PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP AGENDA

Transcription

PLANNING
COMMISSION
WORKSHOP AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION CONFERENCE ROOM
MONDAY, JULY 09, 2012
5:30 PM TO 6:45 PM
1. Discussion of 2013-2017 Capital Improvements Plan. State Statutes require the
Planning Commission to make a finding that the Capital Improvement Plan meets
the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. This will be an overview of the proposed
CIP, with formal Planning Commission action scheduled for the July 23, 2012
meeting. (, (Emily Vincent, Nickie Lee, Mary Jaeger, Celia Duran-20 minutes)
2. UDO Update and design guidelines/revisions
(Consultant Mark White, staff,-60 minutes)
a. Continued first draft review
3. Discussion of recent City Council actions/issues relevant to the
Planning Commission (Dave-5 minutes)
4. Other items for discussion (Commission and staff-5 minutes)
If your schedule permits, please plan on a timely arrival so we can devote the time
necessary to these important items.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY - JULY 9, 2012 - 7:00 PM
FINAL AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes from June 25, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.
Cases: P-12-010, SU-12-007, RZ-12-006
2. P-12-013:
Request for approval of a final plat for Southglen of Cedar Creek, Ninth Plat,
on 3.39 ± acres; located in the vicinity of 113th Terrace and South Sumac
Street.
Owner/
Applicant:
Engineer:
3. P-12-014:
Ronald Mather/Cedar Creek Development Co., Inc.
David Rinne/Schlagel & Associates
Request for approval of a final plat for seventeen lots on 4.75± acres for
Prairie Farms IV; located in the vicinity of West Santa Fe Street and
Persimmon Drive.
Owner/
Applicant:
Engineer:
Todd Bleakley/Prairie Center Development, LLC
Jim Long/Allenbrand-Drews and Associates, Inc.
REGULAR AGENDA
New Business
1. SU-12-008: Request for approval of a special use permit for an amusement and
recreation service, Cosmic Jump, on 16.88± acres; located at 12025 Strang
Line Road.
PUBLIC HEARING
Owner:
Passco Real Estate Enterprises/Agent: Kessinger/Hunter & Co
Applicant: Amanda Stewart-Michael Mitchelson/CB Richard Ellis (CBRE)
Engineer: Bob Runyan/Runyon Architects & Associates
2. PR-12-009: Request for approval of a final site development plan for an addition to
Olathe Ford Lincoln on 9.19 ± acres; located at 1845 East Santa Fe.
Owner:
Applicant:
Engineer:
Olathe Ford Lincoln/M&M Investment, LLC
Larry Lisbona/Lisbona Architects, Inc.
Harold A. Phelps/Phelps Engineering, Inc.
MINUTES
CITY OF OLATHE
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jon Campbell, with the following
members present: Mike Kohler, Greg Harrelson, Paul Ling, Jeremy Fry and Mike
Rinke. Absent was John Almeida.
Recited Pledge of Allegiance.
Chairman Campbell read the standard ex parte statement. No Commissioner
reported having any ex parte communications.
A motion to approve Consent Agenda items 1 and 2 was made by Commissioner
Rinke and seconded by Commissioner Ling. Motion was approved 6-0.
CASE # P-12-010
Planner:
Dan Fernandez
Request:
Approval of a final plat for one lot, 0.996± acres, for United Office
Products, Second Plat.
Location:
619 West Dennis Avenue
Owner/
Applicant:
James R. Hutchinson
United Office Products
Engineer:
Jim Green, Green Engineering
Acres:
0.996±
Current Zoning:
C-3
Lots:
1
Streets and Right of way:
Existing
Required
Proposed
I.
Planning Commission:
Proposed Use:
June 25, 2012
Commercial
Dennis Ave
30’ (1/2 street)
30’ (1/2 street)
N/A
COMMENTS
This is a request for approval of a final plat of one lot for United Office
Products, Second Plat, located at 619 W. Dennis Ave. In order for future
P-12-010
June 25, 2012
Page 2
development to take place on the site, the lot must be platted. The
applicant is proposing to rebuild an existing warehouse building.
II.
FINAL PLAT REVIEW
A. Lots/Tracts:
The final plat includes a total of one lot on 0.996 acres. There are three
existing buildings on-site.
B. Utilities/Municipal Services:
The property is located in the City of Olathe water and sewer service
area and the site has existing utilities.
C. Streets/Right-of-Way:
The site has access to Dennis Avenue to the north. The street meets
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requirements for public right-ofway.
D. Landscaping/Open Space:
The lot has green space along the north and west boundaries. There is
also a forty foot (40’) detention easement and tree preservation area
located along the south property line.
E. Drainage/Detention
Part of the lot is located in the 100-year floodplain. The property must
meet all of the requirements of the City of Olathe Unified Development
Ordinance chapter 18.50., Floodplain Zoning.
F. Street and Signal Excise Taxes:
The final plat is subject to a street excise tax of $0.215 per square foot of
land area. Based on the plat area, 0.996± acres, the required street
excise fee is $9,327.94.
The final plat is also subject to a traffic signal excise tax of $0.0576 per
square foot of land area. Based on the plat area, the required traffic
signal excise fee is $2,499.02. The required excise fees shall be
submitted to the City Planning Division prior to recording the final plat.
III.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of P-12-008 with the following stipulations:
a. Prior to and upon recording of the plat, a digital file of the
final plat shall be submitted to the Development Services
Department. The submission of the digital plat file shall
conform to the formatting standards, layering system,
and text styles of the City of Olathe Planning Division
Digital File Submittal Standards.
P-12-010
June 25, 2012
Page 3
b. Prior to recording the final plat, the required street excise
fee of $9,327.94 shall be submitted to the City Planning
Division.
c. Prior to recording the final plat, the required traffic signal
excise fee of $2,499.02 shall be submitted to the City
Planning Division.
d. 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.
e This property must meet all requirements of the City of
Olathe Unified Development Ordinance, Chapter 18.50,
Floodplain Zoning.
Motion by Comm. Rinke, seconded by Comm. Ling, to approve P-12-010,
subject to the following stipulations:
conform to the formatting standards, layering system,
and text styles of the City of Olathe Planning Division
Digital File Submittal Standards.
b. Prior to recording the final plat, the required street excise
fee of $9,327.94 shall be submitted to the City Planning
Division.
excise fee of $2,499.02 shall be submitted to the City
Planning Division.
d. 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.
e This property must meet all requirements of the City of
Olathe Unified Development Ordinance, Chapter 18.50,
Floodplain Zoning.
Motion carries unanimously.
MINUTES
CITY OF OLATHE
CASE # SU-12-007
Dan Fernandez, Senior Planner, made the following staff presentation:
Planner:
Dan Fernandez
Date:
Request:
Approval of a special use permit for a lodging place (Creative Cottage).
Location:
221 South Walnut Street
Owners/
Applicants:
Lori Dewitt and Kelly Skinner
Acres:
0.16±
Proposed Use:
Building Area:
1301 square foot
Number of Lots:
1
June 25, 2012
Lodging Place
Zoning:
Land Use
Zoning
R-5
Comprehensive Plan
Designation
Site
Residential
R-5
Urban Center/Downtown
North
Residential
R-5
East
Residential
R-5
South
Residential
R-5
West
Residential
R-5
Mixed-use Residential
Platted: OLATHE LOT 11 BLOCK 58 OLC 1395
I.
COMMENTS
This is a request for a Special Use Permit to allow a lodging place for the
Creative Cottage. The proposal is to create a crafters retreat where customers
could visit and work on their crafts or hobbies such as scrapbooking, quilting,
beading and sewing. The subject site was platted in 1868 with the existing
house being built in 1900.
Per the requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the applicant
notified all property owners within two hundred (200) feet of this property via
certified mail. The applicant has provided staff with certified mail receipts and
staff has verified all property owners have been properly notified.
SU-12-007 Continued
June 25, 2012 PC Mtg
Page 2
II.
DETAILS OF OPERATION
The applicants are seeking a special use permit for miscellaneous lodging at 221
S. Walnut Street. The home has been vacant since December 2010 and was
bought out of foreclosure. The house has three bedrooms and two baths and is
handicap accessible by an existing ramp. The house would be available to rent
during the day and early evenings on weekdays and there is an option for
overnight retreats on Friday and Saturdays. The bedrooms will have twin beds
for the guests and one of the applicants will stay overnight to supervise.
The proposal states that the number of customers for the retreats would be
between two and eight with an average of four to six. All activities would take
place inside the house. Guests will be allowed to use the kitchen but the
applicants will recommend using nearby restaurants and have discussed catering
options with nearby businesses.
III.
PARKING
The property has a parking area in the rear yard which includes a garage and
carport and can accommodate four cars. The existing condition of this area is a
combination of gravel and grass. Access to the parking is from a gravel alley
south of the property. On-street parking is also available. An additional two cars
can be parked directly in front of the house and two more across the street.
Staff has stipulated that a parking area shall be paved in the rear yard adjacent
to the alley for customer parking within a year of the special use approval. The
Unified Development Ordinance requires paved parking for single-family homes.
The applicants are proposing to put down gravel to keep in character with the
neighboring houses which also have gravel driveways.
IV.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
The applicants held a neighborhood meeting on May 27, 2012. Six neighbors
signed the sign-in sheet. In addition, they walked around the neighborhood,
going door to door, explaining their proposal (see attached). The applicants have
not talked to anyone in the surrounding area that is against the proposal.
V.
HOME IMPROVEMENTS/LANDSCAPING
Since purchasing the home the applicants have installed a new roof, gutters and
windows. They have also planted landscaping around the house and property as
well as remove overgrown brush.
VI.
TIME LIMIT
Staff recommends an approval period of five years for the subject property with
expiration on July 17, 2017.
SU-12-007 Continued
Page 3
VII.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
a. Staff recommends approval of SU-12-007, for the following reasons:
(1)
The proposal conforms to the Goals, Objectives and Policies
of the Comprehensive Plan.
(2)
The proposal complies with the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) criteria for considering special use permit
requests.
b. Staff recommends approval of SU-12-007 subject to the following
stipulations:
(1)
The Special Use Permit is valid for a period of five years
following Governing Body approval, with a tentative expiration
date of July 17, 2017.
(2)
A parking area must be paved on-site within one (1) year of
approval of the special use permit.
Following staff presentation, the Chairman opened the meeting up to questions
from commissioners:
Comm. Kohler: Regarding the parking in the back, the yard area on the west side of the
house is clearly lawn surface. Do we have any prohibitions about parking cars on yard
space as opposed to driveways?
Mr. Fernandez: The stipulation was added since it’s a requirement of the ordinance.
Staff does not have a preference whether it’s paved or gravel. We feel something has to
be put down so when a customer parks after it rains, there’s no mud. But again, the
stipulation was put in there because it’s an ordinance that’s a requirement, but it’s a
stipulation that the Planning Commission can remove if they feel it is necessary. No,
you can’t park on grass.
Comm. Kohler: Okay, so something will have to be done about that. Do you know if that
garage is useable?
Mr. Fernandez: It is.
Comm. Ling: Just to follow up on the parking question. The alley that the parking would
be accessed from, that’s gravel in that area?
Mr. Fernandez: Correct.
Comm. Ling: And the interest in staff in having it paved is, when we reapprove different
areas, we look to upgrade to the current requirements, and paving would meet the
current requirements.
SU-12-007 Continued
Page 4
Mr. Fernandez: That’s correct. As it’s a change of use, we have to update the
standards, which is paved parking.
Comm. Rinke: With regard to the permit for miscellaneous lodging, if they would decide
to use that for lodging during the week, does staff have any concerns with that?
Mr. Fernandez: It was never brought up or discussed with the applicants. It was always
for weekend retreats.
Comm. Rinke: But if it’s approved as requested, they could use it for lodging throughout
the week, is that correct?
Mr. Fernandez: It’s not really spelled out. If the Commission wants to, they could put a
stipulation in, limiting it to the weekends. Staff did not put a stipulation to that effect.
Comm. Rinke: But do you see a problem if it was used for lodging during the week?
Mr. Fernandez: No, we don’t.
Comm. Rinke: Also, back on parking. Help me with the math. The letter from the
applicants suggested there would be two to three cars there. If we have one person
there that is a supervisor, I’m guessing there’s one car, and four to six guests – I’d really
be surprised if people are carpooling. So, I would suspect that it’s five to seven cars, on
average. I know in this neighborhood about a block away, at Pickering House, I seem to
recall reading in the paper that there were parking problems at Pickering House. Can
you compare this situation versus what we may have had at Pickering House?
Dave Clements, Assistant Director/Planning Manager, appeared before the Planning
Commission and made the following comment:
Mr. Clements: I don’t remember the specifics.
Comm. Rinke: I seem to recall there being articles in the paper about neighbors
complaining about too many cars.
Chairman Campbell: Anything else? Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is the applicant
here?
Lori Dewitt and Kelly Skinner, Applicants, 221 South Walnut, Olathe, appeared before
the Planning Commission and made the following comments:
Ms. Dewitt: We are really excited to be here. Kelly is my business partner and we are
here tonight requesting approval of a special use permit for the Creative Cottage. The
Creative Cottage is going to be a 221 South Walnut in downtown Olathe. It’s a little
house that we have purchased and would like to make a crafter’s retreat. Crafts such as
SU-12-007 Continued
Page 5
scrapbooking, quilting, beading, stamping, sewing, drawing – any type of craft or
creative outlet that people have. I polled some industry trends, just to help you get
familiar with the scrapbooking industry. It’s a $1.5 billion industry; 4.5 million people
scrapbook, and also, they expect it to grow to a $4 billion industry in the next ten years.
So, that kind of tells you a little bit about scrapbooking.
All activities that are going to be done will be done in the house, not outside the
house, so it should be pretty quiet. I don’t think a lot of people are even going to be
aware that that’s going on in that house. Also, most of the clientele are mothers or
women who are looking for a creative outlet or hobby. That’s why they come to the
house.
The way the Creative Cottage got built was, Kelly and I both have young families,
and our outlet is a creative outlet, and it is scrapbooking. And we have gone to places
all over several times with a bunch of women – Bonner Springs, Topeka, Pleasanton,
St. Louis – and there are a lot of these type of scrapbook places around in the Kansas
and Missouri area. So, it has been our dream to bring one to the Olathe area. That is
how it started.
