Planning Commission - Special Meeting

like to call the July 8th, 2025 meeting of the of uh I got a phone call planning commission to order. And if you would stand for the pledge of allegiance. Pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Roll call. Miss Canable. Miss Dobson, Mr. Hehheart here, Mr. Mitchell here, Mr. Aravalo here, Miss Kier, Mr. Sly here, Miss Squire here, Mr. Morris here. Chairman, we have a quorum. Thank you. Uh, approval of agenda. Everybody got a chance to read that? Move we accept the agenda as presented. I second that. I hear a second. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. All those opposed? Same. Approved. I don't think we have anybody signed up for citizen participation unless somebody would like to speak now or at the time of our agenda items. If not, we'll continue approval of minutes. Oh, done that, haven't we? Chairman, we're going into the discussion before formal. Oh, okay.

Sorry. Thank you. Skip right over that. You go right ahead. I was just going to get hooked up. Why is it when you plug a computer in you always have the wrong way when you start out? There we go. 76%. There we go. There we go. Okay. Um, I'm here tonight. I'm Rhonda Dunn, the finance director for the city. And I think I know most of you, and I'm afraid most of you have seen this uh little show I do every year. And um we're here tonight to start the discussion of the capital improvement plan for 2025 to 2020, I'm sorry, 2030. Got to get used to saying that. Um, what I want to do tonight is, um, discuss new projects with you. Take a look at, you've seen this list before. Um, it's a 5-year thing, so things are progressing along the timeline. I'm going to talk about new projects that got added as well as re u talk about completed and removed projects and then uh discuss the projects emphasizing the things that are

going to start in 2026 and then kind of talk about priorities. We've met and done the same presentation with the governing body in a work session. And tonight's real point is to prepare you that next time I'll be here with the full CIP and all the pretty pictures and everything for you to vote to support or not support that the CIP is in align with your um comprehensive plan. And feel free to interrupt me anytime with questions as we move along here. Uh the handout that I gave everybody is a project list. Um, it's my point tonight was not tons and tons of detail to overwhelm. It's to get you thinking through do we have all the projects? Is there something missing? Are we supporting the functions and and plans of the comprehensive plan through these projects and investments? That's what we're working on. And it is double-sided and it is divided in the categories that pretty much fit the comprehensive plan. When you look at the back side, you'll see we added SS48 comprehensive safety action plan, which is um a lot of projects that are coming along um through grants. And so we want to track that separately. And then in the past few years, we haven't had equipment on the list, but we now have some equipment that exceeds that threshold to be in the CIP. So let's talk about some new projects for 2026 to 2030. Um the first one is the Busy sewer line acquisition. I know some of these are not something you're actively involved in. Um staff and council's been very involved in the negotiation to connect um the Buciris to our wastewater treatment plant because their plant uh the EPA would like it upgraded or removed from the system. And

so we're going to help them with that and take on the busyus system and have connectivity from that part of the county uh to us. Um we need to do some upgrades at the police department on their building looking at foundation work. We've done a lot of door work out there and we're balancing that with another project on the list which is do we continue to invest in buildings if we may go to a new building someday. We want to balance those two things. We would like to upgrade the um we said city limit signage, but the city entrance signage doesn't mean it's at the city limit and do some updates and changes to it. And then um we also want to look at our logo. Is it time for an update and a refresh and the watermark? Um that's quite a process to get involved, get started. We'll eventually do some work at Lone Elm Road and um 175th to 183rd. There's an area there that needs some improvement. Traffic continues to increase there, so we're looking at some investment there. And then Webster Street from US 69 to 207th is on our list as well as a new cars project for 2030 of 199th Wooden Road to Ridge View Road. I also wanted to point out to you that the city engineer Allison Ael is here tonight as well as um Jacob Spear, the public works director was solving a problem at the swimming pool and then he'll be here as well um to fill in any blanks that you might have these next. I'm sorry. Yes. Can I ask you a question? Of course. Why do we have El Street? Can't hear you. What? Why do we have Elm Street from 175 to 183? I I didn't think that was in the city limit.

I think that is a project that may be a a collaboration between us and the county and another city and that of work that needs to be done through that corridor. There's some opportunity for growth and uh development there and the streets going to have to be improved in that process. I believe the state is also involved in those projects. Good question. Then these next projects are related to the safety um improvement action plan. Do I have that title right? Comprehensive safety action plan. There we go. Comprehensive safety action plan that the city undertook um and hopefully you've seen that as well. But these are projects that came out of that which is improvement US69 to Lone Elm Road. um 169 at 207th, 169 at 215th, and then a couple of roundabouts, 223rd at Victory, and 207th at Ridge View, and then 191st in Ridge View. I think we could probably all agree those are high hot traffic points um for the community. And when we get finished here, the grants for these projects will cover so much of the cost. the city will have a far less amount invested in these projects to get those safety improvements made. Have some equipment on here. Um we need a big uh to replace the big dump truck which is a sixyard uh dump truck. We're looking to do that in 2026. That'll mostly be used for street related work. We're spending a lot of money keeping the one we have on the road. So, it's time to make that change. We'd like to do get a sewer combination truck. I can't believe what how much some of these things cost, but I'm al so awful grateful we don't own fire engines and things like that. Um, that would be a vacuum that would allow us to do some

maintenance and care of our ongoing sewer system um with that combination truck. And then a pothole patching truck. You can imagine what it does. And then we're making plans for the Axon equipment replacement from the police department. Um we bought it a couple years ago with ARPA money and it'll have replacement coming in the next few years. So those are the new projects that were added, many of them which will happen or at least get started in 2026. Um we took some things out. the L lagoon re rehabilitation. We still have the project on there and it's moving forward for a new wastewater treatment plant to be constructed. If we do that, we won't need to rehab the lagoons. We'll be able to we may need to do those as an interim depending on the time of construction. We've always carried a CDBG design project on here that wasn't very specific and there aren't very many things we can spend CDBG grants on in the city. So, we've removed it. If we have the opportunity to use it, we're where the funds um are a mechanism we could use. And then we had some things that are scheduled to be completed in 2025 like the cars project uh 207th from Webster to Woodland 199th. The design work for 199th Ridge View to Rener will be completed this year. Um, we're going to renovate the slides at the Spring Hill Aquatic Center and we are working on the study for the railroad crossing grade separation. Um, which we have a grant for as well. I think when the mayor did his state of the city address earlier this year, we have gotten awarded about $9.9 million in grants. Um, so we continue um give a lot of credit to Allison for that. She does a lot of work on grants and so we're continuing to put that money to work. And then this is the list that you have

in your hands which is all of the projects. The bold ones are um 2026. I always have to look. I get these confused. The bold ones are have work in 2025. It will continue um actually they'll begin in 2026. We've marked all the new ones as new. We've marked um ones that have 2025 expenditures as well, so you can see how these are progressing along. One of the things I like to tell council is I think they can take a lot of pride. They used to call the CIP where projects went to die and that's not happening anymore. We're getting things done. We're accomplishing quite a bit. I think the citizens feel it when they drive down the street and they have better streets and uh other amenities that are coming along as well. Ronnie, can you back up? I did not get cars project 207 to what? Um 207 from Webster to Woodland, I believe. Yeah, Webster to Woodland. That'll be completed this year. Oh, I had I wrote down 207 Webster to Wood cars. Webster to Woodland is out this year. Will we complete it this year? Yes, we paid cash for that project, by the way. And Johnson County, uh, yes, very nice. No debt for that. We paid it in cash and Johnson County contributes a portion of it. Okay. And then you said the bolded ones were started in 25 26. It'll start in 26. Yes. question. Sure. Go ahead. Would you come into the microphone

just so people at home can hear? I just want to know what side of 1997 What side of 199? North or south of [Music] So enter Rener. We're doing a complete streets improvements from uh on 199 Street. We're going to be building um on the north side of 199 Street from Ridgeview to Rener. Uh we're going to start in front of the school and go all the way to Rener. Um, we're going to build the two lanes on the north side. Um, so, uh, in the future whenever we grow and expand and need the additional capacity on the roads, then we could build the other two lanes to the south. The reason we're doing this is so that we can uh, keep traffic open as long as possible, two-way traffic during the construction of 199th Street to try to prevent too many detours and road closures during construction. So when you decide which pro what's your name? What's your property owner or who are you? Uh I am not sure at this point. We haven't this uh we haven't started the design of the fourlane. It's possible we may not even need that for a few more years. So, um when we get to that point of the design, uh we'll let you know. But right the design that we have underway, they would be.

