PDF Format:

ApprovedPlanningCommissionMeeting.1.4.16.pdfApprovedPlanningCommissionMeeting.1.4.16.pdf


CITY OF SHAWNEE

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

MINUTES

January 4, 2016

7:30 P.M.

PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENTSTAFF PRESENT
Commissioner Bruce BienhoffPlanning Director Paul Chaffee
Commissioner Augie BoginaDevelopment Services Director and City
Commissioner Randy BraleyEngineer Doug Wesselschmidt
Commissioner Dennis BusbyCity Clerk Stephen Powell
Commissioner Doug HillDeputy Planning Director Doug Allmon
Commissioner Kathy PetersonPlanner Mark Zielsdorf
Commissioner Les SmithAdministrative Assistant Angie Lind
Commissioner Sara Somsky
Commissioner Henry Specht
Commissioner Alan Willoughby
Commissioner Steven Wise
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Welcome to the January 4, 2016 meeting of the Shawnee Planning Commission. We’ll start with roll call.

A. ROLL CALL

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Somsky.

COMMISSIONER SOMSKY: Present.

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.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Here.

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 the Consent Agenda. Item 1 of the Consent Agenda is the minutes of the December 21, 2015 meeting. Unless there is a request to remove the item from the Consent Agenda, the item will be approved in one motion. Is there a request to remove this item from the Consent Agenda?

C. CONSENT ITEMS:

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: If now, 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.

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 Item C. of the Consent Agenda, all in favor?

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes.

(Motion passes 11-0)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Item D is:

D. NEW BUSINESS

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And I would make one short comment that this is our first meeting of this space and so we may have some technical difficulties about certain recordings and this is a quasi-judicial proceeding and in so we record all the verbal and written recordings so that they can use as evidence sometime in the future. The only discussion item this evening is the remand of traffic and there will be presented by the staff first and then the applicant through their representative; if there are any professional studies that anyone wishes to submit to the Commission, we would be happy to receive them and whether or not we have time to comment on them this evening, we would hope to, but if not, then we will have them for the record. Paul.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: The Governing Body, at their December 14, 2015 meeting, considered the recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission for PUD-01-15-11, a rezoning and preliminary development plan for Vantage at Shawnee, generally located in the 6000-6100 Blocks of Pflumm Road.

Several motions were considered by members of the Governing Body. A protest petition was received that required a super majority vote of the Governing Body to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission. There were not seven votes to approve a motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Similarly, there were not six votes to approve a motion to override the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny approval of the rezoning and preliminary development plan.

As a result of these actions, the only alternative by State Statue was for the Governing Body to remand the request back to the Planning Commission for further review with instructions regarding the issues to discuss. The motion to remand the request back to the Planning Commission was made and approved to specifically discuss traffic. This is the only issue that will be discussed by the Planning Commission.

After review and consideration of traffic generated from the site, the Planning Commission will take further action as listed under the recommendation at the end of this staff report.

Prior to consideration of the rezoning request, staff requested the applicant’s engineer review the traffic study that was prepared for the Cobblestone Court project in June 2014 and apply the land uses proposed for the Vantage project. The information from that review was provided to the Planning Commission in the staff report. In giving direction to the applicant’s engineer the city’s traffic manager assumed that since the Cobblestone Court traffic study’s completion in June 2014, no significant changes in traffic flow or traffic count has occurred since little development has occurred that would affect the adjacent street network and traffic controls.

Traffic studies anticipate the peak morning hour and peak evening hour trip generation. Peak hourly periods for traffic on Pflumm Road at the intersections of 61st Street and 62nd Street were determined to occur between 7:15 and 8:15 A.M. and 4:45 and 5:45 P.M. The variables entered into the calculation for the Cobblestone Court project included anticipated traffic generated from 73 detached primarily senior adult homes, 90 units of independent living apartments, 71 units of general apartments, 47,852 square feet of specialty retail space, and 30,000 square feet of general office. The review of the traffic study was made using the anticipated traffic generated by 312 general apartment units.

