[8:46] All right. Right. I'd like to uh call to

[8:48] order the August 6th, 2026 uh meeting of

[8:51] the Spring Hill Planning Commission. Um

[8:54] if everyone will rise for the pledge of

[8:55] allegiance.

[9:00] I

[9:00] >> pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[9:02] United States of America and to the

[9:05] republic for which it stands. One nation

[9:09] indivisible with liberty and justice for

[9:12] all.

[9:19] right. Thank you. Uh Amy, roll call.

[9:23] >> Mr. Nace. Mr. Hehart

[9:25] >> here.

[9:26] >> Miss Jones. Mr. Aravalo

[9:29] >> here.

[9:30] >> Miss Bergmmyer

[9:31] >> here.

[9:31] >> Mr. Sly. Miss Squire

[9:34] >> here.

[9:35] >> Mr. Morris

[9:36] >> here.

[9:36] >> Chair, we have a quorum.

[9:38] >> Okay, great.

[9:42] >> All right. Next, I will accept a motion

[9:45] to approve the agenda.

[9:47] >> So move.

[9:48] >> Second. All right. All in favor of

[9:50] approving the agenda say I.

[9:52] >> I.

[9:53] >> All oppose. Same.

[9:56] >> Okay. Motion carries.

[10:00] All right. So the next section on our

[10:04] standard agenda is citizen

[10:06] participation. So, this is an

[10:08] opportunity for citizens to talk about

[10:11] anything not on the agenda. You can talk

[10:13] about things on the agenda, too, if you

[10:14] want. We do have two public hearings

[10:16] today. Um, so there'll there will also

[10:19] be citizen participation during those

[10:21] public hearings, but if you want to

[10:23] speak now, you can. We have one person

[10:25] signed up, uh, Steve Laughlin.

[10:32] You want to Yeah. Do you want to Yeah.

[10:34] come come to the front and please just

[10:35] state your name and address once you get

[10:37] to the microphone

[10:39] and then Amy will buzz you after 5

[10:42] minutes.

[10:44] >> My name is Steve Laughlin. I live at

[10:48] 19125 West 183rd Street directly across

[10:52] the street from this reszoning on this

[10:55] plot.

[11:00] My concerns about this at Spring Hill's

[11:04] planning for the area north of Spring

[11:08] Hill is more of a first come, first

[11:11] serve, wild west mentality.

[11:15] For example, we got loaded up with all

[11:19] the businesses east or west of the

[11:21] railroad tracks. My house, my street

[11:24] today is a highway for concrete trucks,

[11:28] cement trucks, semi trucks, RVs because

[11:31] of that marvelous RV storage unit we

[11:35] have.

[11:41] And by reszoning this property and

[11:45] bringing this number of residents into

[11:47] this neighborhood

[11:49] on a street that has no clear artery to

[11:52] get get to get out, I cannot comprehend

[11:58] the traffic issues that are going to

[12:00] develop from this. It worries me. It's

[12:03] bad now. This could be a disaster.

[12:07] the [clears throat] whole neighborhood

[12:08] for a mile and a half through

[12:11] we are talking homes on two to five 10

[12:14] acres.

[12:17] I would like to see the neighborhood

[12:18] keep its character rather than having

[12:21] hundreds of homes crammed into this

[12:24] piece of real estate.

[12:28] The other issue is I think I'm going to

[12:30] educate some people here

[12:33] that that property is in a flood zone.

[12:37] I'm gonna I've lived out there since

[12:38] 1989.

[12:41] In the early 90s, wet weather,

[12:47] the water that ran down through this

[12:49] farm engulfed 183rd Street for 100 to

[12:54] 150 ft. Not once in the 90s, time after

[12:59] time,

[13:00] there were four houses down at the creek

[13:03] on 183rd Street and one at the creek on

[13:06] Ridge View Road. They continually got

[13:09] flooded.

[13:11] This the county came in and put in two

[13:14] new bridges

[13:16] trying to make a bigger throat to try to

[13:19] get the water through. It didn't work.

[13:22] next big rain through the wet period of

[13:25] the 90s, it all flooded again and the

[13:29] county turned around and bought all five

[13:32] houses.

[13:34] They've all been moved out. The closest

[13:37] one is at the northeast corner of 183rd

[13:41] in Ridge View. That house used to be

[13:43] down by the creek on Rididge View. So,

[13:46] we cleared it out with the problems.

[13:49] Now, if we develop this ground, you're

[13:53] going to have however however many

[13:55] hundreds of homes with the rooftops and

[13:58] all of the roads are going to put in and

[14:01] it's going to rain like that again. It

[14:04] always does. The runoff is going to be

[14:07] worse than what it ever has been.

[14:10] And on top of that, there's been a lot

[14:13] of growth of trees to restrict water

[14:15] flow. Now, the embankments are full of

[14:18] trees.

[14:20] I believe they're kicking the can down

[14:22] the road and the problems are only going

[14:24] to get worse with this development.

[14:26] That's what my concern is

[14:30] of the flooding on top of all the

[14:32] traffic that it is going to add to this

[14:35] little peaceful neighborhood.

[14:38] That's the point I wanted to bring up.

[14:40] Thank you.

[14:41] >> Thank you.

[14:45] All right. Mr. Laughlin was the only

[14:47] person who signed up. Is there any

[14:48] anyone else that would like to speak

[14:50] during the citizen participation kind of

[14:52] the open time right now?

[14:55] If not, we will close it.

[15:02] Spencer gavel. No gavvel.

[15:04] >> Your choice.

[15:05] >> Okay, I'm going to say no.

[15:08] Um, all right. So, we'll move on to

[15:10] formal commission action. Uh, the first

[15:11] item on the agenda is approval of the

[15:13] minutes from the June 4th meeting. It's

[15:15] been a while since we've met. Um, I will

[15:18] entertain a a motion to approve the

[15:21] minutes from that meeting.

[15:23] >> I approve the minutes from the June 4th

[15:25] meeting as stands.

[15:26] >> Second.

[15:27] >> All right. All in favor say I.

[15:29] >> I.

[15:31] meant to say I. All opposed. Same

[15:34] sign. All right. Motion carries

[15:38] to approve the uh minutes from the June

[15:39] 4th meeting.

[15:42] Okay. Next order of business is since uh

[15:46] Kendra Kvier who was our former

[15:48] chairperson

[15:50] was recently appointed to the city

[15:51] council. So we congratulate her on that.

[15:54] I was the vice chair. That's why I'm in

[15:56] this chair for the first time tonight.

[15:58] Um so we need to nominate a new vice

[16:00] chairperson for the planning commission.

[16:02] So um we'll open it up for nominations

[16:07] and you can nominate yourself.

[16:09] >> I'd like to nominate Chuck for chair.

[16:13] Not for chair, for vice chair.

[16:14] >> For vice chair.

[16:15] >> Yeah.

[16:15] >> So, so my understanding, what I've been

[16:17] told is that the vice chair is

[16:19] automatically appointed to the chair.

[16:21] >> And then so we're only now uh

[16:24] backfilling the vice chair.

[16:25] >> All right. Rul, I'll kick it over to you

[16:27] then.

[16:29] >> Do we need a second on

[16:31] >> No, you don't need a second on

[16:32] nominations. Okay.

[16:34] >> All right. So, we we have a nomination

[16:35] for Ralpho, vice chairperson. Do we have

[16:38] any other nominations?

[16:44] Um, all right.

[16:48] I move nominations cease.

[16:55] We need a second for that.

[16:59] » Second. All right. So then, u

[17:03] do I need to have a vote on closing the

[17:04] nominations?

[17:05] >> We do. Yeah.

[17:06] >> Okay. All Thank you. All in favor of uh

[17:08] closing the nominations. I

[17:09] >> say I I all opposed.

[17:12] >> All right, the motion carries. Uh we

[17:14] have one nomination for vice chairperson

[17:16] of the planning commission and it's

[17:18] Ralpho Arabelloo.

[17:20] Uh so we will do a roll call vote for

[17:23] Ralpho's nomination. We'll start from

[17:26] all in favor. I need a motion for that.

[17:28] >> No, I mean you don't need a motion

[17:30] because he's nominated.

[17:31] >> Okay. So I can just call a roll call.

[17:32] >> All right. We'll start on my left.

[17:34] Ronaldo. Um, [laughter]

[17:36] >> I I

[17:38] >> I

[17:40] >> All right. It uh his nomination is

[17:43] approved unanimously.

[17:45] >> I thought I'd let you set the tone with

[17:48] the first vote.

[17:51] Okay, moving on.

[17:54] Um, all right. So, this is the first of

[17:56] two public hearings tonight.

[17:59] Uh the first one

[18:01] is a resoning application uh from C2 to

[18:05] M1 over near Moody's hardware. So I will

[18:09] open the public hearing for that and we

[18:11] will begin with the staff report.

[18:16] » Oh thank you. Have any members of the

[18:20] planning commission had any exparte

[18:22] communication related to this

[18:23] application?

[18:26] Okay,

[18:27] seeing none, we will proceed.

[18:33] Ian.

[18:34] >> Okay, perfect. Thank you. Um

[18:36] [clears throat] Ian Treference, city

[18:37] planner. Before you today's application

[18:40] Z26-1,

[18:42] Busirus Auto, a resoning request from

[18:44] CP2 uh to M1 or sorry, C2 to M1

[18:48] commercial district to M1 Light

[18:50] Industrial. Uh the proposed resoning is

[18:53] on a 1.4 4 acre uh lot which is

[18:57] designated in the uh adopted Spring Hill

[18:59] comprehensive plan as industrial

[19:01] designation.

[19:03] Uh the subject property is provided with

[19:06] utilities uh water is provided by

[19:08] Johnson County Water One sewer by the

[19:10] city of Spring Hill and storm with

[19:12] regional drainage uh flowing to the

[19:14] north. Uh surrounding properties and

[19:17] their zoning designations to the north

[19:19] is a hardware store zone C2 commercial.

[19:22] To the east is a contractor storage

[19:24] facility zoned M1 Light Industrial. To

[19:27] the south is a retail store zoned M1

[19:29] Light Industrial and to the west is K

[19:31] Dot Rideway which does not have a zoning

[19:33] designation that is uh 169 highway.

[19:38] with consideration to uh traffic

[19:40] associated with this resoning request.

[19:43] Um the city engineer determined that a

[19:46] uh the proposed use um which is not

[19:48] currently under consideration at this

[19:50] time uh but is intended to be a

[19:53] automotive repair facility uh will not

[19:55] generate sufficient traffic to require a

[19:57] traffic study. Uh that being said, the

[19:59] time of sight plan application, if it is

[20:02] determined that it needs one, it will be

[20:03] required as part of that. The site

[20:06] itself,

[20:08] pull it up here, give an overview of the

[20:13] layout and topography is generally flat.

[20:16] There is a slight grade uh where the

[20:19] property uh falls from the south to the

[20:22] north. Let me pull this up and get it

[20:25] shared.

[20:39] Let me change the background. So, this

[20:41] is the subject property right here. As

[20:43] you can see, the high point is on the

[20:45] southwest corner, uh lowering down as

[20:48] you go to the north. Um, this property,

[20:51] uh, while not currently tied into

[20:53] existing storm water drainage, uh,

[20:55] surrounding properties do drain to this

[20:56] channel here, uh, which runs off to the

[20:58] north, ultimately joining in with a

[21:01] broader waterhed that drains down into

[21:02] Hillsdale Lake. Um,

[21:06] let's see. With respect to the

[21:09] comprehensive plan compliance, staff

[21:10] reviewed found that the request to go to

[21:13] M1 Light Industrial is aligned with the

[21:15] comprehensive plan in multiple different

[21:17] respects. Uh first and foremost, section

[21:20] 4.3 growth recommendations which calls

[21:22] for the future land use plan

[21:23] specifically identifies the property as

[21:25] industrial. The uh proposed end use as

[21:28] uh automotive repair facility kind of

[21:30] falls into that light industrial type

[21:32] land use uh and therefore complies or

[21:34] aligns with that future land use

[21:36] designation. Uh additional sections of

[21:38] the comprehensive plan uh section 5.9

[21:40] industrial development recommendations

[21:42] outlines that small businesses should be

[21:44] encouraged. Uh the proposed end user is

[21:47] a small locally owned business. Um an

[21:51] additional recommendation for industrial

[21:52] development is that they are located in

[21:54] close proximity to US 169 highway. As

[21:57] you can see, this is directly adjacent

[21:59] to it. There's direct access uh going

[22:02] south and then out here. Uh there is

[22:04] currently a signalization study being

[22:07] undertaken on adding a signal here. I

[22:10] believe that is Allison's not here to

[22:12] speak to it, so I'll kind of Oh, she is.

[22:16] Okay, Austin's here to speak to that,

[22:18] but there is a signal that is looking at

[22:19] going there. Um, I apologize about that.

[22:22] [snorts] Uh, so there are multiple parts

[22:24] of the comprehensive plan that align

[22:25] with this proposed resoning. Uh, so

[22:27] staff finds that it does align with the

[22:29] comprehensive plan.

[22:31] Looking at compatibility with

[22:32] surrounding land uses, uh, the

[22:34] surrounding properties are developed

[22:36] with substantively similar types of land

[22:38] use, whether that be commercial or

[22:39] similar light industrial type. uh with

[22:42] the office um our contractor storage

[22:45] facility across the street uh and

[22:47] commercial to the north and south. Um

[22:49] the proposed zoning designation and the

[22:52] kind of current restrictions to

[22:54] potential land uses that are available

[22:56] under the newly adopted M1 light

[22:58] industrial kind of align with that

[23:00] pattern of development. Some of the more

[23:02] intensive land uses such as primary

[23:04] industry uh general industry those are

[23:06] restricted to M2 now. Uh so by going to

[23:09] M1 they're not opening. so to speak, a

[23:12] can of worms. That would be for the more

[23:13] intensive land uses. Um, [snorts]

[23:19] with that, the surrounding properties

[23:22] are not developed with land uses that

[23:23] are particularly sensitive to land uses

[23:26] that do generate uh off-site impacts. Uh

[23:29] staff does expect uh some form of

[23:32] adverse impact in the shape of light,

[23:35] noise and dust nuisances generated just

[23:37] by standard use of the property uh by

[23:40] industrial land uses generally. That

[23:42] being said, considering the properties

[23:44] uh surrounding uh are developed with

[23:46] that industrial commercial um they're

[23:48] typically only operating during daylight

[23:50] hours uh and they're not residential

[23:52] that would be severely impacted by these

[23:54] off-site impacts. And furthermore, as

[23:56] part of the site planning uh process,

[23:58] there's an opportunity to mitigate any

[24:00] particularly concerning off-site impact.

[24:02] So, um staff does not feel that the

[24:05] proposed resoning uh would generate a

[24:07] significant enough adverse impact to uh

[24:10] not recommend approval. So, staff does

[24:12] recommend approval for this resoning

[24:13] request. Stand for any questions.

[24:22] for Ian.

[24:25] >> Do the other businesses that are there,

[24:29] are they designated M1 or [cough] C2s?

[24:34] >> It's a mix.

[24:35] >> Yeah, it's a mix. So to the north is C2.

[24:37] Across the street, the contractor

[24:39] storage is C2. Uh M1 is to the south and

[24:42] Caddy corner to the southeast. Then

[24:44] yeah, up north along the road, there's

[24:46] more M1. So it's a mix.

[24:48] >> Yeah.

[24:50] So, I I kind of had a question, a

[24:52] follow-up question to that, which is

[24:53] like the Fireworks Mania store, the

[24:56] dance studio,

[24:58] um,

[25:00] >> another one at the 191st. Yeah. Uh,

[25:02] well, actually, Mellow Fellow is C2,

[25:05] >> but the fireworks store and the dance

[25:06] studio, and then one other building are

[25:08] all M1.

[25:10] >> Can you imagine? I mean, why would those

[25:12] have been designated M1 rather than C2?

[25:14] Because these are just like regular

[25:16] commercial businesses.

[25:18] >> Yeah. the exact background as to how

[25:19] that happened, I'm not certain. Um

[25:23] I don't have the background for that as

[25:24] to why it ended up.

[25:25] >> Okay. But but today it would So like one

[25:30] of those today would still be C2 rather

[25:33] than M1. And we're and we're

[25:34] contemplating M1 here under the new

[25:37] definition.

[25:38] >> Okay. [clears throat]

[25:38] >> Yes. Yeah. It would be under the newly

[25:40] adopted light industrial designation.

[25:42] >> Okay. which which if I remember

[25:43] correctly for the most part informs that

[25:47] the majority of the business activity or

[25:50] you know will be indoors.

[25:51] >> That's correct. Yes.

[25:53] >> Okay.

[25:55] >> Yeah. Um any outdoor storage would have

[25:58] to be completely screened from public

[25:59] view things of that nature. Yes. Uh but

[26:02] day-to-day operations are enclosed as

[26:04] part of the design requirements or site

[26:05] requirements.

[26:07] >> Are fireworks just allowed in M1 or are

[26:09] they available in C2? Fireworks are

[26:12] permitted. They're considered a Oh, it's

[26:15] retail limited, which I think is both. I

[26:18] can double check that. But as far as

[26:20] >> I knew it was in one. I just didn't

[26:21] remember if it was C2 or not.

[26:23] >> Yeah.

[26:25] The reason I raised the question is

[26:27] because we also approved the overlay

[26:31] designation.

[26:33] This wouldn't fit into

[26:35] doing that, keeping it C2 and

[26:40] doing an overlay.

