2026-10-19 - Planning Commission

00:14Good evening and welcome to the city of

00:16Topeka Planning Commission meeting. We

00:18are a commission appointed by the mayor

00:19mayor and city council to plan for the

00:21orderly growth and development of the

00:23community to hold public hearings and to

00:25make recommendations to the governing

00:27body on planning items. Please note that

00:30the governing body rules state that

00:31public hearings for planning cases shall

00:33be conducted solely by the Planning

00:35Commission. No additional planning here

00:37public hearings will be conducted by the

00:39governing body.

00:41Tonight's cases are tentatively

00:43scheduled to be heard by governing body

00:46next month. Agendas can be found at

00:48Topeka.gov.

00:50Some of tonight's cases involve public

00:52hearings. For those cases, the procedure

00:54will be as follows. First, planning

00:56department staff will summarize the

00:57case. Next, we will hear from the

01:00applicant or the representative. Then,

01:02we will receive public testimony.

01:04Comments are limited to 4 minutes. For

01:07agenda terms that do not involve public

01:09hearings, public comment is allowed

01:11provided the person has signed up on

01:13Topeka Speaks or notified staff prior to

01:163:00 p.m. today. Comments are limited to

01:194 minutes. Finally, at the end of the

01:21regular business, the commission will

01:23entertain general comment regarding

01:25matters relating to commission business

01:27provided that the person has signed up

01:29on Topeka Speaks or notified staff prior

01:32to 3:00 p.m. today. Comments are limited

01:34to 4 minutes.

01:36Uh Colleen, take roll, please.

01:38>> Uh yes, Mr. Brooks.

01:41>> Here.

01:43>> Mr. Bowling.

01:45>> Nope, finding my button.

01:47Here is here.

01:49>> Ms. Hanan.

01:51>> Here.

01:52>> Ms. Heron.

01:53>> Here.

01:54>> Mr. Lolly.

01:55>> Here.

01:57>> Ms. Nelson?

01:59>> Here.

02:00>> Ms. Pearson?

02:01>> Here.

02:02>> And we have seven commissioners present

02:04for a quorum.

02:07>> All right, we will move on to approval

02:09of minutes from September 21st.

02:13>> I make a motion to approve the minutes.

02:15>> Second.

02:19>> Mr. Brooks?

02:21>> Abstain.

02:23>> Mr. Bowling?

02:25>> Abstain.

02:28>> Ms. Hannon?

02:29>> I.

02:30>> Ms. Heron?

02:32>> I.

02:33>> Mr. Lolly?

02:34>> I.

02:36>> Ms. Nelson?

02:37>> Abstain.

02:39>> Ms. Pearson?

02:40>> Abstain.

02:42>> Minutes passed 3-0-4.

02:45>> Okay.

02:46Um moving on to declaration of conflict

02:48of interest and ex parte communication

02:51by members of the commission.

02:56Okay. We will move on to action items

02:59starting with PUD 2607.

03:05>> Yes, thank you. Um

03:08go to the first slide.

03:11This is case PUD 2607.

03:14The property's address is 5977

03:17Southwest 29th Street.

03:19The applicant is the Amoco station.

03:22The request is to rezone the property

03:25from C2 commercial district to PUD

03:28for C2 commercial district uses.

03:32The site's located at the southwest

03:34intersection of Wanamaker and 29th

03:36Street.

03:37The property comprises approximately

03:40.915

03:41acres.

03:43Just I wanted to make a couple of

03:45comments about that. Um traditionally

03:47PUDs have to be over at least an acre in

03:49size.

03:51Um because this property was taken right

03:55away was taken from this property by

03:57plat back in 1993,

04:00staff made the determination that it

04:02could go ahead and proceed as a PUD

04:04rezoning even though it's slightly under

04:06an acre.

04:08The current use is a gas station with a

04:11small 1,000 square foot convenience

04:13store.

04:14And the applicant has proposed the PUD

04:17to allow for a variance to the one of

04:20the required building setbacks. So they

04:23two ways you can acquire a variance to a

04:26zoning standard either by going before

04:28the Board of Zoning Appeals or applying

04:32for a PUD rezoning and asking a variant

04:34for a variance that way. There are

04:36different findings that have to be made

04:38for each of those circumstances.

04:41And the findings that have to be made

04:43for a rezoning of course are different

04:45from findings that have to be made for a

04:47if they're going before the BZA.

04:51The proposed use would be for a new

04:53convenience store with a rear yard

04:56building setback of 10 ft.

04:58Traditionally the setbacks in C2 zoning

05:01are 25 ft from the front, 10 ft from the

05:04side, 25 from the rear. This PUD would

05:08allow a variance to the required rear

05:10yard of 25 ft to reduce that to 10 ft

05:14from the rear property line.

05:17The applicant indicated in

05:19there's some justification for the

05:21variance. This they will allow for a

05:25site design that provides for better and

05:27safer site circulation and access

05:30between the building and the existing

05:32canopy.

05:34Denial of the variance means the

05:36applicant will have to rebuild the

05:38canopy which could be a significant cost

05:40on the applicant.

05:42And there also existing

05:44obstructions located between the

05:46proposed new building and the existing

05:49canopy currently.

05:52This is the proposed site plan. I well,

05:55I proposed site plan showing the new C's

05:58the new convenience store

06:00um on the south end of the property with

06:03a 10 10-ft building setback from the

06:07uh rear property line. The

06:09uh

06:10new C store would be adjacent to a

06:12private entrance driveway and would back

06:15up to that private entrance driveway.

06:19The character of the area is

06:20predominantly commercial. The site's

06:23located at the intersection of two

06:25arterial streets.

06:27The surrounding zoning is predominantly

06:29C4 uses

06:31and office uses.

06:33This is designated a commercial node in

06:36the land use and growth management plan.

06:41Staff is recommending approval of the

06:43reclassification from the C2 commercial

06:46district to the PUD plan unit

06:48development district for a C2 commercial

06:51district use group classification

06:54subject to the 11 conditions in the

06:56staff report.

06:58Um

06:59I do want to make a note that the

07:01applicant did conduct a neighborhood

07:03meeting on September 30th.

07:06Uh

07:07there was one attendee at that meeting

07:09who was legal counsel for the owner of

07:12the properties to the south and east.

07:15Their primary objections, and they have

07:17also provided a letter for you and the

07:20that's in the packet tonight, was that

07:22this would allow one property to be

07:25treated in unfair manner from

07:27surrounding similarly zoned properties,

07:30even though that the variance does not

07:31arise from a condition unique to the

07:33property in question.

07:35Um and I am open for [clears throat] any

07:38other questions you may have. And the

07:40applicant's representative is here

07:42tonight as well. Thank you.

07:44>> All right. Thank you. Um any questions

07:46for staff by commissioners?

07:52Commissioner Brooks?

07:54>> So, I'm trying to understand the

07:56neighbor

07:57situation.

07:59Does this

08:00create any undue harm to the neighbor

08:04that you can tell?

08:05>> Um well, I think one of the what we've

08:08indicated in the staff report is one of

08:10the um concerns we had was that the rear

08:14side of the building is mostly there's a

08:16some aesthetic concern in our opinion

08:19that the rear cuz the rear side of the

08:22building will face the front and the

08:24sides of adjoining property and that's

08:26not always the best land use

08:28arrangement. Um we've made some uh

08:32recommendations in the conditions to try

08:34to attempt to at least attempt to

08:36address those concerns with how the

08:38building would, you know, the back side

08:41of the building would face those

08:43properties. Um

08:46So, those Let me look at the other

08:48conditions

08:49a second here.

