[0:53] number 26

[1:05] of America and to the republic for which it stands.

[1:10] One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[1:21] » We'll do a roll call. Jim

[1:25] » here.

[1:30] » And I present

[1:34] from

[1:40] Madam Chair, I move we approve the minutes from

[1:45] artist. >> I'll second.

[1:48] » We'll take a vote. >> Yes.

[1:51] » Yes. >> Yes.

[1:55] » Yes. >> Yes.

[1:56] » And I voted yes. Are approved.

[2:14] Hey, madam chair, commissioner Tim, planning zoning director. I I'll be

[2:18] brief tonight. There's not a lot of new activity. Um, as you see on your monthly

[2:24] report, we we're still becoming robust here with single family housing. Um this

[2:29] is all mostly what been approved some time back.

[2:34] Most of our new subdivisions still haven't um new building permits tall.

[2:42] So this is some of the good work this body has done in the past and well

[2:47] positioned well placed growth city

[2:53] broken ground they long day

[2:59] that puts them sometime in November if they're going well and so far it looks

[3:04] like they're cruising uh we do feel that we'll have some

[3:10] building permits out of that That's parallel east of 155th south of the

[3:16] intermediate school. Earlier thoughts were that it would be

[3:21] more like late February [clears throat] March, but they're making better insist

[3:28] chance of November early December.

[3:34] So that would be another variable to our housing stock that that's the overall

[3:40] balance that we have. We still anticipate some housing permits be at

[3:45] the Falcon Lakes and areas that this body is already pre-approved. We just

[3:50] have not seen the construction plan infrastructure from the developer yet.

[3:53] That's usually not a very long period because that's usually have been get

[3:57] driven how fast they turn in information. We brought about a 21 day

[4:02] plans which for city staff that was pretty pretty quick. So they still have

[4:08] a chance to start a construction this year.

[4:12] Um we hope to be announcing a few more commercial projects in the next 30 60

[4:17] days. So bearies you have to get used to this job. A lot

[4:23] of people call you talk to you and then they just go away. So you try not to get

[4:27] too excited when they you hear the name brand or some water bust. But that's

[4:33] just as far as business. Anytime you want to call me or Alex about questions,

[4:38] feel free to have a question about

[4:51] new business. Item number five, your visions to the approved Greymont and

[4:55] Prairie Gardens final development. >> Good afternoon,

[5:00] assistant director. Five for you today is a revision to the

[5:05] previously improved final development plan for the Crayop subdivision. Um, as

[5:10] you may recall about a year ago now, we went through this process with the same

[5:14] subdivision on phases sixth and seven to modify those phases. And the process is

[5:22] um that whenever the developer gets the development plan approved, some

[5:27] preliminary engineering work goes into it, but certainly not to the full

[5:31] construction level depth, which at sometimes may uncover some issues. And

[5:36] this process is in our zoning code to allow the developer to come back and

[5:40] say, "Hey, we uncovered this issue. Is it okay if we modify it without changing

[5:44] the intent of the development in order to accommodate any issues that they ran

[5:49] into?" This request is to move the entrance and access point that will um

[5:56] go to 166th Street about 300 foot north um from where is it is currently

[6:01] located. The applicant and the engineer came to the city a while ago and said

[6:07] that the current the current access point and the grading

[6:11] have such wouldn't allow for very good drainage. Um and with it being situated

[6:16] right next to that flood plane um as well as a very easy alternative of

[6:21] moving a 300 foot north um that this is in front of you today. As a reminder,

[6:27] the only thing up for consideration is the changes that are proposed on any of

[6:32] the previous developments as those are largely already built out. This will

[6:36] result in seven new lots being added to the subdivision as a result of the

[6:40] reconfiguration largely due to the lots being able to be

[6:45] on both sides of the access road with it being 300 foot north. There wasn't any

[6:50] houses or any lots on the southern portion of it being claimed.

[6:56] Staff recommends approval of the side of the applicant is also here questions.

[7:16] » Yes. Um the access road goes out into 66.

[7:21] » Yes, that's correct. It'll be just north of the current access road to the very

[7:26] submission.

[7:32] Just a couple um where are the new seven lots? Are they more concentrated to

[7:38] where that new opening access road will be?

[7:41] » Uh yeah, most of them are are featured just right around the western most part

[7:46] here 166. >> What is immediately north of

[7:51] the new access road? uh the large lot that state uh it's none of it is in

[7:58] based for city limits but it's it's large lots

[8:02] and I've looked at the aerial that remind me if we move the road 300 ft to

[8:10] the north what what else is around there for egress or ingress or any other

[8:15] properties either east or west side so there's a hidden ridge subdivision has

[8:20] the current back road and then previously vis

[8:25] for an additional phase to grant access. This road was originally going to line

[8:29] up with that with the 3 north that provides the most distance that staff

[8:36] and our engineers feel comfortable with. But those are the only two major points

[8:40] of access until you get up to parallel.

[8:45] Thanks.

[9:00] » I move for the approval of the Greyhawk final development plan revision request.

[9:05] I'll second. >> We'll take a vote.

[9:08] » Yes. >> Dennis,

[9:09] » yes. >> Yes.

[9:13] » Yes. >> Yes. I vote yes.

[9:20] » Item number six, consideration of a final development plan for Sundance

[9:26] Villas. >> Afternoon, commissioners. It's obvious,

[9:30] assistant director of planning and zoning. This final development plan is

[9:33] for Sundance Villas. This will this development plan was supported earlier

[9:38] this year. It's a twoacre on 15th Street across from Maple Street.

[9:49] The final development plan for consideration. I do feel like this is

[9:53] one of the first development we had for approval in a while. So just as a

[9:58] reminder, the final development plan consideration is just to make sure that

[10:02] it follows the preliminary nothing significant has changed. There are a few

[10:07] modifications that are allowed such as moving a building a few feet, increasing

[10:13] ground coverage, but in for the most part all development plans are just go

[10:17] into greater detail whether it be on topic studies, storm water studies,

[10:21] drainage, sewer architecture, then the preliminary development plan. So before

[10:27] you today is the Sundanceville development plan that is an exact mirror

[10:31] of preliminary development plan you saw with one minor change um being a fire

[10:37] turnaround point in the middle of development. You may see the the um

[10:42] trash enclosure followed by a a stick out of the road that was placed in there

[10:47] often to the common office by staff that if a fire truck were to ever enter into

[10:53] this development and go to buildings A or B, it's going to need a place to swim

[10:58] around to avoid going into driveways. U there were there was a different

[11:02] solution on the preliminary development plan and this is the solution on the

[11:07] final development plan. Outside of that, there are no changes. The the final

[11:14] drainage and storm water study are all satisfactory is reviewed by the city

[11:18] engineers. Um, as well as all of the architectural detail that the applicant

[11:24] went further in depth for um so staff recommends approval of this item and I'm

[11:28] happy to answer any questions.

