Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the city of Topeka Planning Commission meeting. We are a commission appointed by the mayor and city council to plan the order orderly growth and development of the community to hold public hearings and make recommendations to the governing body on planning items. Please note that the governing body rules state that the public hearings for planning cases can be conducted solely by the planning commission. No additional public hearings will be conducted by the governing body. Tonight's cases are tentively scheduled to the to be heard by the governing body next month. Agendas can be found on tika.gov. Some of tonight's cases involve public hearings. For those cases, the procedures will be as follows. First, the pling planning department staff will summarize the case. Next, we will hear from the applicant or their representative. Then, we will receive public testimony, comments, and limited to four minutes. For agenda agenda terms that do not involve public hearing, public comment is allowed provided the person has signed up on Topeka Speaks or has notified staff prior to 3 p.m. today. Comments are limited to four minutes. Finally, at the end of the regular business, the commission will entertain general comments regarding matters relating to the commission business, provided the person has signed up on Topeka Speaks or has notified staff prior to 3 p.m. today. Comments are limited to four minutes. Please take role.

Commissioner Li here. Commissioner Nelson here. Commissioner Brooks here. Commissioner Bowling here. Commissioner Nagger here. Commissioner Pearson here. Commissioner Mock here. And Commissioner Hannon here. We have eight members present and we have a quorum. Thank you. Okay. So, the first item is approval from the me from the minutes from February 16th. Can I entertain a motion? I would make a motion to approve the minutes. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor say I. I.

I. Any oppose? Same sign. Who was the second? Thank you. Like a came from the side. Dan, I'm abstaining. I wasn't at the last meeting. Thank you. Are you all good now? Yeah. Okay.

Okay. So, do we have any um declaration for conflict of interest in any of the items for this evening? Seeing none, we'll move on. The first item on our agenda is Z26-03 Anderson Family Trust. The applicant has withdrawn on this item. Is there anybody here that would like that is here to speak on this item? Okay, seeing none, we will move on. Uh, second item up is CU26-01, Arch Dasis of Kansas City, Kansas. And we will turn that over to staff.

Thank you. This is a proposal by most pure heart and Mary. Um the proposal is to amend the existing conditional use permit that would allow expansion of the existing parking lot. The sites located at 1715 Southwest Stone Avenue. The existing zoning is R1 single family dwelling district. Formerly the site contained a single family dwelling until approximately January of 2026. The existing use is a current parking lot that's under construction. The proposed use is to expand the parking lot located on the north directly to the north of the site. The parking lot has a subject parking lot has been is currently under construction. Okay. Character of the neighborhood is uh single family dwellings to the north. The zoning is R1 and neighborhood conservation district. To the east is the church most pure heart of Mary and parking lots. To the west is a parking lot, vacant land in another church. To the south is single family dwellings. Comprehensive plan considers this to be urban, suburban, lowdensity residential. However, the category recognizes religious assembly as well as other institutional uses that have traditionally developed in lowdensity settings as well as their accessory parking lots. The applicant did hold a neighborhood information meeting in which there was no opposition. Staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions that are in the staff report. I'm open for any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Are there any questions from the commissioners? Um, do I understand correctly that they have not been approved yet to do a parking lot, but they are constructing the parking lot? Yes, that is my understanding. Okay. Yes, they are constructing the parking lot.

The applicant is here to take any questions that you may have as well. Right. And then also since this would be affiliated with a a religious congregation, my understanding is usually houses of worship don't can be built in single family housing um zones. I guess why do they need a reasonzoning? The reason they need the conditional use permit is because this was this conditional use permit was approved back in 1999 and it was across the street from where the church is and it did not include this portion of the property in that boundary. So anytime you expand the boundary of a cup, it's they have to come back in for a major amendment.

All right. Do do we know why they needed the initial cup for a It was across the street from the the church. So it was across the street from the use that it served.

Okay. All right. Good evening, Madame Chair, commissioners, Kevin Holland, Cook Flat, and Strobble. Uh, I'll start by sending my apologies from Father Nathan. They had some miscommunication with the contractor and uh started on the parking lot. We found out it was under construction and I said, "All right, this makes this process a little less fun to go through." um they understand it's fully at risk and uh will adhere to uh any of the the the recommendations and and requirements made by this committee and and the governing body as well. So uh but I'm here to answer any questions. Um basically they were needing additional overflow parking and uh as you'll see if you drive by now they have it but it is not striped or in use yet. Is there any questions for the applicant?

Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. Is this for the church or for the school? This is for the Well, this would actually be for church. It's right across from the school. Well, it it's kind the parking lot's attached to the parking lot right across um from the church, but the school is a little further on the back side. Thank you. So they would use it on school events as well. So absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any more questions?