08:53We would One of those conditions relates

08:55to landscaping along the rear property

08:58line as well as potential fencing along

09:01the rear property line.

09:07>> But, no circulation issues

09:11or I'm just trying to think about

09:13>> Mhm.

09:14>> what?

09:14>> There's a shared pri- private access

09:16drive to the south of them. So, this

09:18does not affect that shared driveway at

09:21all.

09:21>> Okay.

09:27>> Any additional?

09:28>> Yeah. Commissioner

09:29>> Yeah. Along where they want to have the

09:31proposed C-store, isn't there an

09:32existing car wash there or has it been

09:34torn down already?

09:36Very

09:37Is it torn down?

09:38>> Yes, that's has been torn down,

09:40demolished.

09:41>> Yes.

09:42>> There was an exist a car wash there.

09:45All right.

09:46Any additional questions?

09:49All right. Um would the applicant like

09:52to come up?

10:00>> Excuse [clears throat] me, Madam Chair,

10:01uh members of the board.

10:03Uh my name is Can you hear me now?

10:05>> See if there's a green light uh down at

10:07the base of the mic.

10:10>> We'll adjust the setting.

10:13>> Oh, that's fine. Uh my name is Travis

10:15Haslip. I'm with Cook Flat & Strobel

10:16Engineers.

10:17Uh I think city staff has explained very

10:20well what we're trying to do.

10:22Um

10:23our client would like to rebuild the C

10:25store at the existing location, a more

10:28modern, larger building,

10:30and we just need a little bit more room

10:32to make it work.

10:33Uh in order to prevent congestion and

10:36ease the flow of traffic,

10:38uh we were hoping to remove the 25-ft

10:41setback and put a 10-ft setback in the

10:42rear in its place.

10:45>> All right.

10:45>> Thank you. Um any questions for the

10:47applicant?

10:51Um

10:52I assume kind of the area shown between

10:54the convenience store proposed and the

10:57current is where the fuel tanks are at

10:59underground, all those little squares

11:01marked there?

11:02>> That's correct. The wells, yes.

11:04>> And the

11:05current convenience store would be

11:06demolished should the new one

11:09>> Yes, uh it's my understanding it may

11:11remain in place during construction to

11:14accommodate, you know, the to serve the

11:16community, but once it's

11:18in operation, then yes, it will be torn

11:20down.

11:20>> Okay. Thank you.

11:23All right.

11:25Thank you so much.

11:25>> Thank you.

11:29>> And there's no public comment for this,

11:32so I will go ahead and move to

11:35uh closing public hearing and um

11:38allowing for any further discussion by

11:39commissioners.

11:45>> I have a question.

11:47>> Oh, go ahead, Commissioner.

11:47>> I'm kind of curious. You can educate us.

11:50I mean, it's on a corner, so you have

11:52two rears and two sides. I mean

11:56can you help us understand

11:59it's just to me it doesn't make sense.

12:02You have they're both rears and they're

12:03both sides, so

12:05making it 10 ft doesn't seem like a big

12:07deal to me, but

12:09help help me understand that a little

12:10better.

12:13>> [clears throat]

12:14>> Sir, what was the question?

12:15>> So, since it's on a corner

12:17um you you you assign a rear and a side,

12:20but they're both one in the same. So, um

12:26why is that not already allowed by code?

12:28>> That's a good question. Um so, the way

12:31the code works, uh

12:34the narrowest dimension is generally

12:37that's along the street is generally

12:38considered the front. In this case, the

12:42the uh frontage along 29th

12:45and along Wanamaker are very close to

12:47the same.

12:47>> Yeah. So

12:49Okay.

12:50>> then it's a matter of discretion

12:53and the building is going to face

12:56north, so that's kind of logically the

12:58front.

13:00And if that wasn't the front, then

13:01Wanamaker would be the front and you

13:03have a setback problem on the other

13:04side.

13:05>> Yeah, I understand.

13:06>> I was just curious.

13:07>> Yeah.

13:08>> Isn't

13:10isn't the front of the building facing

13:1129th Street now?

13:13>> It

13:14>> Yes.

13:15>> So, we're not changing the orientation

13:16of the building, are they?

13:17>> Well, I can't remember how the building

13:18is oriented. I think it's a

13:20maybe maybe the applicant can explain

13:23that. So, is it

13:24>> Yeah, that's the building. Is that

13:26>> the front, though, The face is 29.

13:28>> I can try. I mean, it's very unique.

13:30>> Yeah.

13:32>> Yeah, it doesn't

13:33>> Yeah.

13:34>> It actually the doors are on the the

13:35east and west.

13:36>> Yeah.

13:36>> Mhm.

13:37>> But it's it's a just it's very we need

13:41to modernize the convenience store.

13:42That's one of the reasons why.

13:44>> Yeah. Yeah, looks to me like this would

13:45be an improvement over what's there now.

13:47>> Yeah.

13:48>> I think I think one thing that is

13:50recognized here is that

13:53the model that's there now is not their

13:55typical model.

13:56And so they're trying to change it so it

13:58fits their business model.

14:00And so that's one of the justifications

14:03for

14:04it's in the report, I believe, for the

14:07for grant for approving the PUD.

14:12>> I like the idea of the area being

14:13cleaned up.

14:16>> Yeah, I think

14:17>> Yeah, I agree.

14:18>> I agree.

14:20>> Okay. Thank you. All right, if there's

14:22no further discussion from the

14:24commissioners, I will take a motion.

14:27>> I would move to approve.

14:28>> Second.

14:33>> Mr. Brooks.

14:35>> Aye.

14:37>> Mr. Bowling.

14:38>> Aye.

14:40>> Ms. Cannon.

14:41>> Aye.

14:43>> Ms. Heron.

14:44>> Aye.

14:45>> Mr. Lolly.

14:46>> Aye.

14:48>> Ms. Nelson.

14:49>> Aye.

14:50>> Ms. Pearson.

14:52>> Aye.

14:54>> This approves 7-0-0.

14:59>> All right, moving on to A Z oh A C Z R

15:032604.

15:12>> Okay.

15:14So

15:20this is an item that's been discussed at

15:22three previous meetings.

15:24At one time it was discussed alongside

15:26data centers, energy storage systems,

15:29but data centers and energy storage

15:31systems are not at all a part of what's

15:33being proposed with this item.

15:36It's not

15:38data centers

15:39and energy storage systems are not on

15:41the agenda tonight, just to be clear

15:44for anybody who isn't That's That's not

15:46clear about that. Um

15:49There are a lot of slides here. I don't

15:50intend to go through all the slides.

15:52Uh

15:53They're here if if you have questions. I

15:56think there are some parts of this

15:58that

16:00I might want to highlight just cuz

16:01they're significant

16:03and they've been just you know that

16:04they're just they're they're noteworthy.

16:07Um

16:08So, really just to be clear, every once

16:11in a while uh the planning department

16:14talks with planning commission and makes

16:16a fairly broad comprehensive change or

16:19recommends changes to the zoning code

16:21that are fairly comprehensive.

