Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the city of Topeka planning commission meeting. We are commission appointed by the mayor and city council to plan for the orderly growth and development of the community to hold public hearings and to make recommendations to the governing body on planning items. Please note that the governing body rules state that public hearings are for planning cases shall be conducted solely by the planning commission. No additional public hearings will be conducted by the governing body. Tonight's cases are tentatively scheduled to be heard by the governing body next month. Agendas can be found at tapea.gov. Some of tonight's cases involve public hearings. For those cases, the procedures follow the procedure will be as follows. First, the planning department staff will summarize the case. Next, we will hear from the applicant or the representative. Then, we will receive public testimony. Comments are limited to four minutes. For agenda items that do not involve public hearings, 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 related to commission business provided the person has signed up on Topeka Speaks or has notified it notified staff prior to 3 p.m. today. Comments are limited to 4 minutes. Colleen, take the role, please. Can you hear me?

Colle's uh mic isn't working. Okay. So, I will take the role. Dan, you want me to take the role? Yeah, go for it. Okay. Commissioner Brooks here. Commissioner Bowling present. Commissioner Hannon here. Commissioner Heron here. Commissioner Li here. Commissioner Mock here. Commissioner Nagger

here. Commissioner Nelson here. Commissioner Pearson here. That's nine commissioners present. We certainly have a quorum. Okay, we will move on to approval of the minutes. I move to approve. I'll second. All right. Um, Mike, will you be taking the Do I need to defer to Colleen? Is her mic working or

I will do that again. Okay.

Commissioner Brooks. I, Commissioner Bowling. I Commissioner Har Hannon. I Commissioner Harren. I Commissioner Li. I Commissioner Mock. I Commissioner Nagger. I Commissioner Nelson. I Commissioner Pearson. I. Minutes approved 900. Okay. Next, we will move over to declaration of conflict of interest communications by members of the commission.

Um, it's not necessarily a conflict of interest, but my company did help with action item uh the first very action item. Um, but I have no conflict with it. Okay. Now, I did ask staff for clarification on a couple things, but I didn't we didn't discuss it. Just a clarification on some storm water comments. Okay.

All right. If no one else, we'll move into action items. First action item is P2602. Okay, all commissioners should be able to see my screen. Tell me if you cannot see my screen. I can see it. You can. Good. Yep. Good to go.

Okay. Shorty Estates number two. It's located about 150 feet east of Northwest Tyler and just south of Northwest Lyman Road in North Topeka. It's a replat of 4.4 acres of the northwest corner in the south end of Shore Estate subdivision. This plat will create 21 lots for detached single family homes with public streets and extensions of water and sanitary sewer mains. So, this might look familiar to you because in October it was on your agenda as an amendment to the plan unit development master plan for North Topic town homes. That was approved by the governing body in November 2025. That plan unit development master plan provided for residential lots meeting R2 standards. R2 is our our single family res one of our single family residential districts with some variances. Variances include reduced front setbacks for some lots and reduced side setbacks for corner lots and reduced ride ofway width for Liberty Street that's in the northwest corner of Shore Estates and Harrison Street in the southwest corner of Shore Estates. The the planning and development master plan also added some requirements that aren't normally required. to include landscape buffer, a landscape buffer on the south side of Liberty Street and minimum parking setbacks for homes without garages. The lots are are smaller than what you might typically see, but um but they do meet the the minimum size standards for the R2 zoning district. This is a preliminary plat. The preliminary plat, this image is kind of

