[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.