We bought a property that has been in foreclosure. It has been empty for two
years. It was in really bad shape when we got it, but we fell in love with the nostalgia of
the neighborhood and the area. Like Dan said, we have put on a new roof, new
guttering, new windows, it’s all been freshly painted. It’s really cute. We have spent a lot
of time in the yard, during which time we met several neighbors who have also now
started fixing up their yards. And that is our hope, that there will be a new standard in
this area. We’ve really fallen in love with the downtown area and are very excited to be
a part of Olathe. We feel like there is a lot to be offered and are excited to partner with
all of the craft and art festivals that come into town also.
We have spoken to several caterers and restaurants in the area. We expect for a
lot of our clientele to have different options as far as going out. Also, partnering with
retail places such as Olathe Glass, The Yellow Barn – places that we can send them to
shop, kind of as a break during the time that they are with us. This will bring both local
and out-of-town people to Olathe, which will help create awareness and revenue to the
city.
I wanted to touch base on a couple of the stipulations. I know one is a question
about parking. It will be stated on the website that you need to actually carpool. And we
do carpool, believe it or not. With moms, everybody can’t just take off with their cars for
the weekends because you need the van left at home, or whatever. We do carpool, we
bring rolling bags full of crafts, we go into the house. We are looking at doing a gravel
driveway because we can’t roll these bags through a muddy back yard, so it is
something that’s going to have to be done. As far as a paved back yard, one, we’ve
looked at the price of doing that and it is not feasible in our budget. So, if that is a
requirement, we would probably have to look at turning this into a rental property
instead of being able to do a business there. We also have spoken to a lot of the
neighbors, just asking what their feeling was on us pouring a concrete drive, due to the
fact that it kind of takes away from the character of the neighborhood. No one said they
SU-12-007 Continued
Page 6
thought we should do that. They want us to fit in and don’t want it to look so much like a
business. So, that was the response we got back from it. So, that is our request, is that
we are willing to do the gravel, but we just can’t feasibly pour paved parking. And it does
also access right off of a gravel alleyway, which we feel like we would more fit in hauling
in gravel than actually a concrete pad.
Somebody was asking about the grass. The gravel actually goes into the garage
and the carport that’s next to it, so we need to bring a little more gravel in because it’s
been worn down. But you’ll be able to park on it, not the grass. And a lot of that has to
do with the fact, too, that our clients can’t haul stuff through muddy places. That is the
first thing we would like to ask be changed.
The second one is, we would like to request that the renewal process be set at
ten years instead of five, due to the cost that it has taken us to get it done this far. That
would be our other request.
We are very excited to be here in Olathe, and like I said, there’s a lot of
character, and we’ve fallen in love with the downtown area, and hope to bring in a lot of
business, and partner with the city of Olathe. Any questions?
Comm. Kohler: Will you be having any sales on site? Will there be actual commerce
conducted?
Ms. Dewitt: We’re trying to figure it all out, but we’ve talked to some of the businesses
that would like to maybe come in and hold a class, or do a card-making class. But
again, our main focus is just to kind of get people there on the weekends to do the
things that we like to do. So, it’s been said, but we’re pretty much wanting to stick with
people renting the house for a creative outlet, as a retreat.
Comm. Kohler: And on the popular topic of parking, on Sunday, there was a, I think
there must have been workers there. There was a pickup truck parked in the alley that
was blocking the alley. I’m wondering how the folks at 225 feel about it. I was going to
test going through but it was obvious I would have to drive on their lawn.
Ms. Dewitt: I apologize for that. In fact, it was us, and I don’t know if you saw a bunch of
kids running around, but that was us with our families, and we did have sporting
activities this weekend, so we actually had more cars there than usual. The red truck
was an electrician. He had pulled up, and we did ask him to move, just because people
do access that alley.
Comm. Kohler: That’s a very interesting concept. It looked like even without having to
do stuff to the back yard that you could get two or three cars back there. But I wouldn’t
be opposed to the things you are asking.
Comm. Harrelson: You made a comment about the cost to apply for a special use
permit. I know the special use permit, in some cases, can be expensive. However, in
SU-12-007 Continued
Page 7
this case, now that you’ve done all the leg work, it wouldn’t seem to be as expensive to
reapply. Obviously ten years is a long time period, and although it seems like a great
project, there is concern about the parking. So, I’m wondering if we shouldn’t have a
test period to see if that is still compatible with the neighbors once this revised use
comes to pass. So, can you comment on the cost of that? I would not think that would
be very expensive.
Ms. Dewitt: I know the renewal fee isn’t that much, but you also have to do the mailings
again. Each one of those mailings are $6.00 and we had 22 people within a 200-foot
area. So, it was a little over $175. I think that we’re thinking if there is a problem,
ordinance will come in and address that problem as time goes on. So, at any time,
people can come to us with those issues. And we would be more than happy to come
back and talk to the planning committee if you wanted us to. We just don’t want to have
to do those mailings again at the additional expense.
Comm. Harrelson: Dave, is that a requirement, that if they reapply, they do have to do
the mailings again?
Mr. Clements: Yes.
Comm. Harrelson: Who takes care of the property? Do you guys mow the grass and
take care of it now?
Ms. Dewitt: That would be us, and our husbands. So far, it’s our project.
Comm. Harrelson: And if we approve the project, that would be ongoing - ?
Ms. Dewitt: Yes. And it’s really important that that property is kept up, just because of
the fact that no one is going to want to come to a retreat when the grass – I mean, that
house always has to look really nice. There’s always going to be flowers, and it’s always
going to be pretty.
Chairman Campbell: Anyone else? Thank you. This is a public hearing. We have one
other person who has signed up to speak in favor.
Any Herman, 24966 West 150th Court, Olathe, appeared before the Planning
Commission and made the following comments:
Ms. Herman: As an Olathe resident, a crafter, scrapbooker, business owner and former
tourism director for the city of Atchison, Kansas, I think the Creative Cottage is a
fabulous addition to downtown Olathe. I think it can really serve as a great opportunity
to bring people to Olathe. I personally have been to several crafting retreats, even just
up to north Kansas City. Whenever I go, there’s five, six, seven of us that will go, and
again, to address that parking, we’re usually taking one or two vehicles to get to our
destination. It’s all about getting up there with your friends and having a good time from
SU-12-007 Continued
Page 8
the beginning of the weekend. So, I’d just like to encourage you all to really consider
this. I really don’t think the parking situation is going to be of concern because, like
we’ve stated, we do tend to go in groups to these retreat weekends. I think it can be a
great way to stimulate the economy of Olathe, bringing new visitors in. Obviously we
stimulate the economy whenever we go to a community by shopping, gas, food, etc. So,
I would just like to encourage you guys to consider this project. Thank you.
Chairman Campbell: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak in favor? Is
there anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Seeing or hearing none, we’ll bring it back
to the Commission for discussion, or a motion to close the public hearing.
Comm. Ling: Overall, I certainly appreciate the applicant’s investment in the community.
The pictures look wonderful, the before-and-afters. I certainly appreciate that effort. I
also appreciate staff’s interest in the parking, trying to improve the parking. We try to
improve the city, so I understand staff’s position on that. But in this case, I think it does
make sense to allow the gravel. It is a gravel driveway and it seems to be consistent
with the other houses in the immediate area.
As to the applicant’s request for a ten-year extension of the special use permit,
typically our special use permits are five years for this type of use. This is a new use,
kind of a new use to the city of Olathe, so I understand your cost and the burden there.
But the process is in place for those five-year reviews because of the change in the new
use, and if there becomes any issues with the parking, we’d certainly like an opportunity
for your neighbors to have a public hearing in five years to vent those issues, if there
are any. But hopefully there will not be any issues. But, I would be supportive of leaving
the five year, but removing the paving, as the applicant has requested.
Comm. Kohler: I agree with Mr. Ling’s comments.
Comm. Fry: I think this is a great project for you all to take on. Personally, I’m nervous
that my wife is going to leave me with three crazy kids for the weekend. But I think the
gravel driveway makes sense and I concur with what Mr. Ling had to say. I think it’s a
great, new project for Olathe, and I think it’s going to be a great thing.
Comm. Rinke: I’m happy to see an older piece of property in town improved, and I
would concur with Mr. Ling’s comments as well.
Chairman Campbell: Are there any other comments or questions? Is there a motion to
close the public hearing?
Motion by Comm. Ling, seconded by Comm. Kohler, to close the public hearing. Motion
passes unanimously.
SU-12-007 Continued
Page 9
Motion by Commissioner Ling, seconded by Commissioner Kohler, to recommend
approval of SU-12-007, for the following reasons:
(1)
The proposal conforms to the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
(2)
The proposal complies with the Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) criteria for considering special use permit requests.
Commissioner Ling’s motion included recommending approval with the following
stipulations to be included in the ordinance, as amended:
(1)
The Special Use Permit is valid for a period of five years following
Governing Body approval, with a tentative expiration date of July 17,
2017.
(2)
A parking area must be paved on-site within one (1) year of approval
of the special use permit.
Motion passes unanimously.
MINUTES
CITY OF OLATHE
CASE # RZ-12-006
Dave Clements, Assistant Director/Planning Manager, made the following
staff report:
Planner:
Request:
Dave Clements
June 25, 2012
Amendment to an existing RP-3 Planned Low Density Multi-family
district on 5.32 ± acres, and revised preliminary development plan for
The Homestead Townhomes at the Homestead Apartments.
Location:
The site is located in the vicinity of the 116th Street and Shannon
Street, at the northern end of Homestead Apartments.
Owner:
Homestead Apartment Homes, LLC.
Applicant:
Bleakley Development Co. LLC./Todd Bleakley
Engineer:
Allenbrand-Drews & Associates, Inc.
Acres:
5.32 acres of the 64 acre
Homestead Apartments
Proposed Use:
Multi-Family
Residential
Current Zoning: RP-3
Units:
Existing
Revised
Open Space
Area:
Required
15%
Revised
21%
696 apartments
32 townhomes
728 total units
Density
11.34 units/acre
Permitted
15 units/acre
Private Street28’width/city
standard
Land Use
Zoning
Comp. Plan Designation
North
Undeveloped
Single-Family
RP-3
R-1 (Lenexa)
Mixed Use Residential
N/A
East
Vacant-future park
RP-1
Parks/Greenway
Site
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 2
Apartments
South
West
I.
Industrial
RP-3
M-1
Residential
Industrial
COMMENTS
A. Request and History:
This request is for an amendment to an existing RP-3 Planned Low
Density Multi-Family District and revised preliminary development plan
for Homestead Townhomes. The application was filed to allow the
construction of 32 townhome units on a 5.32 acre buffer/open space site
on the northernmost part of the Homestead Apartment site. Please see
the site location map in the upper left hand corner of Sheet 1.
The planned district for Homestead Apartment Homes was approved in
1998 (RZ-35-98). The original application included 696 apartment units
and 44 townhomes. The 44 townhomes were in the location of the 32
units proposed with this application.
Planning Commission and City Council action on the original application
is as follows:
1. July 27, 1998- Planning Commission reviews and
recommends approval of original application with 696
apartments and 44 townhomes.
2. August 18, 1998- City Council reviews Planning
Commission recommendation, and returns application for
reconsideration and redesign with specific instructions to
reduce the number of units and scope of project, traffic
and traffic signals, and buffering.
3. September 14, 1998- Planning Commission reviews and
recommends approval of a revised plan that deletes the
44 townhomes and provides a 230’ buffer along the north
property line.
4. October 6, 1998- City Council approves revised plan by
Ordinance #98-72 that includes stipulation “i” a 230’ open
space buffer shall be provided along the north property
line.
At this time, the applicant would like to amend planned district Ordinance
#98-72 to eliminate stipulation “i”, to allow the construction of 32
townhomes in the 230’ buffer/setback that was established by City
Council with the final Ordinance.
The proposed townhome development would have a 91’ setback from
the single-family homes to the north. The minimum setback of the
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) in a RP-3 District is 15’, which
can be achieved through “innovative and imaginative site design”.
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 3
Bleakley Development believes that Homestead Apartments has been
an asset to the City, have been nicely maintained and have not had any
adverse impact on surrounding properties. The applicant believes that it
is appropriate to consider adding the townhomes to Homestead
Apartments at this time, as was originally proposed, but with the number
of units reduced from 44 to 32.
B. Neighborhood Meeting:
The applicant held the required neighborhood meeting for the proposed
project on June 4, 2012. (Attachment 1) (Attachment 1A)
At the neighborhood meeting, the applicant discussed a letter dated
October 2, 1998 in which Bleakley Development stated that the no
structures would be built in the buffer area. (Attachment 2)
The applicant also conducted an informational meeting on February 8,
2012 with the Homestead Woods Association Board and an initial
neighborhood meeting on February 28, 2012.
C. Neighborhood Position:
Residents of Homestead Woods subdivision north of Homestead
Apartments are opposed to the proposed amendment to reduce the 230’
setback and allow the townhome development. Residents note that they
were significantly involved with the approval of Homestead Apartments
and that the 230’ buffer was a developer’s concession that was part of
the original approval.
The Board of Directors of Homestead Woods Subdivision submitted a
letter representing their membership. This letter includes an exhibit
discussing impact of the townhomes on property values. Please see
letters of opposition. (Attachments 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
II.
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A. Utilities/Municipal Services:
The property is located in the City of Olathe water service area and
Johnson County Wastewater service areas. A water man extension will
be required. The proposed Townhomes will utilize the City's smart-cart
system for solid waste collection per Title 6 of Olathe Municipal Code.
The applicant will be responsible to provide and maintain access from
116th Terr. (a public street) through the Homestead Apartment
development that is not a public street for solid waste collection to the
proposed townhomes. Applicant will "hold harmless" the City of Olathe
for any damage to the private drives that are not constructed to city
standards. The final site development plan shall include truck templates
for access route from 116th Terr. to the proposed Townhomes. The solid
waste route will be from the Avignon Development east of the
Homestead Apartments on 116th Terr.
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 4
B. Access/Streets:
Access to the townhome site will be from private driveways north from
116th Street to the subject property. A private east/west street will be
constructed north of existing garages and parking areas of the
Homestead Apartments to serve the townhome units.