[26:42] >> That would be a route. That being said,

[26:44] under the newly adopted M1 light

[26:46] industrial, it would be permitted by

[26:48] rights. So, um, that is another way to

[26:52] go about it. That being said,

[26:55] I don't particularly see a reason to go

[26:57] down that route. Um, I think that that

[26:59] just adds additional layers to it that

[27:01] might not be necessary. Um, but yes,

[27:04] that would be another way to go about

[27:05] doing this if you prefer to keep it

[27:06] seated.

[27:08] >> I mean, the reason I raise it because at

[27:09] least part of the history of this group

[27:12] is not wanting to keep constantly keep

[27:15] changing from one designation to

[27:18] another.

[27:24] Yeah, Commissioner, [clears throat] I

[27:27] certainly understand that question. Uh,

[27:29] when reviewing this and um the

[27:31] application and a change to from C2 to

[27:35] M1, we we do look at the surrounding

[27:37] zoning. Um, and if in a property like

[27:41] this, if there was not surrounding M1,

[27:44] uh, the city may not support it. Yeah.

[27:46] >> Um, and if we were to do a essentially

[27:50] planned district with a protected

[27:52] overlay, then we'd be introducing a,

[27:54] which is not to say it can't be done,

[27:56] but we'd be introducing a third zoning

[27:58] into this mix of all the properties

[28:00] there. Um, and so given that the

[28:03] property next door to the south is M1

[28:05] and then the the other property where

[28:07] the Spring Hill car wash will be um will

[28:10] be M1 and their surrounding zoning of M1

[28:13] in the area. we felt that it was an

[28:15] appropriate request. Um, but I certainly

[28:18] do understand that question and that is a option to go that route but

[28:22] based upon the request uh we we felt

[28:25] that it was appropriate.

[28:26] >> Okay. Thank you.

[28:32] » Are there any other questions for staff

[28:34] at this point?

[28:37] Um, does the applicant want to address

[28:40] the commission?

[28:49] Todd Allenbrand, 102 Abbey Avenue,

[28:52] Kansas City, Kansas. I'm just uh here

[28:54] with Jason Booze, the owner and of the

[28:57] property as well as the owner of the

[28:58] business. And we're just in agreement

[29:00] with uh the staff report and you know,

[29:02] kind of the main direction of going to

[29:04] the M1. If you remember, I had another

[29:06] case with you guys previously where we

[29:08] did we had the M1 because we couldn't we

[29:12] had to go to the MP the planned zoning

[29:15] because you didn't have the same thing

[29:16] you have set up now the M1 light

[29:18] industrial. So changing to that new

[29:20] zoning

[29:22] really is helpful in businesses like

[29:24] this because all like like you said all

[29:26] his business 100% of his business is

[29:28] inside during the day. Now, he does have

[29:30] a he'll have a facility in the back

[29:32] where he'll keep cars that they need to

[29:34] pull out, wait for people to pick up,

[29:36] and it's but there's no activity back

[29:38] there business-wise other than storage

[29:40] and holding cars for people. But

[29:42] everything is 100% inside. And I mean,

[29:46] we looked at the C2 or we looked kind of

[29:48] at the same thing we looked at before,

[29:49] but with the new zoning coming up, that

[29:51] was seemed like the most reasonable

[29:53] direction to head for what he's wanting

[29:55] to do. And if you have any other

[29:57] questions, we're here to answer them. If

[29:58] you have some specific questions about

[30:00] his future business, Jason probably be

[30:02] happy to get up and answer any

[30:04] questions.

[30:07] >> Thanks. Thanks. Any questions? All

[30:09] right. Thank you.

[30:15] » All right. This is uh the time in this

[30:16] public hearing where if there's any

[30:18] members of the public who would like to

[30:19] speak on this agenda item, you may

[30:23] approach the lect turn and start with

[30:25] your name and address.

[30:31] Okay. Don't see any uh do any of members

[30:34] Oh, sorry. John, come on up.

[30:40] » John Waterman, uh 21110 West uh 186

[30:44] Terrace, uh Dayton Creek. Uh so I live

[30:49] uh just to the west of of this uh

[30:51] subject property and I know that in the

[30:54] past uh

[30:58] businesses developed along 169 there uh

[31:02] namely like the storage facilities

[31:05] have you know we've had some issues with

[31:08] the kind of just lower grade fencing

[31:11] that's been kind of directly lining 169.

[31:15] So, my only, you know, concern with with

[31:19] this, you know, being a being an auto

[31:21] shop and that being the the rear of the

[31:24] auto shop where the where the yard would

[31:26] be, is that that that fence is very

[31:29] aesthetic and pleasing to to to 2169.

[31:34] So, just to keep, you know, decent

[31:36] character to the city. So, um I I expect

[31:41] that with the new zoning, I think

[31:42] there's that those additional

[31:46] requirements to to to allow for that,

[31:48] but just just be mindful of that. I

[31:51] mean, I know we're not talking about the site plan or anything right now, but

[31:56] uh it would just be just be nice to kind

[31:59] of, you know, assure that we'll have

[32:00] that uh that character uh protected. So,

[32:04] thank you.

[32:06] >> Thanks, John.

[32:10] Are there any other members of the

[32:11] public who would like to speak?

[32:17] Okay.

[32:18] Uh, seeing none,

[32:22] I'll close the public public hearing.

[32:27] Uh, so the hearing is closed. Any

[32:29] deliberation among the planning

[32:31] commission members? Um, I I'll just make

[32:34] a comment that um I agree with Mr.

[32:37] Waterman's concerns about the the visual

[32:39] aspects of it. But I'm confident that

[32:42] with our new staff and and new zoning,

[32:44] once we get to the site plan um approval

[32:47] stage, the preliminary and the the

[32:49] final, I think we'll uh have the

[32:51] opportunity to weigh in on that and

[32:52] we'll probably see some renderings of

[32:54] and and we'll see those requirements at

[32:55] that time after this resoning tonight.

[32:58] Um so I I'm confident that it'll be

[33:00] better than what we've done in the past.

[33:04] >> Yeah. And I'll I'll echo and say, you

[33:06] know, I think the location itself is

[33:08] appropriate. You know, we heard

[33:09] discussion earlier about um this area

[33:12] just west of the tracks and we've spoken

[33:14] of this area before keeping it focused

[33:16] on commercial industrial and for the

[33:18] reason of keeping the traffic as close

[33:20] to the highway as possible. So, we're

[33:22] not pulling that heavy duty traffic

[33:24] further into the residential area. So, I

[33:26] think keeping the zoning closer to the

[33:27] highway so they have quick access is

[33:29] appropriate.

[33:32] Ian, you said that he was bringing

[33:34] everything from us over, correct?

[33:39] » I'm sorry. Could you repeat that?

[33:40] >> He your statement earlier bringing

[33:45] the Cyrus piece over to Spring Hill for

[33:47] this property.

[33:48] >> I will let the applicant speak to that.

[33:51] >> It's also not necessarily part of a

[33:54] reasoning request as to what he's

[33:55] bringing over and what's going to be on

[33:57] there. So,

[33:58] >> I'm asking simply because

[34:02] In this piece, we're talking about the

[34:05] cars in the back of the building.

[34:09] Knowledge of knowing that he's also in

[34:10] Biryus could be a backup plan.

[34:14] >> Well, he's

[34:15] >> cars in storage. That's the only reason

[34:16] I'm

[34:16] >> Todd Alenbrand. Uh he's not going to be

[34:19] in Biryus anymore. He's going to move

[34:21] his whole facility to this location. And

[34:24] even though the site plan's not in front

[34:26] of you, I can share with you that he's

[34:27] going to have a solid fence around the

[34:29] back and landscaping along 169. So that

[34:33] should satisfy, you know, any concerns,

[34:35] I would hope.

[34:38] >> Thanks.

[34:39] >> Great. Thanks for adding that.

[34:43] >> Any other comments? And and if there are

[34:44] none, I will a motion.

[34:51] I move to recommend approval of

[34:53] reszoning application Z26-3

[34:57] from C2

[34:59] general business to M1.

[35:02] >> Second.

[35:03] >> Right. Have a motion in a second. We

[35:05] will start the vote from the right.

[35:08] >> I.

[35:11] >> All right. The motion carries.

[35:13] 5 Z.

[35:17] All right. Moving on to agenda item

[35:20] number four.

[35:22] This will be another public hearing. So

[35:24] we'll open that public hearing. And this

[35:27] is for a reasonzoning request and

[35:29] preliminary plat application for 152

[35:32] acres near 183rd Wood Road.

[35:38] » Oh, thank you. I always forget that. Um,

[35:43] I need the commission members to

[35:45] disclose any exparte contacts, if any,

[35:48] that they might have regarding this

[35:50] case, including the nature of

[35:51] communication and whom it was with, and

[35:53] also, if you have any conflicts of

[35:55] interest?

[35:58] » Nope. I I don't either. Um, but I will

[36:00] say I live downstream from this

[36:03] development um

[36:05] along the same creek, but I don't think

[36:07] that's going to inform my impartiality

[36:10] in this. So, Ian, we'll hand it over to

[36:12] you.

[36:14] Thank you. Yeah. So, this is application

[36:17] E26-2 and PP26-1, a resoning and

[36:21] preliminary plan for Sunset Pharma

[36:23] Estates. Uh, the applicant is requesting

[36:26] approval of a reszoning from RR to RP1

[36:31] single family residential as well as

[36:34] approval of a preliminary plan

[36:35] containing 149 single family residential

[36:38] lots on approximately 153 acres of land

[36:41] located at the northeast corner of 183rd

[36:44] Street in Woodland Road. Uh, before I

[36:47] begin, I do have a correction. Uh, in

[36:49] the staff report, I stated that there

[36:51] are no modifications being requested.

[36:53] That is incorrect. The applicant is

[36:55] requesting one modification uh to permit

[36:58] accessory structures uh up to a size of

[37:01] 1,200 square feet. Um I'll get into that

[37:04] a little bit more, but I wanted to

[37:05] clarify that that staff letter had an

[37:06] incorrect statement. We'll get into

[37:08] that.

[37:10] I'll first start kind of broad with

[37:12] sight specific details and then I'll

[37:13] move into resoning. After I'm done with

[37:15] the resoning component, we'll move into

[37:16] the preliminary plan. Um so at a broad

[37:20] level the subject property is provided

[37:22] with utilities uh water being from water sorry Johnson County water one uh

[37:27] sewer from the city of Spring Hill and

[37:30] storm water management will utilize wet

[37:32] detention in the existing ponds located

[37:34] kind of central in the property and to

[37:36] the southeast uh as well as uh outflow

[37:41] going along 183rd into the headarters

[37:44] blue river watershed

[37:46] a storm water impact analysis review

[37:48] potential 100-year flooding on 183rd

[37:50] Street and Ridgeview Road bridges. Um,

[37:52] I'll

[37:54] leave the questions for specifics to

[37:56] that to Allison if there are any. Um,

[38:00] surrounding zoning to the north is

[38:02] agricultural uh, I guess surrounding

[38:05] development types and zoning. Uh, to

[38:07] north is agricultural property zoned M1,

[38:09] light industrial. Uh to the east are

[38:12] large lot single family residential

[38:14] properties zoned PRLD that is a Johnson

[38:17] County unincorporated zoning district

[38:19] for large lot single family residential.

[38:22] Uh to the south is large lot residential

[38:25] zoned rur within the city and to the

[38:27] west is agricultural property zoned M1

[38:30] sing or M1 light industrial. Um, let me

[38:35] pull this up real quick

[38:38] so you can see.

[38:46] So to the

[38:50] this is the subject property right here.

[38:54] uh this kind of oblong shaped one uh to

[38:56] the southwest caddy corner across

[38:59] Woodland Road and 183rd and the uh

[39:03] railroad tracks uh is a fully developed

[39:06] industrial uh facility and site. Uh this

[39:08] is the Monarch concrete cement plant. Uh

[39:11] just for reference that is an additional

[39:13] use of note within the proximity of the

[39:15] subject property.

[39:17] Uh let's see. That being said, I'll now

[39:21] move into the resoning specific details.

[39:24] Uh staff reviewed compatibility uh of

[39:26] the subject property and surrounding

[39:28] properties. Um

[39:30] surrounding properties are developed

[39:32] with a mix of residential agricultural

[39:33] and some industrial. Uh once again,

[39:36] notably the Monarch plant to the

[39:37] southwest. uh given the significant

[39:40] level of buffering uh spatially between

[39:42] this property and the monarch cement

[39:44] staff does not believe that it's going

[39:46] to uh have a very significant impact on

[39:49] the subject property and doesn't think

[39:51] that it's uh necessarily incompatible

[39:54] because of that. Um the other

[39:57] surrounding property and land uses being

[39:59] uh other forms of large acreage lot

[40:02] style uh single family or kind of piano

[40:04] key rural residential single family uh

[40:07] are also uh substantively similar enough

[40:10] to be compatible. Um the proposed

[40:14] project which we'll kind of get into

[40:15] more specifics um they're predominantly

[40:18] about halfacre size lots. So it's not

[40:21] very small, you know, tightly built

[40:23] residential, uh, but they're kind of

[40:25] larger in size. Um, so their level of

[40:28] footprint and impact is pretty similar

[40:31] as far as residential goes.

[40:34] Uh, so because of that, staff feels that

[40:36] the compatibility of the subject

[40:37] property and the reasoning designation

[40:38] to RP1 is [laughter] is a fair and

[40:41] appropriate one.

[40:43] Looking at detrimental effects of the uh

[40:45] proposed resoning uh developing the

[40:48] property as single family residential

[40:49] under the RP1 zoning designation will

[40:52] have a impact in the form of additional

[40:54] generated traffic. Uh there was a

[40:57] completed traffic study uh done last

[40:59] year which looked at a uh single family

[41:02] subdivision uh containing 149 homes. Uh

[41:05] that traffic study concluded that there

[41:06] were no additional improvements that

[41:08] were required to accommodate that

[41:09] additional traffic flow. Uh early 2026,

[41:14] there was a traffic memo that was filed

[41:17] with staff subsequently that looked at

[41:20] um the impact that the school season

[41:22] would have on those traffic counts and

[41:24] found that when accounting for uh school

[41:26] season specific traffic in addition to

[41:29] the proposed subdivision, uh the

[41:31] findings of the original impact study

[41:33] were not changed. Um,

[41:37] as far as suitability for development of

[41:40] this site, uh, the property does have

[41:42] sufficient frontage on both 183rd and

[41:45] Windwood Road for multiple points of

[41:47] access as needed to satisfy fire safety

[41:50] and subdivision regulations. Um,

[41:53] utilities are either readily available

[41:54] on the site or can be extended. Uh,

[41:57] sanitary sewer service is provided from

[42:00] the south as part of the northeast sewer

[42:03] program. Yes. Uh and then water lines

[42:06] are provided along 183rd and then storm

[42:10] water is provided via this offshoot and

[42:12] going souththeast.

[42:15] Um so because of that the property is

[42:18] suitable for development if reszoned to

[42:20] single family.

[42:23] Lastly moving into the preliminary plat

[42:25] portion. Um once again the subject

[42:27] property is being proposed uh to be

[42:30] developed as 149 single family

[42:32] residential lots. Uh the average lot

[42:35] size is 0.64 acres. So a little over

[42:37] half an acre in size with a minimum of

[42:40] 0.48 acres and a maximum of 1.28 acres.

[42:44] Let me swap this over.

[42:53] With respect to elevations, uh, the

[42:55] applicant is requesting approval of

[42:57] conceptual elevations.

[42:59] Here

[43:02] we go. Um, I'll let the appliced

[43:07] elevations here, but staff intends on

[43:09] kind of reviewing the following criteria

[43:11] when looking at conceptual elevations as

[43:13] permits come through. uh notably a

[43:15] variation in roof line pitches, uh

[43:18] higher end residential materials, so

[43:20] looking at that stucco stone, uh minimal

[43:23] amounts of lap sighting, uh breaking up,

[43:25] um monotonous facades with either

[43:28] windows or decoration, um ornamentation,

[43:32] things of that nature. Um

[43:35] so with that, staff feels that the

[43:37] conceptual elevations, it's not the

[43:39] first time that we've come through with

[43:40] this. Um so if there's any questions

[43:42] about that, please let me know. uh we

[43:44] feel like we're able to handle that in

[43:46] terms of ensuring that your vision for

[43:48] what that might look like is realized

[43:50] with the final product. Um the applicant

[43:53] indicated that the lot size of the lots

[43:55] is intended to accommodate side loading

[43:57] garages in addition to front loading. Um

[44:00] which I'll let them speak more to that

[44:01] but just know that that was one of the

[44:02] intents with these elevations. It's not

[44:04] necessarily clearly represented, but

[44:06] that is a intended form of a home.

[44:11] With respect to rideway and easement

[44:13] acquisition,

[44:17] uh the developer is providing 50 ft of

[44:20] rideway for all internal streets as well

[44:21] as additional rightway acquisition along

[44:23] both the 183rd and Woodland Road uh

[44:27] rideways uh to facilitate uh required uh

[44:31] improvements to the road. So, notably,

[44:33] uh there will be a um shoulder, uh and

[44:38] oh jeez, I can let Alison speak to that

[44:41] a little bit, but I do that there's

[44:42] going to be shoulder improvements uh

[44:44] which will be part of that. Um,

[44:47] additionally, which is kind of hard to

[44:48] see here, but there is a 10-foot uh

[44:51] concrete trail that runs along both

[44:54] frontages uh that will be uh part of a

[44:57] tract on the subdivision, but available

[44:58] to the public for use. Uh so that is an

[45:00] additional improvement that's being

[45:01] required as part of this application

[45:03] public trail. [snorts]

[45:07] Uh if there are any additional easements

[45:08] that are required beyond those that are

[45:10] standard uh those will be sought during

[45:12] the final plat process as part of uh the

[45:15] findings of the final public improvement

[45:17] plan. So if there's need for some

[45:20] extension of sanitary or water in a

[45:22] certain area, we don't have required

[45:23] we'll come back for that via the final

[45:25] plat process. Um so all that to say

[45:28] staff does recommend approval with

[45:29] conditions. Uh I have three here. Um

[45:33] first uh all recommendations of approval

[45:35] list in the engineering staff report.

