PDF Format:





September 7, 2016

7:30 P.M.

Commissioner Augie BoginaPlanning Director Paul Chaffee
Commissioner Bruce BienhoffDeputy Planning Director Doug Allmon
Commissioner Randy BraleyPlanner Mark Zielsdorf
Commissioner Dennis BusbyAdministrative Assistant Angie Lind
Commissioner Rusty Mudgett
Commissioner Kathy Peterson
Commissioner John Smith
Commissioner Les Smith
Commissioner Alan Willoughby
Commissioner Steven Wise
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Welcome to the September 7, 2016 meeting of the Shawnee Planning Commission. I’d like to welcome Rusty Mudgett to the Planning Commission. On behalf of all the Planning Commissioners, I hope you find your time on the commission rewarding and appreciate your service to the community. Thank you.

We’ll start with Roll Call.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Braley.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner John Smith.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bienhoff.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Busby is here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bogina.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Wise.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Les Smith.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Mudgett.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Please join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.



CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Items 1 and 2 are listed under the Consent Items Agenda. Consent Item 2 includes a request to forward a plat to the next Council meeting. Unless there is a request to remove an item from the Consent Agenda, the items will be approved in one motion. Is there a request to remove an item from the Consent Agenda? If not, is there a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Commissioner John Smith.

COMMISSIONER JOHN SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the Consent Agenda.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Commissioner Bogina. All in favor say aye.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay? Motion carried.

(Motion passes 10-0)




PLANNER ZIELSDORF: The applicant requests special use permit approval for the operation of a group day care with up to twelve (12) children, as a home occupation, at 11943 W. 66th Street.

The applicant currently operates a daycare for up to six children in her home, and has done so at this address since 2013. There have been no reported issues or problems in the past related to the operation.

The property is zoned PD (Planned Development) and is located within the Tanglewood Estates subdivision. The property contains a single family residence. Surrounding properties in all directions are also zoned PD and are developed with other single family homes within the Tanglewood Estates subdivision.

The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan indicates medium density residential use for the property, thus the principle use of the structure as a residence is in compliance with the Plan.

The applicant is requesting approval to operate a group day care with up to twelve (12) children. The hours of operation will be 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The applicant shall have a minimum of two adult care givers on site any time there are more than ten (10) children present at the home. As allowed by Shawnee Municipal Code (SMC) Chapter 17.66, the daycare may employ up to the equivalent of one (1) full-time nonresident employee (up to 40 hours per week combined if more than one employee will work in the home). The applicant has indicated that her husband will serve as the second employee for the day care operation, so a non-resident employee will not be necessary.

The property is served by a two-car driveway that has approximately 27 feet of depth. This provides room for off-street drop off and pickup of children.

In accordance with the City’s requirement, the applicant has a fenced play area in the back yard. The back yard is surrounded with a 6-foot tall, solid wood fence on all three sides.

The Fire Department completed an on-site inspection of the residence last month as required. The site inspection indicated all life safety requirements were satisfied. The applicant has provided staff with a copy of her current license issued by Kansas Department of Health and Environment that allows care for up to 12 children. The owner shall also continue to maintain an annual business license from the City Clerk to operate the home occupation.

Granting the special use permit should have little, if any, detrimental effect on surrounding properties. There are numerous special use permits that have been issued for the provision of child care as a home occupation without concerns being raised. Likewise, a home daycare for 6 children has operated at the home for three years. Since this is a new special use permit for this address, it will be subject to review in one (1) year.

As far as staff’s recommendation, staff recommends approval of SUP-05-16-09 for the operation of a group day care with up to twelve (12) children as a home occupation by Big Smile Day Care, located at 11943 W. 66th Street, subject to the following conditions:

That concludes staff’s presentation.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Mark. Is the applicant present? Would you please come forward; and if you’d state your name and address at the microphone over here?

APPLICANT: Good evening, my name is Yessica Contreras and I live at 11943 W. 66th Street in Shawnee, 66216.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Does the Commission have any questions for the applicant or, I’m sorry, are you in agreement with staff recommendations?

MS. CONTRERAS: Yes, I agree with everything Mark said.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yes, good. Does the Commission have any questions for the applicant or staff? Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: It mentions in here under staff recommendations that no more than 12 including your own children; how many children do you have?

MS. CONTRERAS: I have two kids.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other questions for the applicant or staff? If not, then this is a public hearing item, does anyone from the audience…would you come forward and state your name and address?

PUBLIC COMMENT: My name is Robert Kirkpatrick, I live at (address omitted from record) in Tanglewood Estates and I live in a cul-de-sac, not the same cul-de-sac that the applicant lives in, but I have a few thoughts about the applicant’s wanting a special use permit for 12 children. I will say something briefly and then I can give you a copy of my notes here from which I am speaking. The Tanglewood Estates Association really wasn’t designed to be, had business enterprises in it. There are playground equipment, there are basketball goals, tennis courts, and swimming pools; not designed for a business to be in and around the neighborhood. The City of Shawnee’s web-link has different requirements for a in use home care center; you’ve been hearing about them in a certain extent here; I believe that parents that bring children in cars to the applicant’s residence, that that could become a traffic nuisance. There’s 14 houses in that cul-de-sac; at the end of that cul-de-sac there is an island which is like 25 x 25’; that multiplies out to 625 ft.² in that elliptical ending of that cul-de-sac. The Tanglewood Estates board does have a reason for action if there is a neighborhood that becomes a nuisance, it’s in their bylaws. If the special use permit is approved, there could be other special use permits requested for other kinds of businesses. I don’t like to see that to happen. I think I said there was 14 houses in that neighborhood and really if cars come and go between what, 7 AM and 5:30 PM, it can become a traffic nuisance and if you drive down through that neighborhood you will see several cars parked around that 625 ft.² island, it could become just congested and a nuisance. For my recommendation for you here in attendance is that you not approve that special use permit for what I have said just a moment ago. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to be heard? Yes ma’am.

PUBLIC COMMENT: My name is Judy Vandergriff, I live at (address omitted from record); I’m president of the board of directors of Tanglewood homes association. I have brought a map that I would like to pass around that shows a better way that this is set up. It shows a narrowness of getting in and out of this area. We circled the house; I’d like to pass it around if that’s okay. Also, I have letters from two homeowners; one lives directly behind them in one lives in the area, that have not, that are against this, like the pass those around, both. It says in our bylaws, article 16, number 1, no noxious or offensive trade activity, and I realize this is not noxious or offensive, shall be carried upon within single-family dwelling or townhome unit, nor shall anything they’re be done to their on which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance in the neighborhood. And our homeowners in that area that have talked to us say that they believe that that would happen. I also have pictures of this area here; I will show you where all of the cars are around the island. It’s a very narrow, narrow street; I will pass those around also.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is it possible we could put these up on the viewer so that everyone can see?

