Like to call tonight's meeting to order.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I applied allegiance to the United States of America.

For which it stands one nation under convisible with liberty and justice for all the questions.

As we begin our meeting this evening, we'll take a moment to acknowledge that we have a quorum of planning commissioners present.

Barely.

We have five of our nine commissioners here.

I want to thank everyone in the chamber for attending this evening's meeting.

Planning commission meetings are important part of the process for interpreting and applying the city's comprehensive plan and unified development ordinance.

It's important that our meetings are conducted with dignity and respect, and that applies to every person in attendance.

We strive to provide an atmosphere where the ideas and opinions of all participants are held in the highest regard.

Finally, the actions on the issues we discuss are ultimately under the responsibility of the City Council.

As a planning commission, we're here to help the council as our elected representatives to be fully informed to make the best choices for our city.

By statute, the planning commission does not engage with any party on the issues on the agenda prior to our meeting.

Should that interaction take place as a result of a business relationship or any other type of interaction, which we refer to as ex parte communication?

Commissioners will report that interaction when we reach that item in the agenda.

We'll now move on to the consent agenda.

Commissioners, do you need to pull any items for additional information or questions of staff?

Mr.

Chair, I'd like to pull uh item B for further uh discussion.

All right.

Thank you, Commissioner Brown.

Is there any other items?

If not, I will uh call for a motion of the remaining items on the consent agenda without item B, which is MP two five-008.

Uh all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay.

Pardon?

For the record, could we get a um a motion and a second?

Sorry.

Motion my moving too fast.

Sorry.

Motion to pass a consent agenda, please.

Uh Mr.

Chair, I move to approve the consent agenda absent item B as in Bravo.

All right.

Thank you, Commissioner Breen.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Chapman.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay.

Okay, so we'll move on now to uh item B.

Um since been pulled.

Uh Mr.

Grohn, uh, could you provide us a presentation for MP two five-008, please?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Good evening, Commissioners and members of the audience.

My name is Hayden Grohn, planning intern.

Before you tonight is a request for approval of a minor plat for villas of Hill at Hilltop Farms, a replat of lot nine.

The site is located northwest of 175th Street and South Merlin Road within the larger Hilltop Farms development.

This replat subdivides the existing lot nine into three individual residential lots.

The applicant is pursuing a minor plat to facilitate this division with the intent that each lot will be sold separately for individual townhome units.

The site is a portion of the broader hilltop farms development containing over 152 acres of single family, multifamily, and commercial development.

The area was rezoned in 2022 and subsequently platted in 2025.

Lot 9 is the first of the R three townhome lots to be under construction as the first minor plat application within this multifamily portion of Hilltop Farms.

Again, the minor plat will allow for the individual sale and ownership of each of the three townhomes currently under construction on lot nine.

Additionally, there are no public easement or right-of-way dedications included in the minor plat, therefore only requiring planning commission approval per the UDO.

Staff is recommending approval of the minor plat with no stipulations.

This includes this concludes my presentation for this evening, and I'm happy to stand for any questions.

The applicant is also present this evening.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Um Commissioner Brown, you pulled this.

Did you have a question?

I do.

Okay, go ahead.

Hayden, could you pull the uh map back up on the uh screen again there?

That one right there.

Uh we're only doing uh we're only discussing three lots in this whole division subdivision here.

Correct.

Is this something that we're just gonna do three at a time as as this is developed?

So is this like the the fur the first of many times to come back for this?

Yes, Commissioner, I believe so.

So as I said, this is the first application for a minor plat in this subdivision.

Um all of the lots were platted um in 2025.

Uh we do expect to see minor plats come in to allow for the individual sale of each town home.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Commissioner, do you have any other questions?

If not, since this was pulled, we will do a uh um roll call vote on this as well, if you please.

I'll take a motion first.

Mr.

Chair, I make a motion that we adopt um item B, MP 25-008.

That's stipulated.

Thank you, Commissioner Toronas.

Do I have a second?

Oh second.

Thank you, Commissioner Brown.

And I'm gonna proceed.

Commissioner Brown.

Yeah, yes.

Commissioner Toronas?

Yes.

Commissioner Chapman?

Yes.

Commissioner Breen?

Yes.

Chair Jana?

Yes.

That motion passes 5 to 0.

Okay.

We'll move on now to our uh regular agenda.

This evening we have three scheduled public hearings.

Uh the first public hearing is a request for approval of a special use permit for McCoy Custom Carts at 19950 West 161st Street.

Ms.

Vandeveldiers, present the case.

How are you this evening?

All right.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Taylor Vandevelde Planner 2.

As introduced, the request is a uh for a special use permit for motor vehicle sales, specifically for golf carts, located at 19950 west 161st Street.

Oops.

The property is located west of 169 highway and north of 161st Street and shaded in yellow.

It's surrounded by current industrial businesses as located on the screen.

These uses include supply stores, other auto-oriented developments, um, and manufacturing and warehouse.

The property is zoned M2 General Industrial and allows for motor vehicle sales with the approval of a special use permit.

The future land use shows this area as industrial and greenways, which is compatible with the proposed use this evening.

The existing building has several functions.

Majority of the property will be used for warehousing and indoor storage of the golf carts as well as supplies.

The red shaded area will also be the entrance and showroom for the golf carts, and as well as some office space shaded in purple.

The existing site also has 23 total parking spaces, um which can be used for customer parking outlined in yellow, employee parking outlined in green, and then two ADA um compliant parking spots in the front.

There are no proposed changes to the existing building which matches the other adjacent industrial buildings in the area of metal sighting and stucco.

The existing site also has existing landscaping, including trees and shrubs surrounding the property, and no additional landscaping is proposed with this development.

The applicant met all public notice requirements and no neighborhood meeting was required.

Staff uh nor the applicant received any public correspondence related to the case.

The applicant did request a approval period of 10 years for the special use permit of motor vehicle sales for the golf carts, and staff is supportive of that 10-year time period as the business is already located within existing industrial and it's not highly visible from any major streets.

Um the golf carts will be stored inside the existing building there.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of SU 25-0005 with the following stipulations.

This case will be considered on the January 6, 2026 City Council meeting.

This concludes my presentation, and I'm available for any additional questions and the applicant is also here for any questions, but they will not be making a presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Vandeveld uh do commissioners, do you have any questions for staff?

Commissioner Toronis, proceed.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you for your presentation.

Under staff recommendation B2.

If the decision is made to store the equipment outdoors, but it has to be completely screened.

Will they have to submit some sort of verification that that that is correct?

It does meet the UDO.

Yes, that is correct.

If any proposed outdoor storage is proposed outside, it would have to be screened with landscaping, fencing, or some other appropriate treatment for screening by staff.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any additional questions?

Commissioner Breen.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Is this the first special use application that we have for this applicant at this property?

That's correct.

And so the duration we have here is 10 years.

What kind of drives the duration of that first time special use permit?

And is there an average of typically three or five years?

Is it 10?

Is it really just case to case?

Sure.

So typically the standard uh period is five years unless otherwise requested.

The applicant requested ten years and staff saw it was agreeable for the site based on the current site conditions and current direction of development around it.

Um whereas other special use permits for similar uses may be in a different setting or context that requires a shorter review period, so they come in for more frequent renewals where staff can vet different situations or add in additional stipulations if required.

Thank you.

Okay.

Are there any additional questions for staff?

Are there any questions for the applicant or did they anticipate a uh presentation?

No.

Okay.

Are there any questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Well, we're going to move on to the public hearing.

Uh before we start, I want to just kind of want to talk about public hearings since we do have three tonight and just kind of some general guidelines because um it's very important our public hearings that we give everyone the full opportunity for their opinion to be heard and to state on whichever case they may have showed up for tonight.

Um for example, in the first one we did indicate that uh there was no public correspondence that was received on this one, but I know on a couple of the uh following two cases that we did have you know some emails.

So my first point would be we've seen those.

Um and those will go on to council as well, those have been read.

It's not necessary to use the public hearing as a podium to reread what's already been sent in email.

Um so that that doesn't need to happen.

Um and also keep in mind when you do speak, please use your time efficiently.

You'll see over on this side um the clock uh of five minutes.

So you'll have five minutes in which to uh state your opinion on the issue, and then uh we ask that you respect that time so um everyone else would have that is signed up to speak will also have the same opportunity.

As we do speak, it's not necessary to have the same item repeated over and over.

Um so which in other words, if someone gets up and you're signed up to speak and they're saying the exact same thing you were planning on standing up and speaking, it doesn't reemphasize the point any more to get up and say it again.

We got it.

And uh it will be part of the record and it will be recorded, and of course, this is a televised meeting, which the city council is uh most of them all watch it as well.

So um you're covered there.

We will make sure that we definitely give everybody the opportunity to hear every angle on this that we need to hear before we make any decisions.

Um but we want to be efficient and respect everyone's time as well.

So I appreciate it very much.

Um we will move on on the first one.

So I will now open the public hearing.

We do have two speakers signed up for this particular one.