Oakview Drive is a stub street north of the site in Lenexa. Residents in
the adjoining single family homes have indicated a concern about
Oakview Drive being connected to the Homestead Apartments. The
physical layout of the proposed townhomes and the Homestead
Apartments would make it difficult to connect public streets in this
vicinity.
The plan also makes no provision to connect private roads or driveways
to Oakview Drive. The applicant will construct a fence at the south end
of Oakview Drive; this fence is indicated on the landscape plan and will
be part of any final plan approval.
A traffic study was prepared with the application, and reviewed and
approved by the Traffic/Engineering team. It was found that traffic from
the 32 units would be easily absorbed by the existing street network.
C. Building Setbacks:
Front setback:
Side yard:
Rear yard:
Building Separation:
Proposed- 20’
Proposed-34’
Proposed-91’+
Proposed-15’+
Required
Required
Required
Required
20’
15’
15’
15’
D. Open Space:
The RP-3 District requires a 15% common open space area. With the
proposed townhome development, the open space provided is 20.7%.
The active open space requirement is 50% of the common open space.
The active open space in Homestead includes a walking trail in the area
proposed for townhome development. This walking trail will have to be
relocated if the townhomes are constructed.
At the neighborhood meeting, residents were opposed to the walking
trail being located closer to the single family homes to the north. It was
suggested that the walking trail be routed through the new private street.
Staff would recommend the walking trail be relocated in the 91’ setback
north of the townhomes. The trail is also required as part of the open
space amenities for Homestead Apartments.
The applicant would like the walking trail to be considered an adequate
substitute for a sidewalk along the private street. An existing waterline
easement north of the townhomes would make it difficult to relocate the
townhomes in a fashion to allow a sidewalk to constructed in front of the
units.
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 5
E. Landscaping/Screening:
There is an existing 30’ tree preservation easement along the north line
of the property. This is a heavily treed area, but certain areas within the
tree preservation easement have deteriorated.
The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan for the revised
development area. The preliminary landscape plan complies with the
requirements of the UDO. The landscape plan includes 61 evergreen
trees as supplemental plantings for the tree preservation easement.
A landscape plan will be submitted with the final development plan and it
shall be sealed by a licensed landscape architect.
F. Architecture/Design:
The applicant has submitted colored perspectives and line drawings of
the townhomes, along with an architect’s narrative of the design concept
(attachment 8). The perspective generally indicates the scale of the
buildings and the colors and materials proposed for the townhomes.
Staff would note that use of decorative stone or masonry will have to be
increased to meet the 75% requirement of the multi-family design
guidelines, and this can be addressed with the final site development
plan. Building material samples will also be required with the final site
development plan.
III.
ANALYSIS
The following criteria is used for considering rezoning applications as listed
in Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section 18.12.140 and staff
findings for appropriate sections:
A. The character of the neighborhood including but not limited to:
land use, zoning, density (residential), architectural style, building
materials, height, structural mass, siting, open space and floor-toarea ratio (commercial and industrial).
The surrounding area consists of multi-family apartments to the south
and an established single-family neighborhood to the north. The
townhomes are introduced as a transition from the higher density
apartments to the single family homes. The townhomes are designed so
the mass and scale of the units is not significantly larger than the
adjoining single family homes.
B. The zoning and uses of nearby properties and the extent to which
the proposed use would be in harmony with such zoning and uses.
The townhomes are proposed to be developed in the existing RP-3
district, and are a permitted use. The townhome units are compatible
and in harmony with the Homestead Apartments, and it is not unusual to
find townhome units such as these used as a transition to single family
homes.
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 6
C. The suitability of the property for the uses to which it has been
restricted under the applicable zoning district regulations.
The subject property is a suitable location for townhome development,
but it is precluded by the open space stipulation of the original
ordinance.
D. The length of time the property has remained vacant as zoned.
The Homestead Apartments were approved in 1998, and the subject site
was designated as an open space buffer with the original plan. The
property has been vacant as a result of the original stipulation of
approval. It is reasonable to assume that the site would have been
developed if the buffer had not been designated on the property.
E. The extent to which approval of the application would detrimentally
affect nearby properties.
The townhome concept at this location provides a reduction or “step
down” in density from the existing apartments and is less than the 44
units originally proposed. This density reduction is an attempt to reduce
the impact on nearby properties.
The applicant prepared an appraisal report that indicates no negative “final
effect” from construction of the townhomes. (Attachment 7-Exhibit A)
F. The extent to which the proposed use would substantially harm the
values of nearby properties.
The applicant’s appraisal report indicates that the townhome
development will have no detrimental effect on the Homestead Woods
subdivision. The report analyzes sales in Homestead Woods subdivision
in Lenexa abutting the subject site, and Homestead Creek subdivision in
Olathe, east of Homestead Woods.
G. The extent to which the proposed use would adversely affect the
capacity or safety of that portion of the road network influenced by
the use or present parking problems in the vicinity of the property.
The existing streets in Homestead Apartments and the proposed private
road for the townhomes meet the traffic needs for the proposed
development and surrounding uses. The private street is designed to city
standards with a 28’ width.
H. The economic impact of the proposed use on the community.
The proposed amendment will allow new development in Homestead
Apartments that will provide new housing opportunities and increased
real estate taxes.
IV.
As previously discussed, the 230’ buffer was agreed to by the developer
and stipulated as a development condition by the City Council. This
stipulation was the major factor that allowed the construction of the 696
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 7
units of Homestead Apartments. As such, the applicant needs to bring
forward convincing information at this time in order to justify the request and
meet the objections of residents in Homestead Woods subdivision.
With the 1998 approval, the City Council, adjacent residents and developer
arrived at a compromise that remains important to residents with this current
request. Staff cannot recommend that the stipulation be changed only
because of the passage of time.
The Planning staff believes the preliminary development plan is appropriate
for this in-fill site, and meets and exceeds the requirements of the Unified
Development Ordinance, subject to a final development plan.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make findings as to the
appropriateness of the preliminary plan, and offer their input or
recommendation on the proposed amendment to the City Council as the
appropriate decision makers for this request, based on City Council
precedent with the original approval in 1998.
A. Planning Commission approval of RZ-12-006 can be based on the
following reasons:
(1) The revised development meets the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) criteria for considering zoning applications
(2) The proposed development, as stipulated, meets the development
and performance standards of the RP-3 zoning classification.
B. Planning Commission approval of RZ-12-006 can include the following
stipulations to be included in the ordinance:
(1) Prior to publishing the zoning ordinance and within thirty (30) days
following approval by the Governing Body, a statement that a
preliminary development plan has been approved for the subject
property shall be filed in accordance with the requirements of
Section 18.12.230 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
(2) The revised development plan for The Homestead Townhomes and
proposed building elevations shall comply with the development
and performance standards for RP-3 developments as outlined in
UDO Section 18.24.060, subject to exceptions granted by the
Planning Commission.
(3) The building design and materials for the townhomes shall comply
with the Guidelines for Multi-Family Development Design as to
materials.
C. Staff recommends approval of the revised development plan with the
following stipulations to be completed with the final site development
plan:
(1) Revised building elevations shall be submitted that meet the
Guidelines for Multi-Family Development Design.
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 8
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Building material samples for all materials shall be submitted prior
to approval of the final site development plan.
The walking trail meets the requirement for active open space and
shall be located north of the townhomes.
A final landscape plan shall be submitted with the seal of a
registered landscape architect. All elements of the final landscape
plan shall be maintained in perpetuity.
All landscaped areas shall be irrigated.
(6)
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 such cabinets
are screened with landscape materials.
(7) As required by the UDO, all exterior ground or building mounted
equipment, including but not limited to mechanical equipment, utility
meter banks and coolers, shall be screened from public view with
landscaping or an architectural treatment compatible with the
building architecture.
(8) All on-site wiring and cables shall be placed underground.
Following staff presentation, the Chairman opened the meeting up to
questions from commissioners:
Comm. Ling: Mr. Clements, I certainly understand your statement about the 230
foot buffer, but like you said, we have to review the plan as is, so I have some
other questions about other things that I would like to ask you about. One of them
is the trail relocation. Can the trail go north of the townhomes but still south of the
berms that are shown there?
Mr. Clements: Yes, there is. It hasn’t been designed yet, but I think the berms
may have to be reshaped, the landscaping plan might have to be changed. But
there is physical room for it.
Comm. Ling: A question on the setback. The applicant is now showing revised
setback of 91 feet. Do I understand correctly that the setback that would be
required between these RP and residential would be 15 feet?
Mr. Clements: There are two answers to that question. An R-3 zoning
classification provides for a 30-foot setback. This is an RP-3 zoning classification,
and an RP-3 setback can be reduced to as little as 15 feet, but there has to be
some significant design elements, and there had to be some offsets and a land
plan, landscaping or design, to really justify reducing it down to 15 feet.
Comm. Ling: Are these maintenance-provided or does the applicant need to
provide that information?
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 9
Mr. Clements: It will be maintained by Bleakley Development.
Comm. Rinke: On that map, I know one of the concerns was extending Oakview,
having a connection there. If you look at Oakview going down south, there’s
actually what looks like an empty lot. Is there any particular reason why that
space was left vacant?
Mr. Clements: There is a utility line right here.
Comm. Rinke: And when you started your presentation, you showed a map from
the original plan back in 1998. It looked like there was a different design. Was
that a city road that would have gone in front of most of the units there?
Mr. Clements: Yes, but the plan was revised. That would have been a public
street looping in front of the townhomes. The townhomes would have individual
access drives shared at [inaudible] locations.
Comm. Rinke: Is staff comfortable with a private drive?
Mr. Clements: We are. The drive is going to be designed to City standards in
terms of width and construction.
Comm. Rinke: And back with the old plan, how close would those units have
been do the neighboring homeowners versus this plan?
Mr. Clements: About the same because there is a large water main easement
there. That kind of dictates how far north you can go with any structures.
Comm. Rinke: On the new plan with the private drive, there are some garages
that are servicing the existing apartment units. Are those subject to setbacks, and
if so, is there enough setback between the garage units and the proposed drive?
Mr. Clements: No, those are fine in terms of location within the planned district.
We’re not creating any new lot lines with this.
Comm. Rinke: And you mentioned the berm. Do you know how tall the berm
would be?
Mr. Clements: As it is designed now, it’s four feet.
Comm. Rinke: But they were going to re-do the berm, correct?
Mr. Clements: Well, to relocate the trail, we would have to look at some changes
in that area to the north, and I think changes in the berm might be part of that. I
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 10
don’t know that the height would have to be changed. It might be the length,
might be the shape. Might be the height.
Comm. Rinke: My last question may be for the applicant. These are intended to
be rental units, but if at some point the applicant decided to sell these to owneroccupants, would there be any restrictions that would prohibit them from doing
so?
Mr. Clements: No, they would just have to be platted as condominiums. The
applicant can speak to that.
Comm. Fry: As you mentioned, one of the key components here is the historical
perspective of why it was done the way it was back in 1998. From your initial
presentation, I may have misunderstood why it was done the way it was and I
just want to make sure we clarified it. Was what was going up for approval the
entire complex at once or just the townhome component that you had kind of
drawn in?
Mr. Clements: The original approval was for 696 apartments and 44 townhomes.
Comm. Fry: So when the City Council brought it back to the Planning
Commission to reduce the density, it just seemed when I first heard it, going from
44 townhome units to zero is definitely decreasing the density. It just seemed a
little unusual that they would just take out that entire section. Was it just because
they wanted to get the apartments built? Is that what you were saying earlier?
Mr. Clements: Perhaps the applicant can speak to that. I think some of the
circumstances are blurry. I will say, from my review of the minutes, that Bleakley
Development said, okay, we’ll take out the 44 townhomes, and that’s the way to
reduce the density, that’s the way to open up the buffering and setback to the
north, and can you guys approve that. And it was approved based on that for 696
apartments.
Comm. Fry: My last question is about the trail. I know that through Overland
Park, in running on some of those trails, they do have trails that go through
neighborhoods, that actually have a widened sidewalk and they are right in front
of houses. Does this have to go back behind there? Could it be in front on this
private drive with a widened sidewalk, or something along those lines? Has that
been discussed?
Mr. Clements: We have not looked at it, but I think there is a dimensional
problem here. Widening out that private street to increase the sidewalk or
something would require the units to maybe be moved farther north. Then we’re
bumping up against the water easement, which would not allow that to be done.
You could certainly look at perhaps doing something on the south side of the
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 11
street, but that’s where all the rain gardens are, a lot of the neat elements of the
plan, a lot of the water quality things that are shown on here, and that would
require a lot to be re-engineered. So, I think it would be easier and more
attractive to put the trail on the north side of the townhomes.
Comm. Harrelson: First of all, just to be clear, the property now with the 230 foot
setback really can’t be developed if that’s to be maintained.
Mr. Clements: That’s exactly right.
Comm. Harrelson: The second thing, you made a comment about the
townhomes not meeting the multifamily design guidelines. I thought I read in your
report that there was more masonry added than is normal for a building of this
type. Did I miss that? I know when you had the picture of the townhome up, I
guess I misunderstood specifically what things don’t meet the - ?
Mr. Clements: The staff report points out that we would need to increase
decorative masonry. Now, the architect put together a narrative. You maybe
looked at the architect’s narrative. I had the architect do that and he did a very
good job. I think what he did inadvertently was calculated the amount of EFIS,
artificial stucco, he counted that as true masonry. I told him he couldn’t do that,
so that changed the numbers.
Comm. Harrelson: Perhaps I misread that. Two more things. In the homeowners’
letter, a comment was made that the buffer between a neighborhood and
apartment complex has never been landscaped. That’s the first comment. The
second one is, grass or weeds is usually higher than that allowed for
homeowners. To me, we either have a plan that was never landscaped or was
never appropriately landscaped, or it was. One or the other. And number two, if
it’s not being mowed, it either meets our ordinances, or it doesn’t. So, can you
comment on which of those two we fall under relative to the landscaping and the
mowing?
Mr. Clements: I think what the neighbors were trying to point out is just lack of
maintenance on their side of the buffer. I looked for a landscape plan from the
original approval in 1998 to see where it was deficient and I couldn’t find anything
that really shed light on that question. If it’s not being mowed and maintained, the
City has height requirements for grass and weeds. That can be handled by our
community enhancement team if there is a complaint. I don’t know how often
they get mowed. The applicant can speak to that. It’s five acres, it’s a lot to mow,
and I’m betting they don’t do it as much as somebody mowing their yard.
