MINUTES Opening Remarks Planning Commission Meeting: November 27, 2017

Transcription

1 MINUTES Opening Remarks Planning Commission Meeting: City of Olathe Planning Division The Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. to meet in regular session with Chairman Dean Vakas presiding. Planning Commissioners Mike Rinke, Barry Sutherland, Ryan Freeman and Jeremy Fry were present. Commissioners Jose Munoz, Jr., Ryan Nelson and Chip Corcoran were absent. Recited Pledge of Allegiance. The Chair made introductory comments. Regarding ex parte communication, the Chair asked that if a commissioner had something to report, that they specify the nature of the ex parte communication as that item is reached in the agenda.

2 MINUTES CITY OF OLATHE CITY PLANNING DIVISION PLN Planner: Aimee Nassif Planning Commission: Request: Request approval of the 2018 Olathe Planning Commission Meeting Dates. A motion to approve PLN on the Consent Agenda was made by Commissioner Sutherland and seconded by Commissioner Rinke and passed with a vote of 5-0.

3 MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting: City of Olathe City Planning Division Application: P Final Plat for Prairie Farms XII Location: Owner/ Applicant: Engineer: Staff Contact: Vicinity of Park Street and Singletree Street Todd Bleakley, Prairie Center Development, LLC Jim Long, Allenbrand-Drews Sean Pendley, Senior Planner Site Area: 10.32± acres Proposed Use: Single Family Residential Lots: 35 Density: 3.4 units/acre Tracts: 1 Current Zoning: R-1 Streets/Right-of-way Existing Proposed Required Local Streets N/A 50 (total) 50 (total) A motion to approve P on the Consent Agenda was made by Commissioner Sutherland and seconded by Commissioner Rinke, and passed with a vote of 5-0, with the following staff stipulations: a. The final plat is subject to a street excise tax of $96, The required excise fee shall be submitted to the City Planning Division prior to recording the final plat. b. The final plat is subject to a traffic signal excise tax of $1, The required excise fee shall be submitted to the City Planning Division prior to recording the final plat. c. All neighborhood amenities (i.e. trails) shall be completed with the respective phase of development. Bonds or letters of credit shall be submitted for any uncompleted amenities prior to recording the next phase of development per UDO requirements. d. Prior to recording the plat, an affidavit shall be provided identifying the organization that will be the legal entity having permanent responsibility and authority for the

4 P Page 2 installation, maintenance and repair of private greenways or common tracts as indicated on the final plat, as well as for the payment of all expenses, including taxes and special assessments. The document shall be recorded with Johnson County Records and Tax Administration at the time of recording the final plat. e. The final plat shall describe Tract A in the dedication section, including language for proposed use, ownership and maintenance responsibility. f. Prior to issuance of building permits, performance and maintenance bonds or a letter of credit in an amount of the cost of the improvement shall be submitted in accordance with UDO C. to ensure that public improvements, certain easements and related improvements will be installed, approved, and maintained after completion of development g. Fire hydrants are required within 400 feet of all residential units (travel distance) per Fire Code requirements. Dead-end water mains with fire hydrants are not permitted unless water supply calculations can be provided that demonstrates an adequate water supply is provided; otherwise the water supply for hydrants is required to be looped to existing mains. h. All above ground electrical and/or telephone cabinets shall be placed within the interior side or rear building setback yards. However, such utility cabinets may be permitted within front or corner side yards adjacent to street right-of-way if cabinets are screened with landscape materials.

5 MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting: City of Olathe City Planning Division Application: Location: Owner/ Applicant: Engineer: Staff Contact: P , Oak Run, 8 th Plat Approximately ¼ mile northwest of the intersection at W. 151 st Street and S. Lakeshore Drive Daniel C. Groves; Oak Run Olathe, LLC Todd Allenbrand; Payne & Brockway, P.A. Zachary Moore, Planner II Site Area: 15.33± acres Proposed Use: Single Family Residential Lots: 56 Density: 3.65 units/acre Tracts: 0 Current Zoning: R-1 A motion to approve P on the Consent Agenda was made by Commissioner Sutherland and seconded by Commissioner Rinke, and passed with a vote of 5-0, with the following staff stipulations: a. The final plat is subject to a street excise tax of $143, The required excise fee shall be submitted to the City Planning Division prior to recording the final plat. b. The final plat is subject to a traffic signal excise tax of $2, The required excise fee shall be submitted to the City Planning Division prior to recording the final plat. c. Prior to recording the final plat, an affidavit of interest with the following text shall be submitted, per stipulation 3 of P : Oak Run subdivision is located in close proximity to the New Century Air Center. Aircraft operating from the airport, including business jets, should be expected to overfly and be visible and heard from the property on a regular basis. d. Prior to recording the plat, Master Landscape Plans and street tree plans shall be submitted, per Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) e. Fire hydrants are required within 400 feet of all residential units (travel distance. Dead-end water mains with fire hydrants are not permitted unless water supply calculations can be provided that demonstrates an adequate water supply is