The site plan for the Vantage development indicates one access point from Pflumm Road and one from 62nd Street, similar to that for Cobblestone Court. Entry into the apartment complex will be through electronic gates operated by residents of the development. A gated restricted fire lane access is provided off the Widmer Road cul-de-sac at the northwest corner of the site. This was a feature required of both plans. This gate will be activated by public safety personnel if needed to make a response.

The Cobblestone Court traffic study indicated during the A.M. peak hour, 213 total trips would be generated. During the P.M. peak hour 365 trips would be generated. The review by Schlagel and Associates indicated the Vantage development would generate 171 trips during the A.M. peak hour, and 202 trips during the P.M. peak hour.

The capacity analysis performed for the Cobblestone Court project indicated that it is common for traffic movements from side streets or drives into high volume arterial streets to experience poor Level of Service ratings of “E” or “F” during peak traffic conditions, and no geometric or traffic control improvements are warranted or recommended to address this condition.

In conclusion, the Cobblestone Court traffic study indicates that the existing street network in the vicinity of the proposed Cobblestone Court development would be able to support the addition of traffic from this site. The analysis also indicated there would be no operational issues expected at any of the study intersections for the existing plus site scenario. No separate turn lanes at Pflumm Road or 62nd Street would need to be constructed to serve the development site. The study also indicates that in the future traffic volumes may be such that a warrant is prescribed at the intersection of 61st Street and Pflumm Road. However, due to the proximity to the intersection with 62nd Street, signalization would not be recommended.

The City’s Traffic Manager concurred with the analysis of the traffic study and recommended that the Cobblestone Court project did not require additional improvements to Pflumm Road. The applicant’s engineer also concurred with the findings of the traffic study, and in light of a reduced peak hour traffic volume, no improvements to Pflumm Road were required for the Vantage development.

City Engineer and Development Services Director Wesselschmidt notes when this section of Pflumm Road was widened from a two-lane ditch section road to a 4-lane arterial road in the early ‘90’s it was sized for the traffic from a fully developed area that would use Pflumm Road for north/south trips. It was built to handle not only current traffic at that time, but from natural growth as well as traffic that would be generated by development along its corridor, i.e., Vantage at Shawnee and developments further to the north that would use it to access Shawnee Mission Parkway. The average daily traffic for this section of Pflumm Road is about 11,000 vehicles per day. The 4-lane arterial can handle 20,000 vehicles per day before it experiences very low levels of service. Based on the traffic study, the addendum prepared for the Vantage project, and his own experience, additional traffic signalization or turn lanes are not warranted.

Further, based on current and future traffic volumes on Pflumm Road and anticipated trips generated by the Vantage project, the current lane configuration and traffic control is adequate. With the progression of the proposed development, 62nd Street would be improved to city standards so that traffic from Vantage’s secondary access point can safely and adequately access Pflumm Road or Widmer Road.

There are five conditions of approval that relate to traffic issues. They are as follows:

The following is a listing of all the approved conditions of approval for the Vantage at Shawnee project:
Upon completion of discussion specifically regarding traffic generated from the Vantage at Shawnee project, the Planning Commission may take one of two actions:
Staff also requested the Planning Commission consider forwarding this recommendation to the Governing Body’s January 25, 2016 meeting. Both the applicant and their representative have a prior commitment that evening, and it will allow staff adequate time to prepare the minutes of this meeting for inclusion in the packet for the January 25th meeting.

That concludes staff’s presentation.