MS. VANDERGRIFF: Okay. These streets are Tanglewood streets. We have to maintain them; we feel that if you have 12 cars coming in and out twice a day, that’s going to greatly reduce the length of our streets. We have asked the City of Shawnee in previous years to maintain these streets for us and they say they cannot because the streets are not wide enough to get the equipment in there in order to maintain them. So, they have become our sole responsibility. We really tried to keep these to the best of our possibility; the homeowner dues we pay, we collect from them every month go for repairing the streets; we try to do it, we’ve got it this year coming up to do them in sections and we’re just gonna try to seal them so that we can hold them off for another three or four years because it’s going to be $400,000-$500,000 to do the streets. We are a small community; we love our homeowners; we don’t want to put any assessment on them that we don’t have to. Also, there are no sidewalks in here; there are children playing in this area and around and cars coming in and out we feel would not be beneficial. Does anybody have any questions?


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bogina.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Yes ma’am, I’m sorry I forgot your name.

MS. VANDERGRIFF: Judy Vandergriff.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: During the three years that the, it has operated, has anyone expressed concerns about these things that you bring up tonight?

MS. VANDERGRIFF: That’s a good question and I have an answer for that. I, we talk to our homeowners in that area, they do not have a problem with the ones that she has right now, it’s manageable. When I took some of the pictures this morning, I was got hit by two cars delivering their kids there, but that’s because they weren’t used to somebody being in the street. That was my prime concern. They don’t seem to care that she has what she has right now, they are okay with that; it’s the 12 that they don’t want. We have no facilities to handle 12 kids. If she, her backyard is relatively small and we don’t have the playground for her to put her kids in.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: If she has six currently and she’s asking for six more, not 12 more, is that correct?

MS. VANDERGRIFF: That’s correct.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Okay, and so, and those six perhaps our siblings, some of them are siblings to where the traffic may be only one or two or three more cars a day…

MS. VANDERGRIFF: Correct. I said there’s a possibility of that, not that there would be. Correct.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And, do you think that, and so it would be your opinion that this street could not handle perhaps six trips for a, to pick up perhaps two siblings or three siblings…

MS. VANDERGRIFF: We don’t, if she has the six now we’re fine with that. It’s an additional six that we care about. It might be six more it might be seven more, it could be five more.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And, do you know that the city is just requesting it to be considered for a one year period before review?

MS. VANDERGRIFF: Yes, we understand that.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And, to see if there are any problems with it?

MS. VANDERGRIFF: We understand that. Our neighbors are the ones that are homeowners that are the ones that are complaining that they don’t want it, that’s why we’re here tonight.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Okay. And I haven’t skimmed all this because I just got it, but is their main concern the traffic?

MS. VANDERGRIFF: I think the main concern is the traffic and the noise and a lot of other things. The letters tell you what all they are concerned about.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, is it likely that these six more children would make more noise than other children in the neighborhood?

MS. VANDERGRIFF: I’m thinking that if you put 12 kids together then there can make lot more noise than six.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Well, six additional, yeah.

MS. VANDERGRIFF: That would mean 12 total if she’s got six now.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: All right, thank you.

MS. VANDERGRIFF: You’re welcome. Any other questions?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, ma’am. Is there any…

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I have a question for the applicant.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Okay, Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: So, how many families, you know, do you have, are you taking care of kids of how many families?

MS. CONTRERAS: At this time I have six children, but I have to add my kids to the license, that’s why I’m applying for it. I’m not planning to have 12 kids soon, it’s just because I don’t feel ready for it. I’m looking to get two more kids to get a total of 10 kids with my own.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: But, how many…what I’m looking for is how many different families come and pick up their kids at your house every day?

MS. CONTRERAS: At this time there are six.


MS. CONTRERAS: How many families?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Do you have any that are like brothers and sisters? Or are they just one kid…

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: That’s what I’m getting at.

MS. CONTRERAS: One kid for each family.


MS. VANDERGRIFF: I have a question for you. If I may?


MS. VANDERGRIFF: If you have these…



CHAIRMAN BUSBY: You can’t do that.



CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Does anybody else from the audience wish to speak on this matter? Yes sir, come forward.

PUBLIC COMMENT: My name is Robert Young, I live at (address omitted from record) and I’m a parent of one of the children at the daycare. The only part that I wish to mention is, we’ve been there for a year and a half, almost a year and a half, and we have not had the troubles that we’ve described, that have been described regarding the streets. There are children that play in the streets and as a cautious driver I am aware of that. We’ve known that our child plays in the house or in the backyard as was stated earlier as the Tanglewood is concerned about the use of the public facilities, the children don’t leave the yard or the house. Most of the children there are less than three years of age, so the use of large playground equipment didn’t seem logical to us. We chose the place because they were focused on small children. I have a three-year-old little boy who really enjoys the area and enjoys his daycare provider. We liked it because it’s very safe. Our walk around the house when we first arrived was a 6 foot fence in the backyard, plenty of space for little kids. So, my point was just to support their application and I think that they would be great served with a few more kids. I know my son would enjoy it.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Does anybody else of the audience wish to be heard? If not, then the public hearing is closed. We are now in Planning Commission discussion. Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Yes, my, I think the one year would be a good testing ground for everyone. First of all, she doesn’t have four more children to add immediately it will be a gradual progression plus she has two of our own kids. So, she has six now and will move to 10 outside of the facility or that are outside of her home, but that way we could assess what damage it is doing to the Tanglewood Street situation and I’ve driven there, I understand that they are narrow streets and it’s good for us to know that this is a homeowners responsibility, not the general public so I think a year would be a good time to assess that yet give her the opportunity to work the way she wants to. My only concern is that should a nuisance become a problem within the years’ time, do we review? Does the homeowners association have more power than our special use permit is my curiosity?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Paul, would you care to answer that part of it?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: If we get complaints, we try to resolve them during the year or after the first year then it goes on a four-year review cycle so if there are issues that come up during that time that we can’t resolve, we can call up this special use permit earlier than that. It’s something we need to go out and verify that there really is an issue. Very rarely within in-home daycare that has a special use permit for either 12 or 10 children do we get complaints that, you know, the owner knows they are under special use permit and not that they are not good care providers anyway, but they understand that it’s (inaudible) for their business and these are comments that some Planning Commissioners have been on for a while here or, you know, a lot and they just really have it turned out to be the problem that folks think they may be, although we have it to call up. I would say probably if the homes Association did have issues that it became a nuisance, they could probably take care of it in their own manner and not wait for, you know, us to have an SUP, but I would think that if they’re going to take care the situation that this is gonna be the same proof to show as would be if they came to the Planning Commission again. To let you know, we have, that I can recall, over the past 28 years we have never had to call up a special use permit for an in-home childcare facility. We had them closed down on their own, but we haven’t had to go in and revoke anybody’s special use permit.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: May I ask a follow-up?


