up here and make sure that these people didn't know that you was the ones going to be causing the

problems. They need to talk with you and see who to talk with maybe on city council, but I think city council has uh left us left us in the dirt and they're getting something somewhere to have that come in. Uh I was out and talked to the electrical people putting up the thing across Ren Road that come just past 199th Street. I heard a heard a comment something about Spring Hillbillies. Spring Hillbillies. They won't know what to do. What are we all? Spring Hillbillies. Think about it. They're coming in. They're building their water treatment. They're building their electric. They're going to shove this in. Now, after all that gets in here, then they're going to tell us, "Oh, yeah. Well, we've got a data center coming in. We want to vote that in." Don't let it get that far. Help us. tell us what we can do to help you so that we can get it where two it's not in there. Uh I do remember uh during these last elections everybody kept talking you know uh we want to be uh open and outright uh you know transparent transparent. Why do they have two or three closed meetings at every city council? Why is that? Why are they having two and three meetings behind closed doors and then all of a sudden, oh, we're gonna we're going to buy the the line from Beatatric to Spring Hill and and add on more sewers. Well, that's going to help our growth. That's going to help our growth. I don't care that we we grow. I do care that we bring in data centers. Data centers have a decibel of 80 to 95 constant. If you ain't goofy now, you'll be then. Think about it.

Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? If not, we close that uh citizen participation section and we'll move over to our formal action approval of our minutes of se February 5th, 2026. I'll make a motion app to approve the minutes from February 5th, 2026. Seconded. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.

All those opposed. Thank you. 8 0. Our first uh item uh this evening or second item this evening is election of a planning commission chair and vice chair. And I would like to open the floor for nominations. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to nominate Kendra.

I'll second the nomination. I accept the nomination. Okay. Any other nominations? If not, we'll close that. Do we proceed to the vice chair or do we vote on just vote on this one? Vote on this one and then do vice.

Okay. Uh well, we have one candidate. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Oh, I get to Oh, get to move. You're ripped. All right. [laughter] Do you want to get through vice chair first? She hasn't announced. Just really quick. Were there any nos to that? No. It sounded unanimous to me, but okay. It was unanimous. Want the record to be clear. Thank you. Unanimous. Spencer. No. [laughter] I'm not trying to suggest anything. Do I do the vice chair or do the vice chair? I don't care.

Okay. Okay. Your choice. As well. The floor is open for vice chair nominations. I'll nominate Chuck for vice chair. I second that. Got a motion in a second. We're willing to serve. I respectfully accept the nomination. Thanks. [laughter] Okay. Any other nominations? If not, we'll close the nomination for vice chair and we'll take a vote. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. All those opposed? Unanimous. 800. And

I don't have to move. [laughter] Thanks. Thank you, sir. Breaking up the girl squat over here. [laughter]

Oh, the view's nicer over here. [laughter] Okay.

Um, all right. Hi everybody. I'm Kendra. Thank you very much. appreciate that. All right, bear with me. New here. All right. Um, so that's not what I wanted. I apologize, guys. All right. So, we will move on to public hearing. The reasonzoning application Z25-5 C2 to MPO.

Okay. Good evening, folks. Uh, is it okay if I begin? Oh, yes, please. Thank you. Sorry. You're good. Um, good evening. My name is Ian Trefer, city planner. Um, not used to Oh, sorry. Oh, follow that.

Okay, now you see a big crowd, so bear with me. Um, I'm presenting application Z25-5, a reszoning from C2 to MP with a PO overlay, uh, for the property located on the west side of Webster Street, approximately half a mile north of 223rd Street. The applicant, Todd Alenbrand, on behalf of the property owner, Brian Brenamman, uh, is requesting this resoning. The subject property is approximately 2.75 acres of land. this up and within that subject property a subsection which is denoted here in the hatched lining is the requested reszoning. [snorts] Um just to clarify the current property's current zoning designation is C2 general business and it's going to MP Industrial Park with the protective overlay. Uh the request of this resoning action is to facilitate the use of uh the property with an accessory outdoor layown storage area. Um, so the purpose of the PO overlay is to provide restrictions to the industrial park uh zoning so that way the more nuisance-causing land uses that are typically associated with MP are not permitted. So really what this is doing is just finding a way to construct the zoning designation such that the principal land use of office could be permitted while also allowing for that accessory outdoor storage. Um, if there's any questions about that, I can kind of clarify, but the PO just kind of lays on top of the base zoning district to further restrict it. Um, part of the issue is that within the current uh adopted zoning ordinance, there's not a way to permit outdoor storage in the C2 district at all. So, we have to go to the MP to find that available land use and then restrict that down to fit the the intended use. Um, little bit of history about the subject property. Uh the property was originally uh designated uh for a uh multi-tenant commercial uh center back in 2021 as part of a site plan application um that was never developed. So the property currently