6 P Page 2 provided; otherwise the water supply for hydrants is required to be looped to existing mains. f. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a performance and maintenance bond or letter of credit in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer, shall be submitted in accordance with UDO C and E, to ensure that all erosion control measures and water quality features are installed and maintained, and that all of the development s streets and sidewalks remain free of debris during all phases of construction. g. A sidewalk and address plat shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. h. All above ground electrical and/or telephone cabinets shall be placed within the interior side or rear building setback yards. However, such utility cabinets may be permitted within front or corner side yards adjacent to street right-of-way if cabinets are screened with landscape materials. i. The developer is responsible for planting street trees, per stipulation 5 of P Such trees shall be planted at the completion of each phase of development.

7 MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting: City of Olathe Planning Division Application: P Final Plat for Foxfield Villas Location: Owner/Applicant: Engineer: Staff Contact: Vicinity of 117 th Street and Lone Elm Rd. Clay Blair, III, Foxfield Meadows, LLC by Clay Blair Services Corporation Mark A. Breuer, P.E., Schlagel & Associates, P.A. Kim Hollingsworth, Senior Planner Acres: 9.2 ± acres Proposed Use: Residence, Single-Family/ Two-Family Current Zoning: RP-3 Lots: 32 Density: 4.35 units/acre Tracts: 3 This item was removed from the Consent Agenda at the request of Chairman Vakas. He noted that staff s clear recommendation with five stipulations, but understands the Applicant is in dissent regarding the stipulation about streets. He asked staff to provide an overview of this application. Kim Hollingsworth, Senior Planner, made a presentation before the Planning Commission, summarizing the request. She noted that this application is a request for a final plat for Foxfield Villas, which is located east of Lone Elm Road and north of 117 th Street and consists of approximately 9.2 acres. The property was platted in 2007 and interior streets were constructed after the plat was approved. In 2016, a final site development plan was approved with modifications to the building design to meet Category B requirements. The site is zoned RP-3, Planned Low-Density Multifamily District and is surrounded by residential zoning districts, with a small portion of CP-2 southwest of the subject property. Ms. Hollingsworth noted that the PlanOlathe Comprehensive Plan recommends mixed-density residential neighborhood and conventional neighborhood within the subject property, and staff believes this plan is consistent with PlanOlathe because both single-family and two-family homes are being proposed in this area, specifically 24 single-family homes and eight two-family homes. Ms. Hollingsworth displayed the final plat, which includes 32 lots and a total of 40 dwelling units. There are also three tracts that will include landscaping, amenities and private open space, which will be maintained by the homeowners association. Ms. Hollingsworth advised that the

8 P (PC Minutes) Page 2 Applicant has submitted a landscape plan for landscaping along Lone Elm Road and 117 th Street. Also, the Applicant provided a buffer between the properties to the east that are zoned R-1. This was not required, but was provided because the final development plan indicated that landscaping. Additionally, street trees and additional landscaping is included along the private trail that runs through the center of the site and along the north property boundary. Ms. Hollingsworth noted that pictures depict the current conditions of the site. The streets have been constructed through the interior. However, they do not meet City standards for public streets. The Applicant sent a letter to staff, requesting that the streets be accepted as public streets. Public Works staff has provided information as to why the streets do not meet the requirements, which include the radius, the current thickness of the streets, and the building setbacks. She advised that Chet Belcher, Developmental Review Manager, was available to answer additional questions, and the Applicant is present to provide additional information. Ms. Hollingsworth stated that staff recommends approval of P , as stipulated, and was available for questions. Chair Vakas asked if there were questions for staff. Comm. Fry questioned whether the previous owner was required to build roads to City standards. Ms. Hollingsworth responded that the streets were constructed around 2009 and City standards have changed since that time. She deferred further explanation to Mr. Belcher. Chad Belcher, Development Review Manager, approached the podium. Mr. Belcher stated that originally, there was a stipulation that streets be built to City standards to accommodate traffic, specifically trash trucks. Therefore, it was more focused on the thickness of the asphalt and not the geometry and setbacks. He noted that they did not inspect the roads. It was specified that the roads would support a trash truck, but it is unknown what stabilization was put in place under the asphalt and concrete, or what type of concrete and asphalt was used. He noted that that is the largest concern, in addition to the geometry and setbacks. Comm. Fry asked if the City failed by not inspecting what was being done. Mr. Belcher stated that standards were in place that the developer was to follow in terms of pavement and thickness. However, because this was a private improvement, Public Works did not inspect it. He compared it to the construction of a parking lot, which Public Works would not inspect. Mr. Belcher added that private streets were being constructed because there was no property lines or rightof-way platted. Therefore, buildings could be set closer to the roadways. Additionally, there are no inspection fees because the developer is not building public roads. Again, Mr. Belcher said there were standards, but describes this as lessons learned. Direction from Council has been to try to get away from private roads in future developments. Comm. Rinke noted that on page 2 of the report, it states: We validate that the correct asphalt and concrete was used to ensure lower long-term maintenance costs. He asked if that was a statement from the City or the Applicant. Mr. Belcher responded that that statement was a typo on his part because he would require validation. He said they were not on site and did not verify what type of asphalt and concrete were used.