[Music] So, with the design that we have on 199th Street that is almost complete and almost out to bid, we're currently doing um the last of the property acquisition for easements and rideway. And uh we do not need easements or rideway from u that particular property owner. uh we have already communicated to that. We've hired the land company who is our uh third party um real estate valuation and appraisal expert. So they have already done the real estate valuations, contacted the property owners, done those negotiations, and we're waiting for all that paperwork to come in. So I think we're down to three or four um outstanding easements and right away um on on that particular project. they would contact me or uh the land company. Uh John Amrine has been our representative and he's been uh in contact with them. But if anybody else has any questions or concerns about the project in general, feel free to contact me. My contact information is available on the city's website. Oh, here I thank you for your question. Okay. Okay, any other questions? I will go through and read you the projects uh here. Um I've covered the things that are new to this uh list. Um and I'm happy to open it up for your questions or conversation. The point tonight is a discussion. So this is a time to discuss. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Yes. Rhonda, how often does a city go through and redesign logos? Not very often. Years. It goes years in between. I don't um I heard her presentation that she did at one of the work sessions and I don't remember the

timing, but it's been a number of years since we've redesigned it. And if I remember right, the entrance signs to the city are not the most current logo either. Oh, they're not. So, we've had a logo update since we updated the entrance signs. So, yeah. Well, in 40 years of being here, then that would be the fourth design, right? That's what I was It's I just have like every 10 years. Is that kind of common or I'm just curious. I think it depends. I think it's very uncommon. 10 years is probably reasonable. And I think it depends on things, you know, depends on what situation happens. What if we something changed about the city and they chose to have a new logo? We It's not something you voluntarily do because one, it's so costly. Yeah. And two, you have to redo everything like signs and you know uniforms and all those things along with it's very expensive undertaking. I just didn't know cuz it was like gosh I just felt like it was like doing it again. So no and it's it's been 10 years is probably a good number. I was thinking I have 10 2008 in my head might have been one of the last times we redid it. And I didn't even notice that it wasn't the current one compared to what's on the sign. So, exactly. Um, and I don't this other one I'll just ask later. Okay. Because I don't know how to I'll just ask later. Any other questions? Um, on a number of projects specifically, we're thinking about 191st and 169. when we go to put the stoplight in um we may not have the rightway we need and so we are budgeting to acquire right away in that area and it could be in other areas is too too depending on the other projects. So that's kind of a placeholder for right away we'll have to

acquire excuse me or right ofway. Yes. So like on 199 street we need a temporary construction easement or rightway or drainage easement. uh we figure out what the valuation of that property is and what that small piece is worth and uh depending on what type of easement if it's a temporary or a permanent easement then we value that and that's the offer that we give the homeowner for uh getting that property as an easement. Okay. I just have a question about the cost of the wastewater treatment lucky number 13 plant that's uh from I can tell and this is just yeah it's the discussion novice at this apparently I'm in the wrong business I should be in the wastewater treatment plant business cuz it's 133.8 million out of 175.5 million over 5 years, right? Yes. 133. Well, it's going to be 136 total. So, it will get spent in 20. Why it's so costly? Um, one, we're acquiring land. Um, we're it'll be a brand new plant, not a retrofit of our current one. It'll have a capacity of about 5 million gallons per day. It allows for long-term as well as other partners, partnering communities. By would be an example of that. Um it's so it's part of the reirus. Yes. And our own growth alone is maxing out our capacity. What's our capacity now? This will be 1 2 million 1 million. 1.25 million. Five times as large, right? Um that hinges on a number of projects um to make it affordable, if you will, for us to be able to afford that. Um there's an expectation of some growth and some large customers and things. If those don't happen, we'll scale this plant back. So, we're starting with what we think we really

need and then the and financing something like that can take 18 months and so we're starting on it. We're starting on design and so then we'll scale it to what we need and also build it where we can scale it up if we start with a smaller one. We have a really long-term 20 30-year plan uh around that wastewater treatment plant. That's kind of what I wanted. Thank you. Yeah, you bet. Yeah. So, um, so if it's 133 million in 5 years, how much of that will the taxpayer have to bear versus grants or other sources of funding and that's all in the air. I want to make it really, really clear. The taxpayer, this will not be a tax burden. The users will pay for that treatment plant. Sometimes it's the same people, but it will not be a mill levy. It will not be an assessed valuation. It will be on the backs of the customers who use that plant, whether they're big industrial customers or us in our homes. But it will not use tax money. And we are applying for all the grants we can, federal earmarks. We have Kad or Kansas, state of Kansas involved. Um, lots of things to make this affordable and partner with other communities, make it a regional play instead of on the backs of just Spring Hills customers. And we do have the opportunity to help out u the Hillsdale Lake wershed. Uh, Hillsdale Lake is a polluted uh area as um deemed by Kansas Department of Health and Environment. They've actually stopped uh issuing some of the building permits upstream. Well, we're in a separate watershed. So, we might be able to take on some of those customers and become a regional solution. So, that would further expand our customer base and further expand our operations at the plant. So, and be able to help out the

Hillsdale Lake wershed all at the same time. So, it's a win-win all the way around. As Rhonda said, we're digging in the couch cushions trying to find all of the loans and grants and everything that's out there so that we don't have to spend any more of our money that we have to. But at the same time, we want to make sure we get a plant that makes sense that has the capacity that we need right now and the capacity that we need in 5 years and up to 30 years. So that way we can grow as the de as development grows, as the community grows and the needs of our community grows. Uh we are looking at different types of technologies to kind of help with that. There's a lot of great technologies out there uh to help treat our wastewater. Uh so we're looking at that right now. Uh we are engaging uh a firm to do design build. Uh it's going to be a progressive design build project. So that we're going to be doing uh preliminary design, but then we're going to be designing and constructing this all at the same time to help this uh get this project built in the next 3 years because it's going to be a pretty short time frame and we've got limited funds to do it in. So we want to make sure that we take advantage of that. But basically though, you're saying that uh uh homeowners will eventually pay more for sewer than they're currently paying now. Correct. Not not significantly beyond normal changes because we believe other customers will come in line to pay the bulk there. We have budgeted in my calculations for normal annual increases. Nothing s nothing significant. I've discussed it in detail um with the governing body and they were comfortable with what we were one budgeting for growth and two budgeting for rate increases as a normal part of

our operation. But it's other customers that will come in and pay the bulk. And that includes our industrial customers. as we start getting some of these larger industrial users, they're using the bulk of the the waste water at the plant. We've had to turn away some of the develop the larger developments because we just don't have the capacity at our plant. Now, we can say yes to some of these larger developments as they come in because we'll have capacity at the plant. Let me ask you something else in terms of the cost. Does this include the mediation of the old plant? cuz I assume the EPA will want us to clean it up. We certainly won't. And what the cost that would be abandon I I don't know we've talked about that. We haven't talked about that. That's something we can definitely include in the design. We know that we most likely won't need the old plant anymore. But what that looks like whenever we go to remediate that site, I don't know yet. But that's something we'll work with our design build team to figure out what that need what we need to do. There might be elements of the plant that we might want to save, salvage, reuse somewhere else. Probably not, but it's definitely work worth that discussion. Absolutely. That was my question. Oh yeah, I had the opportunity to tour the Johnson County wastewater plant off of 435 a year ago and I mean it's it's remarkable and the process is remarkable and I think the county Allison you would know but you know they spent hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars um renovating the one up in northern Johnson County. I mean I thought it was like eight or 800 I don't know it's huge huge amount of money. So, we are in the wrong business for sure. Um, how many new users would that view connection bring to us? Um, I believe there's 70 households there that will automatically connect

when the system gets finished, but it opens up all of that area down there for whatever housing or development might come to that part of Miami County. And then they the line will be there to connect to us. So we don't have a number today, but it opens an entire area up to growth for a plant. And so when when would you expect the city to break even on that investment in terms of the growth? Like at what point would the growth pay for the cost of construction? I'm going to be honest and tell you I don't know that off the top of my head. I should look that up today. Um the calculations that I have done keeps it each year with the customers that we think we can acquire. Keeps it each each year in the positive meeting our cash flow targets. That's not break even. That's a lot of investment. That's a lot of annual payment and things like that. But it is not going to be a drain on the resources of the sewer fund. it will it will need to pay its way. Well, and there's other factors involved that it's hard to calculate that just because with some of the loans that we're trying to go after because we are a smaller community, there are some loan forgiveness programs out there that would forgive a portion of our loan. So, you know, that that's less money that we would have to pay back. So, um, yeah, there's a lot of factors involved in it and hopefully we don't have to pay that much and hopefully we hit that break even point sooner rather than later. Absolutely. Is the old wastewater treatment paid off? Um, there are there is some debt out there for some work that was done, but not the original project. The original debt is paid off. I was going to say, let me back up. the original cuz the we've had to do repairs and the parts were hard to get and all of that stuff.

We do have some debt on it. Um, one of them is a very long-term like 40-year loan um for some work that was done that doesn't expire until about 2045 or or 2040 or something like that. And that was built many many years ago. Yep. Yep. And ask how how old is that plant? Oh, older than the logo. Noah built it. I think 2000 was it was built in 20 or 2000. It was 25 years old. And what's the life expectancy of those plants? Probably 25 years now. 30. I'd say 30. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Good question. Surprised it's 2000. I honestly thought it was a little bit older than that. I would have thought so too, but it's Yeah. Can you tell me a little bit more about number 11 and 12, the public works building and the Spring Hill Municipal Complex? Um if you've ever had the opportunity to um go down Nickel Street um we need definitely need a new public works building in that all of our equipment sits outside. We don't have a way for it to be inside. And so um we would like to we are going to need to replace that building at some point. So we're starting that planning as well. Um if you go into the police station, the police station is bursting at the seams and so we need to grow. We need a new building for the police station. We are really at capacity. I can't add another person to my department in this building without either sharing cubicles or something we'd have to rearrange here. So, the city has done a study on the actual space needs um for municipal complex and then a separate building for public works. Maybe a great use for the wastewater treatment plant property or something like that from the old one. Um, but we've been doing an assessment of needs to make sure we're building what's appropriate with some growth to

have the police, the court, and the city hall, if you will, in one facility. That one has been discussed. The uh governing body took it off, put it on, took it off. This one's been kicked around for a number of years and they have asked for some additional information and um definitely have concerns about the funding of that project and how would it work and public input and so there's a lot of work going into those definitely into the municipal complex as it's moving along and the governing body they surprise me sometimes but it's back um on the list and I was going to take it off because I felt that was something they kind of put to the side, but they're choosing to continue to look at it and and make the best decision for the for the community on that. Rhonda, did they have a discussion about what they would do with this building? I don't know that they've discussed it publicly, but we'd love to see it continue as a community building. Um, maybe put another function in here. Um, and all using the same taxpayer be great if we could use the funds from this building to help build the next one, that kind of thing. Well, also, I mean, to piggyback on that, it has number 17, city hall civic center facility upgrades. What kind of upgrades that for this building is a lot of HVAC work. um if you but the thing that we're balancing is how much money are we going to invest in this building if we want to build a new building and how if that is that a three-year project or 8-year project because we're balancing what we're investing in these buildings compared to what do we what's our long-term plan here but um HBAC is the first thing that comes to mind for city hall what about community center the community center um needs some flooring work I about everything