blurry and I apologize for that. Um, but the preliminary plat shows you, if you look hard enough, you can see what the streets are going to look like. Uh, Harrison is the street in the souththeast corner of the subdivision. The rideway is going to be a little narrower. It's going to look a little different, but there are some turnarounds the at the end of those stubs. And uh the northwest corner, there's a a street with a substandard rideway, but uh there will be a landscape buffer on the south side of that street to protect the uh residents to the south. So, this is the final plat. And what you can see with this final plat is uh if you look at the cross-hatching those are storm water management easements. So the way storm water is being addressed with this subdivision plat is to uh require certain types of landscaping plants in certain parts of the yards and those are going to be in these storm water management easements but those are not detention basins. So, it's not like the yards are going to have vegetated swailes. They're just going to be a little lower than the building pad. And they'll have certain types of landscape, certain types of plantings and seedings to uh address the quality of storm water. Be happy to answer any more questions about the plaque. Uh so staff's recommendation is approval and to forward to the governing body for its acceptance of land to be dedicated for public purposes subject to the following condition of approval. Approval and acceptance of the storm water management plan prior to city council consideration of the final plat. So one thing I I will just mention is it's not unusual to not have the final approval of the storm

water management plan by the time it gets to you for a decision. The key is that is the storm water management plan as it moves forward is it going to substantially change the configuration of the lots or the easements on the in the plat. I've discussed this with Zach Stevie who is the city's storm water engineer and at this point we don't anticipate major changes. There could be some minor changes but not major changes. And with that, I'll take any questions you have. And I I want to mention that Lance Onstep with with PEC, the uh applicants consultant, is here to follow up. He can make additional comments and he can certainly answer questions you might have. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Um any questions for staff by commissioners? Mike, I had a question. um you know this was back in October or whatever we looked at this. Is there anything different about what we're seeing now than what we saw back in October? No, there's no real difference. Uh of course they back in October they didn't have a plan for dealing with storm water. So, you know, the plan didn't reflect the storm water management easements, but it's very much consistent with the with the uh PUD master plan as it was approved. Okay. Thanks.

All right. Um um if no more questions for commissioners, we'll move over to the applicant. Madam chair, commissioners, good evening. First, I got to say my wife appreciates you guys going virtual so I didn't have to drive from Witchaw all the way up there uh right in the middle of this. So, I appreciate it too, but more so my wife does. So, uh again, as Michael said, my name is Lance Onto with Professional Engineering Consultants agent on behalf of the applicant PIA Habitat for Humanity. uh both Janice Watkins and Josh Bashers from the organization are in attendance tonight as well as Hunter Wilds who's also on our PEC team. So, uh, more than what Michael presented, uh, really no substantial changes at all from the planned unit development. Uh, just further refinement. Um, as you guys know, as everyone knows, when when you try to deliver a housing product that's not necessarily thought of or envisioned in a zoning or subdivision code, you ultimately uh have to get creative. And that's where we've gotten creative in order to meet all the storm water quality and quantity requirements. U happy to elaborate any more on any of that or any other questions that you guys may have for me on the technical side, but I'm sure Janice and Josh would be more than willing to to answer any questions you guys have from uh from the owner side as well.

Thank you so much. Um any questions from the commissioners for the applicant?

Okay, Chairman Pearson. Yes. Or excuse me. Oh, I'm sorry. No, Chairman Heron. That's what I meant to say. I was looking at at the at Chairman Pearson's uh name on here. Anyway, uh I failed to mention that um Joe Harrington, who's with our public works department, is here if you have any questions about the streets or anything like that. Thank you.

All right. Thank you for that additional information. Any additional questions now that you guys have those details? All right. If not, we'll move on to public testimony. Is there any public comment? Okay. If not, we will move to discussion by commissioners. Okay. Hearing none, I will take a motion. I'd move to approve. I would second that.

Okay, we'll move towards the vote.

Commissioner Brooks. I Commissioner Bowling. Commissioner Bowling. I Commissioner Hannon. Hi, Commissioner Haron. I Commissioner Li. I Commissioner Mock. Hi, Commissioner Nagger. I Commissioner Nelson. I Commissioner Pearson. I motion passes 90.

Okay, we'll move forwards the next item. PUD2601.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to try to share my screen. All right. Can everyone see that?

Yeah. Zoom windows in the way of my Okay, there we go. All right. So, tonight I am presenting uh PUD 2601. This is uh by Nor Topeka Properties LC. Um so this is a proposal to expand their existing uh PUB at the corner of 21st and Topeka.