9 P (PC Minutes) Page 3 Chair Vakas asked what recourse the developer has, and whether they streets have to be completely reengineered. Mr. Belcher responded that there is a policy that can be presented to City Council whereby staff performs an assessment of the roadways and recommends types of information they would need to collect. In this case, they would want cores of the streets to determine asphalt thickness. He also noted that some of the curbs are in disrepair at this time, and that on past projects, they ve asked for a mill and overlay. If the pavement isn t thick enough, they request a heavier-duty pavement for the overlay. Mr. Belcher added that another issue is maintenance of the cul-de-sac with on-street parking, where snow piling up is quite challenging. Small trucks are used in cul-de-sacs, but still can be a challenge. He said those are technically allowed in R-2 zoning districts, but notes that this is an R-3 district. Chair Vakas asked if this is a matter of the developer submitting this request to City Council, or if it s a matter of the developer understanding that this is not going to be approved and he has an option to reengineer the roads or to leave them private. Mr. Belcher said his conversations with the developer s representative included process and what improvements may be required. He said that by approving this plat, there would be further conditions if staff could support the geometry and the odd cul-de-sac. The entire process could be moved forward, but further discussions with Public Works staff is not something they support. Chair Vakas noted that the developer submitted a letter that included four examples of similar roads that have been approved by the City in the past, three of which were included in the letter. Mr. Belcher responded that two of the examples were preliminary plats from 2005 and He said a way around is to put eyebrows on there, which is not something Public Works and Planning staff would be happy with. They are looking at language to modify that in the next UDO amendment. He added that there are a number of things that have been done in the past that are not being done now. For example, there are hundreds of miles of metal pipe in the ground that have to be maintained, but just because they did it in the past, they are not obligated to do it moving forward. Chair Vakas asked if the third example was more recent. Mr. Belcher responded that that refers to Boulder Creek, which had a newer preliminary plat. Comm. Fry asked if there are more of these sorts of developments in Olathe, any that were halted in mid-stream. He is concerned about setting precedent on new development. Mr. Belcher said that they are not necessarily saying they won t accept them, but they will not be accepted in a used condition, basically. They would require an assessment that brought the roads up to City standards. When new developments are started, there is new pavement, new storm sewers, new curb. He said in the last eight years, there have been eight requests for private-to-public street conversions. He said by the time the cost is considered, it is not economically viable. He said in those cases, there are sometimes homes associations that are paying for existing roads in neighborhoods, and this situation is different. Again, Mr. Belcher emphasized that the City does not want to take on a used product that lacks a maintenance bond. However, he believes the applicant was willing to provide a maintenance bond.

