Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call tonight's 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

So we begin our meeting tonight. I'll acknowledge that we do have a quorum of planning commissioners present with seven of nine commissioners in attendance. Commissioner Corcoran and Sealing were unable to join this evening. But I want to thank everyone in the chamber and everyone watching online for attending this evening's meeting. Planning commission meetings are an important part of the process for interpreting and applying the city's comprehensive plan and the unified development ordinance. It's important that our meetings are conducted with dignity and respect, and that applies to every person in attendance. We strive to provide an atmosphere where the ideas and opinions of all participants are held in the highest regard. Finally, the actions on the issues we discuss are ultimately under the responsibility of the city council. As a planning commission, we're here to help the council as our elected representatives to be fully informed so that they can make the best choices for our city. By statute, the Planning Commission strives not to engage with any party on the issues on our agenda prior to this meeting. Should that interaction take place as a result of a business relationship or any other interaction, which we refer to as ex parte communication, commissioners will report that interaction when we reach that item in the agenda. We'll now move on to the consent agenda and this evening we have four items on our consent agenda. Consent agenda items are listed and are considered routine by the Planning Commission and may be approved in one motion. There's no public hearing on any of these issues and there will be no discussion unless a commissioner requests that an item be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. Commissioners, is there anything that falls into that category that needs to be pulled for additional information or questions of staff?

Commissioner Pergita. Thank you. I would like to pull item B.

Okay. Note for the record that Commissioner Pergita has pulled item B from the consent agenda. Anything else? If not, I will entertain a motion on the remaining three items.

Mr. Chair, I'll move to approve items A, C, and D on the consent agenda.

Thank you, Commissioner Breen. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. That motion passes 7-0. So, Commissioner Brigitte.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. A quick question for staff. You're on. Okay. 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 the current balance I saw was $14 million on that. Has $11 million been spent or what's 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 just cost savings that came into play or why the reduction?

We're currently reevaluating that project in its entirety and probably will provide further details at a later date.

Okay, thank you. For the record, I would just, based on our conversation we had a couple weeks ago with the Starfish Project, I would just like the record to show for council there's a lot of folks that are going through a tough time right now. And so I appreciate staff making those adjustments and would encourage council to even make more, if possible, on that particular item. Thank you. All right.

Thank you, Commissioner Brigitte. So we did have that pulled for discussion. We'll have a roll call vote on that. If I'll entertain a motion, please.

Mr. Chair, I'll move to approve item B on the consent agenda.

Thank you, Commissioner Breen. Do you have a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Chapman. Ms. Will?

Commissioner Breen?

Yes.

Commissioner Brown?

Yes.

Commissioner Torrones?

Yes.

Commissioner Birgitta?

Yes.

Commissioner Chapman?

Yes.

Commissioner Lynn? Yes. Chair Janner?

Yes.

That motion passes 7-0.

Thank you. We'll now move on to our regular business. This evening we have six scheduled public hearings. However, the first four public hearings this evening, a continuance has been requested. When a continuance is scheduled, the public hearing will not be opened. Comments, recommendations, or analysis on those cases are not provided for or discussed until the public hearing takes place. This process ensures that 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 a future planning commission meeting for RZ26-0010. Is there a motion on this item? So moved. Thank you, Commissioner Tronos. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Breen. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. That motion passes 7-0. Move on to item B. Continuance is also requested to a future planning commission meeting for RZ26-0011. Is there a motion on this item?

So moved.

Thank you, Commissioner Chapman. A second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Breen. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. And that motion passes seven to zero. Moving on to number three, RZ26-0013, a continuance is requested to a future planning commission meeting. Is there a motion on this side?

So moved.

Thank you, Commissioner Birgitta. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Chapman. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. And that motion passes seven to zero. Item D, SU260007, a continuance is also requested to a future planning commission meeting. Is there a motion on this item?

So moved.

Thank you, Commissioner Breen. A second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Birgitta. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. And that motion passes 7-0. Thanks for sitting through that with us. We'll now move on. Prior to the next two public hearings, Ms. Hollingworth will join us for a brief introduction.

