[18:58] at a time.

[19:02] » All right, cool. >> We're good to go.

[19:05] » I call the August 18th of 2026 meeting and planning zoning commission to order.

[19:10] Consider a motion for approval of the minutes from the August 5th, 2026

[19:13] planning zoning session. Do we have a motion to approve these minutes?

[19:17] » I'll make a motion to approve. Do we have a second?

[19:20] » I'll second. >> We have a motion to second to approve

[19:23] the minutes. Any discussion? If not, all in favor say I.

[19:27] » I. >> I. Opposed. Motion [clears throat]

[19:29] passes. Is there any old business? We have no unfinished business. So,

[19:34] we'll proceed to the new business. First item on our agenda tonight is a public

[19:39] hearing to discuss review proposed amendment to accessory use of

[19:42] development and operation standard. Operational standard. Does the staff

[19:47] have a report? Yes. Thank you, chairman. So, at the

[19:50] July 20th board of alderman meeting, the board directed staff to prepare report

[19:54] to the planning zone commission regarding proposed amendment to the

[19:57] unified development code or UDC to reduce the minimum setback requirements

[20:01] for accessory structures. The city's current accessory structure regulations

[20:05] were established with the adoption of the UD in 2003. The UDC establishes the

[20:11] zoning district's development standards and regulations for accessory

[20:14] structures, including the requirements, the current requirements that accessory

[20:17] structures be located a minimum of 8 ft from the rear and side property lines.

[20:24] So, our current standards uh apply to those accessory structures um as

[20:28] accessory uses to the principal residential use and establishes the

[20:32] standards governing their location, size, height, and placement. In

[20:35] reviewing other cities codes, which is in your packet, um you can see that Blue

[20:40] Springs is two and a half feet for rear setback and two and a half feet for side

[20:45] setback. Grain Valley, Odessa, Belton, Independence, and Peculiar are all five

[20:49] feet rear and five feet for the side. Oak Grove is 8t for rear and eight feet

[20:55] for side. And Carney is 10 feet rear and eight feet for the side.

[21:00] Uh so at the July 20th uh board meeting, the Uh they directed staff to bring back

[21:06] um a recommendation to align our code with five feet to be more consistent

[21:12] with our peer cities and neighbors. Staff does find the proposed revisions

[21:16] in your packet are consistent with the intent of the unified development code

[21:19] which seeks to promote the orderly growth of the city, reduce unnecessary

[21:23] regulatory barriers, and ensure zoning regulations adapt to the evolving needs

[21:26] of our community and case and stay current with development practices.

[21:30] aligning our accessory use setback standards more closely with our peer

[21:33] cities, promotes efficient land use while maintaining appropriate

[21:37] development standards. So in your packet is a draft ordinance that would go to

[21:41] the board. Um you guys certainly can amend that as you wish. So in this you

[21:46] can see where the changes are. Bold underlines are additions, red

[21:50] strikethroughs are deletions. So the 8T for rear setback has been replaced with

[21:55] five feet. Uh fences and walls um should not be subject to the minimum rear side

[21:59] setback. So you can still put your fence along your property line. And then the

[22:03] side setback um has been removed in red there you can see and added that

[22:10] accessory structures should not be required to comply with the side setback

[22:12] standard that applies to principal uses. So that would be the larger principal

[22:16] use setback of say 10 ft. Accessory structures other than fencer walls shall

[22:20] however be set back at least 5 feet from side lot lines. Fences and walls shall

[22:24] be subject to the minimum side step setback requirements of accessory

[22:27] structures. We wanted to make sure that each section was very clear on what was

[22:30] and wasn't um required. So that's why this side setback section there's

[22:36] additional language was added to just make sure that everyone's understanding

[22:39] that the rear is five as well as the side is five. And then just to cross

[22:44] reference another section of code. Um, so if somebody's just looking here for

[22:48] accessory structures, we added section 8, which is non-residential design

[22:52] standards. I'm simply stating that non-residential accessory structures

[22:57] subject to comply with the non-residential design standards in

[23:00] section 405.260. Um, that section already applies to

[23:03] accessory structures, but we wanted to make sure that if somebody was looking

[23:07] just through in this section for accessory structures, they would see

[23:10] that cross reference and they could go to that section for the non-residential

[23:13] design standards. those sections would not apply to residential accessory

[23:18] structures just to commercial industrial things like that. So what this ordinance

[23:22] does is essentially reduces the side and rear from 8 to 5 and then adds that

[23:27] cross reference for non-residential design standards. So with that, I'd be

[23:30] happy to answer questions the commission may have.

[23:34] » All right. >> Yeah, I'm sure it's just me, but I'm

[23:39] struggling with the wording. I don't quite understand it. on page two of the

[23:43] proposed bill. Um number three,

[23:49] the accessory structures shall not be required to comply with the side setback

[23:53] standard that applies to principal uses. Um what is principal uses? I'm sorry.

[23:59] » Yeah. So that would be the side setbacks that that would be applied to like R1,

[24:02] R2, R3 standards. So those would be different than the accessories use.

[24:09] So the accessory structure doesn't have to comply with the principal setbacks

[24:14] that are established in the R1, R2, or R3 zoning restrictions.

[24:18] » Okay. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. I was struggling with that. Sorry.

[24:28] » That wasn't for you. You're okay. You guys won't be going to the public

[24:33] hear.

[24:36] » Yeah, you can just ask >> ask them all.

[24:39] Oh, are you guys good or we can just move on to the public hearing? Do you

[24:43] have any questions? All right, perfect. All right, [clears throat]

[24:47] members of the public who wish to offer testimony regarding the proposed

[24:50] amendment may now set forward and give their comments. [clears throat] Please

[24:54] state your name and address for the record prior to the beginning of your

[24:57] comments. Please speak into the microphone. If you have questions

[25:00] regarding the application, uh, state your questions to me and I will follow

[25:05] up and request an answer when you have finished your comments. Anyone who

[25:09] wishes to testify, please come forward to the microphone at this time. I will

[25:13] now open for public hearing.

[25:19] » Roger Lake, 36510 East Road. >> Hold on one second.

[25:29] » Roger Lake, 36510 East Church Road. So, did I hear hear that correctly? This is

[25:34] only going to affect industrial, not residential setback.

[25:44] » It would be both. >> Go ahead and just answer that.

[25:47] » It would be both. >> It would be both.

[25:50] » Excuse me. It would be both. >> It It will both be commercial,

[25:53] industrial, and residential. So the setback is that for that five feet for

[25:59] if a homeowner decides to build a shed or a building has to be five feet from

[26:04] the property owner. >> Correct. From the property line.

[26:07] » From the property line. >> Yeah.

[26:08] » So we're going from 8t to 5t. >> Correct.

[26:11] » And it's for industrial, commercial, and residential.

[26:14] » Correct. >> All right. Thank you. Yeah.

[26:27] All right. If there are no more public comments, I will now close the public

[26:30] hearing. Are there any questions or comments from the members of uh

[26:34] commission to the city staff?

[26:38] All right.

[26:42] So, we don't need to make a motion on this. What not? We just go straight to

[26:45] it. I guess next item is All right. All right. The next item on the agenda is

[26:48] discussion, consideration, and possible action regarding recommending approval

[26:52] or denial to the board of alderman for >> you have to close your public hearing.

[26:57] » I did. Did I not? Oh, I think I did. >> I did. I said there no more comments.

[27:02] We'll close the public hearing and I said to move on to the next one.

[27:04] » Do you have them that for the minutes? >> Okay. Thank you. She just she motioned.

[27:08] That's why >> she didn't hear. I'm sorry. All right.

