Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, it looks like it is seven o'clock. So we will do the call to order. Oh, do I need to bang the gavel? Okay, perfect. Oh, calling, oh, sorry. All right, we're gonna do the Pledge of Allegiance. Sorry guys, it's my first time. All right. Now what I was thinking was calling to order roll call. Mr. Nace. Here.

Mr. Earhart.

Here.

Ms. Jones. Here. Mr. Arovalo.

Here.

Ms. Craveer. Here. Mr. Sly.

Here.

Ms. Squire. Mr. Morse.

Here.

Chair, we have a quorum.

Wonderful. All right. We'll move on to the approval of agenda. Do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion we approve the agenda as presented by staff.

Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion passes 7-0-0. All right. We will open up citizen participation. Do we have anyone written down? No? Okay. Well, in that case, does anyone want to speak? Yes, sir. Please come up.

Lance, welcome back.

Thank you. Appreciate that. I didn't get here right at 6.55. I think it might have been 6.56. So thank you for letting me speak and just a few comments tonight. As you all know, Lance Caldwell, 15275, 191st Street. Appreciate the time to speak before you all again tonight. My comments are really focused on the proposed zoning code amendments that are currently before you. I first would like to acknowledge the substantial amount of work that has gone into these revisions. I was a little overwhelmed by the 600 pages or so that were released only a few days before this meeting and found that myself and many residents are still trying to understand the practical implications of these changes and what they mean for the future of our community. But as I review those proposed amendments, what stands out to me is the creation of an M2 heavy industrial district and the distinctions being made between M1 light industrial and M2 heavy industrial uses. One change that particularly caught my attention the proposed relocation of information technology facilities from M1 into the M2 district and to me that suggests the city recognizes that these facilities have impacts and operational characteristics that are different from traditional light industrial uses and more appropriately classified within a heavy industrial framework. What also caught my attention though was next was the purpose statement for M2 District itself the proposed code acknowledges that heavy industrial uses are generally incompatible with residential development except when heavily buffered and Separated and I think that language is important because it recognizes a basic planning reality Heavy industrial and residential uses are fundamentally different Land uses that often have competing objectives and impacts and what I find challenging however is that while the code recognizes this incompatibility It also appears to establish setback standards for situations where M2 is located adjacent to residential property. And to me, that raises an important question. If heavy industrial uses are generally incompatible with residential development, should adjacency to residential property be treated as an expected condition that can simply be addressed through setbacks and buffering, or should the code be structured to avoid creating those situations whenever possible? I recognize that setbacks, screening, and buffering all serve important purposes, but I'm not convinced that every heavy industrial use becomes compatible simply because a certain number of feet are added between property lines. For example, a 65-foot industrial structure remains a 65-foot Industrial structure whether it's located 75 feet away or a hundred feet away from a neighboring residential property And my concern is not necessarily what happens in the city limits alone many of the properties potentially affected by the future Industrial development may be located in the Spring Hill Township or other unincorporated areas the county those residents may experience the impacts of these decisions even though they do not live within the city limits and do not vote in the city elections and For that reason, I would encourage this commission, which I hope continues to have representatives from unincorporated Johnson and Miami counties, to evaluate compatibility standards based upon actual impacts to neighboring property owners, regardless of which side of the jurisdictional boundary they happen to reside on. I would also note that we continue to see a significant residential investment in this area, including the reserve at Wolf Creek, near 169th and Lackman, just down the road from where I live, and this demonstrates their strong demand for a variety of housing options and for the rural residential character that historically has defined this part of southern Johnson County. So as the Spring Hill community continues to grow, I do not believe the choice is between economic development and residential growth. I believe the challenge is ensuring that both can coexist successfully through thoughtful planning and meaningful transitions between land uses. Before adopting a new heavy industrial classification, I would respectfully ask the Commission to carefully consider whether the proposed setbacks, buffering requirements, and compatibility standards truly address the impacts of uses that the code itself describes as generally incompatible with residential development. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Liam. Okey dokey. Hmm all right if there's no one else that I will close citizen participation All right No worries all right, so we'll close participation.

We'll hear from you next time Perfect just as a quick reminder to the folks in the audience tonight the proposed rezoning is a public hearing So if you change your minds before that comes up you'll have another chance when the consideration of that item comes up. Thank you.

I apologize. I hobbled in a little bit late. I have a very injured ankle. Was that just number two on the action?

We are actually just at citizen participation. We haven't made it to formal commission action yet.

Okay.

You didn't miss anything.

I didn't miss anything. Okay. So I didn't actually get a chance to decide. fractured ankle. So if I may come wobble up for a second because I didn't get the chance to sign in, my protocol is for 655. Is that OK?

Do you want to talk on the rezoning, or not the change of zoning code to M2?

Is that the rezoning for agenda item number three or just in general?

There were just two. Number three. Since I closed citizen participation, can I open it back up?

Do we have a, can we get a motion to reopen citizen participation?

I'll make a motion to reopen the citizen participation. Second it.

Do I need to, all in favor? Okay, all in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right, motion carries 7-0-0. We will open up citizen participation. We need you to come up to the microphone so the people live streaming can see.

We've got you.

Thank you. I didn't know we could do that. So when she gets you the mic, we'll just need your full name and your address, please. Thank you guys.

Thank you. I have a broken toe, so we'll stick together.

We're a matching pair. I wondered what was up with you. So my name is Rebecca Rossman, and I live at 21341 Noble Street. For those who can't see me and those who can, I'm not going to show my ankle. I have a potential high ankle sprain or hairline fracture ankle. I'm getting a second opinion. So I hobbled in a little bit late for the sign-in time. So a little bit briefly about me. I moved to Spring Hill almost three years ago. I grew up in Franklin County and I did a bunch of, I'm a 4-H kid and grew up through all of that and did FBLA and all of those type of things. I have a big background in all of civics leadership and all that. So I have a kind of a simple question. Are there parliamentarians involved in these meetings, in any of the planning meetings, the city council meetings, any of the organized meetings that are involved that make decisions for our cities, for our city? Are there parliamentarians involved, a parliamentarian involved?

That's above my pay grade. We're going to refer to the city.

No, that's fine.

So typically this is just a participation rather than like they're not supposed to answer questions. For what it's worth, my role is essentially a parliamentarian as a city attorney.

Okay. So if I was, I mean, one thing I know is that minutes are posted of past meetings, but it's really not like an actual typed up minutes. It's basically just saying that Sally, a motion was made for a new stoplight to put at 1st and Elm Street. Larry raised the motion, Susie seconded it, it passed, whatever. Discussion was not really mentioned in there. Or it said there was discussion, whatever. There's not actual typed up minutes of what was actually happened. Is that correct? Or does that exist and it's just not publicly posted?

We do not provide written transcripts of all the meetings. They are broadcast on YouTube and available afterwards. And there is a feature on YouTube where you can turn on the closed captioning. and I believe there's even some AI programs that will actually take it all down and transcribe it for you, but we do not do that. We meet the requirements of the Kansas State statutes for meeting minutes, but we do not provide the transcripts.

I'm hearing impaired, so I definitely, when I'm watching, I have the captions on and actually sometimes have it a little slower than live time. The reason I'm asking this is because of... potential situation not situation potential curiosity of information that happened during a October or early November, I don't have it in front of me. I had it prepared before my ankle decided to take a deep turn in my life. A situation that involved the zoning situation back in October or November where there potentially was an issue with parliamentarian procedure. So that is why I'm asking if that existed in the matter of motion seconding discussion voting when discussion was still open. So that is why I have a concern that if there's a parliamentarian and if parliamentary procedure isn't being followed. So that was my question. Today is not the day for me to go through and dig through my notes and all that stuff. I don't have time, unfortunately. I was more here to kind of hear about all the other stuff on the agenda. I have other things I can talk about on a different day, and the meeting that's later this month is something I may speak up then, but I just wanted to put the bug in the ear that parliamentarian procedure-wise. I'm curious of if that's something that's actually known. I mean, if there's a parliamentarian here, that's great. But if the people who are serving on the committees actually know the process and how that works and how it could go wrong and how that affects things and how if It's something that needs to be known. It's an important part of how things work. But anyway, thank you for listening to me. And thank you for volunteering and being voted in and serving the community. I appreciate that. Thanks.

Thank you, Rebecca. Are we OK to close public citizen participation? All right. Citizen participation is closed. All righty. We will now move on to the approval of the minutes from the May 7th meeting. I will entertain a motion.

I'll motion to approve previous minutes from May 7th. Second.

All right. Wow. I just lost my train of thought or my words. I was going to say, um, motion. Nope. Okay. Sorry guys. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed. Okay. Motion carries seven zero zero. I'm really sorry. I just drew a complete blank. Wow. Okay. We'll move on to action item number two, the public hearing of the amended conditional use permit application, CU-26-1 with site plan SP-26-1. Ian, you are, oh. Oh, oh, oh, I'm so sorry, okay. I have not, oh, yes I do, I'm so sorry, I do have that. Okay. Well, now I will open the public hearing. Okay. Commission members, describe what, if any, ex parte contacts you might have regarding this case, indicating the nature of the communication with whom and whom it was with.

I was part of the bond planning and envisioning team over 14 months ago, but I have had nothing to do with these projects since then, nothing to do with the design. I've had no communications with the district, so. Just putting that out, and it will not affect the way I vote.

Yep. My wife works for the district, and I don't know anything about this, so it's not going to affect the way I vote.

