[0:03] >> like to call the meeting to

[0:05] order.

[0:06] please join me in the pledge of

[0:07] allegiance.

[0:09] >> I pledge allegiance to the

[0:10] flag of the united states of

[0:11] america and to the republic, for

[0:12] which it stands, one nation,

[0:13] under god, indivisible, with

[0:14] liberty and justice for all.

[0:32] >> we begin and acknowledge we

[0:33] have a quorum of planning

[0:35] commissioners present with seven

[0:37] of nine commissioners in

[0:39] attendance.

[0:40] commissioner corcoran and

[0:41] seeling were unable to join this

[0:43] evening.

[0:44] I want to thank everyone in the

[0:46] chamber and watching online for

[0:47] attending this meeting.

[0:49] planning commission meetings are

[0:51] a important part of the process

[0:52] for interpreting and applying

[0:54] the city comprehensive plan and

[0:56] the unified development

[0:57] ordinance.

[0:59] it is important the meetings are

[1:02] conducted with dignity and

[1:03] respect and applies to every

[1:04] person in attendance.

[1:07] we strive to provide where ideas

[1:10] in held in the regard.

[1:13] the actions are ultimately under

[1:16] the responsibility of the city

[1:17] council.

[1:18] as a planning commissioner, we

[1:19] are here to help the council as

[1:20] the elected representatives to

[1:22] be fully informed so they can

[1:24] make the best choices for our

[1:25] city.

[1:27] by statute, the planning

[1:28] commission strives not to engage

[1:31] with any parties with the issue

[1:33] prior to the meeting.

[1:34] should the interaction take

[1:35] place as a result of a business

[1:36] relationship or any other

[1:38] interaction, referred to as ex

[1:41] parte communication,

[1:42] commissioners will report that

[1:43] interaction when we reach that

[1:45] item in the agenda.

[1:47] we'll move to the consents

[1:49] agenda.

[1:50] this evening we have four items

[1:51] on consent.

[1:53] consent agenda items are listed

[1:55] and considered routine by the

[1:57] planning commission and may be

[1:58] approved in one motion.

[2:00] there is no public hearing on

[2:01] any of these issue and no

[2:06] discussion unless an item is

[2:08] removed from the consent agenda.

[2:13] commissioners anything that

[2:14] needs to be pulled for

[2:15] additional information or

[2:16] questions of staff?

[2:18] >> mr. Chairman, I like to pull

[2:22] item b.

[2:23] >> okay.

[2:26] commissioner bergida pulled item

[2:31] b from consent agenda.

[2:32] anything else?

[2:33] if not, I will entertain a

[2:35] motion on the remaining three

[2:36] items.

[2:38] >> mr. Chair, I move to approve

[2:39] items a, c and d on consent

[2:43] agenda.

[2:44] >> thank you.

[2:45] all in favor say aye.

[2:46] opposed, nay.

[2:48] that motion passes 7-0.

[2:53] commissioner bergida.

[2:56] >> thank you mr. Chair.

[2:57] quick question for staff.

[3:03] first off, thank you for all the

[3:05] materials that you pulled

[3:07] together on this.

[3:08] I just had one quick question.

[3:10] on the animal shelter, I

[3:14] understand last year we approved

[3:16] it for $25 million and current

[3:18] balance is $14 million on that.

[3:20] has $11 million been spent or

[3:24] what is the status on that?

[3:25] >> yeah, so the total proposed

[3:27] project amount for the animal

[3:29] shelter is revised from $25

[3:30] million to $19 million.

[3:33] >> was there cost savings that

[3:35] came into play or why the

[3:36] reduction?

[3:37] >> we are currently reevaluating

[3:39] the project in entirety, and

[3:42] probably will provide further

[3:43] details at a later date.

[3:45] >> okay.

[3:46] thank you.

[3:48] for the record, I just based on

[3:51] our conversation we had couple

[3:54] weeks ago with the starfish

[3:55] project, I just like the record

[3:57] to show for council, there is a

[3:58] lot of folks that are going

[4:00] through a tough time right now

[4:01] and so, I appreciate staff

[4:04] making those adjustments and

[4:06] encourage council to even make

[4:08] more if possible on that

[4:10] particular item.

[4:12] thank you.

[4:13] >> thank you.

[4:15] we did have pulled for

[4:17] discussion.

[4:18] we'll have a roll call vote on

[4:19] that.

[4:21] if I entertain a motion, please.

[4:26] >> mr. Chair, I move to approve

[4:27] item b on the consent agenda.

[4:30] >> thank you commissioner breen.

[4:31] second?

[4:32] >> second.

[4:33] >> thank you.

[4:36] [roll call]

[4:45] >> motion passes 7-0.

[4:48] >> thank you.

[4:49] we'll move to our regular

[4:50] business.

[4:53] we have six scheduled public

[4:55] hearings.

[4:56] however, the first four public

[4:58] hearings this evening are

[5:00] continuance has been requested.

[5:02] when a continuance is scheduled,

[5:04] the public hearing will not be

[5:06] opened.

[5:07] comments, recommendations or

[5:08] analysis on the cases are not

[5:11] provided for or discussed until

[5:13] the public hearing takes place.

[5:15] this process insures anyone

[5:17] interested in the case has the

[5:19] opportunity to participate.

[5:21] we'll go through the process on

[5:23] each one and a continuance is

[5:25] requested to future planning

[5:27] commission meeting for

[5:32] rz26-0010.

[5:33] is there a motion on this item?

[5:37] >> so moved.

[5:38] >> thank you commissioner

[5:39] terrones.

[5:40] >>b second.

[5:43] >> thank you commissioner breen.

[5:44] all in favor say aye.

[5:45] opposed, nay.

[5:46] that motion passes 7-0.

[5:49] move to item b, continuance also

[5:52] requested to future planning

[5:53] commission meeting for

[5:58] rz26-0011.

[5:59] is there a motion on this item?

[6:00] >> so moved.

[6:01] >> thank you commissioner

[6:02] chapman.

[6:03] a second?

[6:04] j

[6:05] >> second.

[6:07] all in favor say aye.

[6:09] opposed, nay.

[6:11] that motion passes 7-0.

[6:13] moving to number 3, rz26-0013,

[6:18] continuance is requested to

[6:19] future planning commission

[6:20] meeting.

[6:21] is there a motion on this item?

[6:23] >> so moved.

[6:24] >> thank you commissioner

[6:25] bergida.

[6:26] second?

[6:27] >> second.

[6:28] >> thank you commissioner

[6:29] chapman.

[6:30] all in favor say aye.

[6:31] oppose, nay.

[6:32] that motion passes 7-0.

[6:35] item d, su2600007 continuance

[6:42] requested.

[6:43] motion on this item?

[6:45] >> so moved.

[6:46] >> thank you commissioner breen.

[6:47] second?

[6:48] >> second.

[6:49] >> thank you commissioner

[6:50] bergida.

[6:51] all in favor say aye.

[6:52] opposed, nay.

[6:55] that motion passes 7-0.

[6:57] thanks for sitting through that

[6:58] with us.

[7:00] we'll now move on prior to the

[7:02] next two public hearings, mrs.

[7:04] hollingsworth will join us for a

[7:05] brief introduction.

[7:10] >> alright.

[7:11] thank you commissioners.

[7:15] thank you commissioners.

[7:16] kim hollingsworth planning and

[7:18] development manager.

[7:19] before we get into the next two

[7:20] rezoning applications, I will

[7:23] provide a high level

[7:24] introduction, overview.

[7:27] we saw this as a great

[7:28] opportunity since we recently

[7:30] adopted the comprehensive plan,

[7:32] elevate olathe and the

[7:34] interrelatedness of the cases

[7:37] which is somewhat unique y. Will

[7:38] start with history on zoning.

[7:39] on the left you will see 1998

[7:43] rezoning and so, this is a 314

[7:46] acre area that I am going to

[7:49] call the sunnybrook area.

[7:50] it was rezoned to these

[7:52] districts you see on the left in

[7:54] 1998.

[7:55] significant business park.

[7:57] I will circle approximately the

[7:59] subject properties that we are

[8:01] talking about this evening are

[8:03] within the business park area.

[8:05] you can see over time there has

[8:07] been a lot of rezoning activity,

[8:09] away from business park and also

[8:11] a variety of residential

[8:13] districts have been introduced.

[8:15] you can see that progression

[8:17] over time.

[8:18] also, I really want to note on

[8:20] business park that zoning

[8:22] district really is mainly

[8:24] comprised of flex space,

[8:27] warehousing, light

[8:29] manufacturing, office is a

[8:30] component of it, but with the

[8:32] current market we are seeing

[8:33] less office development, so over

[8:35] time we progressed away from

[8:38] that district in this area.

[8:41] I will move to the the

[8:42] comprehensive plan.

[8:43] this is elevate olathe

[8:44] comprehensive plan just adopted

[8:46] in april and I want to talk

[8:47] about the case 7 subarea.

[8:50] this is a particular area in the

[8:52] plan.

[8:53] we did engagement on the

[8:54] comprehensive plan over two year

[8:55] period, very extensive community

[8:57] engagement in person, online and

[9:00] at events and held specific open

[9:02] house and engagement online

[9:04] events related to this subarea

[9:07] so we looked at case 7, know

[9:09] there is a lot of development

[9:11] opportunity.

[9:12] we wanted to look at a more

[9:13] refined land use plan, place

[9:14] making opportunities and some of

[9:16] the key elements that we will

[9:18] talk about this evening are

[9:20] looking at complete

[9:21] neighborhoods, building

[9:22] residential with commercial,

[9:25] perhaps vertical mixed use

[9:27] buildings.