[27:12] There's no more public comments. I would now close the public hearing. The next

[27:16] item on the agenda is discussion, consideration, and a possible action

[27:19] regarding recommending approval or denial to the board of alderman for the

[27:22] proposed amendment to accessory use, development, and operational standard.

[27:32] Does the staff have a report?

[27:36] Sorry, I went backwards. I apologize. So, yeah, we're at the motion. Do we

[27:42] have a motion? Well, I I was I'll make a motion, but I

[27:46] was waiting to see if anybody wanted to discuss it first. So, I mean,

[27:51] » absolutely, we can discuss it. >> I I mean, I I I don't have anything to

[27:55] say about it. I just was giving people an opportunity before.

[27:59] » Does anybody else want to discuss it or have anything that they want to talk or

[28:02] state about it? I I can say that I think the board's

[28:06] thoughts that were when we reduced lot sizes that made it a little

[28:12] more difficult um for homeowners to fit in that 8 foot and and um

[28:19] different board members had been approached by this and so it seemed

[28:22] logical to take a look at it. >> We adjusted setbacks and stuff on a

[28:28] bunch of other stuff several months ago, didn't we? Didn't Didn't that come up

[28:33] before or was that the lot size? >> Yeah, for not for this.

[28:38] » Just as Pam said, >> yeah, it wasn't accessory structures. It

[28:41] was >> ADUs maybe.

[28:44] » And since our lot sizes for single family was 9,000 and then we reduced it.

[28:50] We were getting calls and questions from constituents asking about the their, you

[28:57] know, their their buildings of building them because it was harder. Now, if that

[29:02] helps with the discussion, >> does that cause anything with fire? Like

[29:06] fire being able to I don't know. There's just a thought. I don't know. Does that

[29:10] with the ability to fight a fire in a structure like that with it being

[29:14] closer? >> You mean as far as code?

[29:17] » Justin,

[29:21] » thank you. There's no other discussion. I'll make a

[29:26] motion that we recommend approval of the revisions to the board of alderman.

[29:32] » Would you pull your mic up so it will audio? Thanks.

[29:35] » Sure. >> Yeah. Thanks.

[29:39] » We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> I'll second.

[29:42] » We have a motion to second. All in favor say I.

[29:46] » I. I. >> Oppose. Motion passes.

[29:52] All right. Next item on agenda is discussion,

[29:56] consideration, and possible action regarding recommending approval.

[30:00] Approval is modifications or denial of the preliminary plat for Edgewood Farms

[30:04] R1 estate lots. The staff, do you have a report?

[30:09] » Yes, thank you. So, the applicant development has requested approval of a

[30:12] preliminary plat for Edgewood Farms, which will be 51 single family estate

[30:16] style lot.

[30:25] Is that better? Is that coming through at all?

[30:37] » Already getting feedback.

[30:41] » Feedback. >> It was raining

[30:43] » here. It's coming through this.

[30:48] » Yes. No. Oh, I hear you. You're looking right at me. Talking to the mic.

[30:51] » I can It's talking. I mean, can you hear it?

[30:54] » Yeah. >> Okay. All right. The applicant ward

[30:58] development is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for Edgewood Farms

[31:00] consisting of 51 single family state style lots of uh which would be on 170

[31:06] acres generally located south of RDM and 12th Street.

[31:10] The planning and zoning commission may approve approve with conditions or deny

[31:13] the application. The commission may continue or postpone action at a later

[31:17] meeting. Under uh city code section 405.420 for

[31:23] preliminary plats, the plan zoning commission shall determine based on the

[31:25] evidence before it whether the preliminary plat meets the design

[31:28] standards requirements of subdivision regulations and conforms with the

[31:31] requirements of the unified development code for comprehensive plan and other

[31:35] applicable provisions and standards of the city of Oak Grove. If the

[31:39] preliminary plat does comply with all those requirements, the plan zoning

[31:41] commission shall approve the preliminary plat. The approval shall be recorded and

[31:45] attached to the preliminary plat. If the plumber plat is a general compliance but

[31:49] not complete compliance, plan zone commission may grant conditional

[31:52] approval for then those things to be amended. If the plumber plat is not in

[31:56] compliance with all the requirements of planning commission shall then uh

[31:59] disapprove the plat.

[32:04] Uh some background on this development. Uh the property is currently zoned R1

[32:09] for single family residential use. that's proposed uh to be developed as an

[32:13] estate style subdivision consisting of 51 3acre or larger lots. In September of

[32:18] 2021, the planning commission approved a preliminary platform this subdivision

[32:23] the number of 379 lots. That approval expired in 2023 due to inactivity by the

[32:29] developer. In February of 2024, the applicant resubmitted the previously

[32:33] approved preliminary plat, which was reapproved by the plan zoning

[32:36] commission. Uh civil permits were approved for phase one, but construction

[32:40] never commenced. The 2024 plary plat approval has also since expired. The

[32:45] developer has spent time uh relooking at this piece of property and wants to now

[32:50] propose a reduction from that 379 lots down to 51 lots. So the proposed

[32:56] preliminary plat includes 51 estate style lots on that 170 acres. The lots

[33:01] are designed to be at least three acres or larger and will be served by

[33:04] individual septic system as approved by the Missouri National Department of

[33:07] Resources as well as Jackson County. The state style um subdivision they also

[33:13] have requested certain deviations from city standards

[33:17] including curb and gutter and sidewalk requirements interior to the

[33:20] development. This includes no interior sidewalks and ribbon curve along with

[33:25] open uh ditch drainage in le of curb and gutter interior to the development.

[33:30] Staff has reviewed the plenary platform for compliance of the unified

[33:32] development code supporting documentation. The applicant provided

[33:35] water quality availability analysis, storm water study, Missouri DNR approval

[33:40] with private septic systems. They also provided a traffic impact analysis. The

[33:44] preliminary plat was distributed to the applicable utility providers to valley

[33:48] fire protection district police department and the Oakrove school

[33:50] district. Letters were also sent to addition property owners informing them

[33:54] of this proposed preliminary plat. Staff finds the proposed preliminary plaque

[33:58] complies with unified development code as well as our subdivision regulations.

[34:02] It complies with R1 single family zoning district standards. The proposed estate

[34:06] style lots are consistent with the city's comprehensive plan of future land

[34:09] use designation. They are compatible with the surrounding residential

[34:13] development in terms of overall density and size. In fact, this would be the

[34:17] largest um you know lot acreage subdivision in

[34:22] Oakrove. The requested deviations for curb, gutter, and sidewalks are

[34:26] permitted underneath uh the unified development code for state style

[34:29] subdivisions. Staff does recommend approval of the Edgewood Farms plary

[34:33] plant subject to several conditions. One uh suburban and state style light street

[34:39] design is allowed under 405.435D12 435D12

[34:44] shall be utilized including ribbon curb and vegetative drainage ditches in lie

[34:48] of traditional curb and gutter with an enclosed storm sewer system. No interior

[34:53] sidewalk shall be required as permitted for state style subdivisions as allowed

[34:57] under 405.440 point C.5. However, sidewalk shall be

[35:02] constructed along the development frontage on 15th Street. Each lot shall

[35:06] be served by an individual private septic septic system in lie of being

[35:09] connected to the city's gravity sewer system. A westbound right turn lane

[35:13] shall be constructed on 12th Street as identified in the traffic impact

[35:17] analysis as well as an approved development agreement between the city

[35:21] of Oakrove and the developer authorizing the state style subdivision.