Chairman Campbell: This is a public hearing. Before we start, because it is a little
unusual for us, I want to address that: This body, in general, makes
recommendations to the City Council for what the plan is. So we get submitted a
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 12
plan, we look at the facts – is this a good plan? Does it meet our ordinances and
our guidelines? Can we recommend that plan based on the facts to the City
Council? Do we recommend for approval? Do we recommend for approval with
amendments? Do we recommend denial? Do we recommend denial with
comments? Or, the other option that we have that is very rarely used is we
actually move it on to Council without a recommendation and let them deal with
the issue as we see it. Now, from a legal standpoint, it’s my understanding that
that is deemed as a denial for the record. But it is another option open to us.
This case is unusual in that we have a plan being presented, but we also
have a stipulation that is in place from a previous ordinance. So, I just wanted to
get all that in our minds before we move forward. We will proceed. Mr. Heaven, I
think you’re up.
Pete Heaven, 10851 Mastin, Overland Park, appeared before the Planning
Mr. Heaven: I represent Bleakley Development. I’ve had the honor of
representing Bleakley for about 25 years, so I was at the meetings that Mr.
Clements was referring to, and I do remember what happened, and I’ll explain
that to you tonight.
The top of this graphic is an aerial photograph taken in 1998 and what the
City Council was faced with when the Bleakley’s filed their application. The Speer
farm, which is where the apartments are now, is roughly this area. There was a
good deal of discussion at the time about the 119th Street corridor and where we
would be going in the future in Olathe. You’ll notice across 119th Street, we have
the Smith farm, which was about 80 acres, we have the Speer farm – Everything
was agricultural in this area. The discussion at City Council was, what is this
corridor going to look like? And by committing to the Bleakley’s to allow
apartments and townhomes, were we casting the die for this area? And were we
precluding or limiting other uses? That was the consideration before the City
Council when we came in 1998.
Now, let’s fast forward to 2010. 119th Street is at the very bottom. You’ll
note, of course, that there is a shopping center on the south now. The
apartments are in the middle. We have the Avignon development, which is in
progress now. And we have a development by the name of Santa Marta. The
area is pretty much developed out at this point and the Avignon development
takes up most of the rest of that green space in the middle of the document. So
the real question was, what is this going to look like in the future? We now know
what it is going to look like. We now know what uses are in place. And what we
have found is a 230-foot no man’s land on the north end of the apartment
buildings. The question was asked whether it was ever landscaped. It was never
intended to be landscaped. It was intended to be an open-space area. But that
intention was an open-space area for future development, at some point. Maybe
yes, maybe no, depending on what happened in the 119th Street corridor.
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 13
Now, when we came before the City Council in 1998, the residents had
some concerns, and I would have, too. Single-family, residential area, empty
space to the south, apartments coming in. We heard crime, we heard traffic, we
heard those types of arguments, and we were able to meet and diffuse and
explain that this would not happen. And I think over the last 14 years we have
been very good neighbors and those fears were unfounded. But the so-called
compromise for this green space was not with the neighborhood. The so-called
compromise was a request by the City Council for us to withdraw the townhome
portion because of the density. It was that simple. And it was not because the
density went over the limited UDO at the time. It was the City Council simply
didn’t know what this area was going to look like.
Now, our application, as Mr. Clements has indicated, meets the UDO,
meets the Golden criteria, meets all the regulations necessary for construction in
the city of Olathe, with the exception of this one small item, and that is the
stipulation on the green space. So, has the passage of time actually created a
change? I want to suggest to you tonight that yes, it has.
As you’ll notice on the right-hand side, there is a development by the
name of Santa Marta. What you see here are a series of duplexes on both sides
of the development. The internal portion is assisted living and apartments. This
duplex is 40 feet from the Hampton Woods property. This one is 70 feet from the
Hampton Woods property. Same subdivision. Same area. The City Council
found, however, that that setback was not necessary for multifamily as it borders
this particular subdivision. So, going back to the plan, here’s Santa Marta;
Bleakley’s. Two hundred 230 feet here, 40 feet there. There is no need for this
buffer any more. It is the passage of time that’s made this change. It’s been the
development of this area that has necessitated the change or eliminated the
need for a buffer in 1998. Yes, much has changed. I would suggest to you,
however, respectfully, that this is a policy decision by City Council on this
stipulation. It isn’t a matter of planning, frankly. And what we would ask you to do
is favorably recommend this to the City Council so that it can deal with this
particular stipulation. I believe, by its own actions, the City Council has spoken,
and that setback is no longer necessary for multifamily along the Hampton
Woods subdivision.
I’ll now turn it over to our technical team. I would like to have Jeff Shinkle,
our architect, Pete Opperman and Robin Marx, very briefly address the
Commission about their respective expertise.
Jeff Shinkle, BCS Design Architects, 19920 West 161st Street, Olathe, appeared
before the Planning Commission and made the following comment:
Mr. Shinkle: My job as the architect on this preliminary design was three things –
Provide a design that meets the input raised by the neighborhood through the
meetings that the developer has had with neighbors; ultimately comply with the
multifamily guidelines as set forth by Olathe; and finally, to provide a feasible and
marketable product for the owners. Briefly, I’ll tell you about the project. There
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 14
are a total of 32 units, ten triplexes and two duplexes. When we originally met
with Mr. Clements, we had four-plexes and six-plexes, and through neighborhood
meetings it was talked about that we should reduce the size of the buildings to be
more in compliance or similar to that of single-family homes. So, we reduced
those to ten triplexes and one duplex.
We have attempted to put similar materials on the building in this
preliminary plan, similar to the apartments, but we also wanted to set these apart
from the apartments as a buffer between the single-family because they are a
different product. They are a different rentable product than the apartments. So
we do have similar materials and colors, but they will be somewhat different than
the apartments as they currently stand. There are single-car garages on the front
of all the units. As Mr. Clements mentioned, there are privacy fences on the back
to distinguish the patio areas of each unit. We have created some bump-out
release on the side of the buildings to create what the multifamily guidelines state
for a similar massing height, roof pitches, and architectural features when they
are abutted to single-family homes. Ultimately, we tried to create an appearance
of a single-family unit since it buffers and is adjacent to the north side of that
property line. I’m open to any questions you might have.
Comm. Harrelson: Can you comment on staff’s position that the buildings don’t
meet the multifamily design guidelines?
Mr. Shinkle: Yes. The difference between the EFIS and the stucco product, EFIS
is basically a stucco-looking product except EFIS is put on a foam board. Stucco
is actually a less-expensive product, which I think ultimately the client would have
us do at the end. Stucco is an accepted masonry product. They look similar to
the eye. The difference is the foam board behind the product. So, it’s just a
difference of how the guidelines are defined. EFIS is not an accepted product but
stucco is, so ultimately, if this moves forward, I believe the owners would accept
the stucco product.
Chairman Campbell: Anything else? Thank you.
Pete Opperman, Opperman Land Design, appeared before the Planning
Mr. Opperman: I am the planner and landscape architect for the Homestead
townhomes. I would just like to say that I have to give the Bleakley’s credit. Being
a planner, I am used to doing land planning where the developers are expecting
me to shoehorn this in and get everything I can on there. When they initially
asked me to do this, I had something like 40 townhomes on here, showing that
we can get this many on there. Well, to their credit, they immediately started
stepping it back and taking units off, and through a process of the Bleakley’s
going to a couple different neighborhood informational meetings and us going to
talk to the City, we’ve got down to 32 units. Jeff has reduced the size of the units.
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 15
We ended up with a nice curved linear road. I should also add that the plan up on
the screen, the required trees on this project are basically the ones out along the
street and about half of the trees immediately behind the units, but through the
neighbors’ request to the north, we’ve added all those trees that you see toward
the top of the drawing on the south side of all the existing trees, of the hedgerow
that we’re basically leaving intact. Also, there is an existing berm out there, and I
should mention that they have done a lot of landscaping along the north side of
the garages of the units in this area. There are numerous trees out there already,
which in effect really don’t do that much because the existing hedgerow is thick
enough that you really can’t see through it. We’re basically taking that berm that’s
about underneath where the townhome garages are now and essentially shoving
it all to the north. So, we’re keeping the berm, again, at the request of the
neighbors because they like having the berm in there. So, we’re going to be
keeping all the existing trees, not taking any of those out, except for the ones that
the Bleakley’s have planted that are where the townhomes are actually at.
I would also point out that with these 32 units, if you figure the density of
the 5.32 acres we’re developing, it’s actually six units per acre, whereas the
overall development would be like 11-point-something.
We’re also adding four rain gardens to meet the BMP stormwater
requirements. With that, I will sit down.
Comm. Rinke: Mr. Opperman, when they move the berm, will it continue to be a
four-foot berm, approximately?
Mr. Opperman: It’s about four feet tall on the townhouse side. On the other side it
goes up to six and eight feet tall in some areas.
Comm. Rinke: And then the new trees, will those be at the top of the berm?
Mr. Opperman: They’re just on the north side of the berm. So, near the top, yes.
Robin Marx, Bliss Associates, 1000 Walnut, Kansas City, MO, appeared before
the Planning Commission and made the following comment:
Mr. Marx: I am a professional real estate appraiser. I’ve been doing this 37 years.
I’m a Johnson County resident. In 1998, I did a paired study to look at whether
apartments close to single-family dwellings would have an adverse impact. And I
used a subdivision at 125th and Antioch in Overland Park, a fairly new
subdivision, Pheasant Run, which is up against a newer part that’s called
Whispering Hills. And I did a pair analysis and I couldn’t find any detrimental
effect associated with proximity. It was well-buffered, well-defined, much like the
proposed Homestead apartments for the plaintiffs. So, we got a chance to revisit
this. I revisited whether the homes north of Homestead and Homestead Woods,
that subdivision, has it been adversely affected since the subject property was
built. Well, it went up about two percent a year. It didn’t go down. That was one of
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 16
my measures. How much has it changed over time? And even including the great
recession, it went up about two percent a year.
I also paired Homestead Wood with Homestead Creek, which is the
subdivision across Pflumm, and found that without the influence of the
Homestead apartments, it too went up. It actually went up about the same
amount, about two percent. So I concluded that developing townhomes in this
buffer zone, with the buffer as proposed, with the 90 feet, etc., would not have a
detrimental effect on abutting property. Are there any questions?
Chairman Campbell: Questions or comments? Thank you. Mr. Heaven, I think we
have some questions for you.
Comm. Ling: Mr. Heaven, I’m sure the residences are going to bring this letter
up, the letter that’s in the packet. Let me read this last paragraph, which seems
to have another little view than you shared with us earlier. I’m not trying to be
controversial. I’m sure this letter will come up and I want you to explain it in
advance. It’s dated October 2, 1998, a letter written by Mr. Bleakley to the
planner at the time: It says:
“We will also stipulate that we will not build any structures, including
amenities, in this buffer area created by the distance between the property
and the building lines. We intend for these to remain only as open
landscaped areas.”
Mr. Heaven: Right.
Comm. Ling: How do you explain that? Is it consistent with what you told us
earlier?
Mr. Heaven: Yes. That letter was written at the request of the City to confirm that
we would adhere to and respect the green area that was approved by the city
council, that we wouldn’t encroach within it or upon it. But it had to do only with
the apartment buildings that were approved, only with regard to that zoning
approval. There was a question, to be very honest with you, whether the
Bleakley’s intended to go into the green area and build without authority, or –
There were all kinds of rumors and controversies going around in 1998. That was
merely to confirm that we had no intention of building in that 230 foot area in
connection with the apartments.
Chairman Campbell: I’d like clarification, too. The first paragraph states that the
letter is written at the request, and that the buffer is at the request, of Homestead
Woods. But your content is that it’s at the request of City Council.
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 17
Mr. Heaven: No, it was actually – We were told through city staff that Homestead
Woods wanted that buffer, to confirm that we were not going to build in the 230
foot area.
Chairman Campbell: Okay. But the letter says per the request of the
homeowners’ association, basically.
Mr. Heaven: Right.
Chairman Campbell: And this is dated the 2nd, and I believe the City Council
hearing was October 6th. So, this letter actually predates the –
Mr. Heaven: The Council hearing, yes.
Chairman Campbell: Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions or
comments?
Comm. Harrelson: Mr. Heaven, it seems to me that the property owner himself
has a somewhat self-imposing encumbrance on the property. Can you address
some of the, maybe the public meeting information and the interaction that you
had with the neighbors, relative to the amount of things that you did to make this
palatable? In other words, were there other things that were requested that might
have brought the two parties together, to bring about an agreement that maybe
were not done at this point? Were there any things that you’re aware of that
might have brought this a little further?
Mr. Heaven: Yes, and I’ll let Todd Bleakley address that. There was a list
prepared after the last neighborhood meeting that we had agreed to do in
connection with the townhomes. From the neighborhood meeting notes, relocate
the walking trail off the berms and to the front of the townhomes, which was one
of the requests; add more trees to the berm and provide a means to water them,
which we’ve agreed to do; flatten the play area and add random trees, which we
have agreed to do; place fence at the end of Oakview to discourage foot traffic
between Homestead Woods and the townhomes, we have agreed to do that;
include language in the townhome leases to prohibit excessive storage on the
patios, we’ve agreed to do that. Request letter from the city traffic engineer,
stipulating to no future connection of Oakview to Homestead Apartments and
townhomes; we’re happy to do that. In fact, we are willing to stipulate that we will
not voluntarily dedicate the right-of-way for public street there, which would force
the City to condemn it if the City ever wanted to change that. And also, walk the
existing tree line with neighbors to see what can be done to clean it up; we have
brought photographs tonight to show you the condition. I will say this – We did
not put the debris along the fence line. We don’t know who did, but there is
debris there.
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 18
Chairman Campbell: Questions or comments? Is there anyone else wishing to
speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone here wishing to speak in
opposition? We have several people signed up.
Brian Howard, 14200 West 114th Street, appeared before the Planning
Mr. Howard: I’m currently the president of the Homestead Woods association.
