PDF Format:

MINUTES-PC_11022015.pdfMINUTES-PC_11022015.pdf


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

SHAWNEE JUSTICE CENTER

POLICE TRAINING ROOM

5850 RENNER RD

MINUTES

November 2, 2015

7:30 P.M.


PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENTSTAFF PRESENT
Commissioner Augie BoginaPlanning Director Paul Chaffee
Commissioner Bruce BienhoffDevelopment Services Director and
Commissioner Randy Braley City Engineer Doug Wesselschmidt
Commissioner Dennis BusbyDeputy Planning Director Doug Allmon
Commissioner Doug HillPlanner Mark Zielsdorf
Commissioner Kathy PetersonAdministrative Assistant Angie Lind
Commissioner Sara Somsky
Commissioner Henry Specht
Commissioner Alan Willoughby
Commissioner Steven Wise
PLANNING COMMISSIONER(S) ABSENT
Commissioner Les Smith
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Good evening and welcome to the November 2, 2015 meeting of the Shawnee Planning Commission. We’ll start with roll call.

A. ROLL CALL

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Somsky.

COMMISSIONER SOMSKY: Here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Busby.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bogina is here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Specht.

COMMISSIONER SPECHT: Here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Smith is absent.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Hill.

COMMISSIONER HILL: Here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. If you’d please rise and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Item C is listed under the Consent Items and distributed to each member of the Planning Commission. The items conform to City requirements and staff has discussed conditions of approval with the applicant who is in agreement. These items are considered to be routine and will be enacted with one motion by the Commission with no separate discussion. If a separate discussion is requested on an item, from either the Planning Commission or from the public, that item may be removed from the Consent Items and discussed immediately following the Consent Items.

C. CONSENT ITEMS:

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Commissioner Busby.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I move for approval of the Consent Agenda subject to staff recommendations.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: I’ll second that motion.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda Item C, all in favor?

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes.


(Motion passes 10-0; Smith absent)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Item D which is:

D. NEW BUSINESS

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: The property was zoned in August of 2014 to a combination of PUDMX and PUDMR for the Cobblestone planned unit development project. Cobblestone was approved to include patio homes, senior living, apartments and office/retail space. The current property owner no longer intends to move forward with construction of that plan. With any Planned Unit Development, the property zoning is tied to the specific uses and building configurations shown on the plan. Although the newly proposed Vantage is requesting attached apartment units, the plan and configuration of buildings is different than those approved for Cobblestone. Thus, the request to rezone from PUDMR & PUDMX to PUDMR.

The applicant is requesting to rezone 28.66 acres (gross) for the construction of a mixed residential development that includes 312 apartment units in 14 buildings. Other structures shown on the plan include a clubhouse, covered parking garages, a property maintenance building, and a pool/cabana.

The majority of surrounding property in all directions is zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential) and DU (Duplex). Property to the north is zoned R-1 and developed with the City’s Civic Centre Campus that includes Pflumm-Bichelmeyer Park, the Civic Centre, the Soetaert Aquatic Center, the Veterans Tribute and Johnson County Library. Properties between Pflumm Road and the proposed development are zoned PUDMX and contain duplexes and one single family home, while properties east of Pflumm Road are developed with residential duplexes on property zoned DU. Property to the southeast is zoned R-1 and developed with a church and AT&T transmission facility. Sixty-second (62nd) Street is adjacent to the south, with properties south of 62nd Street zoned R-1 and DU and developed with single family homes and residential duplexes. A Hy-Vee grocery is located south of 62nd Street beyond the AT&T facility. With the exception of a single 1.1 acre parcel that is zoned AG, property to the west is zoned R-1 and contains homes in the Widmer Woods subdivision, two single family homes, a vacant tract of land and right-of-way for Widmer Road.

The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area as appropriate for a combination of medium density residential (MDR) and office/commercial uses to reflect the previously approved Cobblestone plan. Approximately 26.02 acres of the site are designated as medium density residential, while the remaining 2.64 acres are shown as office/commercial. The applicant is proposing a mixed residential development consisting of 312 residential dwelling units on 28.66 acres. This yields an overall density of 10.89 dwelling units per acre on both the residential and commercially designated lands. While this is slightly above the 10 dwelling unit per acre threshold suggested within the comprehensive plan, the comp plan does indicate that “apartments and condominiums will likely appear in conjunction with large scale mixed residential planned unit developments”.

Analyzing the density further, and based on the submitted plan layout, 264 units of the development are within the MDR area. This yields a density just slightly above ten (10.1) dwelling units per acre in the medium density area. The remaining 48 dwelling units are proposed to be located within the office/commercial area. In comparison to the Cobblestone plan, the multi-family use proposed here would provide a less intense use of the land than the more than 77,000 square feet of office and commercial development that was originally approved. It should also be noted that significant project amenities to include a clubhouse, pool, dog-park, trail connection and picnic areas are being provided in conjunction with the project. If this application is approved, staff recommends that the Future Land Use Guide be changed to reflect medium density uses on the entire site.

The development will be gated/fenced and will only allow access to residents and their guests. Primary access to the site is provided from Pflumm Road by a divided driveway location that is centered between 61st Street and 61st Terrace. A second full access driveway also connects to 62nd Street on the south side of the site. A traffic study of the Cobblestone development was prepared by a professional engineer that did not warrant a traffic signal at Pflumm Road. The applicant’s engineer reviewed the new proposal in terms trips generated to and from the site based on the residential density depicted on the plan. This analysis indicated that less trips to and from the site will be generated by the proposed apartment development, including peak travel times. Thus a traffic signal is not warranted or proposed on Pflumm as a result of the proposed development plan. Access is adequate for circulation and public safety purposes.

The rezoning itself should have little, if any, detrimental effect on surrounding properties. The project has gated, restricted access and is entirely surrounded by a decorative metal fence. Because of detention requirements, approximately 6 acres at the northwest corner of the site adjacent to Widmer Woods will be devoid of structures. The PUDMR zoning district also requires a peripheral boundary building setback of at least 30 feet from all property lines. Landscaping shown on the preliminary development plan provides a significant tree buffer along the west and south property lines in this peripheral setback area. As was true with previous plans approved for the site, Widmer Road will continue to terminate in a cul-de-sac in the Widmer Woods subdivision. Fire access to Widmer Woods will be provided via a gated, private fire lane that will be maintained by the development. This maintenance will include snow and ice removal from the fire lane.

Denial of the request would not appear to benefit the health and welfare of the community. This development proposal does not utilize Tax Increment Finance incentives, and provides a market-rate, luxury apartment housing option for new and existing residents of Shawnee on an infill piece of ground. Upon completion, the project will include Class A units and other improvements that will immediately be placed on the property tax roll. Also, the proposed development is compatible with the adjacent recreational uses that are within walking distance to the north including the City’s Civic Centre, aquatic center and park land, and the public county library.

The applicant proposes to construct an apartment development on 28.66 (gross) acres. The development consists of 312 apartment units in fourteen buildings. The apartment buildings will be privately owned and leased to the tenants. Buildings are three-story in design, and include a mixture of one, two and three bedroom units. The apartments range in size from 597 to 735 square feet for the one bedroom units, 960 square feet for the two bedroom/2 bath units, and 1,150 square feet for the 3 bedroom/2 bath units. To provide architectural variety within the development, four different building types have been developed.

A clubhouse and swimming pool is provided and will be available to all the residents of the development. Each apartment unit includes a reinforced interior closet so that residents will have shelter from severe weather.

All the buildings, grounds, open space, and recreation facilities will be maintained by on-site maintenance personnel. The development also includes a concierge trash pick-up service so that multiple trash enclosures are not needed throughout the complex.

Area requirements have been met. The PUDMR rezoning request contains 28.66 acres and provides land area of 4,000 square feet for each dwelling unit. All bulk requirements have been satisfied by the preliminary development plan. All structures are set back a minimum of 30 feet from the subdivision property lines, which meets the peripheral boundary setback requirements of the PUDMR zoning district. All buildings are separated by more than 20 feet as required. Height of the four building types range for 42’8” to 46’5” from finished grade to the ridge cap, and the PUDMR district allows the building height to be approved at the discretion of the Planning Commission.

A large tract will be located in the northwest corner of the project that will contain a pond to provide wet bottom detention for stormwater management of the entire site. This area will also provide aesthetic open space for the residents. The existing pond will be enlarged, re-graded and reestablished with native vegetation. This tract will be owned and maintained in perpetuity by the developer. The applicant shall revise the site development plan to provide a vehicular access gate for maintenance equipment from within the complex to the detention tract.

The plan also includes a pedestrian gate and off-site walking trail that will connect to existing trail improvements located within Pflumm-Bichelmeyer Park. This gate will allow Vantage residents a pedestrian connection to the Civic Centre Complex that includes the Civic Centre, Aquatic Center, Veteran’s Tribute and Johnson County Library. Access through this gate will be provided by a digital keypad lock.

Subject to approval of the project, the applicant has indicated all construction will be completed in a single phase, with construction beginning in March of 2016.

All the buildings will be constructed of durable building materials, including stone veneer cement lap siding, and cementous plaster stucco. Building materials exceed the Multi-Family Design Standards by placing significant amounts of masonry on all four sides of every structure (rather than simply on the front wall as mandated by policy). The applicant has provided four separate building styles with differing floor plates, roof gables and balcony configurations. To further enhance variety, two color schemes have also been developed. This allows a greater variety in architecture throughout the development.

The apartments will use stone veneer on thirty to fifty percent of all walls. The stone will be gray in color with buff mortar (Nevilstone “Austin Chalk”). Color Scheme I will consist of grayish earth tone paint colors for sided and stucco portions of the structures. Lower sided and stucco areas (predominantly on the second floor) will be darker gray (SW 7019 Gauntlet Gray), with third story siding colored lighter gray (SW 7642 “Pavestone”).

Color Scheme II will consist of tan earth tone paint colors for sided and stucco portions of the structures. Lower sided and stucco areas will be dark tan (SW 7039 Virtual Taupe), with third story siding colored light beige (SW 6149 Relaxed Khaki). The roofs of all structures will be constructed of gray composite shingles (Owens Corning “Estate Gray). All buildings will utilize interior stairwells for access and perimeter units will have private balconies. Each balcony will be protected by decorative metal railing colored black (SW 7069 Iron Ore).

The clubhouse is centrally located within the site and is single-story in design. The entry door is recessed within an alcove that includes an arched stone face and keystone treatment. This stone is carried around all four walls of the structure as a wainscot with cement stucco plaster above. The clubhouse has varied rooflines, as wells as multiple arched and rectangular window openings to enhance the architectural character of the structure.

The maintenance building and parking garages will be constructed of materials and colors to match the apartment buildings. This includes a wainscot of stone with cement stucco plaster above. White residential-style garage doors will be installed at regimented intervals to allow vehicle access.