At this time, I'd like to ask if there's anybody who'd like to come up and speak on this. Open this up for public hearing. Excuse me. Good evening. Uh my name is Jack Halcott. Um I'm a prisoner at Moshe Heart. I uh own a property um not far away um approved I think uh by the planning department for a short-term rental. Um and my family attends church at most prehearted Mary and just wanted to uh state that uh we definitely need the parking. uh were packed uh on at uh 9:30 Sunday mass when my family usually attends and um it's quite obvious that you know it's this this lot is surrounded by other parking lots. Um it's it's just up against the parking for Faith Lutheran and uh should be just fine for the community. So just wanted to speak in favor and seems like a quite obvious thing to approve. So thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close public hearing. Is there any discussion by commissioners? Seeing none, I would take a motion. Motion to approve. Second. Anybody? I'll second that. You want to take roll or you want me to take? Okay. Miss Hannon. Hi.

Uh, Mr. Mock. Hi. Miss Pearson. Nay. Mr. Nagger. I. Mr. Bowling. I. Mr. Brooks. I. Miss. Nelson. I. and Mr. Lai. I motion carries uh 7 to one. Okay. Okay. Moving on. The section second item up is Z26-02. I'm going to say this wrong again, aren't I? Kelly P. How do you say it? Koopi, I believe.

Investments. and I will turn it over to staff.

Thank you. I'm going to be presenting this Z2602 tonight. Um, this is a reszoning proposal at 2450 Southeast 25th Street. Uh, the proposal is to reszone from R1 single family to M2 multifamily. Um, the site is a little over an acre. Previously, there was a single family home on it uh court-ordered demolition in 2024 and it has been vacant since. uh the surrounding zoning and character of the neighborhood. Um the only zoning districts nearby are R1 single family and then PUB and all of that PUB is M2 use group. Um I'm actually going to see if I can slide back. Yeah. Um so you can see those apartments have developed on there. Um most of that single family land has not developed for single family. Uh there is one home immediately adjoining uh another across the undeveloped right ofway uh that is southeast Golden and then there's a church additionally um to the west. The future land use plan designates this area uh for lowdensity residential um that covers both single family and duplex development is covered under that low density umbrella. Um the 2020 housing study did identify a need for missing middle type housing. Um so the applicant is requesting M2 zoning which is basically like garden apartment typology um up to a maximum of 25 units per acre. We are recommending either M1A or M1. Uh it's a slightly lower zoning category. It's a little bit more of a gentle transition between the existing apartments um and the existing single family type uses uh as well. M2 density is not supported

by the future land use map. And then M1A versus M1. M1 is just uh duplex development. M1A is basically up to quadplexes um and they can have up to 15 units per acre. Uh the applicant was not able to be here tonight. her flight got cancelled. Um, she does have a representative here, a potential developer. Um, he provided us with a concept um that I passed out approval or denial of M2 or M1A or anything. It would not be tied to this development concept. It's just a conceptual sketch of what they might be able to do with M2 zoning. Um, so I think with that staff is recommending um approval of either M1A or M1 zoning. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer.

Am I I just want to make sure I'm understanding. So M1A, a typical thing would be a duplex. M1, a typical thing would be a quadlex. M2 a typical thing would be more like a rowhouse situation. Uh so M1 is duplex, M1A is one step up in density. So that can go up to quadlex.

All right. Um or town homes or quadplex style, however um you want to build it. And then M2 is more of like, you know, you could like in that in the concept sketch, they're kind of showing uh basically like a 12 unit row home. It's all one connected building sharing walls. Um, but that would not be allowed under M1A or M1. When you say town homes under M1A, those would not all be in one like connected structure. They'd have to split it every four units.

Okay. Right. So, other than not being supported by the future land use map, is there any other concern staff had with approving an M2? I think just the density transition um like aesthetically or just somewhat aesthetically and also just it's surrounded on three sides by R1 zoning. It's kind of a steep

jump to M2. Okay, thank you. So, just to clarify, make sure I'm on the same page as you, M1A will give them four units every every four units of their 20 potential 25 units would be separated. So M1A the density limit is 15 units per acre. The site I forget the exact math. It's a little over an acre. So that it would be like a maximum of 17 18 units on the property. Um with the M2 zoning the maximum would be like 28 potentially um depending how the development you know process works with parking and storm water and everything.