COMMISSIONER PETERSON: So, to be clear, if the homeowners association says that this is a nuisance and they want to exercise their rights as a homeowners association, and they come to you and you resolve it, then that will be brought to us or…


PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: What will happen is just if it gets shut down by the homes association, then what happens is it will come to you like we had last meeting for the auto broker who’d gone out of business, we would withdraw the special use permit because they are no longer in operation.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: But, we would encourage the two parties to work together?



PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Of course, I mean, there have been situations that neighbors have complained about traffic and cars being parked at certain times of day and so we go out and take a look and it’s not the daycare providers’ clients that are parking in the street, it’s the neighbor’s kid across the street; I mean, that’s whose car it is or we hear screaming children at 7:30 in the morning, so we’ve driven out before and we sit and listen and do we hear anything or do we not hear anything and just, you know, we try and be proactive of the issue and not go to the extent of having to withdraw special use permit.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Mudgett.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: (Inaudible – microphone off)


COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: (Inaudible – microphone off)

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: No, you can have as a home occupation for a child care facility by right, up to six children without a special use permit so once you get to the point that you’re gonna have that seventh child there, you need special use permit and generally the state, depending on whether or not you have someone assisting you will either issue their license for 10 or for 12; they won’t go in and say you can only have eight, they base it off on the square footage that’s available. So, that’s generally as we see the SUP applications, its 10 children if it’s just the sole person providing care, the state allows that if you have someone who assists you that you can go up to 12 children.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yes Mr. Chairman, thank you. Having been on the Planning Commission for a number of years now, I recall a few instances very similar situations where there were concerns voiced about noise and traffic and was not gonna be a good situation and those cases I recall the special use permit was approved and as Paul mentioned we never heard another thing about it other than the next time it came up it was approved with no complaints or anything filed; so, from that perspective I don’t have any real concerns. I think history has shown that these generally are very good situation; the other thing, things I’d point out the requirements is two-car driveway, the depth of that allows for off-street pickup and drop-off, it’s within the city’s requirement that they have a fenced backyard and our fire department has inspected and the license all seems to be in order; and being a father, knowing how difficult it is to find good daycare and be able to use I know that this is a very important service to the community as well.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other questions? Any other discussion? Is there a motion on this item?


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Les Smith.

COMMISSIONER LES SMITH: I move that we approve SUP-05-16-09; special use permit approval for the Big Smile Day Care, located at 11943 W. 66th Street, subject to staff’s conditions.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Is there a second?


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bogina, thank you. We have a motion for approval of SUP-05-16-09; special use permit for home day care, Big Smile Day Care, LLC, 11943 W. 66th Street. All in favor, say aye.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay? Motion carried, thank you.

(Motion passed 10-0)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Next item is:
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I’m understanding there was some illness in the family, so I’d like to know if anybody from there it’s here to talk about this matter? It does not appear to be, so in that case…

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I don’t see the applicant in the audience.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Okay. In that case, I suggest that we table this until the next meeting and would entertain a motion as such. Commissioner John Smith.

COMMISSIONER JOHN SMITH: I would advance a motion that that we table SP-27-16-09 until the next meeting of the Commission.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Is there a second?


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby, thank you. Motion and second to table SP-27-16-09 until the next meeting. All in favor, say aye.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay? Motion carried.

(Motion to table to September 19, 2016 passed 10-0)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Paul, we now have the:
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: And I believe you have a presentation for us.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: The Planning Commission is required by State Statutes to annually review and approve the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Comments and suggestions made by the Planning Commission are forwarded to the Governing Body prior to their adoption of the Plan.

The draft Plan indicates projects that have recently been completed, but are not bonded, as well as projects that are under construction or have been continued from the 2016 Plan. The Plan also includes the current year projects, as well as the six-year proposed projects.

A number of factors affect the positioning of projects over the next six years. While development patterns play a large role, the ability of the City to finance the projects is a controlling factor. During the past year, staff and the Governing Body have continued to review the list of projects to be included in the Capital Improvement Plan. Additionally, the Governing Body has begun a prioritization process to assist in determining the desires of projects to be undertaken over an extended period of time. The projects listed are those that will be able to be bonded with funds collected through the mill levy to accommodate bond and interest payments, or use special funds directed for specific types of improvements.

And before I get started, I’m going to go over a series of acronyms that you’re getting here and see and kind of what they are and where they are funding comes from. One of the sources of funds is the, is from what we call the CARS program. It’s a County program that uses sales tax money that is collected specifically for road improvements and cities submit specific projects to the county and then those are ranked and determined by the County as to which projects will be funded. It can be either, in some cases it can be new construction and then sometimes they are major overlay type projects and you may have seen the sign on the way in if you come in like along Johnson Drive, there’s a big sign that says this is a County CARS project so the mill and overlay that we were able to do on Johnson Drive in Quivira almost to Pflumm Road is a CARS project so that’s what CARS is. There’s an acronym called SIP. That’s the new Street Improvement Program that our funds that are collected from the 3/8 cent sales tax that the voters approved about a year and a half ago and we’ve started collecting some funds to fund projects. We haven’t used any SIP money yet because since the sales tax just started it’ll take some time to accumulate those types of funding. There’s an acronym called CDBG. That’s the Community Development Block Grant program. Those are federal funds. The city of Shawnee is an entitlement community which means we are guaranteed funding under the CDBG program; every year cities that are over 50,000 received the entitlement status. Those funds can only be used in census tracts that have low to moderate income, a certain number of low to moderate income persons. In the city of Shawnee we have four what we call block groups within the census tracts. If you are not in an entitlement community or don’t enough census tracts that are 50% or more low and moderate income persons, what happens is your lowest core tile of your census block groups qualify for the use of CDBG funds so in Shawnee those are the block groups that have 44.37% of the residents who are low and moderate income persons. Generally, those are block groups from 55th St. between Quivira and Switzer down to 75th St. with a couple of exceptions of block groups that are out. So, projects that use CDBG funds can only be located in those types of neighborhoods. The other acronym we have is SMAC. That’s the Stormwater Assistance Management program, that’s also a County program that is funded by a sales tax also for stormwater improvements countywide. It sort of works the same way as the CARS program that you make application for funds. They’re areas that have potential flooding or do have flooding, they are ranked and then the county offers cities the funds from number one to however far their money goes; the city can accept a project or it cannot accept a project; there’s a 25% match that the city needs to make; in the past there’ve been situations where we have said we will only take, if were offered three projects, that we’ll perhaps only take one or only take two because we don’t have the funds to immediately do it. Initially one of the projects that you’ll see on the schedule, we accepted one drainage project, we didn’t accept numbers two or number three; the Governing Body went back and decided that if they would do some bonding work while those projects were offered funds that maybe it was in our best interest to complete the projects all at once and that’ll be the Nieman project that we’ll visit a little bit about in just a moment. Then we have the special assessments. Special assessments are when a benefit district is created and a neighborhood or subdivision may contribute to the costs of those streets or they pay entirely for those streets and we may put them on the CIP because the City’s the one who actually inspects the work and does the work up. An example would be Blackfish Parkway down when Wedgewood was developed; Blackfish Parkway was a benefit district, there was improvements made to Lackman Road which was a benefit district and some improvements to 71st St. which were a benefit district. In those situations the residents of Wedgewood paid a portion of those total costs and lines were sort of drawn, if you are in the 71st St. benefit district, or you could be in the 71st St. and Lackman Road benefit district, or you could be in all three benefit districts and there were some folks that had the good fortune of being in all three of those benefit districts; and then generally those, an individual who is in a benefit district has the opportunity to pay the total amount up front and so not have it be put on the tax roll, otherwise it’s on the tax roll and those payments are spread out over 10 years with an interest rate that’s attached to it. So, I think that pretty much covers most of the acronyms. One other, to others we have are Parks & Pipes. Parks & Pipes is the sales tax that the city has that helps fund stormwater improvements and parkland improvements. And, then where you see the special highway fund, that’s money that is reimbursed through the state through the sales tax on gasoline that’s sold within the state and then it’s reapportioned by population throughout the state.