So you can uh come up to the podium um when I call your name and please state your name and address for the record, and uh then you'll after that point, then your five minutes will begin.

So our first speaker uh is Mary Racy.

Hope I got that right.

Uh and we do have uh an extra chair up here.

The second speaker is Brian McCoy.

Brian, if you want to come up and have a seat next to the podium just to be efficient, you're more than welcome to do that.

Thank you.

I'm Mary Pacey.

I live at 11734 South Deer Run Street in uh Foxfield Reserve.

I was hoping that I would have some more information because my question, I have no idea what you're going to say about the problem.

But my question is why you only have two in roads into the area that you're going to construct on.

Both of those are neighborhood streets.

How are all the industrial trucks, et cetera, going to be going and impacting the people that live on those two streets?

That was my question.

If you don't live there, you don't know that the hours that school starts, Lone Elm Road is at a crawl because there's the St.

Paul's school and the Olatha schools.

And it's very sometimes it takes me five minutes to get two-tenths of a mile.

So I I need to know if that was going to be a big problem.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Mary.

Um and if you do have things that didn't get addressed possibly in the presentation, we will have an opportunity to investigate those later.

Uh we appreciate that.

Mary recognizes this is not a QA back and forth.

You don't uh address commissioners uh with questions while you're up there.

Uh it's just the hearing is allowed for you to state your opinion on the issue.

So thank you very much for your time, Mary.

Brian?

Floor is yours.

Uh thank you.

Uh Brian McCoy, I'm the owner of McCoy Custom Carts.

Um, and that's what we're talking about uh right here.

And I want to thank Taylor and the team.

Um this has been a long process for us.

Um we're not uh I told Taylor when we first started this thing that you know we're not we're not architects, we're not engineers, we're not city planners by any means.

We just like to build golf carts.

Um so we we've had a good uh it's been fun.

We've enjoyed doing this in Olatha, that's where we started our business.

And uh I don't think anybody had any questions for me.

Uh I would like to point out that uh nobody lives on the street that our business is on.

And uh so I don't I don't know how that plays with your first comment.

But uh yeah, it's it's been good.

And as far as the outdoor storage of equipment, um, just so you know, with with the ties and stuff that we have to you know our the banks and everything else, we can't store our products outside.

Um that's part of why we have an 8,000 square foot building.

Um we just we flat out can't store them outside.

So if we do, it creates a lot of problems for us.

Golf carts aren't hard aren't hard to steal.

Um most of them are actually uniformly keyed.

So it would be a big problem for us if we were to start storing a bunch of golf carts outside.

We we literally can't do it.

So I hope that helps clarify any any questions about that.

So anybody has anything for me?

Um I'm good.

Thank you.

Thank you, Brian.

Appreciate you being here.

Okay, now do I have a motion to close the public hearing?

The chair make a motion and close the public hearing.

Your mic on, please.

Sorry, Mr.

Chair.

I turned that microphone on.

Make a motion we close the public hearing.

Thank you, Commissioner Tronis.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Chapman.

Um, all those uh commissioners in favor say aye.

All right.

Opposed, nay.

The public hearing is now closed.

Uh is there any additional discussion needed for this item?

Okay.

Uh seeing none, I'll call for a motion on the item on SU 25-0005.

Mr.

Chair, I will move that we approve SU 25-0005 as recommended by staff.

Thank you, Commissioner Chapman.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Breen.

Ms.

Will, we'll take a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Chapman?

Yes.

Commissioner Breen?

Yes.

Commissioner Brown?

Yes.

Commissioner Torones?

Yes.

Chair Janner?

Yes.

That motion passes five to zero.

So our second public hearing tonight is a request for approval of rezoning for Lone Elm Townhomes located at northeast of 119th Street and Lone Elm Road.

Mr.

Jury's with us this evening to present the case.

Welcome, Nathan.

Thank you, Chair, Planning Commission.

Good evening.

Nathan Jury, senior planner.

Uh before you tonight is a request to approve uh rezoning with a preliminary plan for the Lone Elm Town Home development.

Um this property is 7.7 acres and located northeast of 119th and Lone Elm Road and southwest of uh the retreat at Foxfield Village, which is a town home development.

Back in 2005, this site was zoned to the NC neighborhood commercial district, and a preliminary development plan for a mixed use development was approved with first floor commercial and second floor residents as shown in the bottom left of your screen.

The applicant is requesting to down zone to the R3 district, which is low density multifamily, to allow for residential townhome development.

Staff does recommend denial of this down zoning for failure to meet several rezoning criteria, which I'll describe later in this presentation.

The comprehensive plan, Plan Olatha future land use map does designate this site as a mixed density residential neighborhood.

Plan Olatha also calls for a community commercial center on the west side of Lone Elm.

While mixed density residential neighborhoods are largely residential in nature, Plan Olatha also states that true mixed use development is encouraged and other limited commercial and service uses may also be permitted.

The NC district and the mixed use development previously approved in 2005 by City Council does align with this future land use pattern that is encouraged by Plan Olatha.

The NC district was retired in 2014 and replaced with other zoning districts, but its intent does still remain.

The NC district allows for small scale neighborhood commercial uses within a pedestrian-oriented environment, such as the true mixed-use developments that are encouraged by Plan Olathe.

Staff's recommendation to deny this request and retain the NC district aligns with that future land use map designation.

Additionally, rezoning to the R3 goes against several comp plan policies, including supporting mixed-use neighborhoods, maintaining an appropriate balance of jobs and housing, as well as encouraging complete neighborhoods that provide shops nearby residences.

Also, the site is walkable for many nearby Foxfield residents due to their well-connected trail system.

The applicant submitted a concept plan at this time and understands that if approved, a full preliminary site development plan with a landscape plan and building elevations that you typically see would be required prior to any development.

The proposal does include 10 townhome buildings ranging between five and nine units per building with a total of 71 dwelling units on the site at a density of roughly nine units per acre.

The plan does extend the uh public street system through this site, connecting Deer Run and 118th Terrace, as uh shown on your screen.

Uh and the plan does comply with the density and building height standards of the requested zoning district.

Uh the uh staff does recommend denial of this application for failure to meet uh several golden criteria, two of which I do want to focus on being conformance of the plan with or the proposal with the comprehensive plan, as well as the suitability of the property for development.

Uh regarding conformance with a comp plan.

Um I mentioned previously that the future land use map and the comp plan policies both encourage mixed use uh and complete neighborhoods, but I do want to focus here on the uh policy ES 2.1, which is the balance of jobs and housing.

Um so specifically, um, there is a policy in the comp plan uh that to use zoning as a tool to ensure that there's an adequate supply of both commercial and residential land.

Currently, this is one of very few commercial properties, commercially zoned properties in Northwest Aletha.

There is a lack of commercial development in Northwest Aletha, which is a fact that several residents have mentioned in their public comment letters included in your packet.

Secondly, suitability.

Um in 2005, council determined that this property was suitable for mixed use development, and today the suitability suitability of this property for commercial development is increasing.

The 119th Street project, as many residents know, is currently going on and being constructed, will impact both travel patterns and development patterns along this corridor.

Bridge over 119th Street or over BNSF Railroad 419th Street is currently in under construction.

We'll connect 119th from I-35 all the way over to Seven Highway.

Once complete, 119th will be one of just a handful of streets in Olatha that access both the interstate as well as highway.

Regional travel patterns will change significantly with this project as will uh commercial development and growth is expected on this corridor.

Applicant did submit two letters in your packet contending that this property is not suitable for commercial development.

However, 119th Street extension has never existed until now.

The neighborhood meeting was held in September with 40 residents in attendance.

The applicant provided minutes from this meeting, which are included in your packet as well.

Discussions at this meeting centered largely around density, building size, traffic and safety, parking, as well as amenities.

Staff also received correspondence from 41 residents, largely in opposition for the same reasons discussed in the neighborhood meeting with some additional concerns about property value impacts as well as a handful that did want to see commercial zoning retained.

Overall, uh staff does recommend denial of the requested downzoning to the R3 as it is inconsistent with goals and policies of comprehensive plan and fails to meet several golden criteria.

If Planning Commission does recommend denial of the zoning, uh preliminary plan will also automatically fail as it is tied to that zoning request.

Applicant here is also here to make a brief presentation as well.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Jerry.

Before we get to the applicant, uh Commissioners, do you have any questions for staff?

I do.

Commissioner Brown, go ahead.

Mr.

Jury, could you go back to the picture of the 119th Street extension?

I've never seen that before.

Can you put that in some context for me?

So, yeah, 119th Street Extension.

Let's see, the railroad runs BNSF railroad runs right around there.

Um 119th Street currently just cuts across on Northgate and dead ends at Woodland.

And so this uh roundabout that you're seeing here will be in essence on the west side of the railroad.

119th will uh bridge across the railroad, connect to that roundabout, and where 119th and Northgate connect, uh it will that roundabout is um the location for that.

Where does this property exist in relation to relation to the roundabout?

Um so it's about a mile and a half to the west.

Uh the star on your screen is where that property is right here.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Are there any additional questions from staff?

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Jury.