16:23This covers probably three, four

16:25chapters of the zoning code um with an

16:29emphasis on the land use standards in

16:31the in the land use tables in chapter

16:3318.60.

16:35Uh it also affects the definitions in

16:3718.55 and the special use standards in

16:4118.225.

16:44So, this is the list

16:47before you is the list of all the land

16:49uses that are affected by this

16:52this this broad range of text

16:54amendments. Um I'd be happy to answer

16:57any specific questions about any of

17:00these.

17:01Of these, I think the most significant

17:04are changes regarding modular homes,

17:09>> [snorts]

17:11>> uh single family residential detached,

17:14multiple units on the same lot on a

17:16single lot,

17:18which is related to that.

17:20Um

17:24drinking establishments

17:27and large truck services associated with

17:29convenience stores.

17:33So, let me see if I can

17:37explain the first one.

17:42Well, let's let's go to drinking

17:43establishments first of all.

17:45So, we presented this the last meeting

17:49and

17:51the issue is and the the reason why this

17:53is being proposed is

17:56there are a lot of drinking

17:57establishments that are not what people

18:00traditionally consider as major bars or

18:03taverns.

18:04Um

18:05when someone

18:07is needing to get a license through the

18:10city clerk or even through the state,

18:12they have to get zoning approval. The

18:14local zoning authority has to sign it.

18:16They come to us

18:17and this is a common, oh, what do we do?

18:20You know, this is

18:21I guess, you know, the easy answer is

18:23they're prohibited.

18:25Uh we're not going to approve it in this

18:26location and

18:28a lot of these are in C2 the C2 zoning

18:30district.

18:31The C2 zoning district is

18:35is a a little bit more restrictive than

18:38say the general commercial district with

18:40C4.

18:41So, a lot of the most of the zoning in

18:43Topeka the most of the the most of the

18:45commercial zoning you see along the

18:47major arterials is C4 zoning, but there

18:49is C2 zoning.

18:51C2 zoning tends to be smaller

18:53properties,

18:54secondary streets. So, for example,

18:57there's C2 zoning along Gage just north

19:00of 21st. There's C2 zoning along 21st

19:03between Gage and Fairlawn.

19:06There's C2 zoning in some other areas as

19:08well.

19:09And so, um

19:12what we come across sometimes is someone

19:15has a

19:16a land use and they want to

19:19be able to sell drinks inside the

19:22the land use. It could be a restaurant.

19:26We even recently were confronted with a

19:28florist shop.

19:30Sounds crazy, but florist shops do

19:32catering for weddings

19:34and they wanted to have

19:36be able to have uh drinks for sale,

19:40wine and beer in association with that

19:42catering use.

19:44So,

19:45that's that's uh that's what this is

19:47intended to address.

19:49Um

19:50it also recognizes that there's the

19:52scale of some taverns or drinking

19:55establishments that's relatively small.

19:58So,

19:59what's proposed here is a change to the

20:01definition,

20:05which is not all that specific, but

20:06that's that's intended to be that way,

20:08and to

20:10change

20:11a drinking establishment from requiring

20:13a conditional use permit in the C-2

20:14district to be allowed as long as it

20:17meets certain standards in the C-2

20:20district.

20:22So, the standards have been drafted

20:24after considerable amount of research

20:26and thought.

20:29Either

20:30so a drinking establishment is allowed

20:32in a C-2 district if it is either of a

20:36nature intensity as accessory to a

20:38permitted permission permitted primary

20:40use or be

20:43or be as a principal use constitutes no

20:45more than 2,000 square feet as

20:47calculated by the Shawnee County

20:48appraiser

20:49or C constitutes no more than 40% of the

20:51space within an existing multi-tenant

20:53commercial building.

20:54And live music or other live

20:56entertainment is not permitted

20:58outside the enclosed building.

21:01And if someone wants to do this, but

21:04they don't can't meet these standards,

21:06they can apply for conditional use

21:07permit.

21:10And I have a few examples here of

21:12different

21:14different uh drinking establishments.

21:17So, one thing you might consider is

21:182,002 restricted, 2,000 sq ft too

21:20restrictive.

21:21Um

21:23well, a lot of these

21:24drinking establishments are larger than

21:262,000 sq ft. They're certainly

21:28in some cases, they're really kind of

21:30neighborhood taverns in some cases, but

21:33in not all cases. So,

21:35consider that the former Dutch Goose,

21:38which is actually zoned R1 cuz it's a

21:40legal nonconforming use, is only about

21:421,200 sq ft.

21:45Abigail's,

21:46um

21:48is

21:49over 6,000 sq ft.

21:52So, that that covers drinking

21:54establishments.

21:57Okay.

22:01Next, large truck services.

22:03So, currently,

22:06as you might recall from the zoning case

22:09that was earlier this year with Maverick

22:11wanting to go in at 6th and Fairlawn,

22:13they went through a a rezoning process

22:15because they wanted a larger site than

22:17the current PUD zoning allowed them to

22:19have.

22:20So, they did a major amendment

22:22because that site constraint.

22:25But, the base zoning was C2. So, it was

22:27a PUD with a C2 use group

22:31use restrictions. And so,

22:34they their their original proposal

22:36included services for large trucks.

22:40Large truck services have a different

22:42impact. They have a different character.

22:44They tend to be a little bit industrial

22:46in nature. Just the fact that they're

22:47large trucks makes them a little bit

22:49more that way.

22:51So,

22:52at the time, we didn't have anything in

22:54our code that made that distinction.

22:57They certainly weren't really a truck

22:58stop the way we to a truck stop, the way

23:01truck stop is defined in the code

23:03currently.

23:04And so,

23:05our determination at that time is trucks

23:08were allowed by right in the C2

23:09district.

23:11In that case, they had to go through a

23:12rezoning process. So, that's how that

23:15That's why the decision was

23:17how it ended up the way it ended up is

23:19for that reason, but but uh

23:22recognizing that they have a larger

23:24impact than a typical convenience store

23:28because of the large trucks, because of

23:30their their character,

23:32staff is proposing that uh

23:36that uh

23:38if if there's a convenience store with

23:41fuel pumps and includes services for

23:43large trucks, that that be treated like

23:45a truck stop. What that means is that

23:48if someone wants to do a convenience

23:50store with those large truck services,

23:53under this amendment,

23:55that means that they would have to have

23:56a conditional use permit. So, it's

23:58significant,

23:59but

24:01in staff's opinion, it is appropriate.

24:04Certainly something you could debate.

24:07So, this is an example of the site at

24:096th and Fairlawn. They had large truck

24:11services in the back.

24:13Uh

24:14trucks had to

24:16pretty much had to enter and exit off of

24:177th, which is the street on the south

24:19side.

24:20Office uses on the south side of 7th.

24:23There was a need to uh

24:27enhance the street, repair the street,

24:30widen the street in some cases,

24:32and that was because of those large

24:34truck services.

24:40Okay.

24:43So,

24:44this is fairly significant significant

24:47because currently if someone is wants to

24:49build a factory-built home

24:52on a property that's zoned for

24:54single-family residential use in Topeka,

24:57uh the only way they can do it is if

24:59it's a residential design manufactured

25:01home built to a HUD standard.

25:03So, picture a double-wide manufactured

25:05home built to a HUD standard.

25:08If they want to build something else,

25:09they can't do it. It's not allowed.

