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 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 the public hearing 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 Topeka.gov. Some of tonight's cases involve public hearings. For those cases, the procedures are as follows. First, planning department staff will summarize the case. Next, we will hear from the applicant or the representatives. Then, we will receive public testimony. Comments are limited to four minutes. For agenda items that do not involve public hearing, public comment is allowed, provided that 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 comment regarding matters relating to commission business, provided that the person has signed up on Topeka Speaks or notified staff prior to 3 p.m. today. Comments are limited to four minutes. Colleen, can you take the roll, please?

Yes. Mr. Lawley?

Here.

Ms. Nelson? Here. Ms. Heron? Here. Mr. Brooks? Here. Mr. Bolling? Here. Mr. Nager?

Here.

Ms. Pearson?

Here.

And Ms. Hannon? Here.

Okay. We'll move on to approval of the minutes.

Make a motion to approve the minutes. I'll second.

All right. We'll move to the vote. Mr. Brooks.

Abstain.

Mr. Boland.

Aye.

Ms. Hannon. Aye. Ms. Heron. Aye. Mr. Lawley.

Abstain.

Mr. Nager.

Abstain.

Ms. Nelson. Aye. Ms. Pearson.

Aye.

And the vote passes, the meetings pass, minutes pass, excuse me, 5-0-3. Okay.

We'll move on to declaration of conflict of interest, ex parte communications by members of the commission. Seeing that there's none, we'll move on to action items. The first action item is PUD 2605, Topeka Bible Church. Mike, we'll move to you.

Yes, Topeka Bible Church is an application for rezoning, planned unit development zoning. Ann Marie Driver is the staff person that has written the staff report, and she'll be making a presentation on this item.

Thank you. This is case number PUD 2605. It is an application and request to rezone property from R2 single family dwelling district to PUD plan unit development for R2 single family and ONI2 office and institutional uses. The property is located at 1135 Southwest College Avenue. The entire site comprises 3.66 acres. The current use contains a 131,000 square foot building that was constructed near 1914 and was used as a nursing home until the year 2000. In 2001, a portion of the building was repurposed for a church sanctuary and other religious accessory uses and has been used partially as a church since that time. This applicant, Topeka Bible Church, has requested to use approximately 35,532 square feet of the building that's currently vacant and not being used for a medical clinic, specifically prenatal and postnatal care. The overall character of the neighborhood is single-family dwellings. However, to the east, there's large institutional uses, which includes another sanctuary of Topeka Bible Church, parking lots used by Topeka Bible Church, and an elementary school. The surrounding zoning is R2, single-family dwelling district, and M1, two-family dwelling district, but contains single-family dwellings to the northwest and south. The parking lots to the east have an existing conditional use permit. The property is located within the Elmhurst neighborhood planning area. That plan was adopted in 2001. At that time, there was a proposal for medium density residential, so the The property was designated medium density. That proposal never materialized. So although this project isn't directly in alignment with the plan, it is in alignment with the new land use and growth management plan that encourages reuse and preservation of existing buildings. An important note is that they are reusing the existing building. They're not making any exterior modifications to change the character of the building. This is a copy, this is a PUD plan graphic. Proposed area one is on the south side of the building and that's where the medical clinic will be off of Mulvane and College. The rest of the building is shown as area one on the PUD master plan and that will continue to be used as the church. Parking is to the east of there on the opposing blocks. The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting. Approximately 10 people attended the meeting. The major question that arose was related to some confusion the neighborhood had that they thought their own properties were being rezoned. When they realized they were not being rezoned, they didn't have any opposition to this project. Staff is supportive of the proposal, recommends approval. It's subject to the two conditions in the staff report, and I am open for questions that you may have. Thank you.

Any questions for staff by commissioners? Commissioner Pearson?

I just have one question, and it's just really I don't know the answer to it. Is this building on the register?

No, it's not.

Oh. OK. Thanks.

Any other questions for staff? All right. We'll move on to the up-hand presentation.

Good evening, Madam Chair. Kevin Holland, Cook, Flatt, and Strobel engineers here to represent Topeka Bible Church. We have the pastor as well as their attorney. And that can add any insight, answer any questions or whatnot. But I think a great project here in Topeka to reuse an existing facility, especially during off-peak hours that the facility is being used for right now. But I'm here to entertain any questions.

All right. Any questions for the applicant?

So this will be some sort of clinic?

Pre and postnatal care.

Will there be doctors housed at this clinic?

There will be potential doctors as needed at this clinic.

I don't quite know what that means.

It means they'll have doctors available for at certain times of the week for basically prenatal care to come in and for women to come in that are pregnant and receive prenatal care and go through that.

So those doctors will have their practice primarily outside of this location?

Potentially. We don't have a firm direction of who's going to come in and fill the space at this point, and the project's unfunded by the church at this point. Once those details come in, in a perfect world, we'll have a Monday through Friday clinic at some point with staff available. But I don't believe the details are quite firmed up yet just because we don't have that service provider signed on the dotted line yet.

And then the total square footage of the building is 100-something thousand square feet? Correct, and this is 35. All right, 35. Is there an anticipated number of, I guess, clients?

In reality, any time between, I believe, the hours of 8 and 5, hopefully 30. We have car parking for 50, so hopefully 50. But I think you have changeover and whatnot as well. So typically in a clinic... You can think about an hour-long clinical visit and how many they're going to have office space and this and that. But once it's up and running, the availability to provide 50 parking stalls, but I guess with crossover, that's probably more like 30 patients.

All right. And then the patients, whenever they do come in for an appointment, are they going to be receiving health check-ins for themselves? Are they going to be receiving ultrasounds? What services are typical?

I believe it's just, and sorry, I don't have quite the details. It's pre- and postnatal care. But I think they're going to be getting health checks, make sure if they need whatever... prescriptions, healthcare checks or whatever it is, ultrasounds potentially. Um, it's not going to be a birthing clinic per se, so we're, it's not going to be giving birth there, but it's more consultation on that pre and postnatal care.

And for prenatal care, is that including, um, any fertility issues or is that post conception or

I believe it's, as at least we have in there, it's pre-care, which I would assume most likely post-conception.

All right. Any services for things like miscarriages?

From the mental health side, I guess? I guess I'm not quite sure of the questioning.

But whenever a woman goes through a miscarriage, there are certain health aspects that she needs treated. This is a health clinic.

And I believe they do have post-birthing opportunities there. So I would assume that's potentially part of that. Again, I don't know that the details are completely ironed out because we don't have that provider signed up. But I would assume that falls under post-birth services.

that helping someone through a miscarriage would be a post-birth service? I believe so. And then postnatal care, how old does the infant get? Is that a month, a year?

I hate to use the term as needed, but I don't know for sure. Yeah, like I said, I don't have heavy specifics on what that means, but it's probably a mother that has a child and comes in for her checkup or health at that point, but I'm not sure of what the overall time frame would consist of.

And then I think you said maybe ideally that you'd get around maybe 30 visitors a day, although that might be a bit of a reach goal, but possible. Are there other examples of churches doing services like this that we can look to as parallels?

I don't have a specific church. Not here in Topeka is what the answer would be. All right. Thank you.

All right. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on to public comment. All right. We'll move to discussion by commissioners. Any discussion? Okay, hearing none, I will take a motion.

I would make a motion to approve.

Second.

All right.

Colleen? Okay, Mr. Brooks?

Aye.

Mr. Bolling?

Aye.

Ms. Hannon? Aye. Ms. Aron? Aye. Mr. Lawley?

Aye.

Mr. Nager?

Nay.

Ms. Nelson? Aye. Ms. Pearson?

Aye.

Motion passes 7-1-0. All right.

Moving on to Z2607. Mike, I'll pass it over to you.

Yes. This is an application for rezoning property, rezoning from R2 to M1 to accommodate the conversion of the existing residence. to a duplex. As you might know, if someone wants to convert a home to a duplex in R1 or R2 zoning, they are required to obtain approval of a rezone. And this is an interesting case because I don't recall us ever rezoning or entertaining a rezone just for one property from R2 to M1. And so this makes this kind of an interesting case for that reason. Ann Marie Driver wrote the staff report, did the analysis, managed the case, and so she'll be presenting the staff report.

Thank you. This is an application by Alicia Greco Carrasco. The application and request proposes a rezoning from the R2 single-family dwelling district to the M1 two-family dwelling district. The property is at 1035 Northeast Monroe Street. The entire property comprises 0.2 acres. The existing use is a single-family house that is currently vacant and has been vacant for some time. When it was used, it was last used as a boarding house or a group home of some type for those with mental disabilities is what we found. The building, though, has remained vacant for some time, at least since 2011 or longer. The proposed use is that of an upstairs-downstairs duplex. Here is the house. The applicants indicated no exterior changes will be made to modify the exterior of the house. There is an existing staircase attached to the side, which will be used to access the upper story unit. This is a single-family dwelling. The properties surrounding this property are single-family dwellings, and the area is zoned R2, single-family dwelling district. The property is within the historic North Topeka East neighborhood plan. The neighborhood plan designates this area for low-density traditional land uses. Proposed densities are at five to seven dwelling units per acre. However, additionally, the housing study does support the city need for missing middle housing, as well as reinvestment in existing single family homes, which this proposal does fulfill those needs. An important note is the proposal does not alter the exterior character of the single family dwelling building. As I mentioned, it uses an existing exterior staircase to access the second floor unit. staff is recommending approval. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting. There were two nearby residents at that meeting and they both expressed support. Additionally, I just got an email from the owner of properties at 1025 and 1030 Northeast Monroe who has no objections to the rezoning. i am open for any questions that you may have thank you any questions for staff by commissioners commissioner pearson do we have an image of the side of the house that has the staircase i do not have a photo of that side it will be rebuilt though oh it's going to be it's going to be rebuilt oh so it's on the yeah it's on the um west side or sorry it's on the south side of the house

Okay, so it's there.

