>> like to call the meeting to
order.
please join me in the pledge of
allegiance.
>> I pledge allegiance to the
flag of the united states of
america and to the republic, for
which it stands, one nation,
under god, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.
>> we begin and acknowledge we
have a quorum of planning
commissioners present with seven
of nine commissioners in
attendance.
commissioner corcoran and
seeling were unable to join this
evening.
I want to thank everyone in the
chamber and watching online for
attending this meeting.
planning commission meetings are
a important part of the process
for interpreting and applying
the city comprehensive plan and
the unified development
ordinance.
it is important the meetings are
conducted with dignity and
respect and applies to every
person in attendance.
we strive to provide where ideas
in held in the regard.
the actions are ultimately under
the responsibility of the city
council.
as a planning commissioner, we
are here to help the council as
the elected representatives to
be fully informed so they can
make the best choices for our
city.
by statute, the planning
commission strives not to engage
with any parties with the issue
prior to the meeting.
should the interaction take
place as a result of a business
relationship or any other
interaction, referred to as ex
parte communication,
commissioners will report that
interaction when we reach that
item in the agenda.
we'll move to the consents
agenda.
this evening we have four items
on consent.
consent agenda items are listed
and considered routine by the
planning commission and may be
approved in one motion.
there is no public hearing on
any of these issue and no
discussion unless an item is
removed from the consent agenda.
commissioners anything that
needs to be pulled for
additional information or
questions of staff?
>> mr. Chairman, I like to pull
item b.
>> okay.
commissioner bergida pulled item
b from consent agenda.
anything else?
if not, I will entertain a
motion on the remaining three
items.
>> mr. Chair, I move to approve
items a, c and d on consent
agenda.
>> thank you.
all in favor say aye.
opposed, nay.
that motion passes 7-0.
commissioner bergida.
>> thank you mr. Chair.
quick question for staff.
first off, thank you for all the
materials that you pulled
together on this.
I just had one quick question.
on the animal shelter, I
understand last year we approved
it for $25 million and current
balance is $14 million on that.
has $11 million been spent or
what is the status on that?
>> yeah, so the total proposed
project amount for the animal
shelter is revised from $25
million to $19 million.
>> was there cost savings that
came into play or why the
reduction?
>> we are currently reevaluating
the project in entirety, and
probably will provide further
details at a later date.
>> okay.
thank you.
for the record, I just based on
our conversation we had couple
weeks ago with the starfish
project, I just like the record
to show for council, there is a
lot of folks that are going
through a tough time right now
and so, I appreciate staff
making those adjustments and
encourage council to even make
more if possible on that
particular item.
thank you.
>> thank you.
we did have pulled for
discussion.
we'll have a roll call vote on
that.
if I entertain a motion, please.
>> mr. Chair, I move to approve
item b on the consent agenda.
>> thank you commissioner breen.
second?
>> second.
>> thank you.
[roll call]
>> motion passes 7-0.
>> thank you.
we'll move to our regular
business.
we have six scheduled public
hearings.
however, the first four public
hearings this evening are
continuance has been requested.
when a continuance is scheduled,
the public hearing will not be
opened.
comments, recommendations or
analysis on the cases are not
provided for or discussed until
the public hearing takes place.
this process insures anyone
interested in the case has the
opportunity to participate.
we'll go through the process on
each one and a continuance is
requested to future planning
commission meeting for
rz26-0010.
is there a motion on this item?
>> so moved.
>> thank you commissioner
terrones.
>>b second.
>> thank you commissioner breen.
all in favor say aye.
opposed, nay.
that motion passes 7-0.
move to item b, continuance also
requested to future planning
commission meeting for
rz26-0011.
is there a motion on this item?
>> so moved.
>> thank you commissioner
chapman.
a second?
j
>> second.
all in favor say aye.
opposed, nay.
that motion passes 7-0.
moving to number 3, rz26-0013,
continuance is requested to
future planning commission
meeting.
is there a motion on this item?
>> so moved.
>> thank you commissioner
bergida.
second?
>> second.
>> thank you commissioner
chapman.
all in favor say aye.
oppose, nay.
that motion passes 7-0.
item d, su2600007 continuance
requested.
motion on this item?
>> so moved.
>> thank you commissioner breen.
second?
>> second.
>> thank you commissioner
bergida.
all in favor say aye.
opposed, nay.
that motion passes 7-0.
thanks for sitting through that
with us.
we'll now move on prior to the
next two public hearings, mrs.
hollingsworth will join us for a
brief introduction.
>> alright.
thank you commissioners.
kim hollingsworth planning and
development manager.
before we get into the next two
rezoning applications, I will
provide a high level
introduction, overview.
we saw this as a great
opportunity since we recently
adopted the comprehensive plan,
elevate olathe and the
interrelatedness of the cases
which is somewhat unique y. Will
start with history on zoning.
on the left you will see 1998
rezoning and so, this is a 314
acre area that I am going to
call the sunnybrook area.
it was rezoned to these
districts you see on the left in
1998.
significant business park.
I will circle approximately the
subject properties that we are
talking about this evening are
within the business park area.
you can see over time there has
been a lot of rezoning activity,
away from business park and also
a variety of residential
districts have been introduced.
you can see that progression
over time.
also, I really want to note on
business park that zoning
district really is mainly
comprised of flex space,
warehousing, light
manufacturing, office is a
component of it, but with the
current market we are seeing
less office development, so over
time we progressed away from
that district in this area.