All right. Thank you, commissioners. Yes. Thank you, Commissioners Kim Hollingsworth, Planning and Development Manager. Before we get into the next two rezoning applications, I'm going to provide just a really high-level introduction overview. We saw this as a great opportunity since we recently adopted our comprehensive plan, Elevate Olathe, and also due to the interrelatedness of these cases, which is somewhat unique. So I'm gonna start with a little bit of history on zoning. So on the left, you're gonna see 1998 rezoning. And so this is the 314 acre area that I'm just gonna call the Sunnybrook area. It was rezoned to these districts that you can see on the left in 1998. Significant business park. And I'm gonna circle approximately the subject properties that we're talking about this evening are within that 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. So 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're seeing less office development. So over time, we've progressed away from that district in this area. I'm going to move to the Conference of Plan. So this is the Elevate Olathe Conference of Plan, just adopted in April. And I really want to talk about the K-7 subarea. So this is a particular area in the plan. We did engagement on the Conference of Plan over a two-year period, very extensive community engagement in person, online, at events. We also held specific open house and engagement online events related related to this sub area. So we really looked at K-7 knowing there's a lot of development opportunity. We wanted to look at a more refined land use plan, place making opportunities, and some of those key elements that we're gonna talk about this evening are looking at complete neighborhoods, blending residential with commercial, perhaps some vertical mixed use buildings. Cohesive lifestyle centers, opportunity for commercial along arterials, maybe some entertainment uses, minimize surface parking when you integrate those uses together. Also a range of multifamily and higher density housing that transitions to surrounding neighborhoods. These were all things that were talked about during that comprehensive plan update and then adopted into this document. So we're talking about this area just circled this evening, mixed use, mix of uses really. And 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 we're reviewing through the construction process already has development approvals and now is going through building permit reviews so we see it as somewhat unique that development started prior to plan adoption and then when you get to the other sub areas those could have approved developments but aren't actively under construction right now All right, so getting closer into the property, mixed use. So we'll get into the specifics of the development cases, but you can see them referenced on the screen and their location in that mixed use area. What mixed use means is looking at stratified uses, so a mix of residential, commercial, employment opportunities within a larger development area, often pedestrian-oriented design, so it's meant to integrate a transition between those land uses. We also added a vertical mixed-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. So we know over time we'll continue to evaluate this overlay. There's portions of it that have already been through the development process here, but this is another layer of the K-7 sub-area. So really I want to hone in on this concept plan briefly. So there were two different development teams that worked on this together. This is somewhat unique. We do not see this all the time that we have two development teams submit around the same time, go through the development review process together, coordinate with staff a lot back and forth on changes to the plan and really did a joint neighborhood meeting, which we'll highlight later. And so it's somewhat unique. And really, these two cases are interrelated in how they relate to the comprehensive plan. So they're interdependent on each other to align with that comprehensive plan. So we really talk to the development teams. You need to progress together. They're more than willing to work through the development process. So that's a somewhat unique aspect that I wanted to highlight. And finally, I wanna talk about why we're here this evening. So when Ms. Vandevelde gets up and presents, we're gonna be honing in on the zoning district. So two things that we look at are zoning and preliminary plan. So with the zoning district, we're looking at conformance with our comprehensive plan, land use analysis, dimensional standards, both of these development teams submitted conceptual plans tonight so you will not see all the details on architecture landscaping parking stormwater etc and that's okay because there's a process where it comes back through right revised preliminary plan which the planning commission is familiar with and you get to see it another time to make sure it conforms with all the udl requirements gets that full vetting so really honing in on the things above the line tonight, which is zoning district related. So that's just a brief overview that I wanted to talk about really ahead of getting into the development applications. So I'm going to turn it over right away to Ms. Vandevelde, who's going to talk first about the request for the College and Sunnybrook commercial development, which is located southwest of College and Lone Elm. So I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Vandevelde.

Thank you, Kim. Ms. Vandevelde.

Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. Taylor Vandevelde, 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 commercial development located southwest of College and Lone Elm on your screen. As Kim just mentioned, the applicant here this evening 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 that 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 Dillon's Grocery Store to the east, which is also outlined on your screen. The proposal tonight is a 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 Dillon's rezoning and development to the east. STOP is recommending several recommending several land use restrictions which mostly align with restricted uses from the recent Dillon's 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 as mixed use and vertical mixed use, hatched in black near College Boulevard, as designated on the Elevate Olathe Future Land Use Map. This proposal brings together a 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 the conceptual plan provided this evening does align with several key strategies of the Elevate Olathe Comprehensive Plan related to land use and economic development to encourage density and provide neighborhood commercial as well. the applicants have worked together to provide an overall concept plan which kim has 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 of Sunnybrook Boulevard, as well as an internal connection connecting to the south, all of which meet the city's access management plan. As this is conceptual to establish zoning, as Kim mentioned, no waivers are necessary at this time, and a revised preliminary site development plan will be required to further evaluate those additional site details. The applicant met all public notice requirements, including a neighborhood meeting. At the request of staff, the applicant held a joint meeting with the residential application, was well attended with approximately 50 attendees. Topics related to this specific case included traffic, access, timeline, and other similar questions which the applicant responded to during the meeting. No additional correspondence was received related to this specific case. STOP does recommend approval of the requested C2 zoning district with the restricted uses listed here, as well as a stipulation requiring the revised preliminary plan. This case will proceed to the September 15th city council meeting, and the applicant will provide a brief presentation as well.

Is the applicant doing a presentation?

Yes.

