PDF Format:

ApprovedPlanningCommissionMeeting.3.6.17.pdfApprovedPlanningCommissionMeeting.3.6.17.pdf


CITY OF SHAWNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES
March 6, 2017
7:30 P.M.

PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Commissioner Augie Bogina Planning Director Chaffee
Commissioner Randy Braley Deputy Planning Director Allmon
Commissioner Dennis Busby Planner Mark Zielsdorf
Commissioner Rusty Mudgett Administrative Asst. Angie Lind
Commissioner Kathy Peterson Transportation Manager Kevin Manning
Commissioner John Smith
Commissioner Alan Willoughby
Commissioner Steven Wise

PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
Commissioner Bruce Bienhoff
Commissioner Les Smith

(Planning Commission Meeting Called to Order at 7:32 p.m.)

A. ROLL CALL

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Good evening and welcome to the March 6, 2017 meeting of the Shawnee Planning Commission. We’ll start with roll call. Commissioner John Smith.

COMMISSIONER JOHN SMITH: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bienhoff is absent. Commissioner Busby is here. Commissioner Bogina.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Here.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Present.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Les Smith is absent. Commissioner Mudgett.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Present.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you.

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

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

(Pledge of Allegiance)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. And one of the first things I’ll ask Paul to come forward and explain that we’re close to a tornado watch area. So, Paul, if you would explain the procedures from here.

MR. CHAFFEE: If for some reason the siren should go off for a tornado warning, our shelter is in the basement of the building. So, what we’ll have everyone do is go out to the lobby and turn to your left. You’ll see a secondary lobby and then Doug and Mark will escort you downstairs. So, you’re going to go through a hallway to get to the stairs to go downstairs. If there is anyone who can’t go down a flight of stairs, if you just want to meet me on the right-hand side, I’ll get you down in the elevator and get you to the room that you need to.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you.

C. CONSENT ITEMS

1. APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2017.
2. FP-03-17-02; FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR PRESERVE AT CLEAR CREEK, SECOND PLAT, A 45-LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN THE 7600 BLOCK OF CLARE ROAD. THE APPLICATION IS FILED BY SCHLAGEL & ASSOCIATES FOR FREEMAN HOLDINGS OF ARKANSAS, LLC, OWNER.
3. FP-06-17-03; FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR SUNSET ESTATES III, A TWO LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN THE 15000 BLOCK OF W. 60TH STREET. THE APPLICATION IS FILED BY SCHLAGEL & ASSOCIATES FOR MIKE AND JOY LYNN GIPPLE, OWNERS.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: The Consent Item. Items 1 through 3 are listed under the Consent Items Agenda. 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 Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda as presented by staff.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Is there a second? Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I second the motion.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: There’s a motion and a second to pass the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carries.

(Motion carried 8-0. Commissioners Bienhoff, L. Smith absent)

D. NEW BUSINESS

1. 2. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THIS ITEM TO BE TABLED TO THE MARCH 20, 2017 MEETING. Z-02-17-03; REZONING FROM RS (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN) TO DU (DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL), AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR A 41 LOT DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN THE 5800-6000 BLOCKS OF CLARE ROAD. THE APPLICATION IS FILED BY PHELPS ENGINEERING FOR CLEAR CREEK PARKWAY, LLC, OWNER.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: The next thing is I would like to change the order of stuff and go to New Business as in Number 2. The applicant would like to table this motion on Z-02-17-03. Is the applicant present?

MR. PRIEB: Yes.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Could you come forward and state your name?

MR. PRIEB: Greg Prieb.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Greg, my understanding is you would like to table this motion till the March 20th meeting?

MR. PRIEB: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is there any issue with the Planning Commission for doing that? If not, do I hear a motion to have such? Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: I’ll make a motion to table Z-02-17-03 until the March 20th meeting per staff’s recommendation.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is there a second.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Second.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bogina seconds it. All in favor say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carried. That is tabled till the next meeting of March 20. Thank you, Mr. Prieb. What that does is we will not be discussing anything about the duplexes. And that means if there is public that wishes to comment we -- you cannot comment on the duplexes because that’s not part of our meeting anymore. Thank you.
(Motion carried 8-0. Commissioners Bienhoff, L. Smith absent)