I will move to the the
comprehensive plan.
this is elevate olathe
comprehensive plan just adopted
in april and I want to talk
about the case 7 subarea.
this is a particular area in the
plan.
we did engagement on the
comprehensive plan over two year
period, very extensive community
engagement in person, online and
at events and held specific open
house and engagement online
events related to this subarea
so we looked at case 7, know
there is a lot of development
opportunity.
we wanted to look at a more
refined land use plan, place
making opportunities and some of
the key elements that we will
talk about this evening are
looking at complete
neighborhoods, building
residential with commercial,
perhaps vertical mixed use
buildings.
cohesive life style centers,
opportunity for commercial
arterials, maybe entertainment
and parking when you integrate
the uses together.
a range of multifamily and
higher density housing that
transition to surrounding
neighborhoods.
these were talked about in the
comprehensive plan update and in
the document.
we are talking about this area
mixed use.
mix of uses really.
so, just one thing to note, this
is the only area out of all
these brown shaded mix of use
areas that already has active
recent construction, or
developments reviewing through
the construction process.
already has development
approvals and now going through
building permit review, so we
see it as somewhat unique that
developments started prior to
plan adoption and then when you
get to the other subareas, those
could have approved
developments, but not actively
under construction now.
getting closer to the property,
mixed use.
so, we'll get into the specific
of the development cases but you
see referenced on the screen and
location in the mixed use area.
what mixed use means is, looking
at stratified uses, so mix of
residential, commercial,
employment opportunities within
a larger development area, often
pedestrian oriented design so
meant to integrate transition
between the land uses.
we also added a vertical mix use
overlay in the comprehensive
plan.
these are areas where vertical
mixed use, so commercial ground
floor with residential or office
above is encouraged by the
comprehensive plan.
we know over time we will
continue to evaluate this
overlay.
there is portions of it that
have already been through the
development process here.
but this is another layer of the
case subarea.
so, really I want to hone in on
this concept plan briefly.
there were two different
development teams that worked on
this together.
this is somewhat unique and do
not see this all the time.
we have two development teams
submit around the same time, go
through the development review
process together, coordinate
with staff back and forth on
changes to the plan and really
did joint neighborhood meeting,
which we'll highlight later, so
it is somewhat unique and really
these two cases are interrelated
in how they relate to the
comprehensive plan.
they are inner-dependent with
each other to align with the
comprehensive plan so talked
about the development teams you
need to progress together.
they are more then willing to
work through the development
process so that unique aspect I
wanted to highlight.
finally I want to talk why we
are here.
we will be honing on the zoning
district.
so, two things we look at are
zoning and preliminary plan.
with the zoning district we are
looking at conformance with the
comprehensive plan, land use
analysis, dimensional standards.
both of the development teams
submitted conceptual plan.
there is a process where it
comes back through, revised
preliminary plan which the
planning commission is familiar
with and you see it another
time.
to make sure it conforms with
all the udl requirements and
gets the full vetting so honing
in on the zoning district
related.
that is just a brief overview.
wanted to talk about really
ahead of getting into the
development applications.
I will turn it over right array
to mrs. Vande velde to talk
about the request for college
and sunnybrook commercial
development southwest of college
and lone elm.
>> thank you, kim.
mrs. Vande velde.
>> thank you.
taylor vande velde, planner 2.
this is a request for rezoning
for rz26-0009 to rezone 11 acres
shaded in yellow to the c2
commercial district, which
includes a conceptual
preliminary site development
plan for a commercial
development located southwest of
college and lone elm on the
screen.
as kim mentioned, the applicant
is working with the adjacent
residential application shaded
just directly south of the
property to create a more
connected and mixed use
development to align with the
future land use map we just went
through.
the subject property does front
college boulevard as shown on
the screen, and the same
developer has recently worked to
develop this site in conjunction
with the previously approved
dillans grocery to the east.
the proposal is continuation of
the complementary commercial
uses, including restaurants, a
bank and conceptual retail as
well.
the existing zoning is bp
business district, which allows
for various office and light
industrial uses, such as office
and light manufacturing and flex
spaces.
the applicant is requesting to
rezone to the c2, commercial
district to allow more
commercial uses that better
align with the recent dylan
rezoning and development to the
east.
staff is recommending several
land use restrictions with which
mostly align with the restricted
uses from the recent dillans
rezoning.
in addition to several more
intense uses that conflict with
the future land use designation.
the applicant is agreeable with
the recommended list.
the site is designated mixed use
and vertical mixed use hatched
in black near college boulevard.
as designated on the elevate
olathe future land use map.
this brings together mix of
commercial uses in connection
with the residential to the
south, meeting the mixed use
designation.
while the proposal does not
align directly with the
preferred vertical mixed use,
the requested c2 district and
conceptual plan provided this
evening does align with several
key strategies of the elevate
olathe comprehensive plan
related to land use and econom
ic development to encourage
density and provide neighborhood
commercial as well.
the applicant have worked
together to provide overall
concept plan, which kim just
shared.
this plan provides shared
amenities such as a public plaza
area shown on the screen, as
well as a shared trail
connection connecting from the
existing meadow lane trail to
sunnybrook boulevard.
so, the developer for this
application provided a
conceptual plan, which shows
four commercial buildings along
college and sunnybrook
boulevard.
the plan also has three proposed
access drives off sunnybrook
boulevard as well as internal
connection connecting to the
south.
all of which meet the city
access management plan.
as this is conceptual to
establish zoning as kim
mentioned, no wavers are
necessary at this time and
revised preliminary site
development plan will be
required to further evaluate the
additional site details.
the applicant met all public
notice requirements, including a
neighborhood meeting.
as the request of staff, the
applicant held a joint meeting
with the residential
application.
well attended with approximately
50 attendees.
topics related to this specific
case including traffic, access,
timeline and other similar
questions, which the applicant
responded to during the meeting.
no additional correspondence
received related to this
specific case.
staff does recommend approval of
the requested c2 zoning district
with the restricted uses listed
here, as well as stipulation
requiring the revised
preliminary plan.
the case will proceed to the
september 15 city council
meeting and the applicant will
provide a brief presentation as
well.
>> is the applicant doing a
presentation?
>> yes.
