January 14, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes

City of Goodland Planning Commission Minutes

1/14/2025

  1. CALL TO ORDER:

The January 14, 2025 meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Planning commissioners in attendance: Matt McKenzie, Grady Bonsall, Mary Ellen Coumerilh and Wallace Hansen.  Dennis Snethen was absent.  Staff in attendance: Zach Hildebrand, Building Official, Kent Brown, City Manager and Joshua Jordan, IT Director.    

2. Public Comment

There was no public comment

Chairman McKenzie said we have some discussion items and there was quite a bit of stuff in the packet. City Manager Brown stated that staff had been contacted by an applicant who wanted to use a portion of their floor area to sell adult sex toys or adult novelties.  When staff looked it up in the code, it is interesting.  The difference between what is written in the definitions and the use standards contradicts.  It is included in the Planning Commission Communication Form included in the packet and the additional memo from Barb with Community Matters that staff received in time for the meeting and was placed at your chair for this meeting.  I will be going over Barb’s memo. 

The definitions section of the current code go over contain rules about including how much of an adult use is allowed. Which really shouldn’t be in the definition – we’ve gone over that previously. But then in the use standards, it specifies that an adult entertainment use in item C is prohibited in all zoning districts in the City of Goodland and the unincorporated planning area and goes on to describe any sort of building.  Kent then reviewed the next section of Barb’s memo. Staff did not know where they got the criteria for 30% of gross receipts or 30% or more of it’s floor area. Commissioner Coumerilh asked if this is their first store in Kansas.  Kent stated that they stated they had 3 other locations in Kansas which staff did not know if that is just regarding their main business, vaping and smoke shop.  The vape and smoke shop moved into the old Conoco between Arby’s and Subway.  We did not know where the 30% rules come from but then the code says it is prohibited.  This is a problem because a Kansas State Statute stated adult uses must be allowed in at least one municipal zone district. This is based on a Supreme Court ruling that municipalities cannot completely ban adult uses since it would infringe upon First Amendment rights. Kent stated now that you can do other things which make it difficult to set up the business.  Kent stated that staff did not understand why the prohibition for this type of business was in the code since the Court ruling occurred several decades ago before this version of the zoning code was passed just over 20 years ago.  

So our questions for the Commission is how you want to address this? And Barb provides a couple different options both for the definitions and about which zone district and do you include other rules or restrictions. There are examples from other cities that provide licensing or other things that raise the barrier a little bit higher.

Commissioner Coumerilh reported on a business on Main Street that had a back room over 25 years ago that was involved in this type of business.  She stated that this can be a dangerous concern for the community.  Commissioner Coumerilh was glad to have found the City of Newton, Kansas, code that helped her with her thoughts on some of the requirements included there. Since the licensing requirements were on the individual employee as well as the owner, the process to keep the employees licensed continually if there are new employees would be a hindrance. Coumerilh liked the code of Newton and that they are in a similar situation being on the interstate.

After further discussion, McKenzie stated that people do have 1st amendment rights. Whether we like it or not, it’s not our job. I think we have to find an avenue. I look at it differently on the I70 corridor. I don’t want it on Main Street. The one idea of having it further out and we have some additional conditions.  It’s not likely that young kids are going to find a way to that part of town on their own without an adult. The thing I look at is how do we protect our community. I like the idea of distance requirements.

Kent stated staff is just asking for input and can bring back a proposal that can receive serious consideration. We’re going to present this as well at the city commission just to get a little feedback.  So that if we do have a text amendment ordinance, we get a little feedback ahead of time before it is up for approval.  There’s 2 things to address. One is the definitions, the second is what zone should it be in and what restrictions attached to zoning designation. 

With the definitions, Barb’s memo stated that option 1 if all types of adult entertainment are going to be disallowed in all zone districts but one, then use a simple definition.  Option 2 is if an adult bookstore or novelty store is allowed, then use a definition that mirrors the definition currently in the code but limits the type of establishment. Chairman McKenzie asked if there is any reason to support the 30% designation.  Kent stated that staff has not come across anything. McKenzie stated what worries him about using the 30% designation is something that could be challenged in court.  In addition, with the other text amendments, we’ve been trying to get rules out of the section on definitions. McKenzie stated he leans more towards option 1 rather than painting ourselves into a corner with a number that no one can explain how we set that criteria. Moreover, we are not creating another job for Zach to check and enforce the criteria.

Zach stated it would be better to not have all the different types grouped into one definition. That way we can keep out what we don’t want and make it extremely difficult to get licensed and for a different definition, it’s not as difficult to do. Commissioner Coumerilh questioned compliance. Zach stated that it’s just not fair for businesses to be told they can’t sell something when WalMart is already selling it.  Kent stated that’s the part regarding definitions; but, that might not be the first question that needs to be answered. The options presented on page 3 of Barb’s memo include whether to limit it to one zone or do we do a conditional use review. McKenzie stated that the nice thing about limiting it to one zone and having a conditional use review is that there has to be a conversation. They have to come here and present. Then we can approve it or disapprove it. I like that because we are not saying no on paper. We’re saying come talk to us and based on the stipulations we may approve it or not.