Okay. Anyone else? Okay. Commissioners, please describe what, if any, conflicts of interest you may have and dismiss yourself from the meeting if necessary. None? Going once, going twice. Okay. Ian, please present report and comment.

Perfect. Thank you. Ian Treffrin, city planner. The application for you today is SP 26-01 and CU 26-01, the CTE edition for Spring Hill High School. The subject property is located at 19701 Ridgeview Road, and the applicant and engineer are both Gary Leeds of Cahaw Valley Engineering. The proposed project is a 35,675 square foot addition to the existing high school and the modification or amendment to the conditional use permit that is associated with the high school. The subject property is zoned RR Rural Residential. Moving on to site specific details. The improvements are broken up into a north and south component. Here's the parking lot addition. They're renovating the parking lot itself. Let me grab my laptop real quick so I can pull up the full site plan so you can see. This is the staff letter, I apologize. I'm just all out of it today. Okay, so here's the northern portion of the addition. This is a crosscut. Overall site plan, here we go. So on the north end of the site, we have the actual CD addition. This is this kind of polygonal shaped structure here, as well as a redesign of the northern portion of the parking lot. This north addition is 29,217 square feet and is one story. while the southern addition is a commons area that is one story and 6,500 square feet roughly. There's no modification or changes to the parking lot south of this northern addition. The proposed project meets all development standards related to density, dimensional standards, setbacks, as well as architectural for reference. Pull up the elevations for you. Where did it all go? I apologize, guys. Is it in the PowerPoint? That's right, it is, yeah. OK. Oh, is it? Did I break it? OK, perfect. Yes, so here are the elevations of the northern CTE addition. There's rooftop mounted equipment, which is all being screened from adjacent property lines. So it meets all architectural standards. One thing to consider with this project is the proposal of an attached wall sign located there on the east elevation area. It's on the third row. In the currently adopted sign code for the city of Spring Hill, there is no allocation for permitting of attached wall signs in residential districts besides agricultural. However, staff conferred with council, and we've determined that there's a route to seek approval for signage, despite there not being a mechanism within our adopted code to allow for signage. The case law being referenced is Brown v. Kansas Forestry Fish and Game Commission, 1978. When there is a conflict of, and please, Spencer, correct me if I misstate any of this, when there's a conflict of local zoning law with a different political jurisdiction's application, there's a balancing of interest test applied. So in this case, the school district is its own governmental entity. So because of that, we have the option to apply a balancing of interest test. So in the staff letter, you'll find five different criteria, with which this test can be conducted. I'll kind of go through them one by one. Nature and scope of the instrumentality seeking immunity, so what they're intending to do and seeking immunity from our code for, which in this case is the sign itself. Two, the kind of function or land use involved, which is signage. Three, the extent of public interest to be served thereby. So with our, there's two sides to this. With the school district, there is a vested interest in being able to identify their facilities and kind of promote that educational institution. The city side won't be able to regulate signage in a way that's protecting the community and the placement, sizing, and design of signs. Number four is the effect local land use regulation would have upon the enterprise concerned. As it's written, we have no allotment for attached wall signs at all. So if it were to be followed to the T of our code, they would not be allowed to have any attached wall sign. And lastly is number five, the impact upon a legitimate local interest, which once again is our vested interest in regulating the size, placement, and design of signage. In staff's opinion, we think that this is a perfectly acceptable balance. They are meeting an adopted sign code standard. They're following the agricultural district standard, which allows for a 32 square foot attached wall sign. So while they're not meeting the zone specific, we are still getting the benefit of having a regulated sign that matches one of our districts, just not what we have adopted for the RR. That being said, it is up to the Planning Commission to decide whether or not to grant that relief.

And you're referencing that sign, right? Yes. By the front. That would signify kind of the entrance to the building.

That's correct. It's on the east side. So it's like if you're looking at the high school's front door, it's on the opposite side on the back.

I mean, to me, that's wayfinding. That signifies where you enter at, you know, so you don't get confused where the entrance is. So I have no issues with it.

And I believe if I read right, it's not lighted, correct? It's not lit. But yeah.

Does the high school have any other signage?

Um, we've gone over this I don't believe they have yeah, they have some signage facing the bridge view very small just as Spring Hill High School, it's it's nondescript channel letters, you know, actually pretty I guess the only concern that I would have is that this sign matches whatever they have now How do you mean like as well the lettering aesthetics Yeah style of lettering

Yeah, that way the building looks the same.

Sure. I can let the applicant speak on that side if you would like.

Hi, good evening. My name is Mark Williams. I'm the executive director of operations for Spring Hill School District. So this was part of our request when we went to our voters and the bond passed in May of 2025 was to add a CT addition to the high school and expand the commons to help with some of our growth, give our students opportunity to have industry recognized classrooms and and equipment to get them ready prepared with that. As far as the CTE addition, we are looking at housing a construction lab. Back when I was in school, it was called a wood shop, but it's a construction lab with a classroom adjourned to it Ag mechanic lab, which is welding to our classrooms to health science classrooms with another room available to possibly expand to our CNA program for our students We also have a computer lab going in to possibly expand our computer science programs for our students we also have their robotics engineering classroom with a with a competitive arena area for them to purchase their robotics on and So that will go with that. We are pretty uniformed across, so we are looking at getting signage to match what we have across in our building, not to identify with that. The commons is to help also with our growth with the lunchroom. When I was growing up, it was a lunchroom, but now it's called a commons with that. Right now, our current common school is about 500 students. We're a little over 1,100 or 400 students during the lunchtime. We're a little over 1,100 students, soon to get to 1,200. So this will give us ample room for growth to accommodate some of this. And then we will be moving a greenhouse to the north side of the high school. It'll be a brand new greenhouse right off our ag classrooms when it comes to that.

And then let me pull up where that is. It is directly to the north of the addition. This is not working. But yeah, ultimately, the decision on the signage comes down to the Planning Commission. Other than that, yeah, I'll show the location of the greenhouse and where that's going. Is it OK if I swap it back over to my? All right.

Technical difficulties galore today.

I apologize. So yes, it's located right here directly to the which of course it still has a 681 foot set back to the north.

So you said that's the new location of the greenhouse. That's correct. Thank you.

Where is the sign going exactly? It'll be going I believe right around here.

Like on the backhand side.

You won't even see it from the road. Yeah, it's on the opposite back side. I'm saying with Josh, I have no issues at all with that sign.

I'll stand for any questions if you all have any.

I don't know about a question, but just a comment. I love that they're bringing something in for you know, the CTE pathways. And I just had a daughter that graduated with her CNA through the high school in Johnson County. And so I love that this is gonna be more accessible for students.

Yeah, it's huge. Not literally, figuratively speaking. And Olathe just completed their new one up off of Rogers Road. And it looks nice. I noticed their signage on that building is pretty aggressive, and I feel like they're trying to actually advertise it in a way, which I'm fine with, of course. But, you know, because not everyone knows the school districts have these capabilities now and these dedicated facilities. So it's overdue, I think, for Spring Hill to have one.

I agree.

DeSoto has a strong program, too.

You're done. Yeah, that's all I've got. If there's any questions or anything like that.

Any other questions? Okay. Sorry, I lost where I was. I'm sorry. Okay, so we can open up public comment from the audience then? Okay, do I need to say anything? Okay, perfect. I need like a sign from you like now.

Would the applicant like to present anything further other than answering that one question?

You can if you'd like to.

I don't have any additional information to share than what I shared with you guys earlier.

Thank you very much. All right. Now we can open up public comment from the audience if there is any. wonderful.

Jason O'Kane, 18804 Skyview Lane in the Boxwood Range community. I feel like this is a waste of time. It's a sign. It's a school. It should be labeled. If there's anything that we could do to not have to have this conversation and bring everybody in here for this, that'd be great in future. It should be labeled. Spring Hill, in my opinion, is two or three years behind all the other school districts, at least, in adding something like this. I've done work for Liberty School Districts. Lee Summit added technology centers to all their schools. That's great. My son's getting ready to be a freshman at Spring Hill High. What's the start date on this project? Anybody know?

If all things goes well, we're going to start the first part of July. It'll be ready to go for the 27-28 school year. So it'll be being built. Sorry.

First part of July? No. Do you already have contractors on bid packages and everything? Who's doing that? Who's doing that?

Newkirk Novak. Oh, Newkirk.

Oh, okay.

Yep.

That's who did Liberty School District. I did with them. So cool. I might be working on this project at one point in time. I don't know, depending on if the school district decides to hire union contractors. But anyways, no, great. We don't need to talk about signs. I'm glad they're doing all this. So I wish they would just keep building out more. So thank you.

Thank you. Any other public comment? All right. Commissioners, do you have any other need for clarifications or any questions? No?

I just wasn't clear about the... On one of your schematics, you have two red arrows. One is up at the top where the commons and... Greenhouse is gonna be but there's another building West or east of it closer to the administration is this the staff letter that you're referring to? That's it.

Yeah that an arrow also So this just pointing out the primary addition to the north and the common areas to the south That's all that's pointing out.

That's the new lunchroom.

Yeah The cafeteria and on the southern side

That's what's towards the admin building with the red arrow. And then the arrow on the north is the new CTE facility.

Okay.

Real quick, I would like to speak to the reason why we had to come forward with the fishing game. or the whole case law regarding signage, we have a need to be consistent with our code application. In this case, because our code does not permit signage at all in the RR district, we have to account for that. So that way in the future, we have something to say, yeah, we can't allow signage in this specific district. It was allowed over here because of X, Y, Z. In this case, it's that case law.

