1 00:00:05,920 --> 00:00:12,320 All right. This calls to order the Monday, August 2 00:00:09,519 --> 00:00:15,599 31st, 2026 Fairway Planning Commission meeting. First item of business is 3 00:00:14,559 --> 00:00:20,640 approval of the minutes for the meeting held on July 27th, 2026. Is there any 4 00:00:18,880 --> 00:00:25,600 discussion or does someone want to make a motion? 5 00:00:23,580 --> 00:00:25,600 [clears throat] 6 00:00:26,960 --> 00:00:30,880 » Is there a second? >> Second. All those in favor? 7 00:00:30,080 --> 00:00:36,239 » I I >> All right. Motion passes. Next item of 8 00:00:33,280 --> 00:00:40,399 business is item A, public old business. Item A, public hearing continued from 9 00:00:38,239 --> 00:00:45,680 June 29th, 2026 for a site plan review for 5815 Cherokee Drive. Uh we've been 10 00:00:43,120 --> 00:00:50,480 told that this has been pulled and we um it's no longer on the agenda. Okay. So, 11 00:00:48,800 --> 00:00:55,039 moving on. Item three, new business. Item A, site plan review for 6032 12 00:00:53,199 --> 00:00:58,160 Delmare Street, Fairway, Kansas. request for new single family residents with 13 00:00:56,559 --> 00:01:02,239 exceptions to window hierarchy on left and right elevations. Basel, will you 14 00:01:00,000 --> 00:01:08,479 please provide your report? >> Yes, I'll let my report stand as 15 00:01:04,320 --> 00:01:14,080 submitted. Uh they will need part of uh staff is not opposed to the application. 16 00:01:11,439 --> 00:01:20,640 Uh they do have the hierarchy issue on the left and rear elevation and then 17 00:01:17,200 --> 00:01:25,280 they do need approval from city council for the 18 00:01:22,880 --> 00:01:28,759 rideway tree close to it 19 00:01:29,600 --> 00:01:32,840 for questions. 20 00:01:33,520 --> 00:01:41,479 » When you get a chance, will you pull up drawing A2.2? I think it's the last one 21 00:01:38,159 --> 00:01:41,479 in the set. 22 00:01:52,799 --> 00:01:59,159 Uh, A2.2. I think that might be it maybe. 23 00:02:00,000 --> 00:02:06,840 » Yeah. So, Basel, do you want to just confirm which windows we're discussing? 24 00:02:07,280 --> 00:02:11,399 » Windows we're discussing. 25 00:02:28,959 --> 00:02:38,800 So the rear eleation has those three windows, the smaller ones 26 00:02:34,879 --> 00:02:41,800 below it are the larger windows. Any 27 00:02:46,319 --> 00:02:50,040 other questions for staff? 28 00:02:53,440 --> 00:03:00,280 » Okay. Any discussion on the plans or the window hierarchy? 29 00:03:05,120 --> 00:03:11,400 » I don't have any comments to this. That looks okay to me. 30 00:03:13,440 --> 00:03:20,159 » The same. Yeah, I'm good with that. >> I agree. 31 00:03:16,560 --> 00:03:27,840 » Yeah. I' I'd like to um I'd like to make a motion um to approve the um or the 32 00:03:26,080 --> 00:03:30,879 exception for left and right um elevation facads to have the lower 33 00:03:29,280 --> 00:03:34,000 windows and upper windows not in alignment. 34 00:03:33,360 --> 00:03:37,280 » Second. >> And so conditions, right? 35 00:03:36,720 --> 00:03:41,599 subject to >> subject. Yeah. Subject to stop 36 00:03:38,799 --> 00:03:42,959 conditions. >> Was there a second? 37 00:03:42,319 --> 00:03:44,720 » I'll second. >> All in favor? 38 00:03:44,159 --> 00:03:50,000 » I. >> All right. Motion passes. 39 00:03:48,159 --> 00:03:53,680 » Next item of business is item B. Site plan review for 5942 locked in lane, 40 00:03:52,159 --> 00:03:57,599 Fairway, Kansas. Request for a new single family residence with exceptions 41 00:03:55,680 --> 00:04:01,360 to minimum 40ft front setback and window hierarchy on the left elevation. Basel, 42 00:04:00,319 --> 00:04:06,640 will you please provide your staff report? 43 00:04:03,680 --> 00:04:14,159 Again, I'll let my report stand as submitted. U they are seeking uh the 44 00:04:11,840 --> 00:04:25,919 exception to line up the house with the rest of the house which is at 35 ft. 45 00:04:20,400 --> 00:04:30,440 The hierarchy is for the left elevation. Staff is not opposed to the application. 46 00:04:33,680 --> 00:04:42,800 Is the window hierarchy the one on the right, that top right window? 47 00:04:40,880 --> 00:04:48,680 » Or I guess it's probably both top windows. 48 00:04:43,840 --> 00:04:48,680 » It's It's the Yeah, the top windows. 49 00:04:50,000 --> 00:04:54,040 » Any other questions for staff? 50 00:04:55,680 --> 00:05:02,040 » Any discussion? Uh the applicant's here too if we have questions for the 51 00:04:59,040 --> 00:05:02,040 applicant. 52 00:05:23,759 --> 00:05:31,720 I guess to confirm the setback is to align with the adjacent properties 53 00:05:27,840 --> 00:05:31,720 » adjacent houses. 54 00:05:34,639 --> 00:05:37,880 » Any discussion? 55 00:05:40,240 --> 00:05:44,600 None. Does someone want to make a motion? 56 00:05:44,800 --> 00:05:51,600 » I'll make a motion that we approve the plans as submitted allowing the 57 00:05:49,520 --> 00:05:55,440 exception for the front setback in the window hierarchy on the left side 58 00:05:53,600 --> 00:05:59,840 elevation subject to staff recommendations. 59 00:05:57,919 --> 00:06:05,479 » Second. >> All those in favor? I 60 00:06:01,919 --> 00:06:05,479 » All right. Motion passes. 61 00:06:07,199 --> 00:06:14,000 Next item of business is item C, site plan review for 6114 Fontana Street, 62 00:06:12,080 --> 00:06:16,960 Fairway, Kansas. Request for a new single family residence with exceptions 63 00:06:15,440 --> 00:06:20,400 to window hierarchy, right, left, and front elevations. Basel, will you please 64 00:06:19,039 --> 00:06:25,440 provide your staff report? >> Okay, I'll I'll let my report stand as 65 00:06:22,639 --> 00:06:32,800 submitted with just one modification. The front elevation is is not a problem. 