[11:35] assuming that

[11:46] » that's right. gold stripes inside according

[11:53] and what's going to be the uh the finish of

[11:59] the of the area

[12:03] the back quarters 15th Street I'm looking at the at the

[12:10] plans and it doesn't go down to that amount of detail so I'm going to require

[12:16] require some kind of inter.

[12:21] » Yeah, they'll have uh they'll be required to go into the city

[12:24] specifications and requirements which is is currently for the approach as long as

[12:30] you're directed. It's not shown exactly on on the the drawings or the

[12:35] renderings, but they'll be required to go curve and gutter like you see

[12:41] on the street. Yeah. Okay. And

[12:48] This might be a side

[12:55] the community spot seems to be where

[13:05] that's part of

[13:09] the recycling center is just south of this development. Um, so this would not

[13:16] be touching that property. There's a >> gonna be close, but

[13:20] » it'll be just north of that. So there's the baser market and then there's the

[13:24] recycling center and then there's a a few hundred feet before you get into the

[13:29] single family homes as you get further north. Right.

[13:32] » This will be just across from Maple Street 155th which is north of cycling

[13:38] center but it will

[13:43] eliminate a lot of the park. >> Um this

[13:48] » perhaps you'll uh they do provide adequate parking in

[13:53] front of the community building as well as some extended driveways. Uh it I

[13:59] would I wouldn't imagine that uh many people would would park in that area,

[14:04] but it is in your approxim just a couple nights away.

[14:18] » Well, looks like along the street.

[14:26] » Is is there anything that prevent

[14:32] the new development whether it's the ownership or the HOA? I don't know,

[14:38] but um put parking for Sunday.

[14:46] Yeah, it's very likely that there'll be signage. That's not included typically

[14:50] in a final development plan and the signs in front of each individual

[14:54] parking spot, but it's likely, especially if they run into issues, that

[14:57] they'll put signs in front of the community building.

[15:03] Would it be possible to get page 23 up on the

[15:08] screen, please?

[15:19] Alex, based upon previous comments, the the the little bitty

[15:27] building, but just in the south, that's the recycling center. Yes, that's

[15:31] correct. And then where where is Maple Street?

[15:36] » Maple Street is the name of the street is directly across that lines up with

[15:40] that entrance.

[15:52] » Anybody else have any questions? And and just one more north if you will

[16:00] to the far east. Is that a underground

[16:12] water?

[16:20] some sanitary lines that run to the east off of those properties which I'm not

[16:26] sure if that's what created those lines

[16:32] but right just just to the building >> what is what is that looks like

[16:47] that

[16:51] Yeah,

[16:56] » this is our >> right

[16:58] » our detention basin, >> right?

[17:00] » And it's a dry bottom not meant to be wet. So when it gets to a certain level,

[17:04] the engineering performance this um this is an outflow. It's going to be existing

[17:08] soil system that makes it way here. So this is our two flutes that come out of

[17:15] there to prevent erosion. So this is the dry basin

[17:21] design water and it looks like still right next to that.

[17:45] Anybody

[17:55] else have a question?

[18:10] » Yes. >> Yes.

[18:12] » Yes. >> Yes. Yes.

[18:15] Yes. >> Yes.

[18:20] Item number seven, next amendment regarding architectural design standards

[18:25] for res.

[18:32] Thank you, Mr. Sherman.

[18:36] Responded about three months ago to approve the architecture classes.

[18:42] Before we went to city council, we decided to hold a few stakeholder

[18:46] meetings. um consult with our special counsel even though we did beforehand.

[18:51] It's always nice after it comes to this body to uh revisit the u proposed. Uh

[18:58] during such time we receive feedback both from our special counsel and some

[19:03] of the stakeholders which usually are developers developers um to maybe work

[19:09] forward some modifications. These are pretty small modifications, but I'd

[19:14] advise the council support to incorporate these back into the

[19:18] document. Most of the time, it allows the director, you know, i.e. the city to

[19:23] um allow for some deviiances to materials where if it's applicable and

[19:29] have a legal standing within the document. In other words, before we were

[19:33] leaving more implied, the new language will say as per directive approval. Um

[19:40] one of the uh major changes too was by bringing single family into this the

[19:48] it's called the foursided design there was quite a bit of concern with the

[19:52] building public that we were now going to be asking for architectural

[19:56] enhancements like the back side and I couldn't find anybody in the metro that

[20:02] went to that level so now we added language saying that the emphasis in one

[20:08] family drawing just for the streetscape or the front facade as as intended to be

[20:13] in. Um it was just the wording in the beginning because poor sighting. We

[20:20] still want to leave that for all our other because this this counts for like

[20:24] a farm complex. We still want to leave that. We didn't want to adjust that

[20:29] language. Um, it also leads the directors now to u what our special

[20:35] counsel was concerned about when we do have kind of a flat facade without a

[20:39] mineral door. We had language where you need to enhance that architecturally to

[20:44] make up for the flat side. Well, we didn't really have a approval method and

[20:48] some council said you should have as per director of approvals to make sure that

[20:54] that's consistent, fair, and everybody that um then kind of one of the one of

[21:01] the more important ones um the 40% that had always been in the since 2010 been

[21:08] in the architectural design. That's the masonry coverage. Um, we did some

[21:13] research and talking to some other jurisdictions. We couldn't find anybody

[21:18] that had 40%. Um, we did find a little bit that went

[21:22] down to 25 to 30. So, we went ahead and proposing to this body tonight for a

[21:28] single family and and two family instead of 40% 30%. We still keep R1B at 60%.

[21:37] that that robust nature for the smaller lot dwellings is still going to remain.

[21:44] We were adamant that that was a design feature that we wanted to keep. um this

[21:49] body weighed in on that and developed the 60% on R1 engagement um was

[21:55] consistent what we're looking at based of course off some of the tours some of

[22:00] the feedback we're seeing but we did feel that it was um in good nature to

[22:07] reduce 30% mir still exceeds

[22:12] many or if not most of the jurisdiction metro area for single them So we're not

[22:18] really um reducing unacceptably too much. It's

[22:22] just more of something where we met with stakeholders.