Yes, it's on the south side of the house. The view is taken from Northeast Monroe, so it would be over there to the left side of that photo.

And it falls in compliance with all the other... Yes, it does. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Any other questions for staff? Commissioner Nigger?

A little broader than the specific proposal, but this is the kind of thing that potentially could get moved through if the governing body approves the changes for duplexes and single-family zoning. Is that correct?

If the... text amendment that was recommended by the Planning Commission, which would allow a duplex in an R2 district as a conditional use permit. If that was approved, the applicant would have the opportunity to apply for a conditional use permit, and staff probably would have advised them to do that rather than apply for a rezoning.

And if that process did exist in law now, they would still go through that neighborhood meeting, they'd still go through the planning commission, through public comment here, and through the city council? That is correct.

I think the key difference is that a conditional use permit can tie it to a specific development plan. So keep in mind that in a rezoned straight M1 zoning, it's not tied to a specific development plan. They're allowed whatever they're allowed to do in M1. Clearly, they've already started working on the building. They are renovating the building, and that's their desire, and we have no question that that's what they're going to continue to try to do. But that's the key difference between the conditional use permit and the rezoning.

So if this goes through, it would actually in some ways be a bit looser than the proposal?

Yes, there's nothing holding this building to being kept in its current state.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. We will move to the applicant presentation. Is the applicant present?

Hello. How are you? My name is Joe Rivera. I'm the representative of the family Rivera-Huereca and Natural Holdings from Wisconsin. And we've been working on this property for a little bit. And we've been having the support from most of the of the neighbors, and I don't know if any one of you have any questions for me, guys.

All right. Any questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. We will move to public testimony. Any public comment? Okay. We will move to discussion by commissioners. Any discussion? And if no discussion, I will take a vote. Or a motion, excuse me.

Move to approve.

Second. All right. Call in when you're ready.

Mr. Brooks? Aye. Mr. Bolling? Aye. Ms. Hannon?

Aye.

Ms. Heron? Aye. Mr. Lawley?

Aye.

Mr. Nager?

Aye.

Ms. Nilsen? Aye. Ms. Pearson? Aye. Motion passes 8-0-0. All right.

Moving on to PUD 2606 by Brennan Havarti. Mike, I'll hand it to you.

OK. This is a bit of an unusual situation. The property is currently zoned as planning and development, and it allows this type of land use without any modification of that PUD. The PUD was zoned that way a long time ago. So there's not a lot of detail to it. It's not a typical master plan that we have today. But because they wanted to reduce the setback from what's required by the zoning, what's required on the side, in this case the east side, is 10 feet. The way to accomplish that is through an amendment to the PUD. The amendment itself, other than the variance issue, is really a minor issue. So this is going to be processed as a minor PUD amendment. It doesn't go through a full rezoning process because it's really pretty minor. But the Planning Commission is solely responsible or has sole authority over granting variances to setbacks as part of a PUD plan. In this case, it's not a variance that has to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals because it can be done by PUD. And that's the simplest way to do it in this case. And so specifically, this is a request to reduce the building setback on the east property line from 10 feet to 8 feet. The required minimum building setbacks under C4 zoning are 25 feet front, 25 feet rear, 10 feet on an interior side, and 25 feet from the side adjoining a street right-of-way. The Planning Commission has the authority, as I mentioned before, to grant variances under the circumstances per Section 1819080. This does not have to go to the governing body. The zoning code is very explicit in saying that you have sole authority over that decision. So recommendation, staff's recommending approval. Much of the property is covered by the 100-year floodplain. So in that map on the screen, that blue area is the 100-year floodplain. The red cross-etched area is the floodway. The orange area is the 500-year floodplain, which is there's no regulations associated with the 500-year floodplain. There are with the 100-year floodplain. Building in the 100-year floodplain is not prohibited. But it does require elevation of the floor of the building, of the first floor of the building, and results in an unnecessary hardship to the owner. In some cases, they have to add fill. It's just a lot that has to be done. And the easier way of accomplishing this is by reducing the setback. The requested variance satisfies paragraph B in the code. because the full 10-foot building setback would impose a practical difficulty and be an undue hardship on the owner and developer. The two-foot reduction in the setback is so minimal as to have no negative effect on the adjacent property or the general public. Go to the next slide. So the image on the left is without the variance. It says below a 10-foot setback, but I noticed on the site plan it does say 12. Regardless, the 10-foot setback requires that it encroaches on the floodplain just enough that it requires that special construction requirement and a floodplain development permit. The image on the right shows what it would be like with the reduced setback. As you can see, it's hardly noticeable And this gives you a better idea. So this is what the site looks like, at least looked like a year ago. And the property is on the left. The adjacent property is on the right. It shows you where the property line is. So if this is approved, the new building will be built so it's eight feet from that property line. That's an estimate of where the property line is, but I think that's fairly accurate. So one thing I didn't mention in just, it's in the report, but this is being done so the site can be redeveloped. It was at Denny's. Denny's is no longer there, obviously. And the developer who is here tonight is developing or working with a tire store that's a large company operating mostly in the western states to redevelop the site and put in a tire shop. And with that, I'll take any questions you have.

Was the 10-foot there for traffic? I mean, why was that magic number there?

It's been that way for a very long time. So I don't know where that number comes from. It's a pretty substantial setback, but that's what is required for all of the C districts, all the C commercial districts, is that 10-foot side setback.

And if we do this amendment, does that amend everything that falls under this for everybody? No. Just this particular...

It's just for this project. Okay. You're making a finding for that specific project. Okay. There is a motion. There's an explanation and a motion in this memo to you to help you make that finding, that decision.

Commissioner Brooks?

So I'm trying to... headed my head one way and now I'm thinking it might be different, but the setback area, is that just going to be grass or is that going to be like a drive around?

Is it just going to be yard? I believe it's going to be just yard, turf. This site plan has not been approved in detail yet, but... The way it's designed, all the loading is on the west side. And the applicant is here, and he can answer that question, I'm sure. Sounds good. Thanks.

Any other questions for staff? Do you happen to know how much fill was going to be required?

I do not know the answer to that question.

And then it looks like either option, there's also an encroachment on an easement for stormwater. Is that correct? That 16-foot public improvement easement. And it looks like it shows up on both site plans down in the southeast corner.

Let me take a look at this.

Is that okay?

Go ahead and come up.

Appreciate everyone having me. Brandon Haverty. Shows 115. That's the entity we own the property under, but we're with ReCore Properties. We've done a lot of projects here in Topeka and appreciate you guys having us here. Here again is Mr. Hall and his thorough report. We... That was very astute, the comment there about the stormwater easement there. We are in the process of working through a new amendment to that as well. And it's incorrectly done. If you look where the actual storm line is, it's not centered around the easement. So we actually have a new legal description that we're working through the city on a different part. It doesn't have to go to planning commissions, my understanding. But that would be a sole separate approval. But yes, it would be. The building would touch it. And as you can see on the... On the rendering here, how much we struggled with that floodplain. So it's kind of arbitrary how FEMA comes up with these on a site like this. And I think it's done from a very high aerial and how it works out. But because of where the floodplain comes on the south end, on the north end, we could not fit it in without going to the eight foot on the side yard setback. And then we are going to have to adjust that easement. But it's incorrect that easement is done. We're not asking for the stormwater to be moved at all. It just has to be centered. So if any other questions, I'd be open.

Did you know how much fill was going to be required?

So we have to be one foot above the base flood elevation. And that's different city by city. Topeka is one foot. So that's just around the building envelope, but obviously for ADA standards and all the other things, it's a lot more fill. Honestly, the cost of it is one thing. The real problem for us though, is dealing with FEMA after the fact, because we can't get that declaration or confirmation until we've already poured the slab. And then we're up at FEMA's wins in terms of, and I think anyone can see, if you look at that, that plan, it's, You know? I'm not sure I agree with this 100-year flood plan. No one's going to listen to me perfectly saying that. So there is a cost associated with it, but it is very burdensome. We've had to do this in other areas where it's far more significant than this. We've had to raise multiple feet. It's a six to 12-month process with FEMA to get that all worked out, and it's very time sensitive. And so our hope was, taking a side yard setback from 10 to 8, and the main entity that would be you know impacted by this as the days in owner to say they would be excited about this denny's being torn down a new building would be an understatement we have dealt with some homeless encampments and that's you know we did the raising cadence deal across the street when it was a steak and shake we dealt with a whole lot of that and i couldn't even tell how many times we've had to get those sites cleared so for us you know there's i think there's obviously a you know we want to speed things along timing, but I think the ask for what potentially the benefits are, you know, to the community and clearing up, you know, really a very vibrant spot there of Wanamaker and 470. The site has this challenge that I think we've worked through that, you know, we'd appreciate the consideration.

So do you have a specific number and like even a range?

40 grand probably. Okay.

Thank you. Commissioner Burke.