remains vacant. Uh within the surrounding uh area uh to the north is predominantly a mix of residential and undeveloped land. Uh immediately north there are R3 multif family and R1 single family zoning. To the northwest is RP1 Plan single family and to the immediate west is RR roll residential. Across Webster Street to the south is C2 commercial. The future land use plan designates this specific chunk of land as part of the residential. However, it backs up directly to the commercial mixeduse future land use designation. With the future land use plan, um it's not an exact parcel by parcel designation. So with that, uh, it's kind of expected that as properties develop out, um, it might not fit exactly where it shows up with the way that this parcel is kind of laid out. Trying to think of how to explain this. The portion on the south east is would be designated as future land use commercial. Um, however, just by the nature of how small that area is, it's to be assumed that that might flex as properties are able to be developed. with that. It's technically residential, but it's still within an area, a site layout that is compatible with that commercial, provided that it has the appropriate future, appropriate land use planning considerations. Uh, which will be associated with the site plan application that'll come before you in the future. Um, but associated with that site plan will be things like landscaping, buffering, all the things you would come to expect to kind of mitigate those uh off-site impacts. Uh the staff letter goes over the golden standard set forth by the city of Oakland Park v Golden. Um with that you can kind of read over um the different factors associated into the resoning. Um if you have any questions about any specific factor I can kind of dive into it a little bit more but staff has reviewed all the different factors. uh and we don't find any misalignment or

non-compliance uh with the requested reszoning provided that the PO overlay is applied those restrictions are enforced. Uh with that staff has no further comment but we do recommend approval uh with the conditions set forth in the staff letter. Thank you so much. Do you mind describing outdoor layown storage? Hey, really quick Ian. Yes. Kendra, can we open the public hearing? Oh, that's fine. Yes. Oh, yeah. That's on me for not getting it open for us. Go ahead and announce formerly open the public hearing. Yes. And then Huh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Okay. Yeah. Now you can start teasing. [laughter]

Really? And Ian, really quick. Sorry. One more. Any conflicts of interest or exparte communications disclosed of the commissioners? None. No. No. No. Great. All right. Sorry. Sorry. No, [clears throat] no, no. It's the first time. Thanks. Thank you. So, the specific definition within the UDO for the sort of outdoor storage is kind of tied to an operable. I can find it to be specific. I can also have the applicant kind of speak to what that intended storage is going to look like. Um, so actually, let's do that first. I'll be speak to what that's supposed to look like.

Todd Alen Brand, Renaissance and St. consulting 102 Abbey Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas. Um the the site is I'm here with the clients, the developers, Brian Berman, Clifford Stall. They have a contracting company and they need an area where they can store their equipment that's not somewhere on site. So, you know, they have trailers associated with, you know, back hose or whatever. So, it's basically just a storage secure area they can put that stuff. Plus, they're proposing to have an out a three-sided building to protect things that are covered, you know, maybe equipment or or uh materials that they need for the sites for that they're working on. So, that's what they're coming here for. And the and the reason we had to go to the, as Ian was saying, go to the MP zoning with the protective overlay is because they don't there's not allowed in commercial. you know, we were hope we were hoping that we could do commercial with a special use permit, but wasn't allowed. So, this was the option. And with the protective overlay, we have to designate, you know, the items that are going to be done in there, and that's the only thing. So, you know, storage equipment, storage of supplies, a shop, things like that. So, you know, probably going to only be limited to two or three things. Now, the rest of the site is going to operate just like a commercial building. They're going to have their offices and their staff and their employees will come there. So other than that, I mean that's pretty much the the bulk of the of the reason for the reasoning and and as mentioned which [clears throat] we aren't talking about land you I mean we're not we're talking about land use and not land what we're proposing on the site but we are preserving you know some of the tree lines to the north and we're adding extensive amount of landscaping which will come in later on for your commission. And if you have any specific questions or more uses to the specifics, I would just like defer to Brian Clifford to come up and address those.

Will the will it be will the area where the equipment and the back host will be stored, will that be paved or gravel? Gravel. Okay. And how how much how often do you expect the equipment to to be going in and out or would it typically be stored off site? I think that would probably be a better answer from Brian. And just just to get a sense of like the amount of traffic of the heavy equipment coming in now,

very rarely. Um, you know, once a month there might be a skid loader or something. 99% of the time our stuff is on job sites. It's kept off site. Um, the amount of material that we talked about, maybe [clears throat] some miscellaneous pipe. I got a photo. I did not bring a copy of it, but of what our what I would consider and I can show it to you, but what I would consider our storage area right now. We currently have an office in in Gardener, Kansas. We're want to move to Spring Hill to move all this here.

Okay. Thank you. one skid. So that's the lay down and lay down storage. Okay. Okay. So it's very minimal and we'll have fence around it of course. Um but very minimal use for for equipment. Like I said it's mainly um very small pipe. We have a plumbing company and a contracting company. So miscellaneous small items. Um Oh, sorry. Go ahead. How high would the fencing be? I believe we've talked about six foot.

What um what are you planning on using as an entrance to um like from Webster or if that makes sense what I'm asking if I can ask that. I mean does it it doesn't touch Webster though does it? So I think one thing that we just need to be considerate of here is that right now we're just looking at land use designation. Okay. Okay, we start getting into like the site specific layout. We'll talk to that site. Perfect. Ian, I did have a question regarding that. Is the PO forever designated with this MP reszoning then? So, is it always tied to this MP zoning, the PO overlay? Yeah, it's it's an adopted zoning designation that has its own ordinance attached to it,

right? But it doesn't delay like it's not going to go away. Then we're stuck with the MPA or the MP that can have all the nuisance material and everything, right? No. So, that will always be tied with the MP. Yeah. as part of the ordinance for the reasonzoning of the property, it will be implicitly tied to that. Yeah. So, you can't you have to come back through to separate the map. It runs with the land. And then if if a different applicant in the future wanted to propose MP adjacent to this, it would have to be considered in light of the protective overlay that's on this property. Right. That's correct. We wouldn't just take that as, oh, there's MP right next to it. It's, yeah, there's MP, but it has all these restrictions. It's really more of a commercial site. That's one of the factors. And Ian, I know you're new, but um I don't think we've ever been presented with a protective overlay before.