[45:37] Second that the proposed trail located

[45:39] along Woodland Road in 183rd Street is

[45:41] to be constructed of concrete. And third

[45:43] that the maintenance agreement for tract

[45:45] H uh which is located to the uh

[45:48] souththeast

[45:49] uh which is a lift station that'll serve

[45:51] for san sewer service. uh a maintenance

[45:54] agreement for that track to be required

[45:56] prior to the reporting of final plat. Um

[45:59] I just realized I did not kind of expand

[46:00] a little bit more on the accessory

[46:02] structure. Um

[46:04] I will kind of backtrack once again. Um

[46:07] the applicant is seeking approval of a

[46:09] modification to our development

[46:11] standards to permit up to 1,200 square

[46:13] ft accessory structures. Um, under the

[46:17] adopted zoning code, um, there are two

[46:20] [cough] forms of detached structures

[46:22] that are permitted with different sizing

[46:23] requirements. Uh, detached garages are

[46:25] permitted up to 1,000 square feet and

[46:27] accessory structures generally are 120

[46:30] square ft. Their proposed modification

[46:33] does not grant an increase to the number

[46:35] of detached structures. So, it would

[46:37] permit the addition of a detached

[46:40] accessory structure. Uh, so that could

[46:42] be either a detached garage or detached

[46:43] shed up to 1,200 square feet, but they

[46:46] cannot have both. So either it's an

[46:48] attached garage or a detached garage or

[46:51] a detached shed up to 1,200 square feet.

[46:54] If that made sense, great. If not, let

[46:56] me know. I try and explain. Um, so if PC

[47:00] wishes, sorry, plan commission wishes to

[47:02] recommend approval with that

[47:03] modification, let me know and we can

[47:06] craft some language to go with the

[47:07] motion to add that. uh because it wasn't

[47:09] necessarily part of the staff report

[47:11] explicitly. Um so yes, thank you.

[47:15] >> Um Ian, are those accessory like the

[47:17] detach garage or detach shop, are those

[47:20] the reason this is RP1 rather than R1?

[47:22] >> That is correct. Yes.

[47:25] >> Um and

[47:27] those detached buildings, would they be

[47:30] permitted ever to contain accessory

[47:33] dwelling units

[47:36] >> under our adopted code? I do not believe

[47:38] so. I can double check, but as far as

[47:39] I'm more aware, we do not have any

[47:40] accessory dwelling unit standards that

[47:42] are adopted. So,

[47:43] >> okay.

[47:44] >> No,

[47:44] >> because that would, you know,

[47:45] potentially affect the the density,

[47:47] right?

[47:48] >> Yes.

[47:48] >> Residents and housing. So, okay, that's

[47:50] good.

[47:53] >> Um, does the applicant want to address

[47:56] the planning commission,

[47:58] >> the agent?

[48:05] Just state your name and business

[48:07] address.

[48:09] >> My name is Tim.

[48:14] I'm here on behalf of uh CNC

[48:17] Development. Uh three of the property

[48:20] owners are here also. Um

[48:24] we're in agreement with all three

[48:26] stipulations. Um I'll uh I guess address

[48:31] a couple of items. I think staff did a

[48:33] really good job describing the property

[48:36] and the project that we're doing here,

[48:39] but uh the citizen that came up and is

[48:42] talking about traffic and concerns with

[48:44] the flooding, I was going to touch base

[48:47] on those a little bit. As far as the

[48:49] flooding, we're aware there is county

[48:51] flood plane that goes through the

[48:54] property. FEMA flood plane comes up to

[48:57] 183rd Street along our east property

[49:00] line is Wolf uh Trib of Wolf Creek.

[49:04] That's the bigger trip of the two and

[49:06] that's a county study under the Blue

[49:09] River wershed study. And then the trip

[49:12] that goes up to the pond and up to uh

[49:15] Woodland Road is a nonregulatory flood

[49:20] plane also. But it we're maintaining

[49:24] both of the flood planes uh with stream

[49:27] corridor setbacks meeting metro

[49:30] requirements on that stream corridor

[49:32] setbacks. We're providing storm water

[49:35] detention on the pond located in the

[49:37] midsection which will retain our

[49:40] property for the 210 and the 100redyear

[49:42] storm back to pre-existing. So

[49:46] 183rd Street, the flooding that he

[49:49] described is modeled in the Blue River

[49:52] watershed study. So we're well aware of

[49:54] that.

[49:56] We're not fixing that problem, but we're

[49:59] not going to make it any worse.

[50:02] And uh and then we're also doing storm

[50:05] water quality uh treatment on the site

[50:09] primarily through natural vegetation in

[50:12] the properties that are being protected

[50:14] along the east property line for the

[50:16] stream corridor and then the stream

[50:18] corridor going through

[50:21] um the center of the property through

[50:23] that uh pond and the pond will also be

[50:25] used for extended uh center of wet

[50:28] detention from a water quality

[50:30] standpoint. So that's further detaining

[50:33] it for basically the one year the water

[50:36] quality storm events just slightly less

[50:38] than a one-year storm event. Um

[50:43] then if we're talking about traffic, we

[50:45] did traffic study and staff had reviewed

[50:48] that staff had come back and the main

[50:51] comment they had from our first traffic

[50:53] study [clears throat] was they wanted

[50:55] traffic counts during the school year.

[50:58] So there was traffic counts done in May

[51:01] and uh a revised study and it was

[51:05] revised study to the previous one we've

[51:07] done basically acknowledging that really

[51:11] the school traffic didn't really change

[51:13] the volumes much. The existing

[51:17] um level of service for that

[51:19] intersection was an A which is the

[51:21] highest. You've got a level service of A

[51:23] to F and A is your best. And in existing

[51:27] condition right now, it's rated as a

[51:30] level service of A. With the proposed

[51:33] development, it it does increase

[51:36] traffic, but the level of service drops

[51:39] to a B, which is still very high. And

[51:42] then they looked at the future

[51:44] projections out to

[51:46] uh 2045 I believe and they still were

[51:51] projecting a level of service of B. So

[51:57] they they recommended it does doesn't

[52:00] warrant any um signalization any turn

[52:03] lanes.

[52:06] So that's response to the traffic. Um,

[52:10] other than that, I I'll stand for any

[52:13] questions that may come up. Uh, we'll do

[52:15] our best to answer them.

[52:19] >> I have a question about the detention

[52:21] and the treatment. So, obviously those

[52:24] two ponds are there today. Um, I don't

[52:27] know if they were added to deal with the

[52:29] flooding or or if they just are there

[52:32] naturally. Um, but are there are there

[52:34] any changes or improvements that you're

[52:36] doing to what's already there to

[52:39] accommodate this development or do you

[52:40] feel like the vegetation, the size of

[52:42] the detention pond in the center and the

[52:45] one on the southeast, you didn't

[52:47] describe that one as detention, but that

[52:48] those are sufficient to handle this

[52:51] added runoff or are you actually making

[52:53] improvements or some changes to these?

[52:55] >> We're making improvements to the the

[52:57] large one.

[52:58] >> Okay.

[52:59] >> So, we're we're

[53:01] redoing the dam. I mean, majority of the

[53:03] dam's going to stay, but we're making

[53:05] improvements, raising it a little bit.

[53:07] We're revising the outlet structure,

[53:10] increasing the capacity

[53:12] so the water surface I think actually

[53:14] lowers slightly so we can store

[53:19] couple of feet before you know it's the

[53:23] first couple feet's going to be detained

[53:25] to a small small outlet structure. Um a

[53:30] small pond is just a water feature.

[53:33] We're not planning on doing anything to

[53:35] that as far as improvements.

[53:37] And then we're not touching anything on

[53:40] the east side along the stream.

[53:44] Um Ian, real quick, I think it would be

[53:46] helpful to if you can pull the aims back

[53:48] up and put the flood zone layer on

[53:52] because I think it really speaks to the

[53:53] layout of the if you take a snapshot of

[53:56] this layout where all that drainage is

[53:57] going and then

[53:59] having pull up the as map here, turn on

[54:02] the flood layer, I think it's a good

[54:04] layout in terms of respects that

[54:05] drainage right now and those existing

[54:07] bodies of water holding areas and

[54:10] responds to them

[54:12] because you can see right there, this is

[54:13] the flood area you Mr. of I think was

[54:16] speaking to and the proposed design

[54:19] really does I think respect these areas

[54:20] and stays away from it. I think another

[54:22] thing to speak to also just for kind of

[54:25] everyone's sake because a storm water

[54:27] protection plan was had to be done for

[54:28] this. Right.

[54:29] >> Correct.

[54:30] >> So a lot of times that storm water prot

[54:32] protection plan is a big old document

[54:34] they have to go through and engineer and

[54:35] show all preexisting conditions to and

[54:38] then show the postdevelopment

[54:40] conditions. Right.

[54:41] >> Correct.

[54:41] >> And you can't exceed those discharge

[54:43] rates of the pre-existing conditions.

[54:45] Correct.

[54:46] >> That's correct.

[54:46] >> Okay. And that's all in getting reviewed

[54:49] and everything. Right.

[54:50] >> Yes. So, it's I'm just it's not that you

[54:52] can just lay everything down wherever

[54:53] you want. We have to there are rules and

[54:56] regulations we have to follow, too. And

[54:58] that's just to help everyone else

[55:00] listening to that. You know, there's

[55:01] storm water protection plans we have to

[55:03] abide by. And I think the layout's

[55:06] responding to the flood zones in a great

[55:08] way. Um, so I just want to say that out

[55:12] there for the the whole drainage and

[55:14] flooding areas.

[55:16] That was helpful for me at least seeing

[55:18] that.

[55:20] >> I'd be concerned if they were removing

[55:22] some of those.

[55:24] >> Yeah.

[55:25] See, I I I know you can't do the

[55:27] split screen, but I literally have the

[55:28] plat plan pulled up right next to the

[55:30] flood plan side by side, and it does a

[55:32] good job just referring to one another.

[55:35] So,

[55:36] >> chair, could I ask that the applicant's

[55:39] representative discuss the difference

[55:42] between the [clears throat]

[55:45] flood plane that's highlighted in the

[55:48] dark blue on the south side of 183rd

[55:51] which is the true flood plane and what

[55:53] is highlighted in light blue here on

[55:56] this property.

[55:57] >> Yes,

[55:59] >> absolutely.

[56:00] >> Dr. Can you

[56:01] >> Yeah, I touched on that earlier but uh

[56:03] so the dark blue is the FEMA flood

[56:06] plane. So that's federally regulated. So

[56:09] when you get into that, you start

[56:10] dealing with the state and you start

[56:13] dealing with um FEMA.

[56:17] So all of our property is in what's

[56:20] called the the light blue would be your

[56:23] county study. So that's it's actually

[56:26] part of the Blue River watershed study

[56:28] which is a county study that what they

[56:31] do is they extend it up to the uh

[56:37] 160 acre point I believe is where they

[56:39] typically would stop it. And so the the

[56:43] county has been a little

[56:46] proactive I guess you would say. So FEMA

[56:49] only recognizes

[56:52] the flood plane at the time that the

[56:55] study was adopted. It doesn't look at

[56:57] future development.

[56:59] So when the Blue River wershed study

[57:02] went through, the county also did what's

[57:05] called a future development flood plane.

[57:09] So they took into account all of the

[57:11] undeveloped grounds. They looked at the

[57:14] master plans for all the cities and Then

[57:18] there was areas that were outside of

[57:19] that that was county and they

[57:22] [clears throat] they used um

[57:26] a a runoff value to account for some

[57:30] kind of development which is a little

[57:31] bit higher than residential but it's not

[57:34] like a commercial development. So, so

[57:37] they could develop a planned future

[57:40] planned flood plane, which is what we

[57:43] use to make sure that that stays off

[57:46] everybody's lots. So, that's what the blue is, and it extends up further.

[57:52] So, there's already it's already been ma

[57:54] modeled by the county. Now,

[57:57] we can tweak that. you you can't the the

[58:01] county

[58:04] let you get into it but you can't cause

[58:06] a rise off your property. So like the

[58:10] trip that goes up through through the

[58:12] pond does not leave our property. So

[58:14] technically

[58:16] we could encroach into it and create

[58:19] rises but it impacts our property. But

[58:22] we would also produce

[58:25] a study showing that we're still

[58:27] protecting all the lots around our

[58:29] development, which we've already done

[58:31] that.

[58:32] >> The uh flood plane there. Then on the

[58:35] east side, which is future county flood

[58:38] plane, um we stayed we've kept it

[58:42] completely off our lots

[58:44] and aren't touching any of the doing any

[58:47] grading around there, removing any of

[58:48] the trees.

[58:50] But I think a lot of that is not on your

[58:52] property though, those trees.

[58:54] >> Yeah. Yeah, you're right. Some of them

[58:56] are not.

[59:01] » Does that help?

[59:03] Now I appreciate the explanation. So now

[59:05] I know that I live in the dark blue.

[59:08] >> Yes.

[59:11] » Um, any other questions for Mr. Tucker?

[59:16] I've got my

[59:17] >> my assumption since two of your two of

[59:21] the entryways are on woodland

[59:25] that there'll be some pavement that'll

[59:27] have to be done on woodland.

[59:30] >> Yes.

[59:31] >> So the the agreement on that is is that

[59:33] we will be paving that to a uh county

[59:38] standard which is a 24 foot wide asphalt

[59:41] road.

[59:42] >> Okay. And then it'll have, I believe

[59:44] it's five foot uh gravel shoulders on

[59:48] both sides

[59:50] and safe ditches.

[59:52] >> And uh how far will that just go beyond

[59:54] your north entrance on Woodland? Just

[59:56] >> go to the north property line.

[59:58] >> Oh, okay. Okay. And then is there any

[1:00:01] potential I know this is a city

[1:00:03] question, but to coordinate with the

[1:00:05] county to continue paving it on up to

[1:00:07] 175th? Uh, I'd say no, but you can ask

[1:00:12] the city.

[1:00:14] >> Okay. So, really it'll just be for the

[1:00:16] residents to go travel south on Woodland

[1:00:18] for the most part,

[1:00:19] >> right?

[1:00:20] >> Okay. 283.

[1:00:23] >> The rest of that will come in pieces as

[1:00:25] ground develops.

[1:00:26] >> Yeah.

[1:00:28] >> Thank you.

[1:00:36] » Um, I had a question. Sorry. Okay.

[1:00:38] >> Um,

[1:00:40] couple couple questions. Um,

[1:00:44] had a question about the

[1:00:46] Sunset Farms Estates Architectural

[1:00:48] Committee that was mentioned in the, you

[1:00:51] know, design guidelines.

[1:00:54] Who forms that committee?

[1:00:56] And like what's the process for

[1:00:58] approving new home designs?

[1:01:02] » One of you guys want to

[1:01:13] And I'm asking in part because I don't I

[1:01:15] haven't seen that before.

[1:01:17] >> Sure.

[1:01:17] >> With most of the developments that

[1:01:18] >> Nick Shepard, one of the owners of the

[1:01:20] property. So from our understanding that committee will be formed and run

[1:01:24] until by the development company, which

[1:01:27] is us, and it has to meet the guidelines

[1:01:30] that have been set forth with the city.

[1:01:33] Then once the HOA is established, then

[1:01:35] the HOA will take that over.

[1:01:38] >> At which point does the HOA take it

[1:01:40] over, do you think? Like is it based on

[1:01:41] a number of homes or just when it's

[1:01:43] completely developed or

[1:01:45] >> I don't know that that's been

[1:01:46] established yet, but I would assume once

[1:01:47] the HOA is financially stable enough

[1:01:50] with enough residents and they're paying

[1:01:51] HOA dues.

[1:01:52] >> Okay.

[1:01:53] >> So I I don't know that's a specific

[1:01:57] number of homes or date set forth yet.

[1:02:01] Um, and then another question I had

[1:02:04] related to the designs, it it seemed

[1:02:06] like the minimum home sizes were

[1:02:10] relatively small compared to the lots.

[1:02:12] Is that just to give flexibility of the

[1:02:15] home styles or to leave room for the

[1:02:17] accessory building

[1:02:19] or why is it why was that? Because like one and a half story,

[1:02:22] unless I misread it.

[1:02:24] >> Okay.

[1:02:24] >> But a two-story home, 2400 square foot

[1:02:28] minimum, one and a half story. Yeah,

[1:02:30] 2400 also. I guess they're all 2400.

[1:02:34] >> Yeah, I think so. What we were trying

[1:02:35] to, you know, establish is the main

[1:02:37] footprint of the house. And I think if

[1:02:39] we look at other developments in the

[1:02:41] area, it's substantially higher

[1:02:44] >> most of those. Um,

[1:02:49] so I I guess I'm not sure.

[1:02:51] >> I'm just asking

[1:02:51] >> comparing that to

[1:02:52] >> Yeah, just it it sounded for the size of

[1:02:54] the lot and sort of what I'm seeing as

[1:02:56] the vision.

[1:02:57] >> Yeah. as you know, through the through

[1:02:59] the information that you've shared,

[1:03:00] seems like the homes would be

[1:03:02] potentially larger.