66 00:06:29,840 --> 00:06:38,639 Uh but the right and left are as far as the 67 00:06:36,160 --> 00:06:43,720 exception for the hierarchy and staff is not opposed to the 68 00:06:40,720 --> 00:06:43,720 application. 69 00:06:47,039 --> 00:06:51,080 » Any other questions for staff? 70 00:07:02,880 --> 00:07:12,479 What's the m or yeah maximum space you can have without a window or door or any 71 00:07:11,360 --> 00:07:19,199 plane change >> uh for a wall it depends on if it's uh 72 00:07:16,000 --> 00:07:22,319 two story or one story I think it's 600 600 73 00:07:20,240 --> 00:07:25,599 » that is just for architectural relief there is a thing that says you have to 74 00:07:23,919 --> 00:07:29,680 have a certain number of windows within a square footage it's just the 75 00:07:27,199 --> 00:07:32,639 percentage for that entire facade Okay. But was is there something for 76 00:07:31,280 --> 00:07:36,639 architectural relief? You can't just have an expanse of a wall, right? 77 00:07:34,639 --> 00:07:40,039 » That's the 600 square feet of the relief. Yeah. 78 00:07:42,240 --> 00:07:49,440 » I'm just curious the the right elevation on the first floor, that one window in 79 00:07:46,720 --> 00:07:55,080 the middle. Is that the is that the kitchen? Why is 80 00:07:51,120 --> 00:07:55,080 it placed there? Do we know? 81 00:08:18,160 --> 00:08:21,280 should be >> bathroom. 82 00:08:20,160 --> 00:08:26,000 » Yeah, it looks like it's over the toilet. 83 00:08:22,720 --> 00:08:29,840 » Yeah, I could. >> It's this one. Yeah, 84 00:08:28,479 --> 00:08:35,519 » okay. >> It's above It's above the lab. 85 00:08:32,800 --> 00:08:38,519 » Okay. I couldn't tell for sure. Thank you. 86 00:09:04,080 --> 00:09:07,560 Is there any comments? 87 00:09:12,480 --> 00:09:17,920 I personally wish the applicant was here so we could talk through it a little 88 00:09:15,440 --> 00:09:20,480 more because it does I do have questions for the applicant 89 00:09:19,200 --> 00:09:27,240 but they're not here so we'll just have to make a decision without their um 90 00:09:24,240 --> 00:09:27,240 commentary 91 00:09:29,440 --> 00:09:35,040 » what are your questions >> I mean why they have located the windows 92 00:09:33,680 --> 00:09:39,440 the way they have and haven't maybe added one in the kitchen it does feel a 93 00:09:37,279 --> 00:09:44,760 little bit Um, I mean the whole goal is to have them 94 00:09:40,800 --> 00:09:44,760 aligned and it doesn't feel aligned. 95 00:09:47,440 --> 00:09:55,440 » Yeah. I guess other than the hierarchy, the the one wall, the 476 square feet 96 00:09:53,120 --> 00:10:00,080 does meet the requirements. 97 00:09:57,200 --> 00:10:04,720 It just looks kind of weird. Is that maybe that's what you're getting at is 98 00:10:02,080 --> 00:10:07,279 seems like a good place for a window. >> Well, yeah. And then there could be some 99 00:10:05,920 --> 00:10:10,399 more alignment with the hierarchy, >> right? 100 00:10:07,600 --> 00:10:13,519 » Instead of three windows on top and one >> in that middle space, 101 00:10:12,240 --> 00:10:19,320 » left one doesn't align with the ones above it, but it's different planes at 102 00:10:16,320 --> 00:10:19,320 least. 103 00:10:23,519 --> 00:10:29,920 I mean, like, fundamentally, I don't know that I'm opposed 104 00:10:27,440 --> 00:10:32,880 because it's on the side elevation, but that one at least that we're looking 105 00:10:31,279 --> 00:10:38,079 at is on the side elevation, so it's probably not very visible, especially in 106 00:10:36,240 --> 00:10:44,079 that area of town that houses are close together. So, doesn't bother me all that 107 00:10:40,560 --> 00:10:49,560 much, but I agree it'd be nice to ask if we could get one there. 108 00:10:51,600 --> 00:10:56,640 » You always have the option to you if you like. 109 00:10:55,839 --> 00:11:00,839 » Just want to throw that. >> I know. I know. 110 00:10:57,839 --> 00:11:00,839 » Yeah. 111 00:11:05,519 --> 00:11:13,279 » Any other thoughts? >> I'm I'm open to continuing. If you've 112 00:11:10,800 --> 00:11:18,320 got questions that are unresolved, then you know, 113 00:11:15,120 --> 00:11:22,880 » do we know what the uh status of this build is? like if they if we continue to 114 00:11:20,720 --> 00:11:27,519 a month, is that going to cause a big problem for the builder? 115 00:11:25,440 --> 00:11:31,720 » I don't know. I know he's coming next month for two other houses. 116 00:11:31,760 --> 00:11:36,240 » I guess with that being said, have we approved this in the past and I just 117 00:11:35,600 --> 00:11:41,680 don't remember it >> that Princeton I think we have. I mean, 118 00:11:39,360 --> 00:11:51,000 he's not changing. Once one is popular, he's using 119 00:11:45,120 --> 00:11:51,000 he's building it over and over. Yeah, 120 00:11:53,839 --> 00:12:01,640 » made minor modification but that Princeton I know we've we've approved. 121 00:12:08,560 --> 00:12:13,839 » Is this the one where there's usually like an outdoor 122 00:12:11,760 --> 00:12:18,680 » No, this is a different one. >> All right. 123 00:12:15,680 --> 00:12:18,680 Other 124 00:12:24,480 --> 00:12:28,040 comments or thoughts? 125 00:12:34,800 --> 00:12:41,399 » I don't know that I hate it enough to continue it. Yeah, I would agree. 126 00:12:47,040 --> 00:12:56,120 I don't want to hold them up, but this is not compliant. I mean, it's not just 127 00:12:51,040 --> 00:12:56,120 a little not compliant in my view. 128 00:12:56,560 --> 00:13:01,600 » Yeah. I would hate to find out. I wish we could know if we've approved this in 129 00:13:00,000 --> 00:13:06,160 the past. I don't know how hard that would be able to look that up. 130 00:13:04,639 --> 00:13:11,160 I'd hate to continue it and then find out, oh, we actually approved it a year 131 00:13:08,160 --> 00:13:11,160 ago. 132 00:13:12,880 --> 00:13:22,240 Yeah, I don't think I have to go into I mean it's not as 133 00:13:20,000 --> 00:13:26,639 fast as >> Yeah, 134 00:13:24,399 --> 00:13:31,279 » because we don't go by the name but I know 135 00:13:28,480 --> 00:13:35,360 I've seen that Princip I can't give you how many or 136 00:13:32,880 --> 00:13:41,440 » or what it actually looked like because they are a little different. 