So with that, I’m going to go through the projects real quick.

Planning Director Chaffee went through the PowerPoint Presentation slides from the September 6, 2016 Council Committee meeting.

So, we always let the Governing Body know that this is recommendation of the Planning Commission and sort of how they got to the, some of the streets that are on the list that maybe aren’t SIP projects. Staff prepared a list of about 14 or 15 streets to the Governing Body last fall and they went through an exercise where they prioritized the streets as they wanted to make improvements to them and 71st didn’t score, in their minds at that time high enough. Last night, probably for the first time that I can remember in a long time we had an 11 year old citizen approach the Governing Body and sort of suggested to them that she lives in Greens of Chapel Creek and she and her family would like to go to the park in a safe manner along the street and she made a suggestion to the Governing Body that perhaps that we not make full improvements to 71st St. but perhaps it would be wise to at least construct a sidewalk on the north side of 71st St. so that folks in Chapel Creek in the area could walk safely along the north side and then have a crosswalk across 71st St. at the entrance to Erfurt Park. It was well received on their part. Commissioner Braley was also at the meeting and expressed his desire for the Governing Body to take a look at both 71st St. and something along Gleason Road; so, we did let her know the Planning Commission would also be reviewing the CIP and could make, you know, additional recommendations to the Governing Body for items that may not currently be on the plan to take a look at may be revisiting the plan or making a street a higher priority than seem to come out of the prioritization process. So, that concludes my presentation. If you have any specific questions about any of the projects I’d be glad to help you out. Our process of what we need to do tonight is we make review, comment, and then forward our recommendation on to the Governing Body; they’ll hear those at their September 26 meeting and I think perhaps Chairman Busby had something that he would like to share with us.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yeah, I can add something to it. But a question before I get to that is, with this northern part of Johnson County, the county itself does essentially stormwater and these culverts that are needing to be replaced, is that correct?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: No, the city does them; we do it with counting funds. We apply for county funds; those are the SMAC funds and then we, it generally doesn’t pay for the whole cost of the project that we have to use city funds also on some cases to do the projects.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is there any chance that those funds from the county that are helping with that will be increased? And are other cities, Merriam which is an older part, Mission, are these other cities experiencing the same amount of issue with that?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: All communities compete for the same amount of funds. Now as sales tax collection, because it’s a certain amount dedicated to… as sales tax collection increases more funds are available generally to be used. So, I guess, theoretically there may be more money year-by-year if sales tax collections get higher, but not anything significant. Shawnee’s faired fairly well with the allocation of the CARS money over the years; as a percentage of our population to the percentage of the population of the county as a whole. I hope I answered your question.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: You did, thank you.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bogina.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Paul, real quick. (Inaudible – microphone off)


COMMISSIONER BOGINA: (Inaudible – microphone off)

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: It will be done one time as well as the collection of the drainage project.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And is there... (Inaudible – microphone off)

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Not yet. Our Engineering division, I think, part of the day today and will probably spend some time in the next week or so too to prepare that cost estimate for the sidewalk for the Governing Body to hear that…

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: (Inaudible – microphone off)

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Well, that…if you think it’s important and, you know, if…we don’t have the bonding authority right now to do the $7.8 million project but if you think that some sort of improvement is a good idea and should be put on the CIP for some sort of pedestrian or neighborhood access to the park, I think that’s appropriate for us to do and also, you know, in the past we’ve let them know that 71st St. needs to be done; we started making that recommendation before we broke ground at Erfurt Park and then every year we keep bringing it up to have them consider, you know, while I was constructed and then it’s like will now it is constructed and that something to take a look at; and we talked about Gleason Road on an off, sometimes we recommend Gleason and sometimes just 71st St. so we kind of gone back and forth on that one. The other estimate that they’re going to make, when we did the improvements to Erfurt Park, we did bring the sidewalk all the way down to 71st St. from the parking lot because we didn’t know where that connection may be made for a crosswalk’s a part of the estimate that the Engineering division is preparing is to finish that little segment of sidewalk out of the park down to 71st where the crosswalk will be.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: (Inaudible – microphone off)

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: It is probably a little over a quarter of a mile.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: (Inaudible – microphone off)

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: I don’t know, to be honest with you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Anyway, I was going to try and play a little bit, an excerpt from last night’s City Council meeting because it was really quite cute, an 11-year-old girl by the time she’s finished asking for sidewalks so she could get to the park and a crosswalk, after she was finished she got a lot of clapping for it because it was quite cute and she was on TV on the local stations this afternoon being interviewed and Randy Braley, Commissioner Braley and I have been kind of on this from, for a number of years and the one thought might be that if we wish to pass the CIP as it is and then add an amendment afterward suggesting that it be included because it still has to go back to the full City Council, an amendment to that same that we would really like to see something done along the lines of what the young girl had to say and others have felt. I’m not sure but at least we would be putting it in a position to be pushed into the CIP at some point in time and reviewed for that. It’s amazing that an 11-year-old girl can make things happen faster then maybe some of us older people up here. Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Paul, a quick question on... (Inaudible – microphone off)