[1:03:03] >> I think that's the goal is to drive that

[1:03:05] up, but also if we're thinking about

[1:03:07] potentially having uh the home, a longer

[1:03:10] driveway, potentially a sidecar entry, a

[1:03:13] 1,200 foot detached building, and then

[1:03:16] also maybe a pool. That's a pretty large

[1:03:18] footprint. You start combining all those

[1:03:19] together.

[1:03:20] >> Yeah, that's that's what I was kind of

[1:03:21] imagining. So, that that makes sense.

[1:03:24] Um,

[1:03:26] I know the answer to this, but I'm going

[1:03:28] to ask it anyway. I don't see on the the

[1:03:30] [clears throat] plat any like community,

[1:03:34] you know, buildings or amenities and I

[1:03:38] assume that's by design and because

[1:03:40] these lots are larger and you kind of

[1:03:42] figure that people will have what they

[1:03:43] need on their own lot. I

[1:03:45] >> think that's the goal with the estate

[1:03:46] style lots.

[1:03:47] >> Yeah.

[1:03:48] with the required uh walking trails

[1:03:50] around there and in the ponds that are

[1:03:52] taking up the property. You know, that's

[1:03:54] kind of the amenity.

[1:03:57] >> You going to still allow the public to

[1:03:58] fish on that pond?

[1:04:01] [laughter]

[1:04:02] >> You don't have to.

[1:04:03] >> Are they able to now or

[1:04:04] >> Yeah. I don't know. They seem to.

[1:04:08] >> Yeah.

[1:04:09] >> All right. Thank you. That's all the

[1:04:10] questions I had. Do any other members

[1:04:12] have any questions for Mr. Tucker or the

[1:04:16] applicant?

[1:04:17] The only question that I would have is

[1:04:21] really in regards to

[1:04:23] how if you're going to have independent

[1:04:26] indivi uh contractors build homes, you

[1:04:30] have this committee.

[1:04:32] Uh, and I don't believe the the the

[1:04:36] subdivision that I'm referencing did,

[1:04:38] but I we're very disappointed with a

[1:04:42] certain subdivision

[1:04:44] that we're going to build high-end

[1:04:46] homes. And it turns out that some of

[1:04:48] them don't have a basement.

[1:04:52] And so

[1:04:55] that that's

[1:04:57] hopefully we don't get into that

[1:04:59] situation with you. I think with the um

[1:05:02] required submitts of what we're putting

[1:05:04] in that development uh with the pictures

[1:05:06] and um with the planned development plan

[1:05:09] of the size of homes, I think that was

[1:05:11] the goal with the city to try to prevent

[1:05:12] that um is to make sure that we had a

[1:05:15] clear understanding of what our

[1:05:16] intentions were um with the entire

[1:05:18] development.

[1:05:21] » Are these pictures of the homes what we

[1:05:24] are going with?

[1:05:25] >> So that would be um a reflection of what

[1:05:28] we've determined as the minimum

[1:05:29] standard.

[1:05:31] based off of the plan development

[1:05:34] district.

[1:05:35] >> These meet the garage footage set back

[1:05:38] because what I am seeing appears to be a

[1:05:43] lot of garage frontage

[1:05:45] which is not what we were after.

[1:05:50] We we don't have any requirements in the

[1:05:53] code today that require a certain

[1:05:55] percentage of the houses to have a

[1:05:56] garage set back from the street uh

[1:05:59] further than the front porch or the

[1:06:01] front plane of the house. U and so uh

[1:06:04] it's difficult for staff to enforce

[1:06:06] that. A certain percentage of them have

[1:06:08] to have this floor plan or that floor

[1:06:10] plan or or have a basement or not have a

[1:06:12] basement. So, um, in in looking at the

[1:06:17] conceptual elevations of the and the

[1:06:19] pictures provided, staff looked at those

[1:06:20] to

[1:06:23] see if they were actually indicative of

[1:06:24] the the quality that could be expected

[1:06:27] out here um to match what the

[1:06:30] developer's intent is uh to be able to

[1:06:33] ensure that the builders that as they

[1:06:35] come in meet that same high standard.

[1:06:37] And so, um, we don't have anything in

[1:06:40] our code. So that's why it wasn't

[1:06:42] anything in there or they were going to

[1:06:43] try to ask maybe for a modification to

[1:06:46] that. Um but it we feel that it's not

[1:06:50] too dissimilar from what other

[1:06:52] subdivisions have. And so that's why

[1:06:55] we've we he's very difficult if not

[1:06:59] impossible to have

[1:07:02] 183 different or how many of our lots

[1:07:04] are in here

[1:07:06] >> to to show that all up front. So that's

[1:07:07] why it's indicative of what as Mr.

[1:07:11] Shepard said the low lowest kind of

[1:07:14] quality they're willing to accept. So

[1:07:16] >> So is the footage that we've gone off of

[1:07:18] before just from the comp plan?

[1:07:23] >> The comp plan is the only thing that

[1:07:24] talks about it.

[1:07:26] >> Yeah. So the

[1:07:27] >> it's just the comp plan.

[1:07:28] right? And and

[1:07:30] those are not enforceable,

[1:07:32] >> right,

[1:07:32] >> as standards in the code.

[1:07:39] may not be enforceable, but somebody

[1:07:41] that's sat here for a long time, I would

[1:07:43] really encourage to

[1:07:45] pull that front door more visible.

[1:07:48] That's what we've been asked from the

[1:07:51] public many times over. Just food for

[1:07:54] thought.

[1:07:55] >> There in in the design guidelines in the

[1:07:58] material, it said that they really

[1:08:00] intend for the majority of garages,

[1:08:02] well, it's a three

[1:08:03] >> threec car minimum, but sounded like a

[1:08:06] lot of them will be positioned to the

[1:08:07] side. That'd be awesome.

[1:08:09] >> Yeah. And then if they want more than three, you can only have three

[1:08:12] facing forward is what I read. So

[1:08:14] anything any more than that would have

[1:08:15] to be side facing. So it's not all

[1:08:17] garage.

[1:08:20] And I don't know that any of these are

[1:08:22] specific plans that are going to be

[1:08:23] built in there. They were just kind of a

[1:08:24] representation of exterior finishes or

[1:08:28] imagery that we would anticipate the

[1:08:30] plans,

[1:08:31] >> you know, with Yeah.

[1:08:34] So, I didn't see anything in the

[1:08:35] information tonight, but I really

[1:08:38] thought I read it in the information

[1:08:40] that was presented to the city council

[1:08:42] back in June, but is will there be any

[1:08:44] benefit district in this neighborhood or

[1:08:47] like special assessments or anything?

[1:08:51] >> Yeah.

[1:08:51] >> Okay.

[1:08:53] Um, that's fine. I was just curious. And

[1:08:56] that that's the kind of thing that will

[1:08:57] be disclosed to the potential buyers up

[1:08:59] front. Yeah. I know I know in the past

[1:09:02] some other neighborhoods have come under

[1:09:03] fire for the homeowners not feeling like

[1:09:05] it was fully disclosed to them.

[1:09:07] >> There's some pretty substantial ones in

[1:09:09] the area and our goal is is to make that

[1:09:11] not the case here um with some required

[1:09:14] infrastructure uh raising the standard a

[1:09:16] little bit in the city of Spring Hill.

[1:09:17] This will help us, you know, apply to

[1:09:19] that. Um so we did ask ask for that, but

[1:09:23] uh the goal is to be nothing like some

[1:09:24] of these other ones that um are are

[1:09:27] extremely impactful to the buyers.

[1:09:29] >> Yeah. That's great. It It runs the risk

[1:09:32] of making your your properties less

[1:09:35] attractive to potential buyers, too, if

[1:09:36] it's too much. For sure.

[1:09:39] >> And I apologize if I miss this. I know

[1:09:42] track H was under some sort of

[1:09:44] stipulation, but is that a lift station?

[1:09:45] Is that that's going to be track H?

[1:09:49] >> Yes.

[1:09:51] >> And when does that come online?

[1:09:55] >> The city for that?

[1:09:56] >> The city.

[1:09:57] >> December. Okay.

[1:10:01] I'm sorry.

[1:10:02] >> So that's gonna So that elevation that's

[1:10:04] coming online in December and that

[1:10:06] elevation all that is already set and

[1:10:09] Wow.

[1:10:12] >> Cool. Hopefully the square.

[1:10:19] » All right. Are there any other questions

[1:10:21] for the applicant for Phillips

[1:10:23] Engineering?

[1:10:27] » All right. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank

[1:10:29] you.

[1:10:33] » All right. At this time, if there are

[1:10:35] any members of the public who would like

[1:10:36] to address planning commission about

[1:10:39] this application, please come up and

[1:10:41] state your name and address.

[1:10:45] My name is Steven Sanford. I live at uh

[1:10:48] 18 1 19795

[1:10:50] West 183rd Street.

[1:10:53] I uh have quite a few things I'd like to

[1:10:56] point out and take a couple of different

[1:10:59] roles. Number one, thinking forward as a

[1:11:03] uh

[1:11:04] neighbor to a a potential HOA with all

[1:11:09] of the tight restrictions of

[1:11:11] expectations. Um, and having been a

[1:11:14] resident for 10 years in that same

[1:11:17] location, the concrete plant is going to

[1:11:21] be an extreme point of contention for

[1:11:25] all of the buyers. Um, just for future

[1:11:28] reference for future Spring Hill

[1:11:31] Commissioning notes and complaints

[1:11:34] department that if Spring Hill, I'm sure

[1:11:38] the lawyers understand and know this

[1:11:40] already, but if Spring Hill were to

[1:11:43] quote get enough complaints from the

[1:11:45] citizens that they would choose to tell

[1:11:49] Monarch to turn their lights off at

[1:11:50] night, that that would be an extremely

[1:11:53] substantial fine. And I want to make

[1:11:55] sure that that doesn't happen for the

[1:11:59] city. I I would love to have the lights

[1:12:01] off considering they light up my whole

[1:12:05] house most of the time. Uh they can't

[1:12:07] even figure out how to turn their truck

[1:12:09] lights off, but that's another story. So

[1:12:12] the the the Monarch plant being lights

[1:12:15] on all the time should be a

[1:12:17] consideration. Should be something to be

[1:12:19] aware of. The crossing uh the railroad

[1:12:22] crossing is quite uh quite a fun bit of

[1:12:26] noise. Um something I've grown up with

[1:12:30] for other locations that I've lived at.

[1:12:32] So being 500 feet away from the crossing

[1:12:35] is no big deal for me. I literally know

[1:12:37] how to time my conversations with the

[1:12:40] train horn to avoid misunderstandings.

[1:12:44] [cough]

[1:12:45] But new residents moving into southern

[1:12:48] Johnson County mindset uh may not have

[1:12:51] that same understanding. And with that

[1:12:55] moving forward, unless you buy out a few

[1:12:59] lots and change a bunch of drastic

[1:13:02] things, there's no way to make that a a

[1:13:04] legitimate quiet crossing without

[1:13:07] encroaching on personal property at that

[1:13:10] intersection because concrete plants

[1:13:13] already there and you can't make

[1:13:15] woodland move without all of that. Um,

[1:13:20] it's somewhat encouraging that we're

[1:13:23] going to get 500. Well, I'll I'll give

[1:13:26] them a half a mile of asphalt on

[1:13:28] Woodland between 183rd and the tree

[1:13:31] line. Um, but as an encouragement for

[1:13:35] the city, it absolutely needs to be

[1:13:37] forward thinking, more uh more planning

[1:13:40] and and and traffic plans. I completely

[1:13:44] disagree with your staff's assessment on

[1:13:46] your traffic plans. I cannot

[1:13:50] sit at my house for any amount of time

[1:13:53] during the day without seeing a minimum

[1:13:55] of 20 cars at a time. And heaven forbid

[1:13:59] if a train slows down at 175th Street,

[1:14:02] then they all come down to to 183rd

[1:14:05] Street. I get it. I go around as much as

[1:14:09] possible as well. However,

[1:14:12] 183rd and 169 is the other part of that.

[1:14:15] We we didn't think it was going to be a

[1:14:17] big problem at 191st when Dayton Creek

[1:14:20] went in and now we're rushing hopefully

[1:14:23] rushing to put a stoplight in and the uh travel plaza came discussion was

[1:14:31] trying to uh the the stipulation was to

[1:14:34] put a traffic light in at 183rd. Now,

[1:14:38] 150 homes, that's 500 car

[1:14:43] min around about 500 cars. And let's not

[1:14:47] forget our wonderful, uh, addition of

[1:14:50] golf carts and four-wheelers that we

[1:14:53] want to have running around. So, uh,

[1:14:55] traffic is going not to be anywhere near

[1:14:59] com

[1:15:00] the same that it is now. It's going to

[1:15:02] go up. It's also going to increase that

[1:15:05] school traffic on Ridge View. And the

[1:15:07] really big point that I want to make,

[1:15:09] um,

[1:15:13] yeah, the two points. One, also the

[1:15:16] 175th intersection at the railroad

[1:15:19] crossing. Those neighbors probably not

[1:15:22] the best neighbors for the people that

[1:15:25] would be wanting to live in that

[1:15:26] neighbor in the new neighborhood. In

[1:15:29] addition to that, the Ridge View traffic

[1:15:33] As a city note, I know that doesn't

[1:15:36] necessarily cons co coincide with the residential, but

[1:15:41] if we don't start looking at widening

[1:15:43] and controlling Ridge View with the high

[1:15:46] school traffic and and the multiple

[1:15:49] schools along that road and everything

[1:15:51] going on up to 175th Street and beyond,

[1:15:54] we're going to fall off and we're going

[1:15:56] to have fatalities. And I really want to

[1:15:58] encourage to consider a a no truck zone

[1:16:04] along Bridge View and 183rd Street

[1:16:07] between Woodland and Rener and on 191st

[1:16:14] across the same. And I know that might

[1:16:16] not be something that needs to be talked

[1:16:18] about tonight, but it it really should

[1:16:20] be, especially if we're talking about

[1:16:23] 150 residential homes going in at the

[1:16:26] corner of 80,000 lb trucks going across

[1:16:29] those railroad tracks. Safety first

[1:16:32] always. Thank you for your time. Thank

[1:16:34] you.

[1:16:39] Are there any other members of the

[1:16:40] public would like to address the

[1:16:42] commission?

[1:16:44] Mr. Waterman, please state your name and

[1:16:46] address again.

[1:16:50] » Uh John Waterman, 21110 West 186

[1:16:54] Terrace. Uh so I also uh thought of the

[1:16:58] uh

[1:16:59] the train uh at grade crossing there uh

[1:17:05] in Spring Hill. I mean I believe this

[1:17:06] will be the first at grade crossing

[1:17:08] where a development is at that

[1:17:11] intersection

[1:17:13] um to where that that that train whistle

[1:17:16] is required and I don't I don't think

[1:17:18] there's anything we can do to to

[1:17:20] mitigate that. I guess my concern would

[1:17:23] be with these, you know, halfacre estate

[1:17:26] lots, you know, are are we sure that

[1:17:31] I mean, if you build it, people will

[1:17:32] come, right? But what are they going to

[1:17:35] stay um once they, you know, have to

[1:17:38] deal with that or or will they kind of

[1:17:40] consider that and the and the Monarch

[1:17:42] plant with the lights and all of that,

[1:17:45] you know, kind of a detriment to to even

[1:17:48] want to to consider building. And you

[1:17:51] know, we haven't really talked about,

[1:17:53] you know, lot price and home price, you

[1:17:55] know, that are going to be on these

[1:17:56] lots, but you know, I got to think it's

[1:17:58] in the, you know,5 $600,000 range. So

[1:18:03] those those things could be concerns to, you know, expecting citizens. Now,

[1:18:09] you know, maybe, you know, newcomers to

[1:18:10] Johnson coming, Johnson, Southern

[1:18:12] Johnson County may not uh,

[1:18:15] you know, they may not be thinking of

[1:18:17] those things. they may kind of jump in

[1:18:18] before they realize the adverse effects

[1:18:21] that they got themselves into, but

[1:18:22] again, how long then will they stay? So,

[1:18:25] you know, I definitely not going to say

[1:18:27] that I'm I'm against this and maybe it,

[1:18:30] you know, conforms to to all the to all

[1:18:33] the uh criteria, but u you know, is it the best thing for Spring Hill? So

[1:18:41] I mean that's a that's a that's a

[1:18:43] challenge you know that we all have to

[1:18:45] decide you know is that the right is

[1:18:47] that the right uh form of progress to

[1:18:49] proceed with. So um with that I I'll

[1:18:53] leave it uh to the commission. Thank

[1:18:55] you. Thank you.

[1:19:01] All right. With that we will Oh let me

[1:19:04] reopen it. I was an accidental

[1:19:07] >> Spencer. Am I good because I didn't say

[1:19:08] it.

[1:19:09] >> Thanks. I just was tapping for

[1:19:11] >> Leah Langley 18 33 South Lone Home Road.

[1:19:14] Thank you.

[1:19:15] >> Um something that has just I've noticed

[1:19:19] over the years in Spring Hill,

[1:19:22] >> we cap over a lot of springs and I know

[1:19:25] when we see a body of water, we think

[1:19:27] it's a pond, but I would want to know

[1:19:30] how many springs are on that lot.

[1:19:33] Um is that a spring that we're looking

[1:19:35] at on that map?

[1:19:38] If it is and you're building a $600,000

[1:19:40] home,

[1:19:42] the water moves underground. We all know

[1:19:45] that, right? I would kind of wonder if

[1:19:47] we're building basements what that would

[1:19:50] do in the future in a heavy rain. So, I

[1:19:53] don't I know in the state of Kansas

[1:19:55] there's water rights. I assume that the

[1:19:58] applicant would own the water rights to

[1:20:00] that spring. I don't if it's a spring.