Yeah, why is this appearing now and what and what's changed? [snorts] Nothing's changed. So, this has been in the UO for quite a while. Um when Mike and I got here, we were looking through the UIO and we saw this as a tool that I think has just been kind of underutilized. Um one of the things that we've kind of found frustration with is that there's

not ways to add land uses to zoning districts, but there are ways to subtract them. And the PO is that way of subtracting. So we would like to kind of utilize as kind of like another tool in our tool belt of how to kind of more tightly regulate and find more appropriate land uses for certain zoning. But yeah, it just hasn't been used. My my concern is that as I look at at the uh industrial area off of Webster and 185th or whatever that those streets are. It's very unsightly [clears throat] from the highway. I don't want the same thing on this side of town. Yeah. To occur.

Yeah, I understand that. And that's kind of going to to Chuck's point where, you know, when reviewing future potential resoning requests, um, this won't be just taken as a blanket. This is now good for all industrial. This is really looking at it more of a like a commercial plus. So, there's certainly land use considerations when it comes to the site plan application and how that site's actually laid out, what it looks like. U, but as far as that heavy industrial kind of uglier land use, you're not going to see that crop up in this area. um because it's not compatible. It's not similar to what is in front of you now. We wouldn't use this as the basis for heavy industrial down the road. I missed where's the layown area at?

Um so right now I think it's proposed to be on the north end. Um on the north end. Yeah. I don't have a mouse but Ian to to kind of continue the discussion of protective overlay. How how would a PO relate to a conditional use uh permit? They don't. So the conditional use permit is tied to the site plan application whereas this is tied to the resing action. Okay. Thanks. And that entire area is only what 2.75 acres. Let me see if that's being resoneed.

That's correct. 2.57 2.756. So lay down area is you're going to be able to see it from Webster. So we'll kind of get into the into it with the site application, but there will be screening requirements for all sides that but uh right ofway or face rightway or other properties. Um, so I don't want to get into it too much because we just have to be mindful about what the criteria are for the reasonzoning requests specifically, but in draft applications that we've seen and we've been having communication with the applicant, we're requesting enhanced buffering on all sides that are going to be visible from anywhere other than the site itself. So we're aware of that.

Okay. And this piece I'm looking on the colored map. this piece that goes across into C2. There was some mention that I what I understood that that would be C2, but we're redoing all of it to MP with a with the PO. Is that Are you looking at the current zoning designation map? This one. So, what is that referring to? So, this piece here. So, that's county that's not associated with this. Okay. Okay. So, just to clarify. Okay. Uh just for the record, Cindy was looking at the current zoning map and was identifying the area in the county uh as to whether or not that'd be part of the resoning. Uh and I was just clarifying that's only the portion that's designated within the city limits.

Um Ian, as you know, we did receive a letter from an adjacent property owner. Yeah. And one of the things mentioned in there was um like a tree preservation. And in the past we've talked about it, but since you and Mike have fresh ideas and things, what's your perspective on on that like like ways and I know that what's being suggested here is um you know landscaping that we'll see in the future with the site plan,

the fencing that'll probably be in there, six foot fence, kind of a privacy fence. But in terms of preserving the natural trees which are on the on the property line, is there anything that the city can do to to sort of encourage the applicant to maintain that in the future as additional buffering?

So tree preservation easements, I mean there's different perspectives and kind of theory about I am a little hesitant to love them. Um, I think that they're great in theory, but I think that tying landscaping with uh site development applications is a more appropriate way to handle that sort of thing. But yes, that is one of the tools, tree preservation easements and maintaining landscape buffering. I think that relying on the development ordinance and our development standards to supply that is a more effective way to do it because easements get into a whole bunch of maintenance issues and you start I don't I could have a whole conversation with you about that, but Okay.

Yeah, it's one of the tools that we can consider. I was just curious, we haven't talked about it and the letter brought it up, so I was kind of just curious about your perspective. So, it sounds like you believe that the cleanest way is to focus on the site plan and the city's ordinances. I do. Yeah. I think that encumbering plats and property like legal descriptions and the guess plat specifically with easements, I think there's too much of a good thing. That's just my professional opinion, but Ian, you said this PO has an a long list, an extensive list. What are some of the things besides just that it it just brings it back to a commercial with a few little extras. Um, so I believe are you talking about within the staff letter itself or

No, you you just stated here a while ago that it's an extensive list. What else is under a PO? What else can you what else does it restrict? So the PO can be used to restrict land uses. It can be used to restrict some development standards. Um, I believe there should be a copy of the section of the ordinance that deals with the PO specifically that was provided to you that we can go over if you'd like. Um it's a pretty flexible way to kind of restrict link uses. So I can find it and speak to exactly what it shows. Yeah, give me one quick moment to pull that up.