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Yes, that’s part of the Nieman Road project. Yep. Yes.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Yeah, as a follow-up to your comments regarding the young lady’s presentation last night, it took an 11-year-old to think outside the box that kind of got my mind going today and would like to add in that, you know, she had a specific desire for her neighborhood, which was great because that’s how she’s experiencing it, but at yesterday’s meeting, I’d like to see that scope extend a little bit to at least get a trail connection up in the area of Crystal Place which is 75th and Gleason in that neighborhood. We’d always talked about that at some point, you know, the aha moment for me was, you know, in the past you always think well to get a sidewalk or to get a trail it has to be associated with a road project, is this one of those instances where we, and it sounds like Paul we’re heading down this direction to do an analysis of okay if we don’t improve the road, what can we do to get a trail network in place to connect the communities to the park as an asset, so truly serves as a neighborhood park so that we don’t have to drive there; so, I don’t know if you’re intent was to just support the sidewalk extension along 71st but would you be open to sort of expanding that scope to have Parks or City staff look at what a trail would look like to connect sort of those two nodes around Erfurt Park.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: If you’re asking me then I’d say one thing is, if we okay the CIP and add an amendment to it then I’m thinking that what will happen is the City Council will have to vote on the original CIP and likewise go on the amendment. Is that correct? Will those be segregated out then?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: No, it’ll go all as one to them and they’ll just need to make a decision whether they want to add something or whether they don’t. All we do is recommend anything that is different than what shows up in the CIP.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I’m gonna be Grinch. I think it’s wonderful that somebody drove an 11-year-old appear last night and she participated in the process and I look forward to listening to it and I think that’s wonderful that it got everybody’s attention including the media; we all know that we need access to Erfurt but what are we gonna knock off the list that has been neglected or whatever to make a new development 100%? These streets that they are talking about on Barton and King that don’t have curbs; we have neighborhoods that are in older communities that they’ve driven the parks for years; I drove my, 17 years ago I drove my three kids to parks because there were none in my area; I think it’s lovely and I really want to do it but it’s a lot of money. One question I would like to know though is on 2018, you mentioned something about a stop light at 71st and Pflumm?


COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Yeah, I suggest we X that and give that money to help afford the sidewalk out at 71st St. because one more stop light on Pflumm and…it’s ridiculous.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Let me sort of tell you where that comes from. We do what we call traffic warrants and when you have a warrant, you need to correct the problem that you’ve got. But, that may be a suggestion to them that may be they, the Governing Body (inaudible).

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Explain why (inaudible)


COMMISSIONER BOGINA: (Inaudible)…a bad suggestion, because I don’t know if you’ve ever been at 5 o’clock at 71st and Pflumm but it’s a four-way stop and there is typically 15 to 20 cars in every direction, stopping and having a signal there is probably one of the best things that they can do, if they could design a roundabout, if they wanted to but probably a signal there is probably warranted even without the improvement of the street.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I’m thinking we should fail people that don’t pass how to four-way stop on the driver’s test and then it would all be better.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: 7:20 is a better time to be there. During the school year.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Yeah, I drive that all the time.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Does anybody else wish to join in in this discussion? One other thing, when I look at the CIP, it’s like I really don’t have the information to be able to say well this project shouldn’t be done, this one should be done instead because I really don’t have the information and I don’t think where armed to be able to do that but I think if we mention that we really think that…the little girl’s name was Riley Doyle…a Riley Doyle amendment that we certainly would agree that there needs to be a focus on doing something for accessibility Erfurt Park then we may have done it, exactly what we could do, that’s it. Any other discussion? Any other thoughts? Commissioner John Smith.

COMMISSIONER JOHN SMITH: I wanted to ask about something different, if we could leave this for a moment? The former mayor appointed a task force, a street improvement task force for the 1/8th, and I was on that task force; a consultant was hired (inaudible); did that report feed at all into this? Because we looked at both streets and sidewalks.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Right, it did, and that’s where we got Flint Street on the project, it scored highly from the SIP program; Goddard scored highly from the SIP program; and then the 60th St. project from Neiman to Flint. So, those three scored highly. You know, you take a look at the total dollar amount on those projects, you’ve got Flint at $2.8 million; we have 60th at $1 million; we’ve Goddard at $2.9 million; so they are expensive projects to do and it takes a while for the SIP funds to accumulate to the point that we can use them. But, we can certainly get, those were the sort of three that scored very highly and, you know, those are basically the SIP programing improvements to ditch section roads; there was a matrix of about 10 items that, you know, we took a look at potential for economic development or neighborhood revitalization efforts, is it close to school, is it close to a park, how much traffic is currently on? Then the SIP committee ranked, well they actually had a list of every Street that was a ditch section road in the community and they all got ranked and sort of shuffled through the process. So, three of those did come off of the SIP committee’s recommendations.

COMMISSIONER JOHN SMITH: Well, thank you Paul I appreciate that, but on another subject I guess I’ll show my bias here, on the 2018 fire station number 74, since I live in the west part of the county, our response time is slow, I really appreciate that being put on the CIP and I would like to see that reflected in our recommendation to the Commission also that we appreciate that being on there. I know its a couple years of monies to accumulate but it’s something that is needed.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, anyone else? Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Paul, I’m just kind of curious. I know these are a listing of real projects and it doesn’t identify really anything related to studies, is that correct? So anything, any funding that would go to studies, is that dealt with in a separate budget?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: The one that is related to a study is the last one, the East Riverside Park Master Development Plan. A lot of the projects we arty have perhaps, well the SIP projects are related to studies, you know, that have been made; Monticello Road obviously we have done our diligence, we have the plans ready and we have ground purchased; you know, 55th and Belmont, we need to get that park developed; so I guess yes, a lot of them we already have plans ready to go it’s been a matter of we haven’t had the funding source available to us whether it was through debt financing; some of the projects like the CARS projects we have to wait and just be able to do one a year and sort of checked them off the list as we go.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Anyone else? Would someone like to make a motion to forward on our recommendation for the CIP? And then, I think our Commission come back and decide whether we want to add an amendment and how strong it is and I think the Commission can decide on that separately. If that’s an agreement with everyone. Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: I’d like to make a motion that we recommend approval of the CIP as presented.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: There’s a motion and a second to approve the CIP as submitted. All in favor, say aye.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay? Motion carried.

(Motion passed 10-0)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Someone care to see if there is an amendment? Not hearing anything, Commissioner Braley, my apologies.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: I don’t want to keep harping on this but I just want to make sure that as a, that we get a full discussion of what we’re trying to accomplish here because I certainly respect what you’re saying and it is a difficult choice to say well what are we gonna bump off the list. Really, what I think, where I’m coming from at this point where yes I would like to see for this park to have trail access for the community, I don’t think we have enough information at this point. So, that’s why I was asking about a study, whether it’s an amendment for recommendation for a study or are we making an amendment recommendation for a project to be executed and I’d like to hear some additional thought.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Let me back up and answer that for you. I think we are looking for a project to be considered to be placed somewhere on the CIP.


PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: And we’re not, since we don’t know the dollar amount were not saying instead of this project we do this. It may be that there can be some shuffling of funds somewhere along the line that can be accomplished, not knowing the dollar amount but I think that if we feel strongly enough, or the Planning Commission feels strongly enough that we need to, that a certain project is to be on the plan, that we make that comment.


PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: As we certainly have in the past regarding 71st St. and sometimes Gleason Road.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: My question would be, I’m willing to make an amendment that says that further scrutiny and further discussion on the 71st St. plan when we better understand costs and what is being proposed, the sidewalk I believe is an excellent deal to be revisited or should we just make that aware to you to bring it back to us or that doesn’t come back to us in a year if we don’t do it, an amendment?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Yeah, it’s not cannot come back to you for another year.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Then may I make an amendment?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: This is what goes to them for them to consider when they have their discussion on the CIP.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Fine, please.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I make the amendment that we add 71st St. improvements to the Erfurt Park out at Gleason to be under consideration for being added to the CIP.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: There’s a motion and a second…I’m sorry? Yeah, Commissioner Bogina. Motion and a second to have a study such that basically the 71st St. area around Erfurt Park be upgraded and hopefully they’ll have a good, for next year’s CIP. Did I miss anything in that?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: I think you just want them to consider placement…


COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Somewhere in the six year CIP.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Right, very fine. All in favor, say aye.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay? I hope it’s noted that it was unanimous. Thank you.

(Motion passed 10-0)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Now we move on to:
PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Over the past three meetings we’ve had some discussions on proposed text amendments for senior living developments regarding density requirements. I’ve placed at your places the staff report from the last time where we sort of compared Shawnee’s density requirements to other communities requirements and we had some discussion that was made. So what I have, I’ve broken it into three parts. First is proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations. The second would be an amendment to the verbiage in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. And then the third one is preparation of an amenity policy brochure that we talked about doing. The first two items, if Planning Commission is comfortable with the language to go to a public hearing; we would schedule that for the second meeting in October. As far as the senior living brochure, we’ll have some discussion on it and what we will try to do is prepare a brochure for you all to take a look at, at the next meeting since that one you just adopt and say you like it or you don’t. But, I wanted to have some discussion to make sure that staff really got the gist of what we were talking about. So, the first item to talk about is amendments to the zoning regulations where sort of in the area requirements and this is in the PUD MR which is our planned unit development mixed residential zoning regulations which all multifamily developments in the city of Shawnee now come through that zoning district unless it’s a high-rise which is four stories or higher and those come through under the RHR which is the residential high-rise and then we also have a planned unit development mixed development (PUDMD) which would be where you have offices and retail on a lower floor and then multifamily above; so, those issues I think we’re not talking about the density on those but what we’re talking about are basically those that are three stories or less in height and so in the definition that we talk about the minimum lot size being 4 acres generally for a traditional apartment building, we already made an exception a few years ago that multifamily residential development within a quarter-mile of the boundaries of town square zoning district could have a little bit higher density bonus because we want to encourage higher density in the downtown area if you recall at the last meeting we kind of gave you a map which showed you where the quarter-mile was. And so what this amendment would do would basically say that also being accepted is for age restricted senior living developments for residents age 55 and over. And so, that’s highlighted in red. Then, when you go to the next, or through the rest of the paragraph it talks about that when you’re in a traditional apartment type development that there’s 28,000 ft.² (2,800 ft.²) of area in the plat for each dwelling unit; the ones within a quarter mile we went down to the 2,250 ft.² and then we added verbiage that said this requirement may also be reduced where adequate parking is provided, enhanced landscaping is undertaken, and the level of amenities is substantial in the Planning Commission’s opinion to provide an enhanced living environment for seniors to an area that contains no less than 2,000 ft.² per dwelling unit. So, at the last meeting we had those discussions that rather than someone just coming in and saying I have 2000 ft.² with the increased density sort of upfront that you are can get the increased density but working to take a look at what you are doing for parking, that you’ve got some enhanced landscaping going on and that you have a good quality of amenities because one of the things that we talked a little bit about was in traditional apartment developments you see a lot of outdoor amenities and not necessarily a lot of indoor amenities where in senior developments you tend to see more indoor amenities such as perhaps an indoor swimming pool, and indoor sort of clubhouse type area, you can have underground parking, so you really don’t need that many square feet per unit to provide a high level of amenity with the development itself. So, this would be the amendments to the Zoning Regulations.

Then, an amendment to introductory language for residential land use we have four areas that show on the land use guide as our residential developments and I gave you the land use guide, you have it in front of you and so areas that are in that real light yellow that is off on the other side of Mize Road, that’s the rural residential where there’s one unit or less, usually these are on septic systems so that’s really not appropriate place perhaps for a senior living complex where you have many units and you don’t a sewer system so we’re not making any recommendation to the verbiage there. So, after last the last meeting staff started looking at what may be reasonable and what may not and, you know, jumped right out at us that the medium density at 5.01-10 units per gross acre development and then add for senior living facilities with a density of 21.78 and that would be the upper limit 2000 ft.² and calling that a medium density and then when you have your residential high-rise that sort of kicks you into the high density residential area. So, it doesn’t mean that you are guaranteed to get it but it provides more locations than perhaps in the community where we can take a look at that type of development. And certainly fro, what we said before, you’re not going to get your 21.78 and less you do a lot of other things and you’re not even guaranteed that at some point in time either. So then we tried to, after we sort of came to that conclusion that we thought well there may be locations of low density where we show as low density residential where a senior complex may work and be fine so we started looking at perhaps some locations that we currently have on the Land Use Guide that show as low density and we thought if you went to 12.775 and that’s sort of in between the 10 and a number at 15 which would be if you are in the downtown area or you’re apartment complex you’re right about 15 units per acre so that was sort of in the middle between the 10 and the 15.75 or 15.25 Andretta location where we show low density residential but if you had at least 5 acres of ground that you have direct access to a arterial or a major collector street that perhaps it would be something that we would be willing to take a look at doing. Let’s say there was a, there were 7 acres on, well and on your circulation plan that we have up for you it would be the blue streets and the red streets, you know, what a location perhaps be appropriate, are thought would be if it was a piece of property that was large enough to support, that the street could support some additional traffic without being real specific and trying to hit a project, is adjacent to a piece of ground that we show as being office/commercial at some point in time but you’ve got the low density right next to it, would that be an appropriate location and sort of take a look at doing, or at least entertaining an opportunity to take a look at that type of development rather than putting all senior living developments in the same area as an apartment type development; and I think even for, you know, what we see is how seniors want to live rather than just segregating them out in certain parts of the community may be is an infill it’s a project that’s worth taking a look at or something. Certainly the Village Co-op, it doesn’t have the 5 acres so it wouldn’t be a site but if it were 5 acres of ground and you’ve got an infill and its on Johnson Drive, you know, maybe that site would’ve been appropriate if it’d been bigger to have a little higher density than what we had required normally. Then, what we did was we just took the rest of the verbiage and that introductory part and when we did our most recent amendments with the 2800 ft.², it really went from 14.5 to 15.5 so we’re just going in and making that correction from the change that we made a couple years ago and then make comments about that it’s our desire to provide multifamily uses/planned unit developments that provide a variety of housing types including senior living opportunities and then high density uses are generally be apartment or condominium developments in senior living facilities since we’ve sort of singled them out. And then verbiage that says, or revised, which sort of goes back on the days when we talked about congregate care and really didn’t say what congregate care was; congregate care at one time was a retirement home type of situation and so we change the verbiage a little bit that says that senior living facilities such as independent living/assisted living/continuing care communities and other residential facilities designed for the elderly population except those in single family residential structures may be considered for development at or near the upper density limit of the land use designation. Just sort of gives us some preferential treatment to senior living facilities since they don’t necessarily require the same amount of ground, you know, we talked a little bit about even surfaced parking or parking that’s provided, only 1.3 is required currently for our senior living facilities where two parking stalls per unit are required for traditional multifamily apartment complex and that sort of helped us figure out the calculation is, as far as how we could go from the 2800 ft.² to the 2000 ft.². So, I’ll end with that part now and have discussion and if you are comfortable with the verbiage, we’ll schedule it for a public hearing, that doesn’t mean after the public hearing is concluded you can still tweak the language that you want. One thing that you can’t do, you can’t make your density requirement anything smaller than what we are telling the public are going to do but let’s say you couldn’t go from 2000 ft.² a unit to 1500 ft.² a unit but you could go from, after the public hearing you could go from 2000 ft.² up to requiring 2300 ft.² or something like that. So you can do anything lesser than just nothing greater than you’ve published for the hearing.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I have a question (inaudible). In the paragraph above where it shows the low medium and high density, the next sentence says the number of units per acre prescribed is a density range and should not be construed to represent a maximum allowable density.


COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Correct, how? I mean, that’s…

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: I think what we’re trying to say is that if you are not a senior living facility, generally medium density residential is 5.01-10 units in acre, that doesn’t mean somebody can’t come in at 12 and try and do something. That’s just a range, it’s not the maximum that’s going to be allowed. I think what we’re trying to do in this situation is not change anything for apartments or single family residential but just to say in senior living, in cases of senior living opportunity, we are willing to look at a higher density range than we would for a traditional or another type of residential use. I think that’s what we’re trying to say.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I, yeah, I understand that, I just, it just seems like that’s what we got in trouble on on the last go round with the Vantage thing and this says yeah we could go to 12 or 15 in medium density, but…do…

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: I think if we don’t, I mean, if it’s our desire to say that a senior living medium density residential we’ll take a look at something up to 21, but if we just say it’s 5.01-10, I really don’t think, I think 21 is way out of the range so I think we need to say what are intent is for senior living opportunities at this point in time; we’re willing to look at something higher and we’re willing to look at something…

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: No, I agree with the senior living side of it, I just think that as a, when we are saying that, I mean if you just want a regular mixed use, you know, medium density you don’t have to stop at 10 go to 12 or whatever we will approve and…

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Or, I mean, another opportunity is if you want to strike that sentence then…in the text too.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I mean, Augie, what do you think? Doesn’t that, isn’t that kind of…

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: I don’t (Inaudible – microphone off).


COMMISSIONER BOGINA: (Inaudible – microphone off).


COMMISSIONER BOGINA: (Inaudible – microphone off).

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: And that’s something tonight when you, if you authorize to do it, you can tell us to do everything in the red and include a strikeout of that last sentence. And that’s perfectly appropriate at this time. We can do it, if we don’t do it now, we can’t do it at the public hearing so we can have it in as a strikeout, if we decide to leave it in for some reason we have the opportunity to do that at the public hearing. Staff has no problem with that.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: I have a question for you, Paul. How does our existing language and how does the new language compared to similar language and other nearby communities?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: If you’ll note on, and I know you are at the last meeting to talk but actually Shawnee does pretty well with our density requirements. Some of the other cities they have like an R3, R4, R5, R6 and we do all of ours just under the planned unit development type thing so we can take a look at the development as a whole and how does it necessarily fit, but I think, you know, our density requirements that we have in place were at least as comparable if not a little bit better except we really didn’t hit on senior living and if you use medium density residential at 10 units an acre it’s difficult to really construct a senior living facility that, I mean, you’re going to have to have 10 acres with, you know, only 100 units on it. One of the topics that we talked about a little bit last time was Shawnee Hills which was out at Maurer Road and 63rd St., Shawnee Hills has about 150 dwelling units in it and so under our current Zoning Regulation they had to have 15 acres of ground to hit that 10 units that they had. So, what happened is they, you know, built their whole building but it’s on the west side of the tract but they had to buy the 15 acres, so right now they’ve got about 7 ½ acres of ground that is just there and they can’t do anything with it because they have to have it to have their density so this will quell some of that problem. As far as our, when we get to the high density, we are actually, if you’re in a building that is for stories or taller, we actually have the highest allowable density because we only require 800 ft.² of plan per dwelling unit and I think that the closest one without looking real quick is about 1000 which is Lenexa, so you know, we did, we were comparable and we did well but we really didn’t segregate anything out for senior living opportunities and…

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Have the majority of local cities added specific senior living text?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Some have added senior living text, especially Olathe where they have more of the architectural guidelines that if you want to go over certain density limits, then the quality of your exterior and the quality of your amenities is at a higher level.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any further questions for staff on this? Paul, do you want a recommendation from us on this part of it?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Yes, on these two things because the other one were not gonna have to have a public hearing on; I just want to discuss that so I think at this point in time if you are comfortable going ahead with the public hearing and want to make any additions to what we have shown in red we can turn another sentence into red and show some strikeouts if we need to do that and then what happens is we publish in the newspaper that we’re gonna have a public hearing, you know, making these amendments and then we hold the public hearing and certainly further discussion and this is kind of the first step to get it finally rolling and forward after our past discussions.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Sadly enough I won’t be here for the October 17 meeting, so…anyway, is there a recommendation? Mr. Willoughby, Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I recommend that, or I move that we recommend the Planning Commission authorize publication of the notice for a public hearing on the proposed amendments at the October 17, 2016 meeting, as presented by staff as well as striking the last sentence in the first paragraph under amendment to introductory language for Chapter 5, Land Use Guide, Residential Land Use in the Comprehensive Plan.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Which pages that on?