Trash generated within the complex will be handled by a concierge pick-up service. All trash that is picked up by appointment will be delivered to a single-trash compacting machine located at the south end of the property. The trash compactor will be screened by a nine-foot tall masonry enclosure treated with stone veneer to match the apartment buildings. The landscape plan indicates a combination of Spartan upright junipers and Colorado Spruce to further soften its view from 62nd Street.

The mechanical condensing units for the apartment buildings will be ground mounted and will be screened with evergreen plant material.

The Multi-family Amenity Policy suggests that multi-family developments provide amenities as listed in the policy. The applicant is providing at least four amenities which would be expected for a development with over 200 dwelling units. These includes a clubhouse/recreation facility, a swimming pool, a connecting walking trail, a small and large breed dog park, and picnic/barbecue areas located at various places within the development. In addition to the amenities provided, the development is adjacent to and within walking distance of several public recreational amenities, including the City’s Civic Centre, Soetaert Aquatic Center, and the Johnson County Library. The amenities provided are in conformance with the intent of the multi-family amenity policy.

The plan indicates monument signage to be located in the private median of the Pflumm entrance. The location of the monument sign appears to be outside of the sight distance triangle. Site signage shall comply with requirements of SMC 5.64. Prior to construction of the monument sign, the owner shall obtain a sign permit from the Planning Department.

Landscaping shown on the submitted landscape plan meets requirements of the zoning ordinance. The plan shows a combination of large deciduous and smaller ornamental trees spread throughout the site. Shade tree sizes exceed the minimum 2 ½-inch caliper, and ornamental trees are 2 inch caliper as required by the landscape ordinance.

Based on street frontages, a total of 8 street trees are required and provided along Pflumm Road. Sixteen (16) street trees are required / provided along 62nd Street. In addition to street trees, 90 open space trees are also required to meet open space tree provisions of the ordinance. Ninety (90) trees have been provided. The number of trees provided satisfies the open space tree requirements. In total, 186 trees will be added to the site to meet street tree, parking lot and open space tree requirements. The plan also provides shrub plantings around the building foundations. Shrub species include juniper, boxwood, Spirea and lilac.

All plant sizes as indicated on the landscape plan meet the minimum requirements of the code, and all disturbed areas (excluding BMP vegetation areas) will be sodded in accordance with SMC 17.57.

For screening purposes, the plan also includes a solid row of evergreen spruce trees to buffer existing residential units located on the west side of Pflumm Road. Staggered deciduous trees have also been provided along the west property line to buffer development to the west. A five foot tall decorative metal picket fence, black in color, will be constructed around the entire perimeter of the apartment complex. The retention pond and surrounding BMP areas at the northwest corner of the site will not be fenced as part of the project.

The Cobblestone development was a mix of attached and detached senior housing, office, retail, and apartment homes. According to the traffic study prepared for Cobblestone, this resulted in a A.M. Peak hour trip generation of 213 trips (113 in, 100 out) and a P.M. peak hour trip generation of 365 trips (151 in, 214 out). No signal or geometric improvements were recommended for the study intersections, and none were required with the Cobblestone development. The proposed Vantage Apartments has 312 proposed units. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, for Apartments (Code 220) the 312 units will generate 171 trips (50 in, 121 out) in the weekday A.M. Peak hour and 202 trips (123 in, 79 out) in the weekday P.M. peak hour. Based on this reduction of trips generated by the apartment use, no signal or geometric traffic improvements are required with this development proposal.

It has been determined that Widmer Road will not carry through from the west. However, for public safety and street maintenance access, a gated access drive will be constructed between existing Widmer Road and the apartment complex

This access drive will be gated at both ends with material to match the decorative perimeter metal fence. These gates will be closed at all times except for emergency service access and street maintenance operation including snow plowing. The locking mechanism for these gates shall be installed as required by the Shawnee Fire Department. This is the same requirement that was placed on the previously approved Cobblestone development.

Apartment buildings require two parking spaces per dwelling unit be provided on site. The required number of on-site parking stalls for the 312 total units is 624 parking stalls. Submitted plans show the provision of 624 total parking stalls, including 151 carport/garage stalls and 473 surface stalls. The number of accessible stalls shown on the plan exceeds the minimum required by ADA standards.

No certificate of occupancy shall be issued until all parking lots for the complex are constructed, striped and marked with ADA signage. Parking lot light poles are not required or proposed with the development. Wall-pack lighting on the apartment buildings and clubhouse will light the facility. All wall-pack lights shall be shielded to direct light downward so the bulb/glare source is not visible.

All utilities shall be placed underground.

The street improvements required for this development shall be designed in accordance with the standards of the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, Division 2200 Streets, as specifically shown on Table 2205-1 and all applicable Standard Details.

The conceptual street layout shown for this development on the preliminary development plan is generally acceptable although the following design issues and any additional issues discovered during the review of the street improvement plans must be resolved prior to the issuance of a public improvement permit:

Since at least 1978, the City’s Land Use Guide and Circulation Plan had shown the improvement of Widmer Road between Johnson Drive and 63rd Street as a (minor) collector street until discussions related to the formerly proposed Cobblestone projects. When Mill Creek, Timber Oaks, and Widmer Woods subdivisions were developed, Widmer Road was improved as a 31-foot wide collector. Although the south end of the street in Widmer Woods is currently improved with a temporary turnaround, the subdivision was platted for the eventual extension of the street to 62nd Street.

Widmer south of Johnson Drive ends in a temporary turnaround. This development is not being required to make this temporary turnaround a permanent cul-de-sac. This still provides for the future extensions of Widmer to accommodate additional development.

While this proposed development is not being required to extend Widmer, there is a requirement for this development to provide 30-feet of right-of-way.

Since Widmer Road will not be extended at this time, this will create a situation in Timber Oaks and Widmer Woods subdivisions where 45 existing single-family dwellings and potential two more future dwellings will be permanently accessed by a single street, which exceeds the maximum number of dwelling units (30) permitted by the regulations set forth in Appendix D, International Fire Code, 2012 Edition. To correct the situation, the applicant is proposing to construct a private fire apparatus access road to connect the Widmer Road temporary turnaround to the internal drive aisle at the northwest corner of the proposed development. The access drive will be constructed in accordance with the International Fire Code and the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, which will include two security gates with Knox-Boxes at the entrances to the road. The applicant will be responsible for maintaining the access road, including snow and ice removal. This is the same requirement imposed on the previously approved plan

As noted above, 62nd Street and Widmer Road to the south are classified as minor residential collectors. The applicant is responsible for improving the north “half” of 62nd Street, adjoining the development, to minor residential collector standards as is typically required of all subdivision developments. The City is considering funding options to improve the south “half” of 62nd street and the remaining portions of the north and south half east of this development. However, at this time the timeframe and funding source for those improvements has not been finalized.

The applicant is responsible for taking core samples of the existing asphalt pavement to determine its depth. The results from samples will determine the extent of the street improvement that will be required; whether pavement will need to be removed and replaced or whether an asphalt overlay will be sufficient to achieve a minimum pavement thickness of 9 inches.

The sidewalk shall be extended along the north side of the street.

Streetlights shall be installed adjacent to the development, replacing the existing leased streetlights along the south side of the street.

There are no public streets interior to this development. All travel lanes are considered private drive aisles and therefore do not have to be designed to City street standards. However, the applicant is responsible to taking in to account ADA access when designing the drive aisles. Additionally, the applicant is responsible for providing a sidewalk connection from the site to the adjacent public streets. All sidewalk improvements shall be ADA compliant. Final locations shall be determined when the final street improvement plans are reviewed and locations may change as conditions dictate.

The applicant is responsible for installing all traffic control signs required for the project as determined by the City Transportation Manager, and for paying for city-installed street name signs prior to the issuance of a public improvement permit for constructing the streets.

The applicant is responsible for submitting street improvement plans to Development Services for review and acceptance prior to preparing the signature copies of the final plat. The design issues discussed above and any additional issues discovered during the review of the street plans must be resolved prior to the issuance of a public improvement permit.

This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.16, Stormwater Treatment, which pertains to the implementation of Stormwater Treatment Facilities. The applicant is proposing the use of an existing on-site pond as the main source of stormwater treatment. The pond will be retrofitted as needed to meet the requirements of a wet detention basin as required by the APWA BMP Manual. In addition to the pond, native grasses will be planted and/or restored, and a large proprietary unit will be installed to pre-treat the run-off before it enters the pond. The applicant will be allowed to receive stormwater treatment credit for treating off-site runoff that will be routed through the pond. The off-site runoff will be generated by the Shawnee Civic Campus. Although off-site runoff will be treated by the pond, the applicant will solely be responsible for the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of the stormwater treatment facilities.

The public street lighting system required for this development shall be designed in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, Division 2500 Traffic Devices.

The applicant is responsible for submitting streetlight improvement plans to the City for review and acceptance prior to preparing the signature copies of the revised final plat.

A public improvement permit for the streetlight improvements must be obtained concurrent with a permit for the street improvements.

All power feed coordination, and associated hook up costs are the sole responsibility of the contractor.

The storm drainage improvements required for this development shall be designed in accordance with Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, Division 2300 Storm Drainage.

The enclosed and open components of the drainage system must be designed to convey the stormwater runoff from a 10 percent chance (10-year return period) storm.

All overflow components must be designed to convey the runoff from a 1 percent annual chance (100-year return period) storm.

The applicant has submitted a preliminary storm drainage study showing a conceptual grading plan, a drainage system, a drainage area map, and a drainage table summarizing the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for this development. The study is substantially complete and adequate for the purposes of reviewing the preliminary development plan. The following design issues were noted:

A complete hydrologic and hydraulic drainage table will need to be prepared according to the standards of the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual for the storm drainage improvement plans and the individual site civil plans.

In addition to the storm drainage plans, plan and profile sheets for all proposed public and private storm sewers must be included as part of the final storm drainage plans prepared for the individual site civil plans.

The applicant is required to provide adequate drainage for the improvements on 62nd Street. The conceptual plan for the improvements is sufficient; however, the final design will be determined when the final storm improvement plans are prepared.

The channel located downstream of the proposed detention basin appears to be undersized based on field survey information obtained by the engineer of record. As part of the final design, the applicant will be required to address these downstream inadequacies. The applicant is proposing the installation of an enclosed system to adequately route the controlled released run-off from the detention basin. This will involve off-site improvements at the rear of 5 lots located downstream. The proposed system is sufficient for the review of these preliminary plans; however, as part of the final plan preparation revisions might be required.

The applicant is responsible for providing public drainage easements for any portion of the public storm system that is located outside of a public street right-of-way. The drainage easements will be recorded as part of the final plat for this development.

The applicant is responsible for submitting final storm drainage plans as an integral part of the site civil plans. The design issues discussed above and any additional issues discovered during the review of the storm drainage improvement plans and the individual site civil plans must be resolved prior to the issuance of a public improvement permit or a building permit.

This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.24, Stormwater Detention, which pertains to the construction and maintenance of on-site stormwater detention facilities.