[1:20:03] Um if if not, then that would need to be

[1:20:06] looked at too. Um, but there are

[1:20:09] violations in the state of Kansas

[1:20:12] tapping in and capping those springs.

[1:20:13] And I have heard in the last two years,

[1:20:16] they've gotten a lot stricter. Um, so I

[1:20:19] would just want to look into that. Also,

[1:20:22] the biggest buck I have ever seen in my

[1:20:25] life drinks out of that pond. And I just

[1:20:26] want to throw that out there. He's mine.

[1:20:30] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:20:31] >> Are the fish [laughter]

[1:20:33] 1823 South

[1:20:38] Thank you.

[1:20:41] [snorts]

[1:20:43] [laughter]

[1:20:44] Okay, I'm pausing with the gavl now. Are

[1:20:45] there Are there any other members of the

[1:20:47] public who would like to come up? All

[1:20:49] right, seeing none, looking, we'll close

[1:20:53] the public comments

[1:20:56] and

[1:20:58] come back to uh if the commission

[1:21:00] members have any further clarifications

[1:21:02] from the applicant or staff.

[1:21:08] I always do. But um Allison, I have a

[1:21:12] question for you which you probably

[1:21:14] can't answer, but I'm going to ask it

[1:21:16] anyway.

[1:21:20] » She's trying to hide.

[1:21:21] >> She might. I know.

[1:21:23] >> Um so, first of all, I definitely

[1:21:25] appreciate the very detailed traffic

[1:21:28] study in this application. I think it

[1:21:30] was great to see that. It looks like

[1:21:32] maybe it was done twice because there

[1:21:33] were two different dates there. So

[1:21:34] that's terrific.

[1:21:34] >> It was so good it was done twice.

[1:21:36] >> Yeah. So I I feel like that was a good amount of due diligence on the

[1:21:41] part of the city and the applicant for

[1:21:42] traffic. But um so living near there

[1:21:46] myself, you know, we're all very aware

[1:21:49] of the truck traffic. Um

[1:21:51] >> as Mr. Sanford noted. And so somewhere

[1:21:55] in the 100 pages of the traffic study, I

[1:21:57] saw that the AM existing conditions,

[1:22:00] peak traffic going east from 183rd in

[1:22:02] Woodland was like 85, westbounds, 83 per

[1:22:06] hour. And then in the afternoon, 99

[1:22:09] going east and 110 going west, which is

[1:22:11] almost two vehicles per minute.

[1:22:14] It it seemed like the traffic study

[1:22:16] combined all types of vehicles,

[1:22:18] >> but I'm curious if you know what

[1:22:20] percentage of those 110 vehicles per

[1:22:24] hour would be heavy trucks.

[1:22:27] >> I don't know if they got to that level

[1:22:28] of detail. Um, typically whenever they

[1:22:31] do a traffic count, they will, um,

[1:22:34] depending on how they did it, if they

[1:22:35] did it with the tubes across the roads,

[1:22:38] they can measure that with the axle

[1:22:40] loads, so they might be able to get that

[1:22:41] level of detail. Um, if they were to do

[1:22:44] video, then they could go back to the

[1:22:45] video and and look at that. That's

[1:22:47] something we can always ask them, but I

[1:22:49] don't know if they have that level of

[1:22:51] detail, and they did not include that in

[1:22:53] the study.

[1:22:53] >> Okay. Because that's um nothing for us

[1:22:57] to do or solve tonight, but I think, you

[1:22:58] know, it's a it's definitely a concern,

[1:23:00] which is the the high volume of truck

[1:23:02] traffic, and I think it's been mentioned

[1:23:03] a couple of times.

[1:23:04] >> Um

[1:23:05] >> well, and that's something separate that

[1:23:07] we can look at. that Merge Midwest was

[1:23:09] the one that um was contracted by the

[1:23:11] developer to do the study. They are also

[1:23:14] one of the contractors that or one of

[1:23:15] the consultants that we regularly work

[1:23:17] with. So that's something if we wanted

[1:23:20] to take a look at that then we could

[1:23:21] always do that separately um to separate

[1:23:25] from the development application.

[1:23:27] >> Okay. Yeah, that's great. I I think it's

[1:23:30] um you know it's it's something worth

[1:23:32] looking at keeping an eye on. You know,

[1:23:34] we've been told as residents that, well,

[1:23:35] the trucks, you know, are just serving

[1:23:37] construction sites in the area, and

[1:23:39] that's just not true. I mean, it is

[1:23:40] true. They serve construction sites, but

[1:23:43] the majority are cutting through.

[1:23:45] >> Yeah. And so, the reason we had two

[1:23:47] traffic studies, the first traffic study

[1:23:49] was done during the summer months. Uh,

[1:23:51] we tried to highlight this in the um

[1:23:53] staff report, but some of that traffic

[1:23:55] could have been the school traffic in

[1:23:58] that second report that was done. So,

[1:24:00] again, we can take a look at this. We

[1:24:02] can um Yes, there probably are some

[1:24:05] counts that are trucks, but there are

[1:24:07] also, you know, residential traffic and

[1:24:09] school traffic that is part of that as

[1:24:11] well.

[1:24:11] >> So, and and I've seen accidents with the

[1:24:14] cement trucks at 183rd and Richie

[1:24:16] before, and that's just what I've seen.

[1:24:17] I'm sure that's happened more than once.

[1:24:20] Um, but you're also the right person to

[1:24:22] answer this next question. Um,

[1:24:25] what would the potential be in the

[1:24:27] future following this development of

[1:24:30] potentially closing that intersection,

[1:24:33] closing 183rd going west towards the

[1:24:36] industrial area so that the residential

[1:24:38] areas are kind of firewalled off from it

[1:24:41] and and the crossing becomes a quiet

[1:24:43] crossing.

[1:24:44] >> Okay. So, a couple of different things.

[1:24:46] Um, so the city is working on a rail

[1:24:49] crossing study. Uh we are going to be uh

[1:24:51] studying the nine different crossings

[1:24:54] within the city. That is a a joint

[1:24:56] partnership with Fontana and Fort Scott.

[1:24:58] We will be starting that study later

[1:25:00] this year. There will be an opportunity

[1:25:01] for those in the audience that did speak

[1:25:04] passionately about the rail crossings

[1:25:06] and everything. We want to hear that

[1:25:08] public comment whenever we get into that

[1:25:11] study process. So there will be plenty

[1:25:12] of opportunity for online engagement as

[1:25:15] well as in-person public engagement. and

[1:25:18] we want to hear from our residents and

[1:25:20] that's going to be the crossing starting

[1:25:21] at 175th all the way down to

[1:25:26] 215th.

[1:25:29] So, um and then of course those others

[1:25:31] in Fontana and Fort Scott. So, we

[1:25:34] definitely want to hear from everyone.

[1:25:36] We did take a look at um this um

[1:25:40] intersection in particular at the river.

[1:25:42] [cough] We wanted to make sure that the

[1:25:45] inner the the entrance into the

[1:25:47] subdivision was offset enough so that if

[1:25:50] we were to make improvements at 183rd

[1:25:53] Street with an overpass

[1:25:55] um with the the train tracks that we

[1:25:57] would have plenty of space to be able to

[1:25:59] ramp up and go over the rail. So that

[1:26:02] 1,00 ft is a a good measure for us uh to

[1:26:08] be able to make that overpass similar to

[1:26:10] what you're seeing on 199th Street. Um

[1:26:13] so again, that's something that the city

[1:26:16] is working on. Um and then I'm

[1:26:18] continually cha chasing grant

[1:26:20] opportunities. We've got a couple of

[1:26:23] we've got two applications in for 191st

[1:26:26] Street rail crossing. in the future

[1:26:28] there's going to be other opportunities

[1:26:30] and 183rd Street might be another one

[1:26:32] that we could look at in the future. Um

[1:26:36] your other question was about closure of

[1:26:39] 183rd to the east.

[1:26:41] >> A lot of that

[1:26:42] >> well rather than elevating the crossing

[1:26:44] doing what was what THA did at 167th and

[1:26:46] just closing it.

[1:26:48] >> Uh so a lot of that's in Johnson County.

[1:26:50] So, I'm not sure that we really have any

[1:26:53] opportunity to do much of anything since

[1:26:55] a lot of the those streets are uh not in

[1:26:58] the city of Spring Hill.

[1:26:59] >> Well, I mean this this property's in

[1:27:01] Spring Hill, right?

[1:27:02] >> The property across the railroad tracks,

[1:27:03] the M1 is in Spring Hill, right?

[1:27:05] >> Right. But I was talking about further

[1:27:07] east.

[1:27:09] >> Oh, okay.

[1:27:09] >> Yeah.

[1:27:10] >> In other words, other properties that

[1:27:11] are impacted by this.

[1:27:12] >> Yeah, there are other properties

[1:27:13] impacted. I mean, it's something that we

[1:27:15] can talk talk about with our traffic

[1:27:18] engineers and determine what the best

[1:27:20] steps are moving forward, but you know,

[1:27:22] there it's not as simple as just closing

[1:27:24] the roadway.

[1:27:26] >> Yeah. When I when I saw that at 167th, I

[1:27:28] thought that looked simple.

[1:27:31] >> But perhaps not.

[1:27:32] >> Yeah.

[1:27:33] >> Okay. Thank you. I knew you'd be the

[1:27:34] right person to ask.

[1:27:35] >> And I think there was a question about

[1:27:37] 191st Street Signal and um hopefully

[1:27:39] we'll have that under construction by

[1:27:41] the end of this year. We'll have a

[1:27:43] contractor engaged. I believe the bid

[1:27:45] opening is going to be set for

[1:27:46] midocctober. So we are uh the plans are

[1:27:51] in KOAT and they are going to be

[1:27:53] releasing that here relatively soon. We

[1:27:55] should have a contract hopefully as soon

[1:27:56] as November with a contractor.

[1:27:59] >> That's exciting. I know a lot of people

[1:28:01] will obviously be very happy to see

[1:28:02] that.

[1:28:04] >> Be a big step forward with safety. So

[1:28:06] >> yeah, and something I'm working on with

[1:28:07] KOT again just to give you guys an

[1:28:10] update. Um they're I'm working on trying

[1:28:13] to get a temporary signal at 183rd

[1:28:16] Street to help with some of um all of

[1:28:18] that. So hopefully we'll have that um

[1:28:21] designed and up

[1:28:25] by the end of the year. Don't quote me

[1:28:27] on that, but um with the construction at

[1:28:30] 191st Street with that intersection,

[1:28:33] there's going to have to be some clo uh

[1:28:35] we we're going to have to limit access

[1:28:37] at that intersection during

[1:28:38] construction.

[1:28:40] >> Um that it will be an active

[1:28:41] construction site that's going to push

[1:28:43] some traffic up to 183rd Street signal.

[1:28:45] So, to be proactive, we are going to be

[1:28:48] putting a temporary uh signal pole up

[1:28:51] there to help direct traffic.

[1:28:53] >> Okay, that's great.

[1:28:54] >> And then while you're here, can you tell

[1:28:55] us about the K7 corridor study?

[1:28:58] >> Might as well give you an update on all

[1:29:00] my projects.

[1:29:01] >> Just really quick, are we still on a

[1:29:03] public hearing for resoning?

[1:29:04] >> Oh, sorry. Okay. Is that your

[1:29:06] >> We'll do it during announcements. Yeah.

[1:29:07] Thank you.

[1:29:08] >> Thank you.

[1:29:11] Okay. I've I think I've asked all my

[1:29:13] questions. Do you guys have any

[1:29:15] additional questions for staff?

[1:29:17] >> I would like to ask Jacob if

[1:29:20] these trails, these concrete pathways

[1:29:23] are more in line to what we had talked

[1:29:26] about at work sessions

[1:29:33] » or still going down too narrow.

[1:29:36] >> Yes. No, the the 10- foot width and

[1:29:39] concrete construction is consistent with

[1:29:41] the new standards the city has uh has

[1:29:43] put forward. So that's um at least two

[1:29:46] feet wider than we have seen in the

[1:29:48] past. And uh and going with uh with the

[1:29:50] concrete as opposed to asphalt should

[1:29:52] make it last longer also.

[1:29:56] >> Thank you.

[1:30:03] Any other

[1:30:05] >> I have a question.

[1:30:06] >> Um I would just like to ask staff if

[1:30:08] they have any concerns regarding the

[1:30:09] flooding or potential springs on the

[1:30:11] property after public comment.

[1:30:16] » No, we wouldn't. Um that is something

[1:30:19] that the developer would need to

[1:30:21] uncover. Uh most of the waterways aren't

[1:30:24] going to be on people's lots or going

[1:30:28] not be impacting that. But that is

[1:30:30] something that each builder and the sub,

[1:30:33] you know, the developer will have to

[1:30:34] uncover when they're doing that, when

[1:30:36] they're building things and then soils

[1:30:39] reports and property owner due diligence

[1:30:42] and and things like that. Um, natural

[1:30:45] occurring groundwater does happen. Um,

[1:30:47] that's why you you'll often see French

[1:30:50] drains and drainage systems put into

[1:30:52] houses so they can be built, they can be

[1:30:54] accommodated for. Uh but you know to be

[1:30:57] honest that's not something that we look

[1:30:59] at normally. That's something left

[1:31:01] between the the home buyer, the home

[1:31:03] builder and the developer themselves.

[1:31:05] So,

[1:31:06] you know, it it's not something that we

[1:31:08] could have a concern enough about to do

[1:31:10] anything about. Uh but it's we, you

[1:31:12] know, from a building and construction

[1:31:14] standpoint, uh there are ways to

[1:31:17] mitigate that and and to help alleviate

[1:31:19] that drainage. some lots are going to

[1:31:21] have some and you know that's really not

[1:31:24] something we can can regulate to be

[1:31:27] honest.

[1:31:28] >> Thank you.

[1:31:29] >> I'm just going to add briefly for all of

[1:31:31] your knowledge and anyone listening but

[1:31:33] before plans come before you all they

[1:31:36] are submitted to staff and one of the

[1:31:38] things that staff does and that our city

[1:31:39] engineer does is look through things

[1:31:40] like waterways, flood planes and ensures

[1:31:43] that the plan that you're seeing has

[1:31:45] already gone through that review. So,

[1:31:47] what we're not saying don't make those

[1:31:48] comments because everyone's welcome to

[1:31:50] come in and raise those, but just be

[1:31:51] assured that we have had our

[1:31:53] professional staff look at that and it

[1:31:55] wouldn't come before you if we had

[1:31:57] concerns that there wasn't enough room

[1:31:59] for that water to get out or to be uh

[1:32:01] detained.

[1:32:05] » Appreciate that.

[1:32:08] Any other questions? All right,

[1:32:13] we'll uh close the public hearing.

[1:32:16] and then the uh fish members we can

[1:32:18] deliberate a little bit. Um I've gotten

[1:32:21] some a few comments just in general. So

[1:32:25] I've always said for the past several

[1:32:26] years that you know having a diversity

[1:32:29] of housing options is not just

[1:32:31] multifamily and small lots. It also can

[1:32:33] be you know large larger lots that are

[1:32:36] more you know compatible with rural

[1:32:38] residential properties. And this is the

[1:32:40] first one that I've seen um in years I

[1:32:44] think and Josh you probably or or

[1:32:45] Ralpho, but you know, so

[1:32:49] um homes on halfacre lots. I mean, I

[1:32:51] think that's a nice um option for

[1:32:54] housing in our community. I I like that

[1:32:57] it's, you know, you've you've got uh

[1:33:00] rural residential large lot properties

[1:33:02] to the south. You've got estate

[1:33:04] properties in Sycamore Springs uh to the

[1:33:07] east. And so I think this is probably

[1:33:09] like the best type of development um

[1:33:12] possible, you know, to be near those existing properties. So I

[1:33:16] appreciate seeing that. I I really like

[1:33:18] that the plan preserves the mature trees

[1:33:21] um and the existing vegetation and the

[1:33:23] streams and the ponds. I think the bike

[1:33:26] path that that staff has uh required is excellent. 10 feet wide, all

[1:33:31] concrete.

[1:33:32] Everyone will complain on Facebook in

[1:33:34] the beginning that it doesn't go

[1:33:35] anywhere, but eventually it will. And it

[1:33:37] and it's nice because you got to you've

[1:33:39] got to start somewhere. Um,

[1:33:42] you know, I also like the diversity of

[1:33:44] housing designs and they're trying to

[1:33:45] do, you know, bespoke designs on each

[1:33:47] lot. So, that's nice. And, and I also

[1:33:50] think that the city has probably

[1:33:52] attracted this development in part

[1:33:53] because of the northeast sewer

[1:33:55] improvement project, which was kind of

[1:33:57] forwardlooking. And I think this is what

[1:33:59] the city was hoping to to get this type

[1:34:01] of development. Um, and I and I'll say

[1:34:04] also with with the M1, you know, kind of

[1:34:08] the legacy M1 uh to the west of the

[1:34:10] railroad tracks and the M1 which will,

[1:34:13] you know, to the north that will now be

[1:34:15] under the newly redefined M1. Um, you

[1:34:18] know, there there was definitely a risk

[1:34:19] that this property could be could have

[1:34:21] been M1 instead, you know, or even maybe

[1:34:23] someone would propose M2. So to have a a

[1:34:26] residential development there um I I

[1:34:29] think is is very positive compared to

[1:34:32] more industrial development in that

[1:34:34] area. So those are my comments.