Right. And this is the and because this is this proposed development is across the street from another current development, right? There's a set of Yes. Just across the street to the south there's u apartments. Okay. Some um there's those apartments there's kind of a mix of I would say garden apartment style with you know 6 8 10 units per building and then there's also some forplexes in that development as well. So they're mixed. Yeah. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Any other comm questions from commissioners? Okay. We can open this up for public hearing. Is there anybody out that would like to speak? Oh, sorry. You want to give the applicant an opportunity to speak? Oh, yeah. I guess we can do that. So the owner was not able to attend because she was she had a flight to Tikica but was canceled. I forgot that. So uh a repres I believe a representative the owner is here to speak on her behalf. Would the applicant like to come up? I was trying to go over you. Sorry. No, I'm sorry. That's what you get for sitting in the back.

I was just admiring. That's um how you doing? Steve Franklin um project manager and developer. I have 10 years of experience of this. So we're very very familiar with these type of projects. Um just like a project overview of uh this uh the plans that we the renderings that we was able to submit. Um pretty much the location is 2420 2450 Southeast 25th Street to Peeka Kansas. Um of course we already went over the site. It's a acre and uh 1.14 acres. The proposed the development is 24 town home unit, two stories approximately about 1,600 ft² 16-650 ft² per unit. Um there's a modern residential layout. Now we all honestly can say when you look at those uh buildings that are across the street from the from the proposed project that they're a little bit outdated. So, we want to bring a little bit more light to the area. So, they're going to be more modern. Um, just bear with me. And the concept is going to illustrate like a high quality residential town home community designed to increase housing availability in Southeast. Um the rendering that we submitted the in the document, it shows the overall layout of the two home the two row homes of town homes. 12 units on one side, 12 units on the other side, 24 uh ft of uh road road access. And um the development plan includes the two two row the two row of town homes 12 units per building row central

drive alip access landscape entrance along the along the 25th street access. Site configuration is 141 ft frontage along with Southeast 25th Street is 352 uh feet uh linear feet site depth internal 24T drive idle. The layout creates an organized residential environment while maintaining a safe traffic flow. Uh the uh the site uh slide uh parking parking and access parking plan is 48 parking parking spaces total two two spaces per unit. Uh parking located along the internal drive aisle as of course has vehicle access. Primary entrance from Southeast 25th Street. Central Drive aisle allows safe circulation, direct unit access for residents. All right. The neighborhood compatibility uh is the reason why we came up with this uh development plan. Uh Highland Park High School, Walmart Super Center, Community Actions Early Childhood Center, Deer Creek Trail, Dornwood Park. The the development complements nearby residential and neighbors ne neighborhood services. The community benefit uh the development will increase the housing availability in southeast Topeka. It provide modern quality residential units, improve the property through landscaping and infrastructure and generates new property tax revenue for the city. the infrastructure and safety. The future development would include fire suppression system, city water and city and city water and sewer

connections, storm water drainage management, code compliant building designs, and sidewall access and lighting. All constructions would comply with the city of Topeka building regulation code. development process. This conceptual presentation represents an early development vision. We all know that, right? So, next steps would include architectural designs, civil civil engineering plans, zoning compliance review, infrastructure studies, formal development application. And uh as for closing statement, this propos this proposal represents a thoughtful residential development opportunity for a property at 2450 Southeast 25th Street. The concept demonstrates how the site could support a wellplanned town home community that contributes to the growth of the housing needs in Topeka. uh we will appreciate the opportunity to be able to present this uh project development to you guys. So after that being said, I would like to leave the mic open for questions.

Um if I'm understanding this case correctly, they are suggesting you move from M1, no M2. They're wanting to downgrade the development a little bit. What will be the impact on you?

Well, it won't be able to allow us to develop the the acreage land to the full capacity. Um, with the M1A, it uh puts us in more of a quadplex and we was talking about density. So, that would be one of the concerns that would raise a red flag. So it would lessen the amount of homes that we can provide of a quality lifestyle to the community. That's our service. I understand that. I understand that there would be fewer homes. Um I'm asking how will that impact the project overall? If you can't get 24 25 homes, what will happen to the project? Well, we'll we'll try to make it work with the city of Topeka to see what would best fit for this project to be able to get pushed forward. If it's not 24 to 25 homes, it would be at least of some value that we can be able to add some modern residencies to the city of Topeka. Now, of course, if you scale it back with M1A, it only affects us. Really don't. It's just a lot less money for development. I think it'll affect the city a lot less money of taxes. So that's what we trying to increase so that we can a have that a that neighborhood to be more productive and uh self-sufficient.

All right. Thank you. All right. Um, whenever it comes to like specifics of the design, if you were granted the M2, am I understanding correctly that each unit would be access to uh on the ground floor? Like there wouldn't be uh external staircases to get to uh living arrangements that only have access on the second floor.

