Like to call tonight's meeting to order.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I applied allegiance to the United States of America and Republican stance.

One mission under God.

Indivisible and justice.

So we'll begin our meeting this evening.

I'll take a moment to acknowledge that we have a quorum of planning commissioners present with seven of nine in attendance.

Commissioners Corcoran and Sealing are unable to attend this evening.

I want to thank everyone in the chamber for attending this evening's meetings.

Planning commission meetings are an important part of the process for interpreting and applying the city's comprehensive plan and unified development ordinance.

It's important that our meetings are conducted with dignity and respect.

That applies to every person in attendance.

We strive to provide an atmosphere where the ideas and opinions of all participants are held in the highest regard.

Finally, the actions on the issues we discuss are ultimately under the responsibility of the City Council.

As our planning commission, we're here to help the council as our elected representatives to be fully informed to make the best choices for our city.

By statute, the planning commission strives to not engage with any party on the issues on our agenda prior to the meeting.

Should that interaction take place as a result of a business relationship or any other interaction, which we refer to as ex parte communication, commissioners will report that interaction when we reach that item in the agenda.

We'll now move on to the consent agenda.

This evening we have two items on the consent agenda.

The applicant on item B, FP 25-0035, is requested to speak.

So item B will be pulled from the consent agenda.

Commissioners, do you have any uh information regarding uh the remaining items on the consent agenda or the minutes prior for our last meeting?

If not, I'll call uh motion on the remaining items.

Do I have a motion for item A of the commit consent agenda?

Mr.

Chair, I'll move to approve.

Thank you, Commissioner Breen.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Chapman.

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed nay.

That motion passes 70.

Item B is a request for the final plat for Parkside Reserve 7th plat, which is located at the southwest of 167th and Black Bob Road.

Before the applicant presents, I will open the public hearing in accordance with UDO 18.40-160D, and first we will hear from city staff.

Ms.

Winter, please come to the podium.

Welcome tonight, Lawrence.

Good to see you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Lauren Winter, Planner One.

As introduced, the following is a request for a final plat for Parkside Reserve 7th Plat.

We understand the applicant would like to speak on this item, so I'm going to provide some background and context on this application before you this evening.

The subject property highlighted in blue is located southwest of 167th Street and Block Balb Road.

It is the seventh phase of the Parkside Reserve Subdivision as seen outlined in yellow.

The preliminary plat for Parkside Reserve was approved in 2022 with application RZ22-0002.

The preliminary plat shows Brome Drive serving as a north and south connection to the neighborhood seen here.

The rezoning also included a phasing plan, which shows the intended street connections for each phase.

In this phase, the plan shows that a portion of Brome is to be constructed to the west.

Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat with the stipulation that phasing for the development will occur as intended on the phasing plan before you.

168th Terrace is an existing east-west street that will connect Brome Drive to the west here.

This plat application establishes dedication of tracts of land, public easements, open space tracks, and public rights of way.

The final plat does not override off-site improvement requirements, zoning stipulations, design requirements, or district regulations.

As standard practice, the final plat must meet the approval criteria as outlined in UDO 1840, which includes conformance with the preliminary plat and municipal code.

Staff recommends approval of the final plat 25-0035 with the following stipulation.

Brome drive must be constructed adjacent to this plated property.

And Brome Drive must connect to an existing arterial or collector street in accordance with the city council policy, PI-3 public improvements.

Staff is acting in accordance with the UDO in City Council policy PI-3, which states developers shall be responsible for the installation and expense of constructing any and all streets within and or adjacent to their development.

And improvement of adjacent streets and arterials shall be assured prior to the issuance of a building permit.

This concludes my presentation, and I am available for questions.

Thank you, Ms.

Winner.

Commissioners, do you have any questions for staff?

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

State your name and address for the record, please.

Is that microphone on?

I believe it is.

A lot closer.

Oh, there you go.

I'm sorry about that.

No, that's all right.

She must have really been a little bit more.

She was a lot louder.

All right, Brian Rodrock, good evening, Commissioners 9550 Dyce Lane, Linux of Kansas, 66225.

Um I wanted to step up here and introduce my team, my partner Jeff Gifford, uh Tim Tucker from Phelps Engineering is our professional engineer, and our legal team, Darren and Liker.

Uh he'll be speaking on behalf of us, but I wanted to at least step up and uh introduce myself.

Apologize for taking your time on this matter.

Um I know time's important, but with this issue, we feel it's important because what staff is asking us to do is to put a road on another corporation's property.

So it's important that we express this tonight and um show you what we think.

Darren and Liker, please.

Good evening.

Can you can you hear me okay?

You're good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

As Mr.

Roderick said, my name is Darren Ann Liker.

I'm with the firm of Duggan, Shadwick, Doran, Kurlbaum.

We're at 9101 West 110th Street in Overland Park, Kansas.

And we're here in connection with obviously the application for approval of the final plat for the seventh plat as indicated in the previous comments.

And the central concern as articulated by Mr.