2. 1. Z-01-17-03; REZONING FROM AG (AGRICULTURAL) AND RS (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN) TO R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL), FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN THE 23900-24700 BLOCKS OF CLEAR CREEK PARKWAY AND PREPLAT-05-17-03; PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW FOR CANYON LAKES WHICH COVERS THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE REZONED (Z- 01-17-03) AND ALREADY ZONED R-1, GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE 23900-24700 BLOCKS OF CLEAR CREEK PARKWAY. THE APPLICATION IS FILED BY PHELPS ENGINEERING FOR CLEAR CREEK PARKWAY, LLC, OWNER.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: New Business, Z-1-17-03, Rezoning from Agriculture (AG) and Residential Suburban (RS) to R-1 Single Family Residential for a single family residential subdivision located in the 23900-24700 Blocks of Clear Creek Parkway and Preplat-05-17-03; Preliminary Plat Review for Canyon Lakes which covers the area proposed to be rezoned (Z-01-17-03) and already zoned R-1, generally located in the 23900-24700 blocks of Clear Creek Parkway . The Application is filed by Phelps Engineering for Clear Creek Parkway, LLC, Owner.

Doug, please.

MR. ALLMON: Good evening. Doug Allmon, Planning staff. I’m actually just going to present the Rezoning Factors and then Mark is going to give an overview of the Preliminary Plat.

REZONING FACTORS

1. The majority of the property requested to be rezoned is zoned RS (Residential Suburban) with a smaller area of AG (Agricultural) zoning at the southeast end of the site. The request is to rezone the RS and AG zoned properties to R-1, and combine these with existing R-1 zoned property, for the development of a single-family residential subdivision.

In May of 2001, rezoning and preliminary plat approval were granted for the Farmington
Hills subdivision on 169.73 acres. As originally approved, the Farmington Hills subdivision contained 262 lots zoned RS, with 102 R-1 zoned lots located in the northeast corner of the site adjacent to the Heartland Hills and City View Farms subdivisions. The overall density of Farmington Hills was 2.14 dwelling units per acre. In 2009, the Desoto School District acquired, through condemnation, 17.91 acres for the construction of the Belmont Elementary school, which is zoned a combination of R-1 and RS. No final plats related to the original Farmington Hills preliminary plat were recorded and no infrastructure improvements were ever undertaken for the subdivision.

The area included in this rezoning request totals 119.0 acres. This area combined with the 21.4 acres that were previously zoned R-1 with the earlier Farmington Hills request consist of 140.4 acres and is proposed to be developed with 281 single family homes.

2. Belmont Elementary is located to the northeast of the proposed rezoning request. Properties to the north, east of Belmont Road, beyond the elementary school, are zoned R-1 and are within the City View Farms subdivision. Also the north, west of Belmont Road, are single family homes in the City View farms and Belmont Downs subdivision zoned R-1. Also adjacent to the north is an unplatted property zoned R-1 containing multiple, scattered non-conforming outbuildings, and the non-conforming storage of vehicles, materials and equipment.

Property to the east is zoned a combination of R-1 and PUDMR, which stands for Planned Unit Development Mixed Residential. The R-1 property is vacant and was rezoned as a part of the former Farmington Hills proposal. The PUDMR property has been developed with a golf course that is part of the Shawnee Golf and Country Club, and the location of future apartment units previously approved.
Property to the south is zoned a combination of AG and RS. The AG properties contain two single-family homes on larger lots along 63rd Street and undeveloped open space that is adjacent to Clear Creek. The RS zoned property contains six lots in the Sylvan Creek Estates subdivision that have been developed with single-family homes. Clare
Road abuts the site on the west. Property to the west of Clare Road is zoned AG and contains 52 acres of undeveloped acreage and two single family homes. Vacant land east of Clare between the north line of this zoning request and the north right of way line of Clear Creek Parkway is zoned RS and is the subject of a separate rezoning request.

3. The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area as appropriate for low-density residential uses. In combination, the existing and proposed areas of R-1 zoning yields a gross density of 2.00 dwelling units per acre (281 DU / 140.4 Acres).
This density is within the lower end of the low-density designation of less than five (5) units per acre as recommended by the City’s Comprehensive Plan. All lots in the proposed single-family development exceed the minimum 9,000 square foot size requirement of the R-1 district. The single-family lot sizes also transition throughout the subdivision in size. This is a stated desire of the Comprehensive Plan to provide lots that are larger in size than those that were developed east of K-7 Highway and in the first tier of single family residential development west of K-7. Based on these factors, the rezoning request for R-1 is in general compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.

4. Clear Creek Parkway is currently being improved from Hedge Lane Terrace, west to Clare Road as part of an improvement district. Clear Creek Parkway is designated as a major collector street on the City’s Comprehensive Circulation Plan. In anticipation of generated traffic volumes, the street will be constructed as a three lane road, including a continuous center turn lane. Construction of Clear Creek Parkway is scheduled to be completed in the fall of 2017.