137 00:13:36,800 --> 00:13:44,880 » Three years ago we were not as strict on That's fair. 138 00:13:43,200 --> 00:13:47,760 » I don't know if the if the applicant's going to be here next month anyway. I 139 00:13:46,320 --> 00:13:51,200 don't know what the tremendous inconveniences to just asking him next 140 00:13:50,079 --> 00:13:55,480 time he's here, especially if there's not any sort of construction delay. 141 00:13:57,440 --> 00:14:05,959 Um he's once he gets approval he's getting the permits right away 142 00:14:08,320 --> 00:14:14,320 » compared to other builders they wait a few months. 143 00:14:12,320 --> 00:14:18,920 » What are the what are the rules around uh calling the applicant? 144 00:14:23,839 --> 00:14:30,079 Well, they know that they're scheduled today. So, I mean, that's that's the way 145 00:14:28,079 --> 00:14:32,720 it works. It's either a decision, you know, if they choose not to appear, a 146 00:14:31,519 --> 00:14:37,240 decision is going to be made without them or they're or it's going to be 147 00:14:34,240 --> 00:14:37,240 continued. 148 00:14:39,760 --> 00:14:44,800 » Well, without the applicant here, I mean, I think it's fair to say that we 149 00:14:42,480 --> 00:14:49,279 could ask them the next meeting to help us understand, and that would probably 150 00:14:47,199 --> 00:14:55,199 give us some time to also confirm if we've reviewed this one in the past. 151 00:14:52,720 --> 00:14:59,639 Is that how heavy of a lift is that for you guys that 152 00:14:56,240 --> 00:14:59,639 » not harder? 153 00:15:12,160 --> 00:15:17,040 » And I mean if it was three years ago then maybe it's worth looking at it 154 00:15:14,880 --> 00:15:23,440 again but if it was six months ago >> everything is online so I can just pop 155 00:15:19,519 --> 00:15:26,440 the first page and Okay, 156 00:15:31,040 --> 00:15:37,120 » it's up to you guys. What do you Does someone want to make a motion to 157 00:15:33,440 --> 00:15:41,519 continue it or a motion to approve? >> And to be clear, too. Sorry. The the 158 00:15:39,519 --> 00:15:45,600 date we if we continue, we'd like to set up for a date certain and the date of 159 00:15:43,519 --> 00:15:50,000 the next meeting is September 28th, right? 160 00:15:47,920 --> 00:15:53,680 I'll make a motion that we continue this until the September 28th docket. 161 00:15:52,959 --> 00:15:55,519 » Second. >> All those in favor? 162 00:15:54,959 --> 00:16:02,560 » I >> I 163 00:15:56,000 --> 00:16:08,079 » opposed. Okay. Motion is continued. Next item is item D, discussion on the 164 00:16:04,720 --> 00:16:14,480 Fairway Municipal Code Chapter 15. Is Abby, is this your report or is 165 00:16:11,199 --> 00:16:19,120 Basel? Both of you are on this. on the solar. I took the lead on that 166 00:16:17,040 --> 00:16:20,399 one and then the basin's Basel had the lead on that one. 167 00:16:20,079 --> 00:16:24,160 » Okay. >> So, we divided it up. 168 00:16:22,000 --> 00:16:30,360 » Do you want to go over anything on the solar with us? 169 00:16:25,199 --> 00:16:30,360 » Uh, yes. Let me pull that up. 170 00:16:36,639 --> 00:16:46,800 I don't know what page that is. Yours is quite thicker than uh fossil. 171 00:16:44,399 --> 00:16:50,720 » Yeah. When we started looking at the solar, it was more than just the R1. 172 00:16:49,199 --> 00:16:55,040 Then we realized we hadn't addressed it in some of the other zones. So that why 173 00:16:53,600 --> 00:16:58,560 and then also we kind of had more discussion in that to work off of. So we 174 00:16:56,880 --> 00:17:01,920 already had enough to actually craft into the ordinance and have you review 175 00:17:00,399 --> 00:17:05,839 the red line. So we're a little bit further on that one just because it was 176 00:17:03,600 --> 00:17:09,559 existing already compared to the basins is starting something new. 177 00:17:11,039 --> 00:17:15,880 These watershed analysis are really long. 178 00:17:19,360 --> 00:17:22,760 Here we go. 179 00:17:26,559 --> 00:17:36,000 Let's go storm water first. So on the solar um just a history on 180 00:17:33,360 --> 00:17:39,600 that we put it in place and at that time wanted to go to planning commission till 181 00:17:37,360 --> 00:17:43,280 we got a feel on you know how things would work out which after so many years 182 00:17:41,200 --> 00:17:47,760 of review it's been kind of consistent as far as what's been approved and 183 00:17:45,919 --> 00:17:52,160 that's just what we were working off of for basis. Um, and then also adding the 184 00:17:50,480 --> 00:17:56,080 language into the special conditions and uses of all the other zones, which 185 00:17:54,160 --> 00:18:02,320 basically reference it back to R1 because that's where all the same 186 00:17:57,840 --> 00:18:05,200 regulation would live in the code. Um, so we are wanting to remove that from 187 00:18:03,840 --> 00:18:10,320 having to come to planning commission for a final site plan. Um, one thing 188 00:18:08,480 --> 00:18:17,840 within R1 that Basel was wanting to put in 189 00:18:15,200 --> 00:18:21,360 um was for that heat detector for safety. So, within the mechanical room 190 00:18:19,840 --> 00:18:26,880 or wherever they have all the batteries stored, they do have a heat detector on 191 00:18:23,520 --> 00:18:34,600 that. Um, let's see here. 192 00:18:30,160 --> 00:18:34,600 This is the long one. R1. 