[22:28] We keep [clears throat] still a lot of the main restrictions the body was

[22:32] looking at. We don't really want to see along front. We look to eliminate the

[22:38] old backward which tends to um break down. It's a little too easy.

[22:45] That's a maintenance nightmare. Those things were still but we decided on the

[22:49] heavy materials which is the bottom level of main street and we went down

[22:54] 30% um

[22:59] accessory structures it's been we've been running parallel

[23:04] this on staff and just in reading the architectural design it was felt through

[23:08] special counsel that we should probably address the siding in this document

[23:12] instead of with the design district standard

[23:18] because we already have accessory structure mention

[23:24] now we're asking that we do not have a metal bar

[23:31] must look like the primary structure match exact what we're looking for

[23:39] building looks

[23:44] it's a lot like when we nature they they don't want whatever the

[23:50] new edition and stuff to stick out like they don't want to be blended as the

[23:56] same but they want they do not want it to look so

[24:02] that's one of the things that we have been looking at across the metro that

[24:07] many many development communities have that language where structure should

[24:11] look like primary um we added that in that was presently

[24:18] presented at this bond. There was a couple other um roofing

[24:23] materials and the only reason we've added roofing

[24:27] materials not that we're going to say you can do fiber glass

[24:33] some of the old standards just there are so many modulations of new materials

[24:37] coming out but our examples were not um all in so we just left u we left that it

[24:46] will not be applied to projects like Sundanc you you would be

[24:52] looking at the director wouldn't approve that that would come this a single panel

[24:58] is something type of look

[25:08] and lastly

[25:11] we have a three door minimum maximum on some of our voting districts

[25:18] but we also council has some emphasis by some of the elected body to have more

[25:25] garage type parking effect building. So this would be that would have been a

[25:29] conflict. So instead, what we've decided to do is council help guide me through

[25:36] this is leave the restriction on more than three doors, but allow the director

[25:42] um some latitude for these large back in where architecturally

[25:49] they can have four or five. What I will tell you is what we will look for at

[25:55] that kind of installation is some kind of architectural deviation. So we're not

[25:58] looking at a wall of garages plus recessed or extended or some

[26:04] architectural variations between the doors even maybe a door with glazing

[26:09] that door with architectural trim something to break up the head of the

[26:15] pattern. That's why that's in there. Normally I I looked back and some of the

[26:21] emphasis back well over 20 some odd years ago. Um, I understand what they

[26:26] were talking about, but if you go look at there's one on

[26:30] accident really nice job

[26:35] and it doesn't look repetitive and like you're all over.

[26:42] Other than that, this document is almost exactly like this. And so basically

[26:47] summation is it allowed the director to approve some material differences,

[26:52] garage doors, walls without windows, architectural um and then we did the the

[27:00] two other

[27:09] sign

[27:12] and you have any questions I'm seeing that we

[27:18] We should take a motion.

[27:31] » Yes.

[27:38] » Do we have anybody who like to speak? Do we have anybody online?

[27:48] I'll make a motion to close public hearing.

[27:55] » Yes. >> Yes.

[27:58] » Yes. >> And I guess the public hearing is

[28:01] closed.

[28:05] » I'm curious who provided most of the opposition to the board.

[28:13] The question builders >> mostly build mostly builders and mostly

[28:19] builders of our two largest sub. Um they really were not opposed to it in

[28:28] the sense it's just that they have some architectural fronts that

[28:33] would not meet their plans of 40%. 2530

[28:39] wood but 40% would be a little difficult and

[28:44] why I say that is in our architectural design standards we tear it in three

[28:48] levels heavy the medium level and top level the top level is generally wood

[28:55] wood type of treatments the middle level would be something like

[29:00] metal panel or stuckco and then the bottom this industry, but it was mostly

[29:07] gold. Our two most active subject are currently

[29:14] historic information. >> Great. That's a great question.

[29:21] After the meeting, I wanted to go see if this was true or not. And they have a

[29:25] few kind of

[29:30] did not meet the full 40%. But the but the rest of that was spawned

[29:37] against they were uh there's already concrete look that looks like stuckco.

[29:43] They were using that above the next level. Um then others were using

[29:47] architectural wood patterns. So those weren't meeting the 40%. They were

[29:53] pretty close to the 30% and I think looking at their designs of their fronts

[29:59] that they can easily meet the 30%. Um I think they wanted to go lower than I

[30:04] felt that a after touring that they could. The other subdivision clearly

[30:10] they could meet the 30%. They weren't meeting the 40% not because they

[30:15] couldn't they just weren't they just weren't installing.

[30:19] They couldn't they would their design of their fronts was such that

[30:24] architecturally they couldn't add more stone. And by the way, everybody's doing

[30:28] pretty. There's almost no brick or real or real

[30:33] stone being installed right now. We do have an applicant coming in the city

[30:37] that does use real brick. So I'm going to see how that goes whether that's

[30:42] something desirable to home service. But to answer your

[30:49] question that most could meet the 40%. So, so if they if they weren't they

[30:56] didn't meet the 40% or didn't meet the 30%.

[31:01] Let me back up. If they didn't meet the 40%. And they just ignored it.

[31:07] How are we holding them accountable to meet the 30%. If we go to 30%, they go,

[31:12] "Well, okay, we're going to just shade it down to 27 and 25 and 23."

[31:17] » I I that's another great question because that's what we asked on staff is

[31:21] how are we going to manage this? So, our plan review now will be uh we'll be

[31:26] conducting a facade plan review and they're going to have to show us the

[31:31] percentage on all their building because that's you're spot on, Mr. That's that's

[31:36] a great comment. We we've talked to the staff. We don't want to do this in the

[31:40] field. That's impossible that you're asking find out in the field or varies

[31:44] out that's impossible to um be able to calculate the open versus the surface

[31:51] material. So we're doing it by interview and we we feel pretty confident we could

[31:56] achieve this. That's you're I'm glad you're asking that because it was

[32:01] even if let's say we do go 30% doesn't matter what percent we were questioning

[32:06] how are we going to start making sure that was one we so changed our plan view

[32:11] we've actually started notifying some of the builders that we will be looking at

[32:15] this on start to submit be ready for the

[32:20] percentage of >> that's just human nature when you put on

[32:25] future was an egg. So, a kid walking and dog

[32:31] and I think the builders are going to want to do the same. So,

[32:34] » it's excellent. No, I appreciate that. And that's I think you're you're well in

[32:38] tune with everybody on that one. That's why we the easiest method for us would

[32:42] be do it at the planner so they they acknowledge it so they can't come to us

[32:47] later and not be held accountable when we

[32:53] Yes, sir. Anybody

[32:57] else have a question? >> I do.