OK. Thank you for that clarification. Are there any other questions, concerns, clarifications? Okay, with that, I will close the public hearing and then can deliberate. Nothing? Okay. All right, well then I will- Entertain a motion? Entertain a motion, yes.

I move to recommend approval of application CU26-1 SP-26-1 site plan with conditional use Spring Hill High School CTE addition to the Spring Hill governing body including any conditions as presented in the staff report.

I'll second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. Can I get a vote of approval starting on the left?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Motion carries seven zero zero. Any? Yeah. Okay. Any opposition? I guess I was going to say, okay, I'm sorry guys. I'm it's normally not this rough. Okay. So we will move on to action item three public hearing amendments to the zoning and subdivision regulations. All right. I will now open the public hearing. All right. Commissioners, any or what of any ex parte contacts have you had regarding this case indicating the nature of the communication and whom it was with? None? Okay. Do you have any conflicts of interest and do you need to dismiss yourself from the hearing?

No.

All right. Then...

I don't know how to answer that since we've had conversations prior with Mike and about this particular...

Right, right, but that's at a public setting. Yeah. Work session, right?

Yeah. And in this situation, ex parte communication, we use these same rules for all types of public hearings. So for a standard rezoning of a single property, if you had talked to the property owner and they were like, boy, I'd love you to approve this, you need to disclose that. For this situation where it's just a zoning text amendment, You would just need to disclose if there was a developer out there calling you guys saying, I'll give you $100 if you vote yes or no. Please disclose that. And if that happens, just call me before the meeting. Knock that out early. Perfect.

All right.

Ian. Perfect. Thank you. I've got a very long presentation, but only parts of it are for certain. It's a few. Okay, so. Industrial code amendments. Currently, the city of Spring Hill has two zoning districts associated with industrial development. You have MP Industrial Park and M1 General Industrial District. The MP Industrial Park is for limited commercial services, kind of lower impact industrial, as well as admin facilities, R&D, and in general has a kind of a higher development standard attached to it than M1 General Industrial as it is today. And one general industrial on the other hand is for the big primary industry. I think major manufacturing, warehouses, distribution, things that require an extensive amount of attention paid to when it comes to site design to make sure that it's fitting into the surrounding area. And then those uses that are particularly of concern have a conditional use permit attached to it. So if there's anything that poses a potential problem external nuisance to surrounding properties are generally hazardous as a conditional use permit.

Hey Ian, do you mind if I interrupt during? Yeah, for sure. Just to ask questions. So do we have any MP today that you can think of and give an example of that?

Yeah, so besides the pro design that came before you a couple months ago, there is some along Webster by the, oh, Wiswell, yeah, the Wiswell project. So the self-storage? Yeah, the self-storage facility is zoned MP. Outside of that, though, it's actually pretty underused compared to what it could be used for. Yeah.

And then pretty much everything else that's industrial in our city today is M1. Okay.

That's correct.

Thanks.

Yeah. Thank you. Kind of looking at what these different typologies of MP and M1 look like. On the left, there's kind of a contractor storage facility. This is a little misleading. We don't have anything that's specifically contractor storage for MP today, but this kind of, you know, small warehouse, lower density, lower intensity, kind of drive passing, you really don't think much of it, that's your MP, if you could kind of visualize it in your mind's eye. And then M1's gonna be your concrete batch plants, your heavier industrial with offsite impacts, dust, noise, sound, light, things of that nature. Both of these, important to note, permit outdoor storage and operations. Now in the city of Spring Hill, we require exterior storage to be enclosed. and to be screened from view. So these photos, they're not. These weren't from Spring Hill. But in Spring Hill, you'd see that screened. But there's a gap, and it's this true light industrial. Now, in the 21st century, we've seen a rise of higher tech manufacturing, things that are done entirely enclosed. Think CNC operations, high tech research and development. low impact manufacturing. These are things that can be mitigated in terms of any sort of offset impacts. And they kind of look nice from the outside too. But as it stands right now, we don't have a zoning district that really accommodates that sort of industrial development. So the big, I guess, development standard that we're looking at with this is the exterior operations and exterior storage. So the gap that we have here is an industrial land use that does not permit any sort of outdoor operations. and any outdoor storage that there is is very minimal at most and is completely screened from view. But the big thing is the outdoor operations. So that's what we're kind of targeting with this amendment. So the proposal is to have three different steps here. One, redesignate M1 General Industrial to Light Industrial and establish a new M2 Heavy Industrial zoning district. This M2 Heavy Industrial is supposed to be kind of a reflection, something that's pretty similar to the existing M1. And then lastly, redesign the development standards for M1 light industrial to kind of match that light industrial nature. So we're taking the existing M1, just changing the name, development standards, and adding M2. So we'll kind of go into the details step by step. Please stop me if I'm just throwing information at you. There's kind of a lot here. But on this table, this is just a small selection, kind of a slice of the different permitted land uses Currently existing M1 general industrial, the newly proposed M1 light industrial in the middle and then M2 heavy industrial on the right. Operations that have a lot of outdoor functions such as recycling collection stations, auto wrecking, storage yards, they have been eliminated as permitted uses in the M1 light industrial district and moved over to the M2 as permitted land uses. Notably, information technology facilities has been moved from M1 to M2 as well. As well as, well, some of the land uses that may have some form of exterior storage kind of prototypically associated with them, like vehicle equipment sales, they are still permitted in the M1, but with conditional use permit attached. So it still goes before you with the public hearing review before development. In the staff letter, you'll find a comprehensive list of all the land uses and where they sit now. So if you have any questions about that, please just let me know. Just kind of a small slice of it.

Where would a truck stop fall? M2 in the future? Yes, I believe so.

Well, what does it say? We pulled the staff letter.

That would still just be a commercial land use because it's essentially a gas station, like the same as the trip?

So it's not an M1 or an M2?

It might be allowed in m1, but it's we don't to be honest I don't feel like that's a heavy industrial user. That is more of a commercial retail sales or Service, it's not an industry per se At least the way we have it proposed, you know in general truck traffic alone is not a distinguishing factor we use when crafting what land uses will go into m1 versus m2 because that other than maybe some traffic impacts, the external impacts of noise, light, vibration, odor, dust, those things that can come with some outdoor operations of an industrial use really don't apply to a semi-parking or truck movement. There's a lot of semi-trucks that do deliveries all throughout commercial shopping centers and food delivery for restaurants.

I follow your logic there. I would probably argue that you know, a high number of trucks do have a noise and an air quality impact. But I see what you're saying. It's more of a commercial use. Thanks.

Were there any questions about this as well? Any other questions, I guess, relate to this?

How do some of these relate or buffer on the commercial districts?

Like the land use buffer between a commercial and a buffer? The C1, the C2. We will get to that. So I've got a portion here about buffering, setbacks, all that fun stuff. Kind of moving over to...

I'm assuming IT facilities includes an artificial intelligence data center?

It's however we defined it, which I believe includes prototypically, yeah, that sort of thing. The development standards, so yeah, looking at the currently adopted M1 general industrial standards, upon reviewing the surrounding communities and what they've got around us, our currently adopted M1 general industrial standards are actually more on the lax side. They're kind of what we'd expect from a light industrial user today. When developing the new standards, we kept the M1 general industrial setbacks and maximum height for the new one. And then for the M2, we increased the standards, kind of to match that increased intensity and to align with surrounding communities. One of the residents had kind of expressed some concern over setbacks and specifically them relating back to industrial commercial residential. With this sort of thing, it's not an implicit assumption that it will happen. It's more of a, In the off-corner case that this may be located next to some sort of residential use of some variety, we want to be able to be prepared for that. And as it stands right now with our currently adopted code, there is no consideration for whether or not it backs up to residential, generally speaking. There are increased buffering standards when backing up to agricultural properties. So we just kind of wanted to cover that edge case and make sure that in the situation that we may end up with a property that wants to be developed as M2, And for one reason or another, it does end up next to a residential of some variety. We have standards kind of accommodating that.

So, Ian, regarding the maximum height, I thought that there was a change made to M1 to allow like a 12-story building.

12-story buildings?

Yeah, we passed something not that long ago. It was like $150. Yeah, I'm not sure this maximum height is right. I can definitely double check that. We were looking at 125 feet before. Remember that big meatpacking facility? Well, that's good to know. I will make a note of that.

I only bring that up just for the sake of accuracy.

Thank you for doing that.

Well, but the question would be, if we change it to this, does that change

that action well and i'm wondering if that this setback isn't just based on the height of the building itself if you have 120 foot tall building i'd rather it be the 100 foot setback than the 20 foot setback right here and maybe there's a chart or something there too that tells you if you're this tall you're further back if you're shorter you can be a little bit closer type of thing scaling so maybe it's just not like such a cookie-cutter approach. It's actually looking at the building height, taking it into consideration.

And I think we looked at that, right? It was like 1,000 feet.

Well, we had someone show a rendering that were really, in my opinion, very true.

Actually, you asked for new renderings, and then it never came back. Yeah.

So I'm wondering if there's maybe another layer to this in regards to the height as it plays into the setback.

Well, from what I remember, which this, that happened on like my second meeting on planning. So I was new and overwhelmed. Um, but from what I remember, I thought the, um, the code changed the, or we changed the height, approved the height change, but it was in, uh, almost like not, not a CUP. Um, Like the max height was like 65, but then could go up to, it was almost like an asterisk type of a situation.