Kent stated that the hard part about our current zoning is that the zoning for K-27 and Highway24 is the same zoning for 17th St., the very south end of Main St. and Caldwell. Zach stated that’s a big part of where like distance limitations have an effect. Discussion followed on distance regulations. Commissioner Hansen asked whether it could be built in the county.  He also stated he was not in favor of the application.  Kent said they haven’t completed an application yet. At this point, they could take their business to outside the city limits.  After discussion, McKenzie stated that we can’t have our code say absolutely not.  We have to at least the applicant to apply. 

Commissioner Bonsall brought up a concern regarding signage. Zach stated that could be part of the limitations on the business.  Commissioner Coumerilh said that we should put the distance as far as we can. Especially to the ballfields in that area.  McKenzie referred back to the memo which included an example from Black Hawk and how they allowed it in the Mining district. He continued that we probably need to talk to Jake, City Attorney, on distance requirements. Zach stated he did some measuring and if there was a 1,000 feet requirement from any residential zone it would eliminate any of the downtown commercial, 17th St. or Caldwell from any possibility of being allowed there.  Only the parcels out on the highway would be allowed.  It still would be 1500 feet to the ballfields from the parcels. 

McKenzie summarized the discussion by saying for the definitions, go with the simple one. And then for Section 19-502, we can pick C-1 Commercial with the distancing requirement, licensing requirement, no outside indication of use should be included.  All of those restrictions to the maximum level should be included. McKenzie stated it is not an easy decision. I want to do what’s right under the law but I also want to protect our town.  

Kent stated these are the sections of the city code to add Plat Amendment and also Plat Correction procedures.  We went over this at our last meeting and said staff would bring it back in Ordinance form. If it’s appropriate, would need the Planning Commission to set a public hearing date which would be at the next meeting on February 11. Kent stated that the plat amendment would allow just one final process, the final plat, in order to carry out a lot split.  The plat correction is if there was a minor mistake or an omission on the final plat, an administrative process could be done to approve a plat correction.  McKenzie moved, seconded by Coumerilh, to set the public hearing at the next meeting on February 11 on the proposed ordinance to add plat amendment and plat correction procedures to the subdivision regulations.  Motion carried unanimously.   

Kent said that the Commissioners had brought this up at the end of last meeting.  Staff didn’t know if you wanted additional discussion or whether you wanted staff to investigate and present additional guidelines or rules. McKenzie reviewed the locations where they had recently been put.  Kent stated it is a way to build storage quickly.  The problem is 5 years down the road, is the appearance going to be an issue. Commissioner Bonsall stated we could put a requirement that it has to be attached.  There could also be a requirement that there’s some uniformity in the way it looks. Kent brought up the issue of visual impairment at the street corners.  He said that is one comment heard from various people.  McKenzie stated we need to come up with some guidelines.  I don’t know if it is going to slow down for the installation of additional storage units.

Commissioner Bonsall had nothing to report. 

Commissioner Coumerilh had nothing to report. 

Commissioner Hansen had a question on the property at 10th/Kansas.  Cooper had bought the property and torn it down over on 16th.  But what is the status of the property at the southwest corner of 10th/Kansas.  Zach stated that the owner was trying to sell it at the end of the year.  Nothing has been reported.  It is on top of the demolition properties.  Kent said we have quite a few properties around town and it doesn’t seem to decrease the list.  It just has to be on top of the priority list. 

Commissioner Coumerilh had a question on a couple storage units if they were defective.  Kent stated it would have to meet the definition if it had holes, etc.  Zach stated we put something in the design standards for manufactured or modular homes which the storage units would technically fall under that category.    

Chairman McKenzie had nothing to report. 

Building Official Zach Hildebrand stated he had a few conversations with people talking about a development.  Smaller housing types from 600 square feet to 900 square feet. They’re still in the planning stages so nothing to get too excited about but there has been discussion.  Commissioner Bonsall asked about location.  Zach said there is no specific location. Wherever they can get land at this point.  It is the same people that can help people get ADU’s (accessory dwelling units) if they want ADU’s.  

City Manager Kent Brown asked if they would like the school district to present on their project to add on to the high school and request to change the traffic flow for one block of Cherry St. Chairman McKenzie replied that would be good. 

Chairman Bonsall moved, seconded by Commissioner Hansen, to approve the November 12 minutes as presented.  Motion carried unanimously.  

Commissioner Coumerilh moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Bonsall.  Motion passed unanimously.  The meeting was adjourned at 6:41 p.m.

Contact Us

Important Information

Community Links

Skip to content