[1:34:37] >> Yeah. Well, I'll piggyback on that

[1:34:38] because we've had applications come

[1:34:39] through resoning before and we've denied

[1:34:41] them. We said this is a residential

[1:34:43] area. Um and I think it was brought up

[1:34:46] earlier with the the rail line. We said

[1:34:47] that rail line is our hard steadfast

[1:34:49] line and this side is residential. the

[1:34:52] other side you say commercial and

[1:34:54] industrial because once we start

[1:34:55] reszoning the other side industrial we

[1:34:57] start to open Pandora's box but I want

[1:34:59] to go back to the the storm

[1:35:01] [clears throat] water aspect of it and

[1:35:02] kind of that storm water protection plan

[1:35:04] of it um and just the layout of this I I do like the layout of it I think when

[1:35:08] you look at the south side and the west

[1:35:10] side of this layout it's a lot more

[1:35:12] orthagonal in nature it's a lot more

[1:35:13] denser so they're keeping the density

[1:35:15] away from the waterways and the

[1:35:17] neighbors and I think as you start to

[1:35:19] move north and east closer to the

[1:35:22] neighbors there, you start to see that

[1:35:23] uh density decrease. You see deeper lots

[1:35:26] and a lot more respect, I think, to the

[1:35:28] natural topography and the waterways.

[1:35:30] So, I applaud the applicant on just not

[1:35:33] sitting here and going with an

[1:35:34] orthagonal development through here and

[1:35:36] blowing everything out, but actually

[1:35:38] being mindful of what is there. Um, yes,

[1:35:41] there are existing water issues, but

[1:35:44] again, I go back to that storm water

[1:35:46] protection plan and that our city will

[1:35:48] hold them to it and you can't discharge

[1:35:50] more than the precon uh uh

[1:35:52] pre-constructed um conditions. Um,

[1:35:55] outside of that, traffic, that's always

[1:35:58] going to be a thing. Um, the

[1:35:59] developments usually come first. It's

[1:36:02] 149 houses, but there are four phases.

[1:36:04] So, like fuzzy math is with 38 houses

[1:36:07] roughly, give or take, plus or minus.

[1:36:09] So, it's not going to be 149 houses

[1:36:11] overnight. Um, just remind yourself that

[1:36:13] I'm in a multi-phase division

[1:36:15] subdivision. I've been there for 12

[1:36:16] years and I think we're on like maybe

[1:36:18] phase three. So, uh, it doesn't happen

[1:36:21] overnight. It's a process. There will be

[1:36:23] growing pains, but I think at the end of

[1:36:24] the day, I think this is the right

[1:36:25] location, a good layout.

[1:36:30] » Thank you. Any other comments?

[1:36:34] >> No, I think both of you stated pretty

[1:36:37] much what I would have said. I think

[1:36:39] it's a it's a good uh uh thought out uh

[1:36:45] plan and I think it's given the larger

[1:36:49] uh homes that are in the area that this

[1:36:51] is an ideal kind of uh development

[1:36:56] rather than having 350 homes

[1:37:00] >> smashed into this little piece of

[1:37:02] property. Yeah,

[1:37:04] >> it's definitely lower density than the

[1:37:06] typical development.

[1:37:09] All right. If there is no no further

[1:37:11] deliberation, I will entertain a motion.

[1:37:22] » I remember that part.

[1:37:39] You said three conditions.

[1:37:41] Uh, so,

[1:37:44] okay, let me think here.

[1:37:47] >> Something about the accessory building.

[1:37:49] >> Yeah, I had kind of drafted a semi

[1:37:52] example motion. Um,

[1:38:15] Okay. Okay. So, it would kind of be

[1:38:16] something like I move to recommend

[1:38:19] approval of application

[1:38:22] um

[1:38:24] with a modification granted to permit

[1:38:28] accessory structures up to a size of

[1:38:30] 1,200 square ft. Um, I guess within that

[1:38:34] you would also say, "I recommend

[1:38:36] approval of the application per the

[1:38:38] conditions listed in the staff letter

[1:38:40] with a modification to the maximum size

[1:38:44] of accessory structures up to 1,200

[1:38:46] square ft.

[1:38:47] >> Accessory structures are only on

[1:38:49] attached garage homes. Correct.

[1:38:52] >> Accessory structure any any accessory detached structure. Uh,

[1:38:57] but they can only have one. So they

[1:38:59] could either have a detached garage or a

[1:39:01] detached shed, but they can't have two

[1:39:02] detached structures.

[1:39:04] >> Okay.

[1:39:04] >> Yeah. That's not that's a requirement

[1:39:05] set forth in our code that's not being

[1:39:07] modified.

[1:39:07] >> So the detached garage qualifies as an

[1:39:09] accessory.

[1:39:10] >> Yes.

[1:39:11] >> Okay.

[1:39:19] I don't know if I can do this. Um,

[1:39:24] I move to recommend approval city

[1:39:26] council

[1:39:28] as presented by staff's report with

[1:39:30] accessory buildings

[1:39:33] included up to 120 square feet

[1:39:37] >> close,

[1:39:39] 1200 square feet. Sorry,

[1:39:42] I I read a number before I spoke.

[1:39:45] 1200 ft.

[1:39:54] » Spencer, is that sufficient or does she

[1:39:55] need to describe the which specifically

[1:39:59] which one? Z26-2.

[1:40:01] >> Nope, that's sufficient.

[1:40:02] >> Okay, I hear a motion. Do we have a

[1:40:04] second?

[1:40:05] >> Second.

[1:40:07] >> All right. Um, take the vote starting on

[1:40:10] the right.

[1:40:11] I

[1:40:12] >> I

[1:40:14] >> All right, the motion passes. 5-0.

[1:40:26] Okay, next on the agenda is Rhonda Dunn

[1:40:29] with the capital improvement plan

[1:40:32] 2027 to 2031.

[1:40:50] I just chuckled thinking back to your

[1:40:51] first one.

[1:40:56] » I know, right?

[1:41:07] » I'm here.

[1:41:12] And for the group that's here

[1:41:18] on my desk, they're also available for

[1:41:20] people who are listening. You can see

[1:41:22] them online in the finance tab under

[1:41:24] budget on the city's website.

[1:41:33] So tonight our objective is to review

[1:41:35] the CIP and to determine if the plan

[1:41:39] fits the comprehensive

[1:41:41] that is supporting the comprehensive

[1:41:43] plan and the objectives the city step

[1:41:45] forward and then in the end tonight

[1:41:47] you'll vote you'll choose to vote to

[1:41:51] confirm or not confirm to council as

[1:41:54] compant with the comprehensive

[1:41:58] um The plan has a lot of projects in it

[1:42:01] and so I'm really glad that we have

[1:42:03] staff here tonight. I have Jacob, the

[1:42:05] public works director,

[1:42:08] assistant city administrator and then we

[1:42:11] have Mike is here on community

[1:42:14] administrator and then Alison

[1:42:19] is also here to answer all of those

[1:42:21] project questions you already.

[1:42:26] So let me tell you a little bit about

[1:42:28] the process.

[1:42:29] So far, this process starts early in the

[1:42:32] year in April. We started with council

[1:42:34] and staff to take a look at where the 26

[1:42:37] to 30 plan was and what projects needed

[1:42:40] to be added, removed, extended, changed,

[1:42:44] and we've been working on this since we

[1:42:47] had two staff work sessions on it and

[1:42:49] one council work session. So, a lot has

[1:42:53] gone into getting to this point and

[1:42:56] getting the right projects in at the

[1:42:57] right time.

[1:43:02] Tonight I'm going to focus on the

[1:43:03] projects that are new for this plan

[1:43:07] in the budget book that you have. All of

[1:43:09] the projects from last year are in that

[1:43:11] budget book. And the hand up that you

[1:43:14] got tonight that looks like this has all

[1:43:16] of the new on.

[1:43:21] And so I'm going to focus first on those

[1:43:25] and then I'll talk about the plan in

[1:43:32] There are three categories that we look

[1:43:34] at in the capital plan. The first one

[1:43:35] we're going to talk about are the public

[1:43:37] facilities projects. And these three

[1:43:39] bullet points are the I guess the

[1:43:42] criteria we look at to determine if the

[1:43:45] project fits in this category. And these

[1:43:48] do these statements do come from the

[1:43:50] existing approved comprehensive plan.

[1:43:53] The growth of a community is strongly

[1:43:55] dependent on its attractiveness and

[1:43:57] potential vis. The availability of jobs,

[1:44:00] good schools, housing, recreational

[1:44:02] opportunities, and many other factors

[1:44:04] drives the city's ability to attract new

[1:44:07] residents. The provision of quality

[1:44:09] public services, while often taken for

[1:44:12] granted, is critical to the growth of

[1:44:14] the city. And by the way, this plan is

[1:44:17] colorcoded all the way through. So

[1:44:18] whenever you see this red color, those

[1:44:21] are public facil

[1:44:25] So then we have a list of about 14 new

[1:44:28] public facility projects and then the

[1:44:31] other projects like I said were the 26.

[1:44:34] Um

[1:44:36] I'm going to run through these some of

[1:44:38] these quickly. You're welcome to ask

[1:44:39] questions. Um I will stop after each of

[1:44:42] these groups and open it questions as

[1:44:45] well. So we have the North Street sewer

[1:44:48] line which is for housing north and west

[1:44:51] of the G plant.

[1:44:55] This is a new one. We have really nice

[1:44:57] playgrounds. We'd like to see them

[1:44:59] extended and improved upon added

[1:45:04] with the 223rd Street Loop Trail which

[1:45:08] is down obviously 223rd Street running

[1:45:12] along between Western and Victory.

[1:45:16] We will work on a sanitary sewer master

[1:45:19] plant and then our salt storage building

[1:45:23] which is where um public works building

[1:45:26] our public works

[1:45:28] for winter weather. As the police

[1:45:31] department continues to grow, we will

[1:45:33] have fleet additions for those. And then

[1:45:38] we have a I'll leave out the details, a

[1:45:42] fingerprinting system we need to put in

[1:45:43] place for court and police. We've done

[1:45:46] some upgrades and enhancements and

[1:45:48] extensions of the storm siren

[1:45:52] system here in Spring Hill. But as we

[1:45:54] annex and we grow, we will need to add

[1:45:57] storm sirens or improve the ones we

[1:45:59] have. So we're now budgeting each year

[1:46:02] for storm sirens. I want to point out

[1:46:05] the column called funding source and

[1:46:08] whenever possible you know we love to

[1:46:10] apply for grants and so in the funding

[1:46:12] source you'll see how we plan to pay for

[1:46:14] those things and for example on storm

[1:46:17] sirens there could be or brick grants

[1:46:21] available in multip

[1:46:34] for that project.

[1:46:37] Um,

[1:46:39] roadside lawn mower. I'm going to run

[1:46:41] through a mobile data

[1:46:45] police department range and dicing

[1:46:49] generating system for streets, portable

[1:46:52] radio.

[1:46:54] Those were all public facilities and

[1:46:56] equipment projects that were added in.

[1:47:00] The biggest ones on there sanitary sewer

[1:47:04] and then adding playgrounds.

[1:47:09] Can I answer any questions about

[1:47:21] I'm going to move on to this section

[1:47:25] of transportation projects.

[1:47:28] The criteria for these projects is the

[1:47:30] ability to transport people and goods

[1:47:32] from one place to another is one of the

[1:47:34] most basic components of economic and

[1:47:36] social systems. Consequently, the

[1:47:39] adequacy of a community's major street

[1:47:41] system has a substantial impact on the

[1:47:43] rate pattern of future growth. And

[1:47:46] finally, long range planning is

[1:47:48] necessary to ensure that the street

[1:47:50] system is able to expand.

[1:47:54] And the projects new in 2027 to 2031

[1:48:00] are

[1:48:02] the ones you see listed here. They total

[1:48:04] over$und00 million. And the primary

[1:48:06] reason that kind of money are railroads

[1:48:12] take quite a bit of money. We believe

[1:48:14] there will ederal funding when we get

[1:48:16] there, we know. And so hopefully that

[1:48:19] number will never come to

[1:48:23] the city. We have improvements along

[1:48:26] 223rd Street from US 169 to

[1:48:30] project from Victory and then

[1:48:33] improvements at the Victory

[1:48:34] intersection.

[1:48:37] The 175th railroad crossing,

[1:48:41] 191st Street crossing on here. We the

[1:48:45] traffic signalization at 18 we talked

[1:48:48] about earlier tonight.

[1:48:50] We have plans to improve 191 Woodland

[1:48:53] Bridge

[1:48:56] transportation master plan excuse me

[1:49:00] 23rd Street master plan is in the works

[1:49:02] right now with county and then we have

[1:49:06] new project for 191st US 169

[1:49:11] finally the cars project Johnson County

[1:49:14] for 2031

[1:49:16] is 215 for the city limits to

[1:49:21] answer any questions about

[1:49:22] transportation.

[1:49:27] » This is great.

[1:49:28] >> Well, I've got a question. It's not

[1:49:30] there yet.

[1:49:31] >> Okay. [laughter] Okay. The next section,

[1:49:34] and I'll be brief with it because we did

[1:49:36] not add new projects to the

[1:49:40] community development projects, but the

[1:49:43] Criteria for this is to taste what

[1:49:48] the new with the old

[1:49:50] create a logical well balanced

[1:49:51] commercial resistance

[1:49:56] and responsibly use the city's natural

[1:49:59] resources

[1:50:02] tonight.

[1:50:05] Like I said,

[1:50:16] we did not add new projects in this

[1:50:18] category. There are projects on

[1:50:21] the main sewer main

[1:50:26] projects that

[1:50:33] end project details and we move into the

[1:50:36] summary.

[1:50:48] So when I take all the projects, not

[1:50:50] just the new ones I've shown you

[1:50:51] tonight, the um the three categories

[1:50:56] over five years have total um expected

[1:50:59] cost of over $400 million. That includes

[1:51:03] as you can tell facilities line, the

[1:51:06] middle one over $25 million.

[1:51:10] And then we have transportation as the

[1:51:12] next larger category.

[1:51:14] Um when you look some people like to

[1:51:16] look at numbers, some people like to

[1:51:18] picture and so you can see in the graph

[1:51:21] that 51% of the public facilities

[1:51:25] about 38.9 transportation but I think

[1:51:29] it's important to take those huge

[1:51:30] projects out like a wastewater treatment

[1:51:34] 140 million 304 million city

[1:51:38] municipal complex a station works so I

[1:51:42] pulled those big building projects out

[1:51:45] so you can see where

[1:51:48] And that's this

[1:51:54] graph here which shows when you remove

[1:51:56] those projects 74% of the planned

[1:51:59] capital projects would be in

[1:52:01] transportation streets

[1:52:04] and then the next category is community

[1:52:07] development sewer lines and things like

[1:52:09] that

[1:52:12] buildings

[1:52:22] the took out the building. I took out

[1:52:25] the wastewater treatment plant complex

[1:52:30] building.

[1:52:37] I thought you only caught two. So,

[1:52:39] perfect. Thank you.

[1:52:40] >> She gonna pay the bill. police station.

[1:52:45] I think I was station

[1:52:50] I forgot somebody very important

[1:52:54] with us. She's a senior accountant in

[1:52:56] the finance department and I'm up here

[1:52:59] talking but she does all I give credit

[1:53:02] where credit's due and this is her

[1:53:05] project in the budget and we're making

[1:53:09] great improvements.

[1:53:12] Okay, so I recategorized it's great big

[1:53:14] numbers great big list I've shown you

[1:53:17] how it fits with the capital the

[1:53:18] comprehensive plan but I wanted to show

[1:53:21] you by categories in the CI where we're

[1:53:25] This gives you equipment. It gives you

[1:53:27] facilities. It gives you storm water. It

[1:53:30] shows you traffic from SS4 safety

[1:53:33] improvements. It shows you that big

[1:53:35] number treatment plant. And it breaks it

[1:53:38] down into smaller.

[1:53:42] And this is a performance thing to show

[1:53:45] that the biggest line item is the waste

[1:53:48] water. So important traffic is clear.

[1:54:06] » Okay, I want to stop here. I'm gonna

[1:54:08] show you some online, but I'll stop here

[1:54:11] and answer questions.

[1:54:17] Rhonda,

[1:54:18] >> my assumption given the price tag

[1:54:22] on all of this items that many of these

[1:54:25] items will never get done unless

[1:54:30] you plan to bond

[1:54:33] a lot of money. In the last six years

[1:54:37] ago, the city in bonds only owed $30

[1:54:41] million.

[1:54:43] Once the water plant is engaged, you the

[1:54:47] city will owe over $200 million.

[1:54:53] So I don't know how you do $400 million

[1:54:58] in the next five years.

[1:55:00] >> Well, a couple of things. You are

[1:55:02] correct. Um, and if you look at that

[1:55:04] column that I pointed out funding source

[1:55:07] smaller projects, we're pretty pleased

[1:55:09] to say that we built good cash reserves

[1:55:11] and we'll pay cash for those projects.

[1:55:14] There are big projects on here like

[1:55:15] those $40 million

[1:55:18] railroad.

[1:55:21] >> We really expect to get

[1:55:24] >> federal or state.

[1:55:29] There will be bonding along the way.

[1:55:30] We're going to do a big project on

[1:55:34] the street there.

[1:55:38] The wastewater treatment plant is not

[1:55:41] supported by property tax.

[1:55:44] And so

[1:55:46] I won't I don't like to say we won't do

[1:55:49] some of these projects. I think if we

[1:55:51] don't get some federal funding,

[1:55:56] but I think that we've proven in our

[1:55:58] track record that we accomplish the

[1:56:01] things we put in this plan. They used to

[1:56:02] call the CI projects to die and now we

[1:56:07] at those and we do change and eliminate

[1:56:10] things along the way. But I hope we to

[1:56:12] accomplish the things that

[1:56:20] » I knew you had.