[9:28] cohesive life style centers,

[9:31] opportunity for commercial

[9:35] arterials, maybe entertainment

[9:37] and parking when you integrate

[9:39] the uses together.

[9:40] a range of multifamily and

[9:41] higher density housing that

[9:44] transition to surrounding

[9:46] neighborhoods.

[9:47] these were talked about in the

[9:49] comprehensive plan update and in

[9:52] the document.

[9:53] we are talking about this area

[9:54] mixed use.

[9:55] mix of uses really.

[9:57] so, just one thing to note, this

[9:59] is the only area out of all

[10:02] these brown shaded mix of use

[10:04] areas that already has active

[10:07] recent construction, or

[10:10] developments reviewing through

[10:11] the construction process.

[10:13] already has development

[10:14] approvals and now going through

[10:15] building permit review, so we

[10:17] see it as somewhat unique that

[10:19] developments started prior to

[10:21] plan adoption and then when you

[10:23] get to the other subareas, those

[10:25] could have approved

[10:26] developments, but not actively

[10:31] under construction now.

[10:32] getting closer to the property,

[10:34] mixed use.

[10:35] so, we'll get into the specific

[10:37] of the development cases but you

[10:39] see referenced on the screen and

[10:41] location in the mixed use area.

[10:43] what mixed use means is, looking

[10:46] at stratified uses, so mix of

[10:49] residential, commercial,

[10:52] employment opportunities within

[10:53] a larger development area, often

[10:55] pedestrian oriented design so

[10:58] meant to integrate transition

[11:00] between the land uses.

[11:01] we also added a vertical mix use

[11:04] overlay in the comprehensive

[11:05] plan.

[11:06] these are areas where vertical

[11:08] mixed use, so commercial ground

[11:10] floor with residential or office

[11:13] above is encouraged by the

[11:15] comprehensive plan.

[11:17] we know over time we will

[11:18] continue to evaluate this

[11:20] overlay.

[11:21] there is portions of it that

[11:22] have already been through the

[11:23] development process here.

[11:24] but this is another layer of the

[11:26] case subarea.

[11:29] so, really I want to hone in on

[11:31] this concept plan briefly.

[11:33] there were two different

[11:35] development teams that worked on

[11:38] this together.

[11:39] this is somewhat unique and do

[11:41] not see this all the time.

[11:42] we have two development teams

[11:45] submit around the same time, go

[11:46] through the development review

[11:47] process together, coordinate

[11:49] with staff back and forth on

[11:51] changes to the plan and really

[11:54] did joint neighborhood meeting,

[11:55] which we'll highlight later, so

[11:57] it is somewhat unique and really

[11:59] these two cases are interrelated

[12:01] in how they relate to the

[12:03] comprehensive plan.

[12:04] they are inner-dependent with

[12:07] each other to align with the

[12:08] comprehensive plan so talked

[12:10] about the development teams you

[12:11] need to progress together.

[12:12] they are more then willing to

[12:16] work through the development

[12:17] process so that unique aspect I

[12:19] wanted to highlight.

[12:20] finally I want to talk why we

[12:21] are here.

[12:25] we will be honing on the zoning

[12:26] district.

[12:27] so, two things we look at are

[12:29] zoning and preliminary plan.

[12:32] with the zoning district we are

[12:34] looking at conformance with the

[12:37] comprehensive plan, land use

[12:38] analysis, dimensional standards.

[12:40] both of the development teams

[12:46] submitted conceptual plan.

[12:50] there is a process where it

[12:51] comes back through, revised

[12:54] preliminary plan which the

[12:55] planning commission is familiar

[12:56] with and you see it another

[12:58] time.

[12:59] to make sure it conforms with

[13:00] all the udl requirements and

[13:04] gets the full vetting so honing

[13:06] in on the zoning district

[13:08] related.

[13:09] that is just a brief overview.

[13:11] wanted to talk about really

[13:12] ahead of getting into the

[13:14] development applications.

[13:15] I will turn it over right array

[13:17] to mrs. Vande velde to talk

[13:22] about the request for college

[13:23] and sunnybrook commercial

[13:25] development southwest of college

[13:27] and lone elm.

[13:31] >> thank you, kim.

[13:33] mrs. Vande velde.

[13:36] >> thank you.

[13:37] taylor vande velde, planner 2.

[13:39] this is a request for rezoning

[13:41] for rz26-0009 to rezone 11 acres

[13:47] shaded in yellow to the c2

[13:49] commercial district, which

[13:51] includes a conceptual

[13:53] preliminary site development

[13:54] plan for a commercial

[13:55] development located southwest of

[13:57] college and lone elm on the

[13:59] screen.

[14:00] as kim mentioned, the applicant

[14:02] is working with the adjacent

[14:03] residential application shaded

[14:06] just directly south of the

[14:08] property to create a more

[14:09] connected and mixed use

[14:11] development to align with the

[14:12] future land use map we just went

[14:14] through.

[14:17] the subject property does front

[14:19] college boulevard as shown on

[14:21] the screen, and the same

[14:24] developer has recently worked to

[14:26] develop this site in conjunction

[14:29] with the previously approved

[14:33] dillans grocery to the east.

[14:35] the proposal is continuation of

[14:37] the complementary commercial

[14:40] uses, including restaurants, a

[14:42] bank and conceptual retail as

[14:45] well.

[14:47] the existing zoning is bp

[14:49] business district, which allows

[14:51] for various office and light

[14:54] industrial uses, such as office

[14:57] and light manufacturing and flex

[14:59] spaces.

[15:00] the applicant is requesting to

[15:01] rezone to the c2, commercial

[15:04] district to allow more

[15:06] commercial uses that better

[15:07] align with the recent dylan

[15:12] rezoning and development to the

[15:13] east.

[15:14] staff is recommending several

[15:17] land use restrictions with which

[15:19] mostly align with the restricted

[15:21] uses from the recent dillans

[15:24] rezoning.

[15:25] in addition to several more

[15:26] intense uses that conflict with

[15:28] the future land use designation.

[15:30] the applicant is agreeable with

[15:32] the recommended list.

[15:37] the site is designated mixed use

[15:39] and vertical mixed use hatched

[15:41] in black near college boulevard.

[15:45] as designated on the elevate

[15:46] olathe future land use map.

[15:50] this brings together mix of

[15:51] commercial uses in connection

[15:53] with the residential to the

[15:55] south, meeting the mixed use

[15:57] designation.

[16:01] while the proposal does not

[16:02] align directly with the

[16:03] preferred vertical mixed use,

[16:05] the requested c2 district and

[16:07] conceptual plan provided this

[16:09] evening does align with several

[16:11] key strategies of the elevate

[16:14] olathe comprehensive plan

[16:15] related to land use and econom

[16:17] ic development to encourage

[16:19] density and provide neighborhood

[16:21] commercial as well.

[16:26] the applicant have worked

[16:28] together to provide overall

[16:29] concept plan, which kim just

[16:31] shared.

[16:32] this plan provides shared

[16:34] amenities such as a public plaza

[16:36] area shown on the screen, as

[16:39] well as a shared trail

[16:42] connection connecting from the

[16:44] existing meadow lane trail to

[16:48] sunnybrook boulevard.

[16:52] so, the developer for this

[16:54] application provided a

[16:55] conceptual plan, which shows

[16:57] four commercial buildings along

[16:59] college and sunnybrook

[17:01] boulevard.

[17:02] the plan also has three proposed

[17:04] access drives off sunnybrook

[17:06] boulevard as well as internal

[17:08] connection connecting to the

[17:10] south.

[17:11] all of which meet the city

[17:12] access management plan.

[17:14] as this is conceptual to

[17:16] establish zoning as kim

[17:18] mentioned, no wavers are

[17:19] necessary at this time and

[17:21] revised preliminary site

[17:23] development plan will be

[17:24] required to further evaluate the

[17:28] additional site details.

[17:31] the applicant met all public

[17:33] notice requirements, including a

[17:34] neighborhood meeting.

[17:36] as the request of staff, the

[17:39] applicant held a joint meeting

[17:40] with the residential

[17:43] application.

[17:44] well attended with approximately

[17:45] 50 attendees.

[17:48] topics related to this specific

[17:49] case including traffic, access,

[17:51] timeline and other similar

[17:53] questions, which the applicant

[17:54] responded to during the meeting.

[17:57] no additional correspondence

[17:59] received related to this

[18:00] specific case.

[18:04] staff does recommend approval of

[18:05] the requested c2 zoning district

[18:08] with the restricted uses listed

[18:12] here, as well as stipulation

[18:14] requiring the revised

[18:16] preliminary plan.

[18:17] the case will proceed to the

[18:18] september 15 city council

[18:20] meeting and the applicant will

[18:22] provide a brief presentation as

[18:24] well.

[18:51] >> is the applicant doing a

[18:53] presentation?

[18:54] >> yes.

[18:55] >> state your name for the

[18:56] record.

[18:57] my name is melissa with rouse

[18:59] frets white located at 5250 west

[19:03] 116 place, suite 400, leewood

[19:06] kansas here on behalf of my

[19:09] client atwater group to present.

[19:14] with me today is my partner

[19:17] greg.

[19:18] sonny cardamore the purchaser

[19:22] and developer of the property

[19:23] and tom barnes civil engineer.

[19:26] this request involves

[19:28] approximately 11 acres of

[19:30] college and sunnybrook from the

[19:33] recently approved dillons store.

[19:36] the application here is brought

[19:37] by the same developer as the

[19:39] dillons store and the

[19:41] application is for the

[19:42] commercial lots only and

[19:44] separate from the adjacent

[19:46] multi-family that follows.