193 00:18:39,440 --> 00:18:44,880 Here we go. So, just adding in the battery storage area with the heat 194 00:18:42,880 --> 00:18:49,280 detector. Other than that, all the regulations are already existing in the 195 00:18:46,559 --> 00:18:49,280 code. 196 00:18:52,240 --> 00:18:59,679 So, the goal is to not require us to review solar panel systems unless they 197 00:18:57,280 --> 00:19:04,080 require a special condition. >> Um, they're all under special conditions 198 00:19:01,919 --> 00:19:07,440 for uses. That's just where it's regulated. The ones that would still 199 00:19:05,840 --> 00:19:11,360 come to you are like the commercial projects that require a development 200 00:19:09,120 --> 00:19:16,240 plan. That would still require to come to planning commission. um for this it's 201 00:19:14,160 --> 00:19:21,039 really freeing up the uh single family homes that are pretty consistent on the 202 00:19:19,039 --> 00:19:24,799 regulations there. Everybody's meeting it. Um so that's why we're just wanting 203 00:19:23,120 --> 00:19:27,760 to pull that one back. But all your commercial that has the development plan 204 00:19:26,400 --> 00:19:32,000 would still come. >> Okay. 205 00:19:29,600 --> 00:19:35,679 » Any questions for staff on that one? >> How frequent is this coming up for 206 00:19:34,400 --> 00:19:40,640 residential? >> Um our solar it's picked up. I think we 207 00:19:39,120 --> 00:19:42,880 have probably a handful or more each year 208 00:19:41,120 --> 00:19:50,400 » typically. And I was just going to add up, we get a lot towards the end of the 209 00:19:46,240 --> 00:19:54,240 year because of the tax credit. So then they apply and then we tell them, well, 210 00:19:52,480 --> 00:19:59,039 you need to come to planning commission. Then that delays them. So if they apply 211 00:19:56,640 --> 00:20:02,640 like in November, there's a good chance they'll lose on 212 00:20:00,799 --> 00:20:08,160 that tax credit from the federal government. 213 00:20:04,160 --> 00:20:13,600 So that was another reason really we would like to have that gone. 214 00:20:11,440 --> 00:20:16,799 Last year we accepted solar applications after the planning commission deadline. 215 00:20:15,440 --> 00:20:20,160 Really kind of last minute when we were putting the packet together, we had an 216 00:20:18,240 --> 00:20:23,760 applicant come in and that was a big thing. They had to have it installed by 217 00:20:21,679 --> 00:20:27,600 the end of the year for that tax credit. So kind of looking at that big picture 218 00:20:25,520 --> 00:20:30,600 to get it going a little bit faster for them. 219 00:20:33,600 --> 00:20:39,760 » Any other questions on solar? All right, Basel, do you want to provide 220 00:20:38,720 --> 00:20:44,320 your report on the storm water management? 221 00:20:41,120 --> 00:20:51,280 » Okay, so as far as the storm water again, our version of the 222 00:20:48,080 --> 00:20:57,600 code that was adopted in 2014, u watered 223 00:20:54,000 --> 00:21:03,360 was analysis was required uh for new single family resident or if 224 00:21:00,480 --> 00:21:10,559 you're adding or replacing 50% of the existing principal building. Um 225 00:21:08,000 --> 00:21:17,039 the code did not address analysis required to as far as the 226 00:21:14,000 --> 00:21:21,120 detention or infiltration basin what type of management or enforcement. So we 227 00:21:19,440 --> 00:21:28,000 don't have any enforcement and maintenance 228 00:21:22,640 --> 00:21:34,000 for it. So part of our proposal is require as build inspection 229 00:21:31,120 --> 00:21:43,039 certification for the drainage [snorts] and we require 2year thereafter of 230 00:21:38,080 --> 00:21:49,280 furnish certification by an engineer. Um then we're requiring that that needs to 231 00:21:45,840 --> 00:21:55,360 be actually recorded with the county. So these are the requirement 232 00:21:52,480 --> 00:22:02,720 as far as the reporting we're proposing 233 00:21:57,600 --> 00:22:08,559 before an occupancy on the structure but we know we get the watershed 234 00:22:04,640 --> 00:22:16,720 analysis for the planning commission but we'll give them that extra one year to 235 00:22:13,120 --> 00:22:22,480 do all the paperwork or that's I feel that's fair. 236 00:22:19,919 --> 00:22:27,760 » Does this have to be disclosed when a house is sold then? How does that work? 237 00:22:24,240 --> 00:22:33,840 » Yes. So, and and again, once that we're requiring it to be like disclosed 238 00:22:31,440 --> 00:22:37,120 because it's recorded with the county. >> Okay. 239 00:22:34,240 --> 00:22:43,280 » So, the new owner will know that they have to comply with that maintenance. 240 00:22:41,440 --> 00:22:47,840 What's the what's the sanction if the land if the homeowner doesn't provide 241 00:22:44,960 --> 00:22:52,240 the certificate or it's non-compliant? If it's non-compliant, I see they have 242 00:22:49,280 --> 00:22:56,159 to reapply every year. But if they just >> don't file one, then what's the 243 00:22:53,919 --> 00:23:01,760 » I mean, that's where we're going to put some mechanism where then we'll issue a 244 00:22:59,200 --> 00:23:09,120 ticket or citation if they don't comply, then it'll go to municipal board. 245 00:23:06,880 --> 00:23:15,440 » I see that Mission Hills has passed this recently. Do we know are engineers 246 00:23:12,880 --> 00:23:19,280 readily available to do this inspection? >> I asked them about their experiences 247 00:23:17,360 --> 00:23:22,960 with this and they said that people have been submitting them and that they 248 00:23:21,120 --> 00:23:26,600 haven't they haven't been hearing complaints about it. 249 00:23:29,600 --> 00:23:34,640 » Basel, you said this is recorded with the county. Where is that recorded? Is 250 00:23:33,360 --> 00:23:40,720 that the register of deeds or >> the agreement of the maintenance? Yeah. 251 00:23:37,280 --> 00:23:45,120 » Okay. Thanks. And I did look at Crater Village. They 252 00:23:43,360 --> 00:23:50,640 have something actually they're more restricted. They're doing it at once a 253 00:23:47,760 --> 00:23:57,240 year. So 254 00:23:52,400 --> 00:23:57,240 I thought that was an extreme. So 255 00:23:58,159 --> 00:24:03,520 » So I guess the is this the actual changes on the back? 256 00:24:01,679 --> 00:24:10,480 » That's what we're proposing. Then obviously once if if you're in general 257 00:24:06,480 --> 00:24:12,960 agreement then we'll up the ordinance 258 00:24:11,520 --> 00:24:16,520 » and we'll do the public hearing and all of that. Okay. 259 00:24:17,279 --> 00:24:21,799 » Any other questions or comments? 