So I'm just kind of probably a dumb question, but in my mind that line is just, it's arbitrary, like you said. I mean, it's an elevation. It's following the elevation. So why can't, does it have to be that? I mean, can FEMA change that? Or I'm just curious, and I know that's not likely a good option, but do you understand there's an option there?

Yeah, we've never had any success with that. As you can imagine with FEMA, we don't have a number to call. It is something you submit. You hear back eight weeks. Via regular mail?

Yeah.

And then it's the same thing again. So in terms of with FEMA, why is that in the 100-year floodplain right there? I mean, it's very arbitrary how that works. When we first got the survey, we were like, how do you come up with that? And I don't think they could probably answer how that came up with, but it's something we have to deal with for insurance purposes because it creates a whole line of things that we, frankly, have no control over. Interesting.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions? Commissioner Nigger?

Am I understanding correctly that the difference between the initial plan versus the plan, if this were to be approved, is basically the same dimensions of the building, but it would just be scooted two feet to the east? Correct. All right. That's it.

All right. Awesome. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your time.

All right. Moving to public testimony. Okay. Any additional discussion by commissioners?

Okay.

I will move towards the motion.

Motion to approve. Seconded.

All right.

We'll take the vote. Mr. Brooks? Aye. Mr. Bolling? Aye. Ms. Hannon? Aye. Ms. Heron? Aye. Mr. Lawley?

Aye.

Mr. Nager?

Aye.

Ms. Nelson? Aye. Ms. Pearson? Aye. Motion passes 8-0-0. Okay.

We will move on to discussion items, starting with CPA 2601. Mike, is this?

Yeah, I'll introduce this. So I want to introduce our neighborhood planner, Gerardo Munoz Camacho. Hi. You know, we started working with the neighborhood on this neighborhood plan over a year ago. The plan was put on pause for various reasons. And since that time, Gerardo came to work for the city. I think it was October, something like that. September. September. And he has worked diligently to move this along. And it's been quite a lot of work in the last few months. And so now we're at a point where he can present this to you. And remember, it's just for discussion. But a public hearing has been advertised and published and noticed. For August, right?

Yes, August 17th.

So with that, I'll turn it over to Gerardo.

Thank you, Mike. This is just an introduction presentation for the Old Town Neighborhood Plan. So this is a Dreams 1 funded plan. Dreams 1 was awarded in March of 2025 after they applied for it. And what comes to Dreams 1 is $1.4 million in infrastructure money, as well as $330,000 in housing rehabilitation funds and public utility improvement of $150,000. The general timeline for this would be 2026, create or update the neighborhood plan. 2027, city engineers will work on the design of the projects. And finally, 2028, implementation. The thing to note is that Dreams 1 is no longer a component of Dreams. It has been renamed. So more detailed planning process. We kicked off with the neighborhood-wide meeting on May 1st, 2025. At the kickoff meeting, we had roughly 20 members of the neighborhood and other parties that were interested as well in attendance. Our last planning committee meeting on June 17th with our final neighborhood meeting scheduled for July 23rd will represent the finished plan then. The boundaries of the neighborhood are Southwest 6th Avenue to the north, Southwest Summit to the west, Southwest 10th to the south, and Topeka Boulevard to the east. The neighborhood is surrounded by Downtown Topeka to the east, Elmhurst, Tennessee Town, and Historic Holiday Park to the south, Central neighborhood to the west, and Ward Mead to the north. The first neighborhood plan for Old Town was first adopted in 2003. The updated plan makes appropriate changes to the sections identified here, as well as adding a neighborhood profile and making that distinction from neighborhood data. Some brief history. It was home to Governor's Row back in 1900s. The West Side 900 block has been referred to as Governor's Borough and was home to the Kansas governors from 1901 to 1962. The property was then demolished in 1965. It is home to ten historic parcels as well as nine local landmarks with Topeka High being one of them. The 2023 neighborhood health map has three block groups labeled there. The residential areas, the majority of the residential areas within their hood are in the middle and a little to the east in block group 5-1. The east side, most east side, is office and commercial with some multifamily uses. Between Summit and College Avenue, there's more residential uses as well. What you see is that we have a mixture of outpatient intensive care and at-risk. For the 2023 health map, We have five vital signs that go into the final health score. They are percent of persons below poverty, part one crimes per 100, average residential property values, single family home, ownership, and boarded and unsafe structures. When we are looking at the vital signs, a few to look at that likely have the largest impact are the number of persons below poverty, which affects two block groups, and the part one crime. It should be noted that the poverty information came from the American Community Survey's five-year estimates for the block groups, and that may explain some of the huge variation in numbers. The at-risk block group related to crime is near the hospital within Old Town. For these next four slides, we will be looking at the current conditions of housing, owner-occupancy, crime, and infrastructure. Where maps are included from the 2003 plan, that map will be shown as well. Average property values for single-family homes have increased in value by 123%. Currently, single-family homes make up 36% of all housing stock compared to 29% in 2003. Additionally, there was 1,800 deficiencies found in the neighborhood, but 65% of those were minor. At the time of collecting the data, 47% of all single-family residential properties were owner-occupied. This was a decrease of 14% from the 2003 plan where the neighborhood was found to be at 61% when they're occupied. Part one crimes can be defined as murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and theft. The biggest takeaway for crime statistics are that they tend to be located in pockets around the hospital and commercial areas. 17% of these crimes occurred at the hospital or satellite offices. 23% occurred in multifamily properties, and 19% occurred in the commercial areas along 6th Avenue, Southwest Topeka Boulevard, and Southwest 10th Avenue. It should be noted that when talking to the plan committee, they indicated that this was not a true representation of actual crime. For infrastructure conditions, the scores include pavement, condition, sidewalk, curb, and gutter scores. Additionally, much of the neighborhood features historic infrastructure consisting of brick sidewalks and streets. A significant portion of the historic infrastructure needs repair. The brick sidewalks have settled and are no longer ADA compliant, for example. It does also have a mixture of modern and historic. Future land use is changing slightly to support commercial mixed use and residential uses in the neighborhood with the area around Topeka Boulevard, along Topeka Boulevard, to be classified as mixed use commercial as well as adding commercial residential to the southwest corner and office residential in the middle, that green area to the south. A new aspect to neighborhood plans is economic development. With the help of Leah Bowling, we are looking at ways to promote vacant parcels within the neighborhood. And those have been identified as different in different ways. For example, a vacant as in it is currently no use or a adjoining property to a house. In the past, we did not have an economic development section. but this is a way to try and support local businesses, expand access to essential goods and services, activate that vacant land, and improve accessibility within the neighborhood. The goals of the plan are to engage community members of historical town to attain community buy-in, improve and stabilize the housing conditions of the single-family homes, address infrastructure issues, and layout infrastructure projects for now and the future, and increase the quality of housing stock and provide for more owner-occupied housing. Next steps would be to receive public comment on the plan in August, hold the final neighborhood-wide meeting later this week on the 23rd, planning commission public hearing in August, and then a tentative schedule for September for city council. Thank you. Can I answer any questions?

Thank you. Commissioner Pearson?

There's been at least one formal historic resources survey and then a second informal historic resources survey done by a Washburn class. Has that been incorporated into this? And will any money be directed to historic preservation?

To my knowledge, it is not.

I'll go backwards with the questions. The answer is no, there won't be any money dedicated for historic preservation. I guess I don't know, Gerardo, for sure if we included the results from that most recent survey in the neighborhood plan. That's something if we haven't, we could do that. Does that answer the question?

It's helpful, yes. And hopefully, yes, you could. I mean, it is the oldest section of the town. Yes. And it's hard to imagine that only 11 parcels have been identified in the oldest section of the town. So I would hope that you could have something related to historic preservation within the county. And you can give CBDG money directed toward historic preservation as well. It's something to consider, especially if you're trying to revitalize some of the housing and some of the buildings. Historic tax credits.

Right, yes.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

I did have a question on the economic development piece. You all had mentioned providing opportunities to activate some of the vacant lots. Is some of that going to be in conjunction with the land bank, or is there a plan being put together around what that will look like?

I believe so. I am not as informed as Leah Bollinger, Economic Development Director, but from my understanding, yes, that is one of the aspects of the plan.

Okay. All right. Awesome. Thank you. All right. Great job. Thank you. Any other discussion before we move on to the next? We will move to text amendments to the zoning code, chapters 1855 and 18.60.