[19:49] as staff mentioned, the property

[19:52] is currently zoned bp business

[19:54] park and proposed to be rezoned

[19:56] to c2 community center.

[19:57] the rezoning is consistent with

[20:01] it dillons grocery store and

[20:06] shops at sunnybrook.

[20:08] the concept plan will provide

[20:09] for traditional complement ary

[20:12] retail service uses, and the

[20:14] preliminary final plan will be

[20:16] to follow.

[20:17] by way of background, staff

[20:19] covered some of this, but it has

[20:21] been zoned as business park for

[20:23] over 25 years.

[20:27] the time has taken quite a while

[20:29] to develop this particular site,

[20:30] despite development nearby and

[20:32] active efforts to market it.

[20:34] it is a challenging site with

[20:36] significant slope and rock,

[20:38] which I just made into one word.

[20:41] the site has also been planned

[20:44] along with the dillons grocery

[20:46] store to be complementary

[20:49] out-lots you would see to serve

[20:51] the same users as the dillons

[20:53] grocery store.

[20:54] however, the dillons was planned

[20:56] under the old comprehensive plan

[21:02] and the adoption of elevate

[21:05] olathe these have been caught in

[21:06] the change of the plan.

[21:12] the concept plan reflects the

[21:15] small scale commercial uses

[21:17] which are supported by the

[21:18] comprehensive plan as well.

[21:20] we worked with staff to both

[21:23] improve walkability and

[21:25] compatibility to bridge the

[21:27] difference between the site

[21:28] design standards of the dillons

[21:30] and this particular site.

[21:34] the neighboring properties,

[21:36] largely commercial and

[21:38] institutional.

[21:39] across college boulevard is the

[21:41] institutional uses.

[21:45] olathe campus.

[21:46] to the east will be the dillons

[21:48] and fuel center.

[21:49] to the west is meadow lane trail

[21:51] and residential homes.

[21:54] on the other side of this tree

[21:56] buffer here, and to the south is

[21:59] the proposal that is before you

[22:01] tonight after this one for

[22:04] multifamily.

[22:06] through the concept plan you can

[22:07] see there are two single story

[22:09] buildings that are fronting

[22:12] along college boulevard and two

[22:14] additional buildings proposed

[22:15] further south.

[22:16] anticipated uses may involve a

[22:18] quick serve restaurant,

[22:20] financial institution, sit down

[22:23] restaurant, medical or dental

[22:24] services and other retail and

[22:26] service uses, depending on

[22:28] market demand.

[22:30] you can also see that the

[22:31] stormwater detention has been

[22:33] proposed on the west side to

[22:34] provide more separation from

[22:36] residential as well.

[22:38] importantly, the plan is refined

[22:40] through coordination with staff,

[22:42] including moving the buildings

[22:44] closer to college boulevard and

[22:46] creating a plaza seating area

[22:48] between the buildings.

[22:51] you can see little more about

[22:53] how the buildings have been

[22:56] brought forward here to be

[22:57] consistent with other uses along

[22:59] college boulevard and that is

[23:01] further refined through the

[23:02] preliminary plan process.

[23:03] this just shows more about the

[23:05] natural buffer between the

[23:07] properties to the west and this

[23:09] property with that significant

[23:10] tree line and trail, which will

[23:14] be preserved to the extent

[23:15] possible and tree preservation

[23:17] plan and more detailed

[23:18] stormwater facilities provided

[23:20] at the preliminary plan stage.

[23:23] there has been professional

[23:25] traffic study submitted and

[23:27] reviewed by city olathe traffic

[23:29] division.

[23:31] the sunnybrook boulevard will be

[23:33] extended to provide access to

[23:35] the site at the developer

[23:37] expense.

[23:38] meets the city access management

[23:39] plan and no additional roadway

[23:41] improvements are required.

[23:43] these are some conceptual

[23:44] elevations, again further

[23:46] refined as it goes through the

[23:47] process of the preliminary plan,

[23:49] but it has been designed to be

[23:51] consistent with the look and

[23:52] feel of the dillons site as

[23:54] well.

[23:56] the property meets the criteria

[23:58] for rezoning.

[24:00] it meets the comprehensive plan

[24:03] preferred small scale commercial

[24:04] uses.

[24:05] it is compatible with the

[24:07] surrounding zoning and land use

[24:11] and more suitable for the long

[24:12] vacant site then the current bp

[24:14] zoning.

[24:15] the buildings will be consistent

[24:17] with neighboring buildings and

[24:19] should fit well with the shops

[24:21] at sunnybrook.

[24:23] this is appropriate practical

[24:25] rezoning, it supports the

[24:27] billons and helps to bring

[24:28] commercial uses to along vacant

[24:31] site.

[24:32] appreciate staff recommendation

[24:33] of approval.

[24:34] we agree to the stipulations and

[24:36] we thank you for your time.

[24:37] we are happy to answer any

[24:39] questions you have this evening.

[24:40] thank you.

[24:41] >> thank you for being here.

[24:44] commissioners, do you have any

[24:46] questions for staff or the

[24:47] applicant on this issue?

[24:50] commissioner bergida.

[24:51] >> thank you mr. Chairman.

[24:52] seems like a great project.

[24:55] what does changing it to

[24:58] commercial allow you all to do

[24:59] with your current plans that you

[25:02] can't currently do under

[25:03] business park?

[25:04] >> the business park has very

[25:06] limited retail and service uses

[25:09] that are permitted.

[25:10] I think staff can go into more

[25:11] detail, but really business park

[25:13] is meant more for-it is a light

[25:16] industrial employment center

[25:18] kind of use, so it is really

[25:20] typically more manufacturing,

[25:22] assembly, those type of light

[25:25] industrial with a little office

[25:27] and the retail and service is

[25:29] really just a side note where

[25:33] certain amounts that can be

[25:35] included, but not the focus of

[25:37] the district.

[25:38] >> it isn't necessarily design

[25:39] requirements, but usage

[25:42] requirements, correct?

[25:43] >> I think it is combination,

[25:45] but the dillons site we were

[25:46] asked to rezone that and have

[25:49] continued to do the exact same

[25:51] zoning for this one.

[25:52] it is also consistent with

[25:53] several other of the lots along

[25:55] the shops sunnybrook as well.

[25:57] there is a portion of it that is

[25:59] still bp but a lot have been

[26:01] rezoned to c2 as well.

[26:03] >> thank you.

[26:05] >> any additional questions?

[26:08] commissioner terrones.

[26:10] >> thank you for your

[26:11] presentation.

[26:12] just a quick question.

[26:14] this new development won't cause

[26:16] a delay in the construction of

[26:19] the dillons store?

[26:20] >> no.

[26:21] it has been planned all along

[26:23] alongside the dillons.

[26:25] it is actually part of the same

[26:29] development through the same

[26:30] developer so approval will not

[26:32] delay dillons.

[26:33] >> thank you.

[26:34] >> you're welcome;

[26:35] >> any additional questions from

[26:37] commissioners?

[26:40] thank you for being here.

[26:41] >> thank you.

[26:43] >> we'll move to the public

[26:45] hearing and I open the public

[26:46] hearing.

[26:47] for this public hearing, we

[26:49] don't have anybody signed up.

[26:52] I will now close the public

[26:57] hearing.

[26:58] if I can have a motion, please.

[27:00] >> so moved.

[27:01] >> thank you commissioner

[27:02] bergida.

[27:03] second?

[27:04] >> second.

[27:05] >> thank you commissioner breen.

[27:06] all those in favor closing the

[27:07] public hearing say aye.

[27:09] >> aye.

[27:11] >> opposed, nay.

[27:12] passes 7-0.

[27:15] is there any additional

[27:16] discussion needed for this item?

[27:20] if not, I call for a motion on

[27:22] rz26-0009.

[27:26] >> mr. Chair, I move for the

[27:27] approval of rz26-0009 with all

[27:32] stipulations as recommended by

[27:34] staff.

[27:35] >> thank you commissioner

[27:36] bergida.

[27:37] second?

[27:38] >> second.

[27:39] >> thank you commissioner

[27:40] terrones.

[27:41] mrs. Will, if you will, please.

[27:43] [roll call]

[27:52] >> motion passes 7-0.

[27:56] >> okay.

[27:57] moving to the 6 and final public

[27:58] hearing.

[27:59] request for approval of rezoning

[28:00] for college and sunnybrook

[28:02] multifamily located southwest of

[28:04] college and south valley

[28:06] boulevard.

[28:07] mrs. Vande velde will present

[28:09] the case.

[28:22] >> okay.

[28:24] thank you.

[28:25] good evening.

[28:26] taylor vande velde planner 2.

[28:29] continuation of the discussion,

[28:33] request to rezone rz26-0006 to

[28:37] rezone 20 acres to r3

[28:40] residential district with a

[28:42] conceptual plan for multifamily

[28:44] development southwest of college

[28:46] and lone elm.

[28:49] the site is located just south

[28:51] of the previously presented

[28:53] commercial application along

[28:55] sunnybrook boulevard.

[28:57] the site is also zoned to the

[29:00] bp, business district, which

[29:01] allows for the same uses I

[29:03] mentioned before.

[29:04] office, warehouses, light

[29:06] manufacturing and flex spaces,

[29:07] which are permitted by right.

[29:09] the surrounding area developed

[29:11] with a mix of commercial and

[29:13] residential zoning districts,

[29:15] including single family,

[29:17] duplexes and are attach

[29:21] multifamily providing variety of

[29:23] land uses around the surrounding

[29:24] area.