Um they are expanding about 3 acres immediately to the west. Um currently that land is owned by USD501. Um it's undeveloped. It's adjacent to a soccer field they have. Um and their intention is to use it as a vehicle storage lot um for outdoor storage of excess merchandise vehicles um with no customer public access just purely for vehicle storage. Um this is a photo of or this is a scan of the PUD that they applied for. Um sections A and B are existing on their current PUB master plan. They are not changing. Um section C is the portion that's being added. Um and there's a few notes on the side there. Um the ones they're not changing except for they're introducing uh this one about section C and they are specifically calling it out as a uh storage parking lot for new unused vehicles with no public access. Uh the surrounding zoning um to the north you have Stormmont Veil and the Towers Harley-Davidson development. Um, kind of to the south and to the west is land currently owned by USD501. Uh, they have some admin offices that soccer field. Um, there's also a creek and a stream buffer to the west there. Um, and then to the east of the expansion area is the existing Lner development. As far as the comprehensive plan, so this uh particular strip that they're expanding into is in an area labeled public or quasi public on the future land use map. Um current Noler development kind of straddles a commercial and public quasi public uh development. So, a storage lot, it doesn't strictly fit in uh with

what would normally be considered a quasi public use. Um, but staff, we don't really have major concerns about this um because it is an extension of a an existing development. Yeah. And then so we are recommending approval subject to the conditions in the staff report. Um, we just had a few extra notes in there to add mostly about uh landscaping. I am happy to answer any questions that commissioners have for staff. Okay. Thank you. Any questions for staff by commissioners? I had one. Yeah.

Um, so anytime that like that much pavement's going in, I guess one of the first things that crosses my mind is runoff for storms. Um, are there any particular concerns about that for this area? Yes. So, they will have to do a storm water management plan. Uh, and I know they're already thinking about that. I don't know how far into that that process they have gone, how much time they've invested, but they definitely will have to uh get signed off by our stormwater engineers.

All right. That's something that they don't have final word on, but they'll have to get approval still from staff to paint on their plan. And if they don't, then some further process at that point. Yeah, they'll they'll need approval from engineering staff um to pave that lot basically.

Right. That was it for me. Chair Nelson, Chair Herren, good lord, I'm sorry. Um, it's really near a historic district. How will it impact that district?

Yes, it is um about 500 ft uh from that historic district to the south. Uh we actually just caught a few of the homes in our neighborhood meeting uh notice actually, excuse me, sorry. So the existing Larola PUD is about 500 feet from the that historic district. Uh this one's a little further north I would estimate maybe 700 ft. U so one of the things I'm not sure is is this showing the staff report

on screen share. Okay. So, one of the things we added in uh our land in our suggested notes is uh landscaping along the south boundary of that lot specifically to address the overlook concern. Um because we did get a comment from someone who lived in that district that they were going to be able to see down and they wanted to make sure that the landscaping was going to be good. Um, and then we also have this note that I think will do something to address that. So, typically we require um parking lot islands uh within parking lots. Since this is more of a storage lot, it's a little bit of a different context. Um, so basically this note gives them the option to rather than doing interior parking lot landscaping, they can do it additional landscaping along the edge to improve the screening basically. So that's what we're thinking as far as

though I just want to make sure that it under the stack recommendation. Yes, it does sort of say that I think it will have I mean it will have some impact. I don't think it's going to be major. It's not going to be a traffic generator. Uh they're going to be required to do a lot of landscaping that I think will go a long way towards making it attractive. So it'll be attractive and sort of invisible at the same time. I think the hope is that you won't be able to see the lot too well. Yeah, that's what I want to make. Behind all the Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

You know, Madam Chair and uh Commissioner Pearson, if I could just weigh in a little bit. So, we did get that phone call from the neighbor and we went out and we, you know, we just looked at at how visible this site is from it' be Southwest 24th Street, which is the street up on the hill above the sledding hill, if you know what I'm talking about. Uh, the site's really not very visible, uh, quite honestly. Um, it's also not very visible from from, uh, 21st Street. Um, but we did feel like uh it was appropriate to recommend that there be substantial landscaping along the south side, but it's really just not very visible from any of those locations.