25:11There's really no option for them to do

25:12it.

25:13Um

25:15in fact, I think the only way they can

25:16do it anywhere is it through a PUD

25:18process. Well, then they need to have an

25:20acre

25:21so

25:22um

25:23in order to do that. So,

25:25currently,

25:26the code doesn't really work with this

25:28type of housing that's become more

25:30prevalent.

25:32And so,

25:33the solution to that is to have a

25:35definition

25:36for modular home.

25:38And what that means is a

25:41factory-built house, but it's built to

25:45international residential code, the same

25:47standards that apply to

25:49uh

25:50stick-built, site-built single-family

25:53dwellings.

25:58Okay, so

25:59one of the other problems that uh we've

26:02been asked to look at

26:05is what if someone wants to do a

26:08village of tiny homes?

26:11Um is there zoning allowed for that?

26:14Well, the zoning currently is a bit

26:15unclear.

26:17Uh

26:17can you put multiple single-family

26:19dwellings on a single lot?

26:22Certainly, we have in the past

26:25through M2 zoning.

26:27So, M2 multi-family residential zoning,

26:29we've allowed multiple buildings

26:32on a parcel, like multiple duplex

26:34buildings.

26:36Um there are examples out there that are

26:39older. [snorts]

26:40I don't know if there are any in Topeka,

26:41but I know there are some that are right

26:43outside of Topeka.

26:45Uh and there are some old motels that

26:47were converted to this, where you You

26:50single-family detached dwellings on it

26:54on a tract of land and we just treat it

26:57as a multi-family. So, what this does is

26:59just clarifies that you can do that,

27:02but it also uh necessitates creating a

27:05couple new categories of land use, one

27:07being

27:09multi-family detached dwellings

27:12and two-family detached dwellings.

27:20So, one thing that's not in these slides

27:23is this uh some special use standards

27:27that we drafted.

27:32And those are on page

27:45Page five. Yeah, they're on page five.

27:47Thank you.

27:49Yes. So, on page five,

27:51those special use requirements

27:56state that a site plan and landscape

27:58plan would be required if someone was

27:59going to do that.

28:04They must meet the minimum separation

28:06between buildings as required by

28:08building codes

28:11and by

28:13the

28:14the codes that apply to

28:16to manufactured homes and and mobile

28:19home parks.

28:20And that separation is 15 ft between

28:23buildings, typically 8 ft if you're on

28:25the rear.

28:26Like rear-to-rear would be an 8-ft

28:28separation.

28:32Um

28:38And it just states that the off-street

28:39parking is required in accordance with

28:41chapter 18.240 of the zoning code.

28:44So, currently what that means is a

28:47dwelling

28:48of less than 1,000 square feet, one

28:51parking space per dwelling is required.

28:53It's over 1,000 square feet, two parking

28:55spaces per dwelling is required.

29:00Excuse me, I neglected to turn on my

29:01phone. Thank you.

29:04Um

29:07So, that is all that I was going to

29:10highlight in this. I will point out that

29:13we included in the packet

29:16the zoning tables with all the changes

29:18in them.

29:20So, this is pretty much all been drafted

29:23at this point.

29:25It'll go to legal. They'll prepare an

29:27ordinance with all of this

29:29all these amendments in an ordinance

29:30format.

29:32So, it'll go to the governing body.

29:36I'd be happy to answer any questions you

29:37might have.

29:39>> All right. Thank you.

29:40Um any questions for

29:42>> one.

29:42>> On and this is includes the short-term

29:44rental section, right?

29:46What we're talking about now?

29:47>> Uh it does, yeah.

29:48>> So, my question is on this uh

29:52requirement to have a manager or

29:54representative of the owner,

29:56this in no way will in your

29:58interpretation affect the owner being

30:00their own manager and property manager

30:03cuz there are a lot of small people who

30:05don't have but maybe one and they're

30:07managing it themselves.

30:09>> Yeah, the intent was that the owner

30:11could manage it themselves.

30:12>> Okay. As long as there's not any

30:14stepping on that cuz

30:15>> And if you think that needs to be

30:17tweaked a little bit

30:18>> bit. I I just don't want that to be uh

30:20forgotten because there are a lot of

30:22people who just have maybe one

30:24themselves and I don't want there to be

30:25a issue later.

30:27>> So, we could just say the owner, a

30:28manager or representative of the owner

30:31shall be available. We could add in the

30:33owner in there.

30:34Yeah.

30:35>> All right.

30:35>> You know, I did want to mention

30:36something else.

30:37>> Mhm.

30:37>> And I neglected to do that.

30:40At the last meeting

30:42uh

30:43Chairman, Madam Chairman, you mentioned

30:45that you thought pawn shops should be

30:46separated from

30:47>> Yes.

30:48>> from uh second hand shops. So, the whole

30:50second hand shops

30:52issue is important to NOTO.

30:54>> Mhm.

30:55>> Cuz part of NOTO is zoned X3, but there

30:58is a pretty long segment of street

31:00that's zoned X1. Second hand shops are

31:03no longer they're not currently allowed.

31:06Uh and

31:08antique stores are kind of an attraction

31:10for NOTO. That's kind of their niche,

31:11right? They That's how they get they get

31:14uh

31:15uh customers and visitors.

31:17So, it's important to them that they

31:19could have antique shops and other

31:21second hand stores

31:22in that north segment of Kansas Avenue.

31:26Um

31:27that's why it's being recommended that

31:29that be allowed in X1. There are other

31:31areas in the city that are zoned X1. It

31:34would It'd be allowed there, too. So,

31:36along Sixth Avenue,

31:38uh

31:38East Sixth Avenue, so east of Think of

31:40East of Branner on Sixth,

31:43and certain parts of uh Sixth Avenue

31:45west

31:46of downtown,

31:48and also in Oakland, there's some X1.

31:51So, the issue of separating pawn shops,

31:53we did look into that. It's kind of

31:55difficult, and I'll explain why. Um

31:58So, we have some experience with other

31:59cities' zoning codes, and based on our

32:02research,

32:04what we found is that pawn shops are

32:05mostly treated as part of general retail

32:07sales. They're treated like any other

32:09retail stores.

32:10>> Mhm.

32:10>> Um

32:12in some at least one jurisdiction that

32:15I'm aware of,

32:16uh

32:17pawn shops are treated like banks or

32:19financial institutions.

32:21So, in that case, they'd be allowed in

32:23office and institutional zoning.

32:25So, if we were to treat them in either

32:27of those

32:28manners,

32:30it would be less restrictive than the

32:31way it is now for pawn shops.

32:34Um I'm not sure how else you'd do it.

32:37There's probably a way to do it.

32:39We just haven't gotten there yet. Staff

32:41has not gotten there yet.

32:43So,

32:44our recommendation is just to include

32:46pawn shops with second hand shops. If

32:48that's something that you feel we need

32:50to look at further, we can do that. Um,

32:53if we were going to try to separate that

32:55tonight, that would be difficult. Um,

32:59it is important

33:00there's some urgency

33:02to allow second hand shops in X-1

33:05right now because of no hotel.

33:07Uh, I

33:08I

33:10told

33:11Mr. Underwood Underwood who testified

33:14previously on this subject that we're

33:16having this meeting tonight. He was out

33:17of town, he couldn't make it.

33:19But, I wanted to mention

33:22that's that's what we looked at.