[29:25] the existing bp zoning district

[29:28] is higher intensity district and

[29:30] permits buildings up to 12

[29:32] stories and no longer compatible

[29:34] with how the area has developed

[29:36] out in recent years.

[29:41] that shows all the existing

[29:43] zoning districts and the

[29:45] requested district.

[29:49] rezone to r3, low density

[29:52] multifamily district to allow

[29:53] the construction of 333

[29:55] residential units with density

[29:58] of 16.65 dwelling units per

[30:01] acre, which permitted in the

[30:03] third column of the r3 district.

[30:07] the site is also designated as

[30:10] mixed use on the elevate olathe

[30:12] future land use map which

[30:17] includes commercial and

[30:19] residential use.

[30:20] the proposal aligns with mixed

[30:22] use designation supporting

[30:25] apartments and townhomes in a

[30:29] pedestrian oriented development

[30:30] as well.

[30:32] more specifically, this area is

[30:34] identified in the subarea plan

[30:39] of the elevate olathe

[30:41] comprehensive plan as a

[30:42] opportunity site, which

[30:43] prescribes commercial near

[30:45] college and supports denser

[30:47] housing types such as multi-plex

[30:50] and apartments more internal to

[30:52] the site behind the commercial,

[30:54] which this proposal also aligns

[30:55] with.

[30:57] the development is also

[30:58] connecting to the meadow lane

[30:59] trail, which is in direct

[31:01] alignment with the trails and

[31:03] greenways plan as well as the

[31:05] comprehensive plan as well.

[31:10] the requested r3 district also

[31:12] meets several policies of the

[31:14] comprehensive plan by supporting

[31:16] a range of housing options with

[31:17] the apartments and townhomes in

[31:21] close proximity to commercial

[31:26] service and provided appropriate

[31:27] transition to the residential

[31:28] uses.

[31:31] the overall plan we have seen

[31:33] before, but more specifically to

[31:35] this site, it is providing quite

[31:38] a few pedestrian connections and

[31:40] public amenity spaces as well.

[31:43] as shown here.

[31:44] the big one being the direct

[31:45] connection to the existing trail

[31:47] to sunnybrook boulevard.

[31:51] the site is proposing 9

[31:53] apartment buildings and 6

[31:55] townhome buildings, which are

[31:56] situate more on the southern

[31:59] property edge there.

[32:00] they provide a private amenities

[32:02] such as a club house, dog park

[32:04] and active open space

[32:10] conceptually throughout the

[32:11] site.

[32:12] this plan has two access drives

[32:13] on sunnybrook boulevard and

[32:15] internal drive to the north

[32:16] commercial street or rezoning

[32:18] that we just heard.

[32:21] no wavers are being considered

[32:22] with this application, however,

[32:25] similar to the previous one, we

[32:26] are requiring a revised

[32:29] preliminary site development

[32:30] plan to go through further site

[32:31] details.

[32:34] the applicant met all public

[32:36] notice requirements, including

[32:37] the neighborhood meeting, same

[32:40] 50 attendees, however related to

[32:42] this particular application,

[32:44] recollect there were quite a few

[32:46] concerns of traffic congestion,

[32:50] safety, noise, lighting,

[32:51] building heights, which the

[32:53] applicant responded to.

[32:55] staff also received additional

[32:57] correspondence, which are

[32:59] outlined in the packet,

[33:00] including a petition from

[33:02] neighborhood residents,

[33:04] including about 37 signatures as

[33:07] well.

[33:08] so, staff responded to the

[33:10] direct correspondence and public

[33:14] notice requirements were met.

[33:16] with all of the feedback from

[33:18] traffic, we wanted to include a

[33:20] little bit more information

[33:22] within the presentation to

[33:23] outline some of those

[33:25] improvements which melissa

[33:27] already covered a little bit of,

[33:29] but the overall plan here is

[33:32] generally outlining the overall

[33:34] traffic improvements with the

[33:37] extension of sunnybrook

[33:38] boulevard from 113 street up to

[33:40] college boulevard, which will be

[33:42] a signalized intersection as it

[33:44] is now.

[33:46] the commercial development is

[33:48] also providing the appropriate

[33:49] turn lanes into sunnybrook

[33:51] boulevard and also into the

[33:54] sites as well, and adding a

[33:56] middle turn lane down sunnybrook

[33:58] boulevard to accommodate

[34:00] existing traffic from the

[34:02] existing and proposed

[34:04] developments shown here.

[34:08] staff does recommend approval of

[34:09] the rezoning to the r3 district

[34:12] with no stipulations and also

[34:14] requires revised preliminary

[34:16] site development plan.

[34:18] this case proceeds to the

[34:19] september 15 city council

[34:21] meeting and the applicant just

[34:23] has a few words to provide to

[34:25] you all and we are available for

[34:26] questions.

[34:29] >> thank you taylor.

[34:35] please state your name and

[34:36] address for the record.

[34:38] >> good evening.

[34:39] my name is kurt peterson, 900

[34:42] west 48 west of kansas city

[34:45] missouri here with chris from

[34:48] platform the applicant and matt

[34:52] the civil engineer at

[34:54] kimley-horn.

[34:56] with a staff report like that

[34:57] and taylor's presentation, the

[35:01] last thing to do is go over

[35:02] details so will limit to three

[35:06] bullet points because we worked

[35:08] with a long time, staff worked a

[35:11] long time and this is from our

[35:12] perspective if you told me I had

[35:14] three bullet points, here is

[35:16] what I would say.

[35:17] first, this is a down-zoning as

[35:19] taylor did a good job

[35:22] describing.

[35:23] a significant down-zoning.

[35:24] something that can have up to

[35:27] 144 feet, so this is significant

[35:29] down-zoning from bp to r3.

[35:32] point two is we really believe

[35:33] this is a reasonable and quality

[35:35] and traditional transition from

[35:38] commercial to the north, future

[35:40] commercial we just heard about,

[35:41] commercial to the east, to the

[35:44] residential to the south and

[35:45] southwest, including but not

[35:47] limited to the extensive tree

[35:50] preservation.

[35:51] we didn't highlight that much

[35:52] but you are looking at the

[35:53] aerial and seeing how much trees

[35:55] to the west and tree stand to

[35:57] the south when we are done.

[35:59] extensive tree preservation.

[36:01] the third point and say the most

[36:03] important point is the

[36:04] consistency with any project of

[36:07] scale, there is something that

[36:09] is inconsistent with the comp

[36:11] plan goals or something to

[36:12] discus, but here in all ways as

[36:14] taylor emphasized in writing and

[36:16] verbally tonight we are

[36:17] consistent with elevate olathe

[36:19] and udo, whether pedestrian

[36:21] oriented with the trail

[36:23] connection or sidewalks or mixed

[36:24] use nature or the mixed housing

[36:26] because we have townhomes and

[36:27] traditional multifamily.

[36:29] so, we will again as taylor be

[36:33] back with the preliminary

[36:34] development plan and hone in on

[36:37] architectural details, but for

[36:40] tonight we ask you to please

[36:41] consider and hopefully recommend

[36:43] to the city council this

[36:44] rezoning and the associated

[36:45] concept plan and if there is

[36:47] questions now chair or later, I

[36:49] am happy to answer those.

[36:50] >> thank you mr. Peterson.

[36:52] >> yes, sir.

[36:55] >> okay.

[36:56] we'll move forward on the public

[36:58] hearing.

[36:59] let me take a minute to spell

[37:01] how that works.

[37:02] we'll begin calling on

[37:04] individuals who signed up to

[37:05] speak through the process as we

[37:07] have available and thank

[37:08] everyone for attending and we

[37:11] appreciate your participation.

[37:13] it is a vital part of what we

[37:16] do.

[37:17] we understand the comments and

[37:18] feedback the public submitted

[37:20] already.

[37:21] we received e-mails, phone

[37:22] calls, letters and all everybody

[37:28] at the dais had ample time to

[37:31] review all those and they matter

[37:32] and will be taken into

[37:33] consideration.

[37:34] tonight we are most interested

[37:36] in hearing new information.

[37:39] in accordance with bylaws, each

[37:41] speaker will have a maximum of 5

[37:43] minutes and to your right you

[37:45] will see the clock on there.

[37:47] you will know exactly where you

[37:48] are at on that and that will be

[37:50] set for each speaker.

[37:52] however, if your points have

[37:54] been made by the person that

[37:55] went before you, it is really

[37:58] not necessary to come up and say

[38:00] the same thing.

[38:02] it doesn't provide any value to

[38:04] us to hear the same thing over

[38:05] and over.

[38:06] we know what they are and will

[38:08] take them into serious

[38:09] consideration.

[38:10] if your points have been made,

[38:11] it is perfectly okay to pass or

[38:13] come up, state your name and

[38:15] address for the record and just

[38:16] list your support for the

[38:17] comments that are prior made and

[38:21] perfectly okay to do that.

[38:23] please note our decision tonight

[38:25] is based on information provided

[38:27] us from all parties, so not

[38:31] necessarily to repeat the

[38:32] information in the packet or

[38:34] addressed by other speakers

[38:36] tonight.

[38:37] all that is taken into

[38:38] consideration as we make a

[38:39] decision on this and moving to

[38:40] the city council, who is

[38:41] ultimately makes the final

[38:42] decision on passage on this as

[38:45] far as change in zoning.

[38:48] we expect you to conduct

[38:50] yourselves in a civil respectful

[38:52] manner.

[38:54] please address your comments to

[38:55] the planning commission.

[38:58] this isn't a q & a.