OK, so I'm going to be presenting some slides to you on some text amendments. And I'll get to that in a minute. OK, so tonight what we're asking you to do is consider what we're presenting to you and provide direction to staff to initiate the process preparing text amendments and scheduling a public hearing and moving forward. And so you will be asked to make a motion at the end of this presentation. So the text amendments we've identified, they do not cover the entire zoning code. They cover about three chapters, maybe four chapters. Definitions, land use tables and dimensional requirements, special use requirements, and amendments to comply with Senate Bill 418, which I'll explain in a few minutes. There may be other related chapters and sections of the zoning code that are highly related to these, and those would be added as well. But I think the point here is it's not a comprehensive rewrite or update to the entire zoning code. The land uses affected by this would be data centers, and energy storage systems, manufactured and modular homes, single-family residential in Senate Bill 418, indoor recreation, self-storage, also known as mini-storage, uses in the D3 district, residential accessory structures, and there are some other probably less prominent parts that would be part of these amendments. So I think the question for the Planning Commission is really, what questions do you want answered before you consider proposed tax amendments after this? And if you can tell us that, then we will get you answers to those questions. There's a lot here. It covers a broad range. Some of these are probably going to be of more interest to you than others. And so that's a good question to ask yourself. So one thing I want to mention, the governing body on July 14th passed a moratorium on data centers. And what that does is it means that the city for the next 12 months or until that ordinance is repealed may not take any applications, review any proposals for data centers. That moratorium gives the city some time to examine them in greater detail and learn more about them and then be prepared at some point to amend the zoning code and to address other issues. One thing I'll mention about data centers is that a lot of the issues that arise aren't really zoning specific. A lot of them have to do with utilities and use of water, use of electricity. and so on. So what is a data center? A data center is a facility that houses computer system servers and network equipment used to store, manage, process, and distribute digital information. A data center supports users of websites, streaming content, apps, and cloud-based services. So one thing I failed to mention, I printed out the slide show that was presented by the Economic Development Director on July 7 before the moratorium was passed. And it provides a pretty good overview, and that's why I printed it. Rather than try to incorporate all that information in these slides, I thought I would just print that for you. So that's a good, if you just want to glance at something that's pretty easy to read, honestly, it's all in bullet points, that's a pretty good resource. Data center issues, utility usage, water, sanitary, sewer, and power, land requirements, noise, aesthetics. So one thing I'll mention about, I'll mention this later, I'll cover that later, in a few minutes. So one thing that is kind of missing, it seems like, from a lot of the dialogue about data centers is there are a variety of sizes, scales, and purposes of data centers. A data center, by definition, could be a server room. Server room for any large organization really functions as a data center. And they don't cover a lot of area. There can be a micro data center, a very small data center, an edge data center. And so that is something that's provided for, it could be for a an offsite user that needs that capability. And what low latency means, if you don't know, I didn't know until probably two weeks ago, that just means it's quick. It provides quick service. So it's important in that case for the data center to be located close to the user. So now we're getting into the larger data centers. So there's still a fairly small data center, a small enterprise data center, 5,000 to 50,000 square feet, and hosts up to 2,000 servers. One and a half to 10 acre foot site size. One thing I'll mention too, with a data center, when you're starting to get to this scale, you'll have the servers inside of a building. And outside the building, you'll have the cooling apparatus, and you'll have backup generators. So a lot of times if you look at the plan view of a data center or just a picture of a data center, that's what you'll see. You'll see a big building, it's like an industrial building, and then you'll see this equipment outside the building. Mid-sized data center can be for enterprise or co-location. So enterprise means it's for one user. Co-location means it's a big facility, or it doesn't necessarily have to be a huge facility, but it's a facility that leases space to different users and has a bunch of tenants with their server racks in the data center. And there are a handful of these in the Kansas City metro area. A handful, probably five or fewer. There may be more, but that's what I know. So these typically use 5 to 20 megawatts of power. Big energy user. Hyperscale data center is, in my opinion, or what I observe, the biggest concern is for hyperscale data centers. These are very large facilities, 500,000 square feet or greater, occupy 100 acres or more for buildings, cooling equipment, generators, 50 megawatts of power or more at their peak. Some of these are 3 million square feet. There can be 3 million square feet. There are some that are in the Midwest that are over a million square feet. And I'll show you a couple examples. Okay, so this is a small edge data center. This is at Papillion, Nebraska, which is a suburb of Omaha. And this is a fairly small facility, 4 megawatts of power, 21,000 square feet or 22,000 square feet. One thing that's noticeable about this is This is what it looks like on the right. What you can't see in this photo very well, you can see it in the overhead view, the aerial, are the equipment outside the building. So in this case, the equipment is on the north side of the building. What you'll see is that this is in an area of professional medical and dental offices, and it looks like it's kind of semi-industrial kind of office environment. So this is a data center that's not very far from us. This one's in Shawnee, Kansas, in Johnson County, Kansas. This is a co-location facility, and it's 176,000 square feet. So there's another one in Johnson County that is roughly 100,000 square feet. And the other one, not so much this one, but the other one, it looks like it's just part of an industrial park. This one kind of does too, but that gives you an idea of what some of these look like. So this is a very large one. This might be the largest one in the Midwest right now. This is the Google Data Center in Pryor, Oklahoma. It's a hyperscale center, 1.4 million square feet. And what you can see on the left, you can see the big building. You can see the cooling equipment on the outside along with the backup generators. So I'm going to explain. I don't think it's on any of these other slides. But the data center, the biggest concern or one of the biggest concerns has been water consumption. Data centers used to rely more on a lot of water. They did not have closed loop systems. The ones that are being brought online now tend to have closed loop systems. So think of how your car is cooled. You have a closed loop system. It uses water that's recirculated and uses glycol, coolant antifreeze, as a cooling agent. And so it does not require a lot of water. They do require a lot of power. And I'm not an expert on power. There are a lot of industrial users that require a lot of power, but these do require a lot of power. I'd say there are other industrial uses that require a lot more water than this. One thing I'll just emphasize again, we don't know all the answers right now. This is what we know today. This is what we're learning. I attended a planning summit put on by Kansas Municipal Utilities last week. And there was a lot of discussion about it, about different things. And what was kind of difficult was I heard things that sounded like they were conflicting. I wasn't quite sure. So I wasn't able to parse out all the answers to things like, how many high-pay employees are there per data center? The other thing about data center, this is probably not hard to imagine, is they don't employ a lot of people. They also don't require a lot of truck traffic. If there is a concern, probably that's legitimate when it comes to zoning, it could be noise. We still don't know that much about how much noise the large ones put out. But noise can be regulated by decibel levels. It could be a little more complex than that. There are low frequency noise maybe that a decibel meter is not going to pick up. I'm not a noise expert, but these are some of the questions we need to answer. Okay, so along with this, related but not the same thing is something called an energy storage system. An energy storage system is a facility that captures energy produced at one time and stores it for use at a later time. It includes but is not limited to electrochemical, which is a battery system, mechanical, thermochemical, or electromagnetic systems. This is Shawnee County's definition. So I have had somebody ask me about putting in a battery energy storage system. They were just asking questions. They didn't have a real project at the time, but I had never heard of it before. This was probably a year ago. It wasn't a real application or anything like that. It was just a phone call. But right now we don't have anything in our code specifically about energy storage systems. Just like we don't have anything specific about data centers. As you might know, and I failed to mention, Shawnee County adopted changes to their zoning code to include definitions for data centers and energy storage systems. and a requirement that those uses require a conditional use permit in light and heavy industrial districts. In their code that they adopted, their text amendment, they didn't make any distinction about size. It's just a data center requires a CEP, conditional use permit. So that's the end of the data center part of the presentation. And so I'd say if there are any questions or any comments about data centers, maybe now's a good time to ask those. We provided the opportunity for people to come and comment. I don't know if we have anybody signed up to do that on this tonight that registered to comment prior to the deadline, which is 3 o'clock. Did we? We didn't get anybody. So I think we have at least one or two people in the audience that are interested, have been following data centers. But I don't believe we have anybody here to comment.

Any questions for Seth?

Yeah. have one which you've already kind of pointed out or alluded to is that the definition has nothing to do with size and it really is about the size of the center because data centers have existed forever. My house technically according to this definition is a data center. I mean if the only descripting word in there is large and it's not even defined. So will the ultimate definition include something about the size of the footprint?

At this time we really don't know. So one thing, I don't know if I mentioned this, but because of the moratorium, if you would have asked us three weeks ago or two weeks ago, we would have said we need to get the data centers and the energy storage systems as a part of this text amendment needs to happen right away. With the moratorium, we have a little more time to work through those issues.

Yeah, and yes, the moratorium is a good thing. I guess still my question is, as we consider this process, will we look at the definition? Because that's really what's going to gatekeep this.

Absolutely, we'll look at the definition.

Okay. and to include size and some purposes in terms of how they're cooling because they could be air-cooled and that has nothing to do with water consumption at all versus closed-loop versus the other way so there's several different things that could either somebody bring in a data center very easily or Are we going to have that criteria in the definition? I mean right now technically the library is a data center, the museum is a data center because of there's no real descriptor about size.

So one thing I'll just mention, I think Dan has some comment, but a lot of those uses you mentioned, they have a data center, but that's really an accessory use. It's not a primary use of the property.

The definition doesn't.

That's very typical. We have a lot of primary uses that we don't have separate definitions for accessory uses. We could. We could get into that. I think at this point we don't know. It's kind of open, right?

Yeah, I guess you asked what we wanted to see by the end of this.

That's all I was going to say. Provide your comments, please.

I think that was my primary comment. That was my biggest concern when I looked at the memorandum. Is that the definition?

I have a question. Do we know that some of these other... I mean, a lot of times when things like this happen, there are consultants involved that know a lot more about... the unintended consequences or what can happen or not happen. Do we know if Johnson County or Pryor, which is out in eastern Oklahoma where they had consultants that answered the questions, you know, there's going to be boogeyman questions, there's going to be real technical questions. It seems to me like none of us in this room are experts on data centers. It seems like there should be, I would assume, people out there that that are more neutral that can answer questions like this and tell us what to look out for. Because how do we know how to write amendments if we don't know the technical details of all that's involved with the process?

I think that's a fair comment. Something we'll have to consider and possibly report to the governing body.