from the floor to the roof. Improvements over there. Um if we choose to continue to operate that building, we need to invest some money in it. Parking lot needs work. Okay. Anything else? So I I see that you have the bolds anticipated projects begin in 2026, but there's nothing on the sidewalks. Um because they will be a 2025 project 2020. They're ongoing. Okay. Yeah. Um talk about sidewalks a little bit because I know that's a subject everybody loves. Um definitely a lot of work going number two. No, no. I I saw it there but I I was it was not bold so that's why I was asking I had to look for them two or three times but there's two lines there. You'll also notice it's doubled in the amount they want budgeted for. It doesn't mean they'll spend less than that or more than that. Um, Jacob is doing a lot of work on design and vendors and where and what and I think he's planning some work sessions with the council on that. So, they're definitely we're not losing sight of sidewalks for sure. Thank you. You're welcome. Um, I'd like Go ahead. Yes, you're welcome. And in the same way they've talked about, well, why don't we not worry about parks and let's put it on sidewalks. So, the the governing body is definitely focused on sidewalks for the community. Um, the thing I I like to have this discussion, I think it's been great. I hope it has helped you guys all understand the projects that are there and the priorities that the governing body set. Next time at your next meeting, you guys will vote on is the CIP in compliance with the um comprehensive plan. It's uh not the concern or responsibility of this body to worry about how much the money is or how we're going to pay for it. The governing body gets that responsibility. But I felt it was important that we talk about the

projects so everybody knows what we're doing and and understands um the plan. So I will be back in August and by then you'll be super experts and asking all kinds of questions and we'll um hopefully have your support to turn it to the governing body to approve the CIP with your support. Great. Okay. Thank you everyone. Thank you for your time. Thank you. I will move formal commission action items. Approval of the minutes. I'll make a recommendation to approve the minutes from our June 5th 2025 meeting. Second it. All those uh approved, please signify by saying I. I. All those opposed. Thank you. I'll abstain. All abstained. Sorry. No abstensions. Thank you. Two abstensions. Two abstension. Yes. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. That's okay. Did you get that? Yes. Okay. Troy, were you the second? Yes. Item two, site plan application, woodland crossing amenities. No, you're going that way. Okay. Good evening. I'm going to um go over the staff report and then um bring up the applicant. They are both here for you guys if you have any additional questions that I can't answer. Um so this is the amended site plan for woodland crossing amenities. Um it is tract B. Um

and they have requested so the original site plan was approved back in 2021. Um it included a pool, a shade structure and a and a play area. Um the propo proposed revision removes that pool and shade structure shade structure and it now adds a dog park with the playground still there. Um the dog park will be enclosed by a 5ft tall steel fence. Um the playground will include rubber mulch and bench. Um there will be a 5ft sidewalk that will join um two areas off 200 street. Um they will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. Um it does conform to the proposed changes do conform to our code. Um the site continues to provide safe and logical pedestrian access with internal walkways that will eventually link to subdivision sidewalks. Um we do if recommended for approval we do have some following conditions. Um, and I can read those if you like. Um, there may be some additional utility easements and and things like that that we will address at a later date. Um, and then there is a suggested motion. And like I said, the applicant is here um, if you have any additional questions for them. I had a question about the steel fence. Is that a chain link fence or is it some sort of a decorative steel fence? You guys want to come? Got to make it worth your guys' time coming. Good evening. Doug O with Phelps Engineering. Uh with me tonight, uh Thomas Lewis with CE Homes or CE Development. Uh it the fence is a

aluminum picket fence. U so it won't be chain link. It'll be kind of like you see around town. Black paint, black coated uh pickup fence. I heard the word steel before. I was trying to imagine it. Yeah. Cool. So, the playground, is that going to be an all-inclusive ADA accessible playground? Because there's no more accessible parking stalls now. Stalls at all. Well, previously there was an accessible parking stall for an inclusive playground. So, if it is indeed an inclusive playground, I'd imagine you would want an accessible stall nearby, it's accessed by sidewalks. All the sidewalks have ADA ramps on them. I I don't know if I don't know if that's compliant. It will be I mean, that's like providing a pool and not providing parking stalls. It's just saying, "Well, there's a sidewalk there." I'm g tell you. I mean, I don't have parking included in this. I guess a thought would be that the public sidewalk I guess people would come from the neighborhood uh sidewalks of public. There's there's an ADA route from the playground to the public sidewalk. I'm trying to think of another park in town that doesn't have parking stalls. This is an amenity to a neighborhood, not a park. I mean, to that point though, I mean, I don't have parking at any of my playgrounds in any of my other neighborhoods. That's what I'm getting at. I think most of our pools and subdivisions do have parking. I know my subdivision has parking next to it, but I just design I used to design these as a living and I always I I have a passion for inclusive playgrounds and they're going to be inclusive. I think there should be an ADA parking stall there. To me, I don't think it's as inclusive if

you don't provide that accessible route. I mean, I can say, yeah, there's a parking uh sidewalk. I can see that, but I think the accessible route is still there cuz it's got the accessible sidewalk from what stall? From from their home. Yeah. So, sidewalks basically all the way. Mhm. just have the people that live in the neighborhood been informed that there's going to be a change. I assume some of them bought because they thought there was going to be a pool. I don't know where they or they saw that in the plan. Yeah. I the few the the lots that we have sold in the last year and a half, they have never told that there was going to be a bull. The existing renters and the rental properties on the north side of this neighborhood, they might have expected one from the previous owner of those lots. Did this go through a site plan review? This? Yeah. Yes, it is. Yeah. So, a pool would have been shown. Yes. So, then it was public. That was in 2021. 2021. Yes. What is that? I'm sorry. What month did they come? June. I can look it up. June 3rd, I think. Yes. June 3rd, 2021. I I have a concern because in the original resoning, it was not included. It It was That's in our notes. in the resoning. Not no but it was in the site plan in the site. But the site plan doesn't commit you to a pool. No, but it is public knowledge is what

it's public knowledge. But people would people would if they were looking for it, they would have gone to the site plan to see what was going to be there. I'm not saying most people would do that. I'm just saying that it would it would have been public knowledge out there because the site plan would have been published with the planning commission notes. I guess I'm just saying it's public knowledge. I don't disagree with that. Okay. I I'll just say it what's committed to a subdivision is set as zoning and the preliminary plat with the zoning. You just left it opened that it would be amenities and never specified what kind of amenities that would be on that track. That's where the site plan comes in or anticipated in amenities, right? Later. Otherwise, why would you put a site plan in there if you're not going to I understand you can change it, which is what we're talking about doing, but it's still anticipated that those are going to be that that's a potential amenity that would be there. Potential. Yes. I feel like this board was thinking that it was going to have the sidewalks and the shade structures and the pool. And initially it was, but we're asking to change that. That's where we're at. My stance is I think it should have the pool, the sidewalks, and the shade structures. Yeah, that's where I'm at. I side with that as well. I think it's this is a big change right here. I mean, it Yeah. So, being that it's approved as a site plan, does that does that mean that I have to build it? Can you force me to build that pool? I don't know. That's kind of a legal question. I'm asking we'll seek our legal advice here. If you choose not to build the pool, we

can, I guess, address that. We need to look into that further, but as a plan development, you are tied into the plans you bring forward. And so, it's not a straight R1 zoning for that. But if you would like to just not build it, is that what you're asking? As opposed to Yes. Okay. So, this is before them is a change of site plan. We would need to bring them through another change of nothing on there. Um, which I think we need to review on the requirements for amenities for plan development, but I it did come through as a plan development with an amenities. So, if you're saying there's not going to be any amenities now, that's a significant change to a we'd probably need to do a p full um public hearing on that. That's a substantial change to your development. Amenities. The the note on the plat said track should be dedicated for private open space common areas and may include but not limited to landscaping, fencing, subdivision, monuments, storm, water detention, and amenities. and will be owned and maintained by the homes association. So that's that's the way it was written on the the approved preliminary plat that was approved with reszoning. Looking at the 2020 well I think it's more of a site plan. What's the legal issue of a site? But I think it was presented that way. If the site plan was approved with the swimming pool and then you come back and we and say we don't allow this then do you have to the question is would you have to go back to that site what would have I was planning on building what if he wants to come back and put some homes on this instead right I mean still be the same thing because it's a planned unit I don't think you could go back and put a home on coming back and redoing a plinary plat first.