Understand the applicant is here to make presentation.

Let me get you loaded.

Thank you.

Good member.

Good.

Good evening, members of the planning commission, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh hi, my name's Curtis Holland.

I'm the attorney for the owner of the property.

Um, New Bedford Land Development Company.

Um my address is 900 West 48th place, suite 1000, Kansas City, Missouri with the Pulsanelli law firm.

Um again, appreciate you hearing our case tonight.

I'm gonna take a couple extra minutes, hopefully, won't be too long, but uh there's a lot to go through tonight.

And um, so I want to hit on um a lot of our points.

And then also um I know that the residents are here probably to speak, and we'd like to have an opportunity to um address their issues uh after they after they uh speak if we can.

So with that, um I would thank staff for their presentation and been super nice to work with.

But I did want to at least uh first introduce our team and first off would like to introduce John Lambert, who's with uh New Bedford Land Development Company.

Uh he's as Steph mentioned the property's been zoned since 2005.

Mr.

Lambert and New Bedford Land Development Company were the original developers of Foxford Foxfield Village Townhomes and the development around that area and also the entity that proposed this site for uh a neighborhood commercial center at the corner here.

And so he's held the land for now 20 plus years, uh, which is uh a big reason why we're here tonight because we just don't think that the retail market, notwithstanding what staff has said uh to support it, uh, will exist or does it will exist now, it hasn't existed or will exist in the future with even with the extension of 119th Street.

Um also would like to introduce Aaron Messmer with M3 LLC.

He is the proposed buyer, developer of the uh townhome project.

You might know Aaron, he's been in this podium many, many times with you.

Uh he works with Block Real Estate Services.

Um then we also have with us Tim Homburg.

Sorry.

Tim Homburg, and there's get to the right page.

See Tim's pretty picture on the left hand side of the page.

Tim Homburg with uh president of NSPJ Architect, you you know them too.

They've designed and uh tons of uh uh multifamily and other projects both uh in the Kansas City market and here in Olatha.

And then uh we have uh Braden Taylor with ME Keys MKEC Engineering.

Those are he's our civil engineer for the site.

And um, and then finally would like to uh introduce uh Bucky Brooks and Molly Crawford Munninghof.

She and Bucky are the uh brokers for the property with Copac and Brooks.

Um notice with all the companies I just mentioned, very experienced real estate in the real estate space, both in terms of developing, designing, and owning and building.

Uh they know what works and what doesn't work, and we're here tonight to tell you that retail doesn't work at this corner.

Um I am gonna make the bulk of the presentation and and if there's some questions uh perhaps I'll rely on on my uh expert consultants to uh to to answer those.

But uh I did want to briefly mention them to you and uh tell you that we're all available for any questions and answers.

Um the screen right now is the site in front of you uh at the northeast corner of 119th and Lone Elm, 119th uh street is the east-west uh arterial road to the south of the site.

Lone Elm Road is the uh north-south arterial road on the west side of the site.

Uh it's bubbled in the yellow, obviously.

Um that's the location to it.

Uh tonight's uh we're gonna talk to you about uh uh what we want to do with the site in terms of developing a townhome project here.

Um we I did want to back up just a minute and explain what we're here tonight with a concept plan, not a preliminary development plan.

I I wanted to make that known to you.

Steph mentioned that that this will need to come back for a full review of a preliminary development plan if the if we're recommended for approval.

But we're here tonight really to focus on the land use question.

Whether we're gonna have potentially allow for townhome development here at this corner that could mix in with the other residential in the uh vicinity and uh or whether we're gonna hold uh New Bedford land development hostage to a uh a failed, in our our opinion, a failed uh retail zoning of the site that we don't think uh will ever uh come to fruition.

So uh with that uh as staff mentioned the site was zoned in 2005.

Uh 2025 now, so it's been 20 years.

We really haven't had a lot of retail, we haven't had any real interest in retail at this location uh according to uh to the owner and and their team.

Um as staff mentioned, we did have uh two letters that were submitted that were part of your packet that indicate and support our position.

This isn't really a great uh retail location.

So we'll get into that in a minute here.

I did want to say we we started discussing this project with the staff probably four years ago.

Um that's how long it's been.

Uh uh John contacted me and uh asked if uh if if you know if whether I could uh help them and look at this and determine you know what would be a good land use for the site.

Um I've been doing this 30 plus years myself, so I have uh a perspective on it.

And so we did start to meet with staff some four years ago.

Uh and at that time, staff said uh uh you know what much like they're saying tonight that um we think this is a good retail corner, you just need to wait.

Um even though it's been 20 years, you need to wait.

We've got this 119th Street extension to the uh to the east of us, and when that happens, magically this site will become attractive for retail development.

We just don't agree that that's what will happen.

Um but we have met with the staff.

Um before we started the application before you tonight, uh we actually met with the uh residents of Foxfield Village Townhomes.

Foxfield Village Townhomes is right here to our east, surrounds our site, uh right in here.

So we did have a meeting with them.

Uh it was a couple years ago at that time, and and I can defer to others, folks who others on our team who were there.

It didn't really appear that there was any opposition to a townhome development at this project at this corner.

I mean, it fits in with what's already there.

There's you know existing townhomes right next to it, so we're just putting townhomes next to townhomes.

It's certainly different than what we've all seen in the past, uh, where there's much harsher land uses that are uh uh adjoining us uh or that we're trying to fit into something.

But here is these are consistent, compatible uses, and again, there wasn't a lot of opposition to uh to doing that.

Uh but again staff told us to wait.

Uh we lead read in the staff report that now this road, this 119th Street extension is going to be uh supposedly done in 2027.

So another two years from now, and from when we first started talking with staff, that's now six years.

Uh so the wait has gotten longer and longer.

And again, there's really not been any interest in retail at this corner.

The only other interest in development other than townhomes at this corner, it was a church.

Uh we had a church that showed interest in this site.

Uh they actually met with the staff.

Um staff well say they chased them away, but uh staff was pretty insistent that with if you're gonna have a church at this in this NC district, this neighborhood commercial zoning district, you need to include some retail development with your church site.

And the church wasn't part of that.

They didn't want to have uh any retail development with their church.

And so uh they they they left and we we lost uh potentially a sell of the property and development of the property to a church.

Next site here, this is a kind of a map, show you ships some surrounding zoning.

Uh our site again is bubbled and yellow.

Uh we've shown R3 on that uh for zoning.

Uh to the east and and to the north, you north and east of it, you'll see RP3 zoning.

Um that's the Foxfield Village Townhomes.

Uh to the west, you have Sunnybrook, and we're gonna talk about that in a little bit more, but that's uh that's zone C2.

So when staff says to us there's you know hardly any retail available at this corner, we would disagree.

We think there's retail right here on the west side of this project or our proposed project, just on the west side, you can see C2.

And um, you know, if there's going to be C2 development or commercial development, rather, in this area, we think it's gonna land there first, and probably some other places before it ever lands at our corner.

Um also you can see to the there's also residential to our south and to our east, but there's also on this on the west side some RP3 uh townhomes uh like we're proposing tonight.

You see it to the south, um Prairie Haven uh townhomes, and then there's some townhomes right in this area.

Where are we right up here?

If you can see the hand.

And then one thing that's interesting, and I want to talk about this a little bit later is right here is Crestown Senior Living.

Um that used to be colored pink a couple of years ago, uh the city downzoned that property uh to R4.

And so um we want to talk about that in a little bit.

Next slide.

Let me use the buttons, it's easier for me.

Uh this is an aerial showing the site again.

The uh blue lines are the right of way, existing right of way that surround the site.

Again, you've got 119th Street down to the south, Lone Elm Road on the west side.

I wanted to make sure that the residents understood that the street that we would be accessing, this is South Deer Run.

Deer Run, thank you, South Air Run.

And then West 118th Street Terrace to the down on this side.

Those are both public roads.

And so the proposed access into our this uh property right here would come off of Lone Elm, or I'm sorry, 119th Street on over here on the uh east east side here.

Uh this is Monroe Street.

You would come in off Monroe and then take a left on West 118th Street Terrace.

That's the South Entrance.

Uh again, those are all public roads.

The north entrance would come in off West 117th Street, and then take a ride on South Deer Run Road.

Again, that is a public road.

And there was some comment during our neighborhood meeting that these are private roads, and we're gonna have people accessing our private roads, and it's not, these are public roads.

But those are the two main ways into our site that we're going to show.

Uh and then I also wanted to show you this connection, which staff mentioned.

Staff is requiring this road connection between South Dare Run and West 118th Terrace as a connection and have that be a public road.

And that does cost some impact when you when you're talking about retail development.

But for the residents, I wanted to make sure they understood that that was part of this, that no matter whether this is townhomes or whether it's retail, you're gonna have a street access that go that uses those streets that are in front of your homes.

So that's the way it will be.

But uh, you know, as staff mentioned, we short we're showing 71 town town homes.

Uh they vary in in uh type from 30 from uh two-bedroom to two to uh three bedroom.

The density that uh we're proposing with on the concept plan is nine units per acre.