[1:56:26] » And did I hear you correctly that the

[1:56:27] wastewater treatment facility the intent

[1:56:30] is that that will be paid for through

[1:56:32] users?

[1:56:36] » Right.

[1:56:37] >> It is a enterprise fund that is not to

[1:56:40] be supported by

[1:56:42] just

[1:56:44] >> so that will in the beginning I mean

[1:56:45] that'll serve the debt but eventually

[1:56:47] pay it off. Is that

[1:56:48] >> Yes.

[1:56:48] >> Okay. And then I assume you you've

[1:56:51] created models that model the expected

[1:56:54] growth of the city to to be able to pay

[1:56:56] that off over whatever duration of time

[1:56:58] that you're forecasting. Okay. We also

[1:57:01] looked at um the surrounding area and

[1:57:05] the um I'll say our competitors compete

[1:57:09] utilities

[1:57:11] but we looked at Johnson County wast We

[1:57:16] will be when the city's rates are higher

[1:57:20] but in the period of time the debt is

[1:57:22] paid back to what we do now

[1:57:28] other systems. So the users will pay the

[1:57:31] system and it is based on reser%

[1:57:36] growth over the last five years. Um

[1:57:41] you're now growing on a bigger number

[1:57:43] like that. We have

[1:57:45] modeled

[1:57:47] capacity of the plant based on an

[1:57:50] overall 4% 6%

[1:57:57] » and so even at the lower end of the

[1:57:58] growth

[1:58:00] range it would still pay for itself.

[1:58:04] >> Okay, that's great.

[1:58:06] and and at what percentage of capacity

[1:58:09] is the current plan?

[1:58:11] >> Now, I'm going to defer to much.

[1:58:16] » I I'm just curious as background for the

[1:58:17] need. We we all know that.

[1:58:33] That's max capacity.

[1:58:35] We are currently running around 800,000

[1:58:38] gallons per day.

[1:58:41] One other caveat to that though is when

[1:58:44] the plant reaches

[1:58:46] 80%

[1:58:48] of its capacity

[1:58:52] starts to

[1:58:58] exper

[1:59:06] It is

[1:59:08] fasting that 80% number. So that's

[1:59:14] driving

[1:59:17] this now.

[1:59:32] » Yeah, for sure. By my math, you're at

[1:59:34] 64% So you've got 21% left

[1:59:41] >> growth rates about

[1:59:52] » okay close. Thank you. There was also

[1:59:55] correct me if I'm wrong there was also

[1:59:59] the probability of not being able to get

[2:00:01] parts and stuff that

[2:00:05] » yeah that's that is part of the

[2:00:10] building

[2:00:22] it time

[2:00:33] But I remember back when we put that in

[2:00:36] projected probability was 2025 2027

[2:00:41] just about

[2:00:43] it was suspected when we put it in back

[2:00:45] in the day.

[2:00:48] >> So that gives you some confidence in

[2:00:49] today's planning too.

[2:00:51] Right.

[2:00:54] Thank you,

[2:00:57] » Rhonda.

[2:00:59] Sidewalks.

[2:01:01] What's the big

[2:01:13] » street?

[2:01:17] I know you guys get a lot of questions

[2:01:19] on social media.

[2:01:22] Um, I always like to I always hope that

[2:01:25] someone will refer people back to the

[2:01:28] budget book in the CI because they'll

[2:01:30] say fix

[2:01:33] h that's in here in the timeline, how

[2:01:36] much that costs and so there is tons of

[2:01:39] information out there for people to go

[2:01:42] out and share with other people where

[2:01:45] the projects are.

[2:01:48] >> I was hoping you were going to say

[2:01:49] south, but I wasn't sure.

[2:01:55] questions.

[2:01:57] >> This might be you jumping all over, but

[2:01:58] the one I had had to do with the

[2:02:00] rightway acquisition and it's unfunded.

[2:02:03] Would that be something that possibly a

[2:02:04] grant could fund we could use? Or I

[2:02:08] mean, I just get nervous with how

[2:02:09] quickly we're growing and we're

[2:02:10] approving, you know, all these

[2:02:12] developments and without a plan in

[2:02:15] place. I I know we're kind of jocking

[2:02:17] between needing a plan to understand

[2:02:19] what rightway needs to be acquired, but

[2:02:22] even when we get to that point, it's

[2:02:23] like we don't have any funding to

[2:02:25] acquire the rightway to develop this. We

[2:02:28] have the monies, you know, in here for

[2:02:30] trails and sidewalks and so forth, but

[2:02:32] we don't have anything to get it going

[2:02:36] to identify or to fund the rideway

[2:02:38] acquisition. So, I'm still I'm just kind

[2:02:39] of nervous about that.

[2:02:40] >> I'll tell you that the rideway that I

[2:02:42] think we'reing there

[2:02:46] Okay.

[2:02:56] » And maybe a K project.

[2:03:00] >> I was say is that something Kat would

[2:03:01] help out on then if for the funding what

[2:03:04] if it was would is that something that

[2:03:05] KAT would help out on the funding then?

[2:03:10] >> The answer short answer is for every

[2:03:13] >> [clears throat]

[2:03:14] >> with K wherever we can we

[2:03:19] >> I mean that makes sense because when I

[2:03:20] see the rightway acquisition I'm I'm

[2:03:22] going towards more city trail like widen

[2:03:25] rightaways for widen paths and bike

[2:03:28] paths um that we identify in a comp plan

[2:03:30] not necessarily overpasses

[2:03:35] » it's a project by project

[2:03:39] and I know we have

[2:03:41] related to

[2:03:44] with that

[2:03:46] street

[2:03:50] or county. They don't get involved in

[2:03:57] » they like 4.3 identified for parks and

[2:04:00] trails. 4.3 million identified for parks

[2:04:03] and trails down the road. And I don't

[2:04:04] know if maybe some of that acquisition

[2:04:06] could be rolled into that number too as

[2:04:07] well. So sorry.

[2:04:10] >> Yeah.

[2:04:12] All right.

[2:04:18] So,

[2:04:22] that kind of stuff.

[2:04:32] So, there's

[2:04:36] other

[2:04:56] Thank you.

[2:05:07] » Any other questions?

[2:05:09] >> Contining on the CIP reporting as well

[2:05:13] as the budget book. And I wanted to

[2:05:14] share with you

[2:05:16] some of the things that we're

[2:05:20] one of the things that we're doing.

[2:05:21] You're going to see the budget book

[2:05:23] online.

[2:05:27] And this is what the CIP pages will look

[2:05:29] like in the online budget book. And the

[2:05:32] cool thing about it is you can click on

[2:05:34] any project you want. You can look at

[2:05:36] certain categories across the top of the

[2:05:38] page.

[2:05:39] It'll take you directly to that

[2:05:42] particular project's

[2:05:44] um individual page. We use pictures. You

[2:05:47] guys have seen this.

[2:05:49] Um it talks about

[2:05:52] grants and other things that are going

[2:05:54] into what the cost is like. And it's

[2:05:58] interactive with the user. And this the

[2:06:01] one that you're seeing here has all of

[2:06:02] the projects in it, not just the new

[2:06:05] ones. And so we're building better tools

[2:06:08] that I hope the public will use as well

[2:06:10] as you that will help them understand

[2:06:14] what the plans are and that we are

[2:06:18] move.

[2:06:28] » Rhonda, is this live today?

[2:06:31] >> It is not. We want one more pass

[2:06:35] from staff.

[2:06:42] That's great.

[2:06:45] >> Yes.

[2:07:09] I will open it up again for discussion

[2:07:12] if you'd like otherwise.

[2:07:21] Any other questions for Rhonda or

[2:07:25] >> These things are really starting to

[2:07:26] excite me. The last couple ones have

[2:07:28] been really good. Thank you.

[2:07:30] >> Every year they get better and better.

[2:07:31] >> Rhonda, you've made some

[2:07:34] tremendous changes. It was It's like

[2:07:37] night and day. [laughter]

[2:07:39] >> I think back to that first one.

[2:07:44] Can we improve that?

[2:07:54] Our budget. We did receive the

[2:07:56] government finance offic.

[2:08:09] » Wow. Congrats.

[2:08:11] >> Terrific.

[2:08:13] >> Very good.

[2:08:16] I move to recommend the city council the

[2:08:18] 2730 to 31 capital improvement plan in

[2:08:22] compant

[2:08:25] >> second.

[2:08:26] All right, we have a motion and a

[2:08:27] second. All in favor say I.

[2:08:29] >> I.

[2:08:30] >> All opposed.

[2:08:32] Motion carries.

[2:08:34] >> Thank you so much.

[2:08:35] >> Thanks, Rhonda.

[2:08:39] All right, announcements and reports.

[2:08:44] discussion

[2:08:45] >> or discussion. Is there discussion

[2:08:47] specifically?

[2:08:49] >> Yeah.

[2:08:51] Proceed with discussion.

[2:08:52] >> Okay.

[2:08:53] >> We want it.

[2:08:55] >> Does anyone have any discussion?

[2:08:59] » Cindy storm shelters, tornado sirens,

[2:09:03] >> garages.

[2:09:04] >> I want to go home.

[2:09:05] >> Okay.

[2:09:07] >> Just asking. It's discussion.

[2:09:10] Um, all right. used to be sidewalks.

[2:09:14] >> That's good. And you know in and

[2:09:16] >> comprehensive.

[2:09:18] >> Yeah.

[2:09:23] We I can give you a brief update

[2:09:25] on the comprehensive plan process. We

[2:09:27] have had three different meetings with

[2:09:29] our consultant. We're tenatively getting

[2:09:31] some dates on the calendar uh for um

[2:09:36] some release dates of some interactive

[2:09:38] websites that they're building right

[2:09:40] now.

[2:09:41] Uh there we will have a booth or

[2:09:45] whatever we call it tent booth at at the

[2:09:48] fall fund or the fall fest. Uh so uh

[2:09:52] hopefully to have a good interactive

[2:09:53] thing uh

[2:09:56] presence there so we can pick up all of

[2:09:59] that wonderful feedback of the people

[2:10:00] who are attending that. Um there will be

[2:10:03] a [clears throat]

[2:10:05] website built and

[2:10:08] uh created. We're working on the

[2:10:10] branding right now um to kind of pick up

[2:10:14] from where we went with the last one on

[2:10:16] the blooming

[2:10:18] something futures in bloom or something

[2:10:21] like that. So in order to kind of

[2:10:23] separate those two processes, we are

[2:10:25] going with a different brand so that we

[2:10:28] um let the consultant have that brand

[2:10:31] that they did with the previous one. So,

[2:10:34] uh, they're currently coming up with

[2:10:35] some designs for,

[2:10:38] uh, and some taglines for that. So,

[2:10:40] things are kind of happening behind the

[2:10:41] scenes right now. Uh, we don't want to

[2:10:43] roll it out in kind of a a disjointed,

[2:10:46] not very, you know, sorry to use the

[2:10:48] word, but comprehensive way. Uh, but

[2:10:51] when we do roll it out, it it'll be

[2:10:53] pretty cool. And then, um,

[2:10:57] yeah, we've had what, three meetings. Uh

[2:11:00] we're finalizing all of the elements of

[2:11:02] our public participation plan uh with

[2:11:05] between Multistudio and then the

[2:11:07] consultant that they're bringing on to

[2:11:08] help with that, specifically Wilson and

[2:11:10] company. So uh that is going to be a a

[2:11:13] full-fledged plan just for the community

[2:11:15] engagement because you know when we when

[2:11:18] we talked to the city uh with the

[2:11:19] governing body, the mayor and city

[2:11:21] council, they said that that was one of

[2:11:22] the biggest components they wanted to

[2:11:24] see going forward is is really

[2:11:27] getting as much

[2:11:29] feedback and public engagement as we've

[2:11:32] had on any of our plans to date. So,

[2:11:34] they kind of want this to be our gold

[2:11:35] star effort and I couldn't agree more.

[2:11:37] So, there's things happening. It

[2:11:40] probably feels like we're we're in this

[2:11:42] delay mode, but there's a lot of work

[2:11:44] happening behind the scenes and and it

[2:11:46] will be starting to come about here

[2:11:49] within the next four to six weeks if not

[2:11:53] sooner. Is it a local company or

[2:11:57] >> uh the company is Multistudio? Uh they

[2:11:59] are a national company with a

[2:12:02] significant office here in the Kansas

[2:12:05] City metro. Um they have done

[2:12:08] comprehensive plans for uh a number of

[2:12:11] cities in the metro.

[2:12:14] I don't remember them all off the top of

[2:12:15] my head, but they're they're a

[2:12:16] well-known firm. um the their their

[2:12:19] principal uh Graham Smith is is well

[2:12:23] known and they they've done just a lot

[2:12:25] of comprehensive plans in the area and

[2:12:27] then Wilson and Company uh is

[2:12:31] a multiaceted firm, wouldn't you say,

[2:12:33] Allison? Um they do quite a bit of

[2:12:36] engineering work, transportation, uh

[2:12:38] planning, uh parks and trails, and and

[2:12:42] they they're really kind of ramping up

[2:12:44] their whole urban planning side. And so

[2:12:47] they were brought on board because they

[2:12:48] have uh some staff members who are you

[2:12:51] know specialists in public engagement.

[2:12:54] And so uh they were brought on board

[2:12:56] specifically to handle that uh to help

[2:12:58] alleviate some of that for multi studio

[2:13:01] uh in terms of you know having to

[2:13:03] coordinate all that. And so we that

[2:13:05] again is one of the biggest components

[2:13:07] of it is that real true community

[2:13:08] engagement and deliberate effort there.

[2:13:10] So

[2:13:11] >> Paul how would you capture comments? So,

[2:13:14] we do a survey or

[2:13:16] >> we don't know yet.

[2:13:17] >> Just a dunk tank with the mayor tied to

[2:13:19] the feedback. [laughter]

[2:13:21] >> Right.

[2:13:21] >> With your feedback, you get a throw.

[2:13:23] >> Yeah.

[2:13:24] >> Or if Mayor Young prefers, he could do a

[2:13:25] kissing booth.

[2:13:28] >> I will be sure to let him know of your

[2:13:30] suggestion.

[2:13:31] >> Okay. Please.

[2:13:31] >> We will take all,

[2:13:33] >> you know, I I don't want to do anything

[2:13:35] that waste people's time at that. you

[2:13:37] know, we you get just a very brief

[2:13:40] moment of somebody's attention. And so,

[2:13:42] um, it may be [clears throat] as

[2:13:44] involved as could be interactive or it

[2:13:46] could just be a card with a QR code that

[2:13:48] leads to a survey. Um, we are we've

[2:13:52] shared with them the the informal one

[2:13:54] that Ian had put together earlier this

[2:13:56] summer. Uh and so

[2:13:59] we that is going that interactive map

[2:14:02] that they're going to be building will

[2:14:04] allow people, you know, people in the

[2:14:06] public, businesses, anybody really to go

[2:14:08] in there and pinpoint areas within the

[2:14:10] city of what maybe what they want to see

[2:14:12] or or how to solicit ideas. And so

[2:14:17] another big component is really trying

[2:14:18] to hit on that visioning. uh what do the

[2:14:22] residents, what do the businesses, what

[2:14:24] do planning commissioners, city staff,

[2:14:27] governing body members want to see the

[2:14:30] growth and and the ultimate buildout of

[2:14:32] the city 20 years from now, 30 years

[2:14:35] from now? What what does the community

[2:14:37] want to be, if you will? Um, there are

[2:14:41] some cities in in the country in a

[2:14:43] similar boat that where they were 20

[2:14:45] years ago have grown into 70 80,000

[2:14:49] resident suburbs. There's other cities

[2:14:52] that have kind of maintained more of a

[2:14:56] protectionist attitude and they haven't

[2:14:57] grown very much at all. And so then

[2:14:59] there's even thousands more in between

[2:15:01] those two. So, um, really trying to get

[2:15:04] a sense and a a pulse point on what the

[2:15:07] community wants to see. And as I've said

[2:15:10] before, not everybody wants to see the

[2:15:12] same things, but the goal of the plan is

[2:15:15] to, you know, appeal to everybody in

[2:15:17] some form.

[2:15:19] >> I know when Johnson County Fair did

[2:15:21] their

[2:15:22] QR code

[2:15:26] a year ago,

[2:15:28] that was probably the best way we've

[2:15:30] ever done.

[2:15:32] respons

[2:15:43] where they're coming in from either via

[2:15:45] zip code or

[2:15:47] I don't know what the best way is for

[2:15:49] that

[2:15:51] city or county or zip code or what but

[2:15:54] it would be nice to

[2:15:56] know whose thoughts or opinions we're

[2:15:59] looking at if they're just a visitor

[2:16:01] coming into Spring Hill, they could be

[2:16:04] out of state and have a totally

[2:16:06] different perception of what they see

[2:16:07] when they come into the community. So,

[2:16:09] it just would be interesting. Yeah, that

[2:16:11] is one of the critical points that

[2:16:12] they're working to build into that that

[2:16:15] website and or feedback and the QR code

[2:16:17] is is trying to capture who's and where

[2:16:20] people are coming from that are giving

[2:16:21] us this feedback because you know we the

[2:16:25] vision of the community for not just

[2:16:27] residents and businesses but also

[2:16:29] visitors and is there a potential market

[2:16:32] for tourism down here and and why why

[2:16:35] are people visiting Spring Hill? And so

[2:16:38] we're also going to be doing a a

[2:16:40] contract with a software firm called

[2:16:43] Placer.ai.