One thing I'll mention is Emporia, going through this right now. Emporia, I don't know if they used a consultant. What they did is they created an overlay district and they rezoned an area as kind of like part of an industrial park or an industrial park as part of this overlay district specifically for data centers. I don't know if they used a consultant. Wichita has done some research. There's a white paper that's It's on Wichita City website. I read it a while ago. I can't remember if it was done by a consultant or staff. But I would presume there are consultants out there. There are certainly consultants to the data center developers. I don't know if they're the right consultant to use for the city's purposes. But, yeah, that's a point well taken.

Well, because a lot of times you can have hundreds of pages of white papers. But you really have to have an expert that can distill all that information down and tell us, okay, here are the issues from all this data mining, if you will, that we need to be concerned about. And I'm not saying yay or nay on data centers. I'm just saying we don't know enough to know about them. Absolutely.

Any other comments? Commissioner Nagle?

One question I had was if the city were to institute some regulation on data centers, would that extend to the three mile area?

No, it would not because the city does not have zoning authority outside the city limits. It has subdivision authority. So a subdivision, if someone's developing something, chances are they have to go through a subdivision plat and the city would review that plat. But the city's role would not be to regulate it in a zoning type way. It would be really to approve the plat.

So if someone wanted to build a data center that was in the county, but across the street from city limits, they're only worried about county and state law. They're not worried about city law?

Yeah, that's probably a fair statement, I would say.

Yeah, a developer can ask the county for whatever approval if they're within the county.

I think the one thing that... I didn't really respond to was the utilities. So if someone's trying to connect to the city's water system, that's a decision by the city to allow them to connect to the water system or the sewer system. And that typically requires annexation. There are some cases where something could be exempted for annexation. So potentially someone doing that, if they're close to the city, especially if they're contiguous with the city, their city using city utilities, it will have to be annexed. And then all the city's regulations would apply.

And then the other thing, I do agree with Commissioner Pearson's point of the size difference matters of data centers. I wonder if with the primary concerns I'm hearing about are noise, water, and electricity, if size of data centers might I have no idea. But if there's some way to define it, not just by square footage, but maybe by how much water usage it does, how much electricity usage it does, and if that is, the average Topekan's concerns is not really how much square footage it takes up, but how much electricity or water it uses. I think it usually makes sense to try and make the law more on point about what the issue is, even though I'm sure the relationship between those and square footage is very strong, that what I don't want to do is approve some data center because, well, the size indicates that the water usage is going to be really low, and then all of a sudden the water usage isn't low, and the way that we've written, there's not anything we can do about it. I have a comment.

I appreciate that we're getting a jump on this before we can actually move forward city-wise. So thank you to staff. I think anytime you're going to put a factory anywhere and in a sense a data center is a type of factory. Let's be honest. We all love these. We all walk around with them. We never put them down. If we're going to keep these, we're going to need something like this. It goes somewhere it has to go somewhere your data comes from somewhere your storage comes from somewhere. Any factory or any large building that goes up is going to have noise we found ways around that you know you have shrubs you can put up there are walls you can put up there's many things we can put up to help with the noise. The water usage look at some of the larger plants around town. They probably are using more water than even a large data center is going to use. The utilities, you know, that's really the utilities department to tell us, hey, we can support this. You know what? No, we can't. One or the other. But that's not, I mean, like you said, you're not an expert in the utilities. Neither am I, nor do I want to be. But all these things, I understand that they factor in. However, I also feel that, like, Maybe China is loving the fact that none of us want these data centers around our areas. Like I said, this information is being housed somewhere. I don't necessarily think that we need to throw the idea away. I think we need to do some more research, like you guys have already said would probably be done. I just don't think that we know enough. But at the same time, I don't think that us as citizens are doing enough actual research. I think we're jumping on the social media bandwagons and not really reading into it. But I have done the research, and it's really not as bad. I have contacted some of them over in Shawnee County, because there's a total of, I believe, at my last look, there was six data centers over there. The neighbors don't care. The neighbors aren't complaining about the noise. They're not complaining about the utility usage. They're not complaining about the water usage because all the research was done ahead of time before everything was done. So, I mean, again, I appreciate you guys asking us what we're looking for, but I think that we need to do our own research and not, you know, jump on the bandwagons. And I think we'll find that the research is out there. And it's not all negative. It's really not. So again, staff, thank you for looking into this.

Thank you. Commissioner Bruce?

So I'm probably pro-data center, just to throw that out there, in a very similar sense that Commissioner Nelson shared. Yeah, and I know it's a hot topic and all those things, but my concern is that there's a lot of misinformation. So that's obviously what we're trying to get to is what's the right information. So just thinking about from the city's perspective, you know, the power usage is not the city's problem. That's Evergy's problem in my mind. So that's really... As long as they provide the power, that has to get worked out. Evergy still has to provide power to our houses. If that doesn't happen, that's a bigger problem. But I don't think Evergy is going to do that. I think the noise is something that could be managed. But the water, I think, is important to manage. Because if it is a open loop system, it's going to use a lot of water. And my concern would be that the city's utilities system would not be able to handle that. And so you overrun the system and all of a sudden you're affecting the neighborhoods. And so I would, back to Commissioner Nager's comment about, you know, we're talking about a potentially massive use of, a utility in the city. And so from a planning perspective, I feel like there's got to be some control over. Someone can't just come in and take over, add 100% capacity to our systems. That negatively affects everybody else from a zoning perspective. It's a different way to view zoning, but it is a thing. So my question is, is there a way from a planning or zoning side of things, can the utility usage be discussed?

So I believe when we, if we were to process a conditional use permit, some of the findings that need to be made is that the infrastructure can handle the land use. We haven't dealt with that so much with the water, probably, but certainly with sewer and certainly with roads, transportation. So to me, that's a pretty standard thing, part of the process of reviewing it. To get into the technical side of it is probably a little bit outside of zoning. But if we're processing an application, like a conditional use permit or a planned unit development, We certainly get expert advice, technical advice from traffic engineers, for example. I don't know why we couldn't from other utility providers. That is definitely something that goes into that.

I think that's, at least in my mind as I've processed through all of the talking points, in the city's best interest, You know, if you had a data center that didn't cause problems, that'd be great, right? We just have to manage the problems. And so, to me, the water is the big thing. And so, yeah, exactly the same way that you manage the traffic control issues. engineer review it and you know they have to buy off on that this system is going to be able to feed this data center and everybody else and if that happens that would make me feel a lot more comfortable and I think that would make others feel a lot more comfortable also.

I can tell you that any large industrial user developer when they meet with staff they have a pre-application meeting and One of the big questions is, can you provide us the water we need? What's your water usage? Can you provide us the water? So that's kind of always top in mind with an industrial user because they do tend to use a lot of water. I believe that with data centers, just what I've learned over the last few weeks, it's the power requirements that are the big factor. And that's really an energy issue and whether they can do that. And I'm just sharing my opinion on that.

One moment, Commissioner Pearson. Commissioner Pearson.

And having spoken with some people at Evergy, they started working on this problem two years ago. And they already have rules and conditions and plans in place. So maybe water has done the same. But you would probably know that. But just in case, maybe as part of this process, speaking to the different utility companies to see whose infrastructure is already in place. They're all regulated bodies, so they all have this primary duty to provide service for our individual households. Anything above and beyond that, has to be taken care of. And so with large scale industrial and commercial uses, they've already had that conversation internally with Evergy. So you might want to speak with them as part of the process during the moratorium to understand what they've done. But it sounded like from what I had, the discussion that I had, that they're just waiting on other people.

One thing that I'm old enough to remember when Jeffery Energy Center was built And there was all kinds of discussions about this big power plant out on the prairie that was going to be built and how much water it was going to use and all the things that were going to happen. Well, it's been pretty successful. And they figured out how to get it done. I've heard the same thing. Evergy has already taken into account. Because the concern, as everybody heard, was that, well, my power bill is going to go up because the demand is going to be so huge. I think from what I understand, I've heard the same thing. Everybody's already addressed that. The water usage, I think there's probably ways that those can be addressed, you know, where there's less of an effect. And that was my point earlier is I hate the idea of us killing something without really knowing what we're talking about. And I'm a little more pro data center as well. And also from just the other standpoint, you know, I don't know a lot of people realize this, but public utilities are taxed at 100%. And this would be pretty much falling in the line of a public utility for property tax purposes. So there's a lot of money here involved with these. They're not just a place out there where nobody's getting income from them because we would.

And a lot of my sentiments piggybacking off of Commissioner Bowling, I really was going to speak to the economic development piece. Because one of my questions to staff is I know that the county has presented some zoning, you know, uses, but I'm really interested to see are there going to be any additional allowable uses for zoning? Because not all data centers fit a rule element. Some of them might fit a commercial element. And we have a lot of parking lot space. And so I just didn't know if staff was going to be exploring Other allowable uses for data centers, especially because there's so many different types of data centers out there, or is it all just going to be very much just in the county and this uses that were stated in the report that was given to us? Because we have the D3 and we have C4, and so that's where some of my questions coming from.

Sure, I think what we're trying to get tonight is comments about how to bring something forward to you.