Um and as a comparison, that creststone senior living that I mentioned earlier to the west that was downzoned uh to R4, the uh density is uh over 15 units per acre at that location.

This is uh again a concept of the elevations.

Uh these might be familiar to you.

The inspiration for these elevations are taken from the clearing at 128, uh, which is down near at uh uh 128th or in Indian Creek Parkway and Black Bob Road really is where it is.

Um and I'll show you the location in a minute.

But uh, these are the uh concept elevations of what we'd like to see here.

Um something that was approved by by this city uh by you and the city council several years ago and uh were constructed by Block Real Estate uh services.

So Aaron can speak to that because uh and and as well as Tim Homburg because he designed the buildings, and uh so these are nicely appointed Class A town homes, um all on the inside, the interior uh finishes are a high-end finishes, granite countertops, stainless steel appliances, etc.

Um you'll see that uh is what we're proposing with with our townhomes as well.

Um I mentioned the inspiration is for it was came from the town homes at the clearing at 128.

This is the map of that location here highlighted in blue.

Um again, this is Black Bob Road on the east side, Indian Creek Parkway, 127th Street up here.

These are where these townhomes are.

When we were here a few years ago for rezoning, a lot of the folks that lived along this road here.

This is R1 single family houses right there.

They weren't happy with townhomes, there are proposed townhomes, and we haven't heard anything negative about this since this project has gone in, but they were um you know, just like neighbors, uh they can not know what's going on and have some fear of the unknown.

They were they were opposed to this development, but it turned out to be a great development.

Um I also wanted to use uh just uh point out that right up here is Pinecrest Townhomes, and Aaron Messmer has owned these townhomes for many, many, many years.

I think they were developed in the early 2000s, um and uh there was some comments in the in some of the uh letters uh from the residents that perhaps these new town homes wouldn't be well maintained because they uh they may be for rental instead of owner occupied, and and we would say that that isn't our uh the the way that uh we would operate these uh units.

These, as an example, both the cr uh Pinecrest and the townhomes at 128 are well maintained.

Um they're gonna have uh uh uh an HOA, they're gonna have a management company if they're for rent, um, and so they'll be well maintained.

We don't think there's going to be any issues with uh if they're rentals.

And then I'd like to go to staff's position.

I want to point out what we what I think is an inconsistency in the staff's position.

Um first would like to talk about our site here.

Uh we are within the Woodland Road Corridor, and this is the future land use map for the Woodland Road Corridor.

Um there's our site on the arrow over here.

There's our site right there.

Uh colored yellow, that's low density residential.

Um staff's talking about plan Olatha, um, but again, uh it shows on the future land map uh future land use uh map for Woodland Road Corridor as low density residential.

Um but more importantly, uh the other map on the right side of the page is the K7 Corridor future land use map.

And our site again is shown here just off of the right side.

We aren't in that, we're just next to it.

And this is the uh this is the Sunny Brook development on the west side here where we do think there's potential retail interest if it comes to this location, it would come to this side of the of the intersection.

Uh you know there's a developing retail up here on College Boulevard.

Uh and in fact, I think there was an announcement recently that Dylan's uh Dylan's grocery store is going to come up here.

I think it's in this location.

But um again, um staff talks about being not consistent with the comp plan, but our maps uh at least shows some residential being located at this corner and not a mixed-use development, notwithstanding what staff has said about that.

Um as you know, a comp plan is is as a guide, it's not set in stone, it's intended to be our best guess for the for development, um, and uh and a and a good example of a development that isn't in compliance with this picture is the Creststone Senior Living, which I talked about earlier.

Uh this is just two blocks, if you will, to the west of us.

And this was also zoned for commercial.

And two years ago, or three years ago, I think it was 2022, uh the city, somebody came forward with a plan for senior living at this corner, and notwithstanding what staff is saying tonight about we don't want to down zone and lose res lose retail um potentials at these corners, they supported the downzoning of this property from C2 to R4.

And uh staff staff talked didn't say anything about the uh the the plan Olatha during that staff report, but I would I would tell you that the planning commission unanimously recommended approval, the city council unanimously recommended approval.

Um and the staff justified it by saying that the uh the K-7 corridor study is a uh states that the land use map is a living document, right?

So it's subject to change and should develop in coordination with market trends and the transportation system.

So anyway, um I also wanted to point out to you, and I'm getting close to the end, two other sites that are interesting to me.

Staff mentioned you know that NC district uh was discontinued in 2014.

It's not part of your code anymore.

Um, you know, we think that there's an acknowledgement or uh that that that that means that NC didn't really uh pan out like the staff wanted it to pan out.

There's only three or four locations in the city of Olatha where there is NC zoning.

One is our corner, one is and two others are the projects that uh that this the staff mentioned in their um presentation.

And uh then there's this uh fourth one that is over by Olatha West High School on the west side here.

That's the latha West High School.

Um right here on the east side of that, you have NC zoning and townhomes.

And in fact, they're all town homes.

There's no mixed-use component to that at all, which kind of makes me ask the question of staff, why are you why can we do town homes without having to rezone our property?

Because that was that was what was allowed here, and I'm and I guess I just don't understand why staff is telling us that we need to rezone the property.

So we have an example of townhomes in an NC district right there.

And then staff talks about well, we're gonna do this 119th Street extension, and once that happens and gets completed in a couple of years, you're gonna have all this new traffic coming down the road.

And actually says that within I think 20 more years, the traffic will increase by something like 143 percent to make their point that there's going to be all this new additional traffic coming by your site, it'll magically make your site retail.

Um I want to point out that just because you have more traffic next to your site doesn't necessarily mean it's gonna turn into a good retail site.

This is uh 119th in Black Bob.

So Latha Point Shopping Center, and at the corner here, the most visible, one of the most visible corners in Olathe, and I drive by this all the time, is an old uh restaurant building.

It used to be occupied by Granite City Brewery.

It closed in 2017, and it's still closed.

There's been no backfill of that site.

And this is at 119th and Black Bob.

I mean, it is a heavily trafficked road.

Um so if there's uh if traffic alone drives retail interest, all I have to show you is this this one example.

And there's lots of other examples in the city.

The other thing I'd like to point out, this is over at 135th, and this is 135th in Black Bob, but this is Blackfoot Road right here.

There's a quick trip here.

You probably know this location.

These properties right here that I've highlighted in blue are zone C2.

And probably 10 years ago, I went and talked to uh Mayor Copeland at the time and asked if there could be potentially a change to some medium family townhomes or some apartments on these lands.

And he said, no, no, no, no, no.

We don't want to down zone any of our retail property.

Um notwithstanding that we've got some multifamily right across the street, uh, they're residential up here.

We're gonna preserve this for retail, which is exactly where staff is telling us today.

These sites are still vacant.

So it's been 10 years, and uh, I'll be honest with you, I don't think they're ever going to develop for C2 uses there at uh that location.

So uh with that I would close.

Happy to answer any questions you might have.

I'm appreciate your uh allowing me to talk a little bit long on this, but um our staff's uh our team is here to answer any questions if you have any, but thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioners, do you have any uh questions on the applicant?

And if I could, I know that some folks want to get up and talk.

We'd like to come back up.

Okay.

Okay, we'll move forward uh now, and uh I will now open the public hearing.

Um I do ask for um some forgiveness up front.

I may butcher some of these names.

We already had one public hearing, and I was only 50-50, so sorry about that, Mary.

Um so our first speaker is Lucerne Karen.

Did I get that right?

Um is a city of the Mr.

Okay.

They're on the list.

I guess there's who we have would like to give up their spots.

Tom Barton.

Tom?

Yeah, if you want to go give your spot up to Tom, that's fine.

Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you.

Uh good evening, Commissioners.

Um, my name is Thomas Bart, and I'm a resident, and my property abuts within 25 feet of the proposed development.

I'm all member of the case.

Could you state your address, Tom?

I'm sorry?

State your address, please.

My address is 117 64 South Marion Street.

Thank you.

I'm also a member of the Foxfield HOA.

Um we concur with staff's recommendation that the zoning not be changed.

Uh Mr.

Howland at the uh homeowners meeting suggested that we take a look at the development of one of their sample properties, the one he mentioned on Black Bob.

So my wife and I drove by there, and uh to tell the truth, we were shocked.

It's uh it would be consistent with raw housing.

You look at the Foxfield neighborhood and you see all the green space, and they're all basically homeownered.

They're all owned by homeowners basically.

What they're talking about is rental properties.

We have an extensive trail system, we have many amenities of swimming pools and playground equipment and volleyball courts and the whole bit.

I'll bet you that there's gonna be more use from those rental properties, come over and use our amenities, which we have to pay for on a uh monthly and yearly basis.

Um it's a beautiful neighborhood.

To have property rental properties come in and take that corner completely changes the character of that Foxfield neighborhood.

This is one of Olatha's nicest neighborhoods as far as green space goes and the beauty of it.

Um it would be a shame to destroy what has taken Olatha so long to make this one of the premier neighborhoods.

Um we definitely agree with uh staff's concurrence of keeping the zoning the same.