The applicant has submitted a preliminary stormwater detention study showing a conceptual layout of the detention facility, a drainage area map, and estimated storage volumes and allowable release rates. The preliminary study is substantially complete and adequate for reviewing the development although the any design issues discovered during the review of the final stormwater detention plan must be resolved prior to the approval of storm drainage improvement plans submitted for a building permit.

A majority of the development will be routed to a detention facility located at the northwest corner of the development site. Due to grade and drainage patterns, a small portion of the site will be directly released. The applicant will be required to over-detain the run-off routed through the basin to ensure the cumulative post-development release rate does not exceed the cumulative pre-development release rate.

An as-built plan certified by the engineer of record must be submitted for the stormwater detention facility prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any commercial or residential building. The as-built plan shall be prepared in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual.

This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.08, Stormwater Management, which pertains to the City’s stormwater utility regulations.

The applicant is responsible for preparing an impervious area plan in accordance with Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, Division 2300, Storm Drainage, using coordinates based in the Kansas North State Plane Coordinate System of 1983, North Zone (NAD-83). The plan must accurately depict the limits of all parcels that comprise the development site and indicate the applicable Johnson County parcel identification numbers. Use crosshatching for existing impervious areas and halftone shading for proposed impervious areas. All existing and proposed impervious areas must be summarized in a table by parcel number including the proposed total impervious area per each parcel.

The applicant is responsible for submitting the impervious area plan as an integral part of the site civil plans for review and acceptance by the Development Engineer. Once the plan is accepted, the applicant is responsible for submitting a separate printed copy and an electronic copy in AutoCADİ format prior to the issuance of a building permit.

This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.20, Land Disturbance Activity, which pertains to site grading and erosion control measures.

The applicant (landowner) is responsible for obtaining a land disturbance permit as required by Codes Administration Division prior to undertaking any land disturbance or construction activities on the development site.

Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit for development sites greater than one acre, the applicant is responsible for submitting separate land disturbance plans for review and acceptance by Code Administration Division. The site grading and erosion control measures depicted on those plans must be prepared in accordance with SMC, Chapter 15.04, International Building Code, the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and all other applicable policies statements and administrative rules.

The applicant is responsible for submitting a site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared in accordance with SMC, Chapter 15.04, International Building Code, the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and in compliance with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) General Permit for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) program for stormwater runoff from construction activities.

For development sites greater than one acre, the applicant is responsible for submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) for Storm Water Runoff from Construction Activities and obtaining such permits as required by KDHE prior to undertaking any land disturbance or construction activities on the development site. The applicant must submit to the City a copy of the NOI prior to the issuance by the City of a Land Disturbance Permit for the development site.

The applicant is responsible for obtaining such permits as may be required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for grading activities covered by Section 401 (Water Quality Certification), Section 402 (Wetlands), and Section 404 (Waters of the United States) of the Clean Water Act.

This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 12.26, Excise Tax on Platting Real Property.

The east of this development is adjacent to Pflumm Road, which is a designated minor arterial. As such, Pflumm Road is classified as a major street. Therefore, the right-of-way for this street will not be included in the excise fee calculation. The total acreage of the Pflumm Road right-of-way adjacent to this development is roughly 13,605.9 square feet.

Pflumm Road was not part of a benefit district when it was constructed; therefore, there are no benefit district credits available for this project.

The applicant is required to improve 62nd Street; however, since it is not classified as a major street, those improvements are not eligible for credit against the excise tax.

The estimated excise tax for this development is $265,487.09 calculated based on an area of roughly 1,234,823.7 square feet, at the current rate of $0.215 per square foot.

The excise tax is due prior to obtaining the Mayor’s signature on the signature copy of the final plat. The final calculation of excise tax will be figured using the excise tax rate in effect at the time final plat is recorded. However, the development is currently eligible, with the consideration of the preliminary development plan, to enter into a development agreement with the City whereby the excise tax maybe suspended, subject to certain conditions set forth in the agreement.

The applicant is responsible for scheduling a pre-design meeting with the Development Engineer prior to preparing the subdivision improvement plans and the individual site civil plans. The final plans for this development must be submitted for review and acceptance by the City prior to the issuance of a public improvement permit or building permit.

All private and public improvements for this development shall be constructed according to the applicable standards in the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. A public improvement permit will be required for all public street, storm, and streetlight improvements.

The applicant is required to provide construction phasing plans for the development. Additionally, the applicant is required to provide traffic control and signage during construction. Detailed traffic control plans are required to be prepared. The plans need to ensure that access is provided to all businesses and residences impacted during the construction of this development. Additionally, the plans need to ensure that emergency personal can access all existing businesses and residences at all times.

All fire hydrants, fire lanes, and fire suppression equipment shall be installed as required by the Fire Department.

This subdivision is subject to the provisions of Shawnee Municipal Code (SMC) 12.14, Park and Recreational Land Use Fund. Open space fees in the amount of $400 per residential unit ($124,800), or the open space fee rate in effect at the time the final plat is recorded, shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit, as provided by SMC 12.14.

No building permits for the project shall be issued until a final subdivision plat has been approved by the City and recorded at the Johnson County office of Records and Tax Administration. The applicant is responsible for submitting a computation plat with the recording copies of the final plat. The computation plat must show the bearings and lengths of all lines, and the individual area, in square feet, of all lots, open space tracts, and right-of-ways, and the centerline miles of all newly dedicated streets. The County Engineer now requires all points on a plat to be based on the Kansas State Plane Coordinate System of 1983, North Zone (NAD-83).

Staff is supportive of the project and the efforts the developer has made in creating a quality infill residential development consisting of luxury, Class-A apartments. Staff recommends approval of PUD-01-15-11, preliminary development plan and rezoning from PUDMX(Planned Unit Development Mixed Use) and PUDMR (Planned Unit Development Mixed Residential) to PUDMR (Planned Unit Development Mixed Residential for Vantage at Shawnee, a 312 unit apartment complex located approximately within the 6000 to 6100 Block of Pflumm Road, subject to the following conditions:


That concludes our report.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you, Doug. Is the applicant present?

APPLICANT: Good evening. Thank you, Planning Commission. I appreciate your time this evening. I am Dominic Vaccaro with America First Real Estate Group, on behalf of the project. We held… one item Doug didn’t mention in the comprehensive report on our project, another item I’d like to bring to your attention is we did on September 30, we held a neighborhood meeting with, I recognize many folks here this evening in the room here tonight, so I appreciate their time coming on September 30 as well as this evening to discuss the back ground behind our project. Our firm is an experienced owner, developer, manager of apartment communities nationally. As a long-term owner, our interest is long-term ownership and management of the communities in which we get involved, we’re not here to build something and sell it right away upon completion. A few highlights of the project, many of which Doug covered earlier is 312 units, class A, market rate apartment community constructed on the 28 acre site; again, the property will be gated; we have our primary location ingress and egress is off of Pflumm with the secondary ingress and egress off of 62nd St.; we are proposing an emergency access connector up to Widmer, again being the only use in cases of emergency; we are proposing a mix of one, two, and three bedroom units with a total of four different building types; two color scheme variations that provide architectural interest and variety throughout the site; we are proposing a number of amenities including a clubhouse/pool and walking trail, dog parks, things of that nature just for the residential community. In addition to myself, representatives from Schlegel and Associates, our civil engineers are here with us this evening, as well as our on-site construction developer representative to answer any questions the Commission may have.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you and just for the record, could you give us your address please?

MR. VACCARO: Sure, our address is 1004 Farnam St., suite 400, Omaha, NE 68102.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you and have you read the staff report?

MR. VACCARO: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Are you in agreement with staff’s recommendations?

MR. VACCARO: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Does the Commission have any questions for the staff or the applicant? Commissioner Hill.

COMMISSIONER HILL: Just for my clarification, what defines a class A, market rate apartment compared to any other apartment?

MR. VACCARO: I’ll go ahead and reference back to our September 30 neighborhood meeting where a lot of questions raised regarding if this was going to be a low income housing project, is this going to be a section 8 housing project and the answer to that question is no. There are not any rental restrictions, we as developer’s on this project are not receiving any rental, or excuse me, any incentives or assistance through affordability set asides for this project; things of that nature. Aside from the affordability restrictions that are not present in our project, that make it market rate, I think the presence of the amenities, the size, the layout of the project, the number of parking stalls that are provided; we are providing a mix of types of parking arrangements/amenities/finishes, those are the types of things that we look at in evaluating, the age, the condition, when evaluating something that is market rate; another term that we use a lot is institutional grade apartment community and this is something, again that we found are the types of amenities that we’re providing that are important to us for owning something in our portfolio for long-term value.

COMMISSIONER HILL: So, in the package I didn’t see anything specific to the floor plans so I’m just trying to understand if there is something specific to the interior of these apartments to make them a class A apartment?

MR. VACCARO: The new construction, they’ll have, you know, we do not in our units have granite countertops, but will have a higher-end laminate countertop; and we do black appliances, there’s different types of appliances that go in and out of favor over time but we’ve found to be marketable; our unit sizes tend to be a little bit smaller than perhaps some other communities product; I think you might find, we feel that the niche we fill in a community that allows us to bring our absolute dollar rents in; were slightly under a lot of our competition and it’s proven to be successful, or successful in the past; but outside of the unit are the things that we really focus on, again are the amenities, the on-site service, staffing, concierge trash pickup, we believe in the value of that amenity for our residents as well.

COMMISSIONER HILL: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Does the Commission have any other questions for the staff or the applicant? Commissioner Busby.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Question for you, where is the dog park at? I seem to be able to find.

MR. VACCARO: It’s right…

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: And you have basically a trail going around the park, could you point that out for me as well?

MR. VACCARO: We have our trail right here and across here.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: The one area is where the gas lines are running underneath is that correct?

MR. VACCARO: That is correct. You know, to clarify…

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I have a question about the meeting, the neighborhood meeting, my, I dug into that a little bit and found out that the room in the Civic Centre was rented out on September 11 in the letter to the neighboring residents was dated the 23rd and some, maybe all, didn’t receive it until the 28th, which was two days before the meeting.

(Inaudible)

…that’s not the idea of a neighborhood meeting when you only have two days, you know, to say okay I can be there or I can’t be there.

MR. VACCARO: I think that, I can’t speak for when mail is received… we worked to get the mail, the notifications mailed out a week in advance of the meeting…

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: It was dated the 23rd but the people that I talk to, not very many people got it, you know, until the 28th.

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I got one here postmarked the 24th and I didn’t receive it…

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Hey, this is not the public discussion part. Commissioner Willoughby do you have something else?

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I do. Can you tell me what percentage of America First properties are section 8?