[33:01] What you in your presentation earlier you mentioned that single family homes

[33:07] have literally four elevations which are the answer to my question. He said on

[33:13] page 57 uh the actual paragraph

[33:19] on the page

[33:24] wall building elevation

[33:33] that each building elevation would be front

[33:39] two sides and back. And we're only really talking about the front elevation

[33:45] or the street facing elevation. So it says each building elevation and

[33:52] there are four elevations on any single family.

[33:58] And so what council said was leave the planning director's approval paragraph

[34:04] at top and keep that for other buildings besides single thing.

[34:10] » Yeah. >> Yeah. So that was and I'm glad you're

[34:12] bringing that up. That was that was one of the major um roadblocks for us to

[34:17] because the idea was to not just have this document when they brought this

[34:23] plan back in 2010 was this is planning developments but and this city was

[34:28] seeing project developments but now we're seeing more straight zoning. That

[34:32] was the emphasis of bringing R1 and R2 into this document. Um but by doing so

[34:40] um that was a little bit of a push back that that's with the larger loss and the

[34:47] way they were building they didn't want to have to do foresighted. So the

[34:52] council just advises certain that staff

[34:58] we want to leave that in there when we bring bigger projects to this body

[35:03] you'll have that in there too. There was documents also for you to set

[35:08] this for the planning commission on the project.

[35:12] I've never been involved in building

[35:19] this like single family homes any commercial building

[35:24] through the specification

[35:28] every word something misspelling someplace.

[35:33] you'd be going back and forth with your cheese and seas for a week or two to

[35:38] make sure that every that you had every word right had lawyers looking all over

[35:45] everything. So was an important thing in the commercial industry that I was at.

[35:51] Uh, also on page 58, um,

[35:57] this isn't one of the red letter things, but in that box it

[36:03] says field painted or prefinish standard

[36:09] say I think that field.

[36:18] » No, I don't. So that we'll we'll work with that when we do the final doc and

[36:24] that's actually still in the old 2010. I appreciate that. Thank you.

[36:29] » Yeah. Yeah. It's from my from my commercial building

[36:35] that you know every letter word every

[36:43] also in the fall of last year. Eur

[36:56] changing it from 1200 square foot minimum to a a 1700 square foot minimum.

[37:04] Where are we on that? Well, we have not revisited since that discussion. um our

[37:12] staff emphasis been on like R1B developments and trying to um work on

[37:19] other standard levels of design. Um I'm sure that's going to come up again soon.

[37:26] What really brought that forward was um a couple of our applicants were coming

[37:32] in under maybe R1 and deputy probably not going to build what this community

[37:39] standard was used. So that's what initiated that conversation was to keep

[37:43] that from happening. But um since then there's been some alteration changes to

[37:48] the conversation we're having with at this point we don't see anybody coming

[37:54] in for very minimum not being what this

[38:01] body so I'm sure that's going to come up

[38:05] again because we would like to revisit that table anyway.

[38:09] It's it's confusing between split levels, buy levels, dry level. It's very

[38:14] confusing. So, we'd like to come back to this and put that up. That's probably

[38:18] going to happen later next. Appreciate that. Okay. And on back on

[38:25] page 57, that red paragraph for R1,

[38:31] there'll be 60% masonary. I I get the impression from

[38:39] audience participation we've had in the past that people look at our might be as

[38:45] you know car paper shacks that were allowing to be built on

[38:51] trailer park size lots and stuff like that. I remember we had a field trip I

[38:57] think was earlier this year where we had some houses which I think fit we are one

[39:03] category that were on lots smaller than 10,000 square feet but they were

[39:10] primarily the houses that we looked at were primarily upscale houses with

[39:16] prices in the upper floors by 500,000. That is kind of where we're going on R1B

[39:25] isn't it a smaller lot but a more upscale house

[39:32] maybe a smaller house but but with more masonry and and things like that. Am I

[39:40] am I missing the vote on >> that's actually that's exactly the

[39:44] emphasis from this body and the governing body and we'll be talking to

[39:48] you next month about landscaping enhancements too that very same

[39:52] principle we're down to what

[39:56] it's hard because landscaping's more on subjective side than anything we do but

[40:02] yes we want and I say that strongly want to make sure these are what we our lots

[40:09] are enhanced above normal lots because we're allowing a smaller lot most likely

[40:16] smaller volume doesn't mean a cheaper volume but we do want with that smaller

[40:20] building more advanced sweets

[40:26] and by smaller dwelling I would argue that our R1 is well

[40:33] minimum 1200 square ft R1 minimum 1200 square So not necessarily the smaller we

[40:42] right now I don't think we're with the one RB R1 body move forward I don't

[40:49] think we're going to see small very small houses in the development field

[40:54] right now there are there are two really big costs to developers land and the

[41:00] infrastructure system storm sewer sanitar those are really what are

[41:04] driving up um cost so it is that All houses the interest rate are one thing

[41:10] those they can save their I really feel you don't see

[41:17] houses above 12 just because it's a small lot doesn't

[41:22] mean what you see below average temperature and and we're

[41:28] helping that by adding the standard store address

[41:37] Thank you very much. You can answer that question. Yes, sir.

[41:42] » Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be quick just a couple questions and and

[41:46] comments. My first comment, however, is kudos to staff. Uh this is a phenomenal

[41:50] document. It it it as a growing community, we need that professional

[41:55] standards, but I also love it that it's not just cookie cutter approach. I love

[41:59] the the antiot standard. That's great. I love that. Um,

[42:06] couple other things on page 51 on 5.2. Building

[42:12] character.

[42:16] I like the fact I like what it's talking about. Uh, exterior material colors

[42:21] should be similar to other building colors within each phase of the

[42:26] development. But then right underneath it, it says don't do this. And I I get I

[42:32] get the general gist of that. color palettes change over time. Um,

[42:39] what if someone wants those interesting colored houses, rainbow colored houses?

[42:46] This the intention for this document is at the construction.