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

APPLICANT: Mr. Chairman, good evening. Curt Petersen here on behalf of the applicant joined by a representative/officer of the applicant, Dominic Vaccaro; also from Schlagel, our traffic engineer Mark Breuer. Honestly, while often times I may have more to say and be more long-winded, Mr. Chairman we feel like with the narrow scope of what’s to be discussed tonight, we really don’t have anything else to add, especially after the robust staff report. We certainly agree with the analysis that staff has provided you in writing and verbally now; I would really only put one slide on the projector really for emphasis, it’s not new, but I think it really, as a team and our traffic consultant believes it… it does the best job of summing up the brief traffic situation and it shows from left to right, the Cobblestone Plan, again that was approved and had the traffic study done by GBA in, 18 months ago that was done with counts, actual traffic counts; and then when you move to the middle column in front of you, you see the Vantage at Shawnee which takes the traffic manual changes that would be called out, still against the counts that were taken 18 months ago and it shows the overall reduction found by Schlagel; it’s a 20% reduction in trip volume in the a.m. peak hour and then a bigger reduction of 55% reduction compared to Cobblestone in the p.m. peak hour; so again, this isn’t new, this is in the staff report originally, this is in the staff report tonight, but we think in brief in 60 seconds or less it tells the story; certainly there’s more details that both myself and our traffic team would be happy to address, Chairman that you or anybody on the Commission might have tonight; but for now, again we think the traffic analysis is sound as reported by staff.

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

COMMISSIONER HILL: Yeah, could you (inaudible)? So on page 18 of the staff report…

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Sorry, could you give us your name?

TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Sure, my name is Mark Breuer with Schlagel & Associates.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER HILL: Okay, on page 18 of the staff report it reports a poor level of service (LOS) ratings of “E” or “F” during peak conditions, so explain to me what, define for me what a poor LOS of “E” and “F”.

MR. BREUER: I guess maybe we should back up just a bit. Those recommendations were based on the GBA report that they prepared for the Cobblestone plan; we were asked by staff to add a memorandum to that report based on the change of the use; that’s what we’ve done, so I guess I’m not sure if we are completely comfortable discussing GBA’s recommendation that report, because we didn’t prepare it; I guess generally, okay thanks, so at signalized intersections according to GBA’s report summarized from the highway capacity manual, a LOS of “E” would have average delay of 35 to 50 seconds and “F” of greater than 80 seconds.

COMMISSIONER HILL: And that would be at the signal point or…

MR. BREUER: At un-signalized intersections; so the queue waiting to make the whatever turning movement is being described so if it’s a left-hand movement or right-hand movement delays in that range correspond to those LOS, if that makes sense.

COMMISSIONER HILL: Yeah, I think I follow you there but I’m looking at the drawing and it shows, this drawing that’s on page 34 of the staff report we…

MR. BREUER: I’m sorry I don’t have that with me.

COMMISSIONER HILL: Okay, so what, I can probably just describe it, so it 62nd, 61st, then drop one and drive to the proposed development, what would be the level of expectation that would be based on your study as far as how far would cars be backed up from the signalized intersection past these un-signalized intersections?

MR. BREUER: Again, speaking on behalf of GBA’s studies so… this is the page you’re discussing?

COMMISSIONER HILL: Yes.

MR. BREUER: So at the intersection of 62nd and Pflumm?

COMMISSIONER HILL: Yes.

MR. BREUER: They have the required storage listed in parentheses next to the particular turn movement so if you are heading north or south on Pflumm on 62nd St., the required storage length is 170 feet.

COMMISSIONER HILL: So, if you were, and I’m looking going north and south on Pflumm…

MR. BREUER: Okay.

COMMISSIONER HILL: Coming southbound on Pflumm and you are stopped at the signal at that the exit to the Hy-Vee on to Pflumm, what would be the expectation back as far as during the peak time at the signalized intersection, how far back with the cars be in reference to these un-signalized intersections?

MR. BREUER: Based upon this study, you know they have an address by that, that’s basically set by the signal interval, as I understand it, so they would adjust that timing of that signal to match the demand.

COMMISSIONER HILL: That’s where I struggle a little bit with the report because on 18 it said that there would be no geometric changes or conditions, so how did that, those things connect?

MR. BREUER: I guess we’re following the recommendations of the original report; we’ve reduced the amount of trips generated in conjunction with what we were asked of by city staff and so that’s the level we’ve taken it, I guess, and I apologize we didn’t prepare the original report, were just doing what we’ve been asked by the city to elaborate on the proposed condition, the proposed use so… I’m not trying to dodge the question I guess but it’s just kind of difficult for us to speak on behalf of the people that prepare the report.