Okay. I just wanted to be sure. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for asking. I had a question about lighting. Um, I don't know if it's a big deal or not, but you know, is this going to be lit up like a normal dealership at night? Is that if so, does that affect the surrounding areas or anything like that? Uh, Mike, I know we've included that note on cups in the past. Is that in our zoning code or anywhere or should we?

Uh, yes. So, there's a standard in our zoning code. in the parking lot chapter and it limits the amount of light to three foot candles at the property line. Uh we don't have any details about that level of the that part of the project yet from the applicant. Uh the applicant I believe is here so if you have questions about what they plan to do they could probably answer that question. But we do have a standard and and we we don't think it's going to have much of an impact because of that standard. Thanks. All right. Any other questions?

All right. We will move on to the applicant.

Thank you. Uh madame chair, commissioners, Travis Hazelip, Cook Flat, Strobble Engineers. Uh really not a whole lot to this one. Ner has has purchased some land from their neighbor USD501. as Paul mentioned, uh, adjacent to the west and they would like to put a parking lot there. Um, it's long overdue. They'd like to use the the area to consolidate some parking storage for new and used vehicles from their other locations around town. Um we have uh spent a lot of time reviewing the staff report and are are aware of the landscape needs and the lighting uh design standards for the city of Topeka and fully prepared to address to make sure that the light doesn't bother anybody and that we have a buffer there on the south side for uh for the landscape. Um, as you can see here, it's about 3 acres. Uh, we had to amend the master PUD plan to change the zoning from M2 to C4. Uh, we've also limited that C4 use to automotive only. So, uh, it's about it. I'm happy to answer any questions if you have them.

Thank you so much. Any questions for the applicant? Okay, we will move on to public testimony. Okay, I will close a public hearing and move on to discussion uh by commissioners. Any discussion?

All right. Well, then we will move on. Does anyone have a motion? A motion to approve. Second.

Mike, do you want to take the vote? I think Colleen's going to be able to take the role. Okay. Thank you. Her audio might not be working. Still not working. Okay, I'll go ahead and take the role. Commissioner Brooks. I Commissioner Bowling. I Commissioner Hannon. Hi Commissioner Herren. I Commissioner Lally. I Commissioner Mock.

I Commissioner Nagger. I Commissioner Nelson. I Commissioner Pearson. I. Motion passes 90. All right. Great.

All right. Great. Moving on to CU262. Thank you, Madam Chair. This case is an application by Cameron Jacobs. He is requesting a conditional use. Oh, sorry about that. I forgot to share my screen, didn't I? Let me share my screen. Just a second. Oops. Hold on here. Okay. I guess you can't see that yet. Let me try something else.

We could see it in green. Oh, you could see it. Yes, we just make sure you use the PDF version of the slides. I am using the PDF version. Let me try this again.

Okay. Okay. Now that I have my screen up, um, this is a request by Cameron Jacobs. He is requesting a conditional use permit for the operation of a short-term rental type two. The property is located at 1171 Southwest Medford Avenue. The sites presently zoned R2 single family dwelling district comprises.16 acres. A short-term rental is a single family home or other dwelling offered as rental for transient gifts and typically advertised on Airbnb, Verbbo, or other online platforms. Typically, a short-term rental type two is allowed by an administrative permit if it meets the requirements in section 182210A. The reason he is applying for a conditional use permit is this property does not meet the requirement in that section that is that indicates you cannot have two short-term rentals within 500 ft of one another. On this aerial map, you will see short-term rentals by the triangles in the vicinity of the site. There is one short-term rental approximately 400 ft to the east of his property. So that is the reason he needs to get a conditional use permit by approved by the planning commission and governing body. The character of the neighborhood is single family. The zone zoning and surrounding land uses are R2 single family dwelling district. The property will maintain the appearance of a single family dwelling. There are other specific use requirements that prohibit the property from acting