Rodrock is that in connection with the stipulation that is set forth in the staff's recommendation, we believe that we're being required, it would be require the developer in this instance to construct an off-site improvement on property that this developer does not own, which one creates a maybe impossibility problem.

But just go back maybe for a little bit context.

Throughout the approval process, as uh previously indicated, there were there was never the stipulation didn't appear.

Meaning the preliminary plats and going through rezoning, there was not this requirement that this developer build the street as being required now per this per the stipulation that the staff is recommending.

And frankly, most of the property at issue, again, as I have indicated, is owned by another property.

So even if we were to construct part of Rome on property that the applicant owns, it would be a basically result in the construction of a street on an island that's not connected to any other existing street.

So from a practicality standpoint, the timing of the construction doesn't fit with this particular plat approval.

Thus, the approval of the app of the application for the final plat should be done without the stipulation.

The stipulation for that construction is not necessary at this time.

We should be allowed to proceed without that stipulation to require the improvement or the construction of Brome at this particular time.

So to require the applicant to construct a street on property it doesn't own is not an appropriate process, or it shouldn't be approved with that particular stipulation because you are asking us to do frankly something that's one not practical and one not necessary.

But one of the no one of the reasons I believe that the construction of Broome was requested was for purposes of access, but I would remind this the commissioners that there have been other plates in this very subdivision, and I believe specifically Parkside Reserve Second, third, and fourth that were all approved without a secondary access point.

So the ostensible purpose for why they want to require construction of brome go on on property that frankly our applicant does not own is for purposes of this secondary access point when the city is already approved other plates in this very subdivision without that without that very requirement.

But that shouldn't require an extensive and very expensive improvement at this time on property we don't own, the applicant does not own to satisfy that requirement.

So the reality is this.

That makes that requirement frankly unreasonable.

So what we're requesting is very simple.

We're requesting the approval of FP 25-0035 without the stipulation that Brom Drive be constructed as part of this final plat.

And that's we think this is the appropriate approval that should be rendered today.

But the extent this commission is not inclined to approve without the stipulation, at the very least, it should be reproved approved with the stipulation.

We need to have a vote today on the plan so that we can maintain our schedule the best that we can, and this can go to City Council one way or the other, because without that uh uh without moving forward today, it prevents us from meeting deadlines and schedules that we we need to keep for purposes of putting this plat in the ground, if you will, uh in a lathe.

If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer questions the best I can.

All right, thank you for being here tonight.

Um Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicant?

Commissioner Bergita.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I just want to clarify and make sure I understood your last statement correctly.

Your request is even if we aren't inclined to waive the stipulation, you would like approval tonight so that you can maintain schedule and take your concern to City Council.

Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Is there any anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this item?

All right.

Uh seeing an applicant, do you are you finished?

Do you have any other additional information from the applicants that you would like to present or are we good there?

So the information is five bank.

All right.

Thank you.

Uh staff, would you like to provide any information as a rebuttal to anything that the uh applicant has provided?

Uh Chet Belcher, Chief Community Development Officer.

Uh we really don't have anything to add on that.

The stipulation is pretty clear.

Um typically we wouldn't have a stipulation on this because it is a standard requirement that you build anything adjacent to your development.

So but we did hear from the uh applicants uh representative that they did want to talk.

So that we that is why the stipulation was provided.

Normally we we wouldn't put anything that a stipulation, you know, it would be like putting a stipulation that you have to extend sanitary sewer.

I mean it is a requirement.

We don't put everything that is required as a stipulation on every project.

We just knew that was going to be an opportunity for the uh the uh applicant to speak.

Yeah.

And apparently, wait, am I viewing this correctly that they're just questioning the validity of the stipulation?

Correct.

Yep.

Um council would look at this also, right?

Correct.

Okay.

Okay.

Commissioner Breen.

Chad, so on that, as it pertains to the stipulation itself, the comment was made.

It wasn't on a prior approval.

Is that because it is typically not shown?

Just the requirements in general that would be made at that point.

Yeah, it was just made, so there is an opportunity to work with the applicant to get in front of you guys and speak about it.

Okay.

Staff, would you like to provide any other further information?

Are we good on that?

So, I'm good.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Belcher.

All right.

Um after hearing uh our our comments, um, do I have a motion to close the public hearing?

Mr.

Chairman, I had a question.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Go ahead, Commissioner Brigitte.

I will withdraw my request.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Belcher, could you speak to the the comment brought up by the applicant regarding um the request to build on land that is not theirs?

Had there been other cases recently where that's where we have seen a similar situation?

Uh ChEB Elcher, Chief Community Development Officer.

So we are not requiring any off-site construction where the stipulation states that it needs to connect to an existing collector or an existing arterial to the south of this property.

Um the rest of this property is owned by the same developer that is developing this.

So there is an opportunity to build on their own property down to existing prom drive.

Thank you.

Commissioners, there are any other questions for staff?

Commissioner Lynn, go ahead.

Um Thank you.

So uh just so to clarify, then you're not asking them to build that northern section.

No, there is just a requirement to have a connection for uh fire access.