Yeah, the the when Ian and I first took a took a look at this uh and looking at the compatibility of land uses be it industrial or commercial. Um in order to do the outdoor storage they would have to zone to industrial in our code. We didn't feel it was appropriate to allow the full range of land uses allowed in the MP zoning district on this prop property due to its proximity to existing residential and also future commercial development along Webster. And so that's where the uh protected overlay allows us to because we can't add land uses in our current code which is something we will likely bring back forward to amend. Um because if we could, we would have just zoned this to C2 with an overlay that added accessory storage. Because our code isn't written that that way today, we have to use the code that's in place. So our next best bet is to up it to the MP zone and list the land uses that can be in there, which we did, which is reiterate all the C2 land uses with the additional outside storage. So, because of the way our code is written, that's the path we had to take. Um, but potentially in the future, we'd like to bring back an amendment where it doesn't have to be this complicated. We could take all of the land uses in C2 and add in an additional land use that, um, if the site development, um, conditions, additional landscaping, fencing, things of that nature that can be included into it to make it more compatible. then we could bring that forward and then you could consider such a thing. But we're essentially doing that, but we're playing by the rules that are in effect at this time by just saying it's MP with a PO, but the PO states all C2 land uses with outside storage and that's it.

And this stays with it. It's not like a conditional use where it has to be revisited every year. This stays with it. No revisits. That's That's correct. unless it were to be affirmatively changed through the standard reszoning application process.

Yeah, just for reference, these are the different standards that can be modified using the PO. So, you got your permitted conditional accessory land uses, which is what we're applying here. Uh, but you can also adjust the density, lot size, lot width, setbacks, uh, restrictions on access, as well as it kind of has a blanket statement here at the end. any other [clears throat] specific development standards required or authorized by this regulation which I take that we can talk to Spencer about that what that means but there's a quite a list of options that that gives us.

Thank you. [snorts] Just just to be clear, the rest of the property that's already there is already C2, correct?

And it's going to stay C2. Um it's just this 2.75 acres in the back. So it'll be commercial in front of it. Um just to clear up the the rest of the 11 acres there. Any other questions? I was just going to say anybody have anybody other questions? No.

No. Okay. [clears throat] Oh, yeah. I've got like four of them. Okay. So, now we will open public comments from the audience. If anyone would like to come up, please state your name and address.

I'm here. Um I live um actually right where that other development um that you guys are going to hear about next next time is um it's 15320 um West 191st Terrace Tara Combmes. Um I just wanted to point out how he referenced that it's ugly and that's what industrial is. I just wanted to make sure that you guys heard him say that. That's directly from him. Um I also have a question just I think it's maybe a bad precedence for us to start putting just small industrial areas in places. Um it opens the door for a lot of things and I think a lot of us are worried about that. So just changing the zoning in one little place just kind of opens the door for other things. So I just want to make that stated. Um, and then my other question was just if there was an opportunity for this to be reviewed every year, is that a bad thing? Is it a bad thing for us to re review something every year? Um, and if there was a special application that needed to be done for that, we could keep it at something lower than industrial, why wouldn't we do that? Why wouldn't we keep it lower than industrial? There are other options. Like, was that presented to you? Did you did you deny that? I I don't know. But I think there are other options than to just say let's go straight to industrial. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Oh, can sorry, can you wait till you get to the microphone? Thank you.

My name is Christine Coyazo. And um I lived down here off of 215th, but 210 85 mil bridge, but why why we already have a like this gentleman here said, it's an eyesore. I drove down the highway today and I'm like, what has happened to Spring Hill? It used to be a charming small town and that all How many stories facilities do we need? They're an eyesore. They all should have fencing up and down that highway. It looks It looks like crud. And I really don't want it going past 191st. And what if it's I don't understand why you if it's just a skid loader, why do you need this large space move down here? Why not just stay down here? Because I don't believe it's just a skid loader. I mean, maybe it is, but I think it needs to stay down with all the other semis and stories facilities that's already down there. I mean, we already have like what, six new ones now. I noticed like two of them being built today. I'm like, how many of these facilities do we need and on the west side of the highway, we already have that car lot or whatever it is and broad rock and we [clears throat] don't need to clutter up each side. I just want to keep the small town charm. I don't want to lose that. And I feel like we're losing it and I hope not. So, thank you.

Thank you. My name is Kurt Vanderiple at 2012 South Country View Terrace. Um, just a couple things that I appreciated Ian speaking to that I hope we can remember when we talk again in a couple of weeks about incompatible land uses and my thoughts on zoning and how there are zones to um protect existing land owners, zones to protect existing ways of life. And I think we have to make sure that that's something that we keep in mind as we come back to this topic in a couple of weeks. The other thing that I would have a question um [clears throat] it was spoken about um on this lay down storage there would be um storage of skid loader uh some lay down pipe but other supplies as well. Um I'm assuming probably want to have some good definition on what those other supplies are. um whether it would be fuel storage or anything of that nature. Since this is to store equipment, is there going to be fuel stored on site as well? Would that be within the realms of the other supplies? That'd be a question. So, I think it's just important to think about the comprehensiveness of when we start setting precedents, when we start allowing things, what kind of a precedent does that lay down for the future? So, I would just ask the council to really or the commission to really think about that, keep that in mind as we're going down these next several months. Thank you. [clears throat]

Would anyone else like to come up? Thank you, sir. All right. Um Do the commission members have any other questions or need any clarification from the applicant or staff? [clears throat] Ian, can you clarify the PO again how protective this is over the MP and the nuisance of the storage and what they're storing, what they can and cannot store. I think there might be a little confusion on that still

like can they store fuel out there or is that part of the protective overlay? So that's not we have a specific definition for gas and fuel storage facilities and that will not be part of the permitted land uses that will be kind of tailored for that veto. Um we're going to draft up a list of permitted land uses to kind of go forward to city council as part of the ordinance. Um but at this time we're not looking at doing fuel storage. Thank you.