within any commercial capacity such as allowing retail sales or using the home as an event facility. The base zoning of R2 will remain on the site. The properties remain zoned single family since its construction and will continue to be used as a single family residence um with the addition of being allowed as a short-term rental. The comprehensive plan says the property is a urban suburban lowdensity residential. Staff is recommending approval and I'm open for any questions that you may have. The applicant is here to take your questions as well. Thank you. Okay. Any questions for staff by commissioners?

I have a question. All right. Commissioner,

thank you. Uh and Emory, why should we ignore the 500 foot rule here? Well, one of the reasons being for that rule is to not allow uh to not allow an overconentration within the same block. The other short-term rental is on another block to the east of this street on high. So, um, staff did not feel because of the distance and the pro the short-term rental being in the next block that this was o overconentrating the area with short-term rentals.

I don't think that uh map you showed just a minute ago was in our report or I'm not finding it. The one and it's so teeny tiny. Um, so this little square, the rectangle is our property. And where's the property next to it? Where's that?

The rectangle is your subject property. The short-term rental that is within 400 ft of the site, less than 500 ft, is just to the east on High Street. So, this is High Street. Uh Medford Avenue is over here where my cursor is and that is the closest short-term rental. The reason it's such a small scale is because those other short-term rentals are quite a distance away if you measure them. Okay. So, just because it's on another block.

Yes. Yes. Staff did not feel this was overconentrating that block with short-term rentals. Okay. Thank you. Um, I have a question. I think the last time we discussed short-term rentals, those permits typically have a time limit and have to be renewed. Since this is a CPU, are we does that same rule apply? staff.

Yes, it there's a condition in the staff report that indicates it shall expire after a period of 24 months upon the date of its approval by the governing body or no soon or July 26, 2026 um whichever of those dates occurs last. So after 24 months it will expire. Thank you. Correct Mike? Yes. Do we know when the permit expires for the house on the other block? No, I do not know what the expiration date of that permit.

Is there any way to find out? Commissioner, if I could just speak up to answer your question.

Sure. Thank Thanks, Mike. So, so yeah, the what what the recommendation is is that there be a an expiration period of 24 months, but it does allow the the owner uh within 6 months from the date of that expiration and after finding that the short-term rental has and will continue to comply with all special use requirements for a short-term rental um would be granted an an additional 24-month extension. So, they c could ask for a 24-month extension, but that gives the city an opportunity to uh look and see if there have been any complaints. It's been if it's been operating properly, uh then that extension can be granted. As far as the expiration on the other one, we don't have that at our fingertips, but we can I can look up that information probably and and uh and get you that information if you need to know that. Yeah, I'm curious. I mean, it might not even be an issue if they're not even returning. So, I guess that's why I was wondering where they were in their process.

I think I might I think I might have something to offer. Um, let's say that one to the east comes up for renewal. It's not going to have to get a conditional use permit because it's within 500 if this one gets approved because this one has the conditional use permit. Is that accurate, Mike? Yeah, I would say that's accurate. So, it should be able to get approved even though this one gets approved with a CU is what I'm getting at. I'm sorry, Mike. I mean, Dan, could you clarify that statement, please?

Sure. So, they all have two-year renewals. The the fact that this one to the west of that one on high has a CUP means that it's okay to be within 400 ft of that other one. So the other one can get renewed because the other one's got a cup is what I'm getting at. The the one with the cup is satisfying the the 400 foot requirement. You know, it's it's it's got approval to be there basically. I don't think we can tell that other one, oh, sorry, you've got another one close to you now when that one got the cup is what I'm getting at. I think when it all shakes out, you'll have two here that can operate under their existing approvals. One with a CUP, one with an administrative approval if they want to keep renewing. So to answer your question, Chairman Pearson, uh the short-term rental on I that was issued September of 2025 and it will expire October 2027.