[35:26] Uh with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions uh that the commission may

[35:30] have. Uh in your packet is a letter both from the developer as well as the

[35:33] engineer requesting the state style um deviations. They provided the

[35:38] preliminary plan information is required. Um the traffic impact uh

[35:42] analysis, the water analysis and other information is also available in your

[35:46] packet as well as DNR's approval of the private seed systems. Um the applicant

[35:52] as well as the engineer as I say is here for further questions and there's also I

[35:56] believe members um neighbors they would also like to provide

[36:03] you allow them to >> okay

[36:05] » it's not a formal we don't have to have a public hearing but you can allow

[36:08] » we can allow them to do it >> provide testimony

[36:10] » all right perfect um thank you city staff um we'll allow it if somebody's

[36:16] here that wants to come up and speak >> let's listen let's hear from Brian first

[36:19] do you mind so we about >> so we can and then we might want to hear

[36:23] what Brian has to say about it and it'll help with conversation.

[36:29] » Thank you. Um my name is Brian Ron. I'm with Board Development 1120 Eagle Ridge

[36:33] Boulevard, Green Valley, Missouri. Appreciate your consideration this

[36:37] evening, Mayor Reb Commissioners. So, as mentioned in the staff report, we've

[36:42] looked at this property for some time and previously had it approved for a uh

[36:47] typical lot subdivision. And, you know, due to several different factors, we

[36:52] kind of thought that it would be appropriate to go in a different

[36:54] direction. That direction that we decided on was to do a large lot

[36:58] subdivision, uh, similar to some things that we're doing in some other areas.

[37:02] And, you know, with looking at the topography there, uh, it's a beautiful

[37:05] piece of ground. Um and then looking at the neighborhood, you know, and the

[37:10] market here, uh we felt that the large lot subdivision was appropriate there.

[37:15] We, uh, you know, have been discussing it with the city for some time, work

[37:19] through the different considerations, uh, that would be necessary and, uh, you

[37:24] know, bringing it to you this evening. As mentioned, I mean, we've cut the the

[37:28] density down tremendously. Uh we are expecting it to be, you know, uh the

[37:34] upper end of uh values in the area. You know, the lots are going to be at

[37:38] approximately $200,000 and the homes, as we're expected, are

[37:42] going to run, you know, you know, likely uh upper sixes to, you know, close to a

[37:48] million. We're doing a similar subdivision in another area called

[37:51] Heritage Farms. Uh and it's been very very successful. And you know, we're

[37:57] anticipating similar styles homes. And the homes there are also ranging, you

[38:01] know, seven to nine are the typical homes there. Uh the piece of ground that

[38:06] we're looking at here, we've actually gone through several different designs

[38:10] to make sure that the home sites all work. There's a lot of rock up there.

[38:14] There's, you know, a lot of topography we're working with, but it adds so much

[38:18] character to to the site. I don't know if any of you have ever been up there.

[38:22] you know, there's a treeine corridor that that comes in. Uh there's an

[38:27] existing silo. We're anticipating that area to become a park. Uh we're going to

[38:32] keep that treeine corridor, the sidewalk that we uh that was just mentioned are

[38:38] going to tie into an interior trail system around the park. And then as you

[38:43] go into the subdivision, you know, would be more rural 3 acre, you know, style

[38:47] lots. the homes are going to sit back further uh than you know our typical you

[38:53] know right there you know at at the setback lines and things like that. So

[38:58] you know we're excited about it. Hopefully it's something that uh you

[39:01] know is going to be you know unique here in in Oakrove a community like this you

[39:07] know we have several other you know steps up to you know these style homes

[39:13] and price points in this type of community. Uh, but we didn't see

[39:16] anything quite, you know, quite like this and we think it's we think it's

[39:19] appropriate. More than happy to answer any questions.

[39:23] » Thank you.

[39:27] » Anybody have questions for him? >> Can you describe the ribbon curb? We

[39:34] there's not really a visual visual of it. And I

[39:38] » um I can bring up the engineer to get more specific, but essentially rather

[39:41] than the the the curb that's going to channel water just specifically down the

[39:45] streets and everything, it's more of uh a rural type of curb that's going to

[39:50] allow water to to flow naturally into the um the system that we're designing

[39:56] to channel the water. Uh, but it's it's not the high back curb that you know or

[40:02] the lazy back curbs that you're used to. Um, Richard, you want to come up and

[40:08] describe the purpose of the curbs?

[40:15] » Uh, Richard Michael 25604 Northeast Coen Road. Um, yeah. So, in an industrial

[40:22] type commercial setting, you would have what's called highback curb or CG1 that

[40:26] has about a 6 inch tall back on it. In a subdivision, you would have a CG2 that's

[40:33] called lazy back because it's it's mountable by cars when you go into a

[40:36] driveway. A ribbon curb is essentially just flat. It it really just frames in

[40:42] the roadway, the asphalt to give it a nice picture frame look while still

[40:45] allowing the water to sheet flow into a vegetated swale for the drainage system.

[40:51] » So, it's concrete. >> Yes.

[40:52] » Okay. >> Yeah.

[40:54] » And I I believe on one of the sheets that was provided, there's a typical

[40:57] section. It may show it on on the edges of the road there. That's

[41:04] it's a small detail, I admit. But yeah, it is in concrete.

[41:10] And then the the the right turn lane is coming out of the current [cough]

[41:16] that it it would be coming out of there turning right onto

[41:21] » it'd be going uh eastbound on on 15th to do a right hand into the subdivision

[41:28] » eastbound. >> That's correct.

[41:30] » 15 west westbound on 12. >> Matt mentioned westbound previously. I

[41:34] think it was eastbound is is the right turn. And as you come into the

[41:38] development off of 15th at the main entrance, which is the easternmost

[41:43] entrance, it lines up with the is it 12th Street on the north side?

[41:50] » And it says westbound on 12. So I was >> It does.

[41:53] » Yeah. >> I miss Buck. When I said westbound, it

[41:55] it'd be eastbound. >> It' be eastbound.

[41:57] » Okay. All right. That makes Okay. Thank you.

[41:59] » Sorry for the confusion. >> It's okay. [laughter]

[42:02] Anyone

[42:10] else have questions for him?

[42:14] » Um, I would ask I I hadn't had a chance to go through the whole packet, but um

[42:20] did did have you done the perk tests and stuff for these uh onsite

[42:27] lateral systems? >> Yes. Yeah. So, part of that DNR approval

[42:31] that we've received, um, when you do a a subdivision of this size, you have to

[42:36] get approval for the whole development from DNR. Part of that is, I believe you

[42:41] have to have one soil test for every 10 acres. So, we did 17 of them for this

[42:46] 170. We tried to locate them. That made sense within the lots. Granted, we

[42:51] didn't do 51 of them. And those tests come back. We submit that to DNR to show

[42:56] the load rate and the soil reports and they sign off on it saying, "Yep, you

[43:01] know, so it's the the types of systems have already been dedicated based on the

[43:06] soil rate." >> So then that's all been worked out. So

[43:09] then, yeah, from from here it would go to county review and approval when it's

[43:14] the on-site individual designs.

[43:18] Does that make sense? >> So the county approves the

[43:22] » Well, it's Yes. to my understanding right Matt is because these are on-site

[43:27] septic the sewer portion of it is actually a county item

[43:33] » I think city limits Jackson County approves [cough]

[43:36] » okay >> Lafayette we we approve them on

[43:38] Lafayette side but Jackson County side >> okay

[43:41] » Jackson County is the one who approves it

[43:53] Anybody

[43:56] else have anybody else [clears throat] have any questions for you gentlemen?

[44:01] » Does anybody else have questions for them?

[44:05] » All right. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[44:08] » Um, this is not a formal public hearing, but we will allow if anybody does want

[44:13] to come up to the microphone to come up. Please state your name, your address,

[44:16] and everything that we did the first half. Thank you.

[44:25] again, Roger Lake, 36510 East Church Road. Uh, I believe I'm the largest

[44:31] property owner button up to this from Church Road. Um,

[44:36] actually we uh the our family farm raised cattle.