Right. Yeah. Cuz it was it was it's for public and to be owned by the HOA. Yes. Right. Can I ask what the main driver of this change is? When this original plan was bought and paid for by CE, they had a buyer for all the lots. They planned to buy all the lots. And so pricing and everything was developed based on that. And within that agreement, that partner was going to build the amenities. they were going to cover all the cost. So right now are all the all these costs for this amenity would be coming out of our pocket because partner kind of back out. Yeah, Elux is the reason the plan is so in case this happens, right, that it can't just well they wanted to do it so we're not because they're not there but that the reason for the plan, right? So this doesn't happen, right? That's what we've said all along. The plan units are better on our side because we know what's going to happen. I don't I just don't think that's fair to the homeowners because of the change, right? um since there was specifically in 2021, not sure that this matters, but it may a little bit, which is I I have had heard that this neighborhood was mostly rental units. No, but is it um all of the current homes that are to the north, the first phase or rental units? Okay. And then now it's it's occupants that now we're selling lots to builders who are now selling the lots to Yeah. But even if they were rentals, you know, the landlord would be like, "Look, they're going to build a pool. So there's a reason a driver for you to go

ahead and rent from them." And then it changed all of a sudden. I lived in a neighborhood and they told me they were going to build a pool. Years later, there's still no pool there. It's like the one over there on 10 23rd where that raised. Mhm. There's still there there is a significant sounds like a significant hardship and I I'm just seeing the other side here between the swimming pool which is now not funded to try to put some sort of amenities in there that they can fund versus nothing. And I would say if a park and a dog park is more affordable like what Josh was talking about though, I do think it needs to have a little more consideration for being ADA accessible. If you live at the very back end of that and you want to go to the park and you have to go through all the sidewalk through the entire I think that's a lot more affordable than putting so that's all my point is it might be a hardship on the developer at this point and they could also make it a nature preserve that the HOA owns right and the only cost is mowing or maybe not even that plant prairat but we're not here to design it for That's what they're at. Yeah. Yeah. But they can change it into whatever they want, but they need to come back and re resubmit. Not cuz it's a planned unit, which is why this plan is ahead of in front of us. Yeah. But they're not. That's true. Mhm. It has to go back through the site plan. All of the He You can't just waltz in with a request. I mean this is this is the update of the site plan, right? This drawing. Yes. Yes. But he doesn't have to go through the public hearing and all of that. No,

you go through a public hearing. You go through a public hearing when it's a substantial change. And as substantial changes are defined in the code, it does not include swimming pool is not a substantial change. The code does not define a change in the type of public amenity as a substantial change. Really, that's a big that would be in my opinion a pool would be a substantial change to a dog park or a nature preserve. It is enough of a change that is brought before you as opposed to just being granted on on an administrative level. But here's subdivision regulations divi define categories of substantial changes and they are for the most part numbers of lots, sizes of lots, things like that. I'll see if I can pull up the citation. No, it's I mean I I hear what you're saying. I just don't have to agree with that. I think that a pool is a substantial change. In my opinion, I think pools and sidewalks are substantial. I I would imagine though that having this plan built versus a pool would lower the burden on the homeowners for the HOA fees cuz now it's going to be a lot less maintenance. He's not providing that information to us. Well, I don't think he has to. No, but I'm just I'm I'm saying there's a there's a there's an upside to the homeowner of not having this amenity is it will lower not but a fact. Thank you, Mary. assuming if it was in writing in the paper that would be a fact to go to go on off of the position of the board is we're assuming that the homeowners are going to be unhappy about this change. So, I'm just presenting that they could they might as well be as happy about the reduction in their HOA fees if we're just going to, you know, imagine things. Well, I'm not imagining that there is people that live in Brookwood that are

unhappy about the residents coming over to Brookwood to use the pool from this neighborhood. Yes. I'm not imagining that. So, there is an issue with this. Maybe Brooklyn will use the dog park. It'd be a fair trade. Chuck, I don't find it funny. This is serious. And it's not the planning commission's job to sit here and plan and and finish things for the per the applicant that's before us. I I don't have to agree with anybody else on the board. I'm just stating my opinion. I don't agree with the change. I think the sidewalks need to be put in. I think the pool needs to be put in. I think things need to be up to ADA standards. I I don't I don't have like I said, I don't have to agree. I've said my piece. My vote will be no. Would to your guys' point would would you could you support this change if we had a statement that said assuming it is compliant with ADA standards? No. Cuz we don't know what those are. Just for for what it's worth, I if there's no ADA if there's no parking spots at all, my understanding is the ADA does not require an accessible parking space. So once you start parking, I was just going off asking if it's an inclusive playground, which means it's ADA accessible. Right. No. No. And that's why I didn't jump in then. I just took Chuck's point about to Commissioner Morse's point about including that as a stipulation. it would have to be requiring parking at all as opposed to just specifically delineating its ADA parking and once any parking is in place and the ADA would require it automatically. So, and then Josh on the playground for it to be ADA does that mean like it's paved or something? There are certain surfaces you can use

in the playground like the synthetic turf, the port and play surfaces. They say engineered wood fiber is accessible, but in our opinion experience it's not. Um, and there's equipment, certain type of equipment you have to use that's accessible for able-bodied and non-able b-bodied individuals. Um, but again, you always have an accessible spot right there for them to access it if it is indeed all an inclusive playground. It's not inclusive. It's just a post and swing and hanging out there, then yeah, you don't need a right. As far as I know, ADA accessibility there. So, okay. Anybody else? No other questions? So, I guess I'm still kind of confused because it's an RP1. the requires the amenities. Correct. Because we have approved that. I think that was the I think when it was approved, it was approved with amenities. It was the site plan. It was approved. And what I see in the minutes or in the staff report and the notes on the plat is that that track could have been used for open space, monument signs, storm water detention, andor amenities. It doesn't define what is in that that tract. This I don't think that's correct. The last site plan in 2021 included a pool. Yeah, the site plan. But I don't I don't think the site plan some season about the preliminary plat. No, no, we're talking about the site plan. Correct. Which is different than he's talking about, right? But the site plan the requirements of what go on that tractor are set at the zoning. the site plan the site and it did not define it was going to be on that track. They're not asking for a pure change in the development plan or else it would be

a complete reszoning public hearing. They're asking for a change in their site plan. Right. Which we do not have to approve. That's correct. I mean that I mean we do not have to approve their site plan. Correct. Because we we feel that it's not sign it's a significant change more than what we were willing to accept. And there's an existing approved site plan on record. Correct. This doesn't fit the spirit of it. Correct. The same token, I don't they don't have to build anything there. It can be used as open space for the zoning. So, you're threatening us to not build anything if we don't approve this site. Threat is I'm just telling you what their op their options are. I'm just talking about what what I'm hearing coming back and forth in this conversation. I'm I'm just want everybody clear. That's in my my opinion. That's the options. So, so legally you wouldn't have to put any in my opinion. No, because it was said that that track would be open space, common open space and that was said at that's what was said at zoning and I understand the reasons given what you said about the partner dropping out. Yeah. It's not that I'm not sympathetic to what your what your plight is with having your partners change. I I understand that. I'm just trying to understand exactly what our responsibility is as a as a planning commission to follow through with what we've approved. Well, and the legality of it too, right? So, they're not sounds like not legally obligated to put anything in there. Correct. That's I'm just telling you the legality of it is there's nothing required put there. He's asking to change the site plan because they can't afford to put in the swimming pool and a bunch of stuff. So, he's saying, "Can we put this in?" Which is actually better than putting nothing in.

Does this go on to council? But I don't know. I don't know how I don't know the legal answer. Yeah. I don't know what I have no idea. Okay. And how how tied do our hands get if that's what they choose to do? But nothing yet. They just move forward with pulling building permits and continue on. Yes. So they can't build anything on this tract other than a pool at the moment. So to get a building permit for track B, they either need a new site plan or their building pool. So if we deny this site plan, they don't have to put anything in there. I mean, you could grant the site plan and they could still not build anything on there. A site plan doesn't mandate them to begin construction. Where are we at with sidewalks? How far are we going on with sidewalks? The 199th Street sidewalk they have committed to. We have we're actually working on plans right now. plan to submit those to public works here in the next I was looking at the design earlier today. So imminently bringing a plan to public works to build that sidewalk along 109. Okay. I think we're all in agreement that a pool is far more attractive, right, than a dog park. I think we're all in agreement that we're concerned for the impact to the homeowners in that neighborhood of if they thought that there was going to be a pool and now there's not and if they bought a lot and built a home or even rented a a home based on that expectation that it feels like a bait and switch. But on the other hand, the reality is that the the the business model or the business case for a pool has has

significantly changed from the perspective of the developer and it sounds like the site plan does not obligate them to build anything that we approve and the default could be that they build nothing on it and and and actually can't build anything on it until we approve something. So then the question in my mind becomes is this better than nothing? Because if we deny it, nothing is what what it will be until either their business model or business case changes for for the better or they come back with a cat park. This is just the second design we've seen. So I I I would get hung up on them doing nothing. Something will eventually get done. Yeah. I am a I I'm very prideful in doing the right thing, not just doing something. And I just want to keep that in mind. Yeah. I I agree with that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I I don't think it's fair because it's not the homeowner's issue fault that right the partner dropped out. It's not the homeowner's fault that I mean like okay well they're just going to come in and be like this is what we're doing like or not. Just don't that doesn't sit right. So I'm with Cindy. No. Any other discussion? If not, there a motion. I move to deny site plan as presented. Second. You did say deny, right? Yes. Okay. Just clearing my ear out. Sorry. I move to deny. Thank you. The site plan. Okay, we got a second. We'll take a vote from the left. I deny. I I I I I I

Thank you. Thank you. Item three, uh, public hearing, proposing zoning amendment. Proposed zoning amendment. Uh, the guidelines for, uh, public hearing is to have, uh, open the public hearing and I will do so in a minute. But let me just go through a number of other things. The one is the power have a presentation by uh in this case Amy I believe on the items then have uh comment also to provide comment or offer those present uh to provide comment on the recommendation and then the commission members uh will be asked to clarify anything that uh is unclear. Then uh we'll close the public hearing and we'll do a member deliberation. Okay, Amy, you want to start? Oh, I'm sorry. Public hearing's now open. And while Amy walks up, does anyone have any exparte communications to disclose? about that. Anybody? No. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Um this is a zoning code amendment to chapter 17 of our uh subdivision and um zoning regulations. Our request is consideration of a proposed amendment to the zoning code to revise the maximum building height

limitation to allow buildings or structures up to 15 stories or 180 ft with a defined story height of 12t. The background. The current zoning code regulates building height by 55 maximum feet which may limit flexibility for certain types of development particularly in areas planned for higher density industrial uses. The proposed amendment is intended to clarify and standardize height limits and provide developers and city staff with consistent expectations. Um so there's three different sections. So section 17.330 um that is where we have changed um I believe we changed a setback to 25 ft. It was 10 um and then on section 17338 um I'm sorry I did not bring my red line. I got to think about this. Um I think it was the setback again. Um and then the main section with with the change in height is going to be section 17348. Um we've added um the maximum height of any building or structure shall not exceed 15 stories or 180 ft. And a story as I said is considered 12 ft in height. Um, and then we went on to add after the governing body um, paragraph that the height exception in any district. Nope. Nope. I'm sorry. We added the governing body u may adopt the planning commission's recommendation by a simple majority override the planning commission's recommendation by twothirds majority vote of the governing body. Um, so that was added and then um