From my perspective tonight, I wanted to talk about the macro level of the
development and the neighborhood and what’s going on, as well as this
particular issue. As we had talked about, one of the things that we are all
obviously very concerned about is the stipulation. The stipulation is very
important to us, as you’ve noted in our letter that we received from them, and it’s
the reason we oppose this. It was the agreement that the neighbors fought very
hard for in 1998 and it was a stipulation that allowed Bleakley to develop the
apartments. Homeowners actually purchase their home with the intent and
understanding that they are going to have this green space behind their house,
and now we’re addressing this issue again. We do not agree that the passage of
time alone has allowed us to revisit this issue. We feel like there was an
agreement made by the City Council and we hope that it’s upheld.
The other thing I wanted to mention, at the front of the neighborhood at
112th and Greenwood, we’re kind of positioned between College and 119th. There
is another development of multifamily townhomes that was built about seven
years ago. We were approached by the developer based on a very similar
proposition that we were approached here, that there was a need for multifamily
townhomes, residential area, in our area. So, we agreed and kind of followed the
path of least resistance, if you will. It’s now been a few years and that
development is about 25 percent completed, meaning it’s not done. There is still
plenty of land that needs to be developed. The development is not finished. The
developer at the time told us that they were going to do two-story units. However,
when you go down Greenwood, it’s actually three stories. You can see that the
walk-out basements actually appear to be three stories. They also told us that
they were going to be purchased units and were not going to be leased out. Our
estimation is that a majority of them are now purchased and leased to renters.
So, again, two very different stories that we’ve heard as it relates to that. And I
guess it brings up kind of the point of the premise that we approached with this
particular development, and that there was a desire within our particular area for
these units. I think that development alone brings up some questions in terms of
how much of a desire and how much of a need for additional multifamily units are
really necessary in that area.
The other thing that I wanted to mention is, I think it all comes down to,
with that particular instance, we’ve been told something, and then something else
occurs. Even with the apartment buildings, we were going back and forth over
the years in terms of, was it supposed to be landscaped? Was the berm
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 19
supposed to be this high? We’ve gone back and forth. Ultimately, we feel it
comes down to broken promises. We feel like we’ve been told so many times
one direction or the other and it just hasn’t panned out, for whatever reason.
We also want it noted – and I think we noted it in the letter – we don’t
necessarily agree with the property value assessment that was done in 1998 and
taken a valuation based on this 2010. We did provide some statistics in Exhibit A
of our letter that we feel is more indicative and representative of our
neighborhood. We also feel that the Homestead Creek issue and the Homestead
Woods – They are actually the same neighborhood. They’re kind of different from
a plat standpoint, but we’re still the board, and they use the same amenities as
Homestead Woods. It’s all one development. They’re not actually two separate
neighborhoods.
With that, I wanted to just get a few things on the record from a board
standpoint. I want to turn it over to a few other residents of the neighborhood who
are going to be more directly impacted because they live in the houses that will
back up to this development. Again, I would urge you to consider that stipulation
that was put in place. Again, time isn’t a good barometer for allowing something
to happen. Thank you.
Comm. Harrelson: Mr. Howard, I just asked Mr. Heaven about a list of requests
that the homeowners might have discussed with his group and he seemed to be
able to adequately address those items. Can you tell us, are those things that
specifically came from the homeowners’ association? Is that a correct and
accurate list?
Mr. Howard: The list of requests at the time the apartments were built?
Comm. Harrelson: This most recent development request.
Mr. Howard: I was in attendance for one of the meetings and there was a list of
requests. The way that we approached it in these meetings is very similar to how
we approached it in 1998, in that we wanted to make sure that if we are unable to
stop the development or the building of this particular development, that we
would make sure that we had some things on record that we want to have done if
it does actually go through. That’s my understanding in talking with the
individuals that were in attendance, but it was by no means saying or agreeing
to, that we are for it. It was just some things that we really wanted to make sure
were done if, in fact, this does get approved.
Comm. Harrelson: You have that 230 foot setback, so – I mean, I see the clear
path of why we have what we have today. I understand that. Is it your opinion
that your group would then prefer to have an area that’s not developed, maybe is
overgrown a little bit, doesn’t maybe have nice green grass, mowed yard, that
you’d rather see it be what it is now and being somewhat unkempt versus
something that has a fairly sizeable setback, not 230 feet, but it’s your opinion
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 20
that the majority of folks in your group still would prefer nothing there rather than
to have it cleaned up and to be developed.
Mr. Howard: Absolutely, yes.
Ken Pyle, 11524 S. Oakview Drive, Olathe, appeared before the Planning
Mr. Pyle: I was here in 1998 when this development was first proposed by the
Bleakley’s. The homeowners did agree back then to drop the opposition if there
were certain stipulations made. One was the buffer. One was that there is
landscaping done and maintained, and that the existing tree line was maintained
as well. And, of course, Oakview not going through. Mr. Bleakley did agree to
these stipulations, in particular the buffer area, and not one, but actually two
different letters went to the City. I have one dated September 9, 1998, item 8,
which reads, in part:
“We’ve made a difficult decision to eliminate 44 townhomes along
the northern portion of this project so it may increase this buffer area from
80 feet to 300 feet.”
And you’ll see in the letter that he also wrote in 1998, where he agreed to keep
the setback at 230 feet. So, basically, here we are again today. We have a trust
issue here, I think. Mr. Bleakley made promises back then as far as what would
and wouldn’t be done, and here we are. So now, who says it will [inaudible]?
Who says that these stipulations are going to be maintained? Who says that the
new landscaping is going to be maintained? We just don’t want more empty
promises. We just want the promises that were made back in 1998 to be kept.
So, we would ask you, don’t recommend this to be approved by City Council.
Todd Wherry, 14407 West 115th Terrace, Olathe, appeared before the Planning
Mr. Wherry: First off, I just want to express my total agreement on all points
made in the letter that you received from the Homestead board. If you have any
questions specific to Exhibit A, I actually prepared most of that.
I purchased my home in 2004, subsequent to the apartments being built.
My wife and I agonized over purchasing that home with the apartment complex
behind us. Ultimately, we got comfortable with it, and the primary reason was the
green space and the buffer, and the fact that there was 230 feet of distance
between my back yard and that apartment complex. I didn’t rely on the realtor’s
opinion. I actually went down and visited the city planning department and
reviewed the file prior to making an offer on the property. I saw the letter and
noticed the letter didn’t have any limiting language. It was pretty specific as to the
intent. I reviewed the minutes and the files and nothing expressed that this was a
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 21
staged development. Everything appeared to be as a final plat and appeared to
be finalized. So, based upon that, we were comfortable and we bought the
house. Needless to say, we were very shocked to get the notice in February that
the townhomes were being proposed.
I am very sure that home values are impacted, at a very minimum the
marketability of our homes. The appraisal, as mentioned, compared sales with
Homestead Creek. That’s the same subdivision. I also notice it’s not noted in the
letter, it’s surrounded – as you saw on the map – Santa Marta to the south, and
Homestead Creek, I think, has the referenced townhomes to the north. So, to
pair sales with multifamily bordering the subject property with the [inaudible] in
Homestead Creek with multifamily around it, so it really doesn’t mean anything to
me. It showed that sale prices have been compounded 2.2 percent annual rate.
Real estate typically is an inflation hedge nationally. I think it took three rises
maybe one percent a year above the inflation rate. Well, inflation the last ten
years probably averaged about 2.5 percent, according to government statistics.
And as Exhibit A shows, there is a property specific that borders that property
that was sold twice during the time period that these apartments have been
there, and that subject property, which is one of the 12 homes that border it, had
appreciation of less than average of the whole subdivision, and actually declined
in value from the first sale, pretty much at the time that they finished construction
of the apartment complex. It was sold nine months later at a loss. I think that
supports our contention that there is an impact on home values. All of this lower
appreciation, etc., is with the 230 foot setback, so I can only imagine what a 90foot setback will do to our values.
Bill Bins, 14311 West 115th Terrace, appeared before the Planning Commission
and made the following comment:
Mr. Bins: First, I want to thank Dave. He was very helpful and he gave us a lot of
time, and we appreciate that. I also want to thank you for giving us a chance to
speak. I think it’s very obvious from tonight that things tend to get fuzzy or gray
over time, that we’re not really sure 14 years ago what the intent was, or who
letters were directed to. So, what we have to stay with is the printed material or
letters that are entered into as kind of our lasting history. We purchased our
home in 2004 and we were a little nervous about moving in next to an apartment
complex that basically had 700 units. But we felt with that green space, with that
distance, that made things palatable. And shoe-horning those townhomes into
that space would dramatically change not only the value of our home, we feel,
but also the livability of our homes. We also understand that a lot of things go into
that decision, and we’re asking you to decline his request to add those
townhomes. What we are really asking for is to just say that things change over
time, and we recognize that, but some things don’t change, and we’re asking that
you not change the way that plan was developed; maintain the green space that
exists. Obviously, we have differences of opinions in terms of the berm height,
whether it was ever to be landscaped, etc. And typically berms are landscaped
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 22
on top just to add height. But we ask, again, that you just deny this application to
the City Council.
Jim Kutney, 11508 South Oakview, appeared before the Planning Commission
and made the following comment:
Mr. Kutney: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this thing that impacts my
life savings. I’d like to ask these guys to change houses for the next three years
and see what it does to their property values. I don’t see them as Olathe
residents necessarily. This is an Olathe concern to property owners. And Mr.
Heaven, green space is no special deal to you because it’s not your life savings.
I’d like to refer you to a good planning commission that we lived near, in
The Woodlands, TX. They had a high standard and they would never put rentalowned apartments right next to houses. It doesn’t happen in a proper process
that’s defended. So, I would like you folks to do your job professionally and try to
protect our property values.
So, I’m not a professional planner and I rely on you to do this. And again,
in The Woodlands, they would never put apartments next to houses. And I think
there’s a difference between having rental-owned duplexes versus having owneroccupied duplexes. I would rather have somebody that had their property value
investment to stay at that house. There may be some benefits to having them do
landscaping, but we haven’t seen that in the past.
When we moved here four years ago, we were very, very concerned
about apartments. We have four children and we’re trying to raise a family. It’s
difficult to make that decision to put your family next to 500-600 strangers. Again,
good people. We lived in apartments at one point, as well. Anyway, it was a big
concern of ours, and we decided, based on what Todd did, that this is a green
space and it would buffer us. We figured that the City had some utilities or
something there that would protect our property. So, it was part of our decision to
invest our life savings into this house.
So, from the records that we have seen today, it’s pretty clear that
Bleakley and this Planning Commission decided in the past that they would not
build there. My wife and I and our family decided to buy there based on your
thoughts. So, for the record, I think that the green space must stay. It’s
something that was a commitment by the Planning Commission and Mr. Bleakley
to not build there. We put our investment there based on your decision.
In addition, I think it would degrade property values. Again, I’d like to trade
houses with some folks if they’re so convinced about the property values staying
solid. And from other comments, the properties to the north are an older set of
houses, so it’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. I have one more thing that I
think is most important: I think it’s the credibility of this body and the Olathe
reputation that is being put up against other communities like The Woodlands,
TX, where they do planning properly. I challenge you folks to keep your integrity
and keep what you’ve put up in the past.
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 23
Roger Finkemeier, 11520 South Oakview, appeared before the Planning
Mr. Finkemeier: I reside at the house that is next to the last house on the dead
end, on Oakview Drive, so I would be affected in the event that you allow the
develop to renege, first on the green space, and then renege on allowing that
street to go through. My house has devalued $10,000 in the last year. The
average number of houses that have sold, according to a realtor that I get a
regular mailing from, was nine properties. Again, a drop over the past. But as a
parent, as a father, as now a grandfather, being in that dead-end corner was a
big decision in making a purchase ten years ago. And to see the possibility of
some commitments being reneged on and the possibility that that could be
reneged on as well would affect the safety, not just of my children and
grandchildren, but of all the children, of all the people, that live along that street.
And in the neighborhood. Because eventually, just as when Greenwood went
through, it becomes a shortcut for people that want to cut through from Strang
Line or from 119th Street that are trying to avoid traffic. But I guess more than
anything else, my encouragement is that you don’t have to do anything other
than stay with the original agreement that was made. You don’t have to overturn
this. All you have to do is say, you know what? You guys made an agreement,
and we’re going to make you stick to it. But as much as anything, I’d like to
encourage you as human beings – as dads, as fathers, as husbands – to go visit
that area. And the green space that we’re talking about, that has been accused
of not being kept up and more like a wilderness, it’s just not the case. Sometimes
it takes a while to get it mowed, but what you see out there – and if you do
choose to take me up on my invitation and go out there and watch, you’re going
to see people playing fetch with their dogs, walking their children, jogging,
playing a pick-up football game, all the things that, wouldn’t it be nice to have that
available to you in your area? And we have had that available for the ten years
that I have been in the neighborhood. I mean, do you want rental duplexes
stuffed in an area that, by his own admission, that’s developed out? Why would
you rob the area of the place that’s livable for the rest of us that are there? And I
left out a group because they don’t own – Did you ask the apartment dwellers if
they want to lose their place to play fetch with their dogs, or watch their kids, or
play pick-up football? My guess is no. But again, because they are not owners,
they don’t have a voice. I just appeal to you to honor the commitment that was
made by the developer in the past, and leave that green space green.
Sue Tesseree (sp?), 14350 West 116th Street, Apt. 3208, appeared before the
Planning Commission and made the following comment:
Ms. Tesseree: I live in the Homestead apartments. I had no intention of speaking
tonight. All these great people have done such a good job. But I wanted to talk
about the space that would be occupied by the new townhomes. It is awesome. I
am a single professional with a 92 pound chocolate Labrador. We walk in this
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 24
area all the time. We’ve met some of the homeowners and have such a good
relationship. It is just an awesome area to utilize. One point on the map where
they showed the 40-foot area by Santa Marta, it’s a retirement community. You
know, these new townhomes are not going to be a retirement community. They
are going to be townhomes. I looked at buying a home about two years ago and I
wouldn’t want to buy a home near the townhomes, either. And I’m a renter. But
like the gentleman before me said, a lot of families, a lot of children, utilize this
space. It’s the reason I chose the apartment I live in, and I’ve lived there for 2 ½
years. The walking trail sounds like it’s in question. It would be really
disheartening to lose that. It doesn’t seem like there’s going to be a good place to
put it. We even see some of our neighbors from the homeowners utilize that trail,
too. We love them, we have no problem with them, we all interact very well
together. That’s all I have.