That's exactly right. Here's the language that we're all referencing here. So the maximum height for the M1 General Industrial states that a building may not exceed 55 feet in size. However, the structures associated therein can exceed up to 100 feet if the structure is set back from all property lines by an equal distance. And there's the 12-story, 144-foot allowance as well, which that portion is not being modified from this. And in fact, this whole section is just pretty much being relabeled to M2. So that will all be carried over as well. So those aren't going away, like the requirement for it to scale with setbacks based on sizing.

I hear what you guys are saying. I think we will need to go back and make the change to 17348A4, which currently has the process for allowing a height up to 144 feet for M1. We just need to change that too. Just M2 or allow it in M1 and M2.

Or how about we walk that back and don't allow it with this change?

With the change that's before you, I'd like you guys to stay focused. You guys have asked for a long time to create M2, so we're here to create M2. We can keep doing public hearings to hit other items, but I want to make sure we're hitting the important things, filling up the jar with the big rocks first, then coming back to the small things in a little bit. So if there is a desire to walk back maximum height in general, that's a separate consideration to should we be creating this M2 zoning code.

So to follow up with what you're saying then, could we, I'm speaking for all of us, could we request that that max height of the 140 or whatever you just said be an M2 only? not an M one. Is that possible?

Yeah, that's certainly something that you can recommend as part of your, uh, recommendation towards the, or to the governing body for later this month.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Can you scroll down and where's the 144 that we were talking about? Okay.

So that's your general section that makes it possible and it refers to 17 three 48. That's going to be 1740 A4 is your exception for M1 zoning with your four factors to consider. And you all consider those and make a recommendation to governing body. And they make the final decision on that. So as you recall, yes, we did go in and make that change in the fall to kind of give flexibility for larger uses. And that's actually, if I recall correctly, I think when some of the discussion heated up on this is why we need an M2. If I'm conflating things, please let me know. But my recollection is that was sort of the identifying factor. And we said, let's get some new staff in. And they've been working hard on that. So yeah, when you guys make your motion, if that's something you're interested in and talk amongst yourselves, we can include that in the motion. And we'll walk you guys through that to make sure that motion's clean. Thanks.

Just for record, my memory is similar to what you were just saying, so. Thank you for that gaslighting. Nope. Not today. Awesome. Okay. Thank you.

Let's see here. Okay. So next would be the buffering standards associated with the new M2 district. Once again, the standards that we had adopted for M1 better aligned with that light industrial standard already. So looking at the new M2, we increased the buffering standard when adjacent to office, commercial, and then going from low to medium buffers for industrial parks. So we are increasing that buffering standard from what's already adopted. So any sort of office, commercial, it'll have an increased standard. And then kind of a look at what that standard actually looks like for the high impact screen. It's 100% opaque, six foot masonry or opaque fence, and then a low impact screen on both sides of that fence, which is the left set of tables. So you're looking at the one per 500 square feet shade trees, one of those options. So that's what you'd be seeing with M2 adjacent to anything except for industrial bark. In that case, it would be medium impact screening.

So what are our

What are our options here to increase this? Because I've always looked at industrial as I understand it, but like 90% of the community experiences the screening, the landscape, like this is very outward facing and touches like 90% of our community. And I don't want to skimp on these areas. I think it's an opportunity when you have these billion dollar opportunities. chunks of technology coming in. Let's say it's a three inch caliper tree versus a one and a half inch calipers and nothing. So it's like, can we request three inch calipers at 60 foot on center and then double row and do an evergreen screen? You know, can we really beef up this screening?

I think that that could be a conversation. I know that we would like to amend a lot of things in this code, one of them being architecturals, landscaping. I think a lot of it we would like to see changed. I do know that whenever you have an application come through that is requesting some sort of an application or otherwise there is a give and take that you have the option for, requesting that additional screening is certainly a valid thing to ask for, especially if it's related to mitigating offsite impacts.

So I guess I don't want, I just don't want whatever we do this evening. I don't want to like let that slip through the cracks that like, oh yeah. And then we have like inch and a half little twigs out there, you know, in this 144 foot tall thing. It's like, oh yeah, I can't see because the inch and a half trees right there. Yeah. You know, let's, in my opinion, that's a waste of their money. It's not doing anybody any good. So I like to just make sure that we really hone in on that. And what does the screening really do? Because that is the part that a lot of the community sees most. They don't see the interior of these spaces.

Yeah. And for what it's worth, when we talk about the exception to go up to 144 feet, one of the four criteria for you all to do that is adequate setbacks, buffers, and screening. So that gives you the flexibility of when someone's asking you to go above your max height, as Ian was saying, you have another tool there to say, well, This is not a by right height if you want 125 feet, 140 feet. So we want to see a mature tree, or we want to see some fast-growing trees rather than saplings. So that's in there, and you can see Ian writing as you talk. Staff's taking notes to continue bringing these. Your zoning code is, in many ways, a living document that gets changed quite a bit. So this is not the last set of zoning text amendment changes you guys will see. I promise you, but yeah. Not that you need to stop saying it. We'll take him notes, but yeah. Address that. Yeah, we got a lot more.

Yeah, so that's pretty much it related to the M1M2. It really isn't a super... detailed overhaul of the existing standards. It's more of making space for that new district and then allowing us to be able to come back and revisit it down the road when we go and completely revise architectural rules or landscaping or those other sorts of things. So just a groundwork for us to kind of get started.

So what you're saying is I didn't have to read the other 500 pages? Not really, no. Kudos to you, though.

I'm so tired.

If that's the case, let me bring something else up that you can write a note on. Recently I had a conversation with the mayor because I was complaining about the fact that

it appears that our streets are too narrow in our subdivisions.

And he agreed with me that, in fact, they should be wider. Right now the standard is 28 feet, of which four feet are curb. And I was telling him that I had the super truck that cleans the water lines now in my neighborhood. and everybody was dodging the truck because they couldn't get through because it's so wide. And so I didn't know what it would take to change that to maybe at least 30 or 32 feet streets.

So that would be an amendment to our subdivision regulations. Um, you know, that's, that's not what's up tonight. I think that that's something that we can, we can kind of look into. Um, but yeah, that'd be revising subdivision regulations. So, uh, public improvements and that would also involve, we want to get the city engineer in on that as well.

Yeah.

Oh no, you're good. Do you want to say anything else?

Yeah.

All right. But are there any other questions for me regarding this? Mm hmm. That's all I have. Okay. Sorry.

I thought, no, I'm sorry.

I need to project my voice more.

We were expecting more slides.

Oh, well that's it for now.

I've got like, so we're going to, oh yeah.

Okay. So since there's no applicant, we don't have to do applicant presentation. Um, commissioners, do you need any clarification?

The only question that I have, is there a more broader definition that can be provided on the issue of data centers?

I mean, because there's... Well, isn't that... Yeah, so that's defined in our definition section, which is not part of the zoning tax amendment that we published to bring forward. So... Similar to your last question about roads, point to note and discuss, but not something we can talk about or we're here talking about tonight.

I am so sorry, Kendra, but I have made a mistake. We are not done.

I knew it.

There are two code amendments associated with this one item. So this is the first one, the M1M2. But if we're done talking about the M1M2, I can move on to the next one, which is a planned district protective overlay amendment. Okay. but that's not until everybody's feeling satisfied about talking about the first one. I'm good.

Yeah. Yeah.

I'll just make the comment that, um, I think this is a great move, but I mean, cause we've been talking about this for awhile and I just wanted to reiterate maybe the benefit of, you know, redefining our M one and having him too, which is, you know, we we've, Sometimes we're rightly and understandably hesitant about approving M1 rezonings because it's somewhat of a, not quite, but anything goes. And then once it's rezoned, then it's really difficult then later to say no to something that might be super heavy industrial and not something we want, but if it's already been rezoned and so, you know. even if someone then comes and they say, Hey, we want to do enclosed and enclosed business, you know, like a gem tech or just a light manufacturing business, you know, there's still the risk of, you know, if we approve this and then that doesn't, that doesn't work out. Well, the rezoning remains and now the next person could come in and do something very heavy. Um, so I think this is really helpful and it also, I think with the new M one, it gives us an opportunity to then maybe attract, um, more specific types of industrial development that may be lower impact, may be a better neighbor, and maybe that's something that we have the opportunity to grow through this rezoning. So I think that's positive.

Agreed. Any other deliberation on this portion, or do we let Ian move on to the next? Roll that beautiful bean footage.