[39:01] we are hear to listen to what

[39:03] you have to say, not a dialogue

[39:05] back and forth between us and

[39:07] staff.

[39:08] during your speaker time.

[39:09] if you pose a question for us to

[39:11] address later, not opposed to

[39:12] that, but don't expect us to

[39:14] answer while standing at the

[39:16] podium.

[39:17] moving on with that, I will open

[39:20] the public hearing.

[39:22] our first speaker signed up this

[39:24] evening is david connor.

[39:27] when you step to the podium,

[39:28] state your name and address for

[39:30] the record and we'll start the

[39:32] clock.

[39:41] >> david connor.

[39:43] 11259 south montclaire.

[39:48] I live off montclaire drive in

[39:50] olathe.

[39:51] I want to start by saying thank

[39:52] you to the planning commission

[39:53] for giving me the opportunity to

[39:55] speak tonight.

[39:56] I acknowledge what you do for

[39:58] our community and appreciate you

[39:59] letting us air our grievances

[40:02] tonight.

[40:03] our family lived in olathe 31

[40:04] years.

[40:05] we built our current house

[40:07] nearly 10 years ago off

[40:09] montclaire drive.

[40:10] we are within two miles of each

[40:13] of our three daughters and built

[40:14] strategically in gatewood

[40:16] because of the location because

[40:17] it was on a quite street.

[40:19] when we purchased built the

[40:21] house we know the zoning lot

[40:23] behind us was agriculture,

[40:25] commercial, nobody knew what was

[40:28] going in there because they said

[40:29] the bank owned it.

[40:31] our agent told us houses would

[40:35] be built.

[40:36] later we realized not likely,

[40:38] probably more likely commercial

[40:39] properties.

[40:40] we accepted that.

[40:42] commercial properties will be

[40:43] built and also know traffic

[40:46] noise would cease as a

[40:49] reasonable hour.

[40:50] not one time in the past 10

[40:51] years has anyone told us

[40:53] apartment complexes or duplexesp

[40:55] in the future.

[40:56] not until given notice of this

[40:59] rezoning.

[41:00] I want to address several

[41:01] factors individually.

[41:02] one, the character of the

[41:04] neighborhood these apartments

[41:05] are sandwiched between

[41:09] neighborhoods minimal trees

[41:11] which the developer claims is

[41:13] theirs and they have the right

[41:15] to remove and do not prevent

[41:18] sight lines.

[41:19] if you are along that section of

[41:20] the trail you see there is no

[41:21] barrier from our backyard to the

[41:25] apartment complex.

[41:26] the multifamily housing do not

[41:28] conform to the character of the

[41:32] surrounding neighborhood. The

[41:34] extent to which the change will

[41:36] detrimentally effect our

[41:37] properties, these apartments

[41:39] will significantly effect the

[41:42] value and esthetic of our home.

[41:44] to speak of meadow lane, we are

[41:46] used to having people walk

[41:48] behinds hour housing, however

[41:49] not equip to handle the droves

[41:51] of individuals who will access

[41:53] the trail behind my house.

[41:56] as I hope you are aware, you can

[41:58] only turn right out of the small

[42:00] subdivision.

[42:02] with significant increase in

[42:03] traffic, based on 297

[42:07] apartments.

[42:08] 36 duplexes, we will struggle

[42:10] more to turn out of the

[42:12] neighborhood.

[42:13] the foot traffic and car traffic

[42:15] will effect the property value

[42:19] and safety we enjoy.

[42:22] the gain to public health safety

[42:24] and welfare by the developer

[42:27] compared to hardships imposed on

[42:29] neighbors.

[42:30] the developers continue to tell

[42:31] us what great news the

[42:33] apartments are coming to our

[42:36] area and not explained what they

[42:37] are doing to increase the public

[42:39] health, the safety or welfare of

[42:41] the community.

[42:42] their business profits and that

[42:44] is all they care about.

[42:46] meanwhile my neighbors and I are

[42:49] mostly retired want the peace

[42:50] and quite nights we enjoyed for

[42:53] the past 10 years.

[42:54] having a significant amount of

[42:56] new neighbors behind us, which

[42:58] generate car noise, people

[43:01] noise, that effect our ability

[43:05] to enjoy the quite and peace we

[43:06] have.

[43:07] I haven't heard anything that

[43:09] outweighs the hardships you

[43:11] force upon my neighbors and I.

[43:12] I understand that development

[43:14] has to come to this area, we are

[43:18] prepared for that.

[43:19] we are not prepared for

[43:20] apartments and duplexes multi

[43:22] stories that we will look into

[43:24] our backyards where our

[43:26] grandchildren play.

[43:29] elsewhere in the city you

[43:32] decided where to place

[43:33] apartments and keep out of

[43:35] neighborhoods.

[43:36] think of the ones ridge view and

[43:37] college.

[43:38] k7 and 119 street.

[43:40] the ones across from high v on

[43:43] 119th street.

[43:44] they are along major roadways

[43:46] where single family housing

[43:48] isn't ideal.

[43:49] that is where apartments belong

[43:53] along major corridors where they

[43:55] have access and are families and

[43:57] housing isn't permitted.

[43:59] thank you.

[44:00] >> thank you mr. Connor.

[44:02] next speaker is forest miles.

[44:05] (applause)

[44:29] >> good evening commissioners

[44:31] and thank you for letting me

[44:33] talk.

[44:34] my name is forest miles and I

[44:36] lived on the west side of olathe

[44:38] for 45 years.

[44:41] currently I live in gatewood

[44:43] villas as my neighbor dave and

[44:47] we-which backs up to the

[44:51] proposed apartment and villa

[44:53] project.

[44:54] by living on the west side for

[44:56] the last 45 years, I have never

[45:00] seen a high density apartment or

[45:03] villa complex put in the center

[45:05] of a r1, r2 or residential area.

[45:10] they always been as dave said,

[45:13] and this is repeat, but they

[45:14] have been at like-I give you the

[45:17] one at ridgeview and college.

[45:22] okay?

[45:24] the current developments from

[45:28] 119th to the north are usually

[45:33] all most always r1, r2 or c2 for

[45:39] small business.

[45:44] comparison the proposed r3

[45:46] zoning of 9 apartment buildings,

[45:48] 6 villas complexes, development

[45:53] of around a thousand people,

[45:57] with 333 apartment units and 550

[46:01] parking stalls is immense for

[46:05] our neighborhood in general.

[46:07] at a time when traffic on

[46:09] college in the morning and the

[46:12] afternoon has already escalated,

[46:14] because of the number of people

[46:17] to the west of us, and all as

[46:22] such, it is tough.

[46:23] it really is.

[46:25] especially when the schools are

[46:26] open and all.

[46:30] you have that-- at this time,

[46:37] the traffic on college in the

[46:39] morning and afternoon is

[46:41] escalated because of the west.

[46:43] also with the building of

[46:44] dillons there will also compound

[46:46] the problem.

[46:47] furthermore, as stated in the

[46:49] meeting on july 22, they said,

[46:52] 80 percent of the complex

[46:56] traffic would be headed north on

[46:58] sunnybrook towards meadow lane

[47:01] elementary school.

[47:04] that is a problem.

[47:06] olathe northwest, which is to

[47:10] the east is also a problem,

[47:13] because in the morning and

[47:17] afternoon and with activities,

[47:19] there is immense amount of

[47:21] traffic around there.

[47:25] also, there will be traffic they

[47:27] said about 20percent, which will

[47:30] be headed towards st. Paul on

[47:33] lone elm and then of course,

[47:36] down towards northwest.

[47:41] these facilities, it creates a

[47:44] dangerous situation for driving,

[47:47] with a lot of young people for

[47:49] cycling, for walking and

[47:52] especially for kids and I see

[47:54] this a lot, because I live out

[47:56] there on e-bikes.

[47:59] the dense development will also

[48:01] add noise, light pollution,

[48:03] density, I don't know how they

[48:06] will get rid of all the water

[48:08] run-off.

[48:10] I haven't seen anything with

[48:11] that.

[48:12] and, some loss of trees.

[48:15] now, I am not opposed to

[48:20] development and if this was in

[48:23] the same thing of the r2, which

[48:27] would be or r1, which would be

[48:30] single houses or r2, which would

[48:32] be side by side villas which

[48:35] come down from 119th and which

[48:38] there would be much less density

[48:40] and a lot more safety, and I

[48:43] thank you for your time.

[48:45] >> thank you, mr. Miles.

[48:50] (applause)

[48:51] next speaker--bill statler, is

[48:55] that correct?

[48:56] okay.

[48:57] I'll let you correct me.

[49:05] >> bill stalter, 11299 south

[49:08] montclaire.

[49:10] I wouldn't nit-pick.

[49:13] the characterization that the

[49:15] staff has given page 8 paragraph

[49:19] c that there is a harmony

[49:20] between the existing residential

[49:22] uses, and the proposed use.

[49:25] there are four communities that

[49:27] are shown in various maps in

[49:30] your documents.

[49:32] one called zoning and another

[49:33] called correspondence and

[49:38] another is overlay showing four

[49:43] communities, gatewood which we

[49:45] reside in, to the west is

[49:48] stratford oaks a large community

[49:49] shown on the map as a rp3 to the

[49:52] south would be covingtry creek

[49:59] and court.

[50:04] stratford oaks being rp3 in the

[50:07] original zoning, lends a lot of

[50:11] credibility that this isn't a

[50:13] big step to add rp3 for

[50:18] rezoning.

[50:19] but, stratford oaks has been

[50:21] built out for decades.

[50:22] it is divided by 113th street.

[50:25] the north half is owner occupied

[50:27] duplexes.