260 00:24:23,039 --> 00:24:31,919 » If none then we could propose a >> one other thing. We did some initial 261 00:24:29,279 --> 00:24:35,520 numbers as far as how many we have right now 262 00:24:34,159 --> 00:24:39,440 » because with this code it would be something that um would go back to 263 00:24:37,600 --> 00:24:44,080 wershed analysis. We started requiring that in 2012. So we do need to make it 264 00:24:42,080 --> 00:24:50,159 retroactive back to 2012 to catch all the homes that have already been built. 265 00:24:47,120 --> 00:24:54,720 Um because this one basis comes from a new home that was built a few years ago 266 00:24:52,320 --> 00:24:58,000 and a neighbor saying that the basin's not working correctly. That's why we're 267 00:24:56,720 --> 00:25:02,880 needing to put something in place to address that kind of thing. Um, but we 268 00:25:00,799 --> 00:25:09,360 are I look back to 2012 and since then we've had um 168 homes built. Um, the 269 00:25:06,880 --> 00:25:12,799 further you go back in 2012, 13, 14, it was a little more difficult right now to 270 00:25:10,799 --> 00:25:17,440 decipher if a basin was in there. I have to do some more digging. Um, but I'm 271 00:25:14,880 --> 00:25:22,240 estimating it's probably about 50 homes is that it's going to catch. So, how are 272 00:25:20,080 --> 00:25:25,039 we going to go about informing them that they now have to 273 00:25:23,440 --> 00:25:31,919 » We would be sending them most likely a certified letter. 274 00:25:28,159 --> 00:25:35,919 » Is that how Mission Hills did it? >> I did not I don't recall if they did 275 00:25:34,000 --> 00:25:39,679 that going back or if it was more of a going forward. I I I'll ask about that 276 00:25:37,919 --> 00:25:44,760 though. But that that's that would make sense 277 00:25:41,120 --> 00:25:44,760 » doing it that way. 278 00:25:46,720 --> 00:25:55,240 » And again, ultimately I mean the city council's decision, but it's your 279 00:25:52,240 --> 00:25:55,240 recommendation. 280 00:25:58,240 --> 00:26:06,159 » So, that'd be one thing to think about as far as how far back to go with it. 281 00:26:04,720 --> 00:26:09,279 » Yeah, I think I'd be pretty surprised if I got a certified letter saying 282 00:26:07,520 --> 00:26:13,279 suddenly, oh, you need to inspect this every two years and pay someone and 283 00:26:11,360 --> 00:26:16,480 especially if I didn't build the house and suddenly inherited this. 284 00:26:15,039 --> 00:26:20,080 » Probably not even know it's there. >> Yeah, it'd be a little bit of a shock, I 285 00:26:17,919 --> 00:26:26,559 imagine. How much how much does it cost to have an engineer do this? 286 00:26:23,520 --> 00:26:32,240 » Do not know. >> Yeah, I mean the numbers depend on who 287 00:26:29,520 --> 00:26:36,400 you use. I'm estimating a couple of grand. 288 00:26:35,200 --> 00:26:40,039 » That's something we could probably check into and see. 289 00:26:40,559 --> 00:26:48,880 » Yeah. If you could also understand a Prairie Village and Mission Hills had 290 00:26:44,480 --> 00:26:54,480 done a retroactive one as well. So the proposal would I'm just catching 291 00:26:52,159 --> 00:27:00,559 up with you. I mean this would have alleged a retroactive effect on people 292 00:26:56,960 --> 00:27:08,640 who complied with the law as is when they built and were permitted as opposed 293 00:27:04,320 --> 00:27:11,279 to just prospective on new builds. That is correct 294 00:27:09,679 --> 00:27:17,200 » because there was no regulation in place at that time or now. So if we approve a 295 00:27:14,559 --> 00:27:20,640 new home that has a basin, we don't have anything that's checking 296 00:27:19,039 --> 00:27:25,120 on them to see if they are working properly. 297 00:27:23,279 --> 00:27:28,360 Is there anything analogous or there any other analogous 298 00:27:29,919 --> 00:27:37,039 current requirements to go and go back and check and confirm that? You see what 299 00:27:35,200 --> 00:27:41,520 I mean? >> We had 300 00:27:39,120 --> 00:27:45,039 not for something like that. Are you talking about in general different 301 00:27:43,679 --> 00:27:49,240 scenarios? >> I think we we have 302 00:27:49,760 --> 00:27:52,760 storage 303 00:27:53,360 --> 00:28:03,039 like height of boats or whatever. I think they went back like city council 304 00:28:00,240 --> 00:28:09,679 when they approved it. >> They did have one when we addressed um 305 00:28:06,240 --> 00:28:14,159 storage of boats and utility vehicles. Um, previously the code said if you had 306 00:28:12,559 --> 00:28:18,880 it behind your front building line on a hard surface, you were fine. Um, they 307 00:28:16,799 --> 00:28:22,399 removed that. So people that had put like pads in their backyard to store 308 00:28:20,399 --> 00:28:27,360 their camper or boats on, it's no longer allowed, even if they had it prior. So 309 00:28:25,440 --> 00:28:30,720 that's a similar situation of when they put something in place [clears throat] 310 00:28:28,799 --> 00:28:33,720 that covers people that have done it previously. 