[42:54] This this wasn't intended for years down the road. We may come back to

[43:00] this body to address that comment. In fact, I had talked about that, but this

[43:05] was mostly intended for the building from its stage. We wanted to stay away

[43:09] from creating pallets and subdivisions. So, the only way we could do that is to

[43:17] put something language to where you just don't have that stark contrast. still

[43:21] allows the ability to have freedom of color selection without staff being

[43:26] heavy-handed, but it also prevents somebody that does that that sore thumb

[43:32] next to a bowl up or field or wherever they are. So, but but you're you raised

[43:37] a really good point. We have thought about that. We're not sure yet. This

[43:42] document is just for the building process now existing. We can address the

[43:47] property maintenance code or we can back.

[43:54] That's a nice segue. My last point on page 57.

[43:58] It talks about the planning director. Just one of those little slight things.

[44:05] Are they talking about your position? And if so, is it your position director

[44:10] of planning and zoning? Shouldn't that be in there? you

[44:15] talking just you you just say something that aligns

[44:21] itself to the position that's okay because I don't know if three years from

[44:26] now if uh Leslie wants to call this maybe she wants to call this

[44:33] but the planning director will probably always be in some kind of title and

[44:38] that's why we that generic >> and then here My big question um to that

[44:45] specific sentence who holds that physician accountable someone comes in

[44:52] and they want to do you know it's 30% but someone wants to

[44:56] do 27%. And you know who that position starts to

[45:01] allow that. So who holds that position accountable to say no, you know, you

[45:06] have a position has a little bit of latitude, but it's it's been a very very

[45:10] tight latitude and we got to maintain these standards. That's excellent

[45:15] because that was another thing we discussed. I ultimately I'll work for

[45:18] Leslie, our city administrator, and we also work for the governing body and

[45:23] also I don't want to rule out this body too. Um it's it's an important um

[45:29] organization within, you know, we're kind of

[45:32] » [clears throat] >> tripod and since all three um work

[45:35] together holding up city standards. Um so I I I tell everybody I I have a

[45:42] pretty good record. I've never really made some kind of outlandish decision

[45:46] not knowingly folks I report to can see it too. The things we decide are not

[45:51] hidden. And so I I I take that very seriously. This mostly game I I just

[45:58] give the world a beat. [clears throat] Um he kind of helps guide myself and

[46:02] sometimes Alex we were we just left the two open for what if they want to

[46:07] modulate a couple material but it's structured here. Well, they may not be

[46:11] able to. So he said we'll just put in some language

[46:16] to make modifications. I I going to ask some little real little

[46:21] scenarios just there.

[46:28] » This is just a curiosity question. So, so

[46:33] as Greyhawk has continued to be built out,

[46:38] how does an HOA get formed and because I I know some of the

[46:43] standards are changed from city standard, city standards and

[46:47] construction, but then HOA standards and what color you can repaint for house and

[46:52] that kind of how does that happen? >> So, the HOA is formed through the deed

[46:56] to the developers deed in that process. They actually greathawk I believe has an

[47:01] HOA now. Um so that organization create their own standards. They're

[47:08] autonomous of the city in the sense that we don't enforce theirs. They don't

[47:13] enforce the city standards. Um but they're welcome to create um standards

[47:19] as long as they're not in conflict because this is actually will be a legal

[47:23] document um first through this body and then the governing body. But they can

[47:29] create their own standards to where they can talk about balance. So

[47:36] that's what we did. We stayed away from that and they can't say everything has

[47:39] to be forms of we don't say that. We just say a

[47:45] neighbor next to neighbor can have a checker board rather than

[47:52] totally distinctly. So, but HOAs are formed, you know, for list on the D the

[47:58] subdivision lots and then it's just Kansas law and how they operate as HOA

[48:05] forms >> and they understand

[48:09] that HOAs are subject to city law.

[48:15] » That's correct. >> Right. So the HOA can't say, well, you

[48:19] know, we're going to cut the street back to 5 ft from the house and go, "Yeah,

[48:24] that's not going to happen." >> That that's that's great conversation

[48:27] that that's exactly right. And we actually so far I'm very fortunate in

[48:31] this community that the His

[48:36] very active yet they consult us quite often before making decisions. I know

[48:41] they've worked with Alex. Alex has done a great job on helping them make

[48:47] decisions on the legisl

[48:52] we do not cover your free app.

[48:58] » The other question about architectural standards is the architectural standards

[49:03] address solar on the bus at all. No, no. We have we have a well there's there's

[49:09] state law on how what you can and can't restrict on solar panels and then we do

[49:15] have our sex code that talks about solar pan don't have it incorporated

[49:21] directly

[49:25] the law has changed a little bit on where you a lot of communities said that

[49:29] you can't have it in certain cases well there's been case law where city's been

[49:34] overturned You have to be able to allow

[49:39] we decided we need adjustments to that also

[49:52] question. >> Yes.

[49:57] » I move to text amendment to architectural design Sanders.

[50:02] » Second. >> Take a vote. Jim Hans,

[50:05] » yes. >> Dennis,

[50:06] » yes. >> Tom,

[50:07] » yes. >> Janice,

[50:08] » yes. >> Jim Owen,

[50:09] » yes. >> And I vote yes. That motion passes.

[50:16] » Reports for special committees. I'll take the motion to the regular.

[50:23] » Make a motion to return the regular meeting.

[50:27] » Those in favor, Jim. >> Yes.

[50:30] » Yes. >> Yes.

[50:33] » Yes. And I vote yes.

[50:44] Okay, I'll open our work session consideration of amending art of the

[50:51] regulations areas.

[50:58] Assistant directors are a good reminder to the rightest

[51:09] [clears throat] um under consideration for today just a

[51:13] work session item regarding parking. This will address both residential and

[51:16] commercial parking. As a reminder with all of our work sessions, this is no

[51:21] formal action will be taken. So at any point during the presentation, if you

[51:24] have a question, please feel free to interrupt me at any time. Um I will be

[51:29] starting and just kind of going down the list off of page 91 through the rest of

[51:32] the packet. Starting with 2301,

[51:37] the existing section mostly addresses um if a vehicle is left um is just left at

[51:47] a lot, it's you know has four flat tires, it has no engine in it. Um that

[51:54] the enforcement and the guidelines for that are addressing the code of

[51:57] ordinances and talking with police and code enforcement. They don't use this

[52:01] section for enforcement. They use various other parts of the code. So it's

[52:05] it's redundant and not necessary and not encouraged for that kind of language to

[52:09] be in the zoning code. You don't typically see a lot of you know police

[52:13] timelines and punishment and enforcability within the zoning code.