MR. VACCARO: Of the total properties in our portfolio, I would say roughly, probably half of our units are some form of section 8. It would be a small percentage of that would be project based section 8. We do, we develop affordable housing where we do accept section 8 housing vouchers for rents. That is, we develop all kinds of housing; we develop urban housing; high end department communities; we develop suburban garden style communities, such as this; market rate as we’re proposing here; we’ve developed some senior housing; we’ve developed student housing; we’ve developed military housing; as well as the affordable housing types that I mentioned. So, we develop all forms of multifamily type housing but that doesn’t mean that attributes of one project type carryover from location to location. This project, we are solely proposing as a market rate apartment.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Okay, well…

(Inaudible)

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I got one other thing.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: As far as the pond is concerned, the retention facility, this question is kinda for staff, so what if this pond area was twice the size, it six or 7 acres now, but what if it was 14 acres, then I mean, then this ground is all figured into the density, okay, and so if it was twice the size all that ground would still be figured in the density calculation, but I mean, you could cram it closer together and my point is to staff, how do you, you know, how does that figure it? How does that all work?

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Doug.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: The density is calculated on the gross acreage, so the pond area, the open space tract, is counted in. Really, density figure is used for traffic and obviously that land is not generating traffic, so it would be counted in the density guide.

(Inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yes, a question for the developer, you are proposing a market rate project, but what assurances or what (Inaudible) are there to ensure that the market rate project, have because of conditions we don’t, you know, the apartments are smaller and not as desirable but we have to fill them up so we go for these other strategies to occupy them?

MR. VACCARO: The price points that we are proposing for this project, for example, a one bedroom unit we would be renting in the neighborhood of $750 for smallest to $900 for largest; two bedroom units in excess of $1100; in three bedrooms in excess of $1300. Our long-term investment focus in this project is to make it a successful project; we’d be $200 to $300 per unit less than what we are targeting for this project so I think that our financial interests are perfectly in line with those (Inaudible) as a market rate community (Inaudible) the only way we’ll get the return out of this project.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Does the Commission have any other questions? Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: As far as the pond is concerned, a fence isn’t going to go around the pond, so how are we going to control, or is there going to be any control of who goes to the pond, you know, who grabs their cooler and, you know, walks down to the pond sits there and drinks beer, you know, and howls at the moon?

(Inaudible)

MR. VACCARO: …I think our assessment is that the conditions that we are proposing regarding that specific point are really no different than what’s there today and were not proposing fenced access, at least from the north, to the site. Access will be difficult. I think the one we’re doing that will improve this condition is by having professional staff staffing activity around their community but that’s something we will share that same concern and will have our staff overseeing and of course we can’t be there 24/7, but we can work collectively to prevent that type of (Inaudible) or becoming a nuisance because we certainly don’t want that on the market spectrum.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Hill.

COMMISSIONER HILL: Just a couple of questions. Have you got a target competitor or another complex in the area that you intend to align with or compete with or/and, in the second half of the question, do you have any other developments immediately in this area that your company has?

MR. VACCARO: Sure. As we look, we see ourselves as a little bit being unique in our proximity; we’ve earmarked a lot of new family communities being built. We see Tuck-a-way as a competitor, Hampton Woods as a competitor, well I think we are going to be at a different price point a lot of times what we find in our industry is, well just certain types of residents in an apartment community as a competitor, we also view other communities as partners to try and, you know, provide quality products. We realize permit communities are built to different niches, offer different amenities, different locations, so I just want to be clear that on one end when calling someone a partner or excuse me a competitor, it might be that we are referring residents to those communities on another day and were competing on… We might be competing on one day and referring residents on another; if we really want to get into it, where participant in the multifamily community. To answer your second question, we today, own one property in the Kansas City metropolitan area, it’s called Walnut Tower Apartments in downtown Kansas City, it’s a property we acquired I want to say two years ago; it’s not one that we developed from the ground up; it’s a community that’s been recently renovated and we acquired it but similar to this style; we do not have anything today in the local area that fits exactly with the times that of the development here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Busby.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, question for staff for clarification so that I’m not, make sure I’m exactly right on this, on this density the acreage with where the retention pond is considered part of the density, correct?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Yes. Just like on any residential development.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: On any residential whether it be single-family...

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Yes.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Multi-use…

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Yes.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Okay. And, do I remember correctly that the notes say that we’re at borderline or actually a little bit above density?
DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Just slightly above what’s suggested by the
Comprehensive Plan.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Suggested only. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Question for the staff. Paul, back to my previous question, could you help me understand relative to what the City’s role is to target rent or rent rates? Is there a… there seems to be a lot of concern about certain types of rentals and rates.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I don’t know that I have an answer for that. (Inaudible) Obviously we take the developer at their word; we’re not really assessing whether or not this is affordable housing type project; it’s really not something that’s, quite frankly, the Planning Commission’s per-view in some cases.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: That’s what I thought; I just wanted to make sure; nothing else.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Thank you, sir. I understand that several years ago there was a project that had put apartments on the 28 acres on the west side of this plat that was rejected because of supposedly the neighborhood residents, you know, stood up and said, you know, we don’t want this and so I’m kind of concerned about what’s different now between then and now.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: First of all, there was no project 20 years ago that was taken to the Planning Commission for their review and approval; secondly, there was a plan for the Cobblestone Development that did go through the beginnings of a TIF project, that project never made it rezoning and never made it to any type of approval; the project that you did see come through, came through early last year and was approved by the Planning Commission and has since been abandoned by the developer of the property. So, the Planning Commission did not see any plan years ago, and there probably were some staff discussions, it was much more dense than what we’re taking a look at today, but it go through the process.

(Inaudible)

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: That’s not what, that’s not the information I received. And, it wasn’t 20 years ago; it was on the 20 acres, you know, that didn’t include the Bichelmeyer house.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Correct and to my knowledge we heard the same it when we went back to refresh our memories there’s, we don’t find anything that was submitted to the Planning Commission.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I have a question for staff and perhaps the developer. What are the specific parameters for the needing of a traffic signal, and I’m not proposing that we do that, it’s just, that seems like a large difference in traffic to that area and is there a specific guideline that says this much traffic requires a stop light and this much traffic does not; or are we even close to the line? Educate me, please.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR AND CITY ENGINEER WESSELSCHMIDT: Yeah, there is a specific guideline, it’s called the Manual of Uniform Traffic Devices (MUTD) that’s put out by the Federal Highway Department that indicates what the warrants for traffic signal are and it basically involves traffic volumes and in most cases whether 24 hour traffic volume or peak hour traffic volumes based on the traffic counts from the previous project that was, had more traffic generated because it had some commercial elements to it. Based on that traffic study it did not warrant a traffic study, I mean a traffic signal on Pflumm Road; this project, comparing that it rates less traffic therefore the conclusion would be that this project, along with existing traffic would not warrant a traffic signal.

(Inaudible)

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR AND CITY ENGINEER WESSELSCHMIDT: One more thing, for the City to install a traffic signal or for a developer to install a traffic signal, it has to meet one of the warrants in the MUTD.

(Inaudible)

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: So, if this was to expand for some reason, would that be the responsibility of the City or the developer to put in that traffic signal?

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR AND CITY ENGINEER WESSELSCHMIDT: It could be either one.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: But, under this current plan it would end up being a City if it wasn’t approved prior to, is that correct?

(Inaudible)

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Just to answer your question, if this project were to expand in anyway or change from what they’re proposing it would require a rezoning and it would require another public hearing if you met the thresholds and part of that condition of approval and again this is what if’s, but there would be conditions of any warranted traffic improvements would be the responsibility of the developer in conjunction with that rezoning.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Thank you Doug for that clarification, I appreciate it.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there any other questions for the staff or… Commissioner Busby.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the applicant, I’m a little disappointed at seeing that it’s really the minimum amount of covered stalls or garages there. Is there a way could you add more covered parking stalls and garages?

MR. VACCARO: I think, to clarify, I don’t believe there’s a minimum for covered stalls with requirement but we’ve provided the required number of parking stalls in the aggregate and I don’t believe there to be any minimum threshold for covered stalls. I think the number that we propose is consistent with what you would see from demand in the past and I think it’s 124 stalls that we are proposing to be covered in excess of any minimum type of requirements whatsoever.

(Inaudible)

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Just to clarify, yes, off-street parking is surfaced parking; it is garage parking; there is no requirement that any garages be provided; they came in the mix that they felt fit their model and staff is comfortable layout; to even refine metal further, it gets tricky rape at the scratches in and interior complex because we have large fire trucks with apparatus that overhang in front of the truck and in some cases when you put a garage there they can’t make the turn, so that was also part of the consideration as well.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Question for the applicant. If you researched options to reduce the density below the 10 units per acre, I mean, you may not be able to give an answer I realize that because there’s a balance on rental verses that but do you have any options, for example taking out one or two buildings to get down below that requirement?

MR. VACCARO: That is something we did not study to this point. We certainly, our economics the size of the land, in terms of suburban type apartment communities, I think this project on our end is already on the lower end of density. Typically, and I’m not positive, but we don’t move anything below 14 units per acre; these days probably 16 or 17 units per acre, so we already see this as being a fairly low dense, excuse me very low dense, low density multifamily community so our preference would not be, at this point, to lower that number.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: I just have one quick thing. If there is a phasing, or is this intended to be phased, and if so, how would you do so?

MR. VACCARO: The construction sequence would start at the clubhouse and work out from there but it is not intended to be, it will be sequenced construction but it is planned to be built out as one phase; were not building 200 units and coming back with 112 units two years later; were planning to construct the whole thing in a sequential order for the entire project.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay, thank you. Does the Commission have any other questions for the staff or the applicant? Thank you. This would be in the public speaking area now. If you wish to make a comment, you would direct it to the Commission or staff and not to the applicant; you would identify yourself with your name and address for the record and we would try not to be, we have a timeframe, but we try not to be redundant so that everybody gets a chance to say something and hopefully if you did want to just echo someone’s comments then you would just do so quickly. So, does anyone wish to speak in the public meeting section? Yes sir.

(Inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: You should be at the microphones we can hear you well.

Staff/Chairman discussion regarding microphone connectivity.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Does this one work? Okay my name is Joe Budenbender, I live at (address omitted from record) I’m adjacent to the west side of this project and I’m not in sales, I can’t dance around some of these questions but Commissioner Bienhhoff, I really didn’t clearly get a good answer to your question and just an explanation as to assurances that this would be a chapter or low income housing development or anything. Did you hear anything that satisfied your interest in it?

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yeah, what I heard was there were no restrictions and I heard further clarification was that the City really didn’t put any restrictions on this…

MR. BUDENBENDER: I thought you had asked for assurances that that would happen.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: And I didn’t hear any.

MR. BUDENBENDER: Okay, thank you. That’s one of the first things and then this looks nothing like the Cobblestone project, I believe, that was supposedly, or was approved… You know, there were 67 or so outlying homes originally around the perimeter of this thing and three, I believe, high-rise four-story buildings… this is a very high, this is not low density, this is a high density project; 312 projects, homes, homes in this area is quite a few I think. But, I’m not on staff and I don’t know the requirement that is for low density but this seems really high for area. Plus, they have two parking spaces per unit and most of these people are both going to work so if it’s a family or a husband and a wife that will take up those two spots and if they have a roommate or another family member that’s gonna drive the car portion of this thing well into 900 cars in that area. I’ve heard numbers as low as three and four and I’m not buying. I mean, I’m sure that a traffic light is going to be needed if not cause more problems with the children that we have in the area. I don’t want to see the traffic for one; there’s gonna be way more traffic than what we’ve been told on this because there’s, you know, a fine, a minimum of two parking spots per unit is just going to cover a family of a husband and a wife living there and these are smaller places, like I said, there’s no guarantee that this is not going to go into a low income development of which they have half of their projects are in so they’re well-versed in that.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you.