Anyone else have any questions? Going once, going twice. All right, public hearing is closed. Do we have any discussion? I'll just kind of reiterate I think some of what I heard, which is um [clears throat] you know, this is a resoning, so it's not a site plan. So, we're not talking about a conditional use permit or anything associated with the future site plan, which we may be discussing in the future. Um, I heard staff say that if we could add uses to existing zoning like C2, then that would have been the ideal or easy path here because it's already C2. And the staff report, I think, and and the comments make it pretty clear that the intent of this of using MP with a protective overlay is really just to make it C2 plus um just to allow this this very specific stated use of the property. Um so I I think it seems pretty reasonable, you know, based on everything that I've heard. Um I don't expect the applicant will have a lot of equipment there because if the equipment is there, then it's not making money elsewhere. So it's in their interest to have it offsite as much as possible. and the image that I saw of the things that and and I appreciate the clarity on lay down because I didn't know what that meant either. Um, but that's everything's on the ground and it looks to me like it would be below the level of the fence. So, it would be out of sight. Um, we're not talking about, you know, any type of heavy industrial use with light pollution and height and noise and lots of traffic and all those things. It's it seems pretty pretty minimal. Um

yeah, and I do agree with what um one of the members of the public said regarding kind of our existing industrial area along 169 and just the the optics of that. And I would say that the good news is we have we have additional staff, the city has additional staff, additional resources now that we haven't had in the past. And I think that um Ian and Mike bring, you know, experience and new perspective on those things. and I think they kind of agree and I'm excited to see what we can do better, you know, going forward, starting with the comprehensive plan and each of these applications. And I feel like the staff is spending a lot more effort now on um being very intentional and and requesting uh compromises from applicants, you know, on on each type of u reasonzoning request or site plan. So, I appreciate that and I'm optimistic, cautiously optimistic uh going forward. So, I think that'll help and it'll help improve our results of what we see in the future.

I agree. I feel um as one of our speakers said, I feel like Spring Hill for a very long time was kind of just pieced together just randomly. Um I mean, driving down Webster, it was like that. But I feel like just even within the last five years, maybe 10 years, it's made massive strides with really having intent on where we're putting things. Um, and I I've been seeing that more and more. I've lived in Spring Hill my whole life. I moved here when I was one. I lived at 215th in Rener, just for background. Um, so I've I've seen some some things here in Spring Hill, and I really feel that it's gotten so much better just within this past decade. um the layout of Spring Hill and how it is starting to really grow and it's starting to make more sense. And so I agree with what Chuck was saying that we have really good staff that is helping to guide that and make it better and not that people didn't care before, but people on commissions that really care and are really being more mindful of that. And so I do I do agree that it's moving in the right direction. Cautiously optimistic is a great way of saying that. But I I do feel like we're moving in the right direction for that. Um, and so I definitely hear what you're saying as far as those concerns go. Um, I do like the the PO just because like you were saying, yes, it should be C2, but with the current codes, like they were saying, like, yes, I I understand that there must be some a give and take there with what we're working with versus what we need. And we're getting there. We're getting there. So, so I agree with uh everything Chuck so eloquently stated. I would wish I could have stated it that way, but um it it addresses a lot of what was in the letter that we when the applicant spoke and Ian came up uh the staff spoke about, you know, the lack of probably noise pollution, lack of environmental

pollution. Um probably not going to be unsightly with the large fence. Um, it's in the back, so there still can be commercial, you know, close to Webster. Um, and I think the protective overlay zoning is a great idea, like what Kendra was saying, for that specific spot, for this specific land owner, for what his needs are for the C2. But it'll be like a C2 just with a little overlay that protects actually the city against anything else, you know, in there even though it'll be industrial have that protective overlay. So I I think it's uh I'm optimistic as well.

Feel like I should jump in. Um yeah, it's hard to separate the use from the zoning itself. Um industrial can always be a little bit scary, but you know, I I I I'm thankful that we dug up this protective overlay district. Um I think that is going to be a useful tool moving forward. Um or at least maybe hope a little bit. Um I think the site plan application and the screening and the landscape plan is going to be very important with this one. I think this is going to be a sensitive area uh that we really need to pay attention um to. But I I'm optimistic again of the direction we're headed here with, you know, starting to uncover some of these tools that apparently we've had this whole time. So,

any other comments or discussions?

I guess I I have a tendency to to agree with what's been said. I probably would encourage rather than a sixoot fence, put a higher fence up there, at least eight, because those loaders aren't real short and you don't know what else is going to be stored. So again, I'm concerned about the optics of what people would see from Webster and more importantly, what people would see from 169. Well, I guess my concern with uh the landscaping, you mentioned higher fence. Is it chain link or is it a decorative nonse fence? It's just chain links everything.

Yeah, that usually they're and that's going to be the tough part because we're talking strictly on reszoning. So, I think that's why the site plan and screening is going to be very important to us when it comes before us. So, agreed. Make note of that. Yes. The staff report mentions opaque fencing is required by the UIO by the zoning ordinance. So opaque is that wood opaque. It's not see-through. [laughter]

It's not see-through. If there's uh do I entertain a motion? Okay. If there's no other discussion, then I will entertain a motion. Hang on. Do we need we need to close the public hearing if we didn't? She did. I already did. I did. I move to recommend approval of application Z-25-5 reszoning Briercliffe Commercial Center to the Spring Hill Governing Body. I second that.