Well, that will only be if we go M1A with a quad duplex. that would be the be the case. But if we leave it at an M2, then the the residency will have their own entrance, it'll be more safe environment, I would feel so because uh even if we do quads, it still would we will still have to have like the fire suppression system and all the safety regulations, but like uh the easy access to street that will not be available for the quad for a quad for those who's living on second Right. Is there any more questions for the applicant?

Thank you.

Now we'll open it up for public hearing.

Good afternoon. And just a reminder, you do have four minutes.

Four minutes. Okay. They don't shouldn't take me that long. I'm the pastor of the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, which is west of this uh structure that they're wanting to do. Uh at the church, we're against it. Matter of fact, it would be nice if you get a couple houses in there or something. would would be we're surrounded by apartments. What we get is we get the fallout from everybody that's in the apartments. We have a nicesiz the church has nicesized property that goes from its structure to the 25th street. We get a lot of the people from all the other apartments that maintain uh that they got access to our yards. Okay. So, we get the fallout. We get to we get to clean up after everybody throws everything out on the yard. We get to clean it up. And what I'm saying is is that to put a structure there where you're bringing more people into to the neighborhood that's already already known, all of you here know, you hear all the news, everything going on. Where's this happening? East Pika, we're at behind Park High School. All this does for us is just add more to what we're already dealing with right now. And my thing is is that uh you know I'm I'm not against growth at all. Uh matter of fact, I worked for the city of Topeka, been around a long time, but I understand something that there is nothing there for the young people, for the kids. Now, if they were gonna go and put a facility up there where kids could go after school, go do things after school, do something, they don't. In the summertime, we get a lot of them around our yard. In the winter time, since there's a street golden, that street that goes down there that has never been

maintained, it's overgrowth with trees and everything. In the winter time or or late summer, we get we get the transites that find out a place to live. Uh, and so we deal with the fall out of that. So, our thing is is that uh while there was a house there that nobody lived in there for years and nobody did anything about it, it would be nice if there was a residential house or two put in there. We would greatly appreciate it. But apartment complex, it just adds greater stress to us. And I love people, but I realize that that that just let me close with a question. Would you put it in your neighborhood? Would you put it where you at? If there was a room there, would you put it there? We're We We just We don't We don't really need that. Put a house up there, a house or two. That's what you took down. Put it back. We're great. We'd even invite them to church.

Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak? Seeing none, can the applicant come back up? Is that good? I don't know. If somebody has a question they want to clarify or something, I mean, we've gone through the Okay, Ross. Okay. He just was waving, so I didn't know. Nope.

Oh, okay.

Just a reminder, you have four minutes. My name is Dale Kushenberry and I am a member of the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ and an retired city employee. And I have a question. Why is it that apartments complexes all put in been put in East Pika? We don't need any more apartments. We have Colonial. We have Deer Creek. We have Highland Park apartments all surrounded by around our church. We need something that could help our youth. As our pastor said, we need something that is not going to tear down the neighborhood. He said it's going to be modern. um facilities looking. How long is that going to last? My question is why do we have to put it in East Pika in our area where we already are overcrowded with apartment complexes? There any more public comments out? Seeing none, I will open this up for discussion with commissioners. that

where where does the land owner live? The land owner is in lives in Florida, I believe. Is that correct, sir? That's correct. That is correct. But I am a Kansas person. I'm from Kansas called Bill, Kansas. That's where I was born. Have plenty of family here in Topeka. And um we we have sir come up to the mic.

I'm from Kansas and um I'm affiliated with a group. I was an XNFL player just to answer your question. And I too grew up in a neighborhood like that. So the question, the answer to you is, are we going to take back our community? Are we just going to try to shoe it away? Right. Right. Right.

So, we was able to partner with the NFLPA and they're going to be a partner sponsor to be able to help us push this through. We I will gladly uh give you the representatives names if you feel if you need to reach out. Um we are about the community though and that's that's what we stand for and with the group of guys that's a part of this investment group. We all came up in similar situations. Okay. All right. What was the organization again?

It's the NFLPA. It's a union amongst uh uh present NFL players and the retired. How did they pick East Topeka? What do you say? How did they pick East Topeka? Well, we have NFL PA union members who are in different different uh parts of this parts of the United States. I picked Topeka. We picked Topeka. East, not west, not south, not east. Yes, sir. Right. Yes, sir. East.