33:24Didn't quite get where you want us to, I

33:26don't know

33:27if you're concerned about that or

33:29>> For the sake of time, I appreciate you

33:31looking into it. Um, and for the sake of

33:33time for

33:35the situation for this particular

33:36business owner, I don't want to uphold

33:38anything. So, I'm okay with moving

33:39forward if you feel like that's the best

33:41recommendation.

33:42Um, I just was thinking of um,

33:45just

33:47I would I would say I would prefer for

33:48it to be within a zoning where there's a

33:51little bit more restrictions around it

33:53versus

33:54different allowable use where there

33:55isn't as much. So, I'm okay with moving

33:57forward unless someone else has any

33:59comment or opinion on it.

34:02Thank you.

34:03Um, any additional comment?

34:07All right. Well, then we will um,

34:14we don't have any public testimony.

34:16>> You would on this one.

34:17You would ask if anybody wants to

34:19>> Okay. Would anyone like Is anyone here

34:22for public comment?

34:24All right. We will close the public

34:25comment and move to discussion by

34:27commissioners.

34:31All right.

34:33I will take a motion.

34:36>> Motion to approve.

34:41>> Second.

34:44>> [snorts]

34:48>> Mr. Brooks.

34:51>> I.

34:52>> Mr. Bowling.

34:54>> I.

34:55>> Ms. Hannon.

34:56>> I.

34:58>> Ms. Heron.

34:59>> I.

35:00>> Mr. Lolly.

35:01>> I.

35:02>> Ms. Nelson.

35:04>> I.

35:05>> Ms. Pearson.

35:07>> I.

35:09>> The motion is approved 7-0-0.

35:13All right, thank you.

35:14Moving on to action item CPA 2602.

35:19>> Okay, thank you, Madam Chairman, members

35:21of the Commission. So, we have you have

35:24discussed this topic a few times.

35:27This is an update to the Land Use and

35:28Growth Management Plan

35:30to 2040, which was adopted in 2015.

35:35And so, it's been 10 years or more.

35:38It's It's appropriate that it be looked

35:40at for potential updates.

35:46So, there are revisions proposed for

35:48these sections of the Land Use and

35:50Growth Management Plan.

35:53They're intended to reflect how policies

35:55have been interpreted and applied since

35:57the adoption,

36:00particularly related to subdivisions and

36:02plats and annexations.

36:04Update density references to reflect

36:07recent zoning code amendments,

36:10and to encourage adaptive reuse of

36:12vacant and underutilized commercial

36:13properties for multiple family

36:15residential development.

36:19So, the most significant changes to the

36:21text

36:23relate to housing choices on and at the

36:2580/20 rule, annexation of lands or by

36:28rural water districts,

36:30urban suburban low-density residential

36:32land use, flexibility for missing middle

36:34housing,

36:37support redevelopment of commercial

36:38areas for multi-family residential land

36:40use,

36:41and reflect adoption of the downtown

36:43master plan.

36:47So, again, I my intent is not to go

36:50through every one of these slides.

36:52Um

36:54one thing we did do in this

36:57is we included all of the

37:00recommended changes to the future land

37:02use map.

37:03And allow me to remind you the future

37:05land use map

37:07is a general policy.

37:10It's used to guide decisions about

37:12rezoning primarily and conditional use

37:14permits.

37:15Um

37:17it's one factor of several

37:19in a decision to on a zoning change.

37:23Um

37:24it's important, but

37:26I it's

37:28you should not consider the future land

37:30use map the same as a zoning map.

37:33It's a more flexible general policy.

37:37And so, these are all in your

37:40in your uh packet.

37:48So, let me just point this out out as an

37:50example. So, this is 6th and Fairlane.

37:53So, 6th and Fairlane is an interesting

37:55area. There's a quite a mix of land uses

37:57in there from

37:59institutional uses

38:01to

38:03um

38:03office uses

38:05and retail uses. Hotels, quite a mix of

38:09uses.

38:10So,

38:12this changing this to mixed use

38:15for a lot of this area outside that node

38:18is fairly consistent with the land use

38:20pattern that's already there.

38:23Didn't really seem to make sense to

38:25leave that as low-density residential.

38:37So, here's another fairly significant

38:38one. This is at Lake Shawnee.

38:41Uh Lake Shawnee is actually outside of

38:42the city limits, but

38:44uh the area north

38:47north of 29th

38:49east west of Croco is inside city

38:51limits.

38:53South of 29th east of Croco is in city

38:56limits.

38:57The other two corners are not.

38:59So, as you can see, that's that's

39:01converting that to mixed use

39:04where it is currently.

39:12And

39:13I'm just here to answer any questions

39:15you have at this point.

39:17>> All right. Thank you.

39:18Um any questions for staff?

39:22>> Are you wanting us to approve this?

39:24>> Yeah, so

39:26uh a public this requires a public

39:28hearing cuz it's a comprehensive plan

39:29amendment. Public hearing's been

39:31advertised. So, you would hold a public

39:33hearing, ask if anyone's here to testify

39:36on this matter, speak to this matter,

39:39and then

39:40uh

39:41move to make a recommendation to the

39:42governing body.

39:43>> I have a question on that. Land north of

39:4629th and west of

39:48Croco, how far west does that go that

39:51you're proposing that?

39:52>> Uh so, it goes to the residential

39:55subdivision that's to the west.

39:58>> Is it just a straight line?

40:02Let me see what the north-south cross

40:03street there is.

40:04>> So, that

40:06a lot of that land in the back

40:09has not been fully built out. There are

40:11some vacant pieces of land back there.

40:13It's actually the zoning is PUD. It's a

40:16of office and retail.

40:20Again, that kind of

40:22that's consistent with a mixed-use

40:24uh

40:24designation.

40:28There's office and retail that fronts on

40:30there. So, if you kind of kind of just

40:32to give you a picture of where you're

40:34at, um if you see on the right side

40:36where that arrow points down,

40:39that's pointing at the

40:41at the uh Dollar General Store.

40:43>> Okay.

40:44>> And just immediately to the west of that

40:45is the dialysis clinic.

40:48Kidney dialysis clinic.

40:52>> Commissioners, I want to point out the

40:54existing

40:56land use plan has a strip commercial

40:59designation kind of along

41:00>> Yeah.

41:01>> 29th Street.

41:03Um so, what this is doing is really

41:06being a little more flexible about

41:08things and calling it mixed-use cuz

41:10that's what it is. There's still some

41:11vacant land in there.

41:13Uh the strip commercial doesn't really

41:15help address kind of the stuff that's

41:17north of there. So, it's really kind of

41:19making things a little more flexible.

41:21>> Mhm.

41:22Now, I've just heard a lot of people

41:24talk about that land north of 29th

41:26that's vacant all along there that

41:28>> Mhm.

41:29>> that's got the residential attached to

41:32it there.

41:33Like it's never probably going to get to

41:35be that way.

41:36Residential-wise, I think.

41:41>> Who has been invited to review this

41:43besides us tonight?

41:48>> Planning Commission. This is uh fairly

41:52this isn't a full policy change to this

41:55document. It's an update to certain

41:57elements of the plan. So, it's really

42:00been staff in the Planning Commission

42:02that's working through the update.

42:03>> Is there not I Is tonight the only

42:06chance for public input?