All right, it's been moved and seconded. We will start on the left. I I I I All right. Oh, any opposed? All right. Motion carries. 8 Z. All right. Do I need to mention number 11 here, Amy? Do I need to read out number 11 here? Yeah. Yeah.

No. Okay. Perfect. All right. Go back up here then. Sorry. I'm trying to get back up to where I need to be. All right. Is there any Let's see any discussion. Is that where I'm at? Sorry. Okay. Announcement and reports.

Sorry, that was my job. I keep forgetting. Um, so the following items related to community development were approved at the February 12th, 2026 city council meeting. Approval of final plat FP25-15 Ozark Readymix uh Spring Hill first plat approval of final plat FP25-14 Aenddale Meadows third plat approval of final plat FP25-11 Ozark sorry Oakwoods fifth plat approval of ordinance for resoning Z25-4 R1 and R2 to RP1 I believe that's for the Woodland Ridge uh approval of ordinance for conditional use per site plan C25-2 SP25-9 Spring Hill car wash and approval of ordinance for conditional use permit with site plan C25-30 SP25-10 Ozark writing mix and then no items were listed for the February 26th city council meeting that's all right

that's good we're good all right so do we have a motion to adjourn I have a question Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. Discussion. Oh, we need discussion. Oh, my bad.

I guess I'd like to ask the the staff to I know we've talked about this several times. The city council has talked about it several times about uh making some uh recommendations on uh some of our uh zoning except especially M1 to spread out the uh industrial heavy industrial and any other variations that you're familiar with that other cities use because I think uh we're beginning to see more action and I think there's got to be a differentiation especially as we move into the comprehensive going back to the comprehensive plan and knowing where we want to go and where we want certain things to be.

Sure. Yeah, I can address that. Um staff is working on developing some um looking at our existing zoning designations, our existing zoning districts and potentially adding uh a third one. We currently have two industrial zoning districts. We have the MP which is uh basically industrial park and then we have the M1 which is general industrial. Um, I think uh given the the city's growth patterns and potential future buildout, we would be wise to adopt a at least one more a third um industrial zoning uh to have essentially a heavy industrial land use a or zoning district, a light industrial, and then potentially even a lighter one, a third one um that might be more similar to our current industrial park MP zoning. So, it's certainly something we are looking at. Uh hope to have something uh available for discussion uh within the next four to six weeks. Uh we'll have to work with with the city attorney to figure out how to best do a zoning transition program should that be adopted. Um because if we were to create a for example a new M2 zoning district, what do we do with all the property that's currently and we make M2 heavy industrial, what do we do with all the property that's zoned M1 that we would be immediately making legal non-conforming? And so no expansion could happen on any of those. Uh and so we'll have to work through how best to do that. Um, I believe most of our code goes, you know, the the zoning district and then one is the lowest common or the lowest allowed land uses and then they go up as you add numbers to it. So, we wouldn't want to do anything backwards from that and create M2 and make that heavy indust or, you know, make light, you know, M1 heavy industrial and M2

light industrial because that would be kind of backwards from the way the rest of our code goes. So, it's something we're looking at. Um and as part of a you know whether that's quasi judicial and we look at affirmatively reszoning all the existing M1 or we look at those existing land uses and which as we write the new zoning district which properties would fit into which one um based upon their existing use and their you know industrial nature. Um, so we are working on it. Um, and hope to have a draft here, like I said, in a couple of weeks, but the implementation on that would probably be where we need to spend most of our time and um, effort in figuring out how to do that uh, going forward. But a city our size, we don't need to have six different industrial zonings. um a city um you know like Kansas City, Missouri, Kansas City, Kansas might need that because of just the wide variety of industrial uses they have and which are appropriate, which aren't. But um that's definitely something we're looking at.

Thanks. My question is what do we have a idea of when the next work session is for I don't know if it's joint or if it's just for us so we can get our pump going again.

Absolutely. Yeah, we are looking at doing that in the near future. Um it would likely follow any kind of joint session or joint meeting between the planning commission and city council. um so that that feedback can maybe take place before we do a work session. But it's definitely something we've already started planning and working how to do um and uh bring forward, you know, some maybe scenarios or some hear the feedback, look at where we are. Um it's taking Ian and I a little bit to kind of retrace history, if you will. Your feet wet.

Yeah. getting and just trying to figure out where things left off, where the why they left off and at what point and you know I think the why is behind the biggest part. It seems like a lot of the comprehensive planning stuff has been done already. Um but the obviously it's stalled and trying to bring it back in a way that actually leads to meaningful discussion and leads to building a consensus that we could help you adopt and take forward to city council. Um comprehensive planning with a group of of you know nine individuals is going to not result in a 100% consensus all the time. Everybody's not going to agree on everything. Uh but hopefully we can bring something back that the majority of people agree on and um I envision us bringing back different scenarios rather than just here's staff's answer to all of the problems because if we had that crystal ball, we probably wouldn't be doing what we do. We we'd be real estate developers and and sitting on a beach somewhere. uh but different scenarios that that play out kind of play the tape forward. If this corridor develops residentially, then what are the implications and how does that cascade down to supporting land uses? If this corridor develops as industrial, what how does that play out with future land use patterns and things of that nature? and then having those discussions and seeing what the the commissioners like out of this idea. Maybe pull some from that, remove stuff in this and kind of combine it all together and and bring back some some alternatives and some some, you know, future discussion items for sure.