MR. BUDENBENDER: So I’m… That’s all I had.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Anyone else? Yes.

PUBLIC COMMENT: My name is Melissa Nachbar, and I apologize I have a cold that…I live at (address omitted from record) I am also west of this development and to echo Joe, we are very concerned. We’re talking about a two block area between Johnson Drive and Shawnee Mission Parkway with one main entrance on Pflumm with a smaller entrance on 62nd. You’re going to drive people out the smaller entrance because they’re not going to be able to get out on Pflumm. They’re going to go through our residential neighborhoods. The streets can’t handle that. We already have cars parked on the street; they’re more narrow streets; they’re winding through there, if you’ve not driven through there. They are going to cut through HyVee parking lot. It’s going to be terrible. We already have section 8 housing to our south; we have section 8 south of, to our west. Broken Arrow Elementary school is now a title I school, that means there are more children receiving free and reduced lunch than not. This is a concern. There is no guarantee. Every development and Shawnee is beautiful when they first built it, we know that. There’s no guarantee that this will remain a beautiful development gates or no gates. Over time it diminishes. I’ve lived in Shawnee all of my life and I’ve seen it. We want progress; we want something nice on property; we would like to have villas like on Mauer Road or townhomes that are over on like Lakeview; something that people will buy into; maintain their property and keep our properties at value. That’s what we hope for. We hope that you will not rezone this for apartments. This density is not appropriate for it. We already have enough apartments in our surrounding area. It has already hurt our elementary school…

(Inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Yes sir.

PUBLIC COMMENT: May I use the other light and may I use the projection?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Sure.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: I’m sure somebody can help you. Doug, could you help him?

(Inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: This is our first night in this space so where a little bit rusty…

(Inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Bear with us.

(Inaudible)

PUBLIC COMMENT: Good evening, I’m Roger Chalk. My wife Janet and I live at (address omitted from record). I appreciate this opportunity to express views about the proposed zoning change in the proposed Vantage Apartment development. Now I want to say at the very beginning that any comments that I make are not to be taken personal by anyone. I will be addressing several items in your proposal before you and I am not attacking whoever wrote them.

(Inaudible)

MR. CHALK: I’m also getting, were starting off with America First real estate as we mentioned earlier, bad timing on their letter about a meeting to discuss a plan development, it arrived two days late before the meeting and it started (Inaudible) there were pieces of information that were conflicted. The letter said there were 26.5 acres an hour up to 28.66. In a direct question that I asked the answer was that there was no change in the zoning on this property, well, here we are. Now, referring to the proposal as it appears on the agenda that I’m sure all of the Planning Commissioners have and I’ve printed off of the computer for this evening I refer to page 5 of that agenda and item number two which I have kind of outlined here at the bottom of what I have up on the projection. It says that the surrounding property is mostly single-family residential, I assure you and by the looks of the crowd this evening which I am super happy is here, these families do not want apartments or the density of population dramatically increases the level of traffic, levels of noise, and levels of safety. There is a major concern that while not at first but as has happened to other apartment complexes in a relatively close proximity subsidized or voucher housing and some of the other problems that it brings. Excuse me I’m a little nervous, well maybe. On page 6, item 3, a mixed residential development consisting of 312 units on 28.66 acres, we’ve been discussing that right here on this rezoning, I’ll cut to the chase a little quicker… When you subtract 6 acres from the 28.66, the density is 13.77 not 10.89. 13.77 exceeds the dwelling unit suggested, I may be blowing smoke now since we had some other answers here on this but anyway I still think it’s high density area. I made a snide comment here and maybe I’ll go ahead and read it, please forgive me. That exceeds the 10 dwelling unit threshold suggested within the Comprehensive Plan of the City that they like to quote and somewhat follow. But amazingly in the last sentence of item 3 this staff recommends that the Future Land Use Guide can be changed so that the density of this project fits guidelines. Item 4 page 7 and trips to and from the site. I am not a traffic engineer; 312 apartments, 624 parking spaces with younger people running in older people needing elevators for second and third floor, of course they won’t be there, candy cane at least 500 cars, we heard other numbers. Even with only the north side of 62nd being curbed, and don’t forget the ditch that’s on the south side, and a sidewalk installed, were not gonna have a light on Pflumm nor left turn lanes, access is not adequate for circulation and public safety purposes. We need to think of this increased volume of cars that go south on Widmer between 62nd going south. To process, to proceed across 63rd St. on Widmer is hazardous at the least. You’ve got a tree blocking the site to the east and from the west cars are exceeding the speed limit as they come over the whole top in less than a half a block to the intersection. If you manage to survive that then you can tackle getting on to Shawnee Mission Parkway. Good luck taking a left turn. Item 5 on page 7, the rezoning itself should have little if any detrimental effect on surrounding properties. This is almost the most inflammatory statement that’s written in the proposal.

(Inaudible)

if, you heard anything about the property values; I live adjacent to the development; my home value will decrease, as all the homes adjacent to the apartment complex have across the nation every time apartments are built into a single family environment and boy do I really feel sorry for those neighbors whose homes are on the west side of Pflumm. At least in the previous proposal of developments, they were being well compensated for their homes. Also, those of you across the street on 62nd will suffer greatly and add to their miseries; how about car lights shining in their windows from cars exiting on 62nd St. at all hours of the night. Item 6 on page 7; denial of the request would not appear to benefit the health and welfare of the community. Now, I don’t know what it means by health and welfare of the community but I sure know about welfare. Welfare means two different things. One is bringing crime to the area; another is bringing more noise and definitely much more traffic. Drainage and I hope you will speak to that sir; drainage from heavy rains is also a concern especially for the houses on Widmer down by the cul-de-sac. Item 2 on page 8; again the use of 28.66 acres for the apartment construction rezoning from (Inaudible) the amount of land used per unit 3164 not 4000 as it states. Item 11 page 10; again, I’m not a traffic engineer, I do know that the figures pulled does not always accurately apply in every situation. Case in point, I do not have city water but I have a cistern, the wastewater department said I used 67,383 gallons of water yearly because they came to my house, inspected my home and found 27 different orifices that provide water and just Janet and I live there; we’re both over 70; (Inaudible) 185 gallons a day; I installed a meter and our average per day right now is 73 gallons or 26,383 gallons a year which is 39% of the value. Okay, what’s the point? It seems to me the figures given in this item they have written here are far from reality just as my water usage was. Item 16 page 11; I’ve taken exception to this plan and on other occasions (Inaudible) the City’s Land Use Guide and Circulation Plan which in 1978 did show a connection with Widmer Road without any input or contact with me there my dad nor me. Widmer Road currently stops its right-of-way both at the north and south of our property; I’m the one that when we look at that map, maybe I’ll throw one up there in just a second; I live here; I’m the one that’s classified as agriculture, okay; that property is mine along the fence, it does not belong to the City; there is no right-of-way on it; anyway, Widmer Rd., it February, and I’m not too far from being done, so don’t (Inaudible), okay? In February 1909, a Mr. Thompson bought 40 acres that’s now, that now comprises a Timber Oaks, Widmer Road, a small part of the Mill Creek, and the property that my wife and I own. In April 1909, he asked the county and they agreed to provide a 20 foot right-of-way of road all the way on the west side of that section line as being they didn’t go on the other side because there was a hedgerow on it; the hedgerow is still there. When the Mill Creek subdivision was developed around 1974, Widmer was widened with a curb from the lot on the south corner of Widmer and 62nd St. where Mrs. (Inaudible) lives. Widmer remains a 20 foot road, one-lane gravel to my property as it did in 1909. The City Council in 2008 voted not to extend Widmer Road to vacate the east side of the right-of-way which would be on the west side of the proposed development turned out later on the really wasn’t any on the (Inaudible) anyway. In 2013 the City agreed to vacate the right-of-way on Widmer as the Cobblestone project was to become finalized; it did not become developed and I continue to pay for it. Again, I must inform the Commission that in the 70s a developer connected with the land use commission in a temporary subdivision was established; that guy drew a line from where Widmer ended at that time against the Chalk property and connected it to the south portion of Widmer; this line went through the Chalk property without any contact with neither my father nor me; the comment about additional development between the cul-de-sac and 62nd St. is really ridiculous; if you’re not familiar with the terrain in that area, you need to take my word for it, it will never happen because of the cost. There are maybe two lots up close, Mrs. Dudley’s house could possibly be developed but by the time you take a road way out for it, I don’t know that that would be (Inaudible), it would not be cost wise to be able to do that. (Inaudible) I got one more here and then I’m done. (Inaudible) okay, in the procedures they are saying that they are interested in this development providing a 30 foot right-of-way on the west side of the property which is adjacent to Widmer Road now, why; a future extension of Widmer Road? I don’t know; for what purpose? I don’t know because you can’t (Inaudible) anything down there. They have taken care of, Jerry did, (Inaudible) access so the fire department can use which this outfit is also using. Anyway, to develop that Road, is this outfit does not, good way to spend taxpayer money, huh? How many people in the audience tonight are not in favor of this? Don’t say, don’t say, I don’t want to get that (Inaudible) I know. All right, I’ve talked long enough, this development is not appropriate for the area surrounding it; major issues with possible clientele; vehicle traffic safety; and definitely not Widmer Road extension. Commissioners, deny this development, thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Yes, ma’am…and I think you can use either mic.

(Inaudible)

PUBLIC COMMENT: I have just…well, my name is Jerry Starr. I own the property (address omitted from record), one of the duplexes that backs to the park and is across from this proposed development. The previous idea did something with those duplexes and this idea does not. It seems to me it’s not a particularly beautiful idea to hide an apartment complex behind a bunch of really old duplexes, just as…my question is, what kind of master planning is taking place who decided that was a good idea? Or, was it just convenient that there was vacant ground there so let’s not plan for it, let’s just put it in behind a bunch of old duplexes. It seemed like the other one would benefit the park, would’ve benefitted the community. So my question is, what real benefit does this have for the community and why are we rushing to develop this? It seemed like the other plan actually had some benefit to the overall community. And my other concern is, we have a short driveway on Pflumm, there’s a lot of traffic on Pflumm and pulling out of that driveway is not an easy thing; so, adding high density, whatever you want to call it, traffic there is not safe, it’s not safe now when you pull out, it’s not going to get safer with more cars.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Hello, my name is Aida Dougherty…

(Inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And your street address, please.

MS. DOUGHERTY: (address omitted from record)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you.