COMMISSIONER HILL: Yeah, so from a layman’s perspective, it, I would just be interested in how long would I be waiting in line with the signal, at the signal point under the current conditions, how long would I be waiting in line if I were on Pflumm waiting at the intersection; and I had the opportunity to go there during this peak period the other day to visit a retail place on the east side of the street and got to observe some of that so I’m just trying to correlate what this report is compared to what I saw in person.

MR. BREUER: So, if you look at Exhibit A you have GBA’s report, they discuss the delays per given LOS for both un-signalized and signalized intersections so for instance to move, when you talked about was a LOS of “A” so according to the report that’s less than 10 seconds of delay at that movement. And it may not be in the staff report, I’m not sure if it is…

COMMISSIONER HILL: Can you put it on the overhead so we can all see it? So the reason I asked the question is I, as I was waiting to pull out I noticed that the, from the signal at the exit of the Hy-Vee grocery store heading to the north traffic had backed up a considerable amount so I just wanted to understand how this traffic study correlates to what I saw.

MR. BREUER: Sure. So this, a level “A” LOS would be less than a 10 second delay for any given movement and a LOS of “F” would be greater than 80 seconds for any particular movement. So this signalized intersection’s on this side.

COMMISSIONER HILL: Okay, I think I understand then what you’re explaining to me it just doesn’t correlate with what I saw.

MR. BREUER: Okay.

COMMISSIONER HILL: I mean, I actually watched, you know, where there were several cars that did not make it through the signal and certainly the timing could be adjusted and I was just wondering how that, how do you come about to make those adjustments and will that be necessary if this project goes forward, in your opinion after doing a traffic study?

MR. BREUER: Again, (inaudible) correct and yeah that’s a good point. This is for the, Paul was just clarifying that this is for the future condition and our site, those LOS so it’s nothing that you would, those delays that you saw today obviously there’s gonna be additional traffic there but that’s not all from this site.

COMMISSIONER HILL: Right. Okay, thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Question for staff. Could you remind me of what period of time the traffic was studied? Was it during school traffic was happening or was it in the summer?

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR AND CITY ENGINEER WESSELSCHMIDT: Looking at the GBA study that was done in, submitted on June 13, 2014 the analysis was done based on traffic counts taken on Wednesday, May 21, 2014 so probably right before school was out; all of the schools should’ve still been in session.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: A question, on page 18 of tonight’s package the site plan for the Vantage development indicates one access point from Pflumm and one from 62nd (inaudible) there were exits and entrances on Pflumm Rd. north of 61st St., Does, what impact does that have on this study verses saying that this study is adequate for the new situation?

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR AND CITY ENGINEER WESSELSCHMIDT: On the Cobblestone project while they had three access points proposed on Pflumm Rd. the primary one was at 61st St. the other two were some pretty minor access points that just went to those apartment buildings.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Okay. So…

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR AND CITY ENGINEER WESSELSCHMIDT: And I think the other part of the question is, how does that compare with the Vantage proposal; the Vantage proposal, its primary access point is on Pflumm Rd., a second access point is on 62nd St.; the primary access point on the Vantage project is south of 61st St., In between 61st St. and 62nd St., so in the GBA study the primary portion of that study was to determine if there was a warrant to provide signalization at 61st and their main access point and which that study indicated that the warrants would not exist to signalized that.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Okay, thank you. I have another question.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: For Mark Breuer.

MR. BREUER: Yes, sir.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Looking at the, I did some calculations based on the Cobblestone Court study that, where it shows the apartments at 71 for that and so to 312 units in the Vantage project I did get the 171 trips in the a.m. peak but I came up with 250 trips in the p.m. peak which is, you know, significantly higher than the 202 that you came up with.

MR. BREUER: So, let’s see here, part of that, some of those data sets that are used to calculate that are not linear to wear those can project out at not necessarily an exponential, it’s not directly a linear extrapolation so more units may result in higher traffic than the straight ratio of units per trip, if that makes sense…

(Inaudible)

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Even though the a.m. one came out to exactly the same number you did?