And you don't have to answer tonight. That's my idea that I'm presenting. And some of the reason why is because of just the, you know, it being on the tax roll, our schools are going to largely benefit from these data centers being present. And, you know, I do see potentially, and I know we need to proceed with wisdom, so. For the record, I'm not saying we need to put a data center up everywhere in the city of Topeka. But my concern is that there could be a disproportionate amount of funds not going to our public school system within the Topeka city limits just because of how we're allowing them to be used within zoning. So my question would just be how are we exploring zoning in comparison to data center size and use, taking in all the factors that everyone mentioned. And then my next comment. pause just case if there's any additional question was what they were referencing was the large load tariff that was passed in 2025 with Evergy. I actually went to a report earlier this week. Maybe it was like last was Monday. Okay, so last week. With Evergy, and one of the things that I think is going to be really important, and a lot of this is coming from what I've seen Commissioner Brooks do, is the community wants to be heard when they have concerns. And so I think when we're presenting this, I know we typically present it in light with the golden factors, but I think it would be wise to present what the energy use is going to be when presenting a case, what the water use is going to be presenting a case. I don't know if you can have someone from Evergy provide a statement and give that with a packet, because I think some of what we're going to face is truly people's concern. And Evergy already has so much in place. They're actually a lot more regulated than a lot of other places that just presenting information with the packet might really help the community ease a lot of their concerns. So I don't know if When we have those type of cases, maybe even just change, you know, typically we have someone from utilities. I don't know if it's possible to have someone from Evergy or have a statement from Evergy, but they do have a lot of regulation in place. And then my third comment is I would like to also see opportunities for commissioners to become more educated around data centers because some of it's going to come here first if it's a CUP, if I'm correct. And so I think it's important. With Topeka, you know, trying to move to an ag tech and economic development, we're going to see more and more tech things come up. And I want to make sure that as commissioners, we're prepared to at least have unified information that we're basing our decisions off the uniform information versus, you know, we can all look at our own individual sources, but I think it might be good to have. Maybe a presentation from Evergy come in and talk about the large load tariff and some of the regulatory things they've done for commissioners. And then also just the type of data centers that are out there, the type of projects we could see, because I do think just by nature of us being a capital city, you know, the things going on with League Innovation Center and a lot of what's going on in the economic development push, we're going to see more and more of this. So just making sure that we're educated. So those are my thoughts, Commissioner. Thank you.

Real briefly, I was also going to say whenever we're talking about what size of data center, whenever it comes to water consumption or electricity consumption, is bigger than the community it's interested in, I appreciate the like raw numbers of Watts and stuff. Uh, if there could be some comparisons of what other industrial commercial uses, um, just cause I think, or I mean what the total usage in the city of Topeka is, I think having that clears up cause some of these numbers, your average person and I put myself in that, see the number and don't actually really know what that means.

That's a good point. Actually, over the last few days, I tried to find different industries and how much megawatt power they use, each one, and I just wasn't able to find that. I'm sure it's out there. I think everything's relative. I mean, a number doesn't really mean anything unless you compare it to something else.

And maybe there's local examples that are already on our system.

There are going to be some industries that clearly use a lot of power. There are refineries in Kansas, and those use a lot of power.

Is this strictly just data centers, or will there be some way to also look at co-locations within them, meaning that sometimes it's a data center that shares space, but it's not really a secondary use? Do you understand what I'm saying? There could be... almost like a duplex. There could be two businesses operating in the same building with two different distinct functions, which I could see a developer coming in that way, making it muddying the waters a little bit.

So Commissioner, you're referring to two different businesses with two different sets of server racks within the same facility, is that what you're talking about?

Yeah, something like that, or they could be a totally separate kind of business.

So that's really what a co-location data center is. So a lot of the big developers, what they're doing is they're developing it, And it's kind of like they're creating the system and then they start leasing it, as I understand. And they have multiple, many multiple users of that space for their servers.

Okay. So then, no, yes to that. Thank you for clarification on that. But could, is that part of it? Is there... That someone might say, this is a warehouse. You can have the front of the warehouse to do training. I don't know. Training for shooting bows and arrows. Because they know me. And there'll be server racks in the back.

Yeah, so that would be a mixed-use facility.

Okay.

Just like any mixed-use facility.

Well, we could be considering those as well.

Well, I think that... Just like now if we have multiple primary uses on the same property, a lot of times that kind of starts looking like a PUD. You don't have to answer the question.

I'm sorry, any other commissioners have discussion? I would like to know what other similar communities are doing, kind of how we did when we looked at the housing changes and when they adopted those. Commissioner Brooks.

So back on the power consumption, because the city is not providing that utility, I guess I don't understand how we can control that. Is that a fair question to ask or is that?

I don't think it's a matter of controlling. I think it's a matter of asking them to provide information or proof that they have got power. Oh, okay.

So like verify that you have worked it out with Evergy or Evergy verifies that you're not going to have brownouts. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Okay. I'm good with that.

Any other comment?

One other thought that I just had. while Commissioner Pearson was talking is that maybe look at just like how we have several different types of commercial and industrial uses, maybe look at data centers in the same, like a co-location type of facility, which was kind of what I was trying to allude to, that a co-location facility might work in a D3 or C4 zoning, whereas some other type data centers, it makes sense for it to be in a rural area or in a heavy industrial area. And so maybe instead of just lumping all data centers into one description, maybe parceling them out, maybe isn't even the right word, but maybe dividing them out based off of size, usage, cooling. And so maybe there's a type of data center use that's allowable in a C4 or a D3, and there's a data center use that's in an industrial use or versus, I forgot what the other one was. you know, I3 uses and maybe looking at them out of spectrum because technology is going to change so fast. The moment that we say, okay, we have something, a new type of technology is going to come out. And so I can foresee these becoming a lot more compact over time. And so that was another idea that I was thinking too. Instead of just having one lump sum, it's like maybe saying what type of data center would be allowed in this type of commercial use versus other uses. All right. Any other comments? I'm loving all the discussion. All right. And now we're moving. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. You don't need me to go. Sorry.

Sorry.

Work your way through it. Yeah.

Yep. Okay. So should I go to the next topic?

Yes. Go ahead. I apologize.