MS. DOUGHERTY: When I move here, I was told (Inaudible), now later on, on the other apartments south of our house we have a big (Inaudible) the trunk of our car. (Inaudible) Now this just happened (Inaudible) not having the (Inaudible) now what are we going to see later? Are we going to be able to sleep and be able to get out? Are we (Inaudible)? It is so hard also having to drive when people are traveling back and forth from there to Johnson Drive. My son was about to go to (Inaudible) three weeks when someone hit his car. Now the street everyone park in front of our house. Now, why would that happen (Inaudible) 13 houses (Inaudible) for the safety of our children? People walk their dogs; my kitty cat was run over by a car in front of (Inaudible) and 62nd Street (Inaudible). And I cannot imagine any little animal walking and staying alive. Now, we also have north end along here (Inaudible) that area we have development in that area, they are gonna (Inaudible) without getting everything around our order but also we see foxes, we see deer, we see all kinds of wonderful animals, we would not be able to see them. We not even a choice, do you want this, do you want any (Inaudible), they don’t have any choice. They are just going to go away and that’s not fair to them too. Thank you so much.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you, anyone else? Yes, sir.

(Inaudible)

PUBLIC COMMENT: All right, good evening, my name is Mark Brummit, I own two of the properties on the west side of Pflumm (addresses omitted from record) a couple of doors down from Jerry Starr here…

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And your address is…

MR. BRUMMIT: (address omitted from record)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you.

(Inaudible)

MR. BRUMMIT: You know, obviously, you know, there was a time they were gonna put in about 70 units, density was significantly less… I find it hard to believe there, on all comparison on a 312 apartment complex times two people per apartment, (Inaudible), big difference, I live there. The traffic coming up and down Pflumm was shut down two weeks ago for four hours on Sunday because there was a major accident that happened on that road. Here’s the concern, put the apartment complex in there, you’re not only gonna have 600 cars, you also have those residents walking along Pflumm close to that traffic. You’ll have a lot more fatalities if this project goes through (Inaudible) generally (Inaudible) all of the owners and landlords were there along with the tenants of those properties, and I speak for them, I can’t tell you what supports that fact (Inaudible) find a new way to support this project in the area. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: (Inaudible)

PUBLIC COMMENT: (Inaudible) I didn’t intend to. My name is Phil Hirt. I live at (address omitted from record) that’s the confluence of the Pflumm and 62nd river (inaudible), there are certain things I’d like to address, a couple of them, one I want to talk about, I think the main problem I have and what I hear is that their stated goal, their stated plan was the apartment complex design was going to fit directly with surrounding residential communities; I haven’t seen one thing that fits in with the surrounding community, okay. I’m assuming that the master plan can collect the water, can get all the new water out of the retention pond; according to the Corps of Engineers, it’s gonna be the same size pond as it is now. I received communication to comment on the Corps of Engineers study to saying their gonna remove a little bit of wetland, that’s not relevant to what we’re talking about; the size of the open water is the same; they’re rerouting the boundary a little bit (Inaudible) the numbers come out identical. Maybe it will hold more water, I don’t know, I think the plan is to run it off before it really fills up. If it’s intended to hold water, except during a storm run-off situation, there are a number of issues that’d have to be addressed. The only thing I’ve heard so far is that it’ll become an open break or open park, not only for the residents of the apartments, but now we’re collecting Pflumm Park and those areas, but specifically one thing that’s not been addressed is the parking lot and the open access from the cul-de-sac on Widmer. If the emergency road is gated properly so traffic cannot go up and down that, they will have access to it, but the gates, the fencing around the perimeter is around the immediate perimeter of the apartments; the property is not going to be cut-off from anyone; so, right now I’ve had over the years a lot of people, a lot of kids, a lot of people, a lot of fisherman, a lot of problems, a lot of… they come down and park along the cul-de-sac and walk up to the pond or walk that area; recently with the vegetation overgrown the way that it is, it is not as big a problem as it once was, but that area, there will not be any such thing as safety connect once the parking lot develops along the cul-de-sac; the traffic will come in Widmer, they’ll park there and they’ll have easy access to walking through anywhere apparently, except the gate, the one (Inaudible) area into the park and the pond and the whole area and that’s the least safe area cause you can’t be seen from anywhere except my house just about, so it’s not, it will not become a safe area; I guess they’ll want that to be a playground for the apartment dwellers, but it’s going to be much, much, much more than that. That cul-de-sac will be a major problem for parking and traffic and accidents and debris just from the people parking there and they’ll walk right over there into the park. Now, I may be wrong, but I haven’t heard a thing that says that’s gonna be (Inaudible) there shouldn’t be any access from Widmer to any place on that property except through that one emergency gate and we don’t really like that, that seems to be a really hot button that I won’t like get over that hurdle as it appears… but, what would be the reason for any access from Widmer onto that property? But, there’s nothing in the plan to prevent it. So, that’s one thing I would like to address and I think if you want luxury apartments, build luxury apartments; if you don’t want to sell them, you just want to lease them, that’s fine; but, charge appropriately; you will not get luxury tenants at $700-$900 a month; you will get one or two people, the down on their luck people, a high turnover, you know, three guys move in there in a two bedroom and one that’s not paying and then the whole thing falls apart; it’s a transient population that will live in this apartment complex and that’s even if we don’t go down the road to the, to any kind of subsidized housing; so, it is not a luxury complex by anyway shape or form; some of the amenities look kind of good, you know, they’re attractive that’s true, but there is nothing prettier near $700-$900 that doesn’t deteriorate or draw the wrong kind of people for the neighborhood. That’s what this is for right, the neighborhood? That’s my comments.

(Inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Doug does the gate, does, there’s not a main gate there, it’s just a gate for vehicular traffic…

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: You’re talking about the fire access drive into apartment complex is a private gate.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: (Inaudible)

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: It’s a private gate, correct.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, someone cannot park on Widmer…

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I think his comment is more addressing the open space tract is not supposed to be gated so I think his point was, is there is a possibility for someone to park on that street and walk down that hill to the pond. I think that’s what he’s trying to say…

(Inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Anyone else wish to speak? Yes, sir.

PUBLIC COMMENT: I’m Greg Johnson. I live at (address omitted from record). I agree with what he was saying. It sounds like, I mean, if there is a problem with traffic on Pflumm and 62nd Street, a really easy solution would be to take down the gate and, you know, allow access through that road if there are no problems, but I mean, if the road is paved and access could easily be obtained (Inaudible) we could have section 8 housing (Inaudible). Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Yes, sir.

PUBLIC COMMENT: My name is Brian Grimm and I’d like to say a few words. I live at (address omitted from record). I don’t own, I currently rent, my landlord is here now. Full disclosure, I am the great grandchild of John Bichelmeyer who owned the property in question, since I’m here, I’d just like to say a few things about, first of all, any increased traffic on Pflumm Road right now, I can’t even imagine what it would be like. I’ve live there almost my entire life, I remember when it was a two-lane road when they expanded it, I cannot believe what it did to the traffic. Today, it’s almost impossible to turn into the driveway, let alone turn out of the driveway. I’ve live there almost my entire life. I was born in 1986, so a lot of what you guys are talking about happened way before I was born. But, it looks trashy today. I’ve seen the 3-story apartment complexes along 435 in Lenexa, they don’t look very good; they’re brand new; I don’t like them. I see this, these not going to blend into anything. I don’t care how many trees you put up, that’s a 3-story building with 2-story structures everywhere around it. You know what else? I live right over here. I see parking lot in my backyard. You know what I’m used to? I’m used to sunsets every fricken night. The beautiful sky. You stand out in the middle of this hill, you can see all the way to the racetrack. You know what? I look at this dog park right here, and judging by the parking spaces there, I can’t tell for sure, it looks like maybe 50 by 200 feet. You know what looks like a dog park to me? The whole area.

(Inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Yes, sir.

(Inaudible)

PUBLIC COMMENT: Hi, my name is Amanda Miller. I live at (address omitted from record). The first thing I’d like to say is I’d like to applaud Mr. Chalk for letting the residents of Widmer Road who live farther than 200 feet away from this proposed development know, otherwise talking to other people who live on our street, we would’ve had no idea. The other thing (Inaudible) is Commissioners I would really encourage you to come park a chair in my drive way and watch the traffic drive by because it’s ridiculous and I cannot imagine another 900 whatever, 500-900 cars drive by daily and still feel like my road is safe to live on. I am not okay with that and I would hope that the other people that live on Cottonwood, Widmer, and the surrounding areas, that they speak up too, because this is a dangerous idea and I’m not okay with this. Thanks.

(Inaudible)

PUBLIC COMMENT: My name is Craig Hatch and in the items that were read off earlier, 1-31 or 32, the next to last item talks about an excise tax. These, the people who are developing it said they wouldn’t need any kind of tax break from the City, so I hope you’ll cross that off your list. Secondly, said that they don’t do senior living and then tonight I heard them say they do create senior living. I heard it. I don’t hear well, but I heard it. (Inaudible) Third, I hope the City Commissioners have the back bone to do what’s right and the citizens of Shawnee would grow a little back bone and do what we would like for you to do instead of caving (Inaudible).

PUBLIC COMMENT: My name is Evonna Hedbany-Baehner and I live at (address omitted from record) and I just wanted to ask the developers, you said that you did not have any examples of your work, is that right?

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: You would address your question to the Commission only.

MS. HEDBANY-BAEHNER: Here in Kansas City?

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: You would address your question to…what is your question?

MS. HEDBANY-BAEHNER: The question is, if they don’t have any in Kansas City, do they have some in Topeka?

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is the staff aware of any? (Inaudible) The staff will get back to you on that.

MS. HEDBANY-BAEHNER: Okay, I’m talking about Woodland Park Apartments.

(Inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: I’m sorry? I don’t hear you well.

MS. HEDBANY-BAEHNER: I said, I’m talking about Woodland Park Apartments in Topeka. I was wondering if that was one of their properties.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Mr. Vaccaro. Could you tell the Commission whether or not you own a…

MR. VACCARO: We do own Woodland Park Apartments.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Is there any other comments/questions by the public? Yes?

PUBLIC COMMENT: In January of this year I purchased my first home to be my last home…

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Would you give us your name and address?

PUBLIC COMMENT: Melissa Longston, (address omitted from record).

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you.

MS. LONGSTON: And this would be my last residence before I go into retirement. When I was first told about what the development may be, I was told it would be retirement homes. At that point I was fine with it. I’m trapped in a house with no equity, with possibly having my money go down and I don’t want to live there with all the traffic. So that’s my (Inaudible).

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you.

