[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