Yes. I'm sorry. Yeah. Go ahead. Just go ahead and state your name and address for the record.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Melissa VanCrum. I'm with Rouse-Fretz White and located at 5250 West 116th Place, Suite 400, Leawood, Kansas. I'm here on behalf of my client, Atwater Group, to present the rezoning and concept plan request for the Sunnybrook-Dillon's commercial outlots. With me today is my partner, Greg Musil, Sonny Cardamone of Otwater Group, who is the prospective purchaser and developer of the property, and Tom Barnes, civil engineer with Pickering Firm. This request involves approximately 11 acres on the southwest corner of College and Sunnybrook, immediately across from the recently approved Dillon's store. The application here is brought by the same developer as the Dillon's store, and the application is for the commercial lots only and is separate from the adjacent multifamily that follows. As staff has mentioned, the property is currently zoned BP Business Park and it is proposed to be rezoned to C2 Community Center. The rezoning is consistent with the adjacent Dillon's Grocery Store and Fuel Center that was recently approved. It's also consistent with the uses at the shops at Sunnybrook at College and Lone Elm. The concept plan will provide for traditional and complementary retail and service uses. And the preliminary and final plan will be to follow. By way of background, staff has covered some of this, but it has been zoned as business park for over 25 years. The time has taken, it's taken quite a while to develop this particular site despite development nearby and active efforts to market it. It's a challenging site with significant slope and rock, which I just made into one word. The site has also been planned along with the Dillon's Grocery Store to be complimentary out lots that you would see to serve the same users as the Dillon's Grocery Store. However, the Dillon's was planned under the old comprehensive plan and with the adoption of Elevato Latha just one month later, these commercial out lots have been sort of caught in the middle of the change of the plan. Rather than vertical mixed use, which would be difficult to develop on such a small site, the concept plan instead reflects the small-scale commercial uses which are supported by the comprehensive plan as well. We've worked with staff to both improve walkability and compatibility to kind of bridge the difference between the site design standards of the Dillon's and this particular site. The neighboring properties, it's largely commercial and institutional. Across College Boulevard is really the institutional uses, K-State Olathe campus directly across. 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's 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 there's two additional buildings that are proposed further south. Anticipated uses may involve a quick-serve restaurant, financial institution, a 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 some more separation from residential as well. Importantly, the plan has been 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 a little bit more about how the buildings have been brought forward here to be consistent with other uses along College Boulevard. And that'll be further refined through the preliminary plan process. This just shows a little bit more about the natural buffer the properties to the west and this property with that significant tree line and trail which will be preserved to the extent possible and a tree preservation plan and more detailed stormwater facilities will be provided at the preliminary plan stage. There has been a professional traffic study that has been submitted and reviewed by City of Olathe Traffic Division. The Sunnybrook Boulevard will be extended to provide access to the site at the developer's expense. The proposal meets the city's access management plan and no additional roadway improvements are required. These are some conceptual elevations. Again, we'll be 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 Dillon site as well. The property meets the criteria for rezoning. It meets the comprehensive plans, preferred small-scale commercial uses. It's compatible with the surrounding zoning and land uses and is more suitable for this long vacant site than the current BP zoning. The buildings will be consistent with the neighboring buildings and should fit well with the shops at Sunnybrook. This is an appropriate and practical rezoning. It supports the Dillons and helps to bring commercial uses to a long vacant site. We appreciate staff's recommendation of approval. We agree to the stipulations, and we thank you for your time. We're happy to answer any questions that you have this evening. Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you for being here. Okay, commissioners, do you have any questions for staff or the applicant on this issue? Commissioner Brigitte.

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 the 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's kind of a light industrial employment center kind of a use. So it's really, you know, typically more manufacturing, assembly, you know, those types of light industrial with a little bit of office. And the retail and service is really just a, A SIDE NOTE WHERE CERTAIN AMOUNTS OF THAT CAN BE INCLUDED, BUT IT'S NOT THE FOCUS OF THAT DISTRICT AT ALL.

SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY DESIGN REQUIREMENTS, BUT IT'S RATHER USAGE REQUIREMENTS. IS THAT CORRECT?

I think it's a combination, but the Dillon site, we were asked to rezone that and have continued to do the exact same zoning for this one. It's also consistent with several other of the lots along the shops of Sunnybrook as well. There's a portion of it that's still BP, but a lot of those you'll see have been rezoned to C2 as well.

Thank you. Any additional questions? Commissioner Taranis.

Thank you for your presentation. Just a quick question. This new development won't cause a delay in the construction of the Dillon store?

No. It's been planned all along, alongside the Dillons. It's actually part of the same development through the same developer. So approval of this will not delay the Dillons.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Any additional questions from commissioners? All right. Thank you for being here.

Thank you.

We'll now move on to the public hearing, and I will now open the public hearing. However, for this public hearing, we don't have anybody signed up. So I will now close the public hearing. If I can have a motion, please.

So moved.

Thank you, Commissioner Brigitte. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Green. All those in favor of closing the public hearing, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. And that passes 7-0. Are there any additional discussion needed at all for this item? If not, I'll call for a motion on RZ26-0009.

Mr. Chair, I would move for the approval of RZ26-0009 with all stipulations as recommended by staff.

Thank you, Commissioner Brigitte. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Taronis. Ms. Will, if you will, please.

Commissioner Brigitte.

Yes.

Commissioner Chapman.

Yes.

Commissioner Lynn. Yes. Commissioner Breen. Yes. Commissioner Brown. Yes. Commissioner Taronis. Yes. Chair Jannert. Yes. That motion passes 7-0.

Okay, we'll move on now to the sixth and final public hearing is a request for approval of the rezoning for the College and Sunnybrook multifamily located southwest of College and South Valley Boulevard. Ms. Vandevelde will present the case.