[52:17] That's all up to the ordinance. So that's why that first section is taken

[52:20] out. Instead, it is still necessary to um to outline what is encouraged and

[52:28] what's required in terms of storage for vehicles. And generally for for this

[52:33] section and the rest of the sections that we'll talk about today at least

[52:36] some portion or majority portion was was looked at from other cities that

[52:40] surround this as well as some good model ordinances from around the country. So

[52:44] this isn't something that is being introduced really certain times in the

[52:47] city. So um under the the first subsection of that is parking of other

[52:52] motor vehicles. This is largely to prevent um fields from being turned into

[52:58] storage of of cars. Um we see it in a few of our larger lots where um for

[53:05] whatever reason they hold on to older cars that are never driven again have

[53:10] you know weeds and trees growing through them. Um this is largely to to prevent

[53:14] that from happening or requiring cars to um be kept on an improved surface um be

[53:23] e either readily used or available to be used. Subsection two is largely the same

[53:28] as the first but for nonmotorized vehicles as as listed there as well as

[53:34] marine equipment. The first three are mostly for safety and that both the

[53:38] vehicle is supposed to be usable as well as to be tied down if not used. That way

[53:43] it doesn't blow away in the storm in a swarm. Um subsection D has been added

[53:49] largely for the >> Yes, you said I could interrupt. Please

[53:54] I'm so sorry. back up under one a >> free and frequent

[54:00] » defined and frequently and who who defines so that would be um a delivery

[54:07] service um someone coming in to drop off uh like construction materials or or

[54:14] construction um it would be largely left up to state staff if we receive a

[54:19] complaint that um you know a certain vehicle is is staging outside for many

[54:25] hours a day that we make sure we go and check up on it. So, it would be up to

[54:29] city staff to determine a brief infrequent.

[54:34] » Um on subsection two on um the subsection D talks about no travel

[54:40] trailers or or any type of trailers are allowed to be lived in on a residential

[54:44] lot or conduct business. This is largely for city staff's verification as we

[54:50] start to relay information to the public. We've received an increase over

[54:53] the last year um and a half of calls of people wondering if someone can live in

[55:00] the driveway on a trailer. We currently have another section of our code that

[55:04] outlaws accessory dwelling units, which would be like a a outouse or something

[55:09] that's built um for living in that we've been using to tell people no. This just

[55:14] makes it much more clear um in the intent. And there's also on subsection E

[55:20] there's some exceptions for when parking would be allowed in these in these

[55:25] areas. Jumping ahead to 230201.

[55:31] Uh the first is to apply this to our new zoning district of R1B as well as R2. Um

[55:36] and the the gist of what has been crossed out is that previously we've

[55:42] been allowing gravel driveways. Um we've seen an influx in infill development and

[55:47] infill lots um that are taking the large lots that have been left by a few of

[55:53] these developments and with with a requirement to put in gravel driveways

[55:58] and more or less a residential neighborhood where you don't currently

[56:02] see that. This would not require anyone who currently has a gravel driveway to

[56:06] take it out and repave their driveway. Uh but we've we've seen a a concerning

[56:12] influx of homes that have busted gravel driveway and with the current language

[56:16] it allows them to do so after a certain point which is very visible from the

[56:20] roadway the source character in the neighborhood. So this gets rid of of

[56:24] that requirement. um this gets rid of that ability um and as directed by the

[56:31] the director to approve. Um that the the rest of the section for

[56:37] the most part will go into commercial. Um so if anyone has any questions over

[56:42] the existing residential I can take a stop here.

[56:52] says private property. So what if it's less

[56:57] than

[57:01] less than 100 under the current circumstances they would have to use a

[57:06] driveway in the future. If this were to be

[57:09] adopted as such, they would have to be paved as well or under

[57:20] moving on to um the commercial. The this first section that we'll talk about more

[57:26] in in O4 um removes a lot of specifics out of out of the the section. The 23.03

[57:34] Note three largely has to deal with if you have something like a church that's

[57:38] mostly only used two days out of the week and there's a commercial business

[57:42] that you can have a legally binding agreement with that you can share and

[57:46] fully utilize that parking space and that this section encourages you to do

[57:50] so. The current language talks about the businesses that would be eligible to do

[57:54] so. It mentions bowling alleys, dance halls.

[57:59] The getting rid of this would just allow any any business that is realizes that

[58:04] they're not fully utilizing their existing parking to reach a legal

[58:08] agreement with another party nearby. Um and as required at the bottom of this

[58:13] section, it is to be presented by the city um and is to be a legally binding

[58:18] agreement. Taking out the specifications just allow any business to do so more

[58:22] fully equal as a parking. 2304 um is a a complete relative of the

[58:30] parking minimums which currently exists. Um the the language in there you'll see

[58:35] is also completely new and there's current parking regulations. There's

[58:39] only a chart with no existing language of how to interpret that chart. Um what

[58:45] to do if there's a rounding it's to be constructed. The language

[58:50] just goes into detail of how to better interpret the chart and come up with any

[58:54] details and any specifications if needed. The the big change is that there

[59:00] are currently parking minimums in place that if a business comes to the city,

[59:05] they usually have a building footprint and then they use that footprint to

[59:08] determine how many parking spaces are needed are required for their business.

[59:14] Uh just for in reference, Fairway exceeded their parking minimum by about

[59:19] 40 spaces. Um and the McDonald's site plan exceeds their um their requirement

[59:25] by about 12 spaces. So the current minimums are being exceeded by current

[59:30] businesses that are developing. But the other side of minimums is that it it has

[59:36] the city tell an incoming business how much parking is required. In many

[59:40] circumstances, that can be a detriment to businesses. The biggest example is a

[59:46] coffee shop um of you know a certain a small business may come in find a lot

[59:51] that they really like. It would fit their building. It would fit what they

[59:54] see best fit for their business and the amount of parking that's required. But

[59:58] the parking requirements tell them they need an additional 15. Those 15 may not

[1:00:03] fit on the lot. Then they have to go find another lot that costs 100,000 more

[1:00:07] and their business doesn't ultimately work out. So what this would do is

[1:00:11] rephrase it from a parking minimum to a parking maximum. The table has been

[1:00:17] largely reworked and all the numbers that you see on any categories have been