We would much rather see commercial, similar to the strip that's on K7 and Harold Street, that small shopping center.

Something like that would be more appropriate to the area.

There would be less traffic in our area if something like that occurred, or even if the church came in with some additional retail, that would be much more desirable for us than what these people are are trying to put in.

The 70 units with no green space, no amenities, is would be uh a black eye uh spot on the whole neighborhood, as we have now.

So again, uh if you would concur with staff, we would certainly appreciate it.

And we think that the neighborhood would contain would be able to maintain its uh initial character and the beauty of what's been there for a number of years now, and we certainly would hate to see that destroy by row housing.

Again, thank you for the time.

We appreciate it.

And there's several of our neighbors who are here, and at the last HOA meeting that we had, it was unanimous that all the members wanted to keep the zoning as it is now.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you.

So we'll go back.

Are you giving your time to the another gentleman too, or are you going next?

Okay.

My name is Gary Williams.

I live at 21100 West 118th Terrace.

Uh I concur, you know, we like to see you stay uh commercial, uh neighborhood commercial.

One of the biggest things and uh uh lady spoke a while ago about the interests.

There is no interest for this property off of Lone Almond 119th.

Uh I don't know why that is.

I mean, why they couldn't made entrance.

But right now, if they put it in that residential 71, you figure two people living there, both driving, that's 140 cars possibility.

But if you look up on the map, they're gonna come in off of Monroe and 118th.

I could see two hundred cars trying to come in off this little entry off of Monroe and 119th.

I mean right now, there's times 7 o'clock in the morning.

You have to wait five or six cars.

I mean, there's gonna be so much traffic.

Or if they come out on what they call deer run out of Lona L.

The same thing.

I mean it's gonna be a yeah, they're uh public streets, however, they're not main streets.

I mean it's trying to just I mean uh I would say it would be very congested at this, you know, to use these streets as entries to their uh new rental properties.

So I I mean everything else, like they most of us all sent letters, and I didn't want to repeat anything, you already got the information.

I mean, it's so much the property would be more dense than what what we have now.

So many different things why everybody in RHOA is totally against it.

So thank you.

All right, thank you for your time.

Ma'am, we'll go back to the top of the list.

You're next.

Okay, my name is Lucian Karen.

I live at 1178 South Marion.

I concur with the other two speakers, and I know as being on the board for the area that's is as close as can be to this.

There's one thing that I hasn't been brought up that the the attorney said, and that was about being 118th terrace, and the other street that that's going to be public, yes, those are gonna be those are public streets, and they will continue to be public streets.

However, Marion Street, if you see North and South connects with 118th Terrace, and 117th Terrace, which connects with Deer Run, which is gonna go into that property, those are private streets.

We maintain them.

There's no way you're gonna tell me or anybody that lives in that area that if they come in off 118th terrace, but they live on the north side of that, that they're not gonna drive down our two private streets, which is gonna be a lot more maintenance for us.

That's the one thing that I wanted to point out that I'm sure you know, and you would sure be like to have the traffic come in there and stay on the public street, but there's no way that you can control that.

And that's more money for everybody that pays for that those two streets to be maintained.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Beth Rabakoff.

I don't think this.

All right, thank you, Beth.

Manny Martins?

Okay.

Archer.

Robert?

Reinhard?

I'm Martha Reinhardt, and I live at 1177 South Marion Street.

And uh it's been alluded to, but it's I'm gonna point it out.

These are all gonna be rental properties.

And I don't care how much you what kind of a homeowners association you have, rental properties, they're not gonna have the same um trying to take care of it like the people that own the homes.

I lived in my home for 20 years.

I would hate to see 118 terrace go all the way around the dirt, deer run.

I mean, it's gonna be it's gonna be a nightmare, especially if there are very many kids at school at school time.

That's not everybody but there's enough people that won't and it will not and they will try to come over and use our trails, our pool and things.

We we can't uh we can't uh for keep this up if we have to pay for them too.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you for time Archer.

Uh Shay Ryburn said Okay.

Okay that is uh everyone that we have signed up to speak uh do I have a motion to close the public hearing so moved.

Thank you Commissioner Breen do I have a second second.

Thank you Commissioner Toronis.

All those in favor of closing the public hearing say aye.

Opposed nay and the public hearing is now closed I will give uh the applicant an opportunity um let's try to keep comments down to five minutes or less.

Sure thanks first of all um to address the uh green space uh comment if you can look at the map here all that area in green is open space it's about 50 percent of the site so we're gonna have as much or more green space than our neighbors do.

Uh so green space won't be an issue.

Obviously uh Latha has pretty strict regulations about what can be developed and not developed.

We've got setback issues to deal with and so forth and so we can't just develop the whole entire site there's a lot of green space that's left on this site.

So uh and then also I wanted to point out along 119th street here that lighter green area and along a lone elm road uh that lighter green area those are areas that have already been um taken for right of way by the city for a right turn lane or turn lanes and widening rather of a hundred and uh hundred nineteenth and as well as lone out so the traffic in this area uh is going to increase one because staff mentioned the new connection to 119th street back to the east and s the city is has already purchased an acquired right of way here already purchased an acquired right of way on this site here for the what road widening uh that's mentioned in your staff report as well as a traffic signal that's gonna be at this location so there's not gonna be really any uh traffic external that uh that that can't accommodate this site uh two there is a uh city's traffic or access management plan that requires that you be 600 feet away from intersection of this arterial for any of your driveways so we're really not gonna be able to put any access off of 119th street here into our site or off of Lone Elm Road because 600 feet is at this location and oh by the way there's overhead power lines here there are utility lines that run through these areas very expensive to move those and so the real only access into this site uh whether it's retail or whether it's town homes are from those sites uh from those streets to the uh right here that we were talking that the everybody talked about from you know have to come all the way up here to 117th Street and down South Deer run or come over off of Monroe to West 118th uh terrace those are public roads um and again there's gonna be this connection through here I don't I guess I don't quite understand why people might travel or want to travel on Marion here.

That doesn't seem very uh like uh uh useful to turn onto that street just to go through um and you're gonna have a street right here that you can easily come through these uh unuse these public streets.

So I I guess I would question whether or not there's gonna be any real use of of that as a uh any of the interior streets.

Um with respect to the pool which is on the over here at the east side and any of their private trails and so forth uh you know we we we talked to them earlier on about potentially joining their HOA and maybe offering up some uh ability to reimburse them for that use they didn't want to have any part of that and so we expect that we aren't gonna be allowed to use this pool.

I assume it's got security and you'd have to have a key fob and other way to enter and access that location and we wouldn't have that for our residents.

I mean we can't control where people may walk so maybe they will walk elsewhere but we're gonna have plenty of sidewalks that folks can walk on.

But it's not uncommon for a townhome development not to have an amenity like a pool or parks or things like that.

The two developments that I pointed out earlier don't have amenities either like that, and they're fine.

This issue with regard to rental versus ownership and maintenance.

I don't know if Aaron, you might want to take that.

Aaron Messmer Block Real Estate Services 4622 Pennsylvania, Kansas City, Missouri.

Thank you for your time.

As far as ownership versus rentals, I think that what you've seen is uh a group of folks that have concern about what that looks like.

And I can appreciate that because not all landlords are good landlords.

Um what we have demonstrated in our projects in in Olatha and in other municipalities is building something that is Class A nature.

Um that is reflected in the clearing at 128, where those townhomes were constructed.

On the north side of that, we actually bought those townhomes to protect our new development at the clearing.

Um we knew that we were going to do that project, and we purchased an older property, and we put millions of dollars into Pinecrest townhomes.

Um we actually have upgraded the interior finishes.

We tried to match the ones that are new projects.

And what I would tell you is that a landlord who uh is well capitalized, who has high consistent standards, and who is motivated to protect their property in their name may even be more likely to reinvest in those properties and and maintain those properties to a high standard.

So I think that what we have, if I may, just a couple minutes.

That would that be okay if I'm not sure.

Well, we have closed the public hearing, so this is not part of that, so go ahead.

Just let's wrap it up.

Yeah, I'll wrap it up.

Um I think what you have is is you know, when you look at the folks that may have capital that have been participating in the economy for a long time, they own their homes, or they own their townhomes in this case.

Uh we have a lot of young families.

They want a place to raise their kids in a great neighborhood in a great school district.

We agree with them, this is a great place.

That's why we want to do this project.

And so for those folks who may not have saved up enough money to be able to afford that down payment, um, you know, this is an option for them.

We want to make that home.

So that's what we're here to do.

Um, and we'd be glad to answer any of the questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, are there any other uh additional discussion among the commissioners?

Commissioner Chapman.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I have several comments here.

Umetha identifies the future land use of this area as mixed use.

And that area is a commercial desert, so to speak.

It seems to me that rezoning this would be in conflict with our comprehensive plan.

And I know there's been a lot of discussion here tonight about 119th Street and whether or not traffic's going to increase in that area.

And um as presentations being made, I recall, I believe the Hunt project, which is going to be on 119th Street and Ridgeview has been approved.