Okay. Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. Taylor Vandevelde, Planner 2, again. As a continuation of our discussion this evening, the following is a request to rezone RZ26-0006 to rezone 20 acres to the 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've mentioned before, office warehousing, light manufacturing, and flex spaces, which are permitted by right. The surrounding area has developed with a mix of commercial and residential zoning districts, including single family, duplexes, and attached multifamily, providing a wider variety of existing land uses around the surrounding area. The existing BP zoning district is a higher intensity district and permits buildings up to 12 stories and is no longer compatible with how the area has developed out in recent years. That shows all the existing zoning districts and the requested district. We'll rezone to the R3 low-density multifamily district to allow the construction of 333 residential units with a density of 16.65 dwelling units per acre, which is 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 a well-integrated mix of commercial and residential uses throughout the overall site. The proposal aligns with the mixed use designation, which supports multifamily uses, such as apartments and complimentary townhomes, and a pedestrian-oriented development as well. More specifically, this area is identified in the K-7 sub-area plan of the Elevator Lathe Comprehensive Plan as an opportunity site. This opportunity site prescribes commercial near college and supports denser housing types such as the multiplex 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 existing and also proposed commercial services and corridor areas while providing appropriate transition to the residential uses. The overall plan we've 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 nine apartment buildings and six townhome buildings, which are situated more on the southern property edge there. They provide private amenities such as a clubhouse, dog park, and active open space conceptually throughout the site as well. This plan has two access drives on Sunnybrook Boulevard, as well as an internal drive to the north commercial street or rezoning that we just heard. No waivers 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, 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 the 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 this presentation to outline some of those improvements, which Melissa actually kind of 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 113th 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 development shown here. Staff does recommend approval of the rezoning to the R3 district with no stipulations and also requires a revised preliminary site development plan. This case proceeds to the September 15th City Council meeting and the applicant just has a few words to provide to you all and we're available for questions.

Thank you, Taylor. Please state your name and address for the record.

Good evening, Chairman Janitor and Commissioners. My name is Kurt Peterson, 900 West, 48th Place, Kansas City, Missouri. I'm here with Chris Binnish from Platform Ventures Multifamily, who's the applicant. And I also have Matt Kist, who's our civil engineer, a vice president over at Kimley Horn. Really, with a staff report like that and Taylor's presentation, I know the last thing you wish for me to do is to go over a bunch of details, so I'm going to limit it to three bullet points. I even only say those because we have worked for a long time, staff's worked for a long time, and I just want to try to say this is from our perspective. If you told me I had three bullet points, here's what I would say. First, I would say this is a downzoning, as Taylor did a good job of describing. uh a significant down zoning you know something that could have up to and in the code up to 144 feet so this is a significant down zoning to this from bp to r3 point two is that we really believe this is a reasonable and quality and really traditional transition from commercial to the north future commercial we just heard about commercial to the east to our residential to the south and to the southwest including but not limited to the extensive tree preservation. We didn't highlight that that much, but you probably are looking at the aerial and seeing just how much tree stand you have to the west and tree stand you'll have to the south when we're done. Extensive tree preservation. And then the third point, and I would say the most important point, is the consistency. Rarely am I able to say this. With any project of any scale, there's really something, right, that is inconsistent with the comp plan goals or something we need to at least discuss. But here in all ways, as Taylor has emphasized both in writing and verbally tonight, we are consistent with Elevate Olathe and the UDO, whether it's pedestrian oriented with the trail connection or sidewalks or the mixed use nature or even the mixed housing because we have both townhomes and traditional multifamily. so we will again as taylor said we'll be back before this body with our preliminary development plan which will hone in on architectural details and the like photometric and things like that but for tonight we would ask you to please consider and hopefully recommend to the city council this rezoning and the associated concept plan and if there's any questions now chair or later then i'd be happy to answer those thank you mr peterson yes sir okay

We'll now move forward on our public hearings. Let me take a minute to kind of spell out how that works. We'll begin calling on individuals who have signed up to speak through the processes we had available. And I want to thank everyone for attending. And we really appreciate your participation. It's a vital part of what we do. Now, we understand the comments and the feedback that the public has submitted to the city already. We've received emails, phone calls, letters, and all that. Everybody sitting up here that dies has had an ample opportunity to review all of those. And they matter and they'll be taken into consideration. Tonight, we're most interested in hearing new information. In accordance with our bylaws, each speaker will have a maximum of five minutes. And to your right over here, you'll see the clock on there where you'll actually know exactly where you're at on that. And that'll be set for each speaker. However, if your points have already been made by the person that went before you, it's 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 we'll take them into serious consideration. So if your points have already been made, it's perfectly okay to pass or at least to come up, state your name and address for the record, and just list your support for the comments that have been prior made. you're perfectly okay to do that. Please note that our decision tonight is based on information provided us from all parties, so it's not necessary to repeat the information that was in the packet or addressed by other speakers tonight. All of that will be taken into consideration as we make a decision on this and move it on to the City Council, who ultimately makes the final decision on passage on this as far as the change in zoning. Speakers, audience members, we all expect you to conduct yourselves in a civil and respectful manner, as I said at the beginning of the meeting, and please address your comments to the Planning Commission. But this is not a Q&A. We are here to listen to everything you have to say. It's not a dialogue back and forth between us or the staff during your speaking time. And if you might pose a question for us to address later, I'm not opposed to that, but don't expect us to answer it while you're standing at the podium. So moving on with that, I will now open the public hearing. So our first speaker signed up this evening is David Connor. So when you step to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and then we'll start the clock.