[44:42] The north side of our property is is approximately half a mile

[44:47] wide. So the half a mile of this development on the north side of our

[44:51] property that's going to affect us on the east side probably a third of our

[44:56] property if if you all got one of these things. Y'all got one of those?

[45:01] » Yes. >> So [cough and clears throat]

[45:02] we're this little cutout right here. You don't have a big flat map, do you? So

[45:09] everybody can see what I'm talking about.

[45:11] » Not not here this evening. >> All right. So um that's our property.

[45:16] our properties props props uh 60 acres is a half mile uh deep quarter mile

[45:24] wide. So I'll recorrect that. So the backside is a quarter of a mile wide. I

[45:30] got a few questions. The first one when you put in uh single

[45:36] family homes like this u and I like I said we have cattle, we got barns, we

[45:41] got ponds. Uh, is there going to be some kind of means from the developer for the

[45:47] people that butt up to this, a privy fence or some type of fence to keep uh

[45:52] the residents from intruding on properties? That's my first question

[46:00] because they're going to bring in kids and kids just want to go explore,

[46:04] right? That's one of the questions I like to have answered. Uh secondly,

[46:11] that's why I'm requesting some dialogue about a privacy fence or some kind of

[46:16] fence to keep them from coming in there. Um next,

[46:22] looking at this plat, it's got several roundabouts or culde-sacs.

[46:29] Has uh the planning and zoning board staff

[46:35] talked to the fire district because I just left a fire district meeting about

[46:43] are these culde-sacs big enough to handle a firet truck coming around them

[46:47] because the district's in the process of buying new fire trucks.

[46:52] So, as staff contacted the district to look over the fire district to look over

[46:58] these culde-sacs to make sure firet trucks can adequately

[47:02] service that area. This is my next question.

[47:07] Uh [snorts] I know approximately 25 years ago, Oak

[47:13] Grove had a uh my 20-year plan which is expired. You know, u at that time they

[47:20] was thinking about running a sewer line down the ditch,

[47:26] the watershed that starts up there on Cemetery Road that comes down there.

[47:30] There's approximately 500 acres that runs into that ditch. So, is there still

[47:36] plans, that's my third question, of running a sewer line down our ditch?

[47:43] You know, I understand what they said that they perk test everything. So, my

[47:48] question is, are they planning on tying into Oakrove sewers? I heard I kind of

[47:54] heard that. Are they planning on septics or are they planning on polishing ponds?

[48:00] I'd like a little definition on on those subjects right there. You know, how the

[48:05] runoff's going to go. So, I may have more questions. I know I have several

[48:10] neighbors here that'd like to have questions at Well,

[48:14] I may be back up. >> Thank you. [clears throat]

[48:17] » Is there anybody else that wanted to step forward and have a comment or a

[48:21] question or anything of that nature?

[48:30] [snorts] >> I'm Linda Rhodander. We're on 36307 East

[48:33] Art Mis. And I'm curious about where this water is going to go. Is it going

[48:38] to go on? Does it have places to go east, west, north, south, or does it

[48:43] stay on the property and go into septic tanks or whatever? Is it going to run

[48:48] over on any of the neighbors properties?

[48:53] » I think that we're waiting to hear all the questions and then we'll have the

[48:57] developer come back up. >> Okay. So, you're not going to answer

[48:59] mine right now. Well, some of them they'll need to answer.

[49:02] » Okay. Thank you. Thank you,

[49:13] » Nathan [clears throat] Brown. Uh, 21101 Oage Drive. I noticed on the map on one

[49:20] of the culde-sacs that butts up to the east side. It looks like there's an

[49:25] easement of some sort that I wasn't sure. I was curious about that. that

[49:29] comes right into my property and I was wondering what the intentions were if

[49:32] that's what that is or if that's something else.

[49:36] Uh, I can show you if somebody's got a map

[49:40] up.

[49:48] » I believe >> the two lines.

[49:53] » It's right here around. He's speaking around lot 37 and

[49:58] lot 38. Thank you. I just noticed that was the only

[50:04] roundabout that looked like it had that and I was curious what the intentions

[50:07] [clears throat] were in the end with that. That comes right into my property.

[50:12] The I was wondering what the septic

[50:17] you guys said it perked. What was was it advanced systems or or basic systems

[50:23] that that perked out for or morphology reported for? Sound like you guys did a

[50:28] morphology report. I was curious what that what that came up with. We talked

[50:34] about how much rock is in there. Septic system is not a good system. A basic

[50:39] system would not be good on a rocky situation.

[50:43] Uh runoff. All the runoff that comes off I'm concerned with. We we all have

[50:49] cattle and livestock all the way around this place. A lot of that water for the

[50:54] animals comes out of that ditch that runs the entire distance down the east

[50:59] side and north and south or heading east and west and north and south of that

[51:04] entire second phase. Uh I think that's probably all I got.

[51:11] So, the uh one other thing, the ribbon curb,

[51:17] when you hit the lots, we're talking about a

[51:22] retention area on each lot running around. So, you're pulling in, you're

[51:26] going over a covert to get into your driveway. And we have

[51:31] actual retention on the front of those lots all the way around this place. Or

[51:35] we just ribbon curb right into the drive, right into the yard frontage.

[51:41] » [snorts] >> I I [clears throat] am concerned with

[51:43] runoff for sure. So that's it.

[51:48] » Thank you. Is there anybody else?

[51:56] » Matt Reer, 37400 East Hillside School Road. My property is on the south side

[52:01] of this property and same concerns with the runoff. the property elevation is

[52:08] has a significant drop down into that creek that they're mentioning. So, the

[52:13] fact that we would have all this additional runoff into that creek is a

[52:15] concern for flooding and things like that, as well as our livestock. So, I'd

[52:20] be curious. And then when I was looking at the plats, I didn't see anything for

[52:24] these drainage ditches. All I see is lots. So, I'd be curious where those

[52:28] drainage ditches are and where they're going to flow. Thanks.

[52:34] Thank you. Is there anybody else?

[52:43] » My name is Michaela Deble and I'm at 6619 South Still House Road. Um my

[52:48] property backs up to lot 51 on the map and I do have the same similar questions

[52:53] about runoff. I have a creek that runs through my property that um my animals

[52:58] access. And um then I also was curious um what the time frame is for this um

[53:04] specifically phase two since that's what lot 51 is in for me. Um and will there

[53:10] be some sort of stake survey or survey to where I know in advance whether or

[53:16] not that lot is going to encroach into my property line. Um, I'm sure with like

[53:22] most of my neighbors, the property lines aren't by the tree corridor that he's

[53:29] talking about, our properties go into that tree corridor. So, um, the trails

[53:33] and the, um, other things that he was talking about, I just want to make sure

[53:37] that those aren't going to be encroaching into my property as well.

[53:40] Um, and I think that's it for right now. >> Thank you.

[53:48] Again, Roger Lake 36510 East Church Road. [snorts]

[53:53] So earlier you you're you're doing an or ordinance from 8T to 5T, right? I

[54:00] believe the county is a little bit more than that. Most of us live in the

[54:04] county, not in the city limits. I get that. So that you know that's why I

[54:08] asked question earlier 8t to 5t. So these residents that the question to the

[54:13] developer, you know, are these residents going to be allowed to build a a

[54:16] building or any structure within five feet of our property?

[54:21] I know you talked about, you know, uh smaller lots in the city, people needed

[54:26] to put a shed up or something. Uh I would like to see some kind of

[54:30] restriction on how close they come to our property, you know, maybe along the

[54:35] guidelines of what the county does. Thank you.

[54:42] Is there anybody else? [clears throat] >> Looks like one more.

[54:47] » One more. Oh, I can't see your right there. Thank you.