[1:00:21] very much inflated. So it's not just a one one word we're calling what our

[1:00:25] minimums were now maximums. These are far exceeding what they traditionally

[1:00:29] were. The goal of this is to avoid empty

[1:00:33] parking lots for 364 days out of the year. I'm sure many of us have driven by

[1:00:38] malls, large box stores where the parking lot is 75% empty for most of the

[1:00:44] year. This is to in attempt to avoid that as more and more businesses come to

[1:00:49] the city. So what's what will be required is that they show how much

[1:00:53] parking they intend to utilize um and why that will be enough for their

[1:00:58] business. If there's a business that comes to the city that needs to exceed

[1:01:01] this, um, number seven, I believe in the text allows them to submit a parking

[1:01:06] study to do so and exceed any of these numbers. Um, but these are are very

[1:01:10] generous numbers that should not need to be exceeded by any type of any type of

[1:01:16] commercial businesses. Um, but the intent is to limit the amount of excess

[1:01:21] parking that would be currently required under code.

[1:01:31] So the single family dwelling

[1:01:36] there's a max someone has a garage

[1:01:41] in there

[1:01:45] why are we governing they have a [clears throat]

[1:01:48] 40 foot then are we

[1:01:53] two cars and explain >> yeah That's a great question and

[1:01:58] unfortunately the only residential section that appears after this is later

[1:02:03] in 07 which will get to defining parking spaces for residential as garage.

[1:02:10] So that this will limit it to four garage spaces per dwelling unit. Um that

[1:02:16] that is that is an amendment that we thought about and that we certainly

[1:02:18] don't want to eliminate you know long driveways or anything is that in terms

[1:02:23] of parking spaces that are required and how to classify this table. It'll look

[1:02:28] at garage spaces.

[1:02:34] I sure did misread this because I just I I I saw the word maximum and just in my

[1:02:41] mind thought minimum because that's what the old chart said as well. So I'm

[1:02:46] completely confused now. Um um on other all other commercial and retail uses and

[1:02:54] I wrote down a note doc's office.

[1:02:59] Correct. >> Uh correct. Yeah, there there is a

[1:03:01] separate for hospital but for like deposition care. Yeah. Um, so the old

[1:03:06] one said five parking spots per do

[1:03:12] » and now this one is saying a maximum of three phases just

[1:03:19] so and part of the reason that I was mentioning earlier of this goes into

[1:03:23] more generalities is because in in some other cities it gets into

[1:03:30] um you'll see they tried their best to be most specific in have a four page

[1:03:35] long table where they'll talk about four spaces max four minimum of four spaces

[1:03:41] for a bowling lane and a bowling alley and and stuff like that where it's

[1:03:44] impossible for city staff to keep up with the trends of what so it it goes

[1:03:48] into generalities of what's required. So in in this scenario if there's a

[1:03:53] doctor's office that feels like they can get away with with three spaces in their

[1:03:59] entire parking lot they can run a successful business that would allow

[1:04:02] them to do so. And it does not necessarily require them to provide

[1:04:06] parking. It it sets a limit of of how much parking they can provide to avoid

[1:04:13] having, you know, five doctors and 100 spaces. So, it would it would shift from

[1:04:21] the city requiring x amount of parking spots per use to now leaving it up to

[1:04:27] the business to to determine what they know is needed to run a successful

[1:04:33] business. and providing that kind of part.

[1:04:38] » Thank you. I don't know if I agree with that. Thank you.

[1:04:41] » So, yeah, I sound like so we go to KU Medical Center on

[1:04:47] occasion more occasionally like they do great jobs

[1:04:52] majority about them, but the ability to art there is

[1:04:57] non-existent. So, um, you know, I think that we really

[1:05:04] need to have some kind of minimum of parking spaces for

[1:05:09] large businesses potentially like a hospital or a big box store, whatever,

[1:05:13] so that people can actually park there. >> Yeah. And part of the reasoning for

[1:05:18] this, and this is a a trend um regionally and especially nationwide, is

[1:05:24] that there there's not going to be a hospital

[1:05:28] that's built that will provide no parking spaces because they understand

[1:05:31] that they need to provide parking to their patients, for visitors, etc.

[1:05:36] The issue that that we see across the the region is that there's too much

[1:05:42] parking provided based solely on the reason that it is required by the city.

[1:05:47] So there are businesses that would suffice with let's just say 100 spots.

[1:05:52] They're required by the city to provide 150 and 50 of the spots go unused every

[1:05:58] single on every single day of the year. that could have been used for

[1:06:01] landscaping but another business in there for some other use other than 50

[1:06:06] extra parking spots every single year and every single day. They have to be

[1:06:10] maintained by the business. They have it has to be repaid, potholes filled, etc.

[1:06:15] So the the intent of this is not to say let's have every business come in with

[1:06:21] that provides no parking and we certainly encourage them to do so and

[1:06:25] it's it's shown by by Fairway and McDonald's have us having a limit them

[1:06:30] able to provide even less than they have provided and them still going over. So

[1:06:36] the the intent is that the the city is not the one driving the number of

[1:06:41] parking. it's the business or operation that understands their business model

[1:06:46] and will provide the amount of parking accordingly. If that ends up not

[1:06:50] working, they get complaints, they're they're out of, you know, they're not

[1:06:54] they're losing customers because of parking, that's something that they may

[1:06:57] come back to later and revise the parking estimates and require expand

[1:07:02] upon that. But but that's the intent of of switching from minimum to a maximum.

[1:07:16] I will I'll add a few more points to this chart, but again, feel free to to

[1:07:21] interrupt. Um, as we were kind of talking about before that, um,

[1:07:26] Commissioner Alai pointed out, if you go to other cities or even our previous

[1:07:30] chart, you'll see some specifics. This goes into generalities to avoid having

[1:07:34] to keep up with trends of what businesses are are doing are doing what

[1:07:39] required minimums or maximum for what parking. Um and and a few of the spots

[1:07:45] it goes it says in accordance with the permit or development plan that's

[1:07:50] especially for something like a park. um you know the civic campus when it's

[1:07:54] attached to a civic use may require a lot more parking when it has a splash

[1:07:59] plant something else then maybe a trail head parking or tomahawk part. So on

[1:08:04] something as variable as that we left it to the permitting process and the site

[1:08:09] plan review process um where for for those larger developments this body

[1:08:13] would see it and be able to land on the parking as well.