10 P (PC Minutes) Page 4 Comm. Fry asked if there are other examples of a situation like this currently, developments with roads that the City would consider not to be in compliance. Mr. Belcher noted that there was an application by a church that was recently considered by the Planning Commission that was located at the northwest corner of 159 th and Ridgeview. He said Hunter Street was developed as a private road, and that applicant has agreed to dedicate right-of-way at the time the rest of those lots develop. Mr. Belcher noted that the UDO now states that all setbacks are measured from the back of curb, rather than the property line, which makes it a less-desirable option in going with private roads. He said they will all look like a public roadway at that point. Chair Vakas asked if appropriate wording could be added in order to allow this application to move forward. Mr. Belcher responded that an appeal to City Council in accordance with the Public Works policy, or something to that effect, is an option. However, staff still struggles with the radius, which would require a reconstruction of the road. Chair Vakas asked if the radius was about the two circular cul-de-sacs only. Mr. Belcher pointed the area out on a map. Mr. Belcher questioned whether it s part of the eyebrow, or not, and it would be designed to accommodate a 15 mile per hour speed. Public streets are typically higher. Chair Vakas noted that there are small developments inside city limits that have private streets. So, the idea that the City is not prepared to accept this into the public street domain isn t necessarily a bad thing. Mr. Belcher said of the eight mentioned earlier, none have been accepted, mostly because of cost. In this case, the biggest challenge is setbacks and radius. Comm. Rinke noted that in the letter from the Applicant referencing the radius, they pointed out that it is a very small development and there will not be high speeds going through it. Mr. Belcher said that is a valid point. There is still site distance, trying to look around the corner, and accelerating up to 30 miles per hour during that time. He said coming out of the cul-de-sac could be an issue, coming into that T intersection. It does not meet standards. Mr. Rinke struggles why this is even allowed, either private or public. If it s a safety issue, it s a safety issue. Mr. Belcher said he did not know why. Chair Vakas said that going forward, regardless of public or private intent on streets, the City would expect them to be designed to a higher standard. Mr. Belcher agreed, and said it was clarified in the technical specification update completed in November 2016, that not only do they not have to meet the requirements of thickness and design, all facets and setbacks have to meet the rules. Chair Vakas asked the Applicant to come forward. Frank Dean approached the podium, representing the Applicant, Clay Blair Services Corporation. His address is West 87 th Street Parkway, Lenexa, Kansas. He also introduced Mark Breuer from Schlagel & Associates. Mr. Dean said they look forward to revitalizing this longlanguishing project, which they acquired a few months ago to divide into individual lots and dedicate streets to the City. He described it as a conventional development with a homes association, with fees commensurate with the services provided, and not have residents pay twice for streets. He said in once sense, they are paying for streets

11 P (PC Minutes) Page 5 through public taxes, and in another sense, they re paying for their own streets through their HOA. He believes that really diminishes the ability to market these types of neighborhoods. Mr. Dean said they object to stipulations a. and d. They would also like to request an exception to the requirement for sidewalks on both sides of the street. He presented the landscape plan, which illustrates where private trails are located. All interior houses and houses along the north side would have direct access to the private trail system. Therefore, if public sidewalks were installed around the outer portion of the loop, houses on both sides of the streets could easily access the trail system or public sidewalk. He said their hope is that these issues can be addressed tonight, moving it on to City Council to focus on the acceptance of public streets and associated financial guarantees. Mr. Dean addressed the radius of street at the southwest corner. The examples they provided were existing examples, but says there are two more on tonight s agenda that have been approved by staff. He says those two have radiuses equal to or tighter than what exists in this development currently. Mark Breuer, Schlagel & Associates, approached the podium. He referenced the examples provided in the letter, which he says are pretty typical. He noted one with a 125-foot radius, which is not quite in conjunction with the eyebrow, but is the same type of overall scheme approved with the street that is in place. He then addressed the stipulations that were approved by the Planning Commission in 2007 for this project. He noted that the stipulation read that the streets would need to meet local street standards for trash pickup, not to meet a trash truck design. He said they have reviewed plans provided by the original design engineer. The streets were constructed with eight-inch asphalt and the developer was required to provide certification that the streets were built to City standards at that time. He pointed out that the City and Planning Commission, at that time, had a couple mechanisms in place to make sure the streets were built to standards in place at the time of construction. Mr. Breuer addressed setback requirements. He noted that RP-3 does not allow the 20- foot front setbacks. However, because they are 60 percent single-family and 40 percent two-family homes, zoning to R-2 could reduce that to 20 feet from build line. He pointed out that their use is more in line with what would be allowed in an R-2 zoning. He was available for questions. Comm. Rinke asked if R-2 zoning would be appropriate zoning for this development in terms of density. Mr. Breuer responded that this is an approved use within the zoning district, but they did not feel the need to rezone. However, discussions with staff determined that they should stay with the current zoning. Comm. Rinke asked if the actual use would fall within R-2. Mr. Breuer said it would. Comm. Rinke asked if R-2 would allow for the shorter setback; Mr. Breuer said yes. Chair Vakas noted that the Applicant is not the original developer of this property. He asked if there was any further discussion. Comm. Freeman noted that the slide indicates that all private streets were constructed to City standards. He asked at what point it was intended to move from private to public, and if there is documentation of the