So they'll pretty much operate concurrently basically on the same timeline. Yep. More or less. That's right. All right, thanks guys. Any additional questions for staff? Okay. Uh, would the applicant applicant like to make any comments?

Um, yeah. I'm Cameron Jacobs. Um, I just like to thank everyone this evening for taking the time to do this. Um, I'm applying for a conditional use permit for my personal home at 1171 Southwest Medford Avenue. Um, I have lived here for around 10 years. Uh, my family has owned the home for over 25 years. Um, this is my only home. I don't have a large portfolio of homes or anything like that. This is my one home. Um, I'm looking to move out of state. So, I am pretty much just looking to put it into a short-term rental. That way, I have somewhere to come back to. I don't really want to rent it out long term when I come back and see family or spend time here in Topeka. I just like someplace to come back to without staying in a hotel or something. Uh, we've made a lot of improvements to the property over the past 10 years that I've lived here and will continue to do so and yeah, that's pretty much all I got. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Um, one question I actually have. Um, I know in the report you mentioned um that you planned on having family help manage the property since you'll be out of town. Is that correct?

Um, yes, that is correct. Yes, it would be my aunt and uncle. Um, they live in North Pika um just off of 46th Street. uh they are the previous owners of the home so they are very familiar with the home and anything that it would need and they're local so they could be in contact 24 hours a day if need be. All right, awesome. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant?

All right. Um we will move on to public comment. Do we have any public comment on this item? Okay, we will now close the public hearing. Any discussion from commissioners? Okay, I will take a motion. Move to approve. Second. Okay. Um, Colleen or Mike, do you want to take the vote? Yes.

Commissioner Brooks. Hi. Commissioner Bowling. I, Commissioner Hannon. I, Commissioner Herren. I, Commissioner Wallley. I Commissioner Mock. Hi, Commissioner Nagger. I Commissioner Nelson. I Commissioner Pearson. Nay, Commissioner Brooks, can you repeat? I

Okay, motion passes. 8 Z 810. Thank you. Okay, we were moving on to item four, 2007 to 2036, capital improvement program. Share my screen. Okay. So, you should be able to see my screen. Please let me know if you do not.

We got it, Mike. Excellent.

Okay. So, this item is before you. local ordinance and state law requires that in order for the city to adopt the capital improvement plan uh that uh the planning commission must make a finding that the plan is consistent with the comprehensive plan. In this report, some detail is provided for new projects. Carryover projects were deemed consistent with by the planning commission in April 2025. We did not provide much detail on those projects. The project details for new projects are included in the agenda packet. One thing we did do just for the slide presentation is to move up or excuse me to show a a project that's a carryover project, but it is significant. It's a significant carry project carryover project that is being moved up in the timeline. So this is a map that shows you uh where the projects are located. One thing I will say is all these projects are in within city limits. The the comprehensive plan, more specifically the land use and growth management plan is not very detailed about calling for infrastruct infrastructure projects. But what the the comprehensive plan does make clear is that investments in infrastructure should take place within where the city's already located within the city's boundaries and all these projects are within the city's boundaries. So staff is recommending that the planning commission finds that the proposed CIP for 2027 through 2036 is consistent with the land use and growth management plan.

So the first project that's provided in detail is the pedestrian sidewalk sidewalk project and this is for a number of segments of streets that are that are identified on this page in your report. So this project is an ADA compliant pedestrian sidewalk along Southwest McVicker from 17th to 21st Street. and includes rapid flashing beacons and crosswalks in accordance with guidelines. This project is for the construction of new traffic signal at the accessible ramps. This project is is grant supported by 1.4 million federal aid highway safety improvement funds and a 10% city split in funding of participating costs. This this uh project is a program to develop communitywide strategic comprehensive safety action plan in addition to conducting concurrent supplemental planning and demonstration activities to upgrade school zone safety infrastructure to inform future infrastructure investment. So, this is a safe streets and roads for all project and it's grant funded. This is a project to replace the existing reinforced concrete box located at Southwest 57th Street over South Shunga Creek. So, this is the slide that was added to this presentation. that's not detailed in your um report. So this is the this is a significant project in that it's a new interchange