MR. BREUER: Correct. I don’t have that equation in front of me but that could be one potential explanation.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there any other questions for the staff or the applicant? If I may? So, do you, to the trips change by the type of use?

MR. BREUER: Correct.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, if this was 28 acres of single-family housing at 3.5 per acre, approximately 95 housing units, would you say that, how many trips per day off the top of your head with that calculate to?

MR. BREUER: Trips per day? General rule of thumb is 6-10 per single family depending on density but trips per day, 6 trips per day to 10 trips per day.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And, how many are you using per day on this mixed use for the site?

MR. BREUER: This site, I believe, has approximately 2000 trips per day…

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: About 6?

MR. BREUER: A little more, yeah.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: 6 ? So you’re just using about, you’re using approximately the same?

MR. BREUER: Again, it was based on and used classifications from the trip generation manual which is the industry standard for determining trip generation based on a given use, so for each use there may be several studies, there may be very few studies, but all that data is collected mathematical equations are developed based on the type of use and whatever the variable is whether it be number of homes, or number of people, number of dwelling units and departments for instance has quite a bit of data on so some of those may correlate with single family but basically we put in the number of dwelling units from the site into the equations that’s what we came up with a number of trips generated.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay, all right. Thank you, is there any other questions for the staff or the applicant? Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: On the Cobblestone property there were multiple access points off Pflumm, I think that is everybody’s main concern on the Vantage there is only the one, is there a reason why there weren’t multiple entrances?

MR. BREUER: The additional entrances, I think as Doug kind of mentioned were just for two apartment buildings, two or three apartment drives and so based on the Cobblestone study that resulted in, you can see it here, out of this north drive approximately 7 trips out at the peak hour and 12 in the southern residential drive. I think you can see the trips and but as proportioned to the access on 61st it’s pretty insignificant, the major entrances were lined up with 61st St. so, as a general rule, you know, funneling these all into, you know, a more major intersection point is probably a little better practice; letting the access points on Pflumm they are just drives in that instance and not, you know, private or public streets helps control some of the traffic flow.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Okay, one more question. Approximately how far is the gate from Pflumm? The reason being is if you’re in a peek time…

MR. BREUER: It’s substantial…

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Are you going to have cars backed up that can’t turn when there’s possibly an opening?

MR. BREUER: It’ll be close to the clubhouse, I’m assuming…

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: It appears to be 10 feet.

MR. BREUER: Approximately 500 feet.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: So, you’re going to drive past the clubhouse to get mitigate? It’s not gonna be 15 to 20 feet off of…

MR. BREUER: So, you’ll be able to come to the leasing office which is generally the clubhouse before getting into the actual gated property.

(Inaudible)

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Yes, thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. So we would be in Commission discussion. Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Paul, the letter and information that I brought to you today was it not available?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: I have it available if it was brought up this evening.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Okay. Yeah, I’d like to bring it up.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Since we didn’t know if it was going to be brought up in part of any discussion we didn’t want to prejudge anyone’s thoughts.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Okay.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: So, I do have copies available this Commissioner Bogina, after hearing your question would like to…

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Would you like for them to be distributed now?

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Please.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And you have some points that you wish to make on this…on when we receive it…when the commission has it you have some points you wish to make?

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Yeah, just a...

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay, okay. Thank you. Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: A couple of points. The first being, this is from a resident that lives southwest of the Vantage development right on 61st and her concerns having lived there quite a while and part of it is people using that, at the present time, are using the signal at 62nd St., the Hy-Vee signal, okay to make it out onto Pflumm Rd., especially in times in one of the reasons is because it changed the timing of the 62nd signal to when we did the throughput on Shawnee Mission Parkway, you know, from east to west and west to east and it sure that time that that light was, you know, the cycle time and so rather than come out of 62nd go to that light they come out the other way and through the Hy-Vee parking lot, so that’s one issue; and if you look on the 3rd page, the other is going through the neighborhood to reach Broken Arrow school, okay, which there’s bound to be several school age children that will be in this place and, in Vantage and also going through the neighborhood to get to Johnson Drive via Albervan and Widmer and so I just, I think it warrants a better look to make sure, you know, that were not creating more problems.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: You mean the other public street patterns?