and then um so the public hearing it was um published in the Miami County Republic which is our um our paper that we place notices in. Um, this just allows for increased design and flexibility and and commercial and industrial. Um, it's comparable height limits to some of the surrounding municipalities um that we kind of based it off of. And if you have any questions, we will be happy to answer them. And there is a motion there, a suggested motion I guess question for you. Yeah. What are some of the municipalities that have that? Um, Overland Park, and I believe we tast Huh. Does Gardener, you know, I didn't check Gardener. I don't know if it does. I'm sorry. I can check that. Isn't Ole's only um I believe their M2 goes up to 144T? Yeah. I'm just two for their heavier. Yeah. Where did 180 come from? I guess when I was looking, I didn't see anywhere else. Yeah. Um it was for you. What? I'm sorry. I was I was asking her where the number 180 came from cuz when I was looking at the other um throwning areas, I didn't see anything that was 180 or 15 stories. So, I was curious where that number came from. Um, honestly, um, I was just directed to go that route. Um, it was 12 ft. 12 ft per story. Story and 15 stories. So, 15* Why did we pick 15 stories is my question. You asked about the 180. You didn't ask 15 stories 180 equal the same. That never come from because there was nothing in around our area that goes that high. So, I guess I was curious.

It's just to give um some of the newer industrial efficiency um just to Yep. most of those manufacturing companies are going up to kind of help with density in areas like this. So, um I was just I was directed to use that that height. It places a hard cap of 180. So rather than doing 145 or 125 or 150 and then maybe coming back in 6 months or a year or two years every time we start seeing trends go up, it places a manageable hard cap so we don't have to keep modifying our zoning code. Uh but it also gives you all and applicants a pretty clear understanding of we're not going above that. And given that it is fairly high, it sign sends a pretty similar signal that um not a lot of openness to change it again here in the next few years. Okay, that said, part of the reason this comes to you all is to have this discussion and to hear from the public on that and other parts of this. And if you would like to recommend a different maximum height to the governing body, that can be a part of your recommendation. you are not married to what staff has brought in but okay this for you right now in addition to just asking like the numbers where did um how can we change the minimum rear set back to 10 ft from 20 ft wait 10 ft to 20 ft minimum rear set back 10 ft oh yeah the rear setback that changed oh yeah sorry I said it the opposite didn't I um so that was just that was reduced it was reduced. Um we we felt that any um just um the build line we just thought it would be a better fit. Um, that's what honestly it it should have been that I think to begin with and I don't

know how it it got to where it was, but um, yeah, I guess I would think that it would be the opposite way. The taller the building, the further the setback should be, not less. So I I have a problem with that particular piece, but part of this came up because of the remember the freezer building, wasn't that 147 ft somewhere in there? Is that right? 144 144 because it was talking about the because the cement plant was 127 or something in that range. Yeah. But they're talking about the rear set, but it's a fraction of the footprint. Yeah. The concrete plant. Yeah. It doesn't I mean it's inconsistent cuz like number eight it says maximum height buildings 55 ft. A structure other than a building may be erected to a height not to exceed 100 ft provided such structure is set back from all property lines a distance equal to or greater than its height and is approved by planning commission. So if we have another cement plant like a tower it's basically saying if that goes up to 100 ft that it needs to have 100 ft set back. Is that the way I'm reading it? I just I don't the wording is kind of odd to me. I'm not sure. That's also that's an existing part of our code. Yes, I know. But that's I'm trying to clarify now we're talking about making a 15story building have then even a smaller setback. So I'm just trying to figure out cuz that seems very inconsistent with what this other one is. Does that make sense? Well, that's a structure other than a building though. So what would be a good example of a structure that's not a building? An antenna. A silo. Yeah. Oh, okay. So if you have a 100 foot silo, it has to have a 100 foot setback. But if you have a 15story building, you have a 10 foot setback. I thought they could build that. I thought it was 75.

I'm just trying to figure out if I'm understanding it correctly. I'm confused because I thought the just before us a month ago 75. It was a building. It was 75 was it was Yes. Planning Commission. Okay. I think that the 75 it it's in here but it's under height exceptions and any district public or semi-public buildings such as churches, schools or hospitals may be erected to a height not exceeding 75 ft provided that such buildings shall have yards which shall be increased one foot on all sides for each each additional foot if the buildings exceed the specified height limit. That's where they were getting. But but I think Cat's point is still interesting which is we're requiring additional setbacks for shorter B buildings and we're reducing the setback for a taller building to 10 ft. Yeah. 10 foot just for like emergency access too cuz a lot of times on an M1 you have you have access around the entire building and 10T just seems really tight. Even if like a fire marshall is going to do a review on it. I have a hard time believing they're going to accept 10 foot clear between the property line and the building, but maybe it's done. And I don't know if that's what does or um that was we changed it to mimic. So a lot of this was mimicking tha um obviously except we went a couple stories higher and I know they have indoor suppression so it's maybe it's not as big of a deal but just for emerge the access 10 foot just seems real tight. Yes, that's a good point. I mean, that's assuming you're the property that's assuming you're putting your the driveway all the way out to the edge of your property. Yeah. Doing what? I mean, that's assuming you're putting the driveway all the way out to the edge of the property or the the alleyway all the way out to the edge of the property within inches of the

property that you get your 10 ft. Right. So, really, you're looking more like 9 ft probably. or eight. Then it is getting pretty tight. Yeah. Well, 180. That's a lot bigger than what we were looking at last month. 140. Am I going in the wrong direction? I don't think that you need to consider what they did last month. I think we just need to look at this. Well, it's pretty massive code 180. But this is separate. She's right cuz I mean there's this is going to go towards all the other things that come in front of us. It's not just like one project, right? You can't put it towards that one project. You need to look at this and think, is this moving into the future? Is this taking us where we want to go? You can't put it towards a project. No, I'm not. I'm just saying it's because you keep going. It's bigger than LA's code and it's bigger than a lot bigger than what we looked at last year, right? But that doesn't mean a LA is not going to come back in in next year or two years and say we need to go bigger because XYZ plant or PQR plants coming in. Cindy, if we if we were to approve 180 ft as being our new height um for M1 zoning, it would then be the right of an applicant to come in and say, "But they're going to do 180 ft and we don't have any anything to go back and ask them to change it." I mean, they have that right. So well they would have the ability to come apply to you all to go that high but the code provisions don't just say everybody gets 180 ft right well it's in M1 people can come an applicant can come in and apply over is it 100 Amy um 55 to exceed yeah to exceed 55 ft in M1 they still have to come in and there's yeah so under a there's the four subsets so they would come in and

you all consider that. And if you felt that 180 didn't further the purpose of the building, negatively impacted public safety and health, you can say 180 is too tall. And you do not need to say, "But 155 would sure be better." Wink wink. That would be a step too far, but you can deny 180. And that's a calculated risk they would have to take. But Spencer, it still was the exception of the 75 for hospitals or churches. Yes. So I was going to say A is very It reads very confusing. There's three sections here. Um, it is confusing. It has three separate feet, height, and maximums, and it doesn't clarify it very well. Um, it just looks like we're just adding on. And if I was somebody to apply, this is not very clear the way it's worded. If so, the buildings cannot exceed 55 ft a building, but other structures other than a building can be erected not to exceed 100 ft, but that also has to be approved by you. And then it goes down to the next where we're adding another approval by you if they want to appeal that to you to where they can go up to the 180. And then there's another one at the bottom where it says hide exceptions. And that's for the public. That's just for public. That's just for the public and the semi-public like the churches and schools. There's an M1 exception. There's a public semi-public exception. There's a hard cap of 180. And there's a general rule of 55 ft. I guess I'm curious if any of you guys had any issues with reading this and seeing different sections that they're kind if you would prefer a different formatting to go to governing body that's the type of change that we can incorporate and bring to them. I got confused on the 10 foot. I will say that but then the rest of it I was following. Really quick I I think and we can still be asking questions but we haven't made it quite to public comment yet. So, we've kind of jumped wholesale into deliberations if you guys want to take some public comment since folks have been very politely waiting in the back

and I don't want to cut anyone off and we appreciate that. Thank you all. All right. Well, let's open it up for public comment. Yes, ma'am. Come up to the Give us your Give us your name and address. Um, okay. So, what is the whole deal about the building thing? And where exactly is this? I can't hear you, Ann. I'm sorry. I said, where is this building supposed to be? And why is it being built? This is where it going to be. This is just a resoning. It has nothing to do with any building. Oh, I thought you were saying floors. No. So, it's not a specific reasoning or building. What this is is changing the code to allow certain uses in the future if applicants wanted to come forward. So there's no recommending this to the governing body isn't recommending any specific building on any specific parcel. So why is this ordinance that way if an applicant wants to have a building of this height they can come and apply for that creates a procedure be a commercial zone? It would have to be commercial it would have to be in the M1 which is our heaviest industrial. Okay. And where is that section? We don't know yet. anywhere in M1 in the city or if anyone reszoned to M1 they could do it and then Oh, I thought this was in a specific part of the coast like corner of something something. There are different areas that are already zoned and then people can also try to reszone properties. See, I was totally confused on all of that because you guys are talking about 15 floors and where is all this going to go? So what they were saying was 15 floors, one floor would equal 12 ft,

right? I understand. So that was just all they were. So it's going to be go big or go home is what you guys do. If there's a hard what did you call it? There's a hard cap of 180. So what it does is it creates a complete maximum of 180. No one's going to build anything taller than that until we change code again, which requires us all to come back out and do another building. I mean, whatever this structure, if you pass this, it could be like in the middle of my pasture. It could be no corner of uh what you know come in and say that you've sold your property and you want to reszone it to M1. Yeah. If your pasture is zoned for industrial use, plant is a good example. There's M1. So if they wanted to build and they came and applied and everyone approved it 180 foot structure or 50 foot structure that I'm good and then you but you can still build your silo. But you could build you could build a 15story building. Okay. Put the roundabout in shape. Thank you. Can you please give us your name and address? Yes, sure. Yi. My address is 18757 West 175th Street. And I just like to address the like the glass plant or not the glass plant, the concrete plant. It's a mile or so from my house, but when I walk in my house at night, I can see the lights and I sit down low. So, if you've got what was it 120 ft for the concrete plant, what would you guys say that was? 127. 127. And now you're adding 60 more feet. Almost a third of that. Mhm.