Alisha Connor, 4350 West 116th Street, Apt. 3311, appeared before the Planning
Mr. Connor: I live in the same building as Sue, and it is the building at the back of
the complex. It would literally be the west side of where these townhomes would
be. I would just like to reiterate that we all use that space. We share with the
homeowners. I have a large dog, and we walk. Like he was saying, their kids are
outside playing sports, baseball. It is a very nice community and it is part of the
reason I chose to live at Homestead as a renter. There are very few spaces in
Olathe that do have this.
My other concern would be that our building has parking issues for
residents as it is and you may be taking out part of that parking to add this road
that would loop in there. So, as a renter, I would have concerns about whether
we will still have enough space to park. Are there going to be parking spots
where the townhomes are going to be put? If there are multiple vehicle’s for each
townhome and there’s only a single driveway, are there going to be cars in the
road? And also about the trail. That would be my other concern.
I just wanted to thank you for your time. I wanted to voice my concern as a
renter. And I would like to say, I have enjoyed living at Homestead and have lived
there for about three years. Thank you.
Chairman Campbell: Is there anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? Seeing
or hearing none, Mr. Heaven, you have a chance to respond.
Mr. Heaven: Again, the issue here is what was Olathe in 1998. I think we’ve
explained to you how it looked and the concerns and issues that were being
faced by the city council. It was for that reason that the 44 townhomes were
removed. Plain and simple. It’s unreasonable to assume that a piece of property
is going to remain vacant forever. It just doesn’t make sense. And I think as Mr.
Kutney just said, putting apartments next to single-family homes is bad planning.
That’s exactly right. That’s why this area was created and designed originally to
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 25
have townhomes. That’s good planning. But to say now, based on a stipulation
made 14 years ago before this property was in any kind of a development form,
that nothing has changed since then and it shouldn’t be developed, just flies in
the face of good sense. I understand the residents of Homestead Woods like to
use this area. People put trampolines and play sets on it. I’m not sure of the
legality of that, but we haven’t tried to enforce the fact that the property really
doesn’t belong to them, but they do use it. I understand that. We’re trying to
create a recreational amenity with new berms, the walking trail, that everyone
can enjoy. But do we need 230 feet? I don’t think so.
There’s been a lot of talk tonight about house values. People can
speculate as to what the value of their house will do and will not do, but that’s
why we asked Robin Marx to be here tonight. He’s an [inaudible] appraiser, he
does this for a living, and he says there won’t be any impact. I would ask you, if
there is an impact, if it would make any difference of the buffer were 90 feet or
230 feet. We believe there is not.
But the real question that you must ask yourselves is: With a plan that
meets the UDO, the Golden criteria, and – and I know staff did not recommend
approval, but admitted that we have met all the criteria that we would have to
meet. The question is: Why not? That’s something only you, the Planning
Commission can answer. But I would again remind the Planning Commission,
with all due respect, this is probably more of a policy decision on this buffer area
than it is a planning decision. With that, I’d answer any other questions.
Comm. Fry: Earlier you said that you would be willing to construct a letter
stipulating that you wouldn’t have Oakview go all the way through the site. Is that
right?
Mr. Heaven: Yes.
Comm. Fry: My question is, is that the same type of letter that you guys provided
before, saying that this wouldn’t be developed? I’m just trying to understand the
idea being it in trying to get it done at this point with a letter. Does it mean
anything 12 or 14 years from now?
Mr. Heaven: Well, I think we could place a record with the Register of Deeds of
Johnson County, something that would prevent us from dedicating that property
for a road. It would prevent us from doing it in the future. The City, through its
power of condemnation, could always put a road in there, no matter what we say.
But we can agree and we can record of record an agreement that we will not
dedicate the property. That’s the best we can do. Remember the context of this
letter – I know people thought that was pretty humorous, what you said, but –
Comm. Fry: That wasn’t my intent. I’m trying to understand that process. Is this
the same type of discussion that was had back at that period of time?
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 26
Mr. Heaven: No. That letter was sent to the City because certain residents of
Homestead Woods did not believe the Bleakley’s. Now they’ve done it, and it’s
been 14 years. So that was the context of that letter.
Comm. Rinke: I had a follow-up question for Mr. Marx. Mr. Marx, when you did
your analysis, was that done looking at the entire neighborhood? Did you do any
analysis specifically to the homes that back up to the development?
Mr. Marx: It was more of a macro study. There was only one sale that I knew of
that would be a direct pair. That’s why it’s important to look at other areas where
that has occurred, which I had done in Pheasant Run.
Comm. Rinke: What was the result of the property that backed up directly to the
apartment complex?
Mr. Marx: I did not look at a micro level on a house specific. That’s the problem.
For example, the one sale that was mentioned by the neighborhood that had
gone down, well, in nine months, people get divorced, etc., and one individual bit
of data can be misleading. It’s much stronger analyses if you look at a macro
study of all the trend – What has the neighborhood done?
Comm. Rinke: Do you know how many properties that back up to the complex
have sold over the last 14 years?
Mr. Marx: Yes. Approximately 15.
Comm. Rinke: But you don’t have any data as to what those 15 properties have
done over this period of time? As far as appreciation or depreciation?
Mr. Marx: I didn’t focus at a specific site level. I took the neighborhood because it
was the neighborhood opposition with the traffic flow, crime, people – all these
things that I was trying to address.
Comm. Ling: I have a question for staff. The active space. Interesting discussion
from the residents and adjacent owners that there’s a lot of use of this space,
which is good. With the apartment complex, are we encroaching on the amount
of active space that they need? Is there still enough active space for the
apartment complex as required by the apartment complex?
Mr. Clements: If you look at the 65 acres, it does meet the ordinance
requirements for open space.
Comm. Ling: So it’s still there, it’s just dispersed throughout the rest of the 65
acres. Okay. The next question was on Oakview Drive. I know staff can never
say never, but you look at that, and that’s about as close to never, that road
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 27
going through. I’m not putting you on the spot, that it will never go through, but I
just don’t see any situation which that Oakview Drive would go through. Do you
concur with that?
Mr. Clements: I don’t see any circumstances based on the land plan where there
would ever be a street connection.
Ms. Tesseree: I forgot to point out earlier that Homestead is one of very few
large-dog-friendly complexes in Olathe. That’s one of the reasons we chose to
live there. We’re talking 100 pound dogs. They need an area. That’s why the
people that move in there with these dogs utilize that area. That’s why we’re
there.
Chairman Campbell: Any other questions or comments? Staff? Applicant? All
right. Comments?
Comm. Ling: We’re dealing with a planned district zoning ordinance which has a
230 foot setback. We’re the Planning Commission; we recommend a plan. This
needs to go to City Council, such that if they want to change or reduce the
ordinance, the City Council should do that and send this back to us. I’ll start with
that. With that assumption, I’ll recommend denial on this application.
With that said, now I want to go into everything as to why this plan makes
sense. I think Mr. Clements brought up – Is this infill? I think this is infill. I think it
is reasonable planning for this area. There is a reasonable land use of the 230
feet setback, which is extremely large in our community. The 91-foot setback is
large for our community. That could have gone all the way down to 15 foot.
Granted, Mr. Clements explained that 15 is probably the minimum you would
ever get, to get that close. But this is good transition planning. We’re transitioning
from apartments to single-family houses, townhomes that the applicant has done
a nice job of making look like single family, although she needs to put some
architectural enhancements, per staff’s requirements. But these townhomes will
look nice. They will look like residential structures. These aren’t multiple units all
stacked together.
Some specific concerns that need to be addressed. The trail would need
to go north of the townhomes, south of the berms. I think that’s a good
compromise to get the trail back in there. I, like staff, don’t like the trail leading
into a private road and having to use it along a private road. I don’t think that’s a
good compromise. Back to the buffer discussion, there has been a change in this
area. As the applicant pointed out, Santa Marta has buildings. Yes, they are
retired people, but they are still townhomes or condos – whatever they are –
constructed much closer to the residents than what we’re proposing here. The
same with Avignon. I understand that it hasn’t been developed out, but it will
develop out in time, and it will be close proximity also. So, from an infill
perspective, this development does make sense. Mr. Chairman, I would say that
the City Council has to make that decision on the reduction and then send it back
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 28
to us. I think the development does make sense at this point. But this plan, I
would recommend denial of the application.
Comm. Kohler: It was mentioned in one of the exhibits, the letter from
Homestead association, that the passage of time itself is not enough to justify a
change in the deal. But I would also say that the passage of time alone is not
enough to be close-minded and not acknowledge whether appropriate, relevant
conditions have changed, and so forth. So, I agree with Mr. Ling, that a lot of
logic supports the applicant in this, and frankly, as I compare it to others that
people have come forward with, it seems pretty good. If I’m recalling history
correctly, it was the planning commission back then who was in favor of the full
plan that the developer submitted and it was City Council who negotiated this
stipulation. And, the developer signed on to that and has documented such in
letters. But as Mr. Heaven noted, this is a policy matter of the Council and we’re
just the planning committee. I think the Council should decide whether to undo
what they did. If this was coming to us at first blush, we might say this is an
excellent submittal and probably good planning, but again, I agree that the
Council should undo it. So, even Spock occasionally saw the logic in the illogical,
and based on that, I’m voting to oppose this plan.
Comm. Rinke: If I was on the Planning Commission 14 years ago, I think I would
have come to the conclusion that this is a reasonable use and these types of
units would be an appropriate transition to the single-family residences. That
said, the big problem I have is the fact that there was a stipulation, and I believe
Mr. Marx said there have been at least 15 homes that back up to the property
that have sold over this period of time. At least one of them has testified tonight
that they relied upon that stipulation, and we have a letter in our packet from
another homeowner that also relied upon that stipulation, which I found credible.
They also had a letter from their real estate agent that had advised them and had
checked with the City. So, to me, that is a critical issue.
The reason I was probing on how the analysis was done on the impact on
values, two items that we, as planning commissioners, need to consider are
whether the application would have a detrimental impact on nearby properties,
and also, would it harm the value of nearby properties. I think overall, it probably
doesn’t affect the neighborhood in total, but my gut feeling is that it could impact
the homes that are directly adjacent to the property. From what I can tell, the
appraisal doesn’t address that issue. And because of that issue, and the fact that
there were homeowners who relied upon that stipulation, I couldn’t support this.
Comm. Fry: I guess I look at this from the big picture. I live exactly one mile from
this location and I know where it is exactly because I run over there. I have seen
all the beauty that you’re talking about. And I’m a big believer in that being an
asset to property values, and I think it’s a value to children, and I think it’s a value
to families. However, there are open fields that are much bigger that are just as
beautiful, and development happens, and rightly or wrongly, I think good
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 29
development happens. I don’t know that I’m yet convinced one way or the other. I
think I lean more towards Commissioner Ling’s ideas that this is good transitional
planning, but the bottom line is that it’s not really our duty, I think, at this point, to
make this decision. We don’t yet have the blessing from City Council to make this
something different than what it currently is as far as the stipulation is concerned.
And I do think there is an integrity problem, I really do, and that’s a hard thing to
have to deal with. And I understand that times change, but I just think that for
now, this should be, I think, denied. And I think until City Council changes their
position, that that should be the Planning Commission’s stance.
Comm. Harrelson: First of all, I appreciate the composure of our group this
evening. We had some emotion here at the podium, and in past cases we’ve had
some audience participation, which obviously I don’t appreciate very much. But
you’ve done a great job with keeping your composure, yet being very emotional
when it was your turn to speak, so I appreciate that.
I think I kind of concur with Commissioner Ling’s comments in general,
with the exception that, as I size up the validity of the setback and our respect of
that setback. I evaluate the letter that was written – Was it written by this
developer? Was this property sold to a different developer? Well, it just so
happens it’s the same developer who had written the letter. Were the
homeowners who had agreed to this setback in principle, were they some of the
same homeowners, or have those homeowners since moved away? Well, it just
so happens, many of the same homeowners that were there at that time are still
there. So, as I look at the planning piece of it, I think a 91-foot setback is a pretty
good setback. And actually, the planning portion of it looks pretty nice. But, as a
commissioner, when I look at the parties who have come together on a piece of
property that has what I call an encumbrance, when I hear an overwhelming
dissatisfaction with the removal of that encumbrance, as a planning
commissioner I have to say, what’s changed from the setback that was originally
agreed to, versus the planning? Absent all of the other issues, whether it’s
property values have gone up or down, the great planning, etc., I still, as a
planning commissioner, said that I don’t see what’s changed. I don’t understand
it. So, I definitely would not support the project.
Chairman Campbell: As we move forward the zoning happens in cities basically
through ordinance, and ordinances over time can be changed. It happens all the
time. So, the longevity of an ordinance is subject to the timeline in the current
sitting city council. That said, if this project had come to us as a third-party
removal, as a separate entity from the Bleakley’s, if that had come forward, we
would have looked at this and said that it makes sense as an infill site. It appears
to be good planning and it’s a good project. But, again, we have a zoning and
ordinance that we make a recommendation to. From a planning perspective, I
think this happens to be a good plan. But again, as has been said, it is not in our
purview to change an ordinance, especially when all the parties remain the
same. None of us were a part of that at the time. I believe there are some council
RZ-12-006
June 25, 2012
Page 30
people who were, so they can actually address that better than we can. And as
such, I concur that, at this point, I have more of a concern that we don’t have any
change from the ownership perspective, I guess is where I’m coming from. Other
than that, I think it’s designed well, it makes sense for it to be an infill site at some
point. Once we’re long gone, I suspect this will become a townhome situation at
some point in the future. But at this point, I would concur with Mr. Ling that this
needs to move on to City Council.
With that, are there any other comments, questions, or is there a motion to
close the public hearing?
Motion by Comm. Kohler, seconded by Comm. Ling, to close the public
hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Ling, seconded by Commissioner Rinke, to
recommend denial of RZ-12-006, for the following reasons:
Mr. Lind: Motion to recommend denial because the application does not comply
with a 230-foot planned district zoning ordinance, stipulation i.