>> state your name for the
record.
my name is melissa with rouse
frets white located at 5250 west
116 place, suite 400, leewood
kansas here on behalf of my
client atwater group to present.
with me today is my partner
greg.
sonny cardamore the purchaser
and developer of the property
and tom barnes civil engineer.
this request involves
approximately 11 acres of
college and sunnybrook from the
recently approved dillons store.
the application here is brought
by the same developer as the
dillons store and the
application is for the
commercial lots only and
separate from the adjacent
multi-family that follows.
as staff mentioned, the property
is currently zoned bp business
park and proposed to be rezoned
to c2 community center.
the rezoning is consistent with
it dillons grocery store and
shops at sunnybrook.
the concept plan will provide
for traditional complement ary
retail service uses, and the
preliminary final plan will be
to follow.
by way of background, staff
covered some of this, but it has
been zoned as business park for
over 25 years.
the time has taken quite a while
to develop this particular site,
despite development nearby and
active efforts to market it.
it is a challenging site with
significant slope and rock,
which I just made into one word.
the site has also been planned
along with the dillons grocery
store to be complementary
out-lots you would see to serve
the same users as the dillons
grocery store.
however, the dillons was planned
under the old comprehensive plan
and the adoption of elevate
olathe these have been caught in
the change of the plan.
the concept plan reflects the
small scale commercial uses
which are supported by the
comprehensive plan as well.
we worked with staff to both
improve walkability and
compatibility to bridge the
difference between the site
design standards of the dillons
and this particular site.
the neighboring properties,
largely commercial and
institutional.
across college boulevard is the
institutional uses.
olathe campus.
to the east will be the dillons
and fuel center.
to the west is meadow lane trail
and residential homes.
on the other side of this tree
buffer here, and to the south is
the proposal that is before you
tonight after this one for
multifamily.
through the concept plan you can
see there are two single story
buildings that are fronting
along college boulevard and two
additional buildings proposed
further south.
anticipated uses may involve a
quick serve restaurant,
financial institution, sit down
restaurant, medical or dental
services and other retail and
service uses, depending on
market demand.
you can also see that the
stormwater detention has been
proposed on the west side to
provide more separation from
residential as well.
importantly, the plan is refined
through coordination with staff,
including moving the buildings
closer to college boulevard and
creating a plaza seating area
between the buildings.
you can see little more about
how the buildings have been
brought forward here to be
consistent with other uses along
college boulevard and that is
further refined through the
preliminary plan process.
this just shows more about the
natural buffer between the
properties to the west and this
property with that significant
tree line and trail, which will
be preserved to the extent
possible and tree preservation
plan and more detailed
stormwater facilities provided
at the preliminary plan stage.
there has been professional
traffic study submitted and
reviewed by city olathe traffic
division.
the sunnybrook boulevard will be
extended to provide access to
the site at the developer
expense.
meets the city access management
plan and no additional roadway
improvements are required.
these are some conceptual
elevations, again further
refined as it goes through the
process of the preliminary plan,
but it has been designed to be
consistent with the look and
feel of the dillons site as
well.
the property meets the criteria
for rezoning.
it meets the comprehensive plan
preferred small scale commercial
uses.
it is compatible with the
surrounding zoning and land use
and more suitable for the long
vacant site then the current bp
zoning.
the buildings will be consistent
with neighboring buildings and
should fit well with the shops
at sunnybrook.
this is appropriate practical
rezoning, it supports the
billons and helps to bring
commercial uses to along vacant
site.
appreciate staff recommendation
of approval.
we agree to the stipulations and
we thank you for your time.
we are happy to answer any
questions you have this evening.
thank you.
>> thank you for being here.
commissioners, do you have any
questions for staff or the
applicant on this issue?
commissioner bergida.
>> thank you mr. Chairman.
seems like a great project.
what does changing it to
commercial allow you all to do
with your current plans that you
can't currently do under
business park?
>> the business park has very
limited retail and service uses
that are permitted.
I think staff can go into more
detail, but really business park
is meant more for-it is a light
industrial employment center
kind of use, so it is really
typically more manufacturing,
assembly, those type of light
industrial with a little office
and the retail and service is
really just a side note where
certain amounts that can be
included, but not the focus of
the district.
>> it isn't necessarily design
requirements, but usage
requirements, correct?
>> I think it is combination,
but the dillons site we were
asked to rezone that and have
continued to do the exact same
zoning for this one.
it is also consistent with
several other of the lots along
the shops sunnybrook as well.
there is a portion of it that is
still bp but a lot have been
rezoned to c2 as well.
>> thank you.
>> any additional questions?
commissioner terrones.
>> thank you for your
presentation.
just a quick question.
this new development won't cause
a delay in the construction of
the dillons store?
>> no.
it has been planned all along
alongside the dillons.
it is actually part of the same
development through the same
developer so approval will not
delay dillons.
>> thank you.
>> you're welcome;
>> any additional questions from
commissioners?
thank you for being here.
>> thank you.
>> we'll move to the public
hearing and I open the public
hearing.
for this public hearing, we
don't have anybody signed up.
I will now close the public
hearing.
if I can have a motion, please.
>> so moved.
>> thank you commissioner
bergida.
second?
>> second.
>> thank you commissioner breen.
all those in favor closing the
public hearing say aye.
>> aye.
>> opposed, nay.
passes 7-0.
is there any additional
discussion needed for this item?
if not, I call for a motion on
rz26-0009.
>> mr. Chair, I move for the
approval of rz26-0009 with all
stipulations as recommended by
staff.
>> thank you commissioner
bergida.
second?
>> second.
>> thank you commissioner
terrones.
mrs. Will, if you will, please.
[roll call]
>> motion passes 7-0.
>> okay.
moving to the 6 and final public
hearing.
request for approval of rezoning
for college and sunnybrook
multifamily located southwest of
college and south valley
boulevard.
mrs. Vande velde will present
the case.