42:08>> So, you've had this on your agenda uh

42:10month and it was on uh the agenda

42:14um sometime

42:17last year, I believe. So, it's been on

42:18multiple planning commission agendas

42:20including tonight.

42:23>> I'm

42:24um

42:26I did miss last meeting. So, if this was

42:28distributed at last meeting, my

42:30apologies for not getting into it a

42:32little bit deeper. Um

42:35but this is a lot of information to

42:38digest in 15 minutes or less.

42:43>> Yeah, so

42:44what has been in the previous meetings?

42:46In fact, uh uh

42:48I think the earlier discussion meeting

42:50was a year ago.

42:52>> Mhm.

42:52>> And there have been There's actually

42:55been very little change since then.

42:57Um

42:58and then everything that's in the packet

43:01tonight was at the previous meeting with

43:03the exception of all these

43:05future land use map changes. But that

43:08was a lot of that was uh presented

43:11a year ago.

43:14I'm a little confused if there have been

43:15two previous meetings or three previous

43:17meetings, but there have been at least

43:18two.

43:20>> Two, one last year.

43:22>> One last year and the last meeting we

43:25presented this for discussion.

43:28>> And then it's twice.

43:30>> That That was at the September meeting.

43:33>> Okay. So, I wasn't here for that

43:34meeting. So, again, I apologize if I

43:36missed something. I don't feel

43:38comfortable voting on this tonight.

43:40I don't know if anyone else does, but

43:42again, this is a lot of information and

43:44yes, I understand it's been presented

43:46before. But it just feels like if this

43:49is going to be our And I realize it's

43:51not a firm, dead, you know, we've got to

43:54live and die by it, but even its

43:55flexibility, [clears throat] if we don't

43:57understand it, and I'm not sure how we

43:59can implement it. So,

44:01I personally will be abstaining.

44:06>> So, Commissioners, one thing I would

44:08point out is we're not necessarily in a

44:11hurry with this. So, if it if the body

44:14wants to

44:15table this till the next month to allow

44:17more time to review it, that's

44:19completely up to the body. I will just

44:21say staff is

44:23you know, we can be flexible on this

44:25item.

44:26>> Yeah.

44:26>> Yeah, there were quite a few

44:27commissioners I feel like absent from

44:29the last meeting. Um so, I'll leave it

44:32up to the group, but I'm okay with

44:34postponing voting on it till next

44:36meeting. Um

44:37depending upon the commissioners, I'd

44:39like to hear your input.

44:41>> What does our agenda look like for our

44:42next meeting?

44:43>> Fairly light, so you'll have parking

44:46uh discussion, and uh if this comes

44:49back, that would be the second thing on

44:51the agenda.

44:54>> Yeah, and if you if you vote to continue

44:56this to the next meeting,

44:59and you say it's going to be continued

45:01to that meeting, we do not have to

45:02advertise a public hearing again.

45:06>> Commissioner Brooks, you were going to

45:07say something.

45:08>> Uh

45:09>> [clears throat]

45:10>> a couple things. I wasn't here last

45:11meeting either, so

45:12>> Mhm.

45:13>> like scrolling and um

45:17so, apologies if this has been already

45:19hashed through, but there's in the urban

45:21growth area policies

45:24page 22, um

45:27it's talking about annex annexation is

45:29required for city water and sewer

45:31service with some ex-

45:33exceptions.

45:35Can you explain that addition

45:38a little more?

45:41>> Yeah.

45:44>> So,

45:46the

45:47back in 2015, commissioner, back in

45:492015, the

45:51um policy was adopted, and we adopted

45:55changes to the subdivision and utility

45:57regulations, as well. So,

45:59the subdivision regulations were amended

46:02to

46:03um,

46:04reflect the new, uh, planning exemption

46:08uh, rules and

46:11the utility regulations were amended to,

46:14um, make it a little more clear that um,

46:17there are some exemptions to annexation

46:21and platting. So, the utility regs allow

46:24certain exemptions to annexation for

46:26property outside the city. Uh, they're

46:29very specific exemptions

46:31and, um, they most specifically

46:33generally have to do with, specifically

46:36generally, have to do with,

46:38um,

46:39more often than not it's these one lot,

46:42um,

46:44residential plats or or maybe they don't

46:47need a plat and, um, but yeah, there are

46:50certain cer- certain circumstances where

46:52annexation's not necessarily going to be

46:54required. Um, if not, we require them to

46:57consent

46:59and, uh, and generally, uh, plat.

47:02>> Okay. Uh,

47:04second question.

47:06Um, so,

47:08this, in 2015, we called it the 2040

47:12land use and growth management plan, is

47:14that right?

47:16>> Yes.

47:17>> Um, you know, 10 years later,

47:21why would why not call it 2050?

47:25>> Because, Commissioner, uh, this is a a

47:28minor minor series

47:30>> It's about dates. That's fair. Yeah.

47:31Okay. And, um,

47:35>> this should not be considered a major

47:37policy change.

47:38>> Yeah.

47:38>> The adoption, there are some little

47:39tweaks that affect that could affect

47:42>> Mhm.

47:43>> But, primarily it's how

47:46it reflects decisions that have been

47:47made.

47:48>> Yeah. No, I understand.

47:49>> Yeah.

47:49>> So, it makes me ask the question, you

47:51know, in 2015, there was 25 years of

47:55foresight and vision.

47:57Um, right now there's only 14.

48:00Uh, you know, I I think there's more

48:02than that, but

48:03>> Mhm.

48:03>> it says 2040. What what's At what point

48:06does it become more than 2040? Do you

48:09in 2030 is the plan or 2035 or you going

48:12to wait till 2040? What what's your

48:14vision there?

48:16>> Well, that's a good question,

48:17Commissioner.

48:18>> [laughter]

48:22>> I don't I don't know. Good question. I

48:24would think, you know, we'd definitely

48:27look at it again.

48:29What's the plan says it's 10 10 years is

48:32it the update or is it

48:34But anyway, we'd at least do that.

48:36Um, and then maybe at that point we need

48:38to

48:40you know, think about

48:42kind of redoing the document, so to

48:44speak. Um,

48:45you know, are the

48:47policies,

48:49you know,

48:50still relevant? Um, I think they are

48:52very much still relevant everything

48:54that's in this thing. Uh, but at that

48:56point in time we can

48:58you know, I think we I I definitely

49:00think the next time we look at it we

49:01should consider something.

49:02>> Would it um

49:05Is there Is it worth putting anything in

49:06here to say by, you know, 2035

49:10you'll

49:11you know, rehash

49:13you know, reforecast, revision, whatever

49:15you want to call it for

49:18another big change? Um

49:21just so that there's some kind of

49:23mechanism in place that forces everybody

49:26to hey, let's sit back and think big

49:28picture here.

49:30>> Commissioner, yeah, I think that's a

49:31good idea to have a queue in here.

49:34Um, if this gets tabled, we can

49:37uh, think about where that goes and what

49:39that time period

49:41>> Yeah.

49:41>> Um, should be.

49:43>> Okay.

49:44Will you also be scheduling the annual

49:46updates and reviews of the plan at that

49:48point as well?