[50:28] the south half are owner single

[50:31] dwelling homes.

[50:33] so, in essence this project is

[50:38] by r1 and r2 developments.

[50:41] if you want to find a r3

[50:43] development you have to step

[50:45] back.

[50:46] the closest one is on

[50:48] [inaudible] it is a sliver piece

[50:50] of tract about 7 homes.

[50:53] they are townhomes.

[50:54] owner occupied and none being

[50:57] over 2 stories.

[50:59] it is bordered by community zone

[51:02] property on the west.

[51:04] step out further to find the

[51:06] next rp3, and that is south on

[51:09] sunnybrook and that is village

[51:10] at sunnybrook.

[51:13] there is a larger tract labeled

[51:15] rp3, but the north half has been

[51:18] built out as duplexes.

[51:20] they will be owner occupied

[51:23] duplexes so all we are talking

[51:24] about are 12 apartments at the

[51:26] village at sunnybrook.

[51:28] those are no higher then two

[51:31] stories.

[51:32] they are flanked by a school on

[51:34] the east, the south and west.

[51:38] there is no other adjoining

[51:40] residential property touching

[51:42] that particular development.

[51:44] so, what we are seeing here is a

[51:46] probably I say escalation in

[51:49] density and height we are not

[51:50] seeing anywhere else in this

[51:52] area.

[51:54] is this a bit misleading to say

[51:56] that this is a easy step for

[51:58] rp3, when we really don't see

[52:01] that in our area.

[52:03] reference to r4 is, that's the

[52:06] senior citizen-at the south on

[52:10] 119th.

[52:12] what I say is, again, that isn't

[52:14] a fair characterization to say,

[52:15] this is easy step to rp3.

[52:18] thank you.

[52:20] >> thank you mr. Stalter.

[52:24] (applause)

[52:25] next speaker is greg milard.

[52:29] >> [inaudible]

[52:30] >> thank you.

[52:32] max cook.

[52:40] >> good evening.

[52:42] I am a max cook, live 11475

[52:45] south round-tree street

[52:48] covington creek and just moved

[52:50] there very proudly moved there.

[52:52] saved the last 20years to afford

[52:56] a place like that.

[52:58] you can understand hopefully why

[53:00] I was extremely disappointed to

[53:03] find out after moving there that

[53:04] we would be talking about

[53:06] rezoning the area across the

[53:07] tree line from me into high

[53:10] density.

[53:12] I don't care what you call it

[53:13] apartment complexes where you

[53:16] will cram a bunch of people in

[53:20] there.

[53:21] the only people that went in

[53:22] this scenario is city and county

[53:25] so they can continue spending

[53:27] like drunken sailors over

[53:28] nothing.

[53:29] my neighborhood doesn't benefit

[53:31] from this.

[53:32] the other members of our

[53:33] community don't benefit from

[53:35] this.

[53:36] we live there already.

[53:37] it will be a bad thing for

[53:39] everybody involved.

[53:40] they already said a lot of the

[53:41] same things I believe, but quite

[53:44] frankly, I just really think

[53:45] this is a project for a

[53:48] different area then right in the

[53:50] middle of r1 and r2 neighborhood

[53:52] that is already developed.

[53:53] we appreciate your time.

[53:55] please don't allow this to go

[53:57] through.

[53:58] >> thank you mr. Cook.

[53:59] (applause)

[54:00] final speaker signed up, fred

[54:06] nelson.

[54:17] >> my name is fred nelson, 11442

[54:20] south northston street in the

[54:23] covington court area.

[54:26] we moved here 5 years ago from

[54:28] hutchinson, so we are elated

[54:30] about the dillons going in,

[54:33] because if you haven't been to

[54:35] one, they are really really

[54:36] nice.

[54:37] when we moved here, they were

[54:38] still building the villas on

[54:43] covington court side and we live

[54:45] across the retention pond there

[54:47] and we see deer and coyotes.

[54:51] that is long gone.

[54:53] the big thing there it was so

[54:56] nice and quite, but one thing

[55:00] reiterated is what really

[55:02] bothers me, sunnybrook boulevard

[55:05] really isn't a boulevard all the

[55:07] way through, unlike ridgeview

[55:09] and college where they built

[55:10] these-when people come out,

[55:14] there is 500 some parking spots

[55:17] and channels down and one thing

[55:18] I wish the drawings would have

[55:20] shown is what is built on the

[55:25] other corner.

[55:26] there is a entrance in and

[55:27] outright in the same area and

[55:31] another thing that may or may

[55:34] not be known is there is 10

[55:36] schools within a mile there.

[55:37] five are preschools and two are

[55:41] there at the corner.

[55:42] I just had an appointment this

[55:46] morning and had to go through

[55:47] college boulevard and and came

[55:49] by that area and got on the

[55:53] street on college and you-they

[55:56] were backed up so far, people

[55:58] couldn't make a turn on lone

[56:01] elm.

[56:02] maybe they were taking their

[56:03] kids to the junior high or what

[56:04] have you, but the traffic, I

[56:05] know they pointed some that

[56:10] out right turn lanes but it is

[56:12] so convoluted in the area and I

[56:15] attended the meeting at the k

[56:18] state extension office there and

[56:19] I was very interested in how

[56:22] they do this traffic study.

[56:24] he said well the model shows

[56:26] that you can handle this.

[56:29] well, the dillons store I think

[56:30] they will do a tremendous job

[56:32] here.

[56:33] there will be a lot more traffic

[56:34] then they think.

[56:36] the st. Paul church, the largest

[56:39] catholic church in kansas city

[56:42] kansas diocese and they have

[56:44] daily mass there too and they

[56:46] have a exit on 113th street and

[56:48] I just-I guess my feelings are,

[56:51] if they kept it commercial, it

[56:54] wouldn't bother me, but with

[56:55] that many vehicles in that area

[56:58] I just hope think they could

[57:02] really consider you guys could

[57:05] consider not doing this allowing

[57:07] this to happen.

[57:10] commercial I'm fine with.

[57:12] olathe has grown.

[57:14] phenomenal growth and love

[57:15] living up here and close to

[57:17] things.

[57:18] we were fortunate to volunteer

[57:19] for the fifa thing and that was

[57:21] great and it just I just hope

[57:23] you really give it a lot of

[57:25] foresight and thought that we

[57:27] don't shouldn't put it there,

[57:30] because I guess I leave with one

[57:32] statement.

[57:33] would you want this to happen in

[57:35] your neighborhood?

[57:36] thank you.

[57:37] (applause)

[57:38] >> thank you mr. Nelson.

[57:44] that is our final speaker.

[57:45] I entertain a motion to close

[57:46] the public hearing.

[57:50] >> so moved.

[57:51] >> thank you commissioner breen.

[57:55] do I have a second?

[57:56] >> second.

[57:57] >> thank you commissioner

[57:58] chapman.

[57:59] all in favor aye.

[58:01] opposed, nay?

[58:03] the public hearing is closed.

[58:06] open for discussion for staff or

[58:08] applicant.

[58:09] commissioner chapman.

[58:11] >> I have a question first for

[58:13] the developer.

[58:15] >> okay.

[58:22] >> two questions for you.

[58:23] >> yes, sir.

[58:24] >> you use the term extensive

[58:26] tree preservation.

[58:27] can you explain what you mean by

[58:28] that?

[58:29] >> sure thing.

[58:30] we were given as a concept plan.

[58:32] not down to the percentage, but

[58:34] we asked our civil engineer

[58:36] beforehand if there was more

[58:38] detailed question, what is best

[58:42] guesstimate and said we will

[58:44] preserve--there is a lot of

[58:46] trees, a lot off to the west

[58:48] where the trail is and trees to

[58:53] the south and 76 percent of the

[58:55] trees will be preserved and it

[58:59] wasn't a big chunk, it was

[59:02] shaving here and there.

[59:07] >> thank you.

[59:08] >> yes, sir.

[59:09] >> I have a question I guess for

[59:10] staff.

[59:11] anyone of staff.

[59:12] this meadow tree lane is a city

[59:14] maintained trail, is that

[59:16] correct?

[59:20] >> correct.

[59:21] it is a city owned trail.

[59:23] >> do we have restrictions with

[59:25] regards to the removal of trees

[59:27] along our trails?

[59:28] >> so, are you referring to the

[59:31] trees that are around the

[59:34] existing trail itself or the

[59:35] trees on the applicants

[59:37] property?

[59:38] >> on either side of the trail.

[59:40] we have trees on either side of

[59:42] the trail from the overhead

[59:44] views I see.

[59:45] do we have restrictions on how

[59:48] close you can get to a trail and

[59:51] removal of trees?

[59:52] does the tree have a requirement

[59:55] you cannot move trees within 50

[59:57] or 75 feet of the trail?

[59:59] >> there isn't a specific

[1:00:00] distance requirement for the

[1:00:01] trees to be removed.

[1:00:02] the tract that the-let me pull

[1:00:04] it up.

[1:00:06] that the trail is in, is within

[1:00:08] a the residential properties

[1:00:14] tract.

[1:00:21] so, the trail is within here.

[1:00:32] that is not within the

[1:00:34] applicant's property, so the

[1:00:36] tree preservation adjacent to

[1:00:38] the trail is within a tract that

[1:00:40] is associated with the hoa in

[1:00:45] the neighborhood there.

[1:00:46] so, any tree removal would be a

[1:00:49] conversation with the hoa and

[1:00:50] the city and not of the

[1:00:52] applicant.

[1:00:54] >> what about the trees that

[1:00:56] are-that we are looking at on

[1:00:58] the rz-

[1:01:00] >> this area here?