at 29th in the turnpike something that's been in the planning for a long time. it it is in the existing CIP but it is slated for 2030 and it's being moved up or it's being recommended to be moved up from 2030 to 2027. The reason for moving up is the transit authority is willing to contribute to the project significantly and uh there are some cost savings to move it up to avoid inflation costs. and I'll take any questions you might have. Thank you. Thank you, Mike.

Any questions for staff from commissioners? I had a few. Um, so one is just a comment that I was happy to see the investment in the complete streets kind of stuff. Um, another was the plan with uh Kansas Avenue downtown that there's plans to narrow it and also to remove, am I understanding correctly, it would remove some of the like trees and stuff or what's the plan there? I can I can answer that question, Mike. Thank you.

Uh, you're talking about Kansas Avenue from 10th to 17th. Um, I was thinking that it was north of that, that it was more downtown.

Well, downtown is already has that uh the bullouts and the crosswalks. South of 10th is a project in the CIP. Now, uh we got it for uh we're awarding a contract to a consultant right now. We're we asked for proposals uh concepts for this year. So, we're going to get three concepts and we'll look at each of those. Uh it'll be something similar to the north side where you got one lane each direction and then you have some bull outs, probably some pedestrian crossing facilities. Um, so, uh, that's that's on the design for next year and then construction for the year after that. So, 2028 construction.

Okay. I was so good to know. Um, but I was talking about on the page for the document that we received, that first bullet point, it says South Kansas Avenue, 4th to 6th Street. Um, and the real thing that I'm kind of curious about is the removal of median planters. Yeah, that project belongs to Robert Bidwell. I have not heard anything about the removal of the median plant. Let let me pull this up real quick so I can look at it. I'm guessing it fourth to it was fourth to sixth. Yeah. Okay. And if that is too specific a question for what the planning commission is looking at, I also understand that. Yeah. Um, let me get let me follow up an email tomorrow with some more information on that so I can actually give you something useful here.

That'd be fine. Um, and then I was going to ask about I saw plans for DREAMS program funding. I wondered if we knew where that would be applied this year. I don't think this year's dreams funds have been allocated or awarded yet. That's still they're still in meetings and taking applicant projects, working on those projects and I have not heard of any awarded projects yet. So now they just

they've awarded Oldtown that dreams one. You probably knew that already. Yeah, I can help with that a little bit. The uh the dreams program is changed, so there won't be a specific neighborhood that was that gets awarded like Oldtown was the most recent one. So, the projects will be um applied for by each neighborhood and kind of more scattered about, not not really directed towards a particular neighborhood um like Dreams One um used to be. So, William, the the the uh the program changed. It's not going to be the same as it as it's been. Um, Dreams One isn't really uh a program any longer.

All right. And then last question was that I saw uh the last bullet point on page four is about repairing the seven city-owned parking garages. Um I didn't believe that I saw specific costs with that. It's possible I missed it, but I was wondering how much that's estimated to cost the taxpayers.

So, I think we'll have to get back with you on on that. Um because I'm not specifically sure if the parking fund is paying for that all or if there's some other money involved. Um, so we'll we'll have to get back with you some with some add some some additional information. All right. And those were all my questions, chair. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Commissioner. Any additional questions for staff?

All right. Since staff is the applicant, do I just move to public comment or did staff want to make any additional comments? I guess I I will make one comment. Um Oh,

yeah. Clearly the the CIP is a very long document. Um, in our decision to not make this overly complicated or overly dense, we we selected new projects to uh put in the memo um because the carryover projects were considered consistent in the past, but uh some of the questions that are being raised are really good questions. Um we can answer those questions. I will say that I think the time the time is important for this because it needs to go on the governing body's agenda very soon. Is that right, Dan?