12 P (PC Minutes) Page 6 initial intent of street construction. Mr. Breuer responded that at the time that was done, the intent was to get reduced setbacks. Mr. Dean added that there was never an intent for the streets to be converted to private, and a note on a plan doesn t make it so. He said there are ways to verify the thickness of the concrete, but right now, it is simply unknown. Comm. Freeman asked if there are any approvals from prior plans that would say there is a conversion to public. Mr. Dean said no. Comm. Freeman asked if there is an obligation by the Planning Commission to say it has to go public. Mr. Dean said no. He said he has researched their records and contacted the original design engineer. Mr. Dean said the letter was not in their records, and the original design engineer did not do a thorough review of his records. However, the original design engineer said he would be surprised if they provided that since they did not inspect it. Mr. Dean acknowledges that this comment is hearsay and there has not been a complete investigation of the engineer s files. Chair Vakas called for a motion. Comm. Fry said he wants to make sure the Planning Commission is fully aware of all options, and would like to consider what this would look like in terms of time and money to the developer if this were converted to a rezoning application. He questioned whether zoning to R-2 would solve all problems. Ms. Hollingsworth does not believe rezoning to R-2 would solve the issue of the streets; just the setbacks. She noted that there was a final development plan approved in November 2016, which was moved to Building Design Category B, and that zoning district allows an applicant to move to a different lot size. She said there is documentation that the application was approved to have a smaller lot size, per that category. Comm. Fry understands that another option would be to approve or disapprove the application as it stands. Or, the Planning Commission could allow the radius to remain as built, the sidewalks, and the setbacks as they currently exist, which is what the Applicant is asking for. Ms. Hollingsworth responded that staff was unaware of a concern about sidewalks, so they are not able to make that determination this evening. Dan Fernandez, Planner II, added that if the Applicant wants sidewalks to be considered, he recommends continuing the matter to the next Planning Commission meeting. Comm. Rinke asked staff to address their concerns regarding the radius, and the fact that there are other applications on the agenda tonight that have the same issue. Mr. Fernandez asked Mr. Dean which applications he is referring to, and if they are preliminary plats, that issue can be addressed at final plat. Again, Mr. Fernandez believes the focus should be on this particular application. Comm. Rinke wants to be fair to all applicants. Mr. Belcher said they will look into that, but to Comm. Fry s point, he believes either option either moving forward as stipulated or moving forward with a change would need to go to City Council. If the right-of-way is accepted by the Planning Commission, it will still need to go before City Council. Chris Gruenwald, City Attorney, noted that this is a final plat, and there are approval criteria in the UDO, such as: [Reading] Planning Commission shall approve a final plat if it determines that the final plat substantially conforms to the approved preliminary plat and any applicable conditions of approval; (2) the plat conforms to all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code, subject only to approved waivers. Mr. Gruenwald

13 P (PC Minutes) Page 7 points this out because of the way this plat is being presented. He said staff has said this application will not meet code if the streets were accepted as public streets. He added that there are consequences to having the plat come to the Planning Commission where there s no dedication of right-of-way or public lands. The Planning Commission has final decision on those matters. The reason a plat goes to City Council is for acceptance of dedication of right-of-way and public land. Therefore, the stipulation in the staff report is to not dedicate public streets. Mr. Gruenwald said staff is recommending approval of this plat as conforming with the code and all requirements. If the Applicant is unhappy with that decision, they can appeal the decision to City Council. Mr. Gruenwald added that another option is to have the private streets be accepted as public streets, which is the preference of the Applicant. He cautions that that recommendation may not be in accordance with Municipal Code standards. He added that if the recommendation is for acceptance of public land or public street, by operation of the code, that decision would be made by the City Council. Mr. Gruenwald believes that regardless of which path is taken, City Council will have the opportunity to address the issue of the streets, if the Applicant wishes to pursue it. Chair Vakas thanked Mr. Gruenwald for his input. He called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Freeman, seconded by Commissioner Sutherland, to approve P , subject to staff s stipulations, as follows: a. Streets within the platted area including 116 th Street and Deer Run Street shall remain designated as private streets as they do not meet the City s standards of acceptance for public streets. b. Prior to recording the final plat, a master landscaping/screening and street tree plan shall be submitted in accordance with UDO requirements. c. Prior to recording the plat, affidavits shall be provided identifying the organization that will be the legal entity having permanent responsibility and authority for the installation, maintenance and repair of the landscape or screening tracts, private greenways, parks or common open space areas as indicated on the final plat, as well as the payment of all expenses, including taxes and special assessments. These documents shall be recorded with the Johnson County Register of Deeds concurrently with the recording of the final plat. d. Prior to issuance of a building permit, performance and maintenance bonds or a letter of credit in an amount of the cost of the improvement shall be submitted in accordance with UDO C. to ensure that public improvements, certain easements and related improvements will be installed, approved, and maintained after completion of development. e. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a performance and maintenance bond or letter of credit shall be submitted in accordance with the UDO E. to ensure that all erosion control measures and water quality features are installed and maintained and that all the development s streets and sidewalks remain free of debris during all phases of construction.