My name is David Connor, 11259 South Montclair. I live off Montclair Drive here 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 I appreciate you letting us air our grievances tonight. Our family has lived in Olathe for 31 years. We built our current house. nearly 10 years ago off Montclair Drive. We're within two miles of each of our three daughters and built strategically in Gatewood because it's a location because it was on a quiet street. When we purchased and built our house, we knew the zoning lot behind us was agricultural, commercial. Nobody knew exactly what was going in back there because they said the bank owned it. Our agent told us eventually houses would be built behind us. Later, we realized that was not likely houses, but probably more likely commercial properties. We accepted that commercial properties will be built, but we also know that traffic noise from those properties would cease at a reasonable hour. Not one time in the past 10 years has anyone told us that apartment complexes or duplexes were in our future. Not until we were given notice of this rezoning. I want to address several golden factors individually. One, the character of the neighborhood these apartments are being sandwiched between. neighborhoods minimal trees which a developer claims is theirs and they have the right to remove and do not prevent sight lines. If you have been along that section of Meadowloan Trail you will see that there is no barrier from our backyards to the apartment complex. These multi-family housing units do not conform to the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The extent of The extent to which the change will detrimentally affect our properties, these apartments will significantly and detrimentally affect the value and the aesthetics of our home. To speak again of Meadow Lane, we are used to having people walk behind our houses. However, we are not equipped to handle the droves of individuals who will access the trail purportedly behind my house. As I hope you're aware, you can only turn right out of our small subdivision. With significant increase in traffic based on 297 apartments and 36 duplexes, we will struggle even more to turn out of our neighborhood. The foot traffic and car traffic will detrimentally affect my property value and the safety which we currently enjoy. Three, the gain to the public health, safety, and welfare by the developer compared to the hardships imposed on nearby neighbors. The developers continue to tell us what great news it is that these apartments are coming to our area. They have not explained what they are doing to increase the public health, the safety, or the welfare of the community. Their business is profits, and that's all they care about. Meanwhile, my neighbors and I, who, mind you, are mostly retired, want the peace and quiet nights that we have enjoyed for the past 10 years. Having a significant amount of new neighbors behind us, which will generate car noise, people noise, that will affect our ability to enjoy the quiet and peace that we currently have. I have not heard anything that outweighs the hardships that you are forcing 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 that are multi-stories that will be looking into our backyards where our grandchildren can currently play. Elsewhere in this city, you have carefully decided where to place apartments and keep them out of neighborhoods. Think of the ones at Ridgeview and College, K7 and 119th Street, and the ones across from Hy-Vee on 119th Street. They are along major roadways where single-family housing is not ideal. That is where apartments belong, along major corridors where they have access and families and housing is not permitted. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Conner.

The next speaker is Forrest Miles.

Good evening, commissioners, and thank you for letting me talk. My name is Forrest Miles, and I've lived on the west side of Olathe for 45 years. Currently, I live in Gatewood Villas as my neighbor, Dave, 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've always been, as they said, and this is a repeat, but they have been at like, and I'll just give you the one, at Ridgeview and College, okay? The current developments from 119th to the north are usually almost always R1, R2, or C2 for small business. In the comparison, the proposed R3 zoning of nine apartment buildings, six villas, complexes, development of around 1,000 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's tough. I mean, 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 the afternoon has escalated because of the West. Also, with the building of Dillon's, there will also come out the problem. Furthermore, as stated in the meeting on July 22nd, they said 80% of the complex traffic would be headed north on Sunnybrook towards Meadow Lane Elementary School. That's a problem. And Olathe Northwest, which is just to the east, is also a problem because in the morning and afternoon and with activities, there's an immense amount of traffic around there. Also, there will be traffic, they said about 20%, which will be headed towards St. Paul's 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're going to get rid of all the water runoff. I haven't seen anything with that. some loss of trees. Now, I'm 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, there would be a lot more safety. And I thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Miles. So the next speaker is Bill Statler. Is that correct? Okay. I'll let you correct me.