I just be pushy, but it would be very nice if we could get going. The summer times are going to be here and people are going it's going to be harder to get this group together. Yes. Longer we wait. Yeah, absolutely. But the next work session with the city council is already scheduled for April 2nd. Is that right? Okay. So, and I haven't [clears throat] But it I just didn't know what we were discussing. Right. I mean, are we are we going to do that and then wait another month before we get together or I mean, what's

I would suggest um just off the top of my head and we've talked about it internally is potentially utilizing that that third Thursday, the month of a or yeah, in April to to do a joint or to do a planning commission only um work session. Um we haven't confirmed with any of your schedules yet. It's just something we've tenatively put on the calendar. But if that date doesn't work and we need to shift it to a different day, we we can do that as well. But that's that was our tenative goal. But that helps to for all of us to know that kind of keep that one blocked off.

Yes. And um Mike, do you think so? So so we're since we're kind of in some ways we're trying to finish what was already started, but in some ways this is sort of a restart also, but would you anticipate there being other than attending the work sessions and listening to the discussion? Will there be other opportunities for the public again to weigh in on the comp plan? You expect

I certainly envision that. Yes. And it would probably be after we have that that work session, we get some some feedback from the planning commissioners on maybe um fine-tuning some of those alternative scenarios or you know, alternative development patterns. Um you know, the comprehensive plan isn't just the future land use map itself. It's all of the components of that, future infrastructure needs, future um you know, where are going to be our major intersections going forward? Is it going to be at 199th in Rener? Is it going to be at 191st in Rener? What looks a little bit further east? What's going on the south side and the west side of of 169? Um, but kind of laying out some of those alternatives, fine-tuning them, and then uh seeking public feedback on those. Uh, the manner of which we obviously haven't decided yet because we're just kicking this off. Uh, it could be, you know, a website. It could be us, you know, putting them out uh for public comment. Again, um you know, there's lots of different uh creative ways to get public feedback nowadays um than just setting up shop at a community event or inviting people here on a on a Thursday night. There's there's ways that we can get uh that public input. Um and we're really interested in the public input from people who wouldn't normally provide public input. Um, we want to make sure that every part of the city has the opportunity to provide their thoughts and opinions and making that as accessible to people as possible through a variety of different methods. You know, some people may not have computer access. So, just doing something online might not be the best. Um, so it's definitely something we can explore and pull best practices from what other cities have done. Uh I think we're going to benefit and have benefited from the fact that almost every other city uh in the metro area is in the middle of a

comprehensive plan update or has already completed one in the last five years. Uh the federal funding that came out of COVID really was a windfall for cities and a lot of them spent that money on new comprehensive plans. So looking at their planning processes reaching out to those neighboring cities or other cities in the metro to see which uh methods got the best uh response rate uh can help us going forward. I think some of the Oh, I don't think Kendra, I don't think you were even in on the ones that we worked on, the map that we worked on in the old cafeteria. Nope.

What? So, but that one and then the one that Josh drew up, I think, were the two that most of us had agreed on and got the most work, but there's three planning commissioners here that never saw either one of those. So, I've been on for a year and haven't seen it. [laughter] But I think those are the maps that probably got the most attention. Well, and honestly, I think Shocky put what that hundred year remember that 100-y year map we were doing with Pat Burton and they just used that that kind of came it didn't come from Shocky. It came from what we worked on, I think, because they kept saying, "What do you want to see in 100 years?" So, we kept extending it.

A hundred years. Yeah. Well, I really wish I had that crystal ball. [laughter] Well, that's why we were like, okay. Yeah, we can, but Okay. Yeah. And that's what we we're discussing internally is we're starting with what's there and looking at how to, you know, not reinvent the wheel if we don't have to, but also bringing some new ideas into into the mix as well. And um if there's things that we've seen in our professional environment or we've seen other cities do um that maybe Spring Hill could benefit from and that the planning commission could benefit from from some of these additional ideas, then then we'd like to present those to you as well.

I think the downfall with a lot of the comprehensive plan that we all stalemated out was like that is a tried andrue measure for a lot of comprehensive plans. [clears throat] Yes. We all kind of were like, "No, this doesn't fit us." Right. Exactly.

I just had a general question like about CUPS. Like many years ago we switched. They used to have to redo them every five years and pay a fee and I think we wanted to get rid of the fee and the city did too and have an annual review which I like better and this is kind of for Chuck's benefit. Thank you. For Monarch Cement Plant. Uh, I don't think the planning commission has ever seen any of the reviews or been involved in any of the reviews to my knowledge that um, and I think we should be if there's complaints or concerns by the public. Okay.