14 P (PC Minutes) Page 8 f. All above ground electrical and/or telephone cabinets shall be placed within the interior side or rear building setback yards. However, such utility cabinets may be permitted within front or corner side yards adjacent to street right-of-way if cabinets are screened with landscape materials per UDO Aye: Sutherland, Freeman, Fry, Vakas (4) No: Rinke (1) Motion was approved 4-1.

15 MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting: City of Olathe City Planning Division Application: Location: Owner/ Applicant: Engineer: Staff Contact: P , Townhomes at Fairfield Village, Thirty-Ninth Plat Approximately ¼ mile southeast of the intersection at W. 167 th Street and S. Mur-Len Road Gary Jones; Fairfield Courts, LLC Tim Tucker, P.E.; Phelps Engineering, Inc. Zachary Moore, Planner II Site Area: 0.56± acres Proposed Use: Multi-Family Residential Units: 6 Density: units/acre Tracts: 1 Current Zoning: RP-3 A motion to approve P on the Consent Agenda was made by Commissioner Sutherland and seconded by Commissioner Rinke, and passed with a vote of 5-0, with the following staff stipulations: a. The developer is responsible for planting street trees, subject to UDO G. Such trees shall be planted at the completion of each phase of development.

16 MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting: City of Olathe City Planning Division Application: Location: Owner/Applicant: Engineer: Staff Contact: P Ridgeview Marketplace, 2 nd Plat (Replat of Lot 9, Ridgeview Marketplace) S. Ridgeview Road Dennis White, LPI, L.L.C. Andy Gabbert, Renaissance Infrastructure Consulting Dan Fernandez, Planner II Acres: 10.15± acres Existing Use: Commercial Current Zoning: C-2 Lots: Tracts: 4 0 A motion to approve P on the Consent Agenda was made by Commissioner Sutherland and seconded by Commissioner Rinke, and passed with a vote of 5-0, with the following staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of P as shown on the submitted final plat.

17 MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting: City of Olathe City Planning Division Application: Location: Owner/ Applicant: Engineer: Staff Contact: P , Estates of Forest View, 6 th Plat The vicinity of 124 th Terrace and S. Hastings Street Tom Langhofer; 119/7 Roadside Partners, LLC Todd Allenbrand; Payne & Brockway, P.A. Zachary Moore, Planner II Site Area: 0.54± acres Proposed Use: Single-Family Residential Lots: 1 Density: 1.84 units/acre Tracts: 0 Current Zoning: RP-1 A motion to approve P on the Consent Agenda was made by Commissioner Sutherland and seconded by Commissioner Rinke, and passed with a vote of 5-0, with the following staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of P as presented.

18 MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting: City of Olathe Planning Division Application: RZ : Rezoning from County Rural to R-1 District for Boulder Ridge Location: Owner/Applicant: Engineer: Staff Contact: Vicinity of 175 th Street and Ridgeview Road Daniel M. Knight, Day3, L.L.C. Mark A. Breuer, Schlagel & Associates Dan Fernandez, Planner II Site Area: ± acres Proposed Use: Single-family Residential Lots: 212 Plat: Unplatted Density 2.06 units/acre Tracts: 9 Plan Olathe Land Use Category Existing Use Current Zoning Site Design Category Building Design Category Site Conventional Neighborhood Undeveloped CTY RUR/R-1 1 N/A North Conventional Neighborhood/Secondary Greenway Undeveloped land R South East Conventional Neighborhood/Secondary Greenway Conventional Neighborhood/Primary and Secondary Greenway Undeveloped land R Undeveloped land R West Primary and Secondary Greenway Single-family homes/undeveloped R-1/ County - -