49:52>> Uh, Commissioner, we can certainly look

49:54at that. Um, if, you know,

49:57if we don't really change much here, I'm

50:01not sure what we can what we do

50:02annually, but yeah, we can we can look

50:04at doing that. I'm just trying to think

50:07through what an annual

50:09maybe it's a report to the commission on

50:11the comp plan. Um,

50:13that's something we can do because we

50:15update neighborhood plans and those are

50:18all part of the comp plan. So, maybe

50:19it's not this document so much as it's

50:21just a report on the comp plan.

50:23Um,

50:24every year.

50:24>> I I just I was thinking by law we should

50:27be doing that yearly.

50:30>> Sure, we can look at that, Commissioner.

50:31>> Thank you.

50:35All right. Any further discussion?

50:39All right. So, I will open it up for uh,

50:42public testimony.

50:45All right. Seeing none, I will close

50:46public uh, the public hearing and move

50:49to further discussion by Commissioners.

50:52Commissioner Bowling?

50:53>> Yeah, I I like uh,

50:59his idea about uh, putting something in

51:02there to force us to re-look at it cuz 5

51:05years goes by.

51:07Look how much Wanamaker changed in 5

51:09years.

51:10And

51:11and then there's all sorts of open and

51:13closed and

51:14someone's bought Westridge Mall and

51:16redeveloping Westridge Mall. So, there's

51:18a lot of changes and things don't always

51:21grow the way the city thought it might,

51:23you know, just because somebody comes in

51:26and investors come in and put money in

51:29places that we didn't really think they

51:30might and that changes the way things

51:33develop in my opinion, but

51:39>> Thank you. Any additional discussion?

51:44All right.

51:45I will take a motion.

51:50>> I'll move to um

51:53delay

51:54a month for a vote.

51:58>> Second.

52:07>> Mr. Brooks?

52:08>> I.

52:10>> Mr. Bowling?

52:11>> I.

52:12>> Ms. Hanan?

52:13>> I.

52:15>> Ms. Heron?

52:15>> I.

52:17>> Mr. Lolley?

52:18>> I.

52:19>> Ms. Nelson?

52:21>> I.

52:22>> Ms. Pearson?

52:23>> I.

52:25>> And this will be um

52:27moved to delay vote approved 7-0-0.

52:31Thank you.

52:32Um moving on to report from special

52:35committee on housing. We actually have

52:37not met. Um one of the things we talked

52:39about at our last meeting, we didn't

52:41have enough people for a quorum. Um with

52:43maybe moving to a more maybe quarterly

52:46time frame or really just evaluating if

52:48there's anything else we can do from a

52:50planning perspective to improve um you

52:53know, housing in the city um and just

52:56not meeting to meet. So, we'll see um

52:59look for an email coming out in the next

53:01uh month to see what the future of

53:02that's going to be.

53:04Um and then now we will move to general

53:08public comment.

53:13And

53:15is it Katherine Andrus?

53:20Okay.

53:21Moving on to Megan Ryan.

53:24>> [laughter]

53:30>> Good evening, everyone. Thank you all

53:32for your time. I am Megan Ryan with

53:34Protect Kansas. So, I know data centers

53:37are not on the agenda tonight, but as

53:39part of this, we're working to continue

53:41the education. So, I have a masters in

53:43public health from K U Med. I am kind of

53:46talking about your role, right? Because

53:49zoning and code enforcement,

53:52uh emissions control, environmental

53:54exposure, this is all public health. All

53:56right? And you play such an important

53:59role in protecting our community. And

54:02so, one of those aspects is the location

54:05of where these facilities are being

54:07proposed. So, we identified the firing

54:11range where the compass is proposed as

54:14um a lead issue, right? And I emailed

54:16that public comment, explained how the

54:19lead exposure specifically

54:22for the children of Bonterra will be

54:24exacerbated by additional lead exposure

54:26by the uh soil and construction

54:30disturbing that ground. It's not limited

54:33to only lead exposure, right? So, it

54:36turns out the EPA is rolling back a lot

54:39of regulations.

54:41As a reminder,

54:43regulations are written in blood. There

54:46is a reason for each and every one of

54:48these rules. And it takes a lot of pain

54:51and a lot of sorrow for us to get to

54:53that point. So, we talk about rolling

54:55back these regulations.

54:58What's an example? Well, they're

55:00identifying Superfund sites and brown

55:03sites as

55:05zones for data centers, right? There's

55:08issues with remediation in those areas.

55:11And they say, "Oh, well, you know, this

55:13heavy duty

55:14um industrial facility can go right on

55:16there. They can deal with it. They can

55:18clean it up."

55:20Why is that already an issue, right? Why

55:22is that not alre- already remediated?

55:25Because of corporate greed. Because they

55:26pass this buck. This is part of this

55:28corporate welfare. So, when we roll back

55:31these these um regulations, we pay for

55:34that, right? For every dollar that

55:36corporates

55:38conglomerates and whatever sell save,

55:41the public pays $6. Right, we pay for

55:44that

55:45for that loss. And so, when we're

55:48rolling those back and pushing for those

55:50sites, what does that mean? What does

55:51that mean in terms of human suffering?

55:54Right, so they've identified the MTAA

55:56Forbes Field as one of opportunity as

55:58well, like another brown site, right?

56:00Because it's been contaminated that soil

56:02from the runoff from the diesel,

56:05uh also with the compass. So, they're

56:06looking around all of these areas.

56:09Okay. So, now we're stirring up

56:11contaminated soil.

56:14There are children

56:17that live with less than a mile away.

56:20Our most vulnerable. One of our lowest

56:24um

56:26our poorest community, to be frank. And

56:28I'm not going to dice those words,

56:30right? And so, we are seeing that these

56:33communities are specifically being

56:35targeted as sacrifice zones, right? Our

56:38communities of low income, our

56:40marginalized communities, our places

56:42like Montera, right? We are sacrificing

56:45them for the greater good. So, when we

56:46talk about public health, identifying

56:49what the true cost is, right? Oh, well,

56:52EPA says that's okay.

56:55What they are doing is putting us at

56:57risk. So, when we were deciding these

56:59locations, right? Last week I said,

57:01"Hey." Or last month I said, "Hey, would

57:03you choose to build an elementary school

57:07so close to a 600 MW facility, 840 MW of

57:12diesel constantly burning, releasing

57:14nitrogen dioxide, releasing small

57:16particulate matter, increasing the

57:17asthma, increasing rates of

57:19early mortality? That means more people

57:22are dying. This is a real cost, and it

57:25is not fair to put that cost on our

57:27poorest community members that are not

57:29going to benefit from this economically.

57:32Thank you.

57:36Um calling up Kristen Capel.

57:44Alexander Lope.

57:50Amy Gillette.

57:53>> You're competing with MTAA tonight.

57:56>> [laughter]

57:57>> All right, thank you. Thank you. Well,

57:59then um

58:00seeing no one will close the public

58:02comment. Up.

58:03Did you sign up?

58:04>> 1:30

58:07I believe.

58:10>> Um well, we had some cancellations, so

58:12you're more than welcome to come up.

58:15Just keep your comments to 4 minutes.

58:20>> I'm going to read the speech fast

58:20enough.

58:22My name is Mike Bradley. Uh I live in

58:23Monterra and I'm a former private pilot.

58:27At present time, we are aware of the

58:28Compass data center proposal on 77th

58:31Street and an introduction to a data

58:33center on the south side of Topeka south

58:35side of the Topeka Regional Airport. If

58:38fully developed, both data centers would

58:39be hyperscale data centers.

