[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]