>> okay.
thank you.
good evening.
taylor vande velde planner 2.
continuation of the discussion,
request to rezone rz26-0006 to
rezone 20 acres to r3
residential district with a
conceptual plan for multifamily
development southwest of college
and lone elm.
the site is located just south
of the previously presented
commercial application along
sunnybrook boulevard.
the site is also zoned to the
bp, business district, which
allows for the same uses I
mentioned before.
office, warehouses, light
manufacturing and flex spaces,
which are permitted by right.
the surrounding area developed
with a mix of commercial and
residential zoning districts,
including single family,
duplexes and are attach
multifamily providing variety of
land uses around the surrounding
area.
the existing bp zoning district
is higher intensity district and
permits buildings up to 12
stories and no longer compatible
with how the area has developed
out in recent years.
that shows all the existing
zoning districts and the
requested district.
rezone to r3, low density
multifamily district to allow
the construction of 333
residential units with density
of 16.65 dwelling units per
acre, which permitted in the
third column of the r3 district.
the site is also designated as
mixed use on the elevate olathe
future land use map which
includes commercial and
residential use.
the proposal aligns with mixed
use designation supporting
apartments and townhomes in a
pedestrian oriented development
as well.
more specifically, this area is
identified in the subarea plan
of the elevate olathe
comprehensive plan as a
opportunity site, which
prescribes commercial near
college and supports denser
housing types such as multi-plex
and apartments more internal to
the site behind the commercial,
which this proposal also aligns
with.
the development is also
connecting to the meadow lane
trail, which is in direct
alignment with the trails and
greenways plan as well as the
comprehensive plan as well.
the requested r3 district also
meets several policies of the
comprehensive plan by supporting
a range of housing options with
the apartments and townhomes in
close proximity to commercial
service and provided appropriate
transition to the residential
uses.
the overall plan we have seen
before, but more specifically to
this site, it is providing quite
a few pedestrian connections and
public amenity spaces as well.
as shown here.
the big one being the direct
connection to the existing trail
to sunnybrook boulevard.
the site is proposing 9
apartment buildings and 6
townhome buildings, which are
situate more on the southern
property edge there.
they provide a private amenities
such as a club house, dog park
and active open space
conceptually throughout the
site.
this plan has two access drives
on sunnybrook boulevard and
internal drive to the north
commercial street or rezoning
that we just heard.
no wavers are being considered
with this application, however,
similar to the previous one, we
are requiring a revised
preliminary site development
plan to go through further site
details.
the applicant met all public
notice requirements, including
the neighborhood meeting, same
50 attendees, however related to
this particular application,
recollect there were quite a few
concerns of traffic congestion,
safety, noise, lighting,
building heights, which the
applicant responded to.
staff also received additional
correspondence, which are
outlined in the packet,
including a petition from
neighborhood residents,
including about 37 signatures as
well.
so, staff responded to the
direct correspondence and public
notice requirements were met.
with all of the feedback from
traffic, we wanted to include a
little bit more information
within the presentation to
outline some of those
improvements which melissa
already covered a little bit of,
but the overall plan here is
generally outlining the overall
traffic improvements with the
extension of sunnybrook
boulevard from 113 street up to
college boulevard, which will be
a signalized intersection as it
is now.
the commercial development is
also providing the appropriate
turn lanes into sunnybrook
boulevard and also into the
sites as well, and adding a
middle turn lane down sunnybrook
boulevard to accommodate
existing traffic from the
existing and proposed
developments shown here.
staff does recommend approval of
the rezoning to the r3 district
with no stipulations and also
requires revised preliminary
site development plan.
this case proceeds to the
september 15 city council
meeting and the applicant just
has a few words to provide to
you all and we are available for
questions.
>> thank you taylor.
please state your name and
address for the record.
>> good evening.
my name is kurt peterson, 900
west 48 west of kansas city
missouri here with chris from
platform the applicant and matt
the civil engineer at
kimley-horn.
with a staff report like that
and taylor's presentation, the
last thing to do is go over
details so will limit to three
bullet points because we worked
with a long time, staff worked a
long time and this is from our
perspective if you told me I had
three bullet points, here is
what I would say.
first, this is a down-zoning as
taylor did a good job
describing.
a significant down-zoning.
something that can have up to
144 feet, so this is significant
down-zoning from bp to r3.
point two is we really believe
this is a reasonable and quality
and traditional transition from
commercial to the north, future
commercial we just heard about,
commercial to the east, to the
residential to the south and
southwest, including but not
limited to the extensive tree
preservation.
we didn't highlight that much
but you are looking at the
aerial and seeing how much trees
to the west and tree stand to
the south when we are done.
extensive tree preservation.
the third point and say the most
important point is the
consistency with any project of
scale, there is something that
is inconsistent with the comp
plan goals or something to
discus, but here in all ways as
taylor emphasized in writing and
verbally tonight we are
consistent with elevate olathe
and udo, whether pedestrian
oriented with the trail
connection or sidewalks or mixed
use nature or the mixed housing
because we have townhomes and
traditional multifamily.
so, we will again as taylor be
back with the preliminary
development plan and hone in on
architectural details, but for
tonight we ask you to please
consider and hopefully recommend
to the city council this
rezoning and the associated
concept plan and if there is
questions now chair or later, I
am happy to answer those.