Sounds good. So the next one is the planned district protective overlay amendment. Under the current code, we have two tools at our disposal when it comes to regulating modifications for development standards and handling permitted uses in a given district. There's the planned district, which grants the ability for an applicant to seek modifications from development standards, and that's associated with the public hearing. These are PDPs coming in and asking for some sort of relief from the development standards. The other are protective overlays. A protective overlay grants the ability for Planning Commission to restrict land use and density and dimensional standards on a project-specific basis. So if there is a land use that is of particular concern, the Planning Commission can request a protective overlay to require greater setbacks or restrict land uses of some variety. However, in neither of these tools is there an ability to add a permitted land use. So what we are proposing today is an amendment, well, Actually, let me back it up. What does that mean practically speaking? As an example, let's say an applicant wants to come through and build an office building in a C2 commercial district that has a screened exterior lay down storage. In the C2 district, there is currently no allowance for exterior storage whatsoever. Exterior storage is something that can be relatively easily mitigated. You can screen it, you can require Asphalt or concrete surfaces, there's reduced dust impact. These are things that can be mitigated on a pretty decent scale. However, because there's no way for a land use to be added, the applicant has to seek a rezoning to a zoning district that does permit the exterior laydown storage. So in this case, going from C2, the nearest is MP Industrial Park. So in that case, the applicant has to seek a rezoning to a higher intensity zoning district, in this case, Industrial Park. and seek a protective overlay to then restrict all other land uses except for the ones that they're intending to do as well as exterior lay down storage. So what this creates is really what's not great planning practice. Even though the end result is compatible and not an issue, the zoning map and the kind of seemingly incompatible zoning that actually is compatible is just not super great. So we are proposing an amendment to the PD and PO Um, the first one, the amendment to the PD expands the ability for it to be used for all zoning districts. So, uh, right now it's permitted in everything except for agricultural, rural residential, industrial park and M1. This will grant us the ability to, uh, provide PDs as an option for these zoning districts. They will still come to you as part of a public hearing if they're being sought. Uh, it just grants that option for other, uh, other districts. The second is a modification or a change to the protective overlay to, uh, change the language from restrict to modify permitted land uses and development regulations. So this kind of opens up the door for the PO to be used to add land uses as well as restrict them and kind of just grant more flexibility in the development standards. Planning Commission and City Council still retain the right to approve or deny any application that comes before them associated with the PO or PD. You still retain the right to acquire additional development standards. And then the PD and PO can still be used to restrict or reduce permitted development standards and things of that nature. It's not removing the ability to use them as they are currently used today, just expanding the ability to use them to grant additional land uses. And I have a little asterisk up there just in case the M2 is approved and adopted, the language we have written automatically extends to it. It says including but not limited to these districts. So that way if there's an additional one, there's still the option to apply a PD. Kind of looking at the current situation today, there's two routes. Well, I guess there's one route. It's the top one, which is going over that same situation of rezoning to MP, applying a PO, and then getting approval. It's not great. It's bad planning practice. Under the new route, the applicant will be able to rezone from C2 to CP2, a planned district, concurrently add a protective overlay to permit that additional land use of an exterior lay-down storage, and then approve rezoning. So instead of having a industrial park zoning district for a commercial end user you still have commercial and they can just have the additional lay down storage zoning remains consistent and additional restrictions can still be imposed because it is a public or it's a PDP so there's the option there other than that that is that is all that we have for that do we have any instances currently with any businesses that will be affected by this that um

What am I trying to say? Like I would be grandfathered in almost, or is that such a thing? Is what I'm asking coming through at all.

So for planned districts, no. Because a planned district, they don't exist. So no one would be necessarily non-conforming. Someone who is currently zoned and wants to add a planned district designation to their property could go forward and do that, but this shouldn't create, the creation of PDPO here shouldn't create any legal non-conforming uses. Right, Ian? I mean, I don't think there's anything.

No, it wouldn't because, yeah, currently you can't change uses under the PD only if it has a planned district attached to it. You can under... You can restrict uses under a protected overlay or protective overlay, but we haven't used that much. And the only time in the recent past that we have used it, it was to restrict. So in order for them to come back in and change the land uses, they would have to employ this portion of the code and come back in and essentially change their protected overlay, which is a rezoning that would come back before this body and request to add in something else. So this would really only apply to new developments going forward.

Okay, thank you.

I will say when reviewing surrounding communities, this is something that is actually, it's pretty common to have at least a tool that allows for the addition of land uses. There's a lot of cities in the area that only permit new development in certain places with the inclusion of a PDP or something equivalent to it. So this is kind of just bringing us up to what's pretty standard in the area. This is how a lot of mixed-use developments are kind of facilitated when there's not specific land uses in the table of that line.

Okay. So my next question would be any businesses that are currently zoned M1 that would fall under our new M2 potentially, how does that work going forward? Um, are they just staying as in one M one, unless they want to add onto it, then they have to rezone. Okay.

Okay. So any business that's zoned M one today would. Thereby become a legal nonconforming, which means they could continue to operate as they have before the, cause they were in existence prior to that code being adopted. If they wanted to make any material changes or expand beyond what the legal nonconforming provisions of the code would allow, then yeah, they would have to request to go to M2. Some businesses may want to proactively do that. Some property owners may want to proactively do that. And then that's... then that would be kind of on a case-by-case basis as to, you know, do some of those businesses belong in M2 or not? Or, you know, through potentially a protected overlay and a planned district being applied to it, that could – Essentially make them m2 but then start to peel away some of the more noxious m2 uses on that property to make maybe that one a little bit more compatible or to add buffering or to do something to make that existing business should it expand and really tailor that zoning district for that business so that an existing m2 like a factory if you will If that were to go away, it would allow them to stay. It would allow them to operate. They could tailor their own protected overlay. And so then when they maybe expanded so much they needed a new facility, then somebody going in would still be bound by that protected overlay. It wouldn't change based upon the user, based on that protected overlay. working together because what we realized is that even the best written code is not perfect. Any code will never be able to fully anticipate, regulate, or account for every Specific instance of how it could be applied or every development and so that's why these flexibility things are really helpful to help bring in the development we do want and help also Mitigate some of the development that may have some external negative impacts to give us that extra You know buffering and mitigating factors to it, so it gives us a lot of flexibility I don't think it will negatively impact our ability to attract quality business or employers and still protects the city's interest as well.

Perfect. Thank you.

Do you see this mostly the protective overlay mostly being used probably on that line between commercial and M1 versus someone in M1 wanting to contemplate a heavier use without zoning to M2?

Um, what it really does is it gives anybody in any zoning district the ability to change those land uses. So if we were able, you know, you've seen some in, in downtown Overland Park, um, we would at least summit where you kind of have that vertical mixed use building with the apartments on top and their first floor residential. Currently our code wouldn't allow that at all and we'd have to, do a planned district and a protected overlay, but it would be really hard for us to craft that because you can't add land uses to commercial. You can only subtract under the current code. So it would be very difficult for us to do a commercial zoning district. and then add in upper story residential apartments. So what this does is it gives us that flexibility to do that. And to be honest, we're looking at this as really just a stop gap. As we do the comprehensive plan and some of the concepts that we believe will come out of that, one of the main implementation strategies and priorities will be to update our zoning code. Zoning code is very much out of date the formats out of date. The the uses contemplated are out of date There's no provision for kind of a mixed district or mixed zoning and that would be something that we would Be looking to do quickly on the heels of a comp plan adoption. And so this allows us to respond more to the market, the development market, and accommodate some of these one-off land uses that maybe our code doesn't pick up perfectly. And frankly, I had wanted to kind of scrap the whole planned district protected overlaying and wipe them clean and then start with something brand new, but it just turned into something that was going to take too much time. And so in order to get kind of these in front of you, this is the closest thing we could do that has that same effect.

I appreciate the comment on the mixed use because someone asked me about that earlier this week actually and I was going through some of our zoning and goes and I was and there's we can't and but then the future land use map calls for mixed use development and so I was thinking like well how's this going to work so I I'm happy you brought that up because I was going to bring that up down the road but I wasn't quite sure when

I imagine previously it was probably contemplating discrete plats that were like commercial next to residential, but not like on the same property.

But they're referencing down Metcalf, like what you're seeing with the bottom commercial, top retail. I mean, to me, that's more mixed use, right? And that's what I was envisioning kind of.

future right but then you read the code it's like no you can't do that just alternate yeah put it next to it and the other one that i think i brought up previously was um some sort of retailer that wanted to do outdoor storage that's customary with that business that we've all come to accept when you go to you know at home depot's a big business but even some of the the ace hardware for if moody hardware would want to have an outdoor storage area defined We would have to up zone that and moody would be fine because I think they're well, they may be c2 zone, but Theoretically that that's more of a commercial land use and and if we were to zone that to m1 Then we've right added in industrial uses into kind of a larger frame mid box style So this we believe this really will help us Rezone something

So I'd rather do the protective overlay.

And you guys said at that time it's not ideal, but it was the only path. That's right.

In this case, you would have went CP2.

We would do CP2 with adding in accessory outside storage with these screening requirements and siting requirements. So we wouldn't want to see that out in front of the building. We could put that behind it. And we would do that through exactly the CP2 with a protected overlay on top of it.

Nice.

Ian, can you go back one slide? Um, can, can you like just cover again briefly, but under the plan districts, why the expansion to all zoning districts?

Well, Mike, do you wanna speak to that?

Um, that was really my idea because I don't think that every situation, um, is a perfect use of our code standards. Sometimes we may want to have, for example, an M1 use. If the front of the building looks nice and looks like an office building and has good design, then there's really not a need to have that set way far back from the street. And then we could push some of the more industrial portions of that to the back. not having the flexibility to do a essentially modification of any development standards for any zoning district really will just keep creating more of what we already have. And that's not to say what we have is wrong in any way, but I think it's always a good idea to have some form of flexibility and do that through a zoning and planned like with a plan that would come before this body and then on to the city council, because otherwise, um, without that, they would have to go to the board of zoning appeals or zoning adjustment, get a variance. Um, and through that, you have to meet very specific criteria and there's no ability to add conditions that if we're going to reduce, say this side setback over here, um, And in lieu of that meeting that code required setback, we're going to, we're okay if you put in a landscape berm of six feet in height and up the landscape buffer in there. There's no way to do that as part of a variance. And there's, you know, that is a decision that would go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. And the only way for that to have a So you can't really make any plan concessions or plan requirements in addition to it. And if the board were to not vote it because it doesn't meet those specific criteria, the next ability to appeal that is to district court. And so in some other cities I've worked, Those types of setback changes, if you will, or maybe height or parking or something like that that in a given situation makes sense to allow some modification if we get something in return to help mitigate any of that that is solely used for that property. Then that's we're talking site plan we're talking site design to me that's best handled through the planning Commission, who is experienced with that and can speak to some of those offsetting provisions to help lessen that impact. To evaluate that specific request and why they're making it and why does it needed, and you know what is their justification. and then ultimately that decision rests with the city council related to the built environment of these buildings. And so that's in essence why we do it in all of the, well most of the residential zoning districts, we do it in the commercial zoning districts, and we didn't necessarily have that ability in the industrial districts. So if an industrial user came in, And we thought, boy, we want to add some things to this. And you need a planned district because you're not going to meet this in the code. And this is the best way to do that. So it's not a get out of jail free card. The idea of really the planned district and the protected overlay is not a means for developers to just get out of the provisions of our code. I think they have been used that way in the past, especially over the last 15 years. maybe 15 years ago and over the last five, I think cities have really started to look at the general principle. The intent of those is to do something that is unique, that is different, that can still be at the same level of quality or better, but just using different development standards. And so we think that that should be allowable in all the zoning districts.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you for putting all this together, by the way. Again, this is really helpful.