Other Matters for June 25, 2012 No further discussion. Meeting adjourned. CASE LOCATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION CASES FOR:
JULY 09, 2012
W 8 7TH ST PKW Y
A
NT
SA
10
Æ
·
§
¦
¨
435
10
Æ
·
10
Æ
·
35
§
¦
¨
W 1 03R D ST
§
¦
¨
435
Lenexa
35
§
¦
¨
_
^
WARD
WARD 2
2
COLL EGE BLVD
_
^
SU-12-008
WARD
WARD 4
4
W 1 27TH ST
PR-12-009
P-12-014
W 1 35TH ST
SA NTA FE ST
_
^
_
^
35
¦
¨
§
Æ7
·
WARD
WARD 1
1
Overland Park
W 1 43R D ST
WARD
WARD 3
3
Æ7
·
56
£
¤
W 1 51ST ST
Olathe
W 1 59TH ST
35
56
£
¤
Overland
Park
W 1 67TH ST
£
¤
Legend
Lakes
Stream
PF LUMM R D
BLA CK B OB R D
BLA CK B OB R D
LAC KMAN R D
Arterial Street
W 1 91ST ST
City of Olathe
RIDGEVIEW RD
Highway
W 1 83R D ST
W 1 99TH ST
Case Applications
WOODL AND RD
User: mattms
Date: 07/05/2012
MUR -LEN RD
W 1 75TH ST
RIDGEVIEW RD
LONE ELM R D
HED GE LN
CLA RE R D
CEDAR NILES RD
Spring Hill
WOODL AND RD
169
Gardner
Ë
QUIV IR A R D
§
¦
¨
_
^
69
£
¤
W 1 19TH ST
_
^
Æ7
·
LAKESHORE DR
MOONL IGHT RD
GA RD NER R D
WAVER LY RD
P-12-013
DR
W ITZER RD
De Soto
FE
L
AI
TR
QUIV IR A R D
W 8 3RD ST
CLA RE R D
De Soto
W 8 7TH ST
CEDAR CR EEK RD
CASE APPLICATIONS
CITY OF OLATHE
STAFF REPORT
CASE # P-12-013
Case Planner:
Sean Pendley
July 9, 2012
Request:
Final plat for Southglen of Cedar Creek, Ninth Plat, on 3.39± acres.
Location:
Owner/
Applicant:
Vicinity of 113th Terrace and South Sumac Street
Engineer:
Schlagel & Associates, David Rinne
Cedar Creek Development Co., Ronald Mather
Acres:
3.3946±
Proposed Use:
Single Family Residential
Lots:
4
Current Zoning:
R-1
Tracts:
2
Existing
Required
Proposed
1.
113th Terrace
50’ (total)
50’ (total)
50’ (total)
Comments:
The following is a request for a final plat for Southglen of Cedar Creek,
Ninth Plat. The subject property is located in the vicinity of 113th Terrace
and Sumac Street. The plat consists of four lots and two tracts and
represents the final phase for Southglen of Cedar Creek. The adjacent
property to the east is under separate ownership and the property may be
developed in the future with additional residential lots.
A preliminary plat for Southglen of Cedar Creek (P-66-97) was approved by
the Planning Commission on September 8, 1997. The lots and tracts within
the final plat conform to the general layout of the preliminary plat.
2.
Utilities/Easements:
The property is located in the City of Olathe water and sewer service areas.
Utilities are available to the property and the required utility easements are
located on the final plat.
P-12-013
July 9, 2012
Page 2
3.
Lots/Tracts:
The plat includes four (4) lots and two (2) tracts. The tracts will be owned
and maintained by the developer. The tracts are not intended to be
common tracts and are not required for neighborhood amenities. The tracts
will be reserved for open space or future residential development when the
property to the east is developed.
4.
Access/Streets:
The subject plat is served by one public street, 113th Terrace. A temporary
turnaround is required at the end of the street until such time as a future
street connection is provided to the east. The final plat shows a temporary
construction easement for the turnaround. The applicant is currently in
negotiations with the adjacent property owner to obtain this easement. If
they are not able to reach an agreement, the temporary turnaround will be
constructed on Lot 200 and the required easement will be shown on the
final plat submitted for recording or by separate instrument.
5.
Excise Taxes:
The final plat is located within a benefit district for College Boulevard.
Therefore, this plat is exempt from the street excise tax.
The final plat is subject to a traffic signal excise tax of $0.0037 per square
foot of land area. Based on the plat area, the required traffic signal excise
fee is $547.11. The required excise fee shall be submitted to the City
Planning Division prior to recording the final plat.
6.
Staff Recommendation:
a. A temporary turnaround shall be provided at the end of 113th
Terrace. Prior to recording the plat, a temporary
construction easement shall be included on the plat or a
separate instrument shall be filed showing the required
easement.
b. Prior to recording the final plat, the required traffic signal
excise fee of $547.11 shall be submitted to the City Planning
Division.
c. Prior to recording the plat, a digital file of the final plat (pdf
format) shall be submitted to the City Planning Division.
d. 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 § 18.68.390 D. to ensure that all
erosion control measures are installed and maintained and
that all of the development’s streets and sidewalks remain
free of debris during all phases of construction.
e. All on-site wiring and cables shall be placed underground.
Olathe Fire, Stn 6
COLLEGE BLVD
ST
H
11 2T
T
C
P-12-013
ER
D
G AN
De Soto
HP
11 4T L
D at e : 0 7/0 5 /2 0 1 2
43 5
35
§
¦
¨
W 1 0 3 RD S T
§
¦
¨
43 5
SOUTHGLEN OF CEDAR CREEK 9TH PLAT
P-12-013
Overl and Park
W 1 1 9 T H ST
LA KE S HO R E D R
M O O NL IG H T R D
£
¤
69
·7
Æ
W 1 2 7 TH ST
35
¦
¨
§
W 1 3 5 TH ST
SA N TA F E S T
W 1 4 3 RD S T
Ola the
56
£
¤
W 1 5 1 ST ST
Sprin g
Hill
PFL U M M R D
BL AC K B O B R D
169
RID G E VIE W RD
¤
£
M UR - LE N R D
WO O D LA N D R D
Overl and Park
W 1 6 7 TH ST
LO N E E LM RD
Gardn er
W 1 5 9 TH ST
35
¦
¨
§
CL AR E R D
CE D AR N IL ES R D
Ola the
HE D G E L N
WAV E RLY R D
Ola the
5T
U se r : m a tt m s
500
Feet
Lenexa
CO L LE G E B LV D
11
250
§
¦
¨
Lenexa
10
·
Æ
GA R D N ER R D
ST
LE
DA
H T
ER
ER
ST
SO N RD
LEA
G
0
1 12 T H T ER
DR
IS
LE W
Ë
BE L
RI
SH
ST
WI
LD
M O NT
ST
CARB O
N
PA
T ST
113 T
H TE R
CO
OK
C LA RE RD
11 4 T H ST
C ST
S U MA
R
DE
WI L T
S
Southglen
Park
ON
ST
TE R
M
BE L
T
RISH S
PA
IS D R
L EW
112
TH
W 1 8 3 RD S T
Spri ng Hi ll
W 1 9 1 ST ST
W 1 9 9 TH ST
W 1 7 9 TH ST
Ë
Date: 07/05/2012
User: mattms
SOUTHGLEN OF CEDAR CREEK
9TH PLAT
W 113TH TER & S SUMAC ST
P-12-013
FINAL PLAT
CITY OF OLATHE
STAFF REPORT
CASE # P-12-014
Planner:
Dan Fernandez
Request:
Approval of a final plat for seventeen lots on 4.75± acres for Prairie
Farms IV.
Location:
In the vicinity of West Santa Fe Street and Persimmon Drive
Owner/
Applicant:
Todd Bleakley
Prairie Center Development, L.L.C.
Engineer:
Jim Long, Allenbrand-Drews & Associates, Inc.
Acres:
4.75±
Current Zoning:
R-1
Lots:
17
Existing
Required
Proposed
I.
Proposed Use:
July 9, 2012
Residential
Canyon Drive
Loula Street
N/A
50’ (Total)
50’ (Total)
N/A
50’ (Total)
50’ (Total)
COMMENTS
This is a request for approval of a final plat of seventeen lots for Prairie
Farms IV located in the vicinity of W. Santa Fe Street and Persimmon Drive.
The rezoning (RZ-04-04) of this land from RP-3 and C-2 to R-1 was
approved by the Planning Commission on April 12, 2004. A preliminary plat
(P-04-042) for this area was also approved on April 12, 2004.
The plat will create seventeen lots for single-family homes.
II.
FINAL PLAT REVIEW
A. Lots/Tracts:
The final plat includes a total of seventeen lots on 4.75 acres giving the
development a density of 3.58 units per acre. The lots meet all area and
setback requirements for the R-1 District.
P-12-014
July 9, 2012
Page 2
B. Utilities/Municipal Services:
The property is located in the City of Olathe water and sewer service
area. The applicant will need to coordinate with the respective utility
providers for required water and sewer connections.
C. Streets/Right-of-Way:
The lots will have access to Loula Street and Canyon Drive. Loula
Street will be built and Canyon Drive extended from the south as part of
this development. The streets meet Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) requirements for public right-of-way. A Limits of No Access
(LNA) has been placed on the east boundaries of Lots 111 and 112
along Persimmon Drive.
D. Street and Signal Excise Taxes:
The final plat is subject to a street excise tax. A portion of the plat lies in
the Hedge Lane Benefit District and has already paid a fee of $0.159 per
square foot of land area. The plat that lies within the benefit district shall
pay the difference up to the current rate of $0.215 which is $0.056 per
square foot. The portion lying outside the benefit district, approximately
2.57± acres must pay the current rate of $.215 per square foot. Based
on the plat area of 4.75± acres and taking into account the previously
paid taxes, the required street excise fee is $29,397.91.
The final plat is also subject to a traffic signal excise tax of $0.0037 per
square foot of land area. Based on the plat area, the required traffic
signal excise fee is $765.57. The required excise fees shall be
submitted to the City Planning Division prior to recording the final plat.
III.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
conform to the formatting standards, layering system, and
text styles of the City of Olathe Planning Division Digital File
Submittal Standards.
b. Prior to recording the final plat, the required street excise fee
of $29,397.91 shall be submitted to the City Planning
Division.
excise fee of $765.57 shall be submitted to the City Planning
Division.
d. All above ground electrical and/or telephone cabinets shall
be placed within the interior side or rear building setback
P-12-014
July 9, 2012
Page 3
yards. However, such utility cabinets may be permitted
within front or corner side yards adjacent to street right-ofway if cabinets are screened with landscape materials.
e. Prior to issuance of a building permit, performance and
maintenance bonds or a letter of credit in an amount to be
determined by the City, shall be submitted in accordance
with UDO § 18.68.390.B and 18.12.040.B to ensure that
public improvements, certain easements and related
improvements will be installed, approved, and maintained
after completion of the development.
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 § 18.68.390 D. 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. Prior to recording the plat, a street tree plan, indicating the
layout, species and size of street trees, shall be submitted to
the Development Services Department.
h. The developer is responsible for planting street trees,
subject to UDO §18.62.045. Such trees shall be planted at
the completion of each phase of development.
F E R RE L S T
D
AK R
PO S T O
SANTA FE ST
IN DI A
NW
Lenexa
U se r : m a tt m s
D at e : 0 7/0 5 /2 0 1 2
Lake Olathe
PRAIRIE FARMS IV
P-12-014
43 5
£
¤
69
¦
¨
§
¤
£
169
Sprin g
Hill
W 1 3 5 TH ST
SA N TA F E S T
W 1 4 3 RD S T
Ola the
W 1 5 1 ST ST
W 1 5 9 TH ST
Overl and Park
PFL U M M R D
WO O D LA N D R D
W 1 6 7 TH ST
LO N E E LM RD
CL AR E R D
500
Feet
Gardn er
§
¦
¨
Overl and Park
W 1 2 7 TH ST
35
35
¦
¨
EL§
M T ER
HE D G E L N
250
CE D AR N IL ES R D
Ola the
35
§
¦
¨
W 1 0 3 RD S T
BL AC K B O B R D
56
£
¤
43 5
W 1 1 9 T H ST
M UR - LE N R D
·7
Æ
RID G E VIE W RD
LA KE S HO R E D R
ST
¦
¨
O N§
DR
CO L LE G E B LV D
F REDR
I
INDIAN WELLS DR
Ola the
R ST
DR
Lenexa
10
·
Æ
M O O NL IG H T R D
M
EL
FRE D RI
CK
S
De Soto
WAV E RLY R D
CANYO N DR
HEDGE LN
T
RD
CO
NC
OR
D
SO N C I R
CK
ST
DR
ES
E CR
N
O
ST
LOU L
A CT
CE D
A
GA R D N ER R D
DR
WARD C
L
I FF
R
D D
C O NC O R
IMMON
RS
P E DR
0
R HI L LS
C ED A
ST
R
ND
MO
IM
P ER S
E LM
Ë
P A RK C T
P-12-014
N
SO
F R E DR I C K
E LLS
DR
M ES
QU
ITE
TE
R
O VE RL O OK S T
ST
WELLS
IA N
I N D DR
E
ST
ON
PI N
1 3 5TH
ST
IT
QU
PO S T
OAK
C IR
M ES
S AG E
C IR
UCE S T
S PR
W 1 8 3 RD S T
Spri ng Hi ll
W 1 9 1 ST ST
W 1 9 9 TH ST
W 1 7 9 TH ST
Ë
Date: 07/05/2012
User: mattms
PRAIRIE FARMS
4TH PLAT
W SANTA FE ST & S PERSIMMON DR
P-12-014
FINAL PLAT
CITY OF OLATHE
STAFF REPORT
CASE # SU-12-008
Case Planner:
Dan Fernandez
PC Mtg. Date:
Request:
Approval of a special use permit for an amusement and recreation
service (Cosmic Jump).
Location:
12025 Strang Line Road
Owners:
Passco Real Estate Enterprises
Applicants:
Michael Mitchelson/CBRE
Acres:
16.88±
Proposed Use:
Building Area:
23,810 square foot
Number of Lots:
1
July 9, 2012
Amusement and recreation service
Zoning:
Land Use
Zoning
CP-2
Comprehensive Plan
Designation
Site
Commercial
CP-2
Regional Commercial Center
North
Commercial
CP-2
East
Commercial
C-2
South
Commercial
C-2
West
Commercial
C-2
Platted: Olathe Station Two Replat Lot 1
I.