>> thank you mr. Peterson.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
we'll move forward on the public
hearing.
let me take a minute to spell
how that works.
we'll begin calling on
individuals who signed up to
speak through the process as we
have available and thank
everyone for attending and we
appreciate your participation.
it is a vital part of what we
do.
we understand the comments and
feedback the public submitted
already.
we received e-mails, phone
calls, letters and all everybody
at the dais had ample time to
review all those and they matter
and will be taken into
consideration.
tonight we are most interested
in hearing new information.
in accordance with bylaws, each
speaker will have a maximum of 5
minutes and to your right you
will see the clock on there.
you will know exactly where you
are at on that and that will be
set for each speaker.
however, if your points have
been made by the person that
went before you, it is really
not necessary to come up and say
the same thing.
it doesn't provide any value to
us to hear the same thing over
and over.
we know what they are and will
take them into serious
consideration.
if your points have been made,
it is perfectly okay to pass or
come up, state your name and
address for the record and just
list your support for the
comments that are prior made and
perfectly okay to do that.
please note our decision tonight
is based on information provided
us from all parties, so not
necessarily to repeat the
information in the packet or
addressed by other speakers
tonight.
all that is taken into
consideration as we make a
decision on this and moving to
the city council, who is
ultimately makes the final
decision on passage on this as
far as change in zoning.
we expect you to conduct
yourselves in a civil respectful
manner.
please address your comments to
the planning commission.
this isn't a q & a.
we are hear to listen to what
you have to say, not a dialogue
back and forth between us and
staff.
during your speaker time.
if you pose a question for us to
address later, not opposed to
that, but don't expect us to
answer while standing at the
podium.
moving on with that, I will open
the public hearing.
our first speaker signed up this
evening is david connor.
when you step to the podium,
state your name and address for
the record and we'll start the
clock.
>> david connor.
11259 south montclaire.
I live off montclaire drive in
olathe.
I want to start by saying thank
you to the planning commission
for giving me the opportunity to
speak tonight.
I acknowledge what you do for
our community and appreciate you
letting us air our grievances
tonight.
our family lived in olathe 31
years.
we built our current house
nearly 10 years ago off
montclaire drive.
we are within two miles of each
of our three daughters and built
strategically in gatewood
because of the location because
it was on a quite street.
when we purchased built the
house we know the zoning lot
behind us was agriculture,
commercial, nobody knew what was
going in there because they said
the bank owned it.
our agent told us houses would
be built.
later we realized not likely,
probably more likely commercial
properties.
we accepted that.
commercial properties will be
built and also know traffic
noise would cease as a
reasonable hour.
not one time in the past 10
years has anyone told us
apartment complexes or duplexesp
in the future.
not until given notice of this
rezoning.
I want to address several
factors individually.
one, the character of the
neighborhood these apartments
are sandwiched between
neighborhoods minimal trees
which the developer claims is
theirs and they have the right
to remove and do not prevent
sight lines.
if you are along that section of
the trail you see there is no
barrier from our backyard to the
apartment complex.
the multifamily housing do not
conform to the character of the
surrounding neighborhood. The
extent to which the change will
detrimentally effect our
properties, these apartments
will significantly effect the
value and esthetic of our home.
to speak of meadow lane, we are
used to having people walk
behinds hour housing, however
not equip to handle the droves
of individuals who will access
the trail behind my house.
as I hope you are aware, you can
only turn right out of the small
subdivision.
with significant increase in
traffic, based on 297
apartments.
36 duplexes, we will struggle
more to turn out of the
neighborhood.
the foot traffic and car traffic
will effect the property value
and safety we enjoy.
the gain to public health safety
and welfare by the developer
compared to hardships imposed on
neighbors.
the developers continue to tell
us what great news the
apartments are coming to our
area and not explained what they
are doing to increase the public
health, the safety or welfare of
the community.
their business profits and that
is all they care about.
meanwhile my neighbors and I are
mostly retired want the peace
and quite nights we enjoyed for
the past 10 years.
having a significant amount of
new neighbors behind us, which
generate car noise, people
noise, that effect our ability
to enjoy the quite and peace we
have.
I haven't heard anything that
outweighs the hardships you
force upon my neighbors and I.
I understand that development
has to come to this area, we are
prepared for that.
we are not prepared for
apartments and duplexes multi
stories that we will look into
our backyards where our
grandchildren play.
elsewhere in the city you
decided where to place
apartments and keep out of
neighborhoods.
think of the ones ridge view and
college.
k7 and 119 street.
the ones across from high v on
119th street.
they are along major roadways
where single family housing
isn't ideal.
that is where apartments belong
along major corridors where they
have access and are families and
housing isn't permitted.
thank you.
>> thank you mr. Connor.
next speaker is forest miles.
(applause)
>> good evening commissioners
and thank you for letting me
talk.
my name is forest miles and I
lived on the west side of olathe
for 45 years.
currently I live in gatewood
villas as my neighbor dave and
we-which backs up to the
proposed apartment and villa
project.
by living on the west side for
the last 45 years, I have never
seen a high density apartment or
villa complex put in the center
of a r1, r2 or residential area.
they always been as dave said,
and this is repeat, but they
have been at like-I give you the
one at ridgeview and college.
okay?
the current developments from
119th to the north are usually
all most always r1, r2 or c2 for
small business.
comparison the proposed r3
zoning of 9 apartment buildings,
6 villas complexes, development
of around a thousand people,
with 333 apartment units and 550
parking stalls is immense for
our neighborhood in general.
at a time when traffic on
college in the morning and the
afternoon has already escalated,
because of the number of people
to the west of us, and all as
such, it is tough.
it really is.
especially when the schools are
open and all.
you have that-- at this time,
the traffic on college in the
morning and afternoon is
escalated because of the west.
also with the building of
dillons there will also compound
the problem.
furthermore, as stated in the
meeting on july 22, they said,
80 percent of the complex
traffic would be headed north on
sunnybrook towards meadow lane
elementary school.
that is a problem.
olathe northwest, which is to
the east is also a problem,
because in the morning and
afternoon and with activities,
there is immense amount of
traffic around there.
also, there will be traffic they
said about 20percent, which will
be headed towards st. Paul on
lone elm and then of course,
down towards northwest.
these facilities, it creates a
dangerous situation for driving,
with a lot of young people for
cycling, for walking and
especially for kids and I see
this a lot, because I live out
there on e-bikes.
the dense development will also
add noise, light pollution,
density, I don't know how they
will get rid of all the water
run-off.