Bill Stalter, 11299, South Montclair. And I have one nit to pick. It has to do with a characterization that the staff has given on 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's called zoning, another one called correspondence. I think another one is an overlay. Those maps show four communities. Gatewood, which we reside in, To the west of us would be Stratford Oaks, a very large community shown on your map as a RP3. To the south would be Coventry Creek and then Coventry Court. Court is a R2 and Creek is a R1. Now, Stratford Oaks being an RP3 in its original form, zoning lends a lot of credibility to that this is not a big step to add RP3 for rezoning. But Stratford Oaks has been built out for decades. It's 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 ringed by R1 and R2 developments. If you want to find an R3 development, you're going to have to step back. The closest one is on Woodsonia. It is a sliver piece of track, about seven homes. They are townhomes, owner-occupied, and none being over two stories. It's bordered by community zone property on the west. You'll step out further to find the next RP3, and that's south on Sunnybrook. And that's the village at Sunnybrook. Now, there's a larger tract that's labeled as RP3, but the north half of that has been built out, again, as duplexes. They will be owner-occupied duplexes. So all we're talking about are 12 apartments at the village at Sunnybrook. Those are no higher than two stories. They are flanked by a school on the east, the south, and the west. There's no other adjoining residential property touching that particular development. So what we are seeing here is probably, I'd say, an escalation in density and height that we're not seeing anywhere else in this area. So it is a bit misleading to say that, you know, this is an easy step for RP3 when we, you know, we really don't see that in our area. And the reference to an R4 is, well, that's the senior sits at the very south on 119th. So what I'd say is that, you know, again, that's not a fair characterization to say this is an easy step to RP3. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Stalter. Next speaker is Greg Millard.

I'm going to bag off.

All right. Thank you. Max Cook.

Good evening. I'm Max Cook. I live at 11475 South Roundtree Street in Covington Creek. I just moved there. Very proudly moved there. Saved, you know, the last 20 years to be able to afford a place like that. And so you can understand, hopefully, why I was extremely disappointed to find out after I moved there that we were going to be talking about rezoning the area across the tree line from me into... high-density, I don't care what you call it, they're apartment complexes where you're just going to cram a bunch of people in there. The only people that win in this scenario is the city and the county so that they can continue spending like drunken sailors over nothing. My neighborhood does not benefit from this. The other members of our community don't benefit from this. We live there already. It's going to be a bad thing for everybody involved. They've already said a lot of the same things that I believe. But quite frankly, I just really think that this is a project for a different area than right in the middle of an R1 and R2 neighborhood that's already developed. So we appreciate your time. Please don't allow this to go through. Thank you, Mr. Cook.

Our final speaker signed up, Fred Nelson.

My name's Fred Nelson. I live at 11442 South Norston Street in the Covington Court area. We moved here five years ago from Hutchison, so we're elated about the Dillons going in because if you haven't been to one, they're really, really nice. But when we moved here, they were still building the villas over on the Covington Court side, and we happen to live across the little retention pond there. And we'd see deer, you know, and coyotes come through. Of course, that's long gone. But the big thing there, it was so nice and quiet, but one of the things I know that's been reiterated already is that what really bothers me, Sunnybrook Boulevard, really is in a boulevard all the way through unlike at Ridgeview and College where they built these when people come out of there there's what 500 and some parking spots it channels down and one of the things I wish the drawings would have shown is the creme de la creme that's being built on the other corner there's an entrance in and out right in that same area and another thing that that may or may not be known is there's 10 schools within a mile there. Five of them are preschools and two of them are just right there at the corner. And I just, I had an appointment this morning and I had to go through that college boulevard and I came by poor and the that area and got on the street on college and you could they were backed up so far people couldn't even 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 of that out of right hand turn lanes but it is just so convoluted in that area and I attended the meeting that was 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 it can handle this. Well, the Dillon store, I think they're going to do a tremendous job here. There's going to be a lot more traffic than they think. The St. Paul Church there, it's the largest Catholic church in the Kansas City, Kansas diocese, and they even have daily mass there, too, and they have an exit onto 113th Street. I just... i i guess my feelings are if they kept it commercial i wouldn't it wouldn't bother me but with that many vehicles in that area i just i i just hopefully think that they could really consider you guys could consider not doing this allowing this to happen commercial i'd be fine with i know lathe has grown just since we've been here phenomenal growth and we we 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 i just hope you really give it a lot of foresight and thought that we don't shouldn't put it there because i i guess i'd leave it with one statement i mean would you want this to happen in your neighborhood thank you thank you mr nelson

All right. So that is our final speaker. I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

Thank you, Commissioner Breen. All those, excuse me, do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Chapman. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. And the public hearing is now closed. We'll now open up for additional discussion. Commissioners, either for staff or applicant, who'd like to go first? Commissioner Chapman.

Thank you, Chair. 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 actually, given this is a concept plan, we're not down to the percentage, but we asked our civil engineer beforehand, in case there was a more detailed question, what's your best guesstimate in grades and setbacks and all that? And they said, we will preserve. I don't know if we want to put an image up. It's up to you guys. But there's a lot of trees, a lot, off to the west, as you know, where that trail is. And then there's trees to the south. And there's approximately, I think it was 76% of the trees would be preserved, if that gives you a sense. And it wasn't a big chunk or anywhere. It was just shaving a little here and a little there. So about three-quarters of the trees, not holding me to until you see the final plan. I say the final plan, the preliminary development plan.

All right. Thank you.

Yes, sir.

And then I have a question, I guess, for staff, anyone at staff. This metal tree lane is a city-maintained trail. Is that correct?

Corrected as a city-owned trail.

Do we have any 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 applicant's property?

On either side of this trail. We have trees on either side of the trail from the overhead views that I see. Do we have any restrictions on how close you can get to a trail and the removal of trees? Does the city have any requirement you cannot remove trees within 50 feet of a trail or 75 feet of a trail?