[1:08:18] Uh 23.05 is a new addition. There's currently no language in our code that

[1:08:23] talks about pedestrian access. Um it's it's very common for commercial

[1:08:27] businesses to be required to provide pedestrian access. It's not something

[1:08:32] that would ever stop a business from from coming to a city or be a hindrance

[1:08:35] to commercial development. All this would would mean is that anytime there's

[1:08:39] more than two um double loaded aisles is that there's required pedestrian access.

[1:08:45] This allows people to access the building easier. allows them to push

[1:08:49] their cart out to their car without having to squeeze between two and and

[1:08:53] being a side mirror. Um they're be required to use stripes accordingly. Um

[1:08:59] and just generally provide easier access. Um as well, at least in my

[1:09:03] opinion, there's both visually appealing as well. It's a breakdown of the parking

[1:09:07] lot. Speaking of, there's also no parking lot landscaping required for

[1:09:11] commercial businesses at the moment. So 23.06 would be another addition to the

[1:09:16] code. Generally, it just requires parking lot that parking lot

[1:09:19] landscaping. It's not necessarily overbearing, but it it talks about

[1:09:24] landscape islands at the end of double loaded parking aisles. This would avoid

[1:09:29] cars going all the way up to the end of an aisle. Um, and some of the, you know,

[1:09:34] if you've been some of the parking lots when there's a a really big car park at

[1:09:38] the end, you kind of have to inch out and tug yourself into the aisle. a

[1:09:42] landscape island in addition to providing landscaping which which looks

[1:09:46] nice. Um it it provides a easy sideline. Typically these are very low caliber

[1:09:53] trees with bushes in them that allow you to see easier in the parking lot as

[1:09:57] you're making the turns um as well as just bush.

[1:10:01] Um so what we're trying to avoid and we've been lucky that we have had two

[1:10:05] very good developers um and developments come in with fairway in McDonald's that

[1:10:09] are very agreeable and us asking them to exceed our current minimums and and

[1:10:14] landscape their parking lot. What we want to avoid is any big box work come

[1:10:17] in just have a sea of a parking lot of just asphalt that you see on page 96 at

[1:10:23] the bottom. And what we'd like to see is either a landscaping buff for that,

[1:10:27] especially in the street view, or allow the ability of of outer parcels and

[1:10:32] outer buildings to to buffer that street view. So you're not driving down the

[1:10:36] road and all you see is asphalt in the store. You may see some greenery as

[1:10:40] well. Alex issue of required handicap parking. Is

[1:10:48] that just does that state requirements or does the city have c certain number

[1:10:53] of handicaps parking requirements per as a ratio of

[1:11:01] general parking department that work? >> Yeah, that's set by the ADA

[1:11:06] as is required. So that's not in our parking requirements here. It's set by

[1:11:11] the federal ADA and that's what we follow. Thank you.

[1:11:17] » Um 23 07 talks about as we were talking about earlier that the garages are to be

[1:11:25] the residential units for parking are to be served by garages and that um each

[1:11:32] new residential building shall have at least one garage space. Um and the the

[1:11:38] new the new language in um section four of that talks about um the distance a

[1:11:44] parking structure can be from a building a park the distance a parking structure

[1:11:52] or units can be from a building for it to be counted as serving that building.

[1:11:57] So you can't have something across the street or half a mile away and say it's

[1:12:01] serving a different building. So that's what section four is is about.

[1:12:06] Um and the rest of the um the rest of the changes are changing planning

[1:12:11] commission to director. Um the direction we've seen from this body is that um

[1:12:17] you know areas such as um parking lot screening um and and plantings and and

[1:12:25] fencing materials are something that would like to be done at the staff level

[1:12:30] be done a little bit more expedited process. So that changes that language

[1:12:34] as well. And that is it for my presentation. I'm

[1:12:38] happy to answer your questions.

[1:12:45] » Yes. Not many people want to hear me ramble about parking minimums. And

[1:12:50] unfortunately, you all do not have a choice.

[1:12:55] I suspect this kind of stuff is like throwing Rob to the Tit

[1:13:14] facility that These are the true standards right now.

[1:13:20] You said fairway, but I don't see any >> uh in terms of landscaping.

[1:13:27] » Well, the whole >> um I haven't done an inventory count of

[1:13:32] the >> nailed it.

[1:13:36] » Yeah, I I can't think of any that meet the the landscaping requirements of the

[1:13:41] islands and the pedestrian access. Not to say that those don't, you know, the

[1:13:45] fairway parking lot is is kind of divided, so you don't see those five,

[1:13:50] six, seven rows. Um, but I I can't think of any of the current.

[1:13:56] » So, so you're looking at the the Walmart in Bonner Springs that seems to have a

[1:14:03] pretty broken [clears throat] up divided, has some islands in it. you

[1:14:08] know, when I go into there, I don't feel like I'm even though it is a big huge

[1:14:13] parking lot and it looks like broken up quite well.

[1:14:18] » Yeah. Um, and the goal is really to break it up. So, it it encourages people

[1:14:22] to use the pedestrian access that helps pedestrians not have to walk in the

[1:14:26] middle of the aisle, but also cars not have to wait for people who's going to

[1:14:30] wander and walk down the middle of the parking aisle. Uh so it it is the right

[1:14:35] deal both visually but there's also a very big safety aspect of providing

[1:14:40] no noted points for people to walk up and down parking aisles where there's

[1:14:45] vehicles backing in and out all the time. They don't have to worry about

[1:14:49] that. and and on through page 96

[1:14:58] I don't go to a lot of places that that

[1:15:05] building

[1:15:08] it generally

[1:15:13] and Walmart example that they other landscape but they they don't have the

[1:15:20] pain. And when you go to other parts of

[1:15:27] the area of the Kansas City area where you do see

[1:15:32] that those ends take a beat,

[1:15:38] you know,

[1:15:47] it it is very common to see those end up as multip maybe a tree or something,

[1:15:53] which isn't necessarily a bad thing. In this case, it it provides like I was

[1:15:58] talking about earlier that the buffer of the sight line so you're not having cars

[1:16:02] all the way up as well as maybe a tree or some bushes. But you're right, it is

[1:16:08] very common for this to be buried since you have so much service.

[1:16:15] The trees don't come around.

[1:16:36] » Yes. >> Yes.

[1:16:39] » Yes.

[1:16:44] » [clears throat] >> I'm going to

9-8-2026 Planning Commission Meeting

Transcript