I haven't seen anything with
that.
and, some loss of trees.
now, I am not opposed to
development and if this was in
the same thing of the r2, which
would be or r1, which would be
single houses or r2, which would
be side by side villas which
come down from 119th and which
there would be much less density
and a lot more safety, and I
thank you for your time.
>> thank you, mr. Miles.
(applause)
next speaker--bill statler, is
that correct?
okay.
I'll let you correct me.
>> bill stalter, 11299 south
montclaire.
I wouldn't nit-pick.
the characterization that the
staff has given page 8 paragraph
c that there is a harmony
between the existing residential
uses, and the proposed use.
there are four communities that
are shown in various maps in
your documents.
one called zoning and another
called correspondence and
another is overlay showing four
communities, gatewood which we
reside in, to the west is
stratford oaks a large community
shown on the map as a rp3 to the
south would be covingtry creek
and court.
stratford oaks being rp3 in the
original zoning, lends a lot of
credibility that this isn't a
big step to add rp3 for
rezoning.
but, stratford oaks has been
built out for decades.
it is divided by 113th street.
the north half is owner occupied
duplexes.
the south half are owner single
dwelling homes.
so, in essence this project is
by r1 and r2 developments.
if you want to find a r3
development you have to step
back.
the closest one is on
[inaudible] it is a sliver piece
of tract about 7 homes.
they are townhomes.
owner occupied and none being
over 2 stories.
it is bordered by community zone
property on the west.
step out further to find the
next rp3, and that is south on
sunnybrook and that is village
at sunnybrook.
there is a larger tract labeled
rp3, but the north half has been
built out as duplexes.
they will be owner occupied
duplexes so all we are talking
about are 12 apartments at the
village at sunnybrook.
those are no higher then two
stories.
they are flanked by a school on
the east, the south and west.
there is no other adjoining
residential property touching
that particular development.
so, what we are seeing here is a
probably I say escalation in
density and height we are not
seeing anywhere else in this
area.
is this a bit misleading to say
that this is a easy step for
rp3, when we really don't see
that in our area.
reference to r4 is, that's the
senior citizen-at the south on
119th.
what I say is, again, that isn't
a fair characterization to say,
this is easy step to rp3.
thank you.
>> thank you mr. Stalter.
(applause)
next speaker is greg milard.
>> [inaudible]
>> thank you.
max cook.
>> good evening.
I am a max cook, live 11475
south round-tree street
covington creek and just moved
there very proudly moved there.
saved the last 20years to afford
a place like that.
you can understand hopefully why
I was extremely disappointed to
find out after moving there that
we would be talking about
rezoning the area across the
tree line from me into high
density.
I don't care what you call it
apartment complexes where you
will cram a bunch of people in
there.
the only people that went in
this scenario is city and county
so they can continue spending
like drunken sailors over
nothing.
my neighborhood doesn't benefit
from this.
the other members of our
community don't benefit from
this.
we live there already.
it will be a bad thing for
everybody involved.
they already said a lot of the
same things I believe, but quite
frankly, I just really think
this is a project for a
different area then right in the
middle of r1 and r2 neighborhood
that is already developed.
we appreciate your time.
please don't allow this to go
through.
>> thank you mr. Cook.
(applause)
final speaker signed up, fred
nelson.
>> my name is fred nelson, 11442
south northston street in the
covington court area.
we moved here 5 years ago from
hutchinson, so we are elated
about the dillons going in,
because if you haven't been to
one, they are really really
nice.
when we moved here, they were
still building the villas on
covington court side and we live
across the retention pond there
and we see deer and coyotes.
that is long gone.
the big thing there it was so
nice and quite, but one thing
reiterated is what really
bothers me, sunnybrook boulevard
really isn't a boulevard all the
way through, unlike ridgeview
and college where they built
these-when people come out,
there is 500 some parking spots
and channels down and one thing
I wish the drawings would have
shown is what is built on the
other corner.
there is a entrance in and
outright in the same area and
another thing that may or may
not be known is there is 10
schools within a mile there.
five are preschools and two are
there at the corner.
I just had an appointment this
morning and had to go through
college boulevard and and came
by that area and got on the
street on college and you-they
were backed up so far, people
couldn't make a turn on lone
elm.
maybe they were taking their
kids to the junior high or what
have you, but the traffic, I
know they pointed some that
out right turn lanes but it is
so convoluted in the area and I
attended the meeting at the k
state extension office there and
I was very interested in how
they do this traffic study.
he said well the model shows
that you can handle this.
well, the dillons store I think
they will do a tremendous job
here.
there will be a lot more traffic
then they think.
the st. Paul church, the largest
catholic church in kansas city
kansas diocese and they have
daily mass there too and they
have a exit on 113th street and
I just-I guess my feelings are,
if they kept it commercial, it
wouldn't bother me, but with
that many vehicles in that area
I just hope think they could
really consider you guys could
consider not doing this allowing
this to happen.
commercial I'm fine with.
olathe has grown.
phenomenal growth and love
living up here and close to
things.
we were fortunate to volunteer
for the fifa thing and that was
great and it just I just hope
you really give it a lot of
foresight and thought that we
don't shouldn't put it there,
because I guess I leave with one
statement.
would you want this to happen in
your neighborhood?
thank you.
(applause)
>> thank you mr. Nelson.
that is our final speaker.
I entertain a motion to close
the public hearing.
>> so moved.
>> thank you commissioner breen.
do I have a second?
>> second.
>> thank you commissioner
chapman.
all in favor aye.
opposed, nay?
the public hearing is closed.
open for discussion for staff or
applicant.
commissioner chapman.
>> I have a question first for
the developer.
>> okay.
>> two questions for you.
>> yes, sir.
>> you use the term extensive
tree preservation.
can you explain what you mean by
that?
>> sure thing.
we were given as a concept plan.
not down to the percentage, but
we asked our civil engineer
beforehand if there was more
detailed question, what is best
guesstimate and said we will
preserve--there is a lot of
trees, a lot off to the west
where the trail is and trees to
the south and 76 percent of the
trees will be preserved and it
wasn't a big chunk, it was
shaving here and there.