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Excuse me?

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And what deserves another…

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: This and this…

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Right, but I mean doesn’t, it’s describing how someone’s using the public roads to go through a different way to…

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Right and I mean rather than go, go out and down Pflumm and down Johnson Drive to broken arrow their gonna go through the neighborhood and rather than go out to Pflumm, you know, to reach Johnson Drive going either east or west, go through that neighborhood and Albervan and down where Widmer intersects with Johnson Drive.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Yeah, so those people in those neighborhoods are concerned about that and I don’t know, I haven’t seen anything that tells me that that was addressed at all.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Off-site traffic?

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Yeah, right.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: That’s true. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: That’s all.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Does the Commission have any other discussion? One thing that I learned when Walmart Neighborhood grocery was built at 75th and Nieman is the traffic engineers explained to the Commission for a long time that there wouldn’t, that they had placed because of its location, that 80% of their traffic return right from the west edge and go north and exit on 75th St. and go south and I thought it would generate a lot more traffic and it would be a lot more troublesome and they accepted the stipulation that they would pay for a traffic signal if it was warranted and I think in this case it’s relatively the same that these people are going to turn right and go south on Pflumm Rd. and other than go to 435 or I-35 or the Plaza, I think it’s a rarity or small percentage that are going to go north on Pflumm that’s going to cause congestion for this intersection but I think that we could stipulate that the applicant would pay for a traffic signal if the city thought that that was necessary in the future, but I think that they’re going to go to Hy-Vee, they’re going to get a Sonic, they’re gonna go to the hardware store and they’re going to be turning south out of this when they come home from work there gonna enter, they’re gonna come down, there gonna be going north and they’re going to try and enter and I think that could be a problem turning left on Pflumm Rd., and entering the complex but I don’t know myself because I’m not that skilled at being a traffic engineer and whether or not there and back of traffic on Pflumm Rd. or not, but I think we could make that stipulation of them providing signalization if the city felt that it was necessary sometime in the future and have some time frame on that but I think the traffic engineers were correct on 75th St. for Walmart and all of their predictions from what I’ve seen and I have no reason to doubt these traffic engineers as far as what they’ve come up with on their plans and so if we have no other discussion is there a motion on this item?

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Hill Smith.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: I move that we resubmit the original recommendation of approval with the 33 conditions given on the original staff report with our positive recommendation to the governing body.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: I apologize, you are Commissioner Smith.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: I knew you did.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there a second on this item? Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I’ll second it.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and second to, I apologize, could you restate your motion?

COMMISSIONER SMITH: The motion, Mr. Chairman, is to resubmit Planning Commission’s original recommendation of approval with the 33 conditions back to the governing body, with our recommendation again for approval.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. There’s a motion to resubmit the plan of PUD-01-15-11; a rezoning from PUDMR and PUDMX to PUDMR and preliminary development plan for Vantage at Shawnee to the City Council for approval, all in favor?

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed?

COMMISSIONERS: No, no.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Could you identify the no’s please? Commissioner Willoughby, Commissioner Hill. Thank you.


(Motion passes 9-2)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: That takes us to:

E. OTHER BUSINESS

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Paul.

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Is this a public meeting? Is there not an opportunity for (inaudible)?

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: No. We do not, on the second time we do not, we had the public hearing in November and we don’t have a public hearing after that, but the City Council will have it on their agenda in late January and according to whatever their procedures they have you could make your wishes or make your statements known then.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Paul.

Planning Director Chaffee reminded the Commissioners that the next meeting will be held on a Wednesday due to the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Does the Commission have any business for the staff?

F. ADJOURNMENT

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: If not, is there a motion to adjourn? Commissioner Busby.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I move for adjournment.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Second.

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

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes.


(Motion passes 11-0)