Primary access will be provided by the completed Clear Creek Parkway that serves as the primary east-west “spine” road through the proposed single family subdivision. Access will also be provided from Clare Road, a designated future minor arterial street, at the newly proposed 58th Place that extends eastward from Clare Road into the subdivision. Belmont Drive, a designated minor residential collector, will be extended south from Belmont Elementary to intersect with Clear Creek Parkway. An additional point of access from the east will be provided by the westward extension of 58th Terrace, a local residential street, identified in the Circulation Plan as a connector, from the Heartland Hills subdivision. This street was stubbed to the property line in anticipation of providing access between the two properties. The points of access and the proposed street network for this proposed development are adequate for circulation and public safety purposes.

5. The rezoning for single-family residential use should have little, if any, detrimental effect upon surrounding properties. The density of the single family proposal is 2.0 dwelling units per acre. This is less than the previously approved Farmington Hills proposal that yielded a density of 2.14 dwelling units per acre. This rezoning request is similar to the Greens of Chapel Creek rezoning that occurred in western Shawnee in
2014. That request revised the zoning in the western half of the subdivision from RS to R-1 adjacent to Clare Road. With lots generally in the 9,000 – 14,000 square foot range. This subdivision has seen increased building activity since the rezoning, with no detrimental effect on surrounding properties. Areas of R-1 zoning already exist directly to the east, and from the Oak Valley Shopping Center west to Clare Road. A large portion of this area of existing R-1 zoning directly abuts the entire north property line of this proposed subdivision.

6. Denial of the request would not appear to benefit the health and welfare of the community. The City and the Desoto School District anticipates continued low density residential development and population growth in this portion of the community. The increase in the number of single family residential lots in the low-density range will not overburden public service provisions, area schools or the traffic circulation grid in the area. At the same time, increased rooftops and population in the area will stimulate the provision of restaurants and other service-oriented businesses that are lacking and desired in western Shawnee. Also, the development will provide two small lakes that will be visual, recreational and environmental amenities for new residents of the subdivision.

That completes my report.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Doug. Mark.

PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW

MR. ZIELSDORF: Good evening. Mark Zielsdorf, City Planning staff. I put this exhibit up here sideways just to help orient. So, north is up. Just if anybody is confused as to why it’s on there sideways, so.

The applicant has submitted a preliminary plat for the overall subdivision. The overall preliminary plat contains 281 single family residential lots and 41 twin villa lots. This preliminary plat review covers the area proposed to be rezoned R-1 and already zoned R-1, generally located in the 23900-24700 blocks of Clear Creek Parkway.

Overall, the property consists of 164.7 acres of gently rolling pasture and ranch land, along with three ponds, natural stream channels and a wooded area located to the south central area along the stream channels. A large overhead electrical transmission line and the associated 100 foot wide easement bisects the property from the northwest to the southeast.

The applicant has prepared a single preliminary plat to show the interrelationship between the two areas and to emphasize that this is being developed as one overall residential community. While there are many common elements throughout the overall proposed development, there are two separate rezoning requests that this preliminary plat is subject to. And the two areas of the preliminary plat are not interdependent. So, one portion of it can be considered separately from the other.

The City is in the process of constructing Clear Creek Parkway from Hedge Lane Terrace west to Clare Road. Clear Creek Parkway is designated on the Circulation Plan as a major collector. The improvements to Clear Creek Road include a 40-foot wide, three-lane roadway with streetlights, accommodations for storm drainage, a 5-foot sidewalk on the north side, and a 10-foot multi-use trail on the south side. A roundabout will be provided at the future intersection with Gleason Road and a divided approach at Clare Road, where another roundabout is proposed in the future when that street is improved. Construction of Clear Creek Parkway is scheduled to be completed during the fall of 2017.

The applicant has provided a phasing plan that indicates a multi-phased development with an anticipated build out of 4-6 years. The first phases are indicated to be in the center along Belmont Street east and southeast along Clear Creek Parkway, and then later phases will be up in the northwest quadrant.

Real quickly that’s what the phasing plan looks like. So, the first phases will be here in the center and then over on the east side, and then the later phases off to the west.

All bulk requirements have been satisfied. The 281 R-1 zoned lots range in size from
9,008 square feet to 52,209 square feet, exceeding the minimum lot size requirements of the R-1 zoning district. Minimum lot frontages of 75 feet have been provided and front yard setbacks of 30 feet are shown on the preliminary plat. Rear yard setbacks shall be 30 feet and the total width of both side yards shall be no less than 20 percent of the total lot width with no side yard less than seven feet.