If in fact the numbers that they're projecting come to be, it won't take people long to realize I'm gonna come down K7 and hit 119th and get to that uh hunt project that's going to be there across the street from Bass Pro.

So I think I think there is a good uh chance that 119th Street is going to become a much more heavily used uh traffic way when this corridor is completed.

Uh and so I just to me it just seems as though this is conflicts with what the comp the the city is trying to accomplish here with a comprehensive plan and trying to accommodate and provide this balance of residential as well as retail.

And the fact that we don't have a lot of retail in that area and haven't had for some time.

I realize this plot's been vacant for I think 20 years.

Um but uh I don't know that anyone can see the future about what is gonna happen there.

So I'm having a hard time, and I probably will not be supporting the rezoning of this project.

Okay.

Any other discussion among commissioners?

Commissioner Toronis.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh I I appreciate the uh information that we received from the city staff, the presentation.

It was a lot of uh emails from residents and appreciate those in attendance.

I think it's important uh that you involve yourself in the process.

But having saying that, following up on my fellow commissioners' comments, I'm also struggling with this before I even heard the presentation.

And it's basically the same reason is that uh does not uh compliance with the you the UDO and the goals, objectives, and the policies of our comprehensive plan.

A lot of detailed and hard work went into that, and that's the basis part of the foundation that we review.

I'm also struggling with the uh why the concept plan and why not just do the preliminary plan.

Uh that would have been to me a better process instead of doing this and where uh the end result may not be.

I know I'm only one one of uh one vote, but it may not be productive enough to get the number of vote that you need.

Again, this is just a recommendation from the planning commissioner.

But those are my initial comments.

Thank you.

Are there any other discussion?

I do.

Commissioner Brown.

Commissioner Jirk, can Nathan answer a question up there?

Nathan Jury, senior planner.

Mr.

Jurry.

Uh I thought the applicant brought up a good point about this corner being retail.

Uh how could it be retail without any ingress and egress off of the 119th and lone elm road?

So the 2005 commercial mixed use development plan did approve a write-in write out on this property, and that in essence is allowed for commercial write-in-right out.

Um the the applicant did submit a new plan, and with any new plan, we we vet any access and against current standards.

And so since they did not propose any access to 119th or lone elm, we didn't vet that with this proposal.

But the commercial development was approved with a write-in write-out on loan as well as a write-in write out on 119th.

Thank you.

Okay.

Are there any additional discussion among Commissioners?

Commissioner Breen.

No, I'll just echo my alignment with my fellow commissioners just on the struggle that I think the nonconformity presents with Plan Olatha.

So with that, I'll go ahead and make a motion that will support staff's recommendation, which is a denial of RZ 25-0009.

Um as stipulated by staff.

All right.

Thank you, Commissioner Brain.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Chapman.

Well, I'll just uh restate what Commissioner Breen had.

So um a yes vote is for denial if you're choosing to go that route.

So um I'll just add uh you know add at the end, I think uh a couple of things uh regardless of what happens here or happens at City Council.

Um I do think the uh whatever plan does move forward on this, that the the the city uh staff, we need to look closely at uh at those private streets um and and the access for public in there.

I I I would uh encourage the city council to look closely at that.

Because I think there there could be, for whatever reason, there could be, you know, whether it be accidents or traffic backing up, you know, you might you might make those turns, and those people pay for those streets, and that matters.

Um so I I think we have to in any future that that needs to be looked at closely.

Um and also just something that uh we kind of keep going back to is um I know the applicant believes that the plan for commercial there um won't work.

Um but uh it was made, you know, the decisions of the Plan Olatha Committee matter.

You know, and that's what they've laid out and they think is going to work there.

And as as uh both Commissioner Breen and I participate in the uh elevate latha that's going on now, the review of the Olatha's plan.

Um, you know, I respect the time that the people that were on that plan on latha committee and the time they put in and the conclusions they came to, and I think there's uh a reason for it, and I think this 109th Street expansion um for a lot of reasons is gonna help that.

So um whether we're right or wrong there on whether it's gonna work, I don't know.

But I think it's our uh job to respect the plan.

Um so that's kind of uh you know my final on that.

So Ms.

Will, will you take a roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Breen.

Just a matter of record, I made a motion.

I think we still need a second before we just do a roll call.

We go to the Commissioner Brown.

All right, thank you.

Yes.

No problem.

Commissioner Brown?

Yes.

Commissioner Torones.

Yes.

Commissioner Chapman?

Yes.

Chair Janner?

Yes.

The motion to recommend denial passes.

Okay, our third and final public hearing is a request request for approval of the zoning amendment to ordinance 03-113 and preliminary site development plan for 151st in Merlin mixed use, which is located southeast of 151st in Merlin.

Ms.

Schuler will present the case on this item.

Not really.

We're moving on to our next public hearing.

Sir, we have a not really.

We're instilled.

In the meeting, we have another public hearing.

No, I'm sorry.

Sir, we'll next issue.

I know I need before we just sit down in the in the gallery, please.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Ms.

Schuler.

Okay.

We'll go ahead and get started.

Okay.

Yeah, let's keep cool.

We're just getting warmed up, right?

That's right.

That's right.

Good evening, Jessica Schuler, senior planner.

As introduced, tonight's request is for a zoning amendment and preliminary site development plan for the 151st and mixed use development.

This property is located southeast of 151st and Merlin Road.

It's directly east of Heritage Square, where we have businesses like Sutherlands and the Olatha Pet Shop.

There we go.

Okay.

The property is currently zoned CP2 Plan General Business District with the C2 Community Center District directly to the west and the CP3 district located to the southwest.

Directly to the east and south are the single-family residential neighborhoods of Brone Village and Stonehurst.

The request before the Planning Commission this evening is for a zoning amendment rather than a rezoning.

A zoning amendment simply opens the existing ordinance that is on this property and it retains the existing zoning district and the land uses that are permitted within it.

This amendment is specifically requested to remove some dated procedural items, architectural design stipulations, and traffic conditions that were codified in 2003.

That was back when this pro when the proposed development here was actually for inline retail that directly attached to the Heritage Square Center, which is pictured at the top here.

But specific to architecture, there were stipulations requiring some elements like colonnades, red tile roofs, and other design features that would make the new building match that 2003 version of Heritage Square.

However, most of those elements no longer exist at the center today.

A number of updates have been made over time since the approval of Sutherlands and the remodel of all of the tenant facades as well.

Additionally, all previous traffic stipulations are either being completed with this project.

So the preliminary development plan proposed with this zoning is for two structures.

On lot one, a multi-tenant retail building with a drive-through lane fronting Merlin.

And on lot two, a three and four-story mixed use, vertically mixed-use building with ground floor retail on the north end and two hundred and seven residential units.

The building is designed to transition from four stories on the north and the west to three stories on the south.

This plan does exceed setback requirements of the UDO, maintaining over 200 and 200 feet from the east property line and 46 feet from the south property lines.

The primary residential entrance is on the east side of the building, but there is also some access on the west side as well.

Looking at the outparcel retail building, this building is 8,400 square feet.

The drive-through would enter on the east and wrap to the west with the window located on the west side.

There is a low three three-foot stone screening wall proposed along Merlin to screen that drive-thru, which would also be softened with landscaping.

There's also an existing street stub located just to the east, and that would become a full access driveway with a right turn line constructed as well.

There are two existing entrances to the larger development along 151st Street.

And as mentioned, a new right turn lane and full access entrance are required to be constructed at the east.

So this proposed development will actually generate less traffic than what was already approved for the site.

Landscape buffers are very important for this project as we transition a mix of uses to single family residential.

To the south, there is an existing tree line, which will be preserved with this project.

And following the neighborhood meeting, the applicants did hear a strong desire for a fence to be constructed.

And so the applicants came back and added a six-foot-tall decorative fence on the south and the east, which is the red dashed line.

And I have an image of that on the left as well.

On the east, there is also a five-foot berm with robust landscaping proposed.

At the top left, I also have an image of that screening wall facing 151st Street that I mentioned.

I'm screening the drive-thru.

The applicants did provide line of sight drawings to better help us understand what these buffers would look like.

So the top section is looking from the east, and the bottom section is looking from the south.

Building elevations are meeting all UDO requirements, and no waivers are being requested.

The mixed-use building is has synthetic stone, cast stone, and hardy shake siding.

The design is a very traditional Cape Cod inspired architecture, and the intent here is to really blend the styles of the existing commercial center with the surrounding residential, but but while still providing a very modern retail storefronts on the ground floor.

Here are the west and the south elevations as well.

Again, transitioning to the three-story on the south.

Staff has included a stipulation to memorialize the proposed building heights for each facade, which are less than permitted in the district.

Here are the renderings of the mixed-use building from various angles.

The outparcel retail building is a single story and it utilizes some of the same materials, but also incorporates some of the red brown tone brick, which helps it blend with the retail building that's located directly west.

That building still has red tile roofs, tan-colored stucco, etc.

Again, this building meets all UDO requirements and no waivers are being requested.

A neighborhood meeting was held on November 12th with just over 20 residents in attendance.