>> thank you.
>> yes, sir.
>> I have a question I guess for
staff.
anyone of staff.
this meadow tree lane is a city
maintained trail, is that
correct?
>> correct.
it is a city owned trail.
>> do we have restrictions with
regards to the removal of trees
along our trails?
>> so, are you referring to the
trees that are around the
existing trail itself or the
trees on the applicants
property?
>> on either side of the trail.
we have trees on either side of
the trail from the overhead
views I see.
do we have restrictions on how
close you can get to a trail and
removal of trees?
does the tree have a requirement
you cannot move trees within 50
or 75 feet of the trail?
>> there isn't a specific
distance requirement for the
trees to be removed.
the tract that the-let me pull
it up.
that the trail is in, is within
a the residential properties
tract.
so, the trail is within here.
that is not within the
applicant's property, so the
tree preservation adjacent to
the trail is within a tract that
is associated with the hoa in
the neighborhood there.
so, any tree removal would be a
conversation with the hoa and
the city and not of the
applicant.
>> what about the trees that
are-that we are looking at on
the rz-
>> this area here?
>> yes, and further north.
>> all of these are within the
tree preservation standards we
have for development, so each
applicant is required to
preserve at least 20 percent of
the existing wooded area.
so, that will be considered with
the requirements of the revised
preliminary plan.
>> okay.
20 percent?
>> that's the standard, yes.
>> thank you.
>> commissioner chapman, I will
add a little point.
there is a stream corridor and
that is higher level of
protection, so taylor gave a the
tree preservation requirement
which is what you were asking
about.
the other layer which preserves
more trees is the stream
corridor.
that is where they have a higher
level of protection.
>> thank you.
>> commissioner terrones.
>> thank you mr. Chairman.
question has to do with traffic.
the packet referred to traffic
study, but could we get more
specific detail about when it
was conducted and time of day
and how that progressed?
thank you.
>> I'll cover traffic and may
double back on corridors.
>> go right ahead.
>> I dont know the exact time of
day that they did the study or
exact dates.
traditionally as all our studies
are done, they will take the
counts during the middle of the
week and shooting when school is
in session, but this is a unique
little area in regards to this
road isn't currently there.
so, there is some traffic counts
you can't take and this is
developing and building this new
roadway and so there
unique-can't count the traffic
on sunnybrook boulevard because
it isn't there.
so, that traffic study did take
traffic counts along college
boulevard, also went to college
boulevard and lone elm and
different traffic counts there
and analyzed those.
>> can the conversation at the
side, can we cease on that,
please?
go ahead.
>> traffic was analyzed.
meeting the standards.
they made appropriate
assumptions because they have to
make assumptions because
sunnybrook boulevard isn't
there.
the other thing we looked at is
we looked at the actual traffic
on college boulevard and just so
you know, just some of the
numbers out there, college
boulevard is operating probably
like the daily traffic it sees
is about a third of what it can
be capacity wise.
if you compare this down to 151
street you see about a third of
the traffic that we see through
some of the other very very
similar corridors.
any other questions in regards
to traffic?
that answer thereat that?
>> no thank you.
>> just in regards one more
time, because I think there is
concerns about how much buffer
area is there.
I don't know the specific
acreage draining through this
tributary, but my guess is it is
usually about a--double check
this.
it is 60 feet probably on each
side that streamway that
absolutely is protected.
if it jumps to 160 acres the
drainage which I dont think it
qualifies for, it is hundred
feet on each side that tributary
area and that is consistent with
all the stream buffers we have.
in that area there isn't
intended to be clearing or
grading or anything like that.
>> thank you.
additional questions?
>> where is the streamway?
does it run along the trail?
>> it is very faint.
I am going to-can you make this
go-- once again, charley love,
chief development engineer.
I highlight on here, it is tough
to see, but it actually shows
the approximate so I will trace
on here with my finger.
the existing stream is following
the light black line in there.
>> got it.
>> from that point, I think I
lose it but it goes through
there and there is another
through that direction.
>> thank you.
>> okay.
>> I have other questions.
>> go ahead.
floor is still yours.
going back to the trees again
here for the staff, either kim
or taylor, this might be a
impossible estimate, but can you
estimate the distance between
the rear of the proposed
structures, and the trail?
>> in the trail itself?
>> yes.
>> so, we have distances from
the proposed buildings to the
property lines.
so, as shown-- here.
the apartments on the west side
there are set back 80 to 190
feet.
as well as the townhomes there.
>> to the property line?
>> to the property line so it
will be set back farther from
the trail to the west.
>> now, mr. Peterson, that his
name?
>> yes.
>> used the number, 75 percent
of the trees are going to be
kept.
that is obviously only on their
property.
what percentage of the trees
would that be when you took it a
percentage of on each side of
the trail?
what I'm looking for is lots of
trees on the east side of the
trail too I take it.
>> uh-huh.
>> how many feet of trees would
there be over there?
>> so, for this application, we
are looking at the property line
itself on the trees that are
located on the applicant's
property, so that is where the
minimum 20 percent comes in.
those will be preserved along
the property line to buffer
between where the trail is and
where the development is.
>> so, there is plenty of trees
there along each side?
>> yes, and also will have
landscaping as well that we'll
evaluate during the revised
preliminary plan.
to supplementary any gaps in the
tree preservation area, there
are landscape requirements we
evaluate to buffer r3 based on
the adjacent zoning districts as
well.
>> alright.
you had a slide up there with
the term that makes me crazy and
that is, missing middle.
could you explain to me or kim
or somebody what the missing
middle is?
had
>> sure.
missing middle is the housing
types between single family
homes and high density
apartments, so more urban
context apartments versus your
typical single family.
you have housing products in the
missing middle that include
townhomes, duplexes, courtyard
cottages, as well as smaller
multiplexes like four plexes and
six plexes so that is the
missing middle product.