I say no. Unless all of Spring Hill wants to see what's going on in 175th. But I just think it's going to be a monstrosity out in the middle of summer small town Spring Hill. But that's my opinion. So something to think about. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? If not, we're going to close the public comment section. Okay. Now we can go continue with our discussion. Thank you all. Thank you all for letting me interrupt you. Sorry about that. It's fine. We got we got we got to going, you know. So discussion-wise, I as as someone who also looks at the concrete plant, um I agree with that sentiment, but the footprint of the concrete plant is actually fairly small compared to other things that we've seen. And I I asked AI today, how far away on the horizon can you see this 15story building? And the answer was 15 miles which is at the curvature of the earth basically you can see it to the horizon. You like it? They take really good care of their They really really do. I mean Yeah, I know. I mean, I feel sorry for people that do like this, but that's the only road that's great off of 69 169 highway, you know, east because all the other roads are jump the best road right there.

That's because they're in the concrete business and they pushed it to concrete. Yes. So, perform. Let's uh continue with our So to to Chuck's comment though is the I wonder if that wasund like 15 stories was 180 ft or is it Yeah, that was I Yeah, I asked 180 ft 180 building. Yeah, I mean it would cast literally it would cast a big shadow and and this this kind of comes back to you know the purpose of our zoning ordinances are to you know balance development with public health safety and and the character of our community. And I mean, I think it, you know, at the end of the day, we have to decide, do we want to be a community that would allow 180 ft high buildings, you know, and and I kind of I'm reminded a little bit of other communities where, you know, they say no to Walmart, they say no to fast food because they they're trying to preserve a certain character. I know we're talking about M1 industrial, but in THA they have M1, which is light industrial, M2, and they have M3, which is heavy industry. And none of those their their limit isund I think 44 feet or something. 12 stories. What's that? Is for their M2. Yeah. Is that 44 is the max height building. So So we're talking about trying to approve a hard stop that's 25% above that. And I don't even think they have any structures that big um today. And we're we're we're considering it in our M1 light industrial zoning. So it, you know, to me it's it's very very heavy. I mean, super high end and this is this is would define the character of Spring Hill from I think it's just general industrial. Yep. General So and that's our heaviest. So all other cities are larger and have added on M2. It's also our lightest. Yeah, we No, there's an M there's a light industrial, right? It's

an M0. Amy in our code. I don't think so. I thought light industrial but I thought during the plan discussion that's meaning is that um a planned industrial park industrial I think that that would be a light industrial park. Thank you for catching that. I think 180 is tall, but I think I don't know how to say I think what Spencer and and Amy are saying though, they have to come and ask for that height. It's not just a given. And I think with the direction that we have spoken about in the comp plan that there's potential for going higher in some areas if there was the right company coming in that was wanting to go in those areas. Yeah, this this almost feels like we're talking about an M2 when you have to identify where this M2 would take place cuz I feel like everyone has a pretty good grasp on where M1 is currently and we're all cringing right now. The thought of a 180 ft tall structure in any one of those M1s. So, it feels like we're talking about a heavy duty industrial. We need to identify kind of like what we were doing, you know, a few months ago back there. Where does this M2 occur? Where are we okay with that happening? That's kind of what this feels like right now. Mhm. And we're working through all of the comp plan stuff. It felt like several of us kept saying we felt like we were always putting the cart before the horse. And this feels like something that we're putting that we're actually thinking down the road and we're putting the horse before the cart. And we're trying to make plans

for down the road. not maybe not just for this particular one, but for that particular one and for those particular ones and I think that that's even though it's hard to wrap our head around, I think that those are the things that we have to do. I think we'd be doing that Cindy if like to Josh's sentiment if we were separating and deciding where is our M1, where is our M2 and we like cuz we had started talking during the comp plan to separating these things out a little bit more and defining them more. I think that by just approving something like this, we are putting the cart before the horse once again. But if if we would get back on track with that comp plan, would love to do that. Then this gives us some teeth to actually look in and say, and maybe it's not the 180, maybe it's 160. I don't know. I'm just saying that this might give us those teeth to say, okay, let's look and see, thinking of this, where do we want that? And would it be open though to maybe tableabling this until we work on the comp plan and get something carried out with an M1 M2? That way we're not just approving things that we can't go back and well and and they can still come. A biller can still come and ask for a building higher than the code. That was my question right now. Right. We just had that. No. So it's no they can't make this decision. Uh right. Right now what? Yeah. Yeah, they just came last month and asked for and they shouldn't it shouldn't have been cleared to come through. So that alerted us to oh there's some pretty we're getting into some height limits currently. So now I understand the reasoning behind this right right now there's some pretty harsh height limits the way the code is written. Right. So and for what it's worth this is a treat this the same as it's a resoning because you're amending your zoning code which falls under the same statute as resoning. a specific parcel.

So rather than table it, it would just be recommending denial and goes to the governing body and they can do what they want with it rather than just table. It's got to go up to them. Now Spencer, is it possible for us to address it and at the same time add another uh M2 or this point? Yeah, at this point adding a whole M2 is going to take a pretty significant staff outlay to identify what's an M2, write that code. We're a little short on community de development staff right now. So I doubt that's a realistic quick turnaround. Yeah, I I don't have a problem with adding some height to the plan. I think 180 is too big. Yeah. Too high. Y I mean I would look at something like 144, but 180 just Yeah. I think I'm on the same page as you. I'd feel comfortable at the 144 max. Both stories. That's similar to what I guess was in front of us a month ago, which wasn't supposed to be. I don't know. But anyway, that's kind of the height they were at. And that's in line with the also I I'm not comfortable with that 10ft setback. I'd rather have keep it at 25. I don't I still don't understand the reasoning behind that. So, looking at that 10 foot setback, there's also got to be a fence there cuz I don't know of any M1 that does not have fence around it and screening. Well, I mean, a screen a fence of some kind. I mean, so now you're down to 9 ft again. Stuck on the 9 ft. Yeah. 25 minutes more. So, so, so, okay, now I understand why we're changing the code because nobody

can build anything unless we have the cap in there. But we do have a 100 foot exception limit today. Not for a building though for non-buildings. Not for a building. No. 75 for your silos. So 75 is public and semi-public. Right. Right. I'm sorry. Is this a take it or leave it or can we modify it? You can recommend anything. You can make a recommendation to the governing body that they approve this with a new cap of Okay. 150 144 13 ft if you wanted to. I mean whatever you want. Thank you. I I was just kind of you were talking about this reszoning and I was like the difference between the 144 and the 180 and go 160. I think that's insane. That is insane. It shows the tallest. I'm just trying to No, I I understand it. I'm thinking about it. No, no, no. Two that jumped in with That's insane. I'm just trying to split it. Yeah. the Sheridan Overland Park and three floors. The other thing is before when you when you go back and look at the boundaries of the comp plan that we talked about, the comp plan we talked about. I know the comp plan the comp plan that we talked about that we talked about. Um I I'm just when you think about some of those areas and the fact that we want more industrial and because it's this it helps our tax burden but it doesn't do anything for Okay, it's okay. And hang on. It does do something for our town. It helps our tax and I am not willing to give away to tha or Overland Park those those manufacturers or those commercials. No commercials not the manufacturing but I'm not willing to

give those away. We keep building residential residential residential and the residents keep saying where's this? Where's this? Where's this? I want to bring in the manufacturing. Manufacturing will bring in more commercial. We've got We have to support the town. Without a core, we're not going to get anywhere. We're going to continue to build build and we're going to continue to get taxed out of our homes. We're going to continue to get taxed out of our homes. Wait a minute. We I can't hardly afford to live here anymore because of it. Wait, Matt. I'm I'm sorry, but the public I feel like I feel like we again this we're M1 M2 though because I have I struggle with I understand where M1 is and it runs down the spine of our city and now we have 180 foot tall structure there. Now the sun's either coming up at 10 in the morning or going down at 10 in the morning depending on what side and the M1. But it's not don't just think about that area. Think think about the Overland Park side. But what he's saying is though is that if currently the allow us to go where we have 180 foot structures is we're running down 169. I know. And that's that's Welcome to Spring Hill. And if you guys remember the truck stop, how many people were opposed to the truck stop, but you were told that you had to approve it because it was consistent with the zoning with the M1 zoning. And so I can this this is completely different. This is not mandating anyone to allow 180t building. the truck stop us before you as a sight plan which Chuck I think I know where you're going with that state. Yeah, I think but once we set the precedence then it's kind of there. It's allowed in the M1 and I'm not ready. I'd rather have it in M2 or where we've identified those locations cuz the current identified M1 locations. I'm not okay with this height in those M1 locations just because I know the impacts they