[54:50] » Hi, I'm Christine Nicholas and I actually live over at 3300 South Fields

[54:54] Road. Um, but my daughter is Michaela. So, uh, we have been kind of looking at

[54:58] this quite a bit and I have a little bit of familiarity with, um, the

[55:02] subdivisions themselves. I actually am a real estate agent, so I've seen this

[55:05] come and go quite a bit. Uh I had very similar concerns with uh realizing that

[55:11] three acres is what the minimum is for Jackson County to be able to actually

[55:14] have a septic system. Um, and if you look at the topography of actually how

[55:19] those lay, especially the ones here that are on the west and the the south side,

[55:25] um, when you look at how that runoff is, and especially with the way that the

[55:30] rock and, um, where that sediment lays, I I think the biggest concern will be

[55:36] whether this septic is going to actually retain that or where that leech is going

[55:39] to end up going because it it's you can't tell me that there's not going to

[55:43] be a way for that to find a pathway. way back down with the way that that

[55:47] topography actually stands. So,

[55:56] Nathan Brown again, O Sage Drive. I along with that, is there if this goes

[56:02] through and and moves on, is there a down the road process that we could get

[56:06] to have that creek tested occasionally to know that everything's still still

[56:13] safe or is it just nap, we're done, we're out, houses are built, you know?

[56:18] Uh that was that's something I wonder about.

[56:26] » All right. Thank you. All

[56:33] right. Go ahead. >> She's gonna lander again. Our demise.

[56:37] Uh, I do have a question like Roger had about the property butdding up against

[56:42] the these properties against our properties. Will there be something to

[56:46] keep these people off our properties? Because we go way back to from the north

[56:52] to the south and we cannot see the south side of our property. How do we keep

[56:56] people off of it? >> All right. Thank you. Is there anybody

[57:02] else? >> Of course. All right. Cool. Uh we're

[57:07] just going to go ahead and go and open for discussion and and answer some of

[57:10] these questions. >> Um I was just going to respond to two

[57:13] things that were city related. Um speak on behalf of the city and then Brian, if

[57:18] you don't mind coming up, I see you've been writing down the questions. Uh, one

[57:21] is in response to the comprehensive plan, which is what you were talking

[57:25] about, the 20-year plan. We did update that in 2023. There's a a very good uh

[57:31] on our website. You can read through that. So, we have updated that. You're

[57:35] supposed to do those about every 10 15 years. So, we have updated that. And

[57:40] then, just so you know, this is a planning and zoning meeting. And these

[57:45] people, they are recommending whether this goes on to the board, which is city

[57:51] council. And so there's, you know, this they'll tonight they'll either say yes

[57:56] or no. No, they won't. The final approve. Oh, my bad.

[58:00] » Plat for final approve. >> Excuse me. I apologize. This would be

[58:04] just their decision whether this is approved tonight. So, um, now Brian,

[58:09] would you come back up? >> Sorry. You're okay. That was nice. Thank

[58:12] you. Yeah, [cough] >> thank you. Um, like to speak to a couple

[58:18] things and I'll have some things for Richard uh as well. You know, I do

[58:22] appreciate all the comments and you know, these are things that we that we

[58:25] do look at and we have looked at with with this community. Um, you know,

[58:30] starting with, you know, some things that we we absolutely have uh some plans

[58:35] in place and others, you know, at at best I can give an explanation. So, you

[58:41] know, for example, the the fence question, uh, and the access question as

[58:47] far as, you know, the the property rights questions, you know, um, we do

[58:52] not have plans in place to to fence the property. You know, those would be

[58:57] individual homeowner uh, you know, considerations. However, I mean, I can

[59:02] say the the property is zoned R1 and, you know, we feel that because of the

[59:07] the large rural surrounding properties and stuff like that that the much larger

[59:12] 3acre lots uh are going to be less impactful than the typical R1 lots. So,

[59:19] while you know we're not doing offense, >> they can't hear you back there.

[59:22] Is this Mike on or? >> So, um, you know, I can back up and, you

[59:28] know, if there was anything in particular that you heard that you'd

[59:31] like me to readress, I'm more than happy to to do that. But, you know, we feel

[59:36] that the design that we have now and what we are asking to to do with the

[59:41] property is far less impactful across the board and most of the concerns that

[59:47] were raised this evening. You know, we do hear the the access. You know, we

[59:52] also we currently have cattle on the property right now. We you know, we do a

[59:56] lot of cattle farming. We're very familiar. You know, the storm, I'm going

[1:00:00] to let Richard speak to that a little bit further. Uh the septic design, you

[1:00:04] know, all of those things are fairly well regulated. So, in addition to the

[1:00:10] testing that's been done so far, the next steps, you know, there's additional

[1:00:14] testing. An engineer gets involved. An engineer designs a system based off the

[1:00:20] considerations of additional testing on the site. Uh then that system is

[1:00:24] installed and inspected and then that system is designed to operate. We're not

[1:00:29] planning on any lagoons there. So they are going to typically be you know

[1:00:35] designed systems. Now again those have not been individually designed but we

[1:00:40] would trust those professionals DNR's recommendations. the county's

[1:00:45] recommendations and then yes there is mechanisms in place and I would imagine

[1:00:50] the the city has some as well you know if there are problems that pop up uh but

[1:00:56] you know those are all steps that would be taken with additional checks at each

[1:01:01] point um the stub streets you know that were brought up and that's uh there lot

[1:01:06] at lots 37 and 38 you know just good planning uh we don't

[1:01:12] know what's you know going to be down on the road, you know, whether or not that

[1:01:16] property develops. You know, if it did ever develop, there needed to be a pl an

[1:01:21] opportunity in place for streets to connect, you know, for good planning,

[1:01:26] for fire safety, for those types of things. That's all that is. And that's

[1:01:30] that's recommendation of, you know, staff and good planning. Um, as far as

[1:01:35] location of property lines, you know, I'm more than happy to give anybody a

[1:01:39] card this evening and, you know, we would absolutely work with them as

[1:01:44] we're, you know, going through the process to to establish where those

[1:01:48] property lines are. You know, again, being very rural, it's very easy, you

[1:01:53] know, one way or the other, uh, a a little bit, you know, more than happy to

[1:01:58] work with those property owners. uh the setbacks, you know, we are anticipating

[1:02:03] that based off the lot size that the homes and structures and things like

[1:02:07] that would be, you know, further from the property line than a typical R1. Um

[1:02:13] however, you know, we don't have any mechanism in place other than to follow

[1:02:18] the city's codes on on the setbacks. Uh with that, I'm going to bring up Richard

[1:02:23] and he can talk further on the the storm questions.