The primary topics of discussion included those listed on the screen here.

Staff did see receive two letters of correspondence that are included in your meeting packets.

The zoning amendment and preliminary development plan align with several policies of plan of the planal ethics comprehensive plan, which encourages higher density housing near our commercial centers to create walkable centers of activity.

It encourages residential development that is near areas of employment, and also buildings that are well designed with quality architecture and materials as this development is.

With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Our applicant is here to make a presentation.

Great.

Thank you, Ms.

Shuler.

Commissioners, do you have any questions for staff?

Well, seeing none, I invite the applicant to take the podium.

So yeah, give me one second, Judd.

Let's see.

Cycle through just the clicker or keep thank you.

Thank you, Chairman and fellow commissioners.

My name is Judd Clausen.

I'm with uh Phelps Engineering, 1270 North Winchester, Olatha, Kansas.

Um appearing with me uh is my business partner, Doug Ubbin, also civil civil engineer with Phelps Engineering working on this project, and Danny Potts, who is our architect who did the renderings and such uh working on the project.

So uh in interest of what you said earlier, Chairman, uh Jessica did a great job with the presentation.

There's a lot of similar slides in mine, so I'm going to be fairly brief going through mine.

We can always back up and go over something if you have questions.

But uh yeah, my client, Epic Estates owns the property and they are proposing uh this project.

This was a slide from the neighborhood meeting to show who was invited to the neighborhood meeting, and then of course the CERT 200 certifies kind of go around that.

Uh you're very familiar with uh where this project is, as Jessica mentioned, zoned in 2003.

This was actually uh the original the development plan.

It was called Wooderson Edition back at the time.

Um the part to the west obviously got built, and the larger building there is the Sutherlands, but uh the part here boxed in red is the plan for this particular site.

And you'll kind of note a couple of things just to kind of keep in the memory bank as you look at our new site plan.

This retail building A and B on this site plan actually connected into the other shopping center.

So it had a drive on the south side of the these two retail buildings, which in our site plan we've eliminated because we've pulled our building away from the existing building and created a drive lane there.

So truck circulation, service drive in this plan would have been all through the back of that building uh on retail A and B.

Um we were able to eliminate that and kind of create more of a quieter uh space there for residential and green space.

You'll notice the parking on the east side of the building and parking on the north side as well, which is fairly consistent with our proposed plan on that.

And here you see where I was talking about we were eliminated that drive on the south side.

That's a sidewalk connection through there and sidewalks throughout uh the entire development.

Um just on the site plan is a lot of thought and care.

Uh, several versions of the building and the site plan really were worked through during the design on this project, and we needed to be cognizant of the proximity of the building to existing neighbors and try to provide a good transition with the building to our neighbors to the south and to the east.

And that's why you see a lot of landscaping.

When we had our neighborhood meeting, we had comments about the landscaping and about the retaining or about the the fence and the need for a wall, so we added that as well.

Um there is a preservation of a fairly significant tree row along the south side of the property.

We're planning to keep all of that.

And then where we may have some poor trees or trees that are missing in that existing tree row, we'll do a survey during final development plan to document that.

And if we need to fill in a few trees in there, we'll certainly do that as part of the project.

But all along that south side and that east side is a fence, and on that east side we had uh a berm, a five-foot berm plus a six-foot fence gives us our 11-foot that we were, you know, need to hit for our screening requirements and our buffering requirements according to the UDO.

But going back to the design of the South Building, we purposefully stepped that South Building down to three stories on that south side to try to provide a good transition between existing single family and the commercial shopping center and what could have been the back of a large box store on the old plan.

So something to consider on that.

In this type of use, you have kind of several different uses going on here.

So we took a look at really parking use.

So we don't overbuild parking lots and make a sea of parking and try to get away from what we're really trying to do here is make a nice vertically mixed use development.

We forecasted 331 stalls, and that's uh what we've provided, and our client has worked out an agreement at least in that there was an email provided to the staff that uh the adjacent landowner to the west is agreeable to entering into a uh a part a shared parking agreement for the project to provide overflow parking should we need it.

Um and that'll be memorialized at the time of uh final development plan should we be allowed to move forward.

Um just on the open space, uh meet all of that.

You know, there's requirements for open spaces, also active open space.

Jessica mentioned, you know, we purposely put in a couple of patio spaces on the northwest and northeast corners of the mixed-use building there so that we can provide an opportunity for maybe some outdoor seating or something like that for a coffee shop or some type of um restaurant type use there.

Um you've seen the fence and the sections that we've worked through.

We've tried to do a you know a great job of meeting those requirements for screening and buffering and be sensitive to the neighbors uh for that.

Uh Danny's worked up several elevations, you saw those.

Uh, just kind of want to point out that middle elevation there you see uh it says west elevation on the right hand side.

That's the side that you know, as you can see, is through three-story towards the south, and then it the building steps back up to four stories on the sides and on the north.

And then in that middle elevation there, you see it from the opposite side.

So this is the eastern side of the building, and you see similar type elevation materials, of course, lots of undulation, lots of different materiality, balconies, all those types of items uh meeting the requirements.

Um here's a picture of looking at the building uh at the southeast corner looking towards the northwest.

So the elevation on this on the left there is a side, the three-story side facing the south.

You see on the elevation on the right here, that's the clubhouse side and the leasing office on the first floor, and then uh units above it.

Um this elevation is looking uh now to the southwest.

So this would be the northeast corner of the building.

So on the very far left corner of this elevation, you see that three-story component there, and the left side is the leasing office, and then on the right side of this is the first floor retail that faces to the north.

And similarly, this is the opposite corner, uh, northwest corner of the building looking southeast.

So you can kind of see the attention to detail that's intended with you know this type of building here.

Of course, the retail building itself, multi-tenant type of building.

We would like to have a drive-through on the west side of that building, and we've shown that uh section view.

Um this is the last elevation I've got.

Um we did provide uh a screen wall uh there.

You see it on the on the right in that tan wall there for the drive-thru.

So kind of provides that screening looking, you know, that you're starting to see in more commercial type developments for screening along 151st and other major arterials and such like that.

So I hope you uh uh can see kind of the attention to detail and uh the sensitivity that we had to try to you know make a new type of project for this in-fill development that's been zoned commercial for a long time, as Jessica mentioned.

Um in closing, um, you know, our land uses are allowed in this C2 district, and really what we're asking for is an amendment to fix some old architectural and traffic stipulations that either aren't applicable anymore or have been satisfied or uh just need updating and to update our preliminary plan, which complies with all UDO requirements for the building and the site design.

Um it's you know, sometimes we're up here asking for a variance because of or deviation because of this or because of that, and I think it's important to know that uh we worked with staff and had a lot of good conversations with our client and came to a point where we could actually do a project like this without asking for a single deviation.

I feel personally like this is a good use for an infill site.

And it brings a vertically mixed use to the project to the City of Olatha, which is something that I know in doing development within the city, the city has been looking for these types of opportunities for vertically mixed use projects.

That's because it aligns with several of the policy elements that uh Jessica went over in section nine of the staff report and in our presentation.

And with that, I'll close.

Um my client agrees with all the stipulations, and we're here for any questions you might have.

Right.

Thank you, Mr.

Clausen.

Are there any uh questions from the applicant board proceeding?

Commissioner Chapman.

Thank you, Chair.

Just one quick question.

Uh the first slide you put up.

Um it looked like I saw garage doors on the lower level.

Okay, you'll have to stop.

The first slide of the of the uh you're showing the elevations.

Right there.

Go back one right there.

Mixed use building west elevation.

Are those garage doors?

Yeah, okay.

So what's their purpose of the I'm gonna go to the site plan that you see right here in the look in the lower right corner?

You see the word where it says four story there on the west side of the building.

Right.

Um that's actually our uh place where we have like a loading area, so when someone moves in or someone moves out, or we have deliveries for the inline retail.

We put that on that west elevation there so that we can get because even if you have you know first if you have first floor retail, you're gonna need to have need for delivery, and so there'll be an interior corridor coming off of that area so that we can backfeed from the back those inline retail as well as you know, move in for or move out for our residential customers.

And that's also where the trash goes as well.

So there'll be a trash service at that location uh at those doors there.

So Danny, is there anything else that that's pretty much okay?

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Commissioners, any additional discussion?

Uh if not, um I will now open the public hearing.

We do have four people that have signed up to speak.

So we will just jump right in.

Uh the first name on the list is Margaret Kennedy.

Just a review, state your name and address for the record.

Margaret Kennedy, 15909 West 152nd Place.

Um I live in the area, not where they had the meeting of the neighbors.

I live further east.

I totally object to this plan.

The commercialization buildings are fine.

Apartment complex is totally out of place here.

There are no multi-story buildings or properties around there.

There are single homes, duplexes, and then one-story commercial buildings.

Traffic in that area is terrible right now.

I can tell you at 5 o'clock.

I sit at 151st and Merlin going south on Merlin.

I can sit through two to three cycles of that light before I turn east, which would be left.

And if that main entrance is going to be off 151st, I don't know how long it will take to get through that intersection Monday through Friday.