>> not related to price, it is
related to structures?
>> yes, it is related to
individual buildings themselves.
>> thank you.
>> okay.
additional questions?
commissioner bergida.
>> thank you mr. Chairman.
I got one question for you mr.
love regarding the traffic
study.
did the traffic study take into
consideration the development we
just approved to the north and
then if I recall correctly,
there is at least two projects,
apartment complex projects we
approved in the last 18 months
to the west of this as well.
did it take into consideration
the additional traffic from
those three different projects?
>> charley love, chief
development engineer.
the good thing about all these
projects coming in at the same
time, dillons, commercial, this
multifamily, they have all been
worked together and that helped
us because it has been able to
when we evaluate that
intersection looking to make it
sure it will operate
satisfactory and that is the
case.
the traffic studies did also
look and take into consideration
those apartments I believe you
are talking I think are actually
on the west side of k7 and they
do reference those as well.
>> okay.
thank you.
and then, this goes back to
distance questions, which ever
staff member is best suited to
answer this one.
we talked about distance to the
property line.
do we know what the distance is
between those homes on south
montclaire drive and 3 or 4
buildings on the west side of
the proposed development?
>> could you repeat the question
for the distance?
>> yes, how far is it from the
homes not the property line or
the trail, but the homes to the
buildings on the west side of
the development?
>> so, you mean the property
line here how far away is it
from the homes to the west?
>> sure.
that would help with the total
number, but the question I'm
asking is the houses that are to
the west of the property line,
the ones off south montclaire
drive, how far are those homes
from--
>> those homes are-this is
easier.
>> yes.
>> so, the property line is
shown here and as I mentioned,
the buildings over here are set
back all most 180 feet from that
property line, and so they are
separated by this trail here, so
approximately 200 feet or so,
exceeding that in certain areas
on the west side of the property
line.
>> okay.
and then, I understand there's
rp3 zoning, but as one resident
pointed out, and what I can see
on google maps, it is all single
family or duplex, the highest is
two stories to the west.
I think it is the same to the
south.
is that correct?
it is only single family and
duplex adjacent to the west and
south and southeast to this
proposed site?
>> yes.
so, immediately adjacent to the
property--go back to this one.
-- so, to the west there is the
single family zoning district.
farther west is the mix of the
duplexes and the single family
homes, but it is zoned rp3.
and then to the south is the
traditional r1 single family
homes and then to the east the
rp2 has duplexes.
that is within the immediate
area.
>> okay.
so, they all are?
>> uh-huh.
>> okay.
down south on sunnybrook that
apartment complex that was
brought up,b it is two stories,
is that correct?
>> yes.
the ones located here are about
two stories.
multiplex and attached townhomes
there.
>> okay.
do we know where the closest
three story one would be?
is it some of the new ones
coming in out west or where is
the closest 3 story apartment
complex to the proposed site?
>> would you mind repeating the
last portion a little louder,
please?
>> sure, do we know what the
closest 3 story apartment
complex is to this site?
>> apartment complex no, but the
assisted living centers are in
the r4 on the screen there,
which are taller products.
>> commissioner bergida, I will
add a bit since I see the recent
developments.
west down college and west of
k7, south that there is r3 in
the ground for 3 story
apartments.
as you get closer to the cedar
creek south glen area, that
recently went through two years
ago.
north of college, so northeast
of k7 and college, those are 4
and 5 story apartments closer to
aldi approved recently as well.
>> thank you.
>> okay.
any other questions from
commissioners?
commissioner breen.
>> thank you mr. Chair.
the one thing I saw missing from
the packet and talked about it
from the applicant presentation,
but the topography or elevation
from where the houses are to the
west to where this property is
going to be developed.
what is the sight line where the
homes?
is that plan multifamily
development same elevation,
lower or higher?
trying to get a sense of the
scale of the buildings will look
like from the west.
>> previously the elevation
change from--switch here.
it is hard to tell.
start here.
it sits up higher along
sunnybrook and it slopes down
towards the southwest there, so
where the stream corridor and
trail are.
same as where the single family
homes are as well, so it slopes.
so, without line of sights or
architecture, I dont have an
exact line of sight of what they
would see, but based on the 3
story and where they are sitting
they are most likely able to see
the roof pitch of the proposed
single family just based where
it sits.
>> okay and that type of
information is something we see
at the preliminary site
development, right?
>> yes.
>> thank you.
>> any additional questions from
commissioners?
thank you mrs. Vande velde.
seeing none, I call for a motion
on rz26-0006.
>> mr. Chair, make a motion we
approve rz26-0006 as stipulated
by staff.
>> thank you commissioner
terrones.
do I have a second?
>> second.
>> thank you commissioner breen.
move forward on roll call vote.
>> commissioner terrones, yes.
commissioner bergida, no.
commissioner chapman, yes.
commissioner lynn, yes.
commissioner breen, yes.
commissioner brown, yes.
chair janner,
>> final points on this.
before we wrap this up.
I do see the importance of this
area without question as
discussed extensively as we
reviewed the elevate olathe plan
and I'll share as mr. Nelson is
a hutchinson native, excited for
dillons coming to town and the
advantage it brings to this
immediate area but west side of
olathe.
I also important to note that
this is just step one.
I see the zoning change as
advantage with 30 plus years in
real estate I can tell from a
property value point of view, I
rather see that then the light
industrial.
that has been my experience, so
I think it is actually moving in
the right direction there, which
would be approved under the
current zoning.
and I think elevate olathe is
very clear this is where it
needs to be done but we will be
looking closely at the final
development plan and make sure
some of the concerns addressed
tonight still have a opportunity
to look at closely and making
sure what goes in does address
those things as well.
I will vote yes.
>> the motion passes 6-1.
>> okay, do we have
announcements from staff this
evening?
>> none.
thank you.
>> that being said, this meeting
is adjourned.
[meeting adjourned]