[1:02:31] Okay, nicely done, Brian. Um, I'm going to really quickly make sure that my

[1:02:37] notes are taken care of as well. Um, so

[1:02:46] fire access, um, it's been approved by fire. They've already looked at it. Uh,

[1:02:51] again, a lot of everything that will be designed is to the city's code. So

[1:02:57] nothing that we've brought before falls short of that per match plan. So again,

[1:03:01] those kind of things really across the board, it's not just go put in what you

[1:03:06] want. We are following a a the code. Um [snorts]

[1:03:11] let's see. So sewer, I'm just going to hit on the sewer really quickly. So, the

[1:03:17] process is when you want to do on-site treatment for a full subdivision is to

[1:03:21] get DNR approval and to go dig the soils, one pit per 10 acres to see what

[1:03:27] you find and make sure it is adequate for on-site septic systems, which then

[1:03:32] the DNR says, "Yep, you're good. You can maintain uh you can go as low as 1acre

[1:03:37] lots." Um, we did we chose not to, again, with the theme of trying to not

[1:03:42] be so dense and lower the lot count. Now we have soil maps that indicate where

[1:03:47] the better soil is and we have tried to lay the lot layout per the topography to

[1:03:53] benefit. So every lot has a good spot to put this system in and good spot to put

[1:03:59] a house and probably an accessory structure of what you would typically

[1:04:02] see in that. So the layout has been combed over pretty meticulously for all

[1:04:06] of those things combined while still using the topography to our advantage to

[1:04:11] have really nice lookouts. you know this at the top of the hill you can see in

[1:04:16] miles for directions. So um now when it gets time to do those on-site septic

[1:04:21] designs every lot will have to design that system get it approved by the

[1:04:25] county which follows DNR regulations. So again, all of those details will be

[1:04:30] worked out in lot development once infrastructure is in [snorts]

[1:04:34] um [clears throat] the

[1:04:38] Brian touched on the uh kind of the future planning. Again, not knowing what

[1:04:42] future holds is just good idea to instead of have lot lines, let's leave

[1:04:46] some open space so that in the future if roadways need to go through. Um not to

[1:04:50] say that they are now at all, that's just a future planning. [snorts]

[1:04:55] Um, okay. So, the it sounds like, let me lot line concerns Brian touched. Okay.

[1:05:03] So, runoff as a whole, we we provided a storm water report. Um, city has

[1:05:09] reviewed and approved it after a couple rounds of review comments. The the whole

[1:05:13] idea with this is again unlike a standard subdivision where we have

[1:05:18] enclosed storm sewer system and pipes where the water is really channelized

[1:05:23] and going very quickly and lots of imperous area. We are intentionally

[1:05:29] trying to limit that in 51 lots of a house driveway accessory structure

[1:05:37] roadway pavement. Yes, but we're trying to with the ribbon curb put it in a

[1:05:41] roadside ditch that will be the gentleman that spoke earlier. Yes, there

[1:05:45] is a roadside ditch on both sides. There will be permanent ditch checks in those

[1:05:51] roadside ditches to try to hold and slow that water down as it traverses around

[1:05:55] the site mainly for the water that is coming off the roads. All the water

[1:05:59] that's inside of the development will be not concentrated. It will be sheet flow

[1:06:03] across well manicured lawns versus patchy, you know, fields as today that

[1:06:08] maybe don't have any grass because of the rock. So, yes, at driveway

[1:06:13] locations, there will be a covert that they have to drop in the ditch to then

[1:06:16] traverse over. Um, but yeah, the the rules and regulations will be followed

[1:06:21] so that post-development runoff does not exceed pre-development runoff. Um,

[1:06:27] [snorts] so I I think that answers most the

[1:06:31] questions. Uh if if there's more, we'll happy to

[1:06:35] answer them.

[1:06:39] » The future roadway between 37 and 38, will that be installed like when you do

[1:06:45] the development? >> No. No. The idea is from a property and

[1:06:50] platting standpoint is to make it so if in the future the lot lines and the

[1:06:55] dedication has already been taken care of. But no, those it will all be

[1:06:59] culde-sacs.

[1:07:03] » [snorts] >> There'll be no stub to your property,

[1:07:06] Mr. Brown. >> Say that again.

[1:07:07] » There will be no stub out to your property.

[1:07:09] » Okay. That's just on the drawing for >> future

[1:07:13] » when they buy my place. >> Correct.

[1:07:16] » Would you uh comment about the easement that was asked about? I don't think you

[1:07:20] addressed that. >> I think that's probably

[1:07:22] » Is that what you were talking about? The >> easement the language on there. I think

[1:07:25] it's Thanks, David. >> I couldn't tell on the map that it was

[1:07:28] an easement. I just but it was direct obvious something was

[1:07:32] » okay >> a thought

[1:07:33] » yeah the thought was instead of make it a property line that would be

[1:07:36] » it's a good thought >> difficult to then you know obtain 50

[1:07:40] foot of rightway is let's just leave it in a track [clears throat] now for

[1:07:44] future planning

[1:07:49] » all anybody else have any questions for them

[1:07:54] » all right thank you >> thank you thank you

[1:07:57] » thank All right, we're [clears throat] going to go ahead and move forward to um

[1:08:02] commission open for discussion. Do you have anything else you want to discuss

[1:08:05] about this? >> Did we close kind of the open?

[1:08:08] » It wasn't an open. It was just >> just um Yeah.

[1:08:13] » No, I think we're we're done with questions and comments for now.

[1:08:16] » I do have a a question for them. I thought you said earlier that they would

[1:08:20] we get we was allowed to ask questions. They were going to answer our questions.

[1:08:24] Now I have a question. >> We we did and we moved on from that

[1:08:27] part. But as I stated earlier, I was just at

[1:08:31] the fire district meeting. I went to the fire chief's office. He had the plat on

[1:08:37] his wall. He told me himself he has not approved anything for this development.

[1:08:42] So I would like to see the paperwork where the fire district approved

[1:08:47] on that. And as far as setbacks, developments all over the city, the

[1:08:54] county, they for being good neighbors to us, they do work with us and the city

[1:09:01] council has the ability to make those setbacks more than five feet. Thank you.

[1:09:07] » All right. Thank you.

[1:09:16] » Okay, perfect. Um, could you guys verify the fire when they uh asked a question

[1:09:21] about uh fire trucks being able to enter around the roundabouts and things of

[1:09:24] that nature? Do you guys remember that question?

[1:09:28] » So, the um I I didn't personally speak to the

[1:09:33] fire department, but I can speak to the design of these streets, the size of

[1:09:36] these culde-sacs, the radiuses involved. Those are actually all in in the city's

[1:09:42] codes. So any subdivision would have the exact same requirements. So this is not

[1:09:49] a situation where um we're asking for any variance for anything any type of

[1:09:55] street design that that would affect that. So and you know uh we can confirm

[1:10:00] with staff there you know these these culde-sacs are are per code. So that

[1:10:06] radius factors that in. >> All right. Thank you.

[1:10:11] All right,

[1:10:16] we're going to go ahead and close that part of this and move on to discussion

[1:10:21] with the board. Thank you. Does the board have any questions or

[1:10:26] have anything to discuss?

[1:10:34] » I do have a question on the property line.

[1:10:37] » [clears throat] >> My name is Kenneth Broadlander,

[1:10:40] 36307 East, 30 miles. My property line runs a quarter mile north and south.

[1:10:47] It's loaded with trees right on the property line. It's been like that for

[1:10:51] 51 years. What about these trees? Who's going to

[1:10:55] be responsible for the trees when they fall on their property?

[1:11:00] All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. All right. Once again, we're going to

[1:11:06] move on to the discussion piece for the committee that speak and so we can

[1:11:10] discuss to see if we can either approve or deny this on forward to the board of

[1:11:15] alderman. Thank you. >> No, it's final.

[1:11:17] » This is final. >> Yeah, for I'm sorry for the the

[1:11:20] finalized preliminary plan. Sorry about that.

[1:11:25] I do remember and I can't remember if it was the first time we brought this when

[1:11:29] it came to the fire trucks. I think the first time we got this, there was only

[1:11:33] one entryway into this development and we asked them to come back to make it a

[1:11:38] second one and follow the code to follow to make it easy for them to come in and

[1:11:44] also come out if there was a backup or or a emergency. I I vaguely remember

[1:11:49] that, but I do think I remember that from a time ago.

[1:11:52] » There's two entrances now. Yeah, there was there was so like when it first came

[1:11:57] to the board years ago, I think it was one and they changed it to two because

[1:12:02] of that concern. >> But that's going off of memory. I could

[1:12:05] be wrong though. So yeah, >> I think you're right.

[1:12:07] » Is that correct, Matt? >> Yeah, staff did recommend two entrances

[1:12:12] in case one is shut down for emergencies.