PUBLIC COMMENT: My name is Wallace Smith and I live at (address omitted from record) and so pretty adjacent. Speaking about traffic, I want to speak both to car traffic through the secondary entrance, especially what comes off Widmer from Shawnee Mission Parkway every day and earlier the gentleman spoke of the dangerous spot on that corner where you cannot see what’s coming from the east to the west when you’re trying to turn at that T. (Inaudible) concern for anyone on Widmer and again I can see that only increasing in sheer volume; also what’s dangerous is if you turn north from Pflumm or turn west from Pflumm facing North (Inaudible) at HyVee on a daily basis every single day I think I’m gonna get rear-ended and that’s just the few feet or few car links from me from the light that is actually at the HyVee so the more I speak of the cars that are careening north on (Inaudible). The second concern that I have is on 62nd is the undeveloped portion of 62nd St. on the south side; the improvements on the north side by a developer so my question to the Commission would be about the bulk of the road, there’s a narrowing of the road on 62nd, there’s the gutters on the side just a ditch for those that are still, my understanding, that they’re not on sewer; there just a few homes that are on that (Inaudible) narrowing of the road and the Council approved more traffic and also full gutters and sidewalks so the pedestrian traffic is safe; every day, especially during the times of year that, you know, that it’s not winter time but most of the year they, let’s say nine months out of the year, they, I see everything through my yard because it’s a shortcut on to 62nd, all the pedestrian traffic from the apartment complexes to the south and Cottonwood Apartments going to the swimming pool as an example; all of the children and youth coming through the property usually using the field as the shortcut; getting through the wired sense and (Inaudible) to go through the Chalk property up the side and then over to the lake where they go through the property; the previous, the development showed a park easement where you cover up the gas line and more of a connection, may be a walking path, now that’s cut off by this community. So, where those people you cannot control going to go? Are they going to continue to go through people’s personal property to the west of this development to get up and around and over to the swimming pool or library or wherever else they’re going, the woods? Or, where are those children going to be safe? (Inaudible) the damage that I see coming and also the damage to my property values within, say, 200 feet of the property? Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item? Yes, sir.

PUBLIC COMMENT: My name is Sean Richardson and I live at (address omitted from record) and I’ve lived there 11 years. This seems like a very important decision for the Commission; it’s very important to the property you guys need to get this correct and approve something that’s going to benefit the neighborhood rather than turn it further south. There certain apartment complexes in the neighborhood that are not class A, market rate apartment and any, although I would suspect that they probably intended to be when they were initially proposed and it unfortunately (Inaudible). Staff’s recommendation that the project be approved, but if I understood the staff correctly, it was not in their purview or anything they considered in terms of how likely it was that this project was going to continue to be at market rate and class A Apartments, that they just took the developers word for that and didn’t give that any scrutiny whatsoever, that was a part of their purview. I’m asking you Commission if you could make that part of your purview for considering whether or not to approve this as that was not considered by the staff and asked that you consider the staff’s recommendation with a grain of salt one of the most important aspects of the product, project was not part of your purview in deciding whether or not to recommend the project for completion. The developer has had the opportunity to bring in from out-of-town the best person to explain this to you and (Inaudible). Sorry about that. And, we lobbed the softball question for you guys in what’s a class A apartment and the only thing I heard is that it doesn’t have nice features like granite countertops, that they are vinyl (Inaudible) to the market is to have undersized apartments so that we can charge lower rents. So, you gave them softball question, you know, what’s your class A, what are the outstanding features, that’s the only two things I heard was that it doesn’t have nice features like granite countertops and that we sell, or run out undersized apartments relative to the market. I mean, it doesn’t sound that compelling if it’s a class A, I’d hate to see what’s going to be a class B and class C apartment. You also (Inaudible) softball question about how can we be convinced that this is going to be at market rate and, you know, able to bring in their best person from out-of-town, you give them a softball question and their only response was, well hey, were not gonna make as much money as we’d like to if we don’t get these rents were asking for. You know, as many projects that’s all over the place that don’t achieve the financial projections that the developers wanted to, that’s not convincing at all. When I moved to the current house in Shawnee 11 years ago, Broken Arrow was top, top school and, you know, I hate to think what it’s going to turn into if this project gets approved. (Inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item?

PUBLIC COMMENT: Can I say something?

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Let’s see if there’s someone, anybody else left I’ll let you have. All right, but it has to be short. Really short. Yes, ma’am.

PUBLIC COMMENT: My name is Julie Robinson and I live at (address omitted from record) we’ve been there about 20 years and I echo all of the sentiments that have been said tonight. I think our neighbors have been very articulate. I do have a question that relates to Pflumm-Bichelmeyer Park. That’s a park that we use on a daily basis. There’s a trail and we walk our dog and we use that just for recreation… Am I understanding correctly that there is a gate that goes from this apartment complex and allows those residents to come in to Pflumm-Bichelmeyer Park but it does not go the other direction? So like, if you’re walking in Pflumm-Bichelmeyer Park you are not able to go and take advantage of their amenities like they are dog park, their trails, etc. however those residents would be able to come into Pflumm-Bichelmeyer Park. Am I understanding that correctly?

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Doug.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: That is correct. Their community is gated. They have access through a gate to the public park but their improvements are private and intended for their residents only.

MS. ROBINSON: So, I guess my question would be to staff. Is that a reciprocal benefit to our community because we now have 600-900 residents who would have access to that very small walking trail yet we residents in Shawnee currently use that property would not have access to their amenities? I’m not understanding why the pay back there.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Doug.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I tried to answer that. The park is a public park for all Shawnee residents. The residents if this is approved, that apartment complex would be Shawnee residents and they would have the right to use that park. The development itself is private. It is privately owned and privately held. The City does not maintain any of the land or ground inside that complex and so it essentially is allowed to be private and they can control just as any single family house owner can control who comes into their yard essentially.

MS. ROBINSON: So, we’ve made a big deal about having a fence all the way around the complex so that people are not allowed in yet somehow these residents get special access to a park that is very, very small. I have a concern as someone who literally walks in the park every single day about having 600-900 more residents with special access to that trail. It’s already crowded. Talk about a safety issue, there’s no access there except for the one parking lot by the pool. You know, who’s to say what’s going to happen back in there. I mean, that’s a safety issue right there with that special gate. Why do they have to have that gate that goes into that park?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: It’s what they requested as part of…

MS. ROBINSON: I would like to go on record as thinking that that particular part of the project is not a good idea along with many other things. Thank you. (Inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item? You have one minute then.

MS. DOUGHERTY: My name is Aida Dougherty and I live at (address omitted from record). My question to you Commissioners is if you (Inaudible) your family members living around that area, would you, would you let your family be surrounded by 900 vehicles (Inaudible) would you allow that to happen? (Inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you.

MS. DOUGHERTY: Thank you.

PUBLIC COMMENT: What are you going to do about all of the foreign…

(Inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: You have to go to the microphone so you can be recorded and recognized first. Now, if you can keep your comments to less than a minute because you’re on a second time then we’ll be okay.

MR. HATCH: Okay, I’m Craig Hatch and I live at (address omitted from record). What defines a resident? A license tag that’s gonna say Missouri? (Inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: (Inaudible)

MR. HATCH: We’ve got a lot of residents, if you look, all the cars are licensed plate into Missouri.

(Inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, we would be in Commission discussion. Commissioner Busby.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the things that I hope you people understand is first of all we’re citizens of Shawnee; we want what’s best for Shawnee; we have rules that we have to go by up here, so working to have a discussion amongst our members and see how that fits into what we think is best for the City of Shawnee, including your neighborhood.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Busby.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: You know, one of the things I’m concerned about is the density of it and that concerns me because even though we normally, and it’s very strategically to do this, is part of the drainage pond down there seems like a heck of a lot of acreage but that’s how we do it so realistically we’re just over and that makes, and that still concerns me with the density we’re putting in there. The plans I look at say they are nice-looking apartments. Everything that they have given us so far says they are nice apartments. Are they big enough? Are they enough market rate? You know, I really don’t know that we have the ability to decide that, nor do we necessarily have two decide what kind of tenants there going to have. There is nothing in these plans that say it’s a cheap apartment complex. Would we like better? We like better and we normally always like better, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the plans that come before us say that it has to be better, it means most all of the requirements with the exception, to me, of the density and it’s just borderline on the.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Thank you Commissioner. I would echo those comments as well and one thing that hasn’t been brought up in the discussion and it’s something that’s on my mind as far as, is the impact it could have on a positive side for those businesses that are trying to make their way there at the intersection of Pflumm and Shawnee Mission Parkway. We have a lot of investment that’s gone and recently to increasing the façade, making an investment small business owners who have come before us, very motivated to become part of the community and by adding 600 people within a 1 mile radius, I would think would have a positive impact on those commercial businesses. So that is on the flipside of this is one of the things as a small business owner myself we can’t forget the economic impact that a project like this can make two small business owners within our community. That is something that is on my mind. The other thing is regarding apartment that, you know, in my research and people that I have talked to, this apartment complex can be considered minor-league for future homeowners; people who could stay within the community and make an investment because maybe there outside of Shawnee, they come in for a job, they can’t afford a home; I was a, I lived in an apartment for six years of my life when I got married; that’s what we could afford; we were young professionals; but, that’s how we got started; you get connected to a community; once you can move out of those homes then you’re looking to buy a bigger home to raise a family and I hope that we can think about that in a positive aspect that may be good people that we would bring to our community rather than the flipside; I certainly, what I want to say is that I did hear and I understand your concern because of the other apartment complexes that surround you and so your concerns are very valid but again as has been previously stated, I don’t see anything from the quality and the investment of putting in a pool and clubhouse in the landscaping and the quality of what the renderings show we will have to hold the developer to make sure that they built that quality. This would be a good addition. Now, I too am concerned about the density and I too am concerned about the traffic on Pflumm which was something we talked about in the previous development. So, again I want to maybe have staff readdress maybe what the City’s current point of view is on the current traffic situation on Pflumm. That’s all Mr. Commissioner. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And would you like one of the Doug’s to do that?

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Yeah. Would one of the Doug’s, what is the City’s current sort of state of mind concerning the traffic along Pflumm and what your experience in traffic counts and maybe an accident report.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR AND CITY ENGINEER WESSELSCHMIDT: Again, there was, when the traffic study was done it indicated there would be a warrant for a traffic signal. Traffic signals don’t necessarily improve the flow of traffic. There is a traffic signal on Johnson Drive; there’s a traffic signal at the HyVee so that creates breaks in the traffic which people can get in and out of. I live in the area, I’m very familiar with the flow of traffic in that area there’s, some of this traffic go out Pflumm Road, some going to go to 62nd St. and mostly traffic is going to go south to Shawnee Mission Parkway because it’s our higher arterial taking traffic to the east and west depending again where residents live and work and go to school

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Okay.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR AND CITY ENGINEER WESSELSCHMIDT: So, based on our information from our traffic engineer he did not indicate that there was a abnormally high accident counts…

(Inaudible)

PUBLIC COMMENT: He doesn’t live there.

(Inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: For us to be able to listen to what he is saying and make a decision we have to have some conformity and we cannot have outbursts. Doug, so I was following you for a while but I kind of lost you but you could finish, but I guess just a follow-up is, what, if, was a poor traffic situation in the future, what would you think would be the steps that the City would take to change things? Based upon the four-lane road of Pflumm.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR AND CITY ENGINEER WESSELSCHMIDT: At some point in the future when there would be warrants for let’s say signalization at 61st St. or 62nd St. or not even necessarily signalization, there’s other things that can be done with intersections such as roundabouts and all that, that would be something that the City would address in the future but there is nothing, the traffic volumes exist today, in the near future and with the increase of the traffic through the development. This project does not warrant any of those today or in the very near future.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: All right, thank you. Does the Commission have any other… Yes, Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: One question Doug about the traffic on Widmer north of 63rd, you know, coming up through their… What, I mean, I haven’t heard anything about looking at the numbers there or what we think the numbers will be on that stretch.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR AND CITY ENGINEER WESSELSCHMIDT: At 63rd and Widmer?

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: You know, you come off the Parkway and you come north to Widmer and you keep right on going and you’re gonna go in that south entrance to this apartment complex through the neighborhood.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR AND CITY ENGINEER WESSELSCHMIDT: Right, some of them could be coming up Widmer, some of that traffic could be going up Pflumm and taking a left at 62nd Street and again the previous traffic study that was done for a, the previous development that had larger volumes of traffic indicate that those would be certain flows of traffic and residents tend to take ways of traffic that negate their movements. So, for example somebody is coming from I-35 and going west on Shawnee Mission Parkway, they want to hit the HyVee on the way home before they go into the apartments, they are going to be turning on Pflumm to 62nd and on in. If that answers your question but…

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Does that answer your question Commissioner Willoughby?

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I’m perplexed. There is no access to this apartment complex except for fire access off of Widmer, is that correct? Or is it a dual, I thought, it was my understanding when I was reading it and from the plans that the only entrance that the residents would use would be Pflumm, is that correct?

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR AND CITY ENGINEER WESSELSCHMIDT: This development has two access points. One on Pflumm, one on 62nd Street.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Right, but not on Widmer.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR AND CITY ENGINEER WESSELSCHMIDT: Correct.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: The one on Widmer is a fire exit/access only.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR AND CITY ENGINEER WESSELSCHMIDT: Correct.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Hill.

COMMISSIONER HILL: I just have a follow-up of what we talked about earlier and I still have a concern here, you know, we looked at some nice renderings here, some elevations, views, stuff like that, we haven’t seen any floor plans, you can’t tell us what kind of luxury (Inaudible) are going to be inside luxury apartments and I guess my concern comes in as the whole intention of marketing it as luxury apartment is the impact to the local residents around area and I’m just not seeing the amount of content to make up a type of informed decision. So I guess, I’m asking Doug Allmon is, could we get some more information with this thing? I mean, this, they’re just, this is kind of an abstract kind of thing of what these apartments are really gonna consist of. They’re gonna have a real nice-looking façade, I mean there’s no doubt about that, but the whole thing needs to be marketed as a luxury apartment to mitigate the impact to their property values… I guess I’m struggling with a $750 apartment being a luxury apartment when my daughter was going to school off-campus apartments cost more than $750 and they were terrible.

(Inaudible)

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I’ll try and answer your question in terms of the planning contents. We generally don’t see interior floor plans for any project to be quite honest with you.

COMMISSIONER HILL: Yeah, and the only reason I ask that is we do see the stairwells so that type of internal stuff that, that’s the end of it so…

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: That is correct.

COMMISSIONER HILL: So, there’s a lot of questions on my mind, what are they doing for laundry facilities and all that kinds of stuff.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: That is a question you could ask the developer.

COMMISSIONER HILL: Mr. Vaccaro, you think you can answer that?

MR. VACCARO: There will be in unit washers and dryers, and that is a point that I neglected to mention earlier that I would agree that is a hallmark of luxury property. There is no common area laundry. (Inaudible) Another thing that all of the two and three bedroom units will have two full bathrooms, I think that will be another feature that would be typical as well; of course patios, some of the patios have, on the ground floor units, have individually gated, and come close to calling it a yard, a larger private area than a patio that will make those more desirable for people who perhaps have pets in those units as well but specifically to the laundry question, laundry will be provided in each unit. Again, you also wanted to mention we offer $750, that’s been thrown out, that’s only 72 of the 312 units on what we consider our smaller of our two sizes of one bedroom units, they are just under 600 square feet, 597 square feet, so it’s only 72 of the 312 units that are at that lower price point the remainder are all basically the, we’re projecting (Inaudible) so basically $900 or above in rent on all the other unit types.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER SPECHT: I got one thing.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Yes.

COMMISSIONER SPECHT: Just to kind of echo Doug’s comments, I think, my two major concerns, mostly been addressed, but would be density and the class A, luxury, I think that if it is a class A, luxury, it would definitely require some sort of natural stone/granite countertops, stainless steel appliances, something that’s a little bit more marketable to, you know, what we would consider a class A, luxury apartment; and then on the density, I don’t know if there is any other options as far as, you know, the amount if it would be feasible to reduce it but that’s maybe another option that we could explore. I don’t think it’s a bad idea or the layout, I just think that if there’s a, if it’s feasible to reduce the density somehow could make it more beneficial to the area community.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. I would say one of the situations wherein right now is that we have formally approved another plan for medium density rather than (Inaudible) and the plan that’s before us…

PUBLIC COMMENT: We can’t hear you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: I’m talking to the Commission, but I will talk louder. We have formally approved the plan for Cobblestone, which we all thought was very, was a very good plan, but we have set the tone that this is medium density residential and the staff has recommended that. We continue with that. It may not be as perfect a layout as we could have but I think that the quality of the exterior materials are as good as and the amenities are as good as any project that we’ve had there before and we’ve never gone through with the developer this type of discussion about section 8, that if they’re going to build these units that more than likely $90,000-$100,000, they are not to make any money for renting in a section 8 price and we’ve never gone through that in any other development that these continuous questions about whether or not they’re going to be subsidies and you would just guess that that’s just not going to have been with a, with these types of materials and with this type of layout with garages and ornamental items found in the types of things that were seeing on this project that we don’t usually see on projects. But, I think the best thing, the quandary that were in, that we have from a legal point of view, I believe that we have projected this as medium density and this plan meets that qualification and it meets the qualification, the site plan meets all those qualifications and we can tinker with it and we can table it to discuss it, but I think it’s still going to come before us and it’s going to meet all the things that we ever wanted in a plan and all the things that we treat people fairly by saying that these are the things we want, this is the landscaping we want in our saying that perhaps we’ve changed our mind about whether or not this is medium density residential after we’ve approved the Cobblestone project and so I think that that’s the problem that we are in, is how do we say that this is not a plan that meets our criteria. Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you I would agree that, you know, I think we all have concerns about it and we want to attract the right residents to the area and I think that plan shows high quality materials as Mr., Commissioner Braley mentioned and I’m sure that where we live, my wife and I lived in apartments for a while and we sought out a nice place, what we thought was a nice safe place to live, to remain in others have spent time in apartments as well and, you know, it may not be exactly everything you want and we’re always afraid of, many people don’t like change and we’re always afraid of the unknown but yet when you look at what it takes to prove something like this or to deny something as you mentioned there are certain requirements that we have to follow and plans, it’s my understanding that the plans fitness requirements that we have to have a very good reason to deny the request.

COMMISSIONER SPECHT: I got a… and just for…

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Specht.

COMMISSIONER SPECHT: A little bit more clarification. A big concern that keeps getting brought up is density and I know that could, maybe at staff, could you speak to a little bit more as to do we actually meet the density requirements for this or are we slightly over?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: The density is slightly over the recommended number (Inaudible) just slightly.

COMMISSIONER SPECHT: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Chairman?

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Could we get a clarification from the developer on what their point of view is on the pond and the adjacent area and sort of how they feel about public gaining access to that? Just kind of what their thoughts are regarding that part of their development since there is no fencing enclosing that area.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay, but just really fast and so that we don’t open up a lot more of the public discussion and that we stay on point. If your specific question is, Mr. Vaccaro, the question is the access to the detention area, why is it open?

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Yeah, just a point of view on access to not having that fenced or gated.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, if you would please?

MR. VACARRO: one of the main reasons we have a propose fencing is just the number of trees that surround it today, we think trees provide a better buffer than fencing. We would have to take down trees in our goal in this project all along is to, especially around the parameters, maintain as much of the natural landscaping as it exists today. (Inaudible) locations of our building one of the things that attracted us to the site is the setting. We think that the view from the apartments down onto the pond and trying to maintain it as natural a setting as possible within the community is desirable. So it is our focus, again to maintain as much as we can of the natural setting around that pond and that’s why we try to avoid impacting (Inaudible).

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. If there is no other Commission discussion then, Commissioner Busby.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One thing I wonder is maybe we could request a fence the place along Widmer which might be an issue that keeps them out of there, other than that I don’t know why we need to, so far as I know there’s never been any question about having issues with that pond there when it sat there for many years, but if the fence along Widmer that went on out to their, we could include that in our recommendation.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And since it seems like we have no more discussion, would you like to make a recommendation, make a motion?

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I move for approval of PUD-01-15-11; rezoning from PUDMR and PUDMX to PUDMR, for Advantage at Shawnee.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Do you wish to add anything?

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: With the addition that a 6 foot fence put along the portion next to Widmer to keep any traffic from going beyond that point.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Subject to staff conditions?

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Subject to staff conditions and recommendations.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Is there a second to the motion?

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: (Inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Peterson to second. There’s a motion and second to approve PUD-01-15-11; a rezoning from PUDMR and PUDMX to PUDMR and preliminary development plan for Advantage at Shawnee, approximately 6000 block of Pflumm Road, all in favor?

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed?

COMMISSIONERS: Nay.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Nay.

(Inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Busby.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: We’ll call for a Roll Call vote on this.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: All right. Commissioner Busby.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Yay.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yay.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Nay.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Yay.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Somsky.

COMMISSIONER SOMSKY: Yay.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Yay.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Yay.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Specht.

COMMISSIONER SPECHT: Yay.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Hill.

COMMISSIONER HILL: Nay.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And the Chairman votes: Yes. Motion passes.


(Motion passes 8-2; additional stipulation (33) that a six (6’) foot fence be placed along Widmer adjacent to the west property line that abuts the pond; Smith absent)


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: That takes us to:

E. OTHER BUSINESS

(Inaudible)

STAFF COMMENT: No, we have not adjourned.

(Inaudible)

Planning Director Chaffee updated the Planning Commission on recent activities regarding the Street Improvement Plan (SIP) Committee's recommendations on the matrix to be used when determining the streets to be included in the SIP for the 1/8 cent sales tax dedicated to ditch section streets, and the recommendation of approval of a fire line incentive program in the downtown area.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you, Paul. Commission have any business for the staff? If not, Commissioner Peterson, do you have a motion?

F. ADJOURNMENT

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I move that we adjourn.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Somsky.

COMMISSIONER SOMSKY: I second.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Motion and second to adjourn, all in favor.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes, thank you.


(Motion passes 10-0; Bienhoff absent)




File Attachment Icon
PlanningCommissionMeeting.11.02.15.docx