311 00:28:35,120 --> 00:28:42,880 I I think what you're concerned with is go back 14 years and all of a sudden we 312 00:28:40,320 --> 00:28:49,360 apply a potentially a couple thousand dollar 313 00:28:44,399 --> 00:28:52,720 yearly expense on on them, right? >> If the time frame if you're I know it's 314 00:28:51,200 --> 00:28:57,039 an expense because I know you'd mentioned previous meeting about the 315 00:28:54,559 --> 00:29:01,679 two-year period if it's something a three or four year to think about as 316 00:28:59,360 --> 00:29:07,200 well. maybe not making it as often, but just some way to figure out it is still 317 00:29:04,320 --> 00:29:10,880 working properly as it was designed. >> Well, for the existing ones, other than 318 00:29:09,120 --> 00:29:15,679 this one that we have a concern about, if there's not an issue, then I don't 319 00:29:13,360 --> 00:29:19,039 know if >> that's fair. But I mean, if it's 320 00:29:17,120 --> 00:29:23,919 presented to us, then I feel like then we could address it. But 321 00:29:21,840 --> 00:29:27,200 if it's if it hasn't been proven shown an issue, then I don't know if we 322 00:29:25,520 --> 00:29:31,840 necessarily need to make them start showing us that it is working. If it's 323 00:29:29,760 --> 00:29:35,840 not showing that it's not working, >> that's something to consider within 324 00:29:33,200 --> 00:29:38,559 there to to craft it as well. That's what 325 00:29:37,039 --> 00:29:42,880 » I could see the options. >> Yeah, I could see that being a challenge 326 00:29:40,080 --> 00:29:45,679 just because of people saying, well, well, I don't know. 327 00:29:44,320 --> 00:29:49,520 » It would at that point it would be based off a code complaint, right? Yeah, I was 328 00:29:47,840 --> 00:29:53,279 thinking like a complaint standard. If somebody complained about their neighbor 329 00:29:51,120 --> 00:29:58,640 discharging water upon their property due to a defective system, then it's 330 00:29:56,000 --> 00:30:02,159 worthy of inspection. But the other part is if you have if you say, well, you 331 00:30:00,640 --> 00:30:05,440 don't have to get an inspect unless it's new, then you might have people that 332 00:30:03,440 --> 00:30:09,600 just are grandfathering own system old systems and not repairing them because 333 00:30:06,960 --> 00:30:13,600 what was built in 2012, if I put a new one in, I'm going to be subject to the 334 00:30:11,440 --> 00:30:17,600 annual by annual inspection. So, I'm just going to keep my old one in and let 335 00:30:14,960 --> 00:30:20,600 it just run till failure or whatever. So, 336 00:30:24,799 --> 00:30:32,111 » what is all involved in inspecting it? >> I wish I know. [laughter] 337 00:30:32,320 --> 00:30:41,760 I'm guessing they camera it through the line and see 338 00:30:38,799 --> 00:30:48,320 if there's any I mean if the gravel is clean or not. I 339 00:30:44,399 --> 00:30:53,760 mean I don't know. I don't think they'll open it up or not. I mean we have few 340 00:30:51,279 --> 00:30:59,679 that are what I call the half moon like a 341 00:30:56,240 --> 00:31:06,480 storage. Those are easy to verify, but the majority of them is infiltration 342 00:31:02,720 --> 00:31:12,799 bases here. So, I don't know to be honest with you how they verify it. 343 00:31:10,240 --> 00:31:19,120 » I'll ask about that, too. >> How serious of an issue is storm water? 344 00:31:16,240 --> 00:31:24,559 Is this like a recurring complaint problem or 345 00:31:21,120 --> 00:31:27,880 » Yeah, we do get a lot of complaints and it's really 346 00:31:27,919 --> 00:31:38,320 the whole thing because I was even part of the discussion but we we took it out 347 00:31:35,600 --> 00:31:43,760 even the reports that we're getting it seems like now if you don't put a basin 348 00:31:40,640 --> 00:31:49,679 they're they're taking the water to the street well now you're creating issue 349 00:31:46,880 --> 00:31:54,960 with the street being flooding um I was going to put something to that 350 00:31:53,279 --> 00:32:00,559 effect that if you have existing going to the 351 00:31:57,360 --> 00:32:05,519 street then you you cannot increase by a percentage but I took it out I I don't 352 00:32:03,600 --> 00:32:10,159 know now that I said it I don't know what 353 00:32:07,519 --> 00:32:14,000 your feeling about it is >> I mean we've talked about that for years 354 00:32:11,840 --> 00:32:17,519 we really curious about how much we're actually putting into the brush 355 00:32:15,200 --> 00:32:23,880 » they're not increasing it on the three sides but then they're increasing it on 356 00:32:19,679 --> 00:32:23,880 this tree well to me 357 00:32:25,440 --> 00:32:35,080 is on 59th Street. That street's starting to flood with a minor storm. 358 00:32:32,080 --> 00:32:35,080 Now, 359 00:32:36,720 --> 00:32:42,320 » I know there's also been issues. I know Johnson County Waters, they're 360 00:32:40,159 --> 00:32:46,559 conducting a study right now about the effects of increased drainage and on 361 00:32:44,799 --> 00:32:52,320 some stream beds and the effects it has on erosion and how that can affect some 362 00:32:48,960 --> 00:32:56,000 of the sewage infrastructure over time. If that stream bed is not maintained and 363 00:32:54,320 --> 00:33:00,960 it continues to erode, it's going to eventually reach a sewer pipe which 364 00:32:58,240 --> 00:33:04,960 could be damaged by the erosion. So that's something to consider when we're 365 00:33:02,559 --> 00:33:10,919 always we're increasing the amount of discharge from an individual property or 366 00:33:06,960 --> 00:33:10,919 development. So 367 00:33:13,360 --> 00:33:18,880 currently as it stands, if you have an issue with water, is it supposed to go 368 00:33:17,600 --> 00:33:23,760 through the city or should that really be handled 369 00:33:21,039 --> 00:33:27,600 outside of the city? I feel like in the past that's been more of a civil. 