[1:12:15] » Good memory job.

[1:12:22] » Regarding Mr. Roadlanders question about the tree line. Is it going to remain

[1:12:27] there or >> so? It it would it would definitely be

[1:12:33] our intention to maintain trees. Uh there are some absolutely gorgeous trees

[1:12:38] on that property and uh you know we will we will be maintaining what trees we

[1:12:43] can. Um, I can't speak to his specific property line because I haven't, you

[1:12:48] know, looked at that particular one, but as a general rule and our past practice,

[1:12:53] and again, I use Heritage Farms, uh, and everybody's welcome to go out there and

[1:12:57] take a look at it. We kept absolutely every tree that we could.

[1:13:01] » Is that the one on 150? >> Correct.

[1:13:06] » I may go ahead. >> Go ahead, Jim.

[1:13:08] » I may have misunderstood the question. And I I it may have been preservation of

[1:13:13] the trees, but I I thought I understood it as who's going to take care of the

[1:13:19] trees when they fall on his property. Was that the

[1:13:23] » Yeah, that's what I heard as well. >> Um yeah, so that that was part of the

[1:13:27] question. Um so you know definitely as a property rights um question one of the

[1:13:34] things that I would say that this gives an advant like right now uh which today

[1:13:40] even if this project didn't move forward I'm more than happy to give anybody my

[1:13:43] card if something like that happens because it could happen now easier um

[1:13:48] you know those those are things that uh the property owner should and would take

[1:13:53] care of. I will add one of the advantages to this moving forward versus

[1:13:59] some other mechanisms for developing the ground. There is going to be a

[1:14:03] homeowners association. So now it's not going to be a very uh I mean it's it's

[1:14:09] only 50 homes. We're not putting in a community pool or those types of things,

[1:14:13] but there is still going to be a central point of contact. So the homeowners, you

[1:14:19] know, with the adjacent properties and stuff like that will have those contacts

[1:14:23] available to them. And, you know, some of the things that that do pop up. Uh

[1:14:28] we've got some, you know, landscaping, some enhanced landscaping that's going

[1:14:32] out out at the street, the trails, those types of things, those are all going to

[1:14:35] be maintained and that's all going to happen through this homeowners

[1:14:38] association. So, you know, when those things do pop up, there is a mechanism

[1:14:44] to deal with them. I I mean I ask it because he asked it as

[1:14:50] I understood the question. Um I mean in general the whole issue of trees falling

[1:14:57] on adjacent people's property is universal. It's not the subdivisions

[1:15:02] problem. It happens every day, you know, and there's there's established rules

[1:15:06] and laws about who's supposed to do what and what you can and can't cut. And um

[1:15:12] you know there's kind of a legal precedence for all of that stuff. So

[1:15:16] » correct. >> Yes.

[1:15:19] » Thank you. >> I do have a question and you guys can

[1:15:23] educate me on this because a lot of them mention cattle

[1:15:27] when you have cattle. Don't you already have like an enclosed barrier for your

[1:15:31] cattle be that's like requirement to keep anybody from them coming down or up

[1:15:37] or whatever like that or >> Yeah. if they've got a mind of their

[1:15:41] own, you know, they often times don't respect fences. It's a common thing, nor

[1:15:46] do kids. Um, >> also

[1:15:50] what's been brought up a few times is a lot of these old fences aren't going to

[1:15:53] match what real property lines are. So, when they go through and develop,

[1:15:59] » what happens to our fence if it's three feet on the wrong side? Does it just get

[1:16:02] knocked down? Does it get put back up? What happens from there?

[1:16:08] » That's Yeah. also probably have fence up. We have our livestock in, but is it

[1:16:12] going to remain up through the process? If if the property lines aren't where,

[1:16:17] you know, 75 years ago when grandpa put the fence up, it may not be there

[1:16:23] anymore. >> That may not be exact.

[1:16:26] » All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. >> As as I understood that issue, um I

[1:16:32] think they addressed it by saying that they'd work with the property owners. I

[1:16:36] mean, I've got a similar situation on my property. Developers building 28 new

[1:16:42] lots up against my north and east property lines. You know, I preemptively

[1:16:48] paid to have the property all surveyed and staked and pins. And, you know, some

[1:16:52] fences were on the line, some fences weren't. You know, I don't know. He

[1:16:57] they'll have to address it on a lot bylot basis. as I understood his

[1:17:02] response a while ago is that he would work with individual lot owners to make

[1:17:08] sure it was worked out. But obviously if one's jogging in and out, I mean it's

[1:17:14] just something that has to be resolved. I mean there's uh we were talking last

[1:17:20] week about adverse possession and there's issues with that and if you've

[1:17:24] been maintaining it you know there's court issues you know so it's a whole

[1:17:29] litany of of stuff that just has to play out as the development goes along

[1:17:34] whether you fight it you know if they pay and have the property surveyed it

[1:17:39] will be there'll be markers that'll be you know what the meetats and bounds

[1:17:45] descriptions s by the county dictate. It'll all be laid out by a licensed

[1:17:50] surveyor to the hundth of a foot. They'll reconcile all those boundaries

[1:17:54] and they may or may not line up with the fences. You you know as as someone said

[1:17:59] or multiple people said. So, uh at that point you just have to resolve it. You

[1:18:05] know, some people will want to hold on to that fence line, other people may not

[1:18:10] care. you know, um the individuals will probably build their own fences, but uh

[1:18:17] you know, they won't have the right to take down the fences that's already been

[1:18:22] established unless you agree to that. So, um there's not anything this board

[1:18:28] can specifically do. Um, and I'll just speak generally to this board and and

[1:18:35] you know, the public can listen in, but the way this board works, whether we

[1:18:42] like it or not, the city through significant effort, staff and others

[1:18:49] make every reasonable effort to make sure that that, you know, one, we pass

[1:18:55] regulations and rules. We've spent a lot of time, you know, I've been doing this

[1:19:00] off and on for 25 years, you know, um, on this board and other positions in the

[1:19:07] city, trying to make sure, you know, that we preemptively anticipate all of

[1:19:12] the things that could possibly come up and that we'd have to address. And it's

[1:19:16] impossible to do. I can tell you, you can't pass enough rules to, you know,

[1:19:21] think, outthink everything situation that can come up. But um we're obligated

[1:19:27] by law um if the developer meets the regulations that are on the books at the

[1:19:36] time that he presents his plat. We can't preemptively say, "Oh, he's, you know,

[1:19:41] doing this. We aren't going to allow that. We're going to change the rules

[1:19:45] out from under him." We can get sued over that and lose. So, um, and the city

[1:19:50] has in the past run into that where they tried to preemptively change the rules

[1:19:55] after the fact. So, uh, we're not going to do or I'm not going to vote to do

[1:20:00] anything like that. So, uh, that being said, um, as Matt when you you may or

[1:20:07] may not have picked it up, but when he was reading, uh, the provisions and the

[1:20:13] directions to this board, uh, I don't remember the exactly exact terms, but

[1:20:19] the term was that if it meets all the regulations, the board shall approve.