That's okay. It's all right. So this is another 20 slides. Just kidding. Quite a few, but not 20. Okay, so groans everywhere. Okay, so this is about manufactured homes and tiny houses. So this is something that is important to include in this batch of text amendments. So I'm going to provide you an overview of the different types. This is going to be a very confusing topic. Currently, our zoning regulations treat, you can probably separate housing types into two types, homes built on site, site-built homes, and manufactured homes. Site-built homes are allowed by right in any residential zoning district, pretty much. There are no minimum size requirements for site-built homes. So today, if someone wants to build a site-built home, and they want to build a tiny home, and it's a site-built home, they can do that. They're allowed to do that right now because it's a site-built home. There are building codes that have minimum room sizes Then there are homes manufactured offsite. So right now, the only type of home you can, other than mobile home parks, the only type of single family residence that's a manufactured home that's allowed is a residential design manufactured home. And those are allowed by right in residential zoning districts. Okay, so among manufactured homes, there are two types. There's the residential design manufactured home, which the definition is established by Kansas statute. And what the Kansas statute does is says every city in Kansas is not allowed to prohibit a residential design manufactured home in a residential district. It doesn't mean you can't go farther and be less restrictive, but you can't zone out or regulate out manufactured homes. That's what that Kansas statute does. But there are manufactured homes that don't meet all those characteristics. So one of the key characteristics is width, 22 foot width. So if something meets all of the other standards or all of the characteristics of a residential design manufactured home, but they're not 22 feet wide, they're not a residential design manufactured home. They're not allowed. So they're not permitted in R1 or R2 districts, but they are allowed in existing mobile home parks or may be permitted in new mobile home developments allowed by R4 zoning or as a POD. We do have an R4 zoning district. There has been no R4 zoning established, so it hasn't been used, but there is an R4 zoning district for manufactured housing. So the key point here, too, is that the above two types of manufactured homes are built according to the federal construction standards and not to local residential building codes. So residential design manufactured home means a manufactured home on a permanent foundation which has minimum dimensions of 22 body feet in width, a pitched roof, and siding and roofing materials which are customarily used in site-built homes. So this is a photo of a manufactured home, a residential design manufactured home in East Topeka. There are some in North Topeka. There's some in Southwest Topeka as well. These are allowed by right on residential lots. These are built to the HUD manufacturer home standards, not to our local building codes, which is for single-family homes is the International Residential Code. I think I just said that. But these are just examples of manufactured homes that aren't wide enough to be residential design manufactured homes. And the one on the left, there's a mobile home park that started placing these inside their mobile home park, or inside the mobile home park. These are fairly small, as you can see. I don't know how big these are, but they're fairly small. They kind of function like a tiny home because they're that small. Okay, manufactured homes, factory-built homes that do not meet the definition of residential design manufactured home and are not built to HUD manufactured home standards. Those are built to the International Residential Code. Our International Residential Code was amended a few years back to include standards for manufactured homes that are not HUD-designed manufactured homes. So the key thing here is also that these are not permitted in Topeka's single-family residential districts. They're only permitted by planned unit development today. You'd have to have PUD zoning. And the thing about PUD zoning, first of all, it's a lot to have to go through to get a house built. And you cannot use PUD zoning on property that's less than an acre. Our current PED standards don't allow it on less than an acre, with a few exceptions. So adaptive reuse of an existing building, you can do that on less than an acre. Okay, so these are, the one on the left is, I found that photograph on the internet somewhere. The one on the right, that's a photo of one that was built in Big Springs, the Big Springs area in Douglas County. And the entity that built that, they built two of them out there. They wanted to do a community of those in Topeka. And they started down that process. They were going through a PVD process. They faced a lot of opposition from neighboring property owners and so withdrew their application. They are interested in building that, but guess what? They can't because it's not a residential design manufactured home, but it's a factory-built home. That home is built to IRC standards. That's how that was built. It was built to IRC, International Residential Code, the same code that applies to a single-family site-built home. So this is a very blurry image here. And I actually got this from someone who's interested in doing this on a residential property in Topeka. And the current code does not allow them to do that. This is a manufactured home that's built to international residential code. But because it's less than 22 feet wide, you can't do it. It's kind of a nice looking home on the right there. It might fit really well on a small lot in Central Topeka, like a lot that's 25 feet wide, for example, or 37 and a half feet wide. So just a general statement. So now we're getting into the tiny houses. So tiny houses are just a small version of either a site-built house or a factory-built home. There's nothing special about them. That's just what they are. They're just small. So the City of Topeka zoning and building codes do not prohibit the construction or installation of tiny homes on lands zoned for residential use. But there are standards affecting what types of tiny homes are allowed, where they may be located in the manner of their construction. So I'm going to repeat myself. If you are building a site-built home, not a factory-built home, you can do this under current standards. You're not prohibited from doing it under our current zoning code. OK. Tiny houses. So let's just kind of get on the same page on what they are. The IRC defines them as a dwelling unit 400 square feet or less in Florida area, excluding lofts intended as a single dwelling. As understood by the public, if you just start searching online at tiny homes, I'd say they're as large as 600 square feet. Topeka's zoning code does not define tiny house or tiny home. So this tiny home, this was built in Lawrence, and this was actually built It's one of four on the same parcel in Lawrence, and it was built, it wasn't built by a for-profit developer. This is used as transitional housing. This was built at the Peasley Tech Center in Lawrence, and this is 390 square feet. And we did a tour of this, and I went inside of it. It's small, but it's a livable home. But because this is factory built, it cannot be placed on a single lot in Topeka. It could be done as part of a PUD, for example, but not on a single lot. Doing a little bit of research, other cities have started to tackle this. And the term that is kind of used that seems to make sense, it kind of modular, to me, a residential design manufactured home is two modules, right? It's a double Y. This is a definition that some cities are starting to use. A modular home means a dwelling constructed in accordance with the standards set forth in the city's building code applicable to site-built homes and composed of components substantially assembled in a manufacturing plant and transported to the building site for final assembly on a permanent foundation. So that's a pretty good start. If you were going to, if the Planning Commission wanted to recommend a change to the code to allow this type of home, a factory-built home on a lot, That's probably a pretty good definition to go on. So key questions for the Planning Commission with manufactured homes and tiny homes. Should there be a path to allowing manufacturer-modular homes not meeting the definition of residential design manufactured home on lots in R&M districts? That wouldn't be that hard to do if you were just going to allow them by right. You could just modify the definition a little bit to make it less restrictive. You could say it doesn't have to have a minimum width of 22 feet. You could establish a minimum width or you wouldn't have to establish a minimum width. What are the issues of concern regarding individual manufacturing of modular homes on residential lots? So that's something for you to think about. and let us know what your concerns are. If the city does want to provide a method by which manufactured and modern homes are allowed, should such homes be allowed by right, allowed subject to special standards, or require discretionary approval, i.e. a conditional use permit? And we all know what the process of a conditional use permit is like. If someone's trying to build an affordable unit, it's a lot of time, it's a lot of uncertainty, But that is something to think about as an option. The thing about a conditional use permit is you can evaluate on a case-by-case basis. You can look at things that are hard to define in standards up front. That's the advantage, but the disadvantage, of course, is the time and uncertainty associated with a conditional use permit. And just the anxiety it can generate in a neighborhood if someone's trying to do that by a conditional use permit. So... I will go ahead and just kind of talk about this briefly. I do know we have one person here that signed up to speak. I believe he's still here. And he would like to speak to this matter. He signed up in time to do that. OK, so the other things that are being thought about are single-family residential land use and Senate Bill 418. So Senate Bill 418, it's also called the Buy Right Housing Bill. It was adopted into law. The key thing that it requires or does not, it preempts the city in some way in that if someone is rezoning property to a single-family residential district, the protest petition is not an option. Protest petitions are not allowed. I think it also affects the notice requirements. I don't think it does. It allows cities to require a direct notice of neighboring property owners. There are some details that still need to be looked at, but that's the key difference is that protest petition. Indoor recreation, we have some forms of indoor recreation that require a conditional use permit in C2 district, for example, that probably shouldn't. I can give you an example if you want. Self-storage, we get a lot of self-storage proposals. I don't think anybody gets really excited about self-storage except someone who wants to develop and own something that doesn't require a lot of maintenance. But a lot of times what we end up doing is telling the developer or the owner that, well, your property is on C4, so you have to rezone it to I1. And we end up pushing them in the direction of doing a planned unit development because we don't want everything else that's allowed in I1. So it's just something to look at. I don't know if there's an easy solution, but we do entertain a lot of self-storage projects. Uses in the D3 district. So the D3 district, the zoning code was amended a few years back, three years ago, four years ago. And we're finding that it might be a little more restrictive than it should be. Certain uses aren't allowed or even permitted by conditional use permit. So that's something that needs to be examined. Residential accessory structures. So we limit the size of accessory buildings on a residential lot to 90% of the footprint of the primary dwelling. That probably makes sense on a lot that's a half acre or a third of an acre. But does it make sense on a lot that's two acres? And there are people that live somewhat semi-rural, lifestyle, I guess, or have a house in a site that's semi-rural in nature in some parts of the city. And right now we're telling them, I'm sorry, you can't have a big shop building that's that big on your property. So you might remember the case we had with the truck stop. It wasn't really a truck stop, an accessory truck facilities. Right now, there's nothing that says that you cannot have fuel pumps for trucks in a convenience store, although a convenience store is allowed in a C2 district, as well as C4. Something to think about. Animal care and services, there's a small thing that needs to be fixed. And there are some other things, other land uses in the code that need to be looked at. So with that, I'd love to hear your feedback. If you want to... open it to comment first from the gentleman here that signed up to comment. That's up to you.

All right. Well, we can open it for public comment.

Good evening, chair and commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to come and speak tonight. I'd like to spend a few minutes talking about an important shift that's taking place on the federal level and why I believe it should influence how we think about housing development here in Topeka. As many of you know, Congress recently passed significant bipartisan housing legislation. The purpose of that legislation is straightforward. America is not building enough houses to meet demand. And if we want to close that gap, we have to find ways to build homes, build them faster and reduce unnecessary costs while maintaining quality. One of the major themes throughout the legislation is support of offsite and modular construction. The legislation modernizes federal housing policy to better accommodate factory-built housing. It includes provisions intended to improve financing of modular construction, recognizing that traditional financing methods don't normally work because so much of their work is done off-site before the home is delivered to being on-site. It also directs HUD to continue expanding and evaluating offsite construction as a way to increase housing production, improve efficiency, and lower costs. In addition, it modernizes policies related to factory-built housing to encourage innovation and expand housing supply. While the legislation doesn't require local governments to change their zoning or development regulations, it sends a very clear message about the direction housing policy is moving. Communities that are prepared to embrace innovation will be better positioned to attain investment, leverage future housing resources, and respond to the growing need for affordable housing. That matters here in Topeka. We know our community has a shortage of quality affordable housing. At the same time, we have thousands of vacant residential lots, many already served by streets, sidewalks, water, sewer, and other public infrastructure that taxpayers have already paid for. Those vacant lots represent an opportunity. Instead of expanding infrastructure farther from the city, we have an opportunity to strengthen existing neighborhoods by putting quality homes back onto land that is already served by public utilities and public investment. Modern modular construction is one tool that can help us. I want you to hear that. One tool, not the only tool that we should use, but one tool that should be in our tool belt. Today's modular homes are not the factory built homes many people remember from decades ago. I can tell you I came into this with a lot of prejudice around this type of product. They were built to the same state and local adopted building codes as site-built homes, undergo multiple inspections during construction, and are permanently installed on foundations, and are often indistinguishable from homes built entirely on site. Last week, I took a local builder to a subdivision in Nebraska. And as we drove through the neighborhood, The group from that local construction company was unable to distinguish which houses were stick built and which were modular. If I could have just a couple more minutes. Okay. What modular construction offers is efficiency. Factory production reduces weather delays, shortens construction schedules, provides greater cost certainty, and helps address the skilled labor shortages that builders across Kansas continue to face. As CENT, we've been actively evaluating modular housing as one strategy to expand affordable home ownership. As we've done that work, we've learned that Topeka presents both opportunities and challenges. Many of our vacant infill lots are narrow. They have setbacks and site constraints that require creative design. Please remember this as you set restrictions on house footprints. Please remember how important green space is to the quality of life that a family has. They have setbacks. The modular construction gives builders additional flexibility to design quality homes that fit these lots. While still providing adequate living spaces for families and respecting the character of existing neighborhoods, my encouragement to the Commission is not to lower our standards. We should absolutely continue to expect quality housing that is safe, doable, attractive, and compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. But I would encourage us to evaluate these products based on the quality of the finished home, not whether it was factory built and not by imposing unnecessary limitations on width or traditional construction methods when innovative designs can accomplish the same objectives. I would also encourage us to consider the approval process itself. One of the greatest advantages of modular construction is that it reduces the amount of time required to deliver a completed home. If we truly want to realize those efficiencies, we should be careful not to give that time back through additional approvals, unnecessary process, or delays that don't improve the quality or safety of the final product. Our goal should be to preserve high standards while creating a regulatory environment that is predictable, efficient, and flexible enough to encourage innovation. If we can strike that balance, Topeka can make better use of the infrastructure we already have activate thousands of vacant lots across our city, encourage additional private investment, and create more pathways to affordable homeownership for the families who call Topeka home. The federal government has made it clear that innovation in housing production is a part of the solution to our national housing shortage. I believe Topeka has an opportunity to lead rather than follow. Thank you for your time and for your service to our community.