COMMENTS
This is a request for a Special Use Permit to allow an amusement and recreation
service for Cosmic Jump. The proposal is to create a family entertainment center
which provides indoor trampoline recreation. The subject property was platted in
1997 with the structure being built in 1998.
Per the requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the applicant
notified all property owners within two hundred (200) feet of this property via
certified mail. The applicant has provided staff with certified mail receipts and
staff has verified all property owners have been properly notified.
SU-12-008 Continued
July 9, 2012
Page 2
II.
DETAILS OF OPERATION
The applicants are seeking a special use permit for an amusement and
recreation service at 12025 Strang Line Road. The site is the former Michael’s
building located in Olathe Station and has been vacant for over three years.
Cosmic Jump is a trampoline entertainment center based out of Chandler,
Arizona. The business provides a variety of indoor trampoline experiences
including freestyle trampolines, trampoline sports courts and dodge ball. Cosmic
Jump also offers fitness classes as well as a variety of other activities and
training (see attached summary).
The applicant’s summary states that the average cost for two hours is between
$8-$17 depending on the day of the week and the market. Other services
offered are party room rentals, snack bar and coin operated games.
No changes are planned to the outside of the building and the applicant will need
to obtain the proper permits for tenant finish and signage.
III.
PARKING
There is a designated cross access easement within the shopping center which
allows customers to park anywhere within the development. However, a primary
parking area has been designated for the building, which has been outlined in
red on the Parking Exhibit (see attached). This area consists of 152 parking
spaces.
The applicant has submitted parking studies from their other locations in Texas
which have similar building areas to the proposed site in Olathe. The parking
requirements for those sites have ranged from 81 to 120 spaces. Also, the
applicant has stated that many of their customers are under the legal driving age
so they will arrive in carpools or by being dropped off which lessens the demand
for parking.
IV.
LANDSCAPING
Landscaping was planted with the construction of the shopping center. There
are trees and shrubs along the streets and interior drives of the center as well as
within the landscape islands in the parking lot. The existing landscaping is
healthy and in good condition.
V.
TIME LIMIT
Staff recommends an approval period of five years for the subject property with
expiration on August 7, 2017. Special use permits for similar uses, such as
Leaping Lizards (SU-10-003), have been granted time limits of five years.
VI.
CONFORMANCE WITH EXISTING PLANS AND POLICIES
The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as
Non-Residential.
SU-12-008 Continued
July 9, 2012
Page 3
The request is consistent with the Objectives and Policies contained within the
Comprehensive Plan which support the above non-residential land use goal.
VII.
a.
b.
Staff recommends approval of SU-12-008, for the following reasons:
(1)
The proposal conforms to the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
(2)
The proposal complies with the Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) criteria for considering special use permit requests.
Staff recommends approval of SU-12-008 subject to the following
stipulations:
(1)
The Special Use Permit is valid for a period of five years following
Governing Body approval, with a tentative expiration date of August
7, 2017.
(2)
A tenant finish building permit shall be approved prior to
occupancy.
(3)
Sign permits shall be approved for any new signage in accordance
with UDO requirements.
SU-12-008
FOX RI D G E D R
LA KE S HO R E D R
43 5
ACCE S S RD
§
¦
¨
43 5
CO L LE G E B LV D
Overl and Park
W 1 1 9 T H ST
¦ 1 23R D
¨
§
ST
69
W 1 3 5 TH ST
SA N TA F E S T
W 1 4 3 RD S T
Ola the
56
£
¤
W 1 5 1 ST ST
W 1 5 9 TH ST
¤
£
169
BL AC K B O B R D
WO O D LA N D R D
Indian Creek
Community
Church Of God
Overl and Park
W 1 6 7 TH ST
LO N E E LM RD
35
¦
¨
§
CL AR E R D
£
¤
W 1 2 7 TH ST
35
Ola the
Gardn er
35
§
¦
¨
W 1 0 3 RD S T
PFL U M M R D
M O O NL IG H T R D
T W IL IG H T
LN
§
¦
¨
Lenexa
·7
Æ
HE D G E L N
12 3R D
ST
123RD
ST
10
·
Æ
Ola the
CE D AR N IL ES R D
RA
ST
Elementary JUMP
COSMIC
Lenexa
W 1 7 9 TH ST
L
RD S T
ST
Countryside
De Soto
EL
RN
DA ST
Arapaho Park
123
RE
D at e : 0 7/0 5 /2 0 1 2
MO
U se r : m a tt m s
500
Feet
A
SY C
250
T
D S
1 2 3R
1 22 N D T ER
WAV E RLY R D
RD
NE
AMC
Theaters
OT D R
N
G
LI
Heartland
Community
Church
1 22 N D ST
BLA CKFO
PL
12 1S T T E R
GA R D N ER R D
KA
R
G L INE
RA N
CT
D
TE
SU-12-008
ST
2N
PL
NS
H
AS
0T
1
0
BLA CK BO B RD
TY
CI
12
12
ST
12
Ë
A C C E SS R D
M UR - LE N R D
DR
RID G E VIE W RD
11
PL 9T
A H
ZA
H O S P I T A L I TY R D
RO
RD
TE
IV
DR A
PR
SP
11 9T H ST
O RC H A RD
DR
CO N L E Y S T
BAS
35
§
¦
¨
S
ES
C
AC R D
11 8T H S T
Sprin g
Hill
W 1 8 3 RD S T
Spri ng Hi ll
W 1 9 1 ST ST
W 1 9 9 TH ST
Ë
Date: 07/05/2012
User: mattms
COSMIC JUMP
AMUSEMENT & RECREATION SERVICE
12025 S STRANG LINE RD
SU-12-008
SITE PLAN
Ë
Date: 07/05/2012
User: mattms
COSMIC JUMP
AMUSEMENT & RECREATION SERVICE
12025 S STRANG LINE RD
SU-12-008
PARKING PLAN
CITY OF OLATHE
STAFF REPORT
Case # PR-12-009
Planner:
Dan Fernandez
Request:
Approval of a final site development plan for an addition to Olathe
Ford Lincoln
Location:
1845 East Santa Fe Drive
Owner:
M&M Investments, L.L.C. (Olathe Ford Lincoln)
Engineer:
Harold Phelps, Phelps Engineering, Inc.
Acres:
9.19±
Proposed Use:
Auto Sales
Floor Area:
10,491 Square feet
Current Zoning:
C-3
1.
P. C. Meeting Date:
July 9, 2012
Santa Fe St.
Existing
53.1’-59.4’ (1/2 street)
Required
60’ (1/2 street)
Comments:
This is a request for approval of a final site development plan for Olathe Ford
Lincoln on 9.19 acres located at the intersection of Santa Fe Street and
Lindenwood Drive. The applicant is proposing an addition which will have two
floors and accommodate a new showroom floor, offices and service area. The
addition will add 10,491 square feet of usable space.
The new area is to be used to sell Lincoln vehicles. Currently, both Fords and
Lincolns are sold in the existing building and the applicant would like separate
showroom and service area for each make of car.
2.
Utilities:
The property is located in the City of Olathe sewer and water service areas.
Utilities are currently available to the site.
PR-12-009 Continued
July 9, 2012
Page 2
3.
Access:
The site has three access points on Santa Fe Street and an additional two
access points onto Lindenwood Drive. The addition will be closest to the west
access drive on Santa Fe.
4.
Parking:
For the proposed addition, thirty-three parking spaces will be restriped with
twenty-three of the spaces located to the north of the addition and ten spaces to
the south.
No vehicles may be displayed at anytime in the landscaped areas, customer
parking stalls or drive aisles.
5.
Landscaping:
The site has existing landscaping with perimeter trees along Santa Fe Street,
Lindenwood Drive to the west and along the rear property line to the south. The
proposed project is adding two planters located at the entrance of the addition for
additional landscaping.
6.
Drainage/Detention
An existing underdrain system will be rerouted to the west of the proposed
addition to provide for adequate stormwater drainage.
7.
Building Design/Materials:
The addition will consist of aluminum composite material (ACM) and painted
stucco to match the existing building. The main entrance to the addition will be
on the north elevation. An entrance vestibule is included on the north entrance to
provide an architectural feature to the building. Two service bays will also be
included on this side. The east, west and south elevations will consist of painted
stucco and contain windows to break up the mass of the building. The south, or
rear elevation, also has two exit doors for the service area. The materials and
color of the addition are the same as the existing building with the exception of
some black accents to differentiate between the make of cars being sold (see
attached color rendering).
Rooftop units (RTU) will need to be screened from public view according to the
City’s design guidelines. RTU’s on the proposed addition will be screened by
gray metal screen wall system to match the building.
8.
Signage
The proposed wall signs do not comply with the Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO). According to the sign ordinance, only one (1) sign is allowed per wall.
Additional signage may be allowed if approved by the Planning Commission or
City Council as an exception. Typically additional signage has been allowed if it
is for a business that has multiple services (i.e. Lincoln Service or Quick Lane).
However, staff does not believe it is necessary to have two (2) of the same signs
(Lincoln) on the same elevation, especially when they are located in close
proximity to each other. The addition is already providing additional signage with
PR-12-009 Continued
July 9, 2012
Page 3
the “Olathe” sign and “Lincoln Service”. This is similar to the Ford side which
only has one “Ford” logo and an “Olathe” sign. The new addition is showing two
Lincoln signs, a Lincoln Service sign and an Olathe sign on the north elevation.
Therefore, staff is recommending the removal of one of the Lincoln signs for
compliance. The applicant has stated that the corporation is requiring two
Lincoln signs and is asking for an exception to the ordinance (see attached email
dated July 5, 2012).
9.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of PR-12-009 subject to the following stipulations:
a. All on-site wiring and cables shall be placed underground.
b. Sign permit applications shall be submitted and approved prior to
installation of any wall and/or monument signs and must comply
with the UDO sign requirements.
c. The North elevation of the building addition shall include only three
(3) wall signs: one (1) Lincoln sign, one (1) Olathe sign and one (1)
Lincoln Service sign.
d. Rooftop units (RTU) must be screened from public view in
accordance with the City’s design guidelines.
e. As required by the UDO, all exterior ground or building mounted
equipment, including but not limited to mechanical equipment, utility
meter banks and coolers, shall be screened from public view with
landscaping or an architectural treatment compatible with the
building architecture.
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.
g. Vehicles may not be displayed in landscaped areas, customer
parking stalls or drive aisles.
N. Lindenwood
Support Center
Support Center
Pioneer
Christian
Academy
L I NDE
CORY CIR
MUR-LEN RD
LINDENWOOD DR
CLAIRBORNE RD
In d
k
I ndia n
Indian Cre
§
¦
¨
35
§
¦
¨
43 5
Lenexa
W 1 0 3 RD S T
43 5
169
Sprin g
Hill
e
Cr
an
PR-12-009
Ola the
W 1 5 1 ST ST
W 1 5 9 TH ST
Overl and Park
ia
r
nC
W 1 8 3 RD S T
Spri ng Hi ll
OLATHE FORD LINCOLN
ek
T
W 1 3 5 TH ST
SA N TA F E S T
W 1 4 3 RD S T
ee
k
¤
£
ek
re
BL AC K B O B R D
HE D G E L N
W 1 6 7 TH ST
LO N E E LM RD
Gardn er
35
¦
¨
§
C
RID G E VIE W RD
Ola the
WO O D LA N D R D
an
di
In
il
ra
W 1 2 7 TH ST
¦
¨
§
In d
W ILL O W DR
35
PFL U M M R D
·7
Æ
M UR - LE N R D
LA KE S HO R E D R
M O O NL IG H T R D
WAV E RLY R D
W 1 1 9 T H ST
56
CL AR E R D
k
Greenwa
Overl and Park
£
¤
CE D AR N IL ES R D
In
n
d ia
e
C re
Ola the
GA R D N ER R D
KEN WOOD LN
WINT ERBROOKE DR
ELM ST
LINDENWOOD DR
CEDAR ST
SCA RBOR OU G H
ST
CO L LE G E B LV D
MEADOWBROOK LN
F IR S T
D at e : 0 7/0 5 /2 0 1 2
§
¦
¨
Lenexa
10
·
Æ
Ind
i
U se r : m a tt m s
135TH ST
CROSSROADS LN
De Soto
CEDAR PL
500
Feet
PARK ST
OOD
NWIR
C
ia n
SA NTA FE
ST
PR-12-009
CARDIN AL DR
250
35
§
¦
¨
ROGE
RS R
D
CHESTER ST
CHESTER T ER
LOULA ST
CLAIRBORNE RD
PARK ST
BURCH ST
Indian Creek Greenwa
POPLAR ST
SANTA FE ST
0
LINDENWOOD DR
WINCHESTER ST
RO GE RS R D
RAW
H ID E
DR
PR
AI
ST RI E
BURCH ST
SPRU CE ST
SANTA FE ST
Ë
133RD S
T
S PRU CE
CIR
S P RU C E S T
Olathe
Traffic Operations
Center
Olathe
Traffic Maintenance
Center
W 1 9 1 ST ST
W 1 9 9 TH ST
W 1 7 9 TH ST
£
¤
69
Ë
Date: 07/05/2012
User: mattms
OLATHE FORD LINCOLN
FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1845 E SANTA FE ST
PR-12-009
OVERALL SITE PLAN
Ë
Date: 07/05/2012
User: mattms
OLATHE FORD LINCOLN
1845 E SANTA FE ST
PR-12-009
SITE PLAN
Ë
Date: 07/05/2012
User: mattms
OLATHE FORD LINCOLN
1845 E SANTA FE ST
PR-12-009
ELEVATIONS

PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP AGENDA

Transcription

Similar documents

15 Villages on the Rum

A Triumph of the Spirit

Fast Facts 14160 S. Black Bob Road • Olathe, Kansas 66063

Peterloon Brochure Lot 5.pub

Just minutes from “Old Town” Alexandria!!

generate PDF - Professionals

June 25, 2012 - City of Olathe

rosebud river ranchette $595000