There's not a specific distance requirement for the trees to be removed. The tract that the, let me just pull it up, that the trail is in is within a, the residential property's tract. This might be the easiest. So the trail is within here that is not within the applicant's property. So the tree preservation that's adjacent to the trail is within a tract that's associated with the HOA in that 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, though, that are, that we're looking at that sit on the RZ2606? This area here? Yes, that area and further north up there, yeah.

Yeah, so all of these are within the tree preservation standards that we have for development. So each applicant is required to preserve at least 20% of the existing wooded area. So that will be considered with the requirements of the revised preliminary plan.

Okay, 20%.

That's the standard, yes.

Okay, all right. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Chapman, I'm going to add just a little point. There is a stream corridor in this area as well, portions of this area, and that gives a higher level of protection. So Taylor gave you the tree preservation requirements, which is what you were asking about. That other layer we'll look at, which does preserve generally more trees, is the stream corridor. That's where they have a higher level of protection.

Okay, all right. Thank you.

Commissioner Taronis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question has to do with traffic. The packet referred to traffic study, but could we get a little bit more specific detail about when it was conducted and time of day and how that progressed? Thank you.

I'll cover traffic, and I may double back on stream corridors.

Yeah, go right ahead. Just so you know.

Regarding traffic, I don't know the exact time of day that they did their study or their exact dates that was in those. But, you know, traditionally, as all of our studies are done, they're going to take those counts during the middle of the week, and they're also shooting for when school is in session. Right. This is kind of a unique little area in regards to this road is not currently there. So there's some traffic counts that you can't take. And this is developing and we're building this new roadway. And so there's some unique traffic. You know, can't count the traffic on Sunnybrook Boulevard because it's not there. So that traffic study did take traffic counts along College Boulevard, also went over and it went to College Boulevard and Lone Elm and looked at some different traffic counts there. And it analyzed those.

Sorry, Charlie, I'm missing some of this. Can the conversation at the site, can we cease on that, please? Go ahead.

And so the traffic was analyzed, meeting our standards. They did make appropriate assumptions because they do have to make assumptions because that Sunnybrook Boulevard's not there. The other things we've looked at is we've looked at the actual traffic that is on... College Boulevard. And just so you know, just some of those numbers that are out there, College Boulevard is operating probably, like the daily traffic that it sees is about a third of what it could be capacity-wise. So like if you were to compare this down to 151st Street, you'd see in about a third of the traffic that we see through some of these other very, very similar corridors. Any other questions in regards to traffic that answer that?

No, thank you.

Okay. And then just in regards one more time, just because I think there's some concerns about how much buffer area is there. I don't know the specific acreage that is draining through this tributary, but my guess is that it's usually about a 60. I'm going to double check this. It's 60 feet probably on each side of that streamway that absolutely be protected. If it jumps up to 160 acres of drainage area, which I don't think it qualifies for, it'd be 100 feet on each side of that tributary area. And that's just consistent with all of our stream buffers that we have. And in that area, there's not intended to be any clearing or grading or anything like that. All right. Thank you.

Yep.

Additional questions.

Commissioner Brown. Where is the stream light? Does it run along the trail?

That'll work. It's very faint. Can you make this go? Whoops. Once again, Charlie Love, Chief Development Engineer. I'm going to highlight on here. As you can see, it's tough to see, but it actually does show the approximate, so I'm just going to trace on here with my finger. That existing stream is following that black line that's in there.

Got it.

From that point,

I think I kind of lose it, but it kind of goes down in through there.

And then, of course, there's another trib that kind of comes through that direction.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yes, I have some other questions.

Go ahead. The floor is still yours.

If Commissioner Chapman's finished, he was... Are you done, Commissioner Chapman?

You good? Okay, yeah.

Go ahead, Keith. Going back to the trees again here, for the staff, either Kim or Taylor, this might be impossible, but... estimate, but can you estimate the distance between the rear of the proposed structures and the trail?

And the trail itself?

Yes.

So, we have distances from the proposed buildings to the property lines. So, as shown Here, so 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, and so it'll be set back farther from the trail to the west.

Now, the Kurt, that's Peterson, is that his name? Yes. Use the number 75% of the trees are going to be kept. That's 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 there's going to be lots of trees on the east side of the trail too, I take it, right? How many feet of trees would there be over there?

So for this application, we're looking at the property line itself on the trees that are located on the applicant's properties. So that's where the minimum 20% comes in. So those will be preserved along the property line to buffer between where the trail is and where the development is.

So there's going to be plenty of trees there along each side of that.

Yes, and it'll also have landscaping as well that we'll evaluate during the revised preliminary plan. So to supplement any gaps in the tree preservation area, there are landscape requirements that we evaluate to buffer R3 based on the adjacent zoning districts as well.

All right. You had a slide up there with a term that makes me crazy, and that is the missing middle. Could you explain to me or Kim or somebody what the missing middle is?

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. So you have housing products in the missing middle that include townhomes, duplexes, courtyard, cottages, as well as smaller multiplexes like fourplexes and sixplexes. So that's kind of the missing middle product in between those two typical products.