[1:01:02] >> yes, and further north.

[1:01:03] >> all of these are within the

[1:01:07] tree preservation standards we

[1:01:08] have for development, so each

[1:01:11] applicant is required to

[1:01:13] preserve at least 20 percent of

[1:01:14] the existing wooded area.

[1:01:17] so, that will be considered with

[1:01:19] the requirements of the revised

[1:01:21] preliminary plan.

[1:01:24] >> okay.

[1:01:25] 20 percent?

[1:01:27] >> that's the standard, yes.

[1:01:32] >> thank you.

[1:01:33] >> commissioner chapman, I will

[1:01:34] add a little point.

[1:01:35] there is a stream corridor and

[1:01:38] that is higher level of

[1:01:39] protection, so taylor gave a the

[1:01:42] tree preservation requirement

[1:01:43] which is what you were asking

[1:01:46] about.

[1:01:47] the other layer which preserves

[1:01:48] more trees is the stream

[1:01:49] corridor.

[1:01:50] that is where they have a higher

[1:01:51] level of protection.

[1:01:52] >> thank you.

[1:01:56] >> commissioner terrones.

[1:01:59] >> thank you mr. Chairman.

[1:02:01] question has to do with traffic.

[1:02:04] the packet referred to traffic

[1:02:08] study, but could we get more

[1:02:10] specific detail about when it

[1:02:12] was conducted and time of day

[1:02:15] and how that progressed?

[1:02:19] thank you.

[1:02:23] >> I'll cover traffic and may

[1:02:25] double back on corridors.

[1:02:28] >> go right ahead.

[1:02:29] >> I dont know the exact time of

[1:02:31] day that they did the study or

[1:02:35] exact dates.

[1:02:36] traditionally as all our studies

[1:02:39] are done, they will take the

[1:02:41] counts during the middle of the

[1:02:43] week and shooting when school is

[1:02:44] in session, but this is a unique

[1:02:47] little area in regards to this

[1:02:50] road isn't currently there.

[1:02:52] so, there is some traffic counts

[1:02:53] you can't take and this is

[1:02:56] developing and building this new

[1:02:58] roadway and so there

[1:03:02] unique-can't count the traffic

[1:03:03] on sunnybrook boulevard because

[1:03:05] it isn't there.

[1:03:06] so, that traffic study did take

[1:03:08] traffic counts along college

[1:03:10] boulevard, also went to college

[1:03:12] boulevard and lone elm and

[1:03:15] different traffic counts there

[1:03:17] and analyzed those.

[1:03:21] >> can the conversation at the

[1:03:23] side, can we cease on that,

[1:03:25] please?

[1:03:26] go ahead.

[1:03:27] >> traffic was analyzed.

[1:03:30] meeting the standards.

[1:03:31] they made appropriate

[1:03:32] assumptions because they have to

[1:03:33] make assumptions because

[1:03:35] sunnybrook boulevard isn't

[1:03:36] there.

[1:03:37] the other thing we looked at is

[1:03:38] we looked at the actual traffic

[1:03:40] on college boulevard and just so

[1:03:44] you know, just some of the

[1:03:45] numbers out there, college

[1:03:47] boulevard is operating probably

[1:03:51] like the daily traffic it sees

[1:03:53] is about a third of what it can

[1:03:56] be capacity wise.

[1:03:57] if you compare this down to 151

[1:03:59] street you see about a third of

[1:04:02] the traffic that we see through

[1:04:03] some of the other very very

[1:04:05] similar corridors.

[1:04:06] any other questions in regards

[1:04:09] to traffic?

[1:04:10] that answer thereat that?

[1:04:12] >> no thank you.

[1:04:13] >> just in regards one more

[1:04:14] time, because I think there is

[1:04:15] concerns about how much buffer

[1:04:17] area is there.

[1:04:18] I don't know the specific

[1:04:20] acreage draining through this

[1:04:22] tributary, but my guess is it is

[1:04:25] usually about a--double check

[1:04:28] this.

[1:04:31] it is 60 feet probably on each

[1:04:33] side that streamway that

[1:04:36] absolutely is protected.

[1:04:38] if it jumps to 160 acres the

[1:04:42] drainage which I dont think it

[1:04:43] qualifies for, it is hundred

[1:04:45] feet on each side that tributary

[1:04:47] area and that is consistent with

[1:04:49] all the stream buffers we have.

[1:04:53] in that area there isn't

[1:04:55] intended to be clearing or

[1:04:57] grading or anything like that.

[1:04:58] >> thank you.

[1:05:01] additional questions?

[1:05:05] >> where is the streamway?

[1:05:07] does it run along the trail?

[1:05:28] >> it is very faint.

[1:05:30] I am going to-can you make this

[1:05:32] go-- once again, charley love,

[1:05:38] chief development engineer.

[1:05:40] I highlight on here, it is tough

[1:05:42] to see, but it actually shows

[1:05:44] the approximate so I will trace

[1:05:46] on here with my finger.

[1:05:47] the existing stream is following

[1:05:51] the light black line in there.

[1:05:53] >> got it.

[1:05:56] >> from that point, I think I

[1:05:59] lose it but it goes through

[1:06:01] there and there is another

[1:06:03] through that direction.

[1:06:04] >> thank you.

[1:06:06] >> okay.

[1:06:08] >> I have other questions.

[1:06:09] >> go ahead.

[1:06:10] floor is still yours.

[1:06:19] going back to the trees again

[1:06:20] here for the staff, either kim

[1:06:23] or taylor, this might be a

[1:06:26] impossible estimate, but can you

[1:06:30] estimate the distance between

[1:06:33] the rear of the proposed

[1:06:36] structures, and the trail?

[1:06:40] >> in the trail itself?

[1:06:41] >> yes.

[1:06:43] >> so, we have distances from

[1:06:45] the proposed buildings to the

[1:06:48] property lines.

[1:06:53] so, as shown-- here.

[1:07:03] the apartments on the west side

[1:07:05] there are set back 80 to 190

[1:07:10] feet.

[1:07:12] as well as the townhomes there.

[1:07:14] >> to the property line?

[1:07:15] >> to the property line so it

[1:07:17] will be set back farther from

[1:07:18] the trail to the west.

[1:07:21] >> now, mr. Peterson, that his

[1:07:30] name?

[1:07:31] >> yes.

[1:07:32] >> used the number, 75 percent

[1:07:33] of the trees are going to be

[1:07:39] kept.

[1:07:40] that is obviously only on their

[1:07:43] property.

[1:07:44] what percentage of the trees

[1:07:45] would that be when you took it a

[1:07:47] percentage of on each side of

[1:07:50] the trail?

[1:07:52] what I'm looking for is lots of

[1:07:55] trees on the east side of the

[1:07:57] trail too I take it.

[1:07:58] >> uh-huh.

[1:08:00] >> how many feet of trees would

[1:08:02] there be over there?

[1:08:03] >> so, for this application, we

[1:08:05] are looking at the property line

[1:08:07] itself on the trees that are

[1:08:08] located on the applicant's

[1:08:10] property, so that is where the

[1:08:11] minimum 20 percent comes in.

[1:08:14] those will be preserved along

[1:08:15] the property line to buffer

[1:08:18] between where the trail is and

[1:08:19] where the development is.

[1:08:22] >> so, there is plenty of trees

[1:08:24] there along each side?

[1:08:26] >> yes, and also will have

[1:08:29] landscaping as well that we'll

[1:08:31] evaluate during the revised

[1:08:33] preliminary plan.

[1:08:34] to supplementary any gaps in the

[1:08:37] tree preservation area, there

[1:08:38] are landscape requirements we

[1:08:40] evaluate to buffer r3 based on

[1:08:43] the adjacent zoning districts as

[1:08:45] well.

[1:08:47] >> alright.

[1:08:50] you had a slide up there with

[1:08:51] the term that makes me crazy and

[1:08:54] that is, missing middle.

[1:08:58] could you explain to me or kim

[1:09:00] or somebody what the missing

[1:09:02] middle is?

[1:09:03] had

[1:09:04] >> sure.

[1:09:05] missing middle is the housing

[1:09:06] types between single family

[1:09:08] homes and high density

[1:09:11] apartments, so more urban

[1:09:13] context apartments versus your

[1:09:14] typical single family.

[1:09:16] you have housing products in the

[1:09:18] missing middle that include

[1:09:19] townhomes, duplexes, courtyard

[1:09:24] cottages, as well as smaller

[1:09:26] multiplexes like four plexes and

[1:09:29] six plexes so that is the

[1:09:32] missing middle product.

[1:09:35] >> not related to price, it is

[1:09:37] related to structures?

[1:09:38] >> yes, it is related to

[1:09:41] individual buildings themselves.

[1:09:43] >> thank you.

[1:09:46] >> okay.

[1:09:47] additional questions?

[1:09:48] commissioner bergida.

[1:09:50] >> thank you mr. Chairman.

[1:09:51] I got one question for you mr.

[1:09:53] love regarding the traffic

[1:09:56] study.

[1:10:01] did the traffic study take into

[1:10:03] consideration the development we

[1:10:04] just approved to the north and

[1:10:07] then if I recall correctly,

[1:10:09] there is at least two projects,

[1:10:13] apartment complex projects we

[1:10:15] approved in the last 18 months

[1:10:17] to the west of this as well.

[1:10:19] did it take into consideration

[1:10:20] the additional traffic from

[1:10:22] those three different projects?

[1:10:24] >> charley love, chief

[1:10:25] development engineer.