19 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 2 Dan Fernandez, Planner II, made a presentation before the Planning Commission, summarizing the request. He noted that his presentation will include three applications RZ , RZ and P Regarding RZ , Mr. Fernandez stated that this proposal is for 212 single-family lots on acres, for a density of 2.06 units per acre. The Applicant held two neighborhood meetings, which covered both rezoning requests. He stated that staff received one call in opposition to the application due to concerns regarding density and traffic. Mr. Fernandez presented an aerial view of the site and pointed out the area pertaining to this application. He then presented a preliminary plat that covers single-family on the north side and two-family homes on the south side. He noted three access drives onto Ridgeview Road. There will be three northbound and three southbound turn lanes as part of this project, which will be at 169 th Terrace, 172 nd Street and 173 rd Street. The additional turn lanes will serve both the singlefamily and the two-family areas. Mr. Fernandez stated that the preliminary plat indicates proposed sidewalks, and an easement will be included in Tracts B and C for a future city trail. The subdivision will include stormwater detention and BMPs, and will be part of a regional detention area. Tracts are included along Ridgeview Road, which will provide the required landscape buffers along arterial streets. Mr. Fernandez reported that the future land use designation for the single-family on the north side is Conventional Neighborhood, which does recommend developments such as this. Regarding RZ , the Applicant proposes 62 family lots totaling 120 units. The proposed buildings will follow Building Design Category B guidelines and will be under the maximum height for this district. The Applicant is providing approximately 5.1 acres of open space, as well as the required active open space for this type of development. Sidewalks are included in this part of the development and will connect to the city trail. Mr. Fernandez stated that all buildings in both developments shall meet or exceed the City s building design requirements. Mr. Fernandez presented a conceptual drawing of the twin villas. Staff has stipulated that the Applicant provide detailed elevations of all four elevations, as well as a breakout of materials and how they meet the Category B design guidelines. The site for the R-2 zoning is also in the conventional neighborhood area and follows the goal of the Comprehensive Plan to provide a variety of housing types and options within the city. Mr. Fernandez then presented a preliminary plat showing both areas and the lots, as well as the tracts within the development. He stated that the developer has set aside roughly 17 acres that will be the site of a future school. Lindenwood Street will be constructed with access to the development. Mr. Fernandez stated that staff recommends approval of both rezonings and the preliminary plat, as stipulated in the staff reports. He was available for questions. Chair Vakas asked if there were any questions for staff. Comm. Rinke asked staff to address the radius issue. Mr. Fernandez responded that staff was not aware of any issue with the radius. Comm. Rinke indicated Lots 18 to 23, where there seems to be a sharp turn. Chad Belcher, Development Review Manager, responded that from a traffic and safety standpoint, this is a different situation than what was discussed in application P In that application, there was a sweeping 115-foot radius with the eyebrow offset. In this application, this radius forces traffic to almost come to a stop and slow down. Therefore, when there is interaction with people coming in and out of their driveway on the eyebrow, they have to slow down to a safer speed to negotiate through there. However, this is not something staff believes they want to continue, and they are looking at ways to change the eyebrow requirements. However, Mr.

20 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 3 Belcher believes this situation is different from a traffic safety standpoint than what was seen on the previous application. Comm. Freeman asked if the streets were meant to be public or private. Mr. Fernandez said the streets would be public in both developments. There were no further questions for staff. Chair Vakas invited the Applicant to come forward. Mark Breuer, Schlagel & Associates, West 107 th Street, approached the podium, representing Day3 Development. He reported that the developer agrees with all stipulations. He was available for questions. There were no questions from commissioners. Chair Vakas asked if anyone present wished to speak at this public hearing. Laura and Matt Caudill, South Ridgeview, came to the podium. Mrs. Caudill stated that they do understand what the proposal is, but feels there will be a personal impact because this development will be directly across the street from their residence. She is also concerned about traffic on Ridgeview. She notes that there is already a great deal of automobile and bicycle traffic. Traffic tends to travel at a high speed, and there is not ideal connection to highways. Also, one of the main streets onto Ridgeview will line up directly with their driveway, which is a significant concern to them. She acknowledged that the developer has been very accommodating about meeting with them and explaining the project. There being no other comments from the floor, Chair Vakas called for a motion to close the public hearing. Comm. Fry asked to address Mrs. Caudill s concerns. He feels her questions are valid, and from a procedural perspective, it would be good to address. He asked how it is determined when roads are expanded. Developments such as this will impact traffic, as well as Mr. and Mrs. Caudill s yard. Mr. Belcher responded that the Applicant is making all recommended turn lane improvements, exceeding City standards. Decisions are made after developers provide traffic impact studies, and the Applicant has complied with everything requested of them. Comm. Fry recalls a situation at 143 rd Street and Pflumm, where roads were not ready for the development, and most likely, were overburdensome on traffic as it existed. He asked Mr. Belcher to talk through the process of how decisions are made. Mr. Belcher stated that there is not a rule of thumb with commercial development. He believes that the developer has a phase coming up that is proposed commercial and high-density residential, but those automatically require detailed traffic studies specific to that development. Regarding his experience with single-family and two-family homes, there are right turn lanes and left turn lanes at the spacing that meets the Access Management Plan. He said they have been successful when following that plan. South of 143 rd and Pflumm is not improved, but Willows Crossing is going in on the east side. He feels excess traffic produced by the Willows will be handled by turn lanes. He believes that will help Pflumm, and at some point, Pflumm will be widened to a typical arterial. Motion by Commissioner Fry, seconded by Commissioner Rinke, to close the public hearing. Motion passed 5-0. There was no further discussion by commissioners. Chair Vakas called for a motion on RZ Motion by Commissioner Freeman, seconded by Commissioner Sutherland, to recommend approval of RZ , for the following reasons: (1) The proposed development complies with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan.