Um, that's just a suggestion because that's one of the big ones that comes to mind that should be fixed and I think it can be fixed fairly reasonably cheap and everybody would be happy. I don't think they're I don't think the Monarch plant would be upset. So, I think I would like to see some of those reviews that are being, you know, concerned by the public or any of the commissioners uh to see that. I know there's quite a few of them, but I think it's important that we are involved in those reviews. Well, we had to renew every five years. They had to come in front of us every five years,

right? And and I believe Amy actually asked me about this yesterday about how we want to go about doing that. And so I would defer to her on how we have have handled that in the past few years or um annual reviews, I bring them to you. Okay. Staff goes out and and um looks at the sites and if we found any violations or anything, which the major which we don't find any, I mean, they're all kept in pretty good um repair. So But you you do get them yearly. When's the monarch one coming? I think you should look at night. [laughter]

I don't know that that's part of the

Yeah. If there if there are any specific um issues with a particular property, staff is more than happy to go investigate those. Just let us know and we can go out there and and if they are at night, then we can inspect that at night as well. Uh but um it would probably be a little bit burdensome for us to bring in every property owner who has a conditional use permit in once a year to testify or to show with pictures and everything that they're doing it on their own. I think to make it the most efficient use of their time, our time, your time. Uh the way we do it is is probably the best way. But if there's more information you would like as part of that, then we could look at at bringing that forward as part of that annual review. And and I think one of the things that we've heard before with cups is that it's one of the ways that of course the city and perhaps the planning commission and and the city council holds applicants accountable for exceptions and and specific uses. So, I think it in some way if there's some way of kind of communicating back to the planning commission, what the staff, you know, saw or didn't see during inspections and and what you guys decided and why or if there were changes requested, you know, maybe it's more just informative. And then if there are specific properties which members of the of the public have concerns with and they come to us or the city council to share those concerns, then maybe those are ones that, you know, maybe are addressed with a little more attention.

Yeah. Yeah. I don't think we need to have the applicant in or anything like that. Right. It's more like what Chuck mentioned.

Yeah. I think it's a it's a good good review to have those because oftent times with conditional use permits, specific conditions are put on to those land uses to help make them more compatible with surrounding land uses. You know, in general, a conditional use permit is applied to land uses that in some parts of town under that zoning district, they're they're compatible and a good use, but other parts of town where with the same zoning district, but the land uses surrounding it are differently, maybe it's not. Or maybe there's, you know, uh mitigating criteria that can be put or conditions put onto that use to make it more compatible in a certain area that maybe not. And so, um, you know, oftentimes, as you know, some people move into a site, they've been using it the the way that the previous they want to use it the way the previous owner used it and may not know about these conditions. And so, that annual review is is is a good way to ensure that that that can get done. um kind of just in general unconditional use permits. As I said that the intent of those is to really look at the use of this land use on this property and is it appropriate here? Um, as kind of mentioned at our resoning public hearing this evening, staff, you know, the the applicant had talked with staff about a conditional use or a special use permit on that as like a way to allow it even though it's not listed in the code. Um, our unified zoning ordinance is very clear. We can only do conditional use permits for those uses that are specified under each zoning district as being allowed by conditional use permit. We can't just add a land use in and just randomly attach a conditional use permit to it. So that's why we brought forward the the reszoning with the protected overlay. Our code or zoning ordinance does allow a different method for doing a similar thing. But um

oftent times I've heard and and not necessarily at Spring Hill, but council members or planning commissioners say, "Well, can't we just get can't we just give them a conditional use permit because it might not be allowed in the zoning district, but I'm really don't have any problem with it." um our code doesn't allow us to do that legally. It's it opens us up to a lot of liability because that could be very subjective, a lot of discretion and we want to be clear as possible. So um that you know that's kind of why we do what we do and uh going forward we are you know anytime a question comes up in the city our first uh our first answer is going to be to look at the code. That's going to be our first place we look. What does the code say? uh reading all the sections of the code and not relying on memory. So luckily Ian and I don't have a lot of memory on the code just yet. And so we are going to read every chapter to make sure we're not missing anything. So um the more we uncover these types of things, the more that we can look at updating our zoning ordinance. Um, I was just kind of talking to Spencer during that and um, currently under our code in our zoning, our C2 zoning, we would not have any zone that would allow for a Home Depot with their outdoor storage, their lumber yard, their kind of outdoor gardening center. We don't have a we don't we wouldn't allow that because we don't allow outdoor storage in the C2 zone. And so that's definitely something we in looking at our zoning code and our land uses want to update because I believe that that would be something that would be beneficial to the city. Um and so just really kind of bringing our our zoning standards back into you know the kind of current trends and current um you know development patterns the way they have. You know, I don't think anybody really anticipated Walmart and Home Depot having massive outdoor storage areas, but that's become the norm, and they're working in cities across the country to bring their

outdoor storage standards into compliance with outdated zoning codes. So, um, that's kind of where we're going to start looking at it holistically as well. So,

sounds like you're, uh, creating quite a list of potential proposed tweaks to the zoning ordinances as you, as you guys read it. Yeah, we're keeping a a running list. Um, I found that it's best to bring that all forward at at one time. I think the comprehensive plan is a great jumping off point for us to use to look at updating our codes and our regulations and ordinances to help implement that comprehensive plan. Um it it it feels very um I don't know scattershot if we just bring you one code amendment and then another zoning amendment and we do like 15 in a year. Um just it's not the best way to do it. So we we prefer to do it maybe one larger one. Bring forward the ones that we need to if that's a oneoff or something. um but bring them forward probably following the comprehensive plan and then once or twice a year bringing forward um so we don't wait another two or three years to bring forward 25 code amendments. Uh you know twice a year we can look at bringing forward smaller ones just to help uh better implement the code or implement the comprehensive plan as we move forward with it.

Awesome. Any other discussion? Dolphel, thank you for your question. Sorry for my long-winded answer. [clears throat] All right. Well, if no one has anything else, I will entertain a motion to move. Second. All right. It has been moved and second. Everybody um in agreement say I. I. All opposed. All right. 8 Z