[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.