We want to be able to be the voice. We want to be able to be a face and have a presence in East Topeka. Me riding through the neighborhood. I've been here in Topeka now for almost two years dealing with uh dealing with family. And for me to be able to ride around to see the the the undeveloped how undeveloped East Topeka is really put the encouragement for us to be able to get behind this. So uh will this be our only project we would want to do in East Topeka? No. Like only way you're going to create change is if you be the change. So, with that said, I just I'll sit down now, but I just want to get people on the same page. If you want to fix a situation, you got to get in. You got to put your boots on. You got to go to work. That's it. And as a pastor, you you're in the soul safety business

and you want to make sure the people that are across the street know where they going to spend eternity. Okay. Right. So, the only way you're going to be able to do that if we're boots on the ground. Okay. The trash cannot be the problem. Thank you. All right. Sir, we we've already closed public hearing. Sorry. We've got to keep moving. That's fine. He was just answering the questions. So, thank you.

Any other conversation between commissioners on this? I mean I think don't we have to decide if it's the proposal as it stands or as as staff presented right correct okay we need to decide if we're going to how we're going to move forward that is correct just clarifying I thought you were like ready to No I'm not I'm waiting for someone else for a change Go.

I I'll um verbally process this a little bit because I'm I'm a little conflicted.

Um normally I feel pretty resolved simply, but um read through it pre previously before the meeting was conflicted and still am. Um, and I'm trying to, you know, I I understand I appreciate all the perspectives. I really do. Uh, and they're all really good perspectives. Um, and that's the there's a conflict. There's a tension there that I'm trying to figure out how to resolve in my brain. Um, the other conflict I see is there's it you have single family housing. Uh and you know the question like okay if you you put that you put an M2 development in the middle of a residential neighborhood that doesn't drive u but yeah you are connect you are surrounded by other M2s pretty much right it's a PUD but it's M2 um and and maybe the the land use and growth management plan should have shown that as multifamily because it's kind of a little notch of R1 one that maybe should have been multif family and it was it was R1 because the church was there and there was other, you know, undeveloped residential lots and that type of thing. Um, so again, I'm I'm just verbally processing to get the conversation going. I'm still conflicted, but I' I'd like to hear some other perspectives of what others think.

I mean, I'm a little conflicted as well. Um and part and it I probably could agree with either side on any day. Um I think what is bothering me is the concentration of of apartments or multi-family in an area that's already got concentration of that. Um, but the problem is if the owner doesn't want to put two houses on there, then that's not what we're dealing with. That's not our question at hand. The question at hand is um the current owner wants to put multis there. I would be more inclined to vote yes for the lesser density. Even though that flies in the face of everything I say about affordable housing and housing density and all the other um the area is already dense. I don't think that's a goal. I think that's an overachievement goal if we put extra houses there. So again, just processing out loud. I'm not um I'm not sure. someone else.

I had to process this as well just the same way only at my desk this afternoon out loud. Um, and I do want to thank staff for the additional recommendations because that does help us. It helps us make our decisions. It helps us process the entire thing. Um, it also helps us hearing from you guys out there. We do understand both sides. We do see both sides. Our job is to do what's best for Topeka in general. Um, not one side or the other. We agree. Um we would like to see single family housing as well, but that's not what's being presented. So, we do have to deal with what is being presented at hand. So, with that being said, um th this one this one um I mean I'm leaning more towards the um lesser of just like staff is recommending, but I'd like to hear from you guys. you other commissioners not really saying much.

It's because fall in line just with you guys. Yeah. Kind of torn with it. It's gorgeous. It's a gorge. It's a gorgeous renition. We can't look at this one because what I know from the development side, that's a lot of parking lot. That's going to be a huge amount of storm water area. And right now that the square footage that's on there is the size of the correct the lot. So underground storage is really expensive. So it'll most likely be above ground which cut out a huge chunk of what's there. So that's I know it's hard.

Yeah. Probably lean towards the uh lesser of the zoning as well. Yeah. Um, I was going to say the same thing. I think thinking the same thing about storm water requirements. You would you're going to have a hard time fitting 24 units on that piece of property. I agree.

Um, again, that's not what we're here for. But, um, I I was wondering thinking about uh what's good for the neighborhood. Um, and maybe staff understand knows are there again you want like a variety of options in any neighborhood, right? You don't want all M1 or all R1 or all duplexes. Um there's there's plenty of M2. Um are there duplex options in the neighborhood? Are there plenty of duplex options? I'm just trying to think about again, we got to think about beyond the current situation, but big picture, long term, what's good for the neighborhood. Um, so yeah, duplex options.

I'm not sure there's anything within like a quarter mile or so. Um, further out of the neighborhood, I'm sure there's duplexes, but as far as depending how you how much you zoom in, zoom out. Yeah, because that's a different living situation than the M2. Uh, which again, I'm I'm trying to think about neighborhood health and I'm not an expert in any of that. So again, just trying to process through that. Yes.