have on the aesthetics of our community. M2. If we can find the the right location because every I think every use has the right location. You just got to find it. If we can identify those right locations for an M2, then maybe this is appropriate for that. But not in our current M1 locations. I struggle with that. We can as staff identify creating an M2 in the future. In the short term, there probably needs to be a stop gap of something more than 55 and it sounds like maybe something less than 180. Um, but something to the governing body and look you can just vote no on this that totally fine and say we don't like it at all and let the governing body deal with it and they can also vote no and staff can go back more research to decide what we think is an appropriate cap. No, so it's all or nothing and then you all can recommend approval to the governing body with a condition that the 180 is changed to another number if you'd like and governing body is free to disregard that. They can also when they get it elect to do something other than 180 ft. So I should start researching now as we've done. So so personally I if we got to pick a number how about 144 it's 12 stories. It's what I would it's significantly higher than what we are we are now but it would be a compromise. And then I don't like the 10 ft still stuck in the I don't know that I'm comfortable with weighing higher than that cement plant as of right now. I'm saying the the point is though is that it's still it has to come before us before it gets approved. Well, because I'm the same with Troy. 25 ft on the setback, 144 ft. I think that's okay because the other guy that came here, I think that would probably be okay as long as the site once we see the site plan and I'd hate to see that go away to Cindy's point on the tax dollar and that's a in a nice place. It's a good place. It's not going to They didn't address that there's an abatement or anything yet, right? No, no. This is just going to allow him to come before us. Apparently, they weren't supposed to come before us because it was too

too too tall. Can I ask a second question? So, we spent quite a bit of time on the 180 cap and I'm not telling you to move on the other proposed changes, setbacks. We've talked about that. How do you guys feel about the procedure for applicants coming to you all in M1 to exceed that height of 55 up to whatever cap you set? Do those four criteria work for you all? Do you want more? Do you want less? Do you want governing body review? Does it look fine the way it is? I just I want to make sure we're talking about the whole kind of slate of proposed changes here. Oh, I see what you're saying. So, we could have it to where they have to come to us if it's above 55 but below. Well, whatever the cap is doesn't affect whether or not someone comes to you and in an M1 when someone wants to go over 55 ft, they will be here asking for your permission. The code will then set forth those four subsets of your review criteria. The same as you have your golden factors if you're going to resone something from R1 to R4. This sets forth your criteria for allowing someone to exceed that height. Did those factors work for you all? Do you like that process? It is designed to be less stringent than the golden factors is designed to be much less stringent than what the BCA has to do on a pure state statute variance cuz those are more or less impossible to get. Does that pro procedure work for you all? Do you want to have any review over buildings over 55 ft? Do you want it to go just to staff? Do you want it to go just to governing body? So you're saying it would come if we want to see it. It comes here then it goes to uh the way this is written if I want to build anything between 56 ft and 180 ft I come to you all in M1 would want to see it. Yes. Mhm. Fine. You hear me cat? Sorry. Yeah, I'm fine.

Yeah. Okay. We like that review procedure. No one no one feels uncomfortable with the way you'd be asked to review these based on this proced this proposed code change. No. Okay. we can go back to whether 180 ft is a good cop or not. Okay, we've had a lot of discussions. So, Spencer, one thing when I was looking at gardeners, um, they have some criteria related to they actually mentioned traffic and odors and some other variables as well, which I thought was interesting because, you know, we're always told we can't really consider traffic because it's not a golden factor that for reasoning and and this was I I thought that was interesting. So, I mean, to your to your question, I I think these four are good. There may be room for more, but it's probably too late for tonight's vote. Well, for what it's worth, traffic typically comes in under the golden under the public health and wellness. Okay. Um, which is there in that second subset. I think public health, safety, general welfare voters would almost certainly fall under that. I think that would be a fair point for you all to be asking applicants, what's it going to be used for? Is there a smoke stack on top? What's coming out of it? This is a 150 foot tall, you know, meat smoking plant, good odor. If it's a plastic burning plant, bad odor. I I'm still going to add in there. I don't know that I have enough time before we all vote. I think that this is worded oddly. A the height maximum, those first two paragraphs and then this bottom one. I just don't think that they are worded very clearly personally. Yeah, I I think it would make sense if you guys would like we can add subsets in there. So under A where it says buildings 55 ft would be one. The maximum height would be two. The M1 cutout would be three. That would go all the way down through the large paragraph starting with the governing body. Height exceptions would be four and then parapet walls to the

extent anyone still wants to build those in 2025 and on would be five. Would that clean it up for you? And to be honest, that's something we probably should have put in. And I'm very big on numbered lists and we traded a lot of red lines back and forth and those I took those out as I was redlining cuz red lining with numbered lists is awful. So, and easy thing to put back in and I agree like that that second sentence says the maximum height of any building or structure and then the next paragraph starts with N1 specifically. That's why I felt like this is implying 15 stories anywhere. But then specific to M1, here's the additional criteria. Yeah, we can fit that with an M1 as well if you'd like. The goal was if we create an M2 or if in some point we create a different maximum height between 55 whatever this is for C2, we don't have to keep changing that cap and re restate it in every single subp part. So the cap, whatever you pick it to be or recommend it to govern body applies to everything always. So then what for for Miss Simmons earlier then that was actually incorrect because it wouldn't have to be M1 in order to be you know tall a tall structure. It could be a different uh zone. No. So this is an exception. Each zoning classification has a maximum height set forth in its chapter of the zoning code. Okay. Right now M1 also says 55 ft. And then it says there's an exceptions which is in 17348. that you can refer to to change this and people will refer come over to 348 where it will say what's before you on page 20 of your packet here just as C2 has its set height and R1 has a set height and as things progress in the future we can continue to add exceptions into this catch all exceptions code instead of changing each one individually.

Thanks for clarifying. So you're saying 17348 is specific to my right. Got it. Well, and we have to approve anything between 55 but allowed up to whatever we choose. Okay. There's a max. So we're just trying to decide a max in the code to add to it. Yeah. Correct. So that somebody can come before the board. Yeah. Correct. We're trying to decide a max to suggest a city council. Well, yeah. There's I know behind it, but ju just to go back Cindy to what you said earlier. I I think you you're talking about how um citizens want more amenities and commercial development. I don't think industrial necessarily brings that. I I actually think cuz you know you you know we've always heard that the magical number of 10,000 residents, right, would start to attract more restaurants and things. In in my mind, that's the key driver still is population. whether that population is employees at an M1 or M2 site or whether it's residents, I think it's more population driven. And I think we're just we're in that adolescent growth stage right now. Plus, our proximity to Lea hurts us in a way because if if you own a restaurant, you've got to decide will this little population here sustain it or can I just drive, you know, 10 minutes, 15 minutes north to to whatever restaurant I have. But but to me this also this still kind of comes back to you know what do we want Spring Hill to be and what what type of aesthetic and what type of community do we want to have and you know if we say I mean even 12 stories you know if we say we we're willing to allow 144t buildings. I mean that is almost triple the height that we allow today. and the new Walmart meat uh processing facility on 169. I think I mentioned this before. That one's less than 60 feet. And it, you know, it kind of looks like a behemoth. It is a nice looking building though, thanks to the

stone veneer and the colors and the materials that tha required them to use actually. I mean, it it does look as good as and and on the the roof, you know, they've shielded off all the stuff on on the HVAC on the roof, but still it's it's a it's a Goliath, you know, it's a behemoth. And we're we're we're talking about basically saying, you know, it's okay to have something three times that height. And, you know, as someone who who lives within view of the highest structure we have today, the the cement plant, you know, it's it's not attractive. It really isn't. And and if it blocks your view and it blocks your sunlight, I mean, and these are, you know, those are just silos which have a very small footprint, but they're very tall. And of course, there's light pollution. There's there's actually dust, you know, galore from that, but that's a different story. We're just talking about the aesthetic. I I don't think that's the type of thing we want more of. I mean, in in the majority of the warehousing that's in Johnson County now along I35, none of that is this tall. You know what I mean? There's a tremendous amount of industrial development going on out there that is within actually 60 ft of height and it's just building out like crazy. I don't think that we have to to go 3x that in order to attract additional industrial development. I think I think we will attract it because of our location regardless. It'll just it'll just change the character and the type of industrial, you know, new development that we bring by by having the limits that we have today or lower limits. I don't I don't think this is a difference of, oh, we're never going to attract development and we're never going to grow. Our taxes will, you know, forever go up. I I think, you know, we'll get it. It's just a question of what type of development do we want and what do we want the the aesthetic and and the um character of our community to be long term. Chuck, I'm not going to disagree with you on a lot of that stuff, but from people that moved here when the

population was 1,200, 1300 and from having politics in the family and bringing in the glass plant and people were appalled at the height of that and a school system that was incredibly smaller. watching the residents grow, bringing in the businesses that was brought in during that time. It does differ. It the manufacturing does make a difference in the town. It brought in the it brought in commercial. Some of those commercials died up and went away when the the highway went through that. They had to close down because of the highway coming through. So, it's an ever revolving door in Spring Hill. And I understand that. newer residents didn't see that. It's been a revolving door. I'm not telling you that I want 180 foot. I'm just telling you that watching this town from 1,200 people, Cat was one of them that has watched this town revolve and revolve and revolve. Our kids were What was your class? 80 people, 100 people, 110. Yeah. to now 300 kids, 400 kids. It's a major difference in town. You want to go back that far about it? I go back further. I'm just saying it does make a difference. The manufacturers come. It does bring the commercial. It does bring more residents. It brings the jobs with it. It does bring revenue to town. That's my only point. It just it it matters who you're putting up here at the city council table and in the staff and how they're going to manage it. Okay. I think I'd be more inclined to suggest

a uh lower height cap until we can change it from just having M1 and having M1 and M2 and then revisit it and have an ordinance set for M2 that could deviate in a higher height. That way it's in the appropriate areas that we feel like it would be. A lower height cap as what? Hun? What? Lower height cap as what? Um, honestly, since I don't have much time to from what I looked at today and this last weekend, uh, it looks like some of the lighter industrial areas that surround us, it looks like we are not that far off from where they are. As far as that 55 to 75 ft, I would say that I'd probably be comfortable with going for a cap of 100 ft. I know that that applicant had told us that they have a plant south of here. They're at 100 ft. When I looked up their plant, it looked like a very massive awesome facility that's still pretty tall. If it's going to be around existing homes, but I think that to be on the safer side right now until they can come up with an M2, I think that that would be a much um safer solution before we do something we can undo. Personally, what about like run away? Isn't that divisible? What about like 108? Isn't that divisible by 12? I'm just trying to make Yeah. Yeah. 12 foot. Wait, no, you mean 12 times be nine stories. Nine stories. Yeah. 12 foot floor. Yeah. How tall did you say that Walmart building? It's under 60 feet from what I read. I'm still But I think this one thing I want to make sure everybody I think the cap is just the so they we still have to come to us to approve and the governing body still has to approve it even if it's in that range. Correct.