370 00:33:26,000 --> 00:33:32,000 » At this point, that's what we do. We considered a civil. Um I've been 371 00:33:30,000 --> 00:33:38,000 involved with you over the years. We go out and look and provide them the 372 00:33:33,919 --> 00:33:40,080 watershed analysis and our part ends there. 373 00:33:39,200 --> 00:33:45,240 » Yeah. >> So are we assuming more risk now by 374 00:33:41,840 --> 00:33:45,240 adding requirements? 375 00:33:46,080 --> 00:33:50,720 » Okay. >> I think it would still go back on the 376 00:33:49,039 --> 00:33:54,440 the engineer and the property owner, right? 377 00:33:51,440 --> 00:33:54,440 » Correct. 378 00:33:55,120 --> 00:34:02,279 So, could they just not get it inspected at that time and show whether it's 379 00:33:58,880 --> 00:34:02,279 working or not? 380 00:34:03,679 --> 00:34:08,200 » I do not know. >> Okay. 381 00:34:09,679 --> 00:34:14,879 What was that question? I want to make sure I'm clear. 382 00:34:12,320 --> 00:34:17,040 » Well, I mean, the option is one, we could tell everyone that has one right 383 00:34:16,079 --> 00:34:21,440 now that they have to start getting inspected every two years, or we could 384 00:34:19,440 --> 00:34:26,000 continue with the current course, which is if it happens 385 00:34:23,760 --> 00:34:29,520 We we could say I know this is kind of what I suggested earlier and you said 386 00:34:27,119 --> 00:34:32,560 no, but if it's a problem at that point they have to handle it amongst 387 00:34:30,639 --> 00:34:35,440 themselves. So at that point they could have an engineer inspect it and 388 00:34:34,240 --> 00:34:38,879 determine whether it's operating correctly or not and that would be 389 00:34:36,639 --> 00:34:42,919 between the two parties and it would be outside of this entity. 390 00:34:43,040 --> 00:34:48,800 » Sure. >> I think the reason that um the adjacent 391 00:34:47,280 --> 00:34:53,839 city was looking at it was because there were so many runoff issues that they 392 00:34:52,560 --> 00:34:56,960 were looking at it in a comprehensive fashion. You know, let's let's do green 393 00:34:55,440 --> 00:35:00,880 space, you know, minimum green space. Let's, you know, minimize the building 394 00:34:58,960 --> 00:35:05,119 envelope. Just try to reduce the hardscape and then ensure that the 395 00:35:03,440 --> 00:35:09,359 drainage facilities that are installed are actually working. Um because a lot 396 00:35:07,839 --> 00:35:14,480 of times I think the phrase I've heard is set it and forget it happens. And so 397 00:35:12,160 --> 00:35:16,800 they just that's this was just part of an overall scheme. 398 00:35:15,760 --> 00:35:21,599 » Sure. something that might be worthwhile to 399 00:35:19,440 --> 00:35:27,920 know since they've been submitting reports recently. How many of them have 400 00:35:23,920 --> 00:35:32,920 the engineer said it's not working? >> Like if the answer is always it's 401 00:35:29,429 --> 00:35:32,920 [clears throat] working, then 402 00:35:33,040 --> 00:35:36,034 » why check it? [laughter] 403 00:35:37,760 --> 00:35:43,680 » And how many engineers looked at it? It's probably just one, right? There's a 404 00:35:42,000 --> 00:35:49,119 little bit of engineer judgement. >> Yeah. Like I wonder Yeah, I wonder if we 405 00:35:47,359 --> 00:35:53,800 accomplish anything other than charging people a bunch of money to do 406 00:35:50,800 --> 00:35:53,800 inspections. 407 00:35:55,200 --> 00:36:01,240 » I'll have some research questions that I'll look into 408 00:35:58,240 --> 00:36:01,240 back. 409 00:36:01,440 --> 00:36:05,240 » All right. Any other questions? 410 00:36:06,640 --> 00:36:13,920 » Do you need uh a motion? It sounds like the solar there wasn't a lot of 411 00:36:11,280 --> 00:36:17,040 questions. if we were to recommend that. Do you need a motion or do you just need 412 00:36:15,520 --> 00:36:20,640 our feedback? >> I think right now we are just doing 413 00:36:18,320 --> 00:36:24,960 feedback on everything. Okay. Um that we kind of made a list the last meeting on 414 00:36:22,720 --> 00:36:28,400 different ones to discuss and then just kind of working through there and 415 00:36:26,079 --> 00:36:31,599 crafting things. So at this time not looking for a motion to send a council 416 00:36:30,079 --> 00:36:35,280 or anything like that just to continue discussion. 417 00:36:32,480 --> 00:36:37,599 » Okay. Well, thank you both for digging into all this and getting us this 418 00:36:36,640 --> 00:36:43,520 information. >> Yeah. So we just need your guys' 419 00:36:39,760 --> 00:36:48,079 feedback on this. Yeah. >> So, is there 420 00:36:45,839 --> 00:36:52,720 outside of this meeting, is there some way you want to receive feedback or 421 00:36:51,040 --> 00:36:54,320 » is this it? >> Can send by email. 422 00:36:54,000 --> 00:36:56,560 » Okay. >> Yeah. 423 00:36:54,640 --> 00:37:00,240 » Just don't reply all. >> Send it to me. Just send it to me 424 00:36:58,320 --> 00:37:02,720 individually and we can keep looking at that. But what we'll do is take the 425 00:37:01,520 --> 00:37:07,359 feedback we got and all the questions that you have and work towards the next 426 00:37:04,960 --> 00:37:11,839 meeting to continue discussion on that. Um, since solar is kind of marked off, 427 00:37:09,920 --> 00:37:15,760 per se, we'll move on to another one of the topics that we identified. That way, 428 00:37:14,000 --> 00:37:20,480 we'll kind of have two each meeting to work through instead of compiling it all 429 00:37:18,400 --> 00:37:23,520 together. Just break it up a little bit. >> I'm good with that as long as we have 430 00:37:22,079 --> 00:37:27,119 applications. If we have a meeting with no applications, I would choose just no 431 00:37:25,920 --> 00:37:30,320 meeting. >> Yeah, I don't anticipate that. I know it 432 00:37:28,800 --> 00:37:32,320 was odd at the end of last year, we had some all the time. 433 00:37:30,960 --> 00:37:34,079 » Sometime every now and then we get one. So, if we can have no meeting, then I 434 00:37:33,839 --> 00:37:37,359 would >> We have applications next month. 