And you can present numbers to support any kind of conclusion you want to make.

But let me tell you at 5 p.m., 5.30, it is.

But it's just totally out of place with the apartment complex, three stories.

And the build in the picture here, they make it look nice because they have the trees fully leafed.

Uh what happens when it's like now and there's no leaves on the trees.

It's a highly visible project, which that was another thing that was mentioned in another another plan that this wasn't going to be visible.

Well, this is highly visible and totally out of place.

And I just I cannot, I've lived in the area almost 30 years.

Um I just don't support the apartment buildings there and the increase in traffic without the city having to do a lot of work in that area.

Thank you.

Thank you, Margaret.

Next speaker is Denise Wallman.

Denise Wallman.

My address is 15241 South Wyandotte Drive here in Olatha.

Good evening, fellow citizens of Olathe and members of the City Planning Division.

Thank you for giving me the privilege to speak tonight.

I had the opportunity to attend the first informational meeting on November 12th.

But now I hear that he changed that to uh three stories.

Another thing I learned at the meeting is that the city of Olatha has no plans to change existing traffic lanes in any direction on 151st in Merlin.

If we have approximately 30 300 new apartment residents who would drive that area every day and then not add any traffic lane or intersection changes, I just can't believe that the city of Olatha would allow that.

If you drive this area between 7 30 and 8 30 in the morning, or between four and six in the late afternoon, you would definitely see my point.

If a multi-story apartment complex goes into that space.

Anyone that lives up in the third or fourth story will be able to look down into my backyard and invade my privacy and peace of mine.

The existing trees, as was mentioned before, are not going to uh block that view from somebody up there on the third story.

Not only are the landowners, there's 44 of us, they'll be impacted by this.

There's a multi po multitude of nearby uh neighborhood residents who have agreed with us that we just do not need a four-story apartment building in that location.

If you'll remember, there is a project underway close by at 127th in Merlin.

It's under construction right now, and that will provide 400 new townhomes and apartments.

That project is in the right area.

It doesn't look out of place at all.

However, if you allow this multi-story apartment building at 151st in Merlin, it will look so very much out of place.

Thank you.

Thank you, Denise.

Um next speaker, I don't know if she is here.

Jennifer Slayton.

Did she show up?

Um Jennifer Slayton, uh 100 or 15240 South Sturgeon Drive.

Um I, you know, can say the same for Denise.

Uh I'm directly behind the apartments.

Um, and in the meeting, um, the engineer company said that my my fence line is 37 feet from that property line.

There was no mention really of that um retaining wall or the the barrier wall.

So um I just don't feel that that's enough.

I also am impacted by the lack of trees there.

And their landscape engineer actually said that those trees that are there now are volunteers, and they are they're just weeds that are pulling my fence down.

So that's not sufficient coverage.

There's no berm on that south side.

So that doesn't really help me with uh blocking of the sound and the visual.

Um it's also with the traffic.

I have two OLATHE South graduates and with Garmin being there and then the high school, um, those peak traffic times Monday through Friday are just a nightmare with lots of traffic accidents.

Um I personally would be welcoming of a of a box store.

Um I would rather look at the back of a building that's one to one and a half stories versus three stories of balconies looking at my backyard.

That's it.

All right.

Thank you, Jennifer.

All right, final speaker signed up.

Uh Darryl Oglesby.

Yes.

Good evening.

I'm Darrell Oglesby.

Uh in February of 2026, I will be a Darrell, can you state your address, please?

I will be a resident at 15 15104 South Locust Street here in Olatha.

Uh that's what marked 40 years at that location.

Uh I have a couple of of questions.

Uh the first being drainage, which during the previous meeting was addressed, but I still have a question.

A few years ago I remember a rain one day that flooded North Merlin to the point that there was a car stalled and actually a water rescue to an individual coming off of that.

Uh during that rain, I had water coming down locust street hard enough that it came up into my driveway between eight and ten feet into the driveway.

I had a river coming through the backyard.

But my basement was dry.

Okay.

Today, if we get a hard two to three inch rain, I have basically a river coming through the backyard, but my basement stays dry.

Uh this project is re-diverting the natural flow of water.

Uh I'm sure that I was told at the meeting there was going to be a lot of groundwork done to make sure that that water moves as it should.

But I guess my question being if once that's done it rains and I get water in my basement, who do I come to for help for the forest first time in 40 years?

Uh the second thought that I would have.

I think we'll all agree the internet, you can find anything you want.

It's either going to increase the property values or it's going to decrease the property values.

Just depending on which article you catch.

But I think there may be a reasonable consensus that a four-story apartment complex right there will very potentially take 10, 20, 30 percent of the market out.

Meaning people that would turn on locusts to come in and possibly look at my home when it comes for sale.

They're gonna see that apartment complex and just keep on driving.

That may not show up in my yearly tax statement, but it's going to reduce potential buyers that come onto that property, and that reduces the value of the property.

Thank you.

Thank you, Gerald.

I will now entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

Thank you, Commissioner Breen.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Brown.

All commissioners in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay.

The public hearing is now closed.

Um is there any other uh additional discussion needed from this side?

Commissioners.

Ms.

Shular, um, if you could uh take the podium just for a moment.

Uh since we're actually revising a uh an existing um amen policy here, I want to uh ask a question because I know there's a lot of concerns the public have about traffic and apartments.

Does that does that really come under the purview of what we're looking at tonight?

Um not exactly.

The the mixed use development and the retail parcel are permitted by right within this district.

It is allowed in this district.

Um so we're really not opening the conversation about uses as much as the existing stipulations that we're modifying and the elements of the site plan um that's before us tonight.

Okay.

Along that Commissioner Breen.

Same line, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um talk about some of the the building height um the permitted use within that.

I I think I read somewhere as 12 stories that's allowable.

This is only four.

Yeah.

So CP2 district is a data district in our code, and it does actually allow a pretty um large uh height on 12 stories and 144 feet, which is not what we are recommending here.

We don't think that would be appropriate here.

Um, and is why we have included a stipulation in our recommendation to limit those heights to what you've seen here.

Um as our applicant mentioned, staff worked um a lot with the applicant to get these heights to where they are.

I think it originally came in five stories, a very modern design, and that character of the neighborhood is something that we really worked hard on to create something that's a transition.

And so you have the three stories on the back.

Three stories is really not uncommon for single family residential.

You have um two-story houses with a third-story walkout basement all over Oletha, you know, that backs up to other houses to the fronts of other houses.

So um we thought three stories was uh very appropriate, and obviously transitioning up to that four-story that um provides the density needed to make this kind of project um workable for our applicants.

So um so yes, to answer your question, you know, we we modified those heights throughout the process and got to something we could be comfortable with and comfortable stipulating.

Okay.

Thank you.

Is there any additional discussion?

Commissioner Chapman.

Thank you, Chair.

So uh to follow up on uh Chairman Janner's uh question here.

It is an approval of the zoning amendment and the preliminary site development.

Is that that is correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

And I I will say this, the the comment I have is when I saw what is being proposed in lot one, that seems to make sense with that current development there at Heritage Square.

I will admit that I was surprised to see a three and four-story apartment complex on lot two.

It just it just seems out of place there to me.

Uh however, I realize that under the current zoning, it is allowed.

Um it's something I guess perhaps maybe council will have to deal with down the road, but uh it just seems very interesting that uh it's sort of uh it's gonna stick up.

There's no doubt about that.

And I have traveled 151st in Merlin uh at rush hour, and I will uh admit it is it's it's it's a nightmare there.

Uh and I guess maybe for staff here, is there are there any plans that we have to do any type of modification uh on 150 person Merlin with regards to street design, uh street enhancements, street widening, anything like that?

Uh Chet Belcher, Chief Community Development Officer.

There's nothing in the five-year CIP here, but I will say there are geometric improvements completed when about the same time Southern owners uh uh redeveloped.

Okay.

The right-of-way here is fairly narrow, so accommodating left turns throughout the corridor would be challenging.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I have sat through 151st in Merlin Light, probably two and three times to make a turn there, so I know it's going to be challenging there.

It won't get any better, that's for sure.

Okay, thank you.

Any other additional discussion?

If not, uh do I have a motion on auto item RZ 25-0014?

Mr.

Chair, I'll move to approve RZ 25-0014 as stipulated by staff.

All right.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Chapman.

Ms.

Will, take a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Toronas.

Yes.

Commissioner Chapman?

Yes.

Commissioner Breen?

Yes.

Commissioner Brown.

Uh yes.

Chair Channer.

Yes.

And you know, I will add that uh I I think there probably has not been satisfactory answer on the traffic, and I would hope the council would review that um again and see as this project moves forward that we do what we can, because yeah, I know that intersection too.

Um I don't live too far and we need to look at it.

But not enough to stop this project.

I will say yes.

Thank you.

Motion passes five to zero.

All right, so we'll move forward.

Um are there any announcements tonight?

No, none this evening.

Thanks.

Okay, well um thank you everyone for being here tonight.

This meeting is hereby adjourned.