Correct. Correct. That's right. So if we put it too low now it's my understanding the guy that was here before can't come in here. that his was 144. Uh I'm just mentioning that because it's important. It just gives people an opportunity to to come in front of us to pitch. And I don't think we have to approve anything. No. Even if it's in that high. What legal basis do we have though? Actually, all we're doing is recommending to the to the to the board to the city council. We're not we're not they get to make change. The governing body, right? So the governing body will make the final change as far as what legal authority you have. It comes to you to decide that. And for example, if someone came in with a 179 ft tall building and they had 10ft setbacks, I think you'll be well within your rights to look at the third part of your review criteria and say this doesn't have adequate setbacks for the height that you've proposed and say no. Right? So the grounding you have to say no is those four. Um, and just like with resonings and development plans, decisions you make do not necessarily set a precedent. Now, you can't stop people from coming and saying, "Well, I want the same thing Amy got." And that's human nature. People are going to come to you with everything for that. But you are not bound by a decision because each lot will be different. Each plan will be different. The setbacks will be different on each whether it backs up to other industrial, commercial, residential. But his reasoning for wanting it was because of the height of the equipment that they want to put into the to the building technology. Because of the technology was because of the the technology and the height of the manufacturing equipment or whatever. New technology required higher heat to be more energy efficient and save energy. Okay. Yep. I don't know if we're all going to agree on this. So that's a thing. I don't know. I mean, I think we understand where

everybody's at. So from my standpoint, we just need to either Yeah. fish or cut bait. Well, you're running the meeting. Okay. Well, I mean, if we're going to recommend a cap though, we need to probably agree on a cap. I guess you could vote against it. I mean, I'm I'm up for 108. 108 I'm good at. I agree. 144. Yeah. Yeah. I don't want anything less than 144. I stand for a motion, please. So, you close the public hearings. We closed it a long time ago. Oh, yeah. You hadn't you hadn't hit the gap, so I'm just curious. Okay. Uh, I move to recommen how how would I say this? I'm not approving it. It's a recommendation of the governing body with the following conditions. So, I would recommend to the governing body they approve. Okay. Would recommend to approve to the governing body with the following conditions that the maximum height to be set at 108 ft. Um, what else did we have? The setbacks. Rear setbacks. Setbacks. Return to the original 20 ft. Return back to the original 20 ft. Yeah, 25. Do we have anything else outside? 20 or 25? 25. 25. I think it's 25. 25 ft. Okay. Original 25 ft. Make that a 25. And was there anything else? I don't think on this motion that stands. And there's a second to that. and someone wants to change it, we can amend, but let's maybe move to a second first parliamentary wise. Real quick, can we add in there anything about them coming up with an M2 or is that totally separate? Okay, I would second that. So, all right, motion and second. I I would like to amend it to 144 ft.

Okay, there's a motion to amend the maximum to 144 ft. Is there a second for that? I'll second it. Okay. So, we are now going to vote on whether to amend that motion to include a maximum of 144 ft. It will keep the proposed condition of changing the setbacks back to well removing the proposed change of the setback, keeping it at 20 ft. But the motion to amend is just the 144, not the correct. Correct. Right. Okay. And we'll start. Well, hold on. I'm confused. Did we have a second 144? And it doesn't include the 25 vote setback, right? We'd have to vote again on that. Oh, okay. So, it's not just this motion. This is just the one. So, if you vote yes, you're voting for 144. If you vote no, we'll vote again on the back. Right. So, what happened to the 108? It's being asked to if this motion to amend fails, we would go back to 108. Okay. And I hate to suggest this. You can keep moving to amend to find other numbers if you'd really like. If anyone has no TV shows on they want to watch I think Love Island's already over I to the 14 Mary you're right. Okay. Start with you. No. I I No. No. I I 144 it is. Okay. So the motion to amend is passed. This motion on the table currently is to recommend approval of the changes to the governing body with the suggestion that the cap be moved down from 180 to 144 and the suggestion that no change be made to the rear setback of buildings. Is that right? No. No. Set back. Okay. Rear set back of 25 ft. Okay. Thanks. Right. 44 and 25 ft rear setbacks. And

now we vote on that. The rear setback orig 20. But the motion was for 25. Yeah. So, do we want 25 or 20? Oh, no. Are we going to have another? You can make you can amend it to change. I'm clarifying so I know what I'm voting. I don't know. It's It's set at 25 and 144. All right. Okay, very comfortable. We'll start on the left. I I I So, we're still voting on 144 again, right? Yes. So, no. Wait, wait, hang on. Yeah. 144 was already off till we're just voting on 25, right? It's motion to 144 and 25 now. I revised my vote. No. Okay. So let's just for clarification mission I I no I I no no no no I okay motion carries I hope all the governing body watched all this three no33 okay we're done with that particular item And now does the 14-day just wait until the 14-day protest period starts. Yes. This will is slated to go before the governing body on the 24th of their next well they're regular meeting after the most this most recent one which they have one meeting this week. It will not go before them this week. It'll go before them on the 24th. So it's not a reszoning who is included in the protest petition portion because I know usually like it was like reszoning. It's uh based on whether or not they're in city or county or whatever. So, who is eligible for the protest petition? What is what does that look like for this?

It would be based on 12520. They people within the protest area have to figure that out. We can't give them legal advice on that part of it. The community of Spring Hill probably I I've seen this as far as it not being a resoning. I will think so. Okay, we'll move on to announcements at council reports. Is it already saying that? Yes, it will be. Okay. Unless they wanted to overcome yours and then they would if they wanted to change it, they would need a 2/3, I believe. 180. We'll double check it and it'll be in the staff report. Okay, Amy. Okay. At the June 12th uh city council meeting, there were no agenda items. um related to community development. June 26th, there was the approval of the final plat for Cumins Property 8, Garrett Ranch 3, and the site plan for the Cumins property 24K building um site plan if I didn't say that. Um I also wanted to add um I spoke to the applicant that was here at the last meeting and they will be back um in August with the requested elevations that you guys wanted to see. So, they wanted me to let you know that. Um, and then on July 3rd, our regular meeting that was scheduled, there was supposed to be a reasonzoning. Um, that has been pushed to August. So, I just wanted to know that cuz there was a public notice and stuff that went out on that. So, that will be back for August. And that's all I have. Where was that resoning? Um it's atund um it's at Woodland Connect in like um 199th. Okay. So our meeting in August is the 7th. Correct. Am I going to get cupcakes this year? It's your birthday again.

I think she should get cupcakes. Did I forget them last year? Yes. That's unbelievable. Six years before. Okay. I'll write it down. Mary, you know, this is the first time that I do not have to miss a meeting because of county fair in August. Wow. I know, right? Yeah. Amy, can I ask question? Oh, I'm sorry. I I noticed that a number of people were seem interested in coming back and revisiting the comp plan. Mhm. Where last time we asked about we were told to wait till next year or is that still where we're at? I mean Allison got a a a beautiful bow on top of Safe Streets for all and and we're still in the starting blocks of the comp plan. Well, thank you for that. Well, and she says that she digs in couch cushions. Can she dig in couch cushions for drawings and and everything else, or is that a rabbit in the hat that you need? It would definitely be a rabbit in the hat. Oh, come on. I'm sure that we can talk internally about some ideas, suggestions, consult with Lane, uh kind of see what the next steps are. Uh but it is encouraging to see everybody want to move forward with the comp plan. Well, I mean I guess my question is is to the members of the commission too. I mean do are we interested in following up? I know that that uh Pat at one time said uh we're going to wait till the elections are done and I don't know what

difference that's going to make to tell you the truth. Um, I think at this point we'll just probably have to wait until somebody's hired for the director position and I think from a feasibility perspective of for the same reason it would be awful hard for us to go create an M2 at the moment. We are a person down and we're in what week two of that. though. I think staff need we all need to get our feet under us just a little bit and then Well, if that's the case, should I meet with the mayor or somebody tell the mayor because at several occasions the mayor has mentioned in a few months we're going to have a new comp plan and either somebody needs to tell him to quit saying that or we need to do it. There was a lot of community engagement as a part of that comp plan development. And you know, if you're a citizen, you might be wondering like, well, what happened with that? He'll respond to emails. Yeah. You guys want us to schedule for September's meeting to comp plan to bring it back up and kind of work? Yeah. I was I was going to say I found it really beneficial at least for myself when we just had our small groups huddle around the map and just talking about in general like what happened. I found that to be like the most fruitful discussion. So even if it's like it start at 6:00 or 6:30 before you know our normal meeting and get whatever we where we last left off where we were talking about regional parks and we were talking about like an M2 and where industrial could go along a rail line. Um, and maybe at least this board could kind of continue those discussions and make sure, you know, it's all in line what we've heard from Shocki before they left and if it's in line with what we we've heard so far from the community.

Okay. Yeah, we'll set that for our September meeting and bring it back. Okay. Thank you. Hopefully that gives enough time to, you know, fill the staffing gaps or at least get your feet under you couple months from now. And Allison's going to draw a whole new map for you guys. So, thank you. I appreciate that. She'll get a grant for it. I color my funding. Any other items by any of the other members? If not, I'll for So moved. Good. Thank you.