So it's not related to price. It's related to structures.

Yes, it's related to the individual buildings themselves.

Thank you.

Okay. Additional questions? Commissioner Brigitte.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've 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 I, if I recall correctly, there's at least two projects, apartment complex projects that we've 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?

Charlie Love, Chief Development Engineer. So the good thing about all these projects coming in at the same time is, yes, these three, these Dillons, the commercial, this multifamily, they have all been worked together in regards and looked at regarding traffic. And that's really helped us because it's been able to... When we evaluate that intersection, looking to make sure that it will operate satisfactorily, and that is the case. The traffic studies did also look in taking consideration of those apartments. I believe that you're talking that 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 a distance question, whichever staff member is best suited to answer this one. I know we talked about distance to the property line. Do we know what the distance is between those homes on South Montclair Drive and those three or four 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. I mean, that would help with the total number. But the question I'm asking is those houses that are to the west of that property line, the ones off of South Montclair Drive, how far are those homes from, say, like...

So those homes are... This one's easier.

Yes, that one.

So the property line is shown here. And as I mentioned, the buildings over here are set back almost 180 feet from that property line. And so they're 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. I understand there's RP3 zoning, but as one resident pointed out, and from what I can see on Google Maps, it's all single family or duplex. The highest is two stories to the west. I think it's the same to the south. Is that correct? It's only single family and duplexes immediately adjacent to the west and south and southeast to this proposed site?

Yes, so immediately adjacent to the property. We'll 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, although it's zoned RP3. And then to the south is the traditional R1 single-family homes. And then to the east, the RP2 has duplexes. That's within the immediate area.

Okay, so they all are. Okay. And then down south on Sunnybrook, that apartment complex that was brought up, it is two stories. Is that correct? Yes.

The ones located here are taller, 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 that are coming in out west? Or where's the closest three-story apartment complex to the proposed site?

Would you mind repeating that last portion a little bit louder, please?

Sure. Do we know what the closest three-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 Brigitte, I'll add a little bit since I've seen all of the recent developments every time I sit here. So west down College, I'm west of K7, south of that, there is R3 in the ground for three-story apartments. As you get closer to the Cedar Creek, South Glen area that recently went through about two years ago. NORTH OF COLLEGE, SO NORTHEAST OF K-7 AND COLLEGE. THOSE ARE FOUR OR FIVE STORY APARTMENTS CLOSER TO ALDI THAT GOT APPROVED RECENTLY AS WELL.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU.

NEW SPEAKER OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER BRAIN.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE ONE THING I SAW MISSING FROM THE PACKET WAS, AND WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT FROM THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION, BUT THE TYPOGRAPHY OR THE ELEVATION from where the houses are to the west to where this property is going to be developed? What is the sideline from the homes? Is that planned multifamily development, same elevation? Is it lower? Is it higher? Like, I'm trying to get a sense of the scale that those buildings will look like from the west.

Yeah, so previously the elevation change from, let me switch here, it's kind of hard to tell. We'll start here. It sits up higher along Sunnybrook, and it slopes down towards the southwest there, so where that stream corridor and the trail are. Same as where the single-family homes are as well, so it kind of slopes. So without line of sights or architecture at this time, I don't have an exact line of sight of what they would see. But based on the three-story and where they're sitting, they would most likely be able to see the roof pitch of the proposed single family just based on where it sits.

Okay. And that type of information is something we would see at the preliminary site, correct?

Yes. Yes.

Thank you.

Okay. Are there any additional questions from Commissioners? Thank you, Ms. Vandervelde. Seeing none, I'll call for a motion on RZ26-0006. Mr.

Chair, I make a motion that we approve RZ26-0006, as stipulated by staff.

Thank you, Commissioner Taronas. Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Breen. We'll move forward on a roll call vote.

Commissioner Taronas?

Yes.

Commissioner Birgitta?

No.

Commissioner Chapman?

Yes.

Commissioner Lin?

Yes.

Commissioner Breen?

Yes.

Commissioner Brown?

Yes.

Chair Janner?

Just some final points on this before we wrap this up. I do see the importance of this area without question. It was discussed extensively as we reviewed the Elevate Olathe plan and I'll SHARES MR. NELSON IS A HUTCHINSON NATIVE. I'M EXCITED FOR DYLAN'S COMING TO TOWN AS WELL AND THE ADVANTAGES THAT WILL BRING NOT ONLY TO THIS IMMEDIATE AREA BUT THE ENTIRE WEST SIDE OF OLETHA. Also, it's important to note that this is just step one. I see the zoning change as an advantage with my 30-plus years in real estate. I can tell you from a property value point of view, I would rather see that than the light industrial. That's been my experience. So I think it's actually moving in the right direction there, which would be approved under the current zoning. And I think Elevator Lathe is very clear that this is where it needs to be done. But I think we'll be looking very closely at the final development plan and make sure some of these concerns that have been addressed tonight still have an opportunity to be looked at closely and making sure what goes in does address those things as well. So I will vote yes.

That motion passes 6-1. Okay.

Do we have any announcements from staff this evening?

Done. Thank you.

All right. That being said, this meeting is hereby adjourned.