Yeah, very. Are my slideshows getting better?

Much, thank you.

Whoa, whoa.

We didn't say they're good. We said they're much better. Although you do get points deducted for lack of video.

Is it okay to send a PDF of the slideshows? We haven't received any of that, so it would be nice to have them. Oh, yeah, for sure. I can get them. A PDF is easy to make and easy to send an email. Yeah, for sure.

Perfect. Any other questions? If no other questions, we can open up for public comment from the audience if there is any.

I'm going to go. I got a question.

Name and address yet again, please, Jason.

Jason O'Kane, 18804 Skyview. Lane, Foxwood Ranch Development. I got one question. I don't know. I know you guys aren't supposed to answer it, but my request would be that if you do make a protective overlay on a zone, and as far as I'm aware from what I was understanding is that that protective overlay stays with that zone no matter if it changes owners. So ownership, that building, gets sold to somebody else, those protective overlays are still on that property. In my opinion, you know, things that you should probably think about is that those protective overlays may not agree with the new owner. When you guys talk about, you know, when you talk about the lay down storage and the plumbing contractor that was wanting to build a building here, you guys were really asking them what you were going to do. What was being stored out there? What was being done? And once you determined what this guy was wanting to do with his business, then you made your decision. Okay, I don't have a problem. You don't have a problem with what he's trying to do. And if you make a protective overlay and you keep that there with one individual and then another individual comes in and they want to store other things and other stuff outside and things that you don't agree with that they should be doing and they need to do additional things, maybe not having that protective overlay necessarily transfer I don't know if that's possible or just having the new owner apply for the protective overlay not necessarily rezoning unless they wanted to rezone but to make sure that the protective overlay still falls in line with what they're trying to do that way you don't have any you know oh it was being used for this and business goes out two or three years and then somebody else comes in and Abuses that system in some way not necessarily saying that they're going to but it could happen So, you know like oh we approved it for this and now they're using it for that you know, I didn't we didn't approve that but you can't do anything about it because They're following all of our rules in place. So that would that be my concern But like I said, I don't know legally or what the What would you know what you could do about it? So? That's it. That's all

Thank you, Jason.

I can certainly answer a question if you have any on that. Or if there's more testimony, I can jot down some notes and answer both.

My notes are all over the place. My name is Rebecca Rossman. I am at 21341 Noble Street. And I wanted to say I left my glasses at home. Y'all, I'm a mess. So it's just been a day. So I can't see your name tags. But the gentleman in the white shirt, I wanted to say thank you for saying that clarification is helpful. because it is having just a bunch of things just out of nowhere. In any situation, just having clarification is really important because I think anxiety feeds on fear. And so if people don't know what is going on, it brings up their anxiety. And with clarification, It's better for people to know, even if it's not necessarily something that they want. Having the knowledge of what is going on is helpful for people to know, instead of just their brains going to 5,000 pieces of information that they don't know. I think that builds trust, and I think trust in your government in all different areas is super-duper important, especially right now. And so the more information that you can provide to people, the better. I mentioned this online on Facebook, but the more information that can be put out there, That's one of the reasons I mentioned the minutes and things like that. The more information that people know and can learn on their own is better to give them less anxiety and give them that trust that they need. So thank you for making that comment about how clarification is helpful. Another thing I wanted to say is that I thought it was... interesting talking about, um, I was part of the, the, um, comprehensive plan working meeting that, that took place. I did it online and it was interesting to me as people were filling it out and seeing it online, when people were asked about what word that they thought of people would want to think about Spring Hill, if they had one word to think of and people were putting in words, peaceful. Welcoming was the one that really stuck out to me. Welcoming, somebody put not Olathe. There were several people that put Ruel, which was interesting to me. I used to work in marketing analytics, amongst some other things, but it's interesting. You can almost pull out a demographic, an age group. Sometimes with that information, but I think that that was interesting and on its own but also interesting today in comparison to some of the adjectives in some of the proposed amendments to the zoning codes when you're talking about different zoning categories that describe things such as hazardous and high highly obnoxious and things that want to be brought here, industrial and other what I would consider kind of hard developments. We're talking and asking citizens about what they want our city to be and what they want others to think about our city when they drive through or come here. Would they want others to think that we're welcoming and we're peaceful and you're cozy and those type of warm, fuzzy words. but yet we're talking about bringing in things here that are obnoxious and hazardous, and it's just such a weird thought to think about, hey, please come here, but hey, by the way, we're also bringing in these things that are highly obnoxious, and it just kind of gave me kind of a weird thought in my mind about, hey, this is what we want currently, coming here, we're doing this comprehensive plan of where we want to go, but at the same time, there's this weird imbalance. I also, since I moved here from Olathe a few years ago, I took a part in their Elevate Olathe process. I'm not sure, I'm sure you guys are aware of it and considering in your positions. And I thought they did a really good job in that. It was a long process, I know that. I recently saw some of their results and some of their infographics that I think they did really well. And one of the things that I thought was done really well is it did take them time. They broke it down into so many different categories. And one of the things that you, sir... Mike, if I may say so, you mentioned that you wish that you could have taken some of the code things and just start from scratch, that you had, you know, there's a lot of existing stuff, and you wish you could have just started from scratch, but there wasn't time. And that kind of hit me, because I, and there was another thing that was mentioned about there's not enough time, you know, What is, what clock are we up against? Why are we such a hurry here? There wasn't time to start from scratch. And the elevate away thing that they did take time to do, it was done so well. What are we in such a rush for? That's not rhetorical. I'm literally, I'm asking a question. What, why are we in such a rush? If it would be potentially be done better, if it could be started from scratch, not necessarily, you know, a blank piece of paper, benchmarking is an incredible thing to do in the business world. What is the rush?

And so, ma'am, if we can have them address questions and more discussion when you're done with all your comments, rather than kind of pausing. So if you're finished, we can kind of run through this. If you've got more to say, we'll note that question. Sure, absolutely. I do also just want to say, typically we

used comments to about five minutes so sure yeah and I do apologize for that so this that leads into what I'm getting ready to say what I was gonna say so in the process of and I don't know who's new I'm here or not so I do apologize for There but there are some options here in a normal parliamentary business meeting you have options You can somebody can call for a motion and say hey, let's go for this, you know Motion somebody seconds to agree there can be further discussion blah blah blah And then it goes through because this was just a presentation if I understand it rightly um Do you guys have access to all of that stuff he presented? I'm guessing there's a ton of data, all that stuff behind it, like probably a binder and all this other stuff. Somebody mentioned a video. I'm hoping you guys have that. So if there is, the other option behind that is you can lay that motion on the table. You can lay this discussion on the table for another time. If there's anything in that presentation that you're like, I don't know what that is, I'm not 100% about that. I still have questions. Or what did that really mean? Or how did that other city do this? Whatever that is. If you do not understand that completely in every single part of whatever that presentation material is, somebody needs to speak up right now and say, I'm not ready. We need to lay this motion on the table until we can talk about this more because If you vote on it now and say, yay, yay, yay, yay, yay. That... Approval is gonna take you to the City Council and that is basically your voice is saying I understand We understand as a group every one of us understands every single little piece of that as gold We understand it and stand by it as gold. You have sorry you have 34 seconds. Go ahead. That's fine So we are we as a group are saying we understand that we stand by every single piece of that and if you don't then you need to stay here and say i would like to lay this motion i want to lay this discussion on the table to discuss it at a later time so thank you thank you any other public comments

all right uh commissioners do you have any further clarifications or questions needed um i i'd like to ask mike to comment on the kind of what jason was talking about the protective overlay if uh transfer so i'm clear too on it yeah um If there is ownership change and the business stays the same, I'm assuming the protective overlay stays the same. Yes, it would. Business changes and the, go ahead.

Yeah, it would still remain in place the way zoning remains in place any time it's changed by, you know, by the city council. And so if property is rezoned to C2, then any land use allowed in C2, regardless of what is proposed, at the time of that zoning, um, would be allowed in there going, going after. Um, it's a fair point, um, but, you know, typically for, um, the protected overlay in the planned district, they can be tailored to, land use if there's specific current concerns about it during the public hearing process that says we have concerns about what is being stored then potentially some draft changes related to that use or other uses could be done I think in terms of that example with the outdoor storage from a staff perspective it's it's not so much what is being stored it's how it's being screened it's the use of the of the land and as outdoor storage, and then the built environment to screen it and protect it from view. If it's with the one building, if it's pipe or something, or if somebody else goes in and starts storing something else out there that meets all of our code and every other facet, then they would be allowed to do that. I'm sure there will be every, there's always an exception to what is planned, and certain provisions can be put in there to help mitigate any unpredictable things in the future, but I don't necessarily I don't personally share that concern on just adding land uses to a protected overlay or restricting uses to a protected overlay. And if there are specific site concerns about that use, then those can be addressed through that plan district when those two are tied together now.