[2:16:45] And it's a essentially

[2:16:49] data gathering point information and

[2:16:52] location tracking. So, anybody that has

[2:16:53] their location on their phone or their

[2:16:55] credit cards and basically all of that

[2:16:58] data that that people are giving away

[2:17:00] freely um

[2:17:03] to really track where those people are

[2:17:06] stopping, what they're visiting, so we

[2:17:08] can uh for example look at, you know, on

[2:17:12] our first or yeah, first Fridays, first

[2:17:15] Friday's events, we can see who is

[2:17:18] visiting, how many people, what are the

[2:17:20] peak hours, where they came from and not

[2:17:22] only that, what they did before they

[2:17:24] came here and then what they did after.

[2:17:26] And so that is a a good tool for us as

[2:17:29] we look to those events, but we can also

[2:17:31] do it to all the businesses in town. Um,

[2:17:34] and it it's a it's a great tool for us

[2:17:37] to see traffic pattern movements, where

[2:17:40] people are going when they leave Spring

[2:17:41] Hill in the morning, what they're doing

[2:17:43] on their way home, what um it's a little

[2:17:46] scary how good the information can be,

[2:17:48] but it really helps us understand

[2:17:52] um that that data helps us understand

[2:17:54] the the true dynamics of of what what is

[2:17:56] happening and who's coming here.

[2:17:58] >> I totally understand that we did that

[2:18:00] just last week with Johnson County Fair.

[2:18:02] We didn't use Placer but we did do that

[2:18:05] and the city of Gardener also had one in

[2:18:08] place. I'm not sure what they

[2:18:11] totally understand and it was very

[2:18:13] beneficial to be able to go before

[2:18:15] county commissioners and say this is

[2:18:17] what we have.

[2:18:18] >> Y

[2:18:20] >> appreciate that.

[2:18:21] Okay.

[2:18:25] » And so just another report. I know

[2:18:27] Spencer's got something, but um at the

[2:18:29] last couple of um items related to main

[2:18:33] development at the city council, there

[2:18:34] were none at June 11th. Uh on the 25th,

[2:18:38] the approval of the conditional use

[2:18:40] permit was site plan for the Spring Hill

[2:18:42] High School continuing education and

[2:18:44] commonaries edition. And that was it.

[2:18:51] Turn it over to Spencer.

[2:18:52] >> Thank you, Spencer.

[2:18:53] >> Thankly. Briefly for you all, next month

[2:18:55] we will be bringing you a proposed

[2:18:57] change to the zoning code as it relates

[2:19:01] to the planning commission. Um, one of

[2:19:04] those changes will be to take the code

[2:19:07] language that enables and governs you

[2:19:09] all and move it out of the zoning code

[2:19:11] and put it into chapter one with the

[2:19:12] rest of the boards and commissions so

[2:19:14] everything is in one place. Uh the other

[2:19:17] changes that have been requested by

[2:19:19] staff and governing body um and again

[2:19:22] this will be a public hearing for you

[2:19:24] all to recommend just like any other

[2:19:25] zoning code change. One of the reasons

[2:19:27] we're moving it is that's a lot of work

[2:19:29] for what hopefully in the future is just

[2:19:31] kind of housekeeping items. One of them

[2:19:33] will be combining the planning

[2:19:34] commission with the BZA. That is

[2:19:36] something that a lot of cities in Kansas

[2:19:37] do. Um, we're having one BCA hearing

[2:19:41] about every two to three years, which is

[2:19:43] just enough time for members to roll off

[2:19:45] their appointment. And then we Amy is

[2:19:47] scrambling. Um, so by combining that,

[2:19:50] what would happen is every few years

[2:19:51] when there's a BZA hearing, that would

[2:19:53] just be the same night as a planning

[2:19:54] commission. Um, you would open that

[2:19:56] meeting at 7, run through that in, you

[2:19:59] know, a short period of time, and then

[2:20:01] commence the planning commission meeting

[2:20:02] right after that. So, it's a way to

[2:20:04] streamline and make sure that when

[2:20:06] people file those requests for a BZA

[2:20:08] hearing, we can get that done a little

[2:20:10] quicker rather than running around and

[2:20:12] trying to ask you all who wants to be

[2:20:13] appointed for this one and and play

[2:20:14] musical chairs there. The last um item

[2:20:17] that will be up for consideration in

[2:20:19] that change uh will be changing the

[2:20:21] language of membership. Right now, it is

[2:20:24] two members live must live in the

[2:20:26] county, one Johnson, one Miami. And

[2:20:28] historically, we've had some problems

[2:20:30] filling both of those seats. one of them

[2:20:32] has been open for a while now. Um, so

[2:20:34] the request has been to consider

[2:20:36] changing that to up to two members can

[2:20:39] be non- city residents, which would be

[2:20:42] in the county. Um, which allows us to

[2:20:44] still have two county residents on this

[2:20:46] commission. Uh, but if we can't get two

[2:20:48] county residents, it allows us to fill

[2:20:50] it with a city resident to make sure

[2:20:52] that we can have a full commission,

[2:20:54] which is what we want. Uh, not struggle

[2:20:56] with quorum and allows flexibility too

[2:20:58] as the city grows. Um, as maybe some

[2:21:02] unincorporated parts of each counties

[2:21:04] start disappearing or ending up in one

[2:21:07] city or another um that we're not kind

[2:21:09] of boxing ourselves into a corner there.

[2:21:10] So again, nothing before you tonight to

[2:21:12] consider, nothing that you guys really

[2:21:14] even need to talk about tonight. We just

[2:21:15] wanted to put that before you as food

[2:21:17] for thought and then a month from now um

[2:21:20] we'll have a public hearing and you guys

[2:21:21] can have had a month to think it over

[2:21:23] and and come forward with your

[2:21:24] recommendations for the governing body.

[2:21:27] Um, other than that, for anyone who

[2:21:29] hasn't been paying attention, the city

[2:21:30] has appointed uh my replacement, which

[2:21:32] will be Misty Brown. Um, she is probably

[2:21:35] going to be starting in

[2:21:37] late Septemberish. So, this isn't my

[2:21:39] last meeting, but we're getting close to

[2:21:41] that with you all. Um, and you will be

[2:21:44] in excellent hands with her. So, just

[2:21:46] wanted to make sure you guys are are

[2:21:47] aware that um you're almost done putting

[2:21:49] up with me. And most people get pretty

[2:21:51] excited by that. So,

[2:21:53] >> I wouldn't say that

[2:21:54] >> verbiage would be for either Johnson or

[2:21:57] Yes. So it would just be up to two

[2:21:59] members that live in the county, an

[2:22:01] unincorporated county. So non city

[2:22:04] residents, but they also can't be ana

[2:22:06] overland parker resident, but either

[2:22:08] county. So it could be Johnson County or

[2:22:09] Miami County. It'll probably still be

[2:22:11] within three miles of the city.

[2:22:14] >> Yeah. So that's a holdover. Um the state

[2:22:17] statutes historically have allowed

[2:22:18] cities to do extrajudicial zoning. So

[2:22:21] you could have zoning requirements on

[2:22:23] unincorporated areas of the city up to

[2:22:25] three miles out as long as you had

[2:22:27] county residents on your planning

[2:22:28] commission. The city has not been

[2:22:30] interested in imposing zoning

[2:22:32] regulations on the county for a long

[2:22:34] time. Um so this is just a holdover of

[2:22:37] that ability in the past which no one is

[2:22:39] really interested in doing. So we're

[2:22:41] starting to dial that back um and you

[2:22:43] know rethink whether we really need to

[2:22:46] be having that possibility available. We

[2:22:48] used to have it on the Miami County

[2:22:50] site, but that was it. And that's been

[2:22:52] several years

[2:22:55] that we brought in that extra

[2:22:57] territorial was a business that we were.

[2:23:03] » Yeah.

[2:23:04] >> Spencer, that's interesting because I

[2:23:05] always thought it was just a an

[2:23:07] acknowledgement of the fact that it's a

[2:23:09] growing city and with our fringe areas

[2:23:12] are unincorporated and all of those

[2:23:13] every obviously every annexation is an

[2:23:16] unincorporated area. So, I always

[2:23:17] thought that the county residents were a a hattip or a nod or showing, you

[2:23:23] know, making sure there's there's some

[2:23:25] representation of the people who are in

[2:23:27] the path of growth.

[2:23:29] >> Honestly, it's probably the opposite

[2:23:30] that came in before the city was a very

[2:23:32] quick growing city. Mhm.

[2:23:34] >> Um so while it works that way now and

[2:23:37] that's why it's the two county seats

[2:23:38] aren't just being wholesale removed. Um

[2:23:40] we did just want to maybe propose some

[2:23:42] flexibility uh in that membership rather

[2:23:45] than splitting up one for each county.

[2:23:47] >> Yeah.

[2:23:47] >> Will there be Thanks.

[2:23:50] >> Yeah. This isn't targeted at you. I just

[2:23:52] want to make that very clear.

[2:23:54] >> How'd you know it's going? Um but it

[2:23:56] sounds like there won't be a requirement

[2:23:58] though. There'll be the option of having

[2:23:59] a county up to two county

[2:24:01] representatives but there's no

[2:24:02] requirement. Correct.

[2:24:05] >> Okay. Any other announcements?

[2:24:09] >> Nope.

[2:24:10] >> Okay.

[2:24:12] Rhonda, anything in addition?

[2:24:15] >> I'm going to have a fun one. I just want

[2:24:17] to remind everybody that tomorrow is the

[2:24:19] final first Friday of the summer. I've

[2:24:22] seen several of you at First Fridays and

[2:24:25] um it's going to be a fun one. It's the

[2:24:26] back to school night, so I think it'll

[2:24:29] be full of kids and fun. There's a dunk

[2:24:31] tank. I may have heard a mayor is in

[2:24:34] that.

[2:24:35] >> So, you may want to go down there and you know, take out your aggressions

[2:24:40] or whatever you have. But anyway, and we

[2:24:42] have food trucks and stuff. And it's

[2:24:43] just really a great community night. A

[2:24:45] lot of smiling, happy people and

[2:24:47] neighbors talking to neighbors. So, if

[2:24:48] you get a chance, um, please come out

[2:24:50] 5:30 to 8:30 downtown tomorrow night.

[2:24:54] >> Thank you.

[2:25:01] » [laughter]

[2:25:02] >> That's $40. I'll need to bring

[2:25:06] >> All right, Allison, tell us about the K7

[2:25:25] » Street.

[2:25:29] Is that better? Okay, I'll start over

[2:25:32] for those following along at home. So,

[2:25:34] uh, KAT is working on the K7 corridor

[2:25:36] study. It starts at I35 to the north and

[2:25:39] goes through and Spring Hill down to the

[2:25:42] Johnson County line. And this is a

[2:25:44] partnership with the city of THA, city

[2:25:45] of Spring Hill, Johnson County, and

[2:25:48] Katy. Um, the team uh is has uh done

[2:25:53] some public engagement. They've done

[2:25:54] some stakeholder events. Uh we've had

[2:25:57] one open house here at city hall that

[2:25:59] was back say Septemberish. Um and then

[2:26:02] they are going to host another open

[2:26:04] house uh in tha. They want to work a

[2:26:08] little bit further along on some of

[2:26:09] their recommendations. Um they're to the

[2:26:11] point where they're starting to draw

[2:26:13] pretty pictures of each of the

[2:26:15] intersections along the corridor to come

[2:26:17] up with the ultimate plan. So whether it

[2:26:21] is signalized intersections or um

[2:26:24] overpasses or you know an actual

[2:26:28] interchange or something along those

[2:26:29] lines. So uh if money were no object and

[2:26:33] you know money is an object uh what

[2:26:35] would that design be? So um hopefully

[2:26:37] I'll have more information for you

[2:26:39] moving forward but um that's what

[2:26:42] they're working on right now. Uh I

[2:26:44] believe there will be opportunity for um

[2:26:46] another touch point with some public

[2:26:48] engagement whenever they um ho host that

[2:26:50] openhouse. So they'll have um community

[2:26:53] reaction to some of the um the concepts

[2:26:56] that they have that they've uh drawn

[2:26:59] out.

[2:26:59] >> And I've heard you say the next one will

[2:27:01] be organized in tha or by

[2:27:04] >> it'll be in tha and I forget exactly

[2:27:07] they said where it was but I can't

[2:27:09] remember. But we're going to push that

[2:27:11] information out through our social media

[2:27:13] because I encourage anybody here in

[2:27:15] Spring Hill that didn't get the

[2:27:16] opportunity to go to the open house that

[2:27:18] we had just across the hall. Um please

[2:27:21] go to the one and only um the the team

[2:27:24] will be there. KOT will be there. You'll

[2:27:26] have uh an opportunity to talk to the

[2:27:29] who's who with the KOT staff so you can

[2:27:31] tell them about all your concerns

[2:27:33] related to 169 and K7.

[2:27:36] >> Terrific. So, I don't know if I have any

[2:27:39] other things. I pretty much gave you all

[2:27:40] my updates from before. U I I will go

[2:27:43] ahead and say it. Um just for public

[2:27:46] consumption, I'll mention it next week,

[2:27:47] too. 199th Street, we are going to be

[2:27:50] closing a portion of that starting next

[2:27:53] week. Um it will be daytime closure only

[2:27:57] uh from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm and it's

[2:28:00] going to be that section from the

[2:28:02] entrance to Prairie Ridge to Rener. Um

[2:28:06] there will be detour signs and such. Uh

[2:28:09] but they will open that up every night.

[2:28:11] The reason we have to do this is we've

[2:28:12] got some crossroad pipes that we need to

[2:28:14] put in and the safest and quickest way

[2:28:16] to get it done is just to do a full

[2:28:18] closure. Uh we do want to get this done

[2:28:21] ahead of school starting on the 17th. So

[2:28:23] that's why we're scrambling to try to

[2:28:25] get this done and not prolong this

[2:28:27] because we want to make sure that it's

[2:28:29] open to traffic. if it does need to be

[2:28:32] prolonged into the week of the 17th. I

[2:28:34] have asked them to modify their hours to

[2:28:37] after school starts and to be done by

[2:28:40] the time school opens. They've told me

[2:28:41] that if it does

[2:28:44] need to be closed, then they could look

[2:28:45] at doing flaggers or something along

[2:28:47] those lines if they need anything else.

[2:28:49] So,

[2:28:51] anything else for me?

[2:28:56] » Oh, yes, I do. So

[2:28:59] yeah, a lot going on here. So as we

[2:29:02] talked about before, we have our

[2:29:03] wastewater treatment facility that we're

[2:29:04] trying to build within the next three

[2:29:06] years so that we don't run out of

[2:29:07] capacity and all that good stuff. We are

[2:29:09] going to have a presentation next week.

[2:29:12] Uh we will have a public hearing here in

[2:29:14] this room next Thursday, the 13th at 700

[2:29:18] p.m. Uh we will have a short

[2:29:19] presentation about like all the great

[2:29:21] things that we're going to be doing with

[2:29:22] the plant. So, if you guys want more

[2:29:25] information about the style, the type,

[2:29:27] the size, all the great things, uh few

[2:29:29] maybe a couple of pretty pictures, who

[2:29:31] know? Or just maybe pictures, they won't

[2:29:33] be pretty, but uh come and join us, get

[2:29:36] some additional information. Uh we'll

[2:29:39] share that with the community. This is a

[2:29:41] requirement for us. We are going to be

[2:29:43] um getting loan from state and federal

[2:29:46] sources so that we can help pay for

[2:29:48] this. Um I am seeking grants too, but

[2:29:51] that's a whole other discussion. But um

[2:29:53] anyway, we'll be in here. You'll have an

[2:29:55] opportunity to speak um after the

[2:29:58] presentation. And then um the other we

[2:30:02] do have another um item on the agenda

[2:30:05] next week that is noteworthy for the

[2:30:07] public. We are u a municipal separate

[2:30:10] storm sewer system. Uh MS4 for short.

[2:30:13] It's our storm water permit. So we are a

[2:30:16] baby MS4 which means we're on year zero

[2:30:18] right now. With that we had to create a

[2:30:21] storm water management plan. Uh we will

[2:30:23] be presenting that uh next Thursday the

[2:30:26] 13th uh in conjunction with the meeting.

[2:30:29] We will have an opportunity for public

[2:30:31] comments at the conclusion of our

[2:30:33] presentation. If you have any questions

[2:30:35] about how we're going to manage our

[2:30:37] storm water, how we're going to educate

[2:30:39] the community and get them involved with

[2:30:41] some of the storm water concerns. Uh

[2:30:43] these are requirements that uh come down

[2:30:45] from ultimately EPA, but it's um Kansas

[2:30:49] Department of Health and Environment

[2:30:50] that um requires us to have National

[2:30:53] Pollutant Discharge and Elimination

[2:30:55] System permit or an MS4 permit. Um so

[2:30:58] that it, you know, outlines all the

[2:31:00] great things that we're going to do as

[2:31:02] far as good housekeeping, street

[2:31:03] sweeping, and all the things to keep our

[2:31:07] streams clean.

[2:31:09] So, a lot going on next Thursday.

[2:31:14] And that meeting is here.

[2:31:15] >> The meeting will be here. It'll be city

[2:31:17] council. We'll be presenting it all

[2:31:19] during the city council meeting next

[2:31:20] week.

[2:31:22] >> Great.

[2:31:22] >> Okay.

[2:31:25] >> Anything else? No. All right. Thank you.

[2:31:29] >> All right. Are there any other

[2:31:30] announcements and reports?

[2:31:33] Okay. If not, I will entertain a motion

[2:31:35] to the meeting.

[2:31:40] » Second. All in favor?

[2:31:42] >> I opposed. All right, meeting is

[2:31:45] adjourned. Thanks everyone.

[2:31:49] >> Congratulations on your spots.

[2:31:54] Incredible.

Spring Hill Planning Commission Regular Meeting: August 6, 2026

Agenda

Transcript