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: 52; the last sentence, right there.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Terrific. Thank you, Commissioner Bogina. There’s a motion and a second to approve the language for discussion of the text amendments for senior living developments. All in favor, say aye.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay? Motion carried.

(Motion passed 10-0)

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: So, in the preparation of our brochure, what we’ve presented for you is basically an introduction to a new policy and it’s shown in red. What I did was, we do have an existing multifamily amenity policy and that basically is for any multifamily development where we say how many amenities need to be provided or how many dwelling units that we have and we have List A and we have List B; List A tends to be the bigger things like swimming pools, golf courses, clubhouses, or park land that is dedicated to the city and accepted; List B are the smaller things like playgrounds, basketball courts, picnic areas, things like that. So, what staff right now is taking a look at and what we are wanting is if there is anything else you’d like for us to add and then we will prepare a brochure, but basically an introductory paragraph in the brochure just that says that we recognize that senior living communities may provide different types of amenities than you may see in an apartment type complex and we also recognize that we want to promote amenities that encourage a healthy lifestyle of our senior citizens that are in the community and provide for interaction with other residents of the development and that would include, you know, what we talked about in independent living/assisted living/community aging in place living and just an introductory paragraph regarding that and then how we basically do an account in some cases you may have some more healthcare provided on site too where folks may be in beds that we add the number of people and we do a bed count as opposed to just a room count sort of to give a feeling of how many people are really there. And then just some suggestions, 50 units or less one indoor and one outdoor; to 150 units, one outdoor and two indoor and try to be heavier on the indoor amenities that we have; basically say that, you know, if you have a density of 15.55 an acre which is the 28 for a normal apartment complex then you have to, one of the amenities that you provide is something that actually reduces your need to provide a certain number of acres. And so we’ve tried to list what some outdoor amenities may be and what some indoor amenities may be, there may be other items that you all think of that we could sort of add in a menu list of what an indoor amenity would be and what an outdoor amenities would be. So, any suggestions of things to add for our brochure and then we’ll prepare something similar is what we had before.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bogina.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Paul, it’s just more of a general question and it’s not meant to be critical of the staff but there was times in the past to where the Commission would have conditions for construction and they wouldn’t get relayed from the minutes to the permitting and plan approval of staff and those were outside conditions that the Commission would see that weren’t compliant because they didn’t know that we had made the requirement. If working to put this many possible amenities on the inside where we are not going to have that oversight whether it’s accidental or not, how has the process changed to where if we were in agreement with the indoor amenities that those minutes in those conditions get to the permitting department to when they get a set of plans they say yeah this is what you promised and this is what is delivered?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: I think one thing that is going to be a little easier as I think there is better communication that goes on between staff; I think, you know, when the improvements that we’ve made that we’ve already seen in our communication is that the Planning Department took over Codes Administration Division so we’re all together and hopefully that helps in translating what…you know, not that we didn’t forward information on to Codes…



PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: But now I think with us being sitting there side-by-side and as the plans come in we can take a look at those building plans and if they are supposed to be, you know, and exercise room and they’re supposed to be a recreation room of a certain size and there’s supposed to be a beauty shop, that when those plans come in for construction we can look and check off on the list that, you know, yeah the indoor swimming pool is there an sort of check it off and then when the building permit is issued we know that those indoor amenities…

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, there’d be more of a check and balance than there may be was in the past when we just didn’t…


COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Sync real well about things.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Yeah, and a lot of it, you know, we have better tracking systems today then we had in the past too, but I think with all of us being together which is a topic will discuss a little bit later under Other Business, I think that’s can help out a lot to help remind over the way did this happen or did this not happen.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other questions for staff? Commissioner John Smith.

COMMISSIONER JOHN SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just, I know your list of amenities are probably not meant to be exhaustive but certainly as far as indoor listing billiard or pool tables/table tennis things like that could certainly be added I think.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, anything else? At this point in time, would someone care to make a recommendation to staff? We still need to make a recommendation on this? No?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: No, you don’t need to. We’ll bring it back if you’re kind of comfortable with the direction that were going, we’ll just bring back a brochure for you all to take a look at and then it’ll be something that you may want to adopt.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Terrific. At this point in time we’ve fulfilled the agenda.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Does staff have any other business for the Commission?

Planning Director Chaffee reminded the Commission of: the landfill tour scheduled for September 15, 2016; and the future location of the Planning staff inside of City Hall.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Does the Commission have anything for staff? Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Question related to the packets. Is there any movement to just go completely electronic and dis-continue the paper?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: You know, I think eventually, what we can do now is if you don’t want a paper packet run for you, if you let Angie know, there won’t be anything in your tray except, you know, the publications you get or additional information, we can certainly go that route. I know there are still some Planning Commissioners who like to be able to come into the meeting and open the plans up a little bit to take a better look. So, yeah, if you just want to have the electric version and if you want to download it on a piece of equipment that you may have, you could certainly do that or run off certain pages on your own, you know, you can do that. Just let Angie know. We are into saving paper too if we can.



CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I have one thing for staff and that is I see City Council has decided that their meetings will now start at 7 PM and I wonder if next meeting you could report to us on whether there is an ordinance that says we can’t or can move our meeting in over that time. People think about whether that’s something that the Commission itself is interested in doing.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: We can because always say is that, you know, it’s a time and date prescribed so Governing Body is going to 7 o’clock for both of their meetings. Their committee meetings have been at 7 o’clock for years and their normal Council meetings have been at 7:30 for a long time. Their decision was sort of made by all of them so 7 o’clock worked well for everybody. So I think for Planning Commission since you all are volunteers, we don’t want to have someone not be able to serve because 7 o’clock doesn’t work well, so that’s certainly a discussion we can have at the next meeting and we can set a date. Governing Body goes to 7 o’clock in October.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Terrific. For an old person like me, that extra half an hour earlier is really a good thing. Thank you, is there anything else?

COMMISSIONER LES SMITH: Mr. Chairman, can I just…

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Smith.

COMMISSIONER LES SMITH: Indulge me to ask one question of Paul. Back to the CIP. What happens at the end of the year, how are project savings allocated?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: They just get rolled into projects that could be completed the next year.

COMMISSIONER LES SMITH: Or, they could be set aside to help establish that fund for an amended or in addition to the CIP.


COMMISSIONER LES SMITH: So that it gets first priority on any project savings.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: It, we could suggest that.

COMMISSIONER LES SMITH: See where I’m going with that a little bit?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: And I’ll go ahead and put that in my memo to Mr. Wesselschmidt too.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Anything else? Can I hear a motion for adjournment? Commissioner Bogina, thank you for the motion for adjournment.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is there a second. Commissioner Braley, thank you for the second. All in favor say aye.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay? Meeting adjourned.

(Motion passed 10-0)