Tomorrow night. Tomorrow night. Yeah. So, I just wanted to mention that um the time time is of the essence on this unfortunately, but uh we can we can get back to you with that information that you requested.

All right. Thanks, Mike. Um any public comment? Okay, I will close the public hearing and move to discussion by commissioners. Any discussion? I would just say as much as I would appreciate any uh email followup, um I also think just since it's such a tight line timeline, I encourage staff to if even just briefly to raise those flags, I think particularly however much the parking garages are going to cost to council tomorrow.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. If no discussion, I will move to a motion. A motion to approve.

Second. All right. We'll take the vote. Brooks. All right. Commissioner Bowling. I Commissioner Hannon. Hi. Commissioner Herren. I Commissioner Li. I Commissioner Mock. I Commissioner Nagger. I. Commissioner Nelson. I. Commissioner Pearson.

I. Motion passes. 900. Thank you. All right. Um, moving on to report from special committee on housing. Um, was Jim Cop in here? I don't remember seeing his name. Okay.

I don't believe he's in. So, I can give an update. Uh we just met here on the 13th. Um we discussed um some upcoming uh uh suggestions that the city will have for parking and then we did a recap um from the public hearing um that policy and finance committee had um in regards to our duplex um tax amendment. And so those are really the topics. I know we will be meeting in June um to talk with some manufacturing companies just about um anything that we can do to help manufactured um housing um become more available um and just to kind of understand a little bit more about the industry. Um does anyone else from the committee have any additional things they'd like to add? Did I have missed anything? That was great.

Okay. Awesome. Well, I will move on to general public comment. Is there anyone that had any public comment? Okay, we will close the public hearing and then move on to communications to the commission. Uh, commissioners. So, just a couple things from staff. The um there will be a meeting in June. We'll have a at least one or two action items I believe, but also we will bring the park the off- streetet parking text amendment um as a discussion items strictly. So, um, we're we're essentially going to kick that off with the commission and after that have, you know, some more kind of public meetings. Um, parking is a little bit of a dry topic. So, it'll be probably more um, you know, developer um, builder type conversations and with some neighborhood um, you know, put in there somewhere too. So, um, just a, you know, just again just a discussion to kind of kick off the text amendment with the planning commission next month. Um, and then one one more thing. Um, I yeah, we haven't met since this. So, the the the Koopi case on uh South East 25th Street, you may remember that reszoning uh request where you had some folks show up and and testify on that item. Um it did get it did go through a couple different governing body meetings and did get approved by the governing body. So, that that zoning case was approved. Um

so, with that, commissioners, that's that's all I have. All right. Awesome. Um, Dan, I know we talked about this a little bit on our recap uh with the policy and finance committee. Um, but I think it'd be good for us to kind of for me to ask the question. Um, as far as the zoning case, I know we had the public hearing with policy and finance. Will they be reviewing it again at their next meeting?

Commissioner, I'm not exactly sure about that. I don't know. I haven't seen the agenda for policy and finance yet. So, I guess I don't have a a great answer at this point. Um, you know, once once I kind of figure once we kind of figure out where it's at, we'll let everybody know. Okay. Yes. If we could just be notified um just because I would like to know when it does go to city council. Um, and yep, I don't have anything else. So, we are I have a quick question. Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. No worries. Um, I just wondered, we haven't had any updates on the land use and growth manage management plan revision lately. How are we doing on that?

That is correct, Commissioner. I think the plan is to I know we have it fairly buttoned up at this point. Um, you know, we're we're past some of our housing related text amendments now. So, I think, you know, we've got a little more time to work on it. I think we're pretty close to bringing something back for a discussion um either in June or or possibly July with some action. So, yeah, we we've been working on it behind the scenes, but haven't really had a chance to bring it back yet. Okay. Just curious. Thank you. Nothing else. We are adjourned. Thank you everybody.