Um, we do have in one of the written comments that it kind of indicates this may have at one point been that the applicant was looking into M3, then spoke with staff, switched to M2, and I'm just trying to make sure I understand this timeline correctly. Is it fair to say that it was being considered at M2 whenever some of these early steps including the neighborhood meeting were done? So, we uh Commissioner, we had a pre-lication meeting, at least two pre-application meetings with the with the owner uh and uh we discussed we really discussed the process. It's really mostly about the process. This is not about what you're going to approve, what staff's going to recommend. Um, they initially said M3 and and we suggested that would be not a really good fit. First of all, M3 is really more like a mid-rise, higher density residential. Uh, it's hard to even get there because of parking and storm water and everything else. Uh, plus just the fit. Um, so, uh, the applicant did indicate that they'd be willing to to reszone to M to propose M2 and and so we just suggested that they would consider that. That wasn't because we recommended M2. That was just because M3 seemed like you're asking for so much that it's kind of like, are you serious? Right?

It's harder to take that seriously. Um, and so that's why they ended up requesting M2. No one ever said, "Oh, staff's going to support M2 or this M2 can get approved." That that was not part of the conversation. I haven't read this, but I I know I think that that might be implied by this and that's not really what happened. We just don't do that. We avoid that for obvious reasons. Right. And if I'm understanding correctly, the nature of this case did not require a neighborhood meeting, right? No, it did. There was a neighborhood meeting, but no one attended. Correct. No one attended the neighborhood meeting.

It was a It was done online. It was done remotely. Yeah. We set up a team's meeting. Um we advertised it as an M2 reszoning. Um and no one attended the meeting.

Okay. Thank you. Well, I honestly would say I'm very conflicted on this because I don't hear anybody from the neighborhood that's proposing a positive view of this. Um, that's my concern is I understand the city has a concern about getting more housing in the city, but I'm also looking at it from a neighborhood's perspective of I don't hear anybody from the neighborhood saying, "Yeah, this is a great idea. let's build this. Uh, and I'm not saying that the developers wrong either. It's just I I'm very conflicted with this. Um, because again, I hear people who are against it, but I haven't heard anybody that's really for it. And what are the impacts to the neighborhood when this gets built from an infrastructure standpoint? Um, and all the other things that come along with I there's my understanding there's two parking spots per unit.

Mhm. And is that going to be enough parking for the people that are going to be living in this? That's the requirement. Yeah. Okay. Well, like I said, I'm very conflicted on it because I just I see I I don't see anybody here from the neighborhood supporting it and that's a concern for me.

Okay, commissioners, we need to make a decision on this. I actually like to say that like Commissioner Brook's comment about making it more of a mix of different opportunities for this this area. So, whatever we go with M1A, M1, I like that idea. So, is that you willing to make a motion? I was thinking about it. Yeah. Just start reading people's faces to see how that was going to go. Yeah. I'd like to make a motion to reszone for the the M1. Okay. The M1 or the M1A. M1. And tell me you get M A.

The M1 would be the duplexes. Is that correct? I'll get this eventually. Yeah, exactly. A is a step up or a step down. Right. Depends on your point of view. And like why is there a why isn't there a whole different number? and one and a half. None of us will ever ever until we're 130 understand all the letters. We have to have our chart. I'll take that hat. Okay. So, we do have a motion on the floor for to reszone this as M1. Um, do we have a second? I'll second the motion.

Can we take role on that? Or do we is there any more discussion on that? Let me see. I was ready just to keep going. So we're gone with just duplex only, no forplexes, right? Correct. And can I just clarify something what that means? So it when you have M1, it's one duplex per lot. Right now the land is subdivided as two lots. It can be replplatted. Just to clarify, just so everybody here understands what that means. Oh, he's just trying to bear money in there. No, I know. So, I don't want to try I'm not trying to confuse you, but No, but it that's this zoning is not tied to a specific development plan. It's allows what is allowed into that zoning.

And that's the problem.