[1:20:25] You know, we don't have any choice but to approve if they meet at all. Um, my

[1:20:30] biggest concern, and I guess I would put out a general comment, um, you know, to

[1:20:38] the developer, um,

[1:20:41] I'm not a big fan of septic systems. They always seem to, you know, fail. I

[1:20:46] realize that the regulations provide for them certain lot size restrictions and

[1:20:52] and as everybody as I kind of stated before if they meet the regulations we

[1:20:59] can't deny it whether we dislike it or not you know but um I would I would just

[1:21:07] put out the general comment to the developer um that if you could maybe

[1:21:13] look at like an E1 system or some kind of, you know, pumped. I mean, I know you

[1:21:18] got rock, you've got uh topography issues, you know, it's not conducive to

[1:21:23] the sewer, but the current price, you know, for a lateral system, somewhere

[1:21:28] between maybe 20 and $70,000 per lot. You know, those individuals, they're

[1:21:35] going to spend that money to put a house on that in addition to the $600 to a

[1:21:39] million dollars to build the house, you know, and maybe that's included in the

[1:21:43] price. But it seems like um maybe um you know a verier machine with the you

[1:21:52] know uh ejection pump stations uh you know I mean they do it in the in

[1:21:58] the Branson and southern Missouri area all the time where they do uh you know

[1:22:03] these pumped ejection systems because there's just no other way to do it and

[1:22:09] uh they apparently work and then the sewage goes to a legitimate treatment

[1:22:13] plant and there's not the issue of of runoff. And it seems like, you know,

[1:22:18] okay, it maybe it adds to the lot price, but it seems like the system like that

[1:22:24] would eliminate that potential for I mean I mean I I I remember one

[1:22:31] particular house that I encountered where there were 26 adults living in the

[1:22:36] house along with children, you know, we don't know how many people are going to

[1:22:39] live. the sewage system was completely overwhelmed. You know, it was out in the

[1:22:43] county and so there was nobody really regulating it. But um it uh you know,

[1:22:50] when those systems get break down, when they're not maintained, you know, then

[1:22:55] sewage starts, you know, seeping out and running off and water quality fails.

[1:23:00] They may meet design standards, but I'm not I'm not a big fan of them. I I I

[1:23:08] mean I will vote to approve this because based on the staff's review, we you

[1:23:17] know, you meet all the requirements. So there's really nothing this board can do

[1:23:21] to deny it, you know, but um it seems like that it a system like that

[1:23:28] might be both financially and environmentally viable if if it was

[1:23:34] looked into. Um, so, um, trying to think of the other stuff.

[1:23:40] Privacy fences, that's not going to happen. Uh, you know, um, runoff storm

[1:23:46] water. I mean, I like the idea of the ditch checks if they're permanent and

[1:23:51] they have some way of wearing out that water in the channelized, you know, uh,

[1:23:56] the pre and postdeveloped runoff can be managed um, effectively. Um,

[1:24:03] I don't know that I'm a big fan of ribbon curb, but you know, it's probably

[1:24:08] better than channelizing it and dropping it off the curb in one big flow. So, you

[1:24:13] know, it's reasonable. Um, um, I will say generically, um, the three acres, I

[1:24:20] mean, this this thing was already approved [laughter] for several hundred

[1:24:24] houses. So, you know, and they wouldn't have had individual septic systems, but

[1:24:30] like the traffic impact, you know, the amount of kids, the just the overall I

[1:24:36] mean, this is about as unegregious of a development, you know, if you're going

[1:24:41] to have property develop, it's about as friendly as it gets. So, you know, so

[1:24:46] that's that's about all I have to say. >> No, very well said. Thank you for

[1:24:50] explaining doing the explanation on how the process works and I will agree that

[1:24:55] it was this was already approved for quite a few

[1:24:58] » Yeah. twice houses. >> I mean it expired

[1:25:01] » three years ago, correct? >> Yeah.

[1:25:04] » Three years ago this was approved. >> Long longer than that.

[1:25:06] » No. >> Yeah. It was approved a couple years

[1:25:09] four years ago and then again two years ago.

[1:25:12] » 379 lots. >> Right.

[1:25:15] So >> All right. Perfect. Do we have any more

[1:25:20] discussion? Any questions? Anything else?

[1:25:24] So, I just want to let you know just to be respectful, we did close the public

[1:25:27] hearing and then we allowed you guys to come back up and ask more questions for

[1:25:32] just the sake of everything. >> Just curious about blasting. Are we

[1:25:36] doing any blasting? >> We don't have any schedule.

[1:25:42] » Sorry. >> All right. You're okay. Just just remind

[1:25:44] everybody the public hearing's closed. The extra questions are closed. The

[1:25:49] board's in discussion and from there we'll finish out the meeting. I

[1:25:53] appreciate it. All right. If we have no more questions

[1:25:56] or discussion, do we have a motion? >> I'll make a motion to uh approve the

[1:26:03] premillinary plant. >> Go ahead.

[1:26:06] » I I may just want to clarify with with the conditions

[1:26:11] as as presented. I did misspe on the one. It's an eastbound, not a westbound

[1:26:15] right turn lane. So >> yeah,

[1:26:18] » the one that you clarified with Pam Wiggo, correct?

[1:26:21] » Yeah, because in my staff report, I I put westbound, but it's eastbound. So,

[1:26:24] » no. Thank you for clarifying. >> Thank you. So, we have a motion. Do we

[1:26:28] have a second? >> A second.

[1:26:31] » We have a motion in a second. And all in favor say I.

[1:26:35] » I. >> I.

[1:26:36] » Opposed. >> Motion passes.

[1:26:41] All right.

[1:26:45] We just did that. All right. If there

[1:26:52] » if there are no more discussions, do we have a motion? Uh

[1:26:56] » I would just like to make one more comment. I' I'd like to thank all you

[1:26:59] guys for coming out. I can't tell you. I mean, you know, the previous two two

[1:27:04] approvals, you know, we didn't have anybody show up. You know, it's nice to

[1:27:08] get input when we can and and we certainly appreciate you taking the time

[1:27:13] and stuff to to show up and let us know what your

[1:27:17] » I do have one comment. The letters that were sent out to the public, they were

[1:27:22] not addressed as board. They were addressed to someone else. I feel like

[1:27:27] that's a >> I don't Did we send any letters out?

[1:27:30] » Yes, you guys did. >> They were not addressed as the true

[1:27:35] » It's Blue Springs Storage. It's because they own the blue storage country homes

[1:27:41] as well. But it's just something maybe you guys need

[1:27:46] to make sure when you're doing this. >> Oh, for a separate issue.

[1:27:50] » No, just he when he started reading it, he said more development, but that's not

[1:27:55] the letters that we got we received. So, I mean,

[1:28:01] » we can talk about this after the meeting if you want, but

[1:28:05] » there was no there was no notification sent out for a hearing for this specific

[1:28:11] thing. >> Yes, that's correct. The public hearing

[1:28:13] was for the first item on agenda. Correct.

[1:28:16] » The actual

[1:28:20] » and it says the the Edgewood Development RDM and it's from the city.

[1:28:25] » All right. Excuse me. Let's let the city staff explain and talk.

[1:28:28] » I may if I may clarify. So the plenary plat does not require a public hearing.

[1:28:33] » We send a courtesy letter so neighbors will know that we're not necessarily

[1:28:37] required to do that, >> but we did that so people would know

[1:28:40] it's here so they could come participate as part of it. There was not a formal

[1:28:44] public hearing requirement, but you as a planning commission allowed them to

[1:28:47] communicate. In my um

[1:28:52] memo I I mentioned in discussion I said word development the actual

[1:28:57] development is blue spring safety storage that is who's actually applied

[1:29:02] that is on the application and that was what's in the letter. So I just want to

[1:29:05] be clear not bait and switch that is actually who has submitted the

[1:29:10] application and that's why they're listed on the letter.

[1:29:14] » All right. >> All right. Thank you for clarifying

[1:29:15] that. All right. Are there any communication

[1:29:19] correspondence? Are there any additional items?

[1:29:23] Do we have a motion to adjurnn? >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn.

[1:29:26] » Do we have a second? >> Second.

[1:29:29] » We have a motion and a second to adjurnn. Any discussion? If not, all in

[1:29:33] favor say I. >> I oppose. Meeting adjourn. Thank you.

Planning & Zoning 8/18/2026

Transcript