[1:10:27] the good thing about all these

[1:10:28] projects coming in at the same

[1:10:33] time, dillons, commercial, this

[1:10:35] multifamily, they have all been

[1:10:41] worked together and that helped

[1:10:43] us because it has been able to

[1:10:45] when we evaluate that

[1:10:46] intersection looking to make it

[1:10:49] sure it will operate

[1:10:51] satisfactory and that is the

[1:10:52] case.

[1:10:53] the traffic studies did also

[1:10:54] look and take into consideration

[1:10:56] those apartments I believe you

[1:10:58] are talking I think are actually

[1:10:59] on the west side of k7 and they

[1:11:02] do reference those as well.

[1:11:05] >> okay.

[1:11:06] thank you.

[1:11:07] and then, this goes back to

[1:11:09] distance questions, which ever

[1:11:11] staff member is best suited to

[1:11:13] answer this one.

[1:11:14] we talked about distance to the

[1:11:16] property line.

[1:11:17] do we know what the distance is

[1:11:20] between those homes on south

[1:11:22] montclaire drive and 3 or 4

[1:11:27] buildings on the west side of

[1:11:29] the proposed development?

[1:11:30] >> could you repeat the question

[1:11:33] for the distance?

[1:11:34] >> yes, how far is it from the

[1:11:36] homes not the property line or

[1:11:38] the trail, but the homes to the

[1:11:40] buildings on the west side of

[1:11:42] the development?

[1:11:44] >> so, you mean the property

[1:11:46] line here how far away is it

[1:11:48] from the homes to the west?

[1:11:51] >> sure.

[1:11:52] that would help with the total

[1:11:53] number, but the question I'm

[1:11:55] asking is the houses that are to

[1:11:57] the west of the property line,

[1:12:00] the ones off south montclaire

[1:12:03] drive, how far are those homes

[1:12:06] from--

[1:12:07] >> those homes are-this is

[1:12:09] easier.

[1:12:12] >> yes.

[1:12:13] >> so, the property line is

[1:12:15] shown here and as I mentioned,

[1:12:18] the buildings over here are set

[1:12:21] back all most 180 feet from that

[1:12:23] property line, and so they are

[1:12:26] separated by this trail here, so

[1:12:28] approximately 200 feet or so,

[1:12:31] exceeding that in certain areas

[1:12:33] on the west side of the property

[1:12:34] line.

[1:12:35] >> okay.

[1:12:36] and then, I understand there's

[1:12:41] rp3 zoning, but as one resident

[1:12:44] pointed out, and what I can see

[1:12:47] on google maps, it is all single

[1:12:50] family or duplex, the highest is

[1:12:53] two stories to the west.

[1:12:56] I think it is the same to the

[1:12:58] south.

[1:12:59] is that correct?

[1:13:00] it is only single family and

[1:13:03] duplex adjacent to the west and

[1:13:05] south and southeast to this

[1:13:07] proposed site?

[1:13:09] >> yes.

[1:13:10] so, immediately adjacent to the

[1:13:13] property--go back to this one.

[1:13:18] -- so, to the west there is the

[1:13:24] single family zoning district.

[1:13:27] farther west is the mix of the

[1:13:29] duplexes and the single family

[1:13:32] homes, but it is zoned rp3.

[1:13:35] and then to the south is the

[1:13:36] traditional r1 single family

[1:13:39] homes and then to the east the

[1:13:41] rp2 has duplexes.

[1:13:43] that is within the immediate

[1:13:45] area.

[1:13:46] >> okay.

[1:13:47] so, they all are?

[1:13:48] >> uh-huh.

[1:13:49] >> okay.

[1:13:50] down south on sunnybrook that

[1:13:52] apartment complex that was

[1:13:53] brought up,b it is two stories,

[1:13:56] is that correct?

[1:13:57] >> yes.

[1:13:58] the ones located here are about

[1:14:02] two stories.

[1:14:04] multiplex and attached townhomes

[1:14:06] there.

[1:14:07] >> okay.

[1:14:08] do we know where the closest

[1:14:09] three story one would be?

[1:14:12] is it some of the new ones

[1:14:14] coming in out west or where is

[1:14:16] the closest 3 story apartment

[1:14:20] complex to the proposed site?

[1:14:23] >> would you mind repeating the

[1:14:24] last portion a little louder,

[1:14:26] please?

[1:14:27] >> sure, do we know what the

[1:14:29] closest 3 story apartment

[1:14:31] complex is to this site?

[1:14:33] >> apartment complex no, but the

[1:14:36] assisted living centers are in

[1:14:38] the r4 on the screen there,

[1:14:41] which are taller products.

[1:14:44] >> commissioner bergida, I will

[1:14:46] add a bit since I see the recent

[1:14:48] developments.

[1:14:50] west down college and west of

[1:14:54] k7, south that there is r3 in

[1:14:57] the ground for 3 story

[1:14:58] apartments.

[1:14:59] as you get closer to the cedar

[1:15:02] creek south glen area, that

[1:15:04] recently went through two years

[1:15:06] ago.

[1:15:07] north of college, so northeast

[1:15:09] of k7 and college, those are 4

[1:15:11] and 5 story apartments closer to

[1:15:14] aldi approved recently as well.

[1:15:18] >> thank you.

[1:15:20] >> okay.

[1:15:21] any other questions from

[1:15:22] commissioners?

[1:15:23] commissioner breen.

[1:15:24] >> thank you mr. Chair.

[1:15:25] the one thing I saw missing from

[1:15:27] the packet and talked about it

[1:15:30] from the applicant presentation,

[1:15:31] but the topography or elevation

[1:15:35] from where the houses are to the

[1:15:36] west to where this property is

[1:15:38] going to be developed.

[1:15:40] what is the sight line where the

[1:15:42] homes?

[1:15:43] is that plan multifamily

[1:15:45] development same elevation,

[1:15:47] lower or higher?

[1:15:48] trying to get a sense of the

[1:15:49] scale of the buildings will look

[1:15:52] like from the west.

[1:15:53] >> previously the elevation

[1:15:56] change from--switch here.

[1:15:59] it is hard to tell.

[1:16:01] start here.

[1:16:02] it sits up higher along

[1:16:04] sunnybrook and it slopes down

[1:16:07] towards the southwest there, so

[1:16:09] where the stream corridor and

[1:16:10] trail are.

[1:16:12] same as where the single family

[1:16:14] homes are as well, so it slopes.

[1:16:18] so, without line of sights or

[1:16:22] architecture, I dont have an

[1:16:23] exact line of sight of what they

[1:16:26] would see, but based on the 3

[1:16:29] story and where they are sitting

[1:16:30] they are most likely able to see

[1:16:32] the roof pitch of the proposed

[1:16:35] single family just based where

[1:16:37] it sits.

[1:16:38] >> okay and that type of

[1:16:39] information is something we see

[1:16:40] at the preliminary site

[1:16:42] development, right?

[1:16:43] >> yes.

[1:16:44] >> thank you.

[1:16:47] >> any additional questions from

[1:16:48] commissioners?

[1:16:53] thank you mrs. Vande velde.

[1:16:56] seeing none, I call for a motion

[1:16:58] on rz26-0006.

[1:17:10] >> mr. Chair, make a motion we

[1:17:12] approve rz26-0006 as stipulated

[1:17:24] by staff.

[1:17:25] >> thank you commissioner

[1:17:26] terrones.

[1:17:27] do I have a second?

[1:17:28] >> second.

[1:17:29] >> thank you commissioner breen.

[1:17:30] move forward on roll call vote.

[1:17:34] >> commissioner terrones, yes.

[1:17:37] commissioner bergida, no.

[1:17:39] commissioner chapman, yes.

[1:17:42] commissioner lynn, yes.

[1:17:45] commissioner breen, yes.

[1:17:47] commissioner brown, yes.

[1:17:49] chair janner,

[1:17:51] >> final points on this.

[1:17:54] before we wrap this up.

[1:17:57] I do see the importance of this

[1:18:00] area without question as

[1:18:01] discussed extensively as we

[1:18:04] reviewed the elevate olathe plan

[1:18:06] and I'll share as mr. Nelson is

[1:18:10] a hutchinson native, excited for

[1:18:14] dillons coming to town and the

[1:18:15] advantage it brings to this

[1:18:17] immediate area but west side of

[1:18:20] olathe.

[1:18:21] I also important to note that

[1:18:22] this is just step one.

[1:18:25] I see the zoning change as

[1:18:28] advantage with 30 plus years in

[1:18:30] real estate I can tell from a

[1:18:32] property value point of view, I

[1:18:33] rather see that then the light

[1:18:35] industrial.

[1:18:36] that has been my experience, so

[1:18:38] I think it is actually moving in

[1:18:40] the right direction there, which

[1:18:43] would be approved under the

[1:18:44] current zoning.

[1:18:46] and I think elevate olathe is

[1:18:48] very clear this is where it

[1:18:50] needs to be done but we will be

[1:18:52] looking closely at the final

[1:18:53] development plan and make sure

[1:18:55] some of the concerns addressed

[1:18:58] tonight still have a opportunity

[1:18:59] to look at closely and making

[1:19:01] sure what goes in does address

[1:19:03] those things as well.

[1:19:04] I will vote yes.

[1:19:08] >> the motion passes 6-1.

[1:19:12] >> okay, do we have

[1:19:13] announcements from staff this

[1:19:14] evening?

[1:19:15] >> none.

[1:19:16] thank you.

[1:19:17] >> that being said, this meeting

[1:19:19] is adjourned.

[1:19:21] [meeting adjourned]

Planning Commission on 2026-08-24 - Final TRIMMED

Agenda

Transcript