And so, and so, u M1, one duplex per lot, uh M1A, up to four units per building. You could have multiple buildings on this land. Um man, I had a really good thought and then I just lost it. Um what one thought that hasn't lost yet is um the struggle is is that there's no real plan and so I wonder if because you know this area this site could be developed but if we change it from M R1 to M1 what if someone wants to build a house on it? I mean it it really we're making decisions without having direction. Um, and so what if we just said we denied it, which I know is not exciting, but we um, you know, maybe the owner comes back with a PUD and we review it with some detail and then we can say, okay, everybody feel a little bit better about the plan. Uh, maybe that's a little risky because there's a little bit of cost to put together a plan and all that, but but I think what we're saying is that we're open to it being developed. It's just is it tries or it quads or duplexes and how does it all fit on the land and there's just so many questions that I think we don't have an answer to. I

mean they're going to have to come back with concepts, aren't they? So, oh, it's by Right. Yeah. Yeah. So, the process is if they get the zoning then they can develop according to that zoning then they it's all administrative. It's all done with staff. site plan and storm water plans. And you you mentioned that currently it's didn't you say platted as two lots? Yes.

Um so that would be if the current motion was approved that'd be four units of housing where they're currently I mean this idea is 24 units. um what's the process of replplatting if they were interested in doing like let's say this motion goes through and then they wanted to replplat into a higher number of lots for a higher number of duplexes. What is that process look like?

That's administrative. It's what we considered a minor plat. they would they would uh submit a minor plat to replplat the property and potentially I think you could get three lots maybe even four lots and so you could if it was M1 you could do a duplex per lot um if it's M1A you get more than that I think the other thing to think about here is there's a street right ofway platted and the expectation at least the baseline expectation is when those lots get developed, the developer is required to build that street or they participate in a benefit district. That's a very expensive proposition. So it's, you know, that's another thing that's maybe that's not for us to consider. Maybe it is because I think you do need to think about

yeah,

you know, why why is that land around there not being developed for single family residential? There's a lot of land around that is platted and zoned for single family residential that's not happening and that street is a is a pretty could be a major factor to that. So just to be clear, you could replat it, but expectation is someone's going to build that street or it's going to be they're at least going to participate in a benefit district to get that street built. So back to the question about the PUD, is that a process that that if let's say we denied it, it could still be developed through a PUD process. So yeah, because it's an acre, so it could qualify as a plan unit development. Uh that way you could tie the zoning to a development plan. Um the if you can come back with a different application as long as it's different within a year. If it was the same application, you couldn't. But with a different proposal, you could come back and do that. You could approve resoning and then they come back and say, "Well, we want to do a PUD." You could that could happen, too. So they actually have options,

correct? Sure. I mean, they they've they've applied. They paid an application fee hoping for an outcome. They could apply again. They probably don't want to have to do that, but that's that's something that could happen. And what is the max capacity with a M1 gueststimate? M1. It's so potentially I think

probably shouldn't be for how for us to design it. But if you look at the size of the property, it appears you could at least resubdivide that, replant it and get three lots, maybe four lots. You have to meet minimum lot sizes. We haven't really analyzed that very carefully. It's pretty good size lot. I understand. Pretty good size attractive land. Right now it's two lots. I'm just asking for a guess. But but yeah, I think I mean potentially you could get eight units with four duplexes. So one duplex on each lot if it was M1 and M1A could probably get you up to 15 units.

So M1 Yeah, M1A. Uh, I think you have to picture. Can are you going to be able to get more than four forplexes on the on the property? I don't know. Yeah,

that's that's hard to know. Commissioner Mock makes a good point. You have to be able to make sure the storm water works and and you get to that site, that much land development, and there's going to be detention involved. I'm sure storm water detention. I'm I'm kind of following with what uh Commissioner next to me is saying that maybe there needs to be a little more study on the com on what the concept is going to be or what we're going to end up with to see. I mean, I'm kind of like I want to see something. And right now I I see something that mimics what they originally planned on doing, but I don't have anything in front of us of what even M1A looks like, right? I mean, all we have is what M2 looks like. What's M1A look like? And I I'm going to follow more with what Willie was saying, too. I think that's my idea, my my thought, too.

I mean, we're basically just deciding on the scope of the project right now, not the actual project itself. So, can they have eight units or 15 units? Yeah. I mean, We know that the 24 is not going to fit, right? It's not going to fit. I mean, um, so what was the motion? Was the motion for M1 or M1A? M1. I would probably go with M1A. I think that's a compromise. Are you wanting to amend his motion?

Yes, Commissioner Nelson. I would like to amend his motion. Okay. So, we now have a um an amendment to the motion to make this an M1A. We have to second the amendment. Do we have to second the amendment? He just has to accept it. Okay. I'm I accept the amendment.

Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely.

So after an amendment, we just call for we just call roll then. Correct. Make sure where we're at here. So there was a an amended motion from M1 to M1A. Correct. And it was seconded. Well, he accepted the amendment. Accepted it. Okay. So you need a second, right? Second. I think you'd still need a second. I think so. I'll second it just in case we need to second it. Just a belt and suspenders. Okay. So, is there any more discussion? No. Okay.