435 00:37:35,520 --> 00:37:42,160 » Okay. So, not next week. >> Not next week, but maybe in December. 436 00:37:40,880 --> 00:37:44,880 » All right, I'm going to move on to number item four, additional business. 437 00:37:43,520 --> 00:37:48,960 The next meeting date will be September 28th, 2026. 438 00:37:47,040 --> 00:37:53,119 Um, and then last item of business would be a motion to adjurnn. 439 00:37:51,440 --> 00:37:59,359 » Real quick before we do that, yes, >> I don't know if it matters now, but just 440 00:37:56,079 --> 00:38:07,119 I did manage to find that that Princeton home we has been approved twice. 441 00:38:02,880 --> 00:38:13,280 uh 5919 Granada Street and 5918 Delmare Street. That was back in 2023. 442 00:38:11,760 --> 00:38:19,040 » Do you have a copy of the plans? >> I do. And it shows the same. So the 443 00:38:15,920 --> 00:38:22,640 difference is is that the the current one we're looking at is called the 444 00:38:20,480 --> 00:38:26,240 Princeton Traditional. The ones that were approved were called the Princeton 445 00:38:24,400 --> 00:38:31,119 Modern. So the front facade is different, but that elevation that has 446 00:38:28,640 --> 00:38:34,880 that window hierarchy exception is the same. Is that a date of a planning 447 00:38:33,359 --> 00:38:40,520 commission meeting? Do you want to let me know? I can see. 448 00:38:36,480 --> 00:38:40,520 » August 28th, 2023. 449 00:38:40,720 --> 00:38:47,359 » Do we need to make a motion to be open discussion? 450 00:38:45,599 --> 00:38:52,320 » Is that what you're looking to do? Or do you want to go see it? Maybe. 451 00:38:50,960 --> 00:38:56,839 » Yeah, I just thought I'd mention it. >> Okay, I see. 452 00:38:53,119 --> 00:38:56,839 » Because I was able to. 453 00:39:00,480 --> 00:39:07,920 They were both on the same meeting, both of those addresses. 454 00:39:06,000 --> 00:39:12,960 » I would just ask Commissioner Deacon who made the um the motion and 455 00:39:11,520 --> 00:39:14,960 » Commissioner Swick, I believe, which one second. 456 00:39:13,280 --> 00:39:19,520 » I think I I think I seconded. Yeah. >> Okay. Oh, did one of you it was? I would 457 00:39:17,599 --> 00:39:21,119 ask that you withdraw the motion if that's what you wanted to do. 458 00:39:20,800 --> 00:39:24,400 » Okay. >> And then have everybody vote on that and 459 00:39:23,200 --> 00:39:28,560 then just make sure everybody agreed and then you can move on to make another 460 00:39:26,000 --> 00:39:34,240 motion to approve it if you wanted. >> Okay. I I make a motion that I withdraw 461 00:39:30,720 --> 00:39:40,560 my previous motion to continue this matter to the September 28th, 2026 462 00:39:38,000 --> 00:39:43,680 docket. >> Do you agree with that? Commissioning 463 00:39:42,320 --> 00:39:45,359 » second. >> Okay, 464 00:39:44,079 --> 00:39:46,640 » we need a vote. >> All those in favor? 465 00:39:46,320 --> 00:39:48,160 » I >> I 466 00:39:47,119 --> 00:39:51,200 » opposed. Thank you. >> Okay. 467 00:39:48,800 --> 00:39:57,440 » Yeah. So, it it's probably not exactly the same, but it's the same. [laughter] 468 00:39:54,640 --> 00:39:59,520 » Yeah. At least lines a little bit with the upper windows. 469 00:39:58,800 --> 00:40:02,079 » Very close. >> It's kind of weird there's no window in 470 00:40:00,960 --> 00:40:05,680 the kitchen. >> I'm guessing there's a floor plan reason 471 00:40:03,839 --> 00:40:08,960 for that, but >> it's not up to us, I guess, for that 472 00:40:07,040 --> 00:40:12,480 one. >> Is it? I'm assuming is it similar for 473 00:40:10,560 --> 00:40:18,440 the left, too? Left elevation. 474 00:40:14,160 --> 00:40:18,440 » Is it the left elevation's also 475 00:40:19,599 --> 00:40:25,800 » uh if you go to the left on the plan? Oh, never mind. 476 00:40:27,359 --> 00:40:31,280 It's a little different, but yeah, >> it's a little different. 477 00:40:29,839 --> 00:40:34,599 » Still doesn't like >> Yeah. Still 478 00:40:44,720 --> 00:40:50,400 » Yeah, it's just So, >> I guess the question is if we're 479 00:40:47,680 --> 00:40:55,200 comfortable with the current proposed layout because it does still require an 480 00:40:52,560 --> 00:40:55,200 exception. 481 00:41:00,480 --> 00:41:08,400 Yeah, I think my my position is kind of the same. I don't I don't love it, but I 482 00:41:06,720 --> 00:41:14,400 think I'm okay with it. And given that there are two houses in the same area 483 00:41:11,280 --> 00:41:19,359 with basically the same design, I think I'm okay with it. 484 00:41:18,000 --> 00:41:24,480 » Yeah, I agree. They don't look materially different. 485 00:41:21,520 --> 00:41:30,319 Agreed to. 486 00:41:26,480 --> 00:41:35,560 » Was it the same builder in 2023? >> Yeah, there's We've got precedent for 487 00:41:32,560 --> 00:41:35,560 sure. 488 00:41:37,119 --> 00:41:41,480 » All right. Would someone like to make a motion? 489 00:41:44,800 --> 00:41:54,319 » I move that we approve the application for 6114 Fontana Street. Uh seeking 490 00:41:51,680 --> 00:41:57,280 exceptions for to the uh window hierarchy for the right, left and front 491 00:41:55,760 --> 00:42:03,680 elevations uh and subject to staff conditions. 492 00:42:02,160 --> 00:42:06,079 » Is there a second? >> Second. 493 00:42:04,640 --> 00:42:10,240 » All in favor? >> I 494 00:42:06,560 --> 00:42:13,119 » opposed. All right. Motion passes. >> Thank you, Commissioner. 495 00:42:12,720 --> 00:42:17,359 » All right. >> Chat GP. 496 00:42:15,760 --> 00:42:20,359 » Last item business is a motion to adjurnn. 497 00:42:20,480 --> 00:42:24,000 Is there a second? >> Second. 498 00:42:21,920 --> 00:42:28,160 » All right. All in favor? >> I I journ.