Um, but, but, but the good news in my mind at the end of the day is that the protective overlay enabled the city to maintain a lower level of zoning, if that's the right term, a less intense use with a protective overlay versus having to up zone that to something that is more intensive and in the future could be something that is completely not what was intended. So I think the thing I like about the protective overlay is it's very narrow and it maintains a lower level of zoning. I feel like it's lower risk than going to a higher level of zoning.

Yeah, sorry to interrupt. If done right, then yeah, it can be used to offer what a variance does, and it's typically required, is the minimum amount of variance needed to accomplish that goal. So if somebody wants to encroach into a setback five feet and they come in and say, I want a 15-foot encroachment but they only need five feet then it's it's more appropriate to grant that five feet if Somebody came in for the pro design and they say we want to do c2 land uses, but we just can't do the storage and then like you had just mentioned, it's better to just allow the additional land use or to restrict out all the others so that that's, we're just adding what is appropriate. We're not adding every land use that's allowed in MP or M1. Because then at that point, the staff does lose, the city loses a lot of control over the land uses, you know, The zoning code is the regulatory tool to help implement development and use of property. And so if somebody does meet the zoning and meets the code, then the code is designed to allow them to do that. Thank you.

Yeah, I mean, I totally agree with Chuck. This is protective overland plan districts are something we've needed for a long time. And they're actually better. You don't have to do all this rezoning so much worse than it has to be. I think the M1 and M2 are appropriate and needed to be done a long time ago. So I'm glad we're looking at that now because it's really going to separate the heavy industry from the light for sure.

And I think as a city, we may be willing to contemplate M2 in areas where we would not have permitted M1 due to the risks.

Yeah.

And the intensity of it.

Any other questions? Okay. With that, I will close the public hearing. And commissioners, you can discuss, deliberate.

I think that the two items that have been forward are things that we've been looking for. Again, if I hadn't read the rest of the document, I wouldn't have all these other questions. But I mean, I think it's going to help us move forward in areas that we'd been a little bit difficult to do until now.

I agree. I want to say thank you very much for the presentation and for working on this and getting it done. I mean, I think it's awesome. I know it's a lot of work, and I think you guys have done a great job, and I appreciate it very much considering I feel like every single meeting codes and zoning are brought up. So thank you very much for hearing us and working on that. so much and so well um the thing that i i think stuck out to me the most and is the biggest concern in my opinion is the 17348a4 which is the 144 foot height making that i think to make that if we could for m2 only instead of m1 since m1 would be lighter industrial i mean i can't And then if they, I mean, I know it's case by case, but I don't know. I feel like that kind of height at M1 and light industrial is really tall. And so I think that is more appropriate for M2 over M1 or MP.

And I think he has to change the numbers, right, for the M1 and M2.

Someone did like it.

Yes, yes. And make a recommendation, I think, to your point.

Yeah.

For the height. Yeah. Should the higher ones be in M2?

Because right now it's for all of them. Right. And that's why I asked him if we could just do M2, and then he said we'd need to make the recommendation for that. Is that correct, Spencer?

Yeah, so right now there's only MP and M1, and the increased height is only available in M1. So if you were going to make a recommendation to the governing body to approve this, you can add with the condition that 17348A4 be changed to M2 only. And that's an easy... I mean, it's us going into the Word document and deleting the one and turning it into a two. So the effect is it takes the two, but it's an easy change we can bring to them and have it ready for their meeting. Oh, perfect. Thank you. I know, sir.

Spencer doesn't want us to boil the ocean all in one night, but I mean, I'm not a fan of that height at all. So I mean, I would like to see it removed. But I know it's still somewhat of an exception height. Yeah.

I totally get what you're saying because I also agree. But to me, on the other hand of that, we don't like to rezone and rezone and rezone, you know, the same property over and over. And I feel like that's what we would be doing with this. Like we already approved to raise the height. So now to change it back or to try to change it back potentially is like, Oh, we changed our mind. Nevermind. Like it, you know what I mean? It's right. And I agree completely that I don't, I wish we could take it back. But, you know, like, it's.

We can.

We can, but.

We don't have to tonight. No, I know.

I'm just saying in general, though, I don't know that I like the idea of it.

We don't need another public hearing. We'd have to have another public hearing to change the specifics of like that. But for tonight, we could approve the M1 and M2 with that specific condition where they can just change the. make M2 as the highest, the 144 feet, right?

And just as a reminder, that height is an exception that requires that additional showing of... That's the asterisk, right? Yeah, so because it would be applied to M2 only, and there's no M2 currently, they would need to come to you and say, we want to rezone to M2. You would consider that M2. And they would also need to hit that second criteria for the height. So you'd be talking to them twice, essentially, at the moment. Now... know once someone's m2 and they could come back and ask for the height later but regardless you will always have a look at anyone who wants to exceed that height and go there and have that chance to address setbacks and buffering and does this back up to a community that we don't need that tall building does it back up to a train track or a highway that maybe it makes more sense that all those same types of things we kind of talked about last time it came up so okay thank you sometimes i think i think josh nailed it though that no size of sapling is gonna mask

Just the redwoods.

Yeah, right. We need old growth redwoods.

Those are cheap. It's fine. Okay. Any other comments, discussion? All right. With that, I will entertain a motion.

What's that look like?

Yes, I've got the same question.

Because we're split with the M1M2 plus the PDMPO.

And I didn't see a suggested motion here.

Is this one? What are we doing here?

We don't have a suggested motion.

Oh, it's right here. Suggested motion?

Oh, nope. We don't have it. My bad. I was looking on the room. Sorry, guys. Thank you. Thank you. Well, let me... So could we make a motion to approve the planned district, the planned overlay as presented by staff, the M1 and M2 changes as presented by staff in the zoning code with that 17.4 to apply the maximum height only to M2 zoning. How's that?

Say that again word for word with I move in front.

I move to approve the changes in our Spring Hill City code for the new planned district the new planned overlay as presented by staff the M1 and M2 changes in the code as presented by staff and as applicable to Code 17.3484A with the maximum height be restricted only to M2.

Yes, you said 4A instead of A4. A4.

Yeah, that's fine. Restricted to the maximum height restricted to M2.

Is there a second?

Second.

Perfect. There's been a motion and a second. We will start on the left for Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries seven zero zero. Do we have any discussion, Ian? We do. Awesome. Let's hear it.

I thought we were done with presentations. Okay. So at the last planning commission, oops, Okay. Blast Planning Commission, we had a public survey on Slido to kind of do like a preliminary ahead of the comprehensive plan, comprehensive plan talk. I have the results to go over, so let's do that.

Really quick, before we get into this, this wasn't on our agenda.

Yeah.

So can we do a motion to amend the agenda to add public engagement survey review? Would anyone be interested in making that motion?

It's on the agenda.

Is it? Let me check the published one really quick.

Do you want a motion just to?

No, it's on the public one. Oh, OK. That's the one that matters. All right, thank you.

Perfect.

OK. Yeah, so I'll kind of go through these pretty quick. Yeah, let's go through them. So the first question that was asked was, in one word, how would you describe Spring Hill? Number one by far was growing, rural, community, home. I want to follow that up kind of later on in the survey with what do you think it should look like in 10 years? Thriving, welcoming, rural, peaceful. Pretty similar in both ways, but I do like thriving as being the predominant answer. I think that's a very optimistic outlook for the community. I think that's healthy. I think it's great. Looking at sentiment analysis, going at questions two, three, and four. Questions two and three looked at the perceived strengths and areas of improvement for Spring Hill. Strengths were identified as a sense of community, small town feel, your schools, the fact that we're relatively close to good amenities, and the safety that was perceived throughout the community. Improvements included a lack of dining, retail, grocery options, concerns about infrastructure, the state of it, property taxes, and then buffering of industrial land uses, specifically in relation to residential. Question four. kind of posed what are you most excited about, concerned about related to Spring Hill's growth. Number one by far for excitement was new food retail. Shocker, surprising that number three related to number four. New employment opportunities, expanded tax base to kind of help relieve stress off that property tax concern was another excitement. Concerns, placement of industrial zoning districts as well as data centers, once again related to residential. infrastructure keeping pace with development, making sure that we're not outpacing what our capacity to provide services is, and then a loss of sense of character. Question six, I'm skipping one, we'll come back to it, but six was posed in the journalized question of what is smart growth. I have this one in there because oftentimes I'll see on Facebook and just in general, a generalized, we want smart growth. What is smart growth? I want to kind of hear from the community about that. Intentional infrastructure planning was number one. This is kind of just a sentiment analysis. So it's not like one-to-one a bunch of people said this specific thing but generally speaking intentional infrastructure planning separation of land uses diversified economic base Being mindful about preserving community character and then having meaningful community input These are the things that were generally defined as smart growth, which is pretty well pretty well aligned I think the the academic definition of smart growth is is kind of having that intentional infrastructure planning, a mix of land uses, finding your highest and best land use, making sure you're using land economically and efficiently, not introducing sprawl. That's kind of like your smart growth concept. Question five and question seven. So this was kind of a balancing act. The first one, question five, was a ranking of one to five of how important maintaining Spring Hill's small town character is, which you can see about 70% of people ranked it as four or five. Question seven, on the other hand, asked the question of, if you had to rank them, what do you feel is most important for Spring Hill's future? Attracting businesses, jobs, preserving existing character, increasing options, improving roads and infrastructure, and expanding parks and rec. Number one was roads and infrastructure. Number two is attracting businesses, jobs. Number three, just barely, was expanding parks and recreation. Number four was preserving existing character. And number five was increasing options for housing. So I think this is kind of interesting in that it just kind of introduces a little dynamic where, for sure, absolutely, preserving small town character is very important. But when you have to prioritize one over the other, because in life, there is a give and a take with some things. While it is still very important, it is not number one like you'd expect. There's a little bit more nuance to it. That's not to say that we don't do our best to make sure that these things are accommodated. But just when you have to rank it, It's not number one like you would think. Question eight was a bad question. It was, how do you think about the variety of housing options in Spring Hill? This is too vague. I think somebody called it out. I think you called it out when I was showing it the first time. It's just not a good question. That being said, the majority of people by far said three or above. So I think we're doing pretty good with housing variety, at least from the public perception side of things. Visual preference survey. So I had three primer questions ahead of these images. What do you think of single family homes, two, three, four plexes, and multifamily? Kind of see the word clouds there. They're a little small up on the presentation. But number one for single family home was house, which I think is a pretty good descriptor of single family home. Affordable, attractive, cozy. And yeah, I think the one word was lost for a lot of these. But two, three fourplexes, crowded, affordable, negative was a pretty big one. And multifamily, big city, a city, transient, nice, affordable. So with that, let's move into the actual images themselves. This is going number one to number 10. Number one was the home on the left. It is a four square. Traditional American design, got a 4.17 out of 5 average score.