58:42The Topeka Planning Division

58:44coordinates, as I understand, regional

58:46planning for all modes of transportation

58:49including areas in the county within 3

58:51miles of the city.

58:53Topeka Regional Airport is within 3

58:55miles of the city

58:57as are both these possible data centers.

59:01Um Topeka Regional Airport is a joint

59:04civilian military airport that handles

59:06corporate

59:07aviation, general aviation, and Kansas

59:10Air National Guard units. This airport

59:12is an important transportation and

59:14economic engine of the city and county.

59:17I have concerns that the hyperscale data

59:19centers with their accompanying cooling

59:21towers and resulting thermal plumes

59:24would not be compatible with safe

59:25airport operations and aircraft in the

59:28Topeka Regional Airport air traffic

59:30area.

59:31Data center air-cooled condenser arrays

59:34and rooftop exhaust stacks eject

59:36superheated air often 14 to 25° above

59:39ambient temperature.

59:41Land use planning around an airport

59:43should account for impacts to aviation

59:46from facilities that produce atmospheric

59:48interference such as thermal plumes.

59:51The FAA has determined thermal plumes

59:53can disrupt flight in the vicinity of an

59:55airport. Thermal plumes pose Thermal

59:57plumes pose unique hazards during

1:00:00critical low altitude phases of flight,

1:00:02specifically takeoff, landing, and

1:00:04maneuvering within the airport traffic

1:00:06pattern.

1:00:07The severity of a thermal plume depends

1:00:09on heavily on stack height, discharge

1:00:12velocity, and how close the facility is

1:00:14to the active path flight paths.

1:00:17Area land use planning should take into

1:00:19account industrial growth that may pose

1:00:21a hazard to air traffic moving within

1:00:24the Class D Topeka Regional Airport

1:00:26airspace.

1:00:29FAA Circuit Advisory Circular

1:00:32150/5190-4B,

1:00:35titled Airport Land Use Compatibility

1:00:38Planning, states in part, "This advisory

1:00:40circular is intended for diverse

1:00:42audience including airport management,

1:00:45local and regional land use planners

1:00:47that are focused on transportation and

1:00:48economic development, local elected and

1:00:52appointed officials, and describes the

1:00:54major incompatible land uses that

1:00:56conflict with or impacted by operations

1:00:59at local public use airports including

1:01:01hazards to safe navigation to and from

1:01:05the airport such as smoke, steam, and

1:01:07other atmospheric interfering

1:01:09interference emanating from nearby land

1:01:11uses that airports

1:01:13that accept federal money through the

1:01:15Airport Improvement Program such as

1:01:17Topeka Regional Airport must comply with

1:01:21uh all

1:01:22>> [clears throat]

1:01:22>> must comply with all FAA granted

1:01:25assurances including compatible land

1:01:27use.

1:01:28One hyper scale scale data center is

1:01:31planned for the Topeka Regional Airport

1:01:33grounds. The other is within 3 mi of the

1:01:36Topeka Regional Airport and is on a line

1:01:38to the approach and departure traffic of

1:01:40runway 3/21.

1:01:43My presumption is that this planning

1:01:45commission will in due course, in order

1:01:48to verify compliance with all FAA grant

1:01:51assurances, consult with the FAA as to

1:01:53whether the FAA considers thermal plumes

1:01:56or any other aspects of these data

1:01:58centers to be possible air traffic

1:02:00hazards to aircraft moving within the

1:02:02air traffic pattern of Topeka Regional

1:02:05Airport.

1:02:06Hazards posed by these data centers,

1:02:08whether thermal plume turbulence to air

1:02:10traffic, noise and air pollution to the

1:02:12already established residential and

1:02:14agriculture community, watershed

1:02:17contamination hazards, or the myriad of

1:02:19other hazards,

1:02:21>> All your time

1:02:21>> establishes that these data centers

1:02:23constitute a variety of harms to the

1:02:25community area community and are not in

1:02:28the public interest. And thank you.

1:02:30>> All right, thank you.

1:02:31All right, we will now close public

1:02:33comment and move to communications to

1:02:36the commission.

1:02:38>> Commissioners, as noted earlier, you'll

1:02:41have two items on your agenda

1:02:44for February, an action item and a

1:02:47discussion on parking.

1:02:50Um, I think um,

1:02:52you'll be getting a we're we're working

1:02:55to appoint the um, the vacant position

1:02:58on the commission and hopefully that

1:03:00will get

1:03:01worked through the system over the next

1:03:04month or so. Um, so you might have a new

1:03:06member next month, you might not. I

1:03:07don't we'll we'll we'll see.

1:03:09Um, besides that, I don't think I have

1:03:11anything else.

1:03:13>> Um, will the duplex text amendment be

1:03:15going to council tomorrow or

1:03:20>> Good question commissioner. No, November

1:03:2210th is the day for the

1:03:25the duplex text amendment.

1:03:27The governing body.

1:03:29>> All right, thank you.

1:03:31All right, oh commissioner Brooks.

1:03:33>> So

1:03:34just want to say thanks to the gentleman

1:03:36for your comments. Um

1:03:40that made sense to me.

1:03:42Um

1:03:43So is that something you guys will look

1:03:46into to see if the FAA has any issues

1:03:48with

1:03:49data centers in their proximity to an

1:03:52airport?

1:03:53Cuz I I think the logic makes sense. Now

1:03:56the FAA may look at it and rule that

1:03:58it's fine, but I think that's worth

1:04:01hunting down.

1:04:02And maybe you guys aren't responsible

1:04:04for that, but so

1:04:07>> I think two answers to the question. So

1:04:09it's true we have three mile authority

1:04:12beyond the city boundary, but that's for

1:04:14planning. It's not for zoning, it's not

1:04:17for planning. So it's strictly a

1:04:19subdivision

1:04:20um

1:04:21but so I don't think we're we're not

1:04:24going to do that. So our regulations

1:04:26won't apply we can look at it for the

1:04:28city's regulations and where we the city

1:04:30might be adjacent to an airport, but it

1:04:33wouldn't specifically apply to

1:04:36either of those two data centers that

1:04:38are being discussed currently.

1:04:41>> So the comments to the gentleman you

1:04:43were hunting down the wrong trail. You

1:04:44need to talk to the county is what

1:04:46you're saying.

1:04:47>> Absolutely.

1:05:07>> So the so the city's

1:05:10text amendment for data centers is we've

1:05:13discussed that here a few times

1:05:16and will be coming back at some point,

1:05:18but we need to explain what you've been

1:05:20doing to the governing body at some

1:05:23point before it comes back here. So

1:05:27I'm not sure when those amendments are

1:05:28coming back, but they they should at

1:05:31some point, but you will not see those

1:05:32until after we present it to the

1:05:34governing body.

1:05:36>> Okay, thanks.

1:05:37>> I guess

1:05:39>> One question I had then is if the city

1:05:41thinks about annexing

1:05:43those properties

1:05:45then what happens?

1:05:49>> So the city's regulations would apply to

1:05:51property that's been annexed, but if

1:05:55Yeah, that's that's the answer

1:05:57basically. So if the city annexes any

1:05:59property then the regulations of the

1:06:01city apply at that point.

1:06:08>> If no further comment, I'll move to

1:06:10adjourn.

1:06:13No, okay.

1:06:14Roger.