Thank you. Any comments or questions? All right. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

And we'll close the public hearing and then open it up for comment from commissioners. Or do you have anything else, Mike?

Nothing else.

Okay. Any discussion among commissioners?

Quick one. Commissioner Hanna. I think this is a good idea, but there is going to be tough to define this being well done and somebody going to a big box store and buying a shed and finishing it up and plumbing it. So I don't know how you narrow that down to get what is appropriate.

Yeah, I was wondering about the Amazon house, the house someone orders off of Amazon.

So they would have to meet international residential code that says adopted code. I don't know how that affects aesthetics. My own opinion is something that's built IRC that it's going to have that kind of, I don't know, durable look to it that if it was just like a shed, they'd buy it Home Depot. Can you modify a shed at Home Depot to meet IRC? It'd probably be pretty hard to do that.

What are some things that staff does already? So I know if someone says, hey, I bought a lot, 123 Main Street, and I want to build a house, are there things existing that you do when you're evaluating that project to make sure that it fits in with the character of the neighborhood?

Very limited in what we can do there. Unless it's in an historic district or a neighborhood conservation district, we don't have a lot of leverage. That's probably a good thing because it's pretty predictable. If you meet building setbacks, building heights, which height is 42 feet high, it's loud, but parking requirements, building setbacks, it's not really a zoning issue. And you just need to meet. IRC for a site-built house. It's an historic district. It goes through a review process. It has to go to the Landmarks Commission. It goes through something called Certified Local Government Review. Our NCDs, our Neighborhood Conservation Districts, specifically Elmhurst and Westboro, they have design standards. Other than that, we really don't have any. The neighborhood plans have them, but those aren't implemented by any codes. We do say if someone's going to be applying for a neighborhood revitalization program grant where those are applicable, if they're neighboring design guidelines, they need to follow those. So I guess the short answer is we don't do that. In most situations, we don't review something to make sure it fits the neighborhood. It just either meets standards or doesn't.

Okay. Commissioner Brooks?

I just wanted to say thanks, Mr. Sublette, for that. I would share that sentiment, the strategy side. I think this is a great idea. We have to figure out a way to make it work, and I think there's a way. There's a will, there's a way, right? Ms. Hannon had a great point, and so I think that's our job to come up with those ideas. The reality is that the city needs more housing, and there's a lot of places in the city that you could have people living. And I think it's our responsibility to help figure that out.

Any other comments?

To directly answer your questions, should there be a path? Yes, there should be a path. What are the issues and concerns? I guess we've already kind of bounced those around a little bit, but it's quality, but permitting will take care of that, right?

Permitting will take care of the structural quality and safety of the home.

Yes.

It's not going to necessarily address the aesthetic side of a home. Correct.

But there are a lot of ugly houses out there right now that are . So, I mean, I'm not sure. You changed the questions, Michael.

I'm sorry. I was going to show you this one on the left, and that has a lot of features that improve the aesthetic quality of it.

Oh, okay. Well, I mean, you know, aesthetic is a personal kind of thing. Yeah, that's the problem. Yeah. So, and if the, that's a confusing question, but city, I want to provide a method by which . Yes, I lean toward by right, but I know that is not a popular. So something, but I don't see this, I don't want to see a CUP every month or every other month for a house. That doesn't make sense to me. It almost feels like it should be by right. because those other controls are in place only because of that. So you still have to get a permit. Your house still has to pass some level of inspection. I guess the only thing I would be concerned about if someone was trying to put five houses on a lot that was too small to really truly accommodate them, if that makes sense. So I guess And I don't even know if this is a concern, limiting the number of houses that can be on a lot based on the size, which we kind of do already. So I'm not sure how big of a concern that is, but those are your key questions.

Commissioner, that is limited now. It's one home per lot, unless you're into multifamily zoning. One per lot. There are coverage limits. There are building setback requirements.

Exactly. So really, it's just a matter of where it was built, right? And I think we have systems and controls in place that could monitor this effectively and efficiently. So I would be a yes.

Thank you. Commissioner Bowler?

Well, one of the things I think that we heard loud and clear the past is we have a lot of vacant lots and the infill builders said they're too small I can't make the numbers work I can't build on those based on the requirements that we have now on the minimum widths of homes and those kinds of things so I think we need to take a look at that part of it Well, and the other side of that is people will say, well, then you have the NIMBY going on. Not in my neighborhood, not in my backyard. But also, I think some of that's probably going to be subdivision dependent as well. Because although Lawrence allows some of these, I'm sure there are subdivisions in Lawrence that say the minimum size of the house has to be this, this, this, and this. So I don't think that's going to be a, you know, it's just going to run wild and they'll just go everywhere and people will say, oh, they're going to put them in my neighborhood or this neighborhood we don't, you know. So I think some of that might work its way out. But, you know, we listened to the manufactured home person when we went to our housing subcommittee. And, you know, the other thing, too, truly from a construction standpoint, These things are built in controlled environments. And I think we've seen stick houses go up where the wood's sitting out there in the rain and things are happening because they're in the environment. These are gonna be built in controlled environments with quality control in place. I've seen some homes that are pre-manufactured that I would never have known they were pre-manufactured until I went into the basement, then I could tell it was. But from the outside, Aesthetic-wise, I never knew.

And I would say from my viewpoint, I definitely, you know, I lean towards wanting to have more innovation in the city of Topeka because I think we're in a very important time, you know, as far as Topeka's growth as a city. And so I think being a little bit more open to different types of housing is very important for that. So I do think, you know, trying to minimize... hurdles for people to create housing, I think is very important while balancing the concern of making sure that something fits the character of the neighborhood. So one of the things, and I had another thought and it just kind of went out the window. So I don't even know what I was, there was something, I was saying that to say something else, but I really think that this was a great idea. I think it's a great solution. And I'll email that other thought if it ever comes back to me.

So the concern that I keep hearing is how it's, you know, how do you stop it from a shed to a home? You know, buying at a Home Depot, well, the IRC is what stops it. The inspectors is what stops it. So that's, to me, kind of a new point because it's all right there. I mean, I deal with this literally every day, and I've helped change some of the IRC codes from higher up. And you do have to look at... How is it built? What was used? Where is it going? You know, back to the what, when, where, where, hi. Hi, welcome to my neighborhood. I mean, we need to get rid of the NIMBY. We need to stop that. We need to throw all that stuff out the door because the IRC is what's making your decision. And it really is, it's a good, solid written code. We have great city inspectors that are going to come out and inspect along the way. So I think, you know, to the point of, you know, what's going to stop them from taking a shed and putting it into a home? Well, that right there, because the city inspectors are not going to allow that. Thank you.

I just remembered what I was going to say. You're welcome. It was in line with that to say that there's also regulations with insurance companies and there's regulations with lenders that are going to filter out a lot of our concerns as well. And I know property values is something that comes up, but when someone pulls a permit to build a property, the county says whether it's modular or stick-built. So a realtor, when they're evaluating comps, they're not going to use a modular property to do comps for a stick-built home. So for people that feel like, oh, my property values are going to go down because there's a stick-built or a modular home being next door, an appraiser is not even going to factor that in when they evaluate their property. So I just wanted to put that on the record as well, that there's not any deterrent to a neighborhood because of building codes, insurance, in lending, which is one of the great things about the Road to Housing Act is because it's really making some of those industries evaluate how they lend and how they provide insurance to stop some of those barriers. That would probably be more of a hurdle than really what we would even put in the zoning code. yeah i guess i did i did have that question will anyone be able to get a loan to get the house yeah there's a bank there's one bank in topeka right now that will loan on modular homes but hopefully through some of the things that are happening through hud eventually you'll see that open up more but people can get home loans but it's not not every lender offers them

I think a lot of that has to do with the secondary mortgage market. And so there are portfolio lenders that will do it. And also, even when you're getting a VA loan, there's requirements the VA has for manufactured homes. It has to be a pre-approved up front for they'll even process the loan. And there's certain requirements that the house has to meet for wind load and snow load and all this stuff. So to your point about the IRC, I mean, that's going to take care of the shed. Yeah.

Well, so it sounds like the market is going to take care of a lot of what the concerns are. So, I mean, I think by right sounds like it makes a lot of sense for the record. I agree. All right. Any other discussion? Okay. Moving on to, I think, special report from housing committee. We will meet tomorrow. So I don't have any special report. And no one signed up for general public comment. So we will move to communications to the commission.

Commissioners, obviously these text amendments will come back in August. in potentially various forms. For instance, data center will not come back for action. We'll have another discussion on the data center portion. Some of these other ones might need a little more review and come back as a discussion. So we'll work that out. You might have an action item on some part of these text amendments, but not all of them. And then there will be a couple cases next month. and something else. But yeah, you'll have a busy agenda next month as well. I think that's all I have.

All right. Any update on the land use and growth management?

I think we will try to bring that back next month.

All right.

As a discussion item.

Okay. Well, then we are adjourned.