21 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 4 (2) The requested rezoning to R-1 district meets the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) criteria for considering zoning applications. (3) The proposed development meets the development and performance standards of the R-1 zoning classification. Commissioner Freeman s motion included recommending approval with the following stipulations to be included in the ordinance: (1) A final plat shall be approved prior to issuance of a stormwater permit or building permit. (2) The single-family homes shall meet or exceed the building design requirements found in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Aye: Sutherland, Freeman, Rinke, Fry, Vakas (5) No: (0) Motion was approved 5-0.

22 MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting: City of Olathe Planning Division Application: RZ : Rezoning from County Rural and R-1 to R-2 District for Boulder Ridge Location: Owner/Applicant: Engineer: Staff Contact: Vicinity of 175 th Street and Ridgeview Road Daniel M. Knight, Day3, L.L.C. Mark A. Breuer, Schlagel & Associates Dan Fernandez, Planner II Site Area: 32.08± acres Proposed Use: Two-family Residential Lots: 60 (120 units) Plat: Unplatted Density 3.74 units/acre Tracts: 9 Plan Olathe Land Use Category Existing Use Current Zoning Site Design Category Building Design Category Site Conventional Neighborhood/Secondary Greenway Undeveloped CTY RUR/R-1 3 B North Conventional Neighborhood/Secondary Greenway Undeveloped land R South Neighborhood Commercial Center/Secondary Greenway Undeveloped land CTY RUR - - East Mixed Density Residential/Secondary Greenway Undeveloped land R-1/CTY RUR - - West Conventional Neighborhood/Secondary Greenway Undeveloped County - -

23 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 2 Please refer to RZ for discussion of this application. There being no further discussion or comments from the public on this item, Chair Vakas called for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Rinke, seconded by Commissioner Freeman, to close the public hearing. Motion passed 5-0. Chair Vakas then called for a motion regarding RZ Motion by Commissioner Freeman, seconded by Commissioner Sutherland, to recommend approval of RZ , for the following reasons: (1) The proposed development complies with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. (2) The requested rezoning to R-2 district meets the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) criteria for considering zoning applications. (3) The proposed development meets the development and performance standards of the R-2 zoning classification. Commissioner Freeman s motion included recommending approval with the following stipulations to be included in the ordinance: (1) A final plat shall be approved prior to issuance of a stormwater permit or building permit. (2) The proposed buildings shall meet or exceed the Building Design Category B requirements found in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). (3) Elevations with a breakout of the material percentages of all elevations and a detailed summary of the building and site design guidelines shall be submitted prior to the City Council meeting on December 19, Aye: Sutherland, Freeman, Rinke, Fry, Vakas (5) No: (0) Motion was approved 5-0.

24 MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting: City of Olathe City Planning Division Application: P Preliminary Plat for Boulder Ridge Location: Owner/Applicant: Engineer: Staff Contact: In the vicinity of 175 th Street and Ridgeview Road Daniel M. Knight, Day3 Development, L.L.C. Mark A. Breuer, Schlagel & Associates, P.A. Dan Fernandez, Planner II Acres: ± acres Proposed Use: Single-family Residential/Two-family Residential Current Zoning: CTY RUR Lots: Tracts: 272 (212 R-1, 60 R-2) 7 Please refer to RZ for discussion of this application. There being no further discussion, Chair Vakas called for a motion on P Motion by Commissioner Freeman, seconded by Commissioner Sutherland, to approve P , subject to staff s stipulations, as follows: a. Prior to recording the plat, a digital file of the final plat (pdf format) shall be submitted to the City Planning Division. b. Prior to recording the final plats, the required excise fees shall be submitted to the City Planning Division. c. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a performance and maintenance bond or letter of credit in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer, shall be submitted in accordance with UDO C and UDO E. to ensure that all erosion control measures and water quality features are installed and maintained and that all the development s streets and sidewalks remain free of debris during all phases of construction. Aye: Sutherland, Freeman, Rinke, Fry, Vakas (5) No: (0) Motion was approved 5-0.

25 City of Olathe Planning Division MINUTES Other Matters Planning Commission Meeting: Chair Vakas noted that the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Monday, December 11 th, at 7:00 p.m. He reminded everyone of the Mayor s Christmas tree lighting, which takes place on Friday, December 1 st, at 6:00 p.m., at the Olathe Community Center at East Kansas City Road. The lighting is at 6:15 p.m., followed by music and a host of activities. Details are available on the City s website. There were no other announcements. Meeting adjourned.