Is that your childhood home?

No. You'll know. You'll know. You'll know. Number two is actually a triplex. It received 3.63 out of 5. I believe this is located out in the Denver area. Number one is a single family home. But interestingly, the number one design is a very common duplex style. Four-corner designs can be kind of split top and bottom or kind of laterally down the middle. It's very common to see those in like Georgia, for instance, or like the South. You'll have duplexes that look just like that, but they are duplexes.

Interesting.

Number three, once again, a triplex. This is 3.59. This is again out in Denver. Tied for number four and number five, this is my childhood home, 3.5. It's out in Ohio. It's fine. I'm just happy it wasn't last.

Is this actually your childhood home? Yeah. No. Oh, my gosh. Oh, God. That's amazing. I did not know that.

Oh, it's cute. Yeah. I knew it was in here. It was tied with, yeah.

I missed that part.

Number five, or yes, tied. This is a community called, oh, gosh, I can't remember. It's out in the Salt Lake City area. It's actually the fastest growing community in the United States. I wish I could remember the name of it. But it's rear alley-loaded homes. Kind of tied for that half and half. Number six, townhomes, 3.24. Number seven, duplex, 3.21 out of five. Kind of your very typical what you see everywhere in America. Number eight, more townhomes, 2.33. And then not surprisingly, number 10, 1.8. It's not a very attractive building. And number nine, 2. Moving over to the follow-up questions, what makes a building look good or bad? Maintenance, quality materials, character, having decent proportions that are traditional, front-facing entries. These all kind of define the generalized idea of what is good, bad, garage-dominated facades, snout-nosed homes, low-quality, large-scale blank facades. JoCo Beige, I love that. I don't know why I had that until this.

I always heard it as Johnson County Brown, so I like the beige. I like the beige.

Yeah. Last question there was, buildings you want more or less of, more single-family homes, restaurant, retail, grocery, parks, green space, less large-scale housing, data centers, warehouses, industrial, cookie-cutter residential, storage buildings, things of that nature. Once again, yeah, the top three were, two of them were multifamily, or I guess duplex, triplex, which I think contrasting that with the generalized perception from the primer of them being Clustered and crowded and not necessarily positive reactions the fact that two of the three of them were Triplexes I think just kind of lends itself to the idea that you know There's a perception of what certain types of housing look like what shape and form they come in That's not always necessarily what it has to look like And then yeah for that number one Right. There's a duplex in Atlanta. It's the same style. It's a little different it's not expanded out to the sides, but fundamentally is that four square and Yeah, you find that in everyday America.

Question about the duplex. Was it repurposed as a duplex or built as a duplex?

That was renovated into a duplex. Yes. But yeah. Good question. So it's single family. Yeah. I used to deliver pizzas in Lawrence, and I'll tell you what, I delivered so many pizzas to houses that looked just like that, and they were apartments. But yeah, no. That's kind of one of the things is that the outside shell of a home does not necessarily reflect the amount of density that can be achieved. That's just more to show that.

But the real question is how do you get developers to do innovative things like this and like in Fayetteville that I saw that here in Spring Hill versus there?

That's a great question. I think there's a whole lot of answers to that that we can get into. It's tough to say.

It is hard.

Yeah, it is hard. But definitely design standards can be a big one. I think that whenever we have an application that's coming forward, with something that's asking for modifications to standards and wants to be creative, being able to be accommodating of that and having those heightened architectural standards. It's one of the ways we can get there. I will say that one on the left, the single family home, is in Lee's Summit. So it's not too far from us. The sort of development does happen in the area. So let's talk about statistical significance, lessons learned. We had, it's not showing up, I think 43 people finished the survey. What is it? 53 people, which represents about 0.4% of the population of Spring Hill. This is a very fun exercise. I think it's important that we did this to set the stage for what the comprehensive plan will look like going forward to give an idea of what sort of questions may be asked, except better. But this is not representative. This is more of just an exercise in asking questions and thinking about these things the way that they are. Looking at question responses by type, Highest response rate was in the ranking, lowest in the survey, pretty much to be expected. I was surprised at the level of consistency that the visual preference survey had. Of those that started it, only one did not finish it. So I thought that was pretty cool. And you can kind of see the ebbs and flow throughout the survey based on question type. Yeah, surveys dipped, rankings were higher. Word clouds were pretty high. At least if you had a word cloud, it was good. The next word cloud was not good. But if you just had one word cloud, it was still good. It's good to know. Lessons learned. Question framing is important. No ambiguity. You really got to make sure you know what you're asking so people know what to respond with. They want to know how they think. Number two, demographics are important. This is really interesting because it was great knowledge, but I don't know geospatially, based on age, based on anything, how these responses fit into the demographics of the people that answered them. So it could be that those that live in Now, Southern Spring Hill have a very specific trend of answers, very specific preferences on the visual survey. I have no way of knowing that. So having that demographic included in the survey process is gonna be very important to kind of extrapolate that information. Slido just didn't have that option. We can't track it. There are a lot of survey programs that do provide demographic tracking, like on a user by user basis. Three, form over function. Kind of, yeah, going back to the shell of the home, Sometimes the form can matter more than what the home actually is. So a triplex can look really good. It's still a triplex. But it can look better than a lot of single-family homes if done right. And the same goes for single-family homes or triplexes. It doesn't matter. Things can look good and be good, or they cannot look good. Number four, question types. Video preference survey is very great retention. 47 responded. One did not. And even, honestly, the survey questions only had 12% lower response rates. So it wasn't as bad as I thought. I would have expected that more people would not respond to them. But yeah, that's all that I got. So that's just the follow up from that. And once again, once we get into the comp planning process and we have the consultant on board, we will go through all of this and there'll be a much more robust survey process. There'll be open houses, charrettes, all sorts of fun engagement. And we'll probably do another survey that's more robust. Awesome.

Thanks for the effort in putting that together. Yeah, I had fun with it. I love numbers.

And I think it's so, I felt like a light bulb moment when, you know, some of those homes popped up and it's like, oh, yeah, like a triplex or a townhome doesn't have to just be four front doors, you know, stacked together. Like, oh, yeah, it can be. Right, or the duplexes we have here. Yes. Like seeing some of those photos, I'm like, oh my gosh, like those are beautiful, you know? And so in this area, we're so used to seeing the same thing over and over that I just think, oh, well that's cool. But that's only in, you know, Atlanta area, but like we could have that here so that it's, it's good to be reminded of that. Like, oh, it's not just a, you know, a Southeast thing. You, we can bring that into the Midwest. And I don't know, it's just good to see that and kind of a good refresher mentally that, oh my gosh, we can have really cool looking stuff and it's not just cookie cutter, the same thing over and over. So I really liked that portion of the survey actually. I'm glad.

For sure. And I think this will inform your discussions with potential developers to communicate to them that the types of architecture that people find favorable are more likely to be embraced.

Yeah, less pushback for sure. Or some less pushback.

Yeah.

Yeah, for sure.

So you're saying there will be pushback?

From me, for sure. No, I'm teasing. I'm teasing you. No. But, yeah, I just, yeah, it's good. Thank you, Ian. It's great.

That's all I got. So thank you so much. Excellent.

All right. Any announcements and reports? Come back. Don't act so excited.

Always forget this part. At the May 14th City Council meeting, there were no agenda items related to community development. And at the May 28th City Council meeting, there were no agenda items related to community development.

Awesome. Anything from Mike? Any other reports?

Or you. I've got stuff to say. You've got stuff to say?

Oh. We're going to move on.

That's all we got. Awesome. All right. Well, if that's the case, then do we have a do I need a motion to adjourn? Okay. He moved. Travis seconded. All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. Motion carries 7-0-0. We're done.