Okay. So, the vote the vote here is a reasonzoning to approving a resoning to M1A. Everybody got it? All right. Commissioner Lai, I. Commissioner Nelson, I. Uh, Commissioner Brooks. I. Commissioner Bowling. Nay. Commissioner Nagger. I. Commissioner Pearson. I. Commissioner Mock. Nay. Commissioner Hannon.

I. Uh the motion carries uh uh six to two.

Thank you. Okay, moving on to action item a uh A2601 annexation Vanickle subdivision Old Castle infrastructure and I will turn that over to staff. Commissioners, I'll handle this one. Um, so this is an annexation case. Uh, your role in this process is to, uh, consider the annexation through the lens of conformance with the comprehensive plan. Uh, the planning commission's not typically, you're not at all inserted into the state law annexation process. Um, in particular, this item would go as a consented contiguous item would go straight to the governing body for an ordinance. But, um, we have a policy that says you would review it for the comp plan. So, um, the property here, the applicant or the the annexation here is for Old Castle Infrastructure at 5230 Northwest 17th Street. Uh, this property is about 20 acres. um they are going to connect to city water and by that I mean they are extending a water man from the east to the west to connect to this property. Um and utility regulations require annexation in that event if you're connecting to city water. Um so the property is located in the employment tier of the city's urban growth area. Um, you can kind of see here that part of that property, part of the old castle of property is already in the city. Um, so we really will be annexing uh the remainder that's not. Um, and the comp plan generally is in is is okay with extending infrastructure if

it's in the employment area, if it's just serving one use. But there again, the the the property owner is doing that. The city's not doing that. The property owner is doing it. Um, so with that, uh, staff believes this annexation is consistent with the comprehensive plan, um, and would request, um, a motion to that end. Um, be happy to answer any questions. Any questions by commissioners? And you did say that the that they're paying for all these upgrades and infrastructure.

Yes, they are paying the cost to extend the water man to the property. So the decisive factor of why annex now is because of the water connection. Correct. Any other questions? Okay. Can we get a motion to approve that? I motion to approve it.

Second it. All right. Okay. Commissioners. Um, Miss Hannon. Hi, Mr. Mock. Hi, Miss Pearson. Hi, Mr. Nagger. I Mr. Bowling. Hi, Mr. Brooks. Hi, Miss Nelson. I and Mr. Lai I motion passes uh 8 to zero. Thank you.

Okay. Now we will move on to report from the special committee of housing. Um who was at the meeting? Do you have a report? Really? Can be very brief if you want it to be. Yeah. I'll throw in a bunch of the best there. It's all good.

Oh, yeah. Um, okay. So, we at our last meeting, um, this was on the 11th, we met with Mayor Duncan. Um, Mr. Kyle and Mr. Bowling and I uh met with Mayor Duncan and city hall and and it was really just an hourlong conversation about his visions for housing um and some of the different things that um that he was looking at and and his uh the conversation was was very low-key. I didn't really take a lot of notes, but um we talked about how the one of the driving factors for the housing issue across the country is is just dollars. It's just cost the cost of construction is gone way up. Um and so, you know, how how can you work through that? How can you solve through that problem? um the city can only do a certain number of things and so we brainstorm different potential ideas of um trying to figure out ways to reduce permitting costs or um review the building and energy codes uh things like that. So, um no real action items came out of that, but it was a really good conversation and and I would say that the mayor is is um it it was refreshing. uh he it communicated an openness to listen to ideas um and which was nice and uh so if anybody's listening to this or any of us anyone else has any ideas I think he's open to hear good ideas so anything else to add Scott

well that's what I took from it is is I think he's taking a fresh approach of having people present ideas and solutions uh we do a lot of complaining about problems with housing and everything, but nobody comes forward with any solutions. And and I agree with him, too. I think that's something we need to do. And he's open to it from most anybody, you know, wants to come up with some ideas that Topic can try or even if we know of some municipalities somewhere else, you know, where we've seen things now and we all have family members and we travel all over the country. There's an opportunity for us to beg, borrow, and steal maybe for some other areas. And I think that was kind of the gist of what I took away from our meeting. Thank you. Okay. Now it is the general p public comment portion. Um if you have signed up on Topeka speaks and wish to speak now

you may come up to the podium. I don't think we have any. Seeing we are going to um move on. We have one. Are there any communications? Uh just that you'll have a meeting in April. Um at least one case probably some other stuff that we can get together by then. And so yeah, we'll we'll see you in April. Okay. All right. Well, thank you very much and we are ajourned.