There are 81 lots, but also connectivity, but there are 81 lots and the amenity package on would be with only one point of access without this slot, without this road.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

Okay.

All right.

Does anybody need any additional information from staff?

Are we good there?

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you for coming up.

Okay.

If we're good there, uh I will go ahead now and uh entertain entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

Thank you, Commissioner Bergita.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Chapman.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed nay.

Well, the public hearing is now closed.

Is there any additional discussion needed for this item from Commissioners?

All right.

Seeing none, I um do I have a motion on FP 25-0035.

Chair, I recommend that we approve FP 25-0035 as stipulated by staff.

Thank you, Commissioner Chapman.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Breen.

Ms.

Will, we take a vote.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Chapman?

Yes.

Commissioner Lynn?

Yes.

Commissioner Breen?

Yes.

Commissioner Brown?

Yes.

Commissioner Toronas?

Yes.

Commissioner Brigita?

Yes.

Chair Janner.

I want to thank the applicant for bringing this forward.

I think we've got some valid points here, but um I think it will be more appropriate for the City Council to uh override something like this, and that uh from our point of view and the purview we cover, um I think a yes vote is appropriate.

That motion passes seven to zero.

All right, thank you.

Uh moving on uh this evening we have one scheduled public hearing.

And the first public hearing is a request for approval rezoning for 175th Lone Elm Center located northeast of 175th and Lone Elm Road.

Ms.

Schuler is here to present the case on this.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Jessica Schuler, senior planner.

Um, as introduced, this is a rezoning and preliminary site development plan for just 4.7 acres um of land located northeast of 175th in Lone Elm.

Um this land is proposed to be incorporated into the recently approved 175th Lone Elm Center.

Um there are two existing single family residential parcels outlined in red here.

These were annexed into the city earlier this month, and they are being sold to the adjacent landowners who surround these parcels on the north, east, and south.

The property currently retains county rural zoning designation, and this request would rezone the property to the M2 General Industrial District.

Um this is consistent with the surrounding zoning that was approved in September of 2025, um, along with the C2 district at the corner of 175th and Lone Elm.

The proposed zoning is also consistent with the future land use map, which designates this area as an employment area as well as several policies of the plan, only the comprehensive plan.

Umployment areas consist of light assembly and manufacturing uses and high quality plan developments integrated with retail and service uses.

The zoning ordinance for the larger 175th Lone Elm Center contains a list of use restrictions, which are um of higher intensity and could um generate um nuisance concerns.

So because of because these parcels will be incorporated into that development, um the same use restrictions are recommended on these two properties as listed here.

The associated preliminary site development plan um simply aligns west 173rd Street through these properties connecting to Lone Elm Road.

Um previously this roadway did jog further south south of the properties landscaping is shown on the north side of the roadway in accordance with UDO requirements.

Landscaping on the south of the roadway will be shown with the revised preliminary site development plans that are required as only conceptual industrial buildings have been approved south of the roadway.

The applicant mailed the required public notification to surrounding properties and a neighborhood notice to all properties within 500 feet.

A neighborhood meeting was not required to be held.

Uh staff recommends approval of the rezoning to the M2 district as stipulated and of the preliminary site development plan.

I'm happy to answer any questions, and the applicant is here for questions as well.

Excellent.

Thank you, Ms.

Schuller.

Commissioners, do you have any questions for staff?

Commissioner Breen.

Yes, thank you.

Uh nice presentation.

I just want to confirm when we looked at this original larger plan earlier.

If I recall, this was an island that was kind of left over.

And so this is just kind of cleaning that up.

Is that fair to say?

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioners, do you have any other questions?

Applicant uh is here I understand.

Do you have any comments that you would like to make?

None at this time.

Thank you.

All right.

Thanks for being here.

Oh now I'll open the public hearing.

Uh although we have no one signed up for the public hearing, so I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

Thank you, Commissioner Brigitte.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Breen.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay.

Is there any additional discussion needed for this item?

Well, seeing none, do I have a motion on RZ 25-0019?

Mr.

Chair, I'll move to approve RZ two five-0019 as stipulated by staff.

Thank you, Commissioner Breen.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Chapman.

Ms.

Will, will you do a roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Lynn?

Yes.

Commissioner Breen?

Yes.

Commissioner Brown?

Yes.

Commissioner Toronas.

Yes.

Commissioner Brigida?

Yes.

Commissioner Chapman?

Yes.

Chair Janner?

Yes.

That motion passes 7 to 0.

Well, that uh completes our regular agenda.

Move on to our announcements and just uh a reminder to our commissioners that uh we do have a joint meeting with the city council on Monday, March 2nd at 5 30.

Uh that's going to be held in the downtown library in the uh flex box.

Uh we'll cover the Elevato Letha comprehensive plan, which we've been talking about regularly for quite some time now, and it's uh reaching its conclusion, and um we'll get a chance to uh do a final review on that.

So uh make sure that's on your calendar.

All right.

That being said, this meeting is hereby adjourned.