This portion of the preliminary plat is in general conformance with the Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan. As indicated earlier, with a density of 2.0 du/ac, the plat meets the established guidelines for low density residential development. The applicant has also taken into account the City’s desire to provide larger sized lots west of Gleason. And to this there are 162 of the 281 single family lots, or 58 percent of them that exceed 12,000 square feet, which is the required minimum lot size of the RS zoning district. An additional 54 lots, or a total of 79 percent, are 11,000 square feet or larger with only 16 of the lots are 6 percent are between 9,000 and 10,000 square feet.

The overall plat is showing 17 tracts totaling 33.1 acres throughout the subdivision. These tracts range in size from 2,158 square feet to 452,670 square feet. Fourteen of these tracts and a portion of one other tract are located in the single family portion of the subdivision. The developer has indicated that all of these tracts will be owned by the subdivision homeowners association. And the tracts included in this review are intended for subdivision amenities including landscaping, open space, private lakes, stormwater treatment facilities, a swimming pool, walking trails and entry monumentation. The 100-foot wide KCP&L power line easement is contained within open space tracts so that none of the lots are within the easement.

The applicant has provided a preliminary landscape plan that includes a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees for the tracts adjacent the east side of Clare Road and on either side of Clear Creek Parkway. Final landscape plans for these areas, as well as the other common tracts, shall be submitted along with the final plat submitted with each phase.

The applicant has provided a draft copy of the homeowner’s association declaration and declaration of restrictions for the subdivision. These documents establish the bylaws, responsibilities and assessments of the homeowners association, as well as the covenants and restrictions for the use of the land, building materials, minimum floor areas, exterior structures, and lawn and landscaping requirements of the lots within the subdivision.

Final signed and executed documents shall be submitted for recording with the Johnson County Register of Deeds office along with the first final plat submitted for the subdivision.

As discussed earlier, there are several points of access that will serve this subdivision. Primary access will be by Clear Creek Parkway, which is a designated major collector street. Two points of access will be provided from Clare Road, a designated future minor arterial street, one is at Clear Creek Parkway and then potentially from a newly constructed 58th Place, a designated local residential street. And that would be this piece coming in here.

Belmont Drive, a designated minor residential collector, will be extended south to intersect with Clear Creek Parkway. An additional point of access from the east will be provided by the westward extension of 58th Terrace, which is a local residential street, and identified in the Circulation Plan as a connector from the Heartland Hill subdivision. This street was stubbed to the property line when it was constructed in anticipation to provide extension on to the future development of this property to the west. The points of access and the proposed street network for this plat are acceptable for circulation and public safety purposes.

A traffic study was not required for the Canyon Lakes development based on staff's knowledge of the existing traffic patterns in the area and the proposed and existing roadway infrastructure. Clear Creek Parkway will act as the major collector running through the proposed development.

Staff is confident the proposed Canyon Lakes development can be approved as proposed without significant negative impacts to unimproved area roadways in the near to medium future. As the development continues to build out, improving Gleason Road and connecting it to Clear Creek Parkway will become more important to provide a more direct route to both Shawnee Mission Parkway and K-7. Staff will continue to monitor the development of Canyon Lakes and the Shawnee Golf and Country Club to determine when this connection should be built.

Public street improvements required for this development shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards of the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual.

(a) All internal streets, with the exception of Belmont Drive, and of course Clear Creek Parkway, shall comply with the design standards for a local residential streets.

(b) Belmont Drive shall be constructed as a minor residential collector.

(c) Clear Creek Parkway, which is the main east-west road through the development is being constructed as part of a benefit district and it is being constructed as a Major Collector.

(d) Permanent improvements to Clare Road are not required as part of this development. The existing vertical alignment of Clare Road makes it impractical to permanently improve only the east half of the street. Although permanent improvements are not required as part of this development, the applicant is responsible for making the following partial improvements to Clare:

(e) Sidewalks should be placed on the side of a street closest to the nearest existing elementary school.

(f) The applicant is responsible for submitting final Construction Documents for the public street improvements to the City Engineer for review and acceptance prior to the final plat going to the Governing Body.

Storm drainage improvements required for this development shall be designed in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual.

(a) The preliminary plat for this development included a preliminary storm drainage study. And although the study is adequate for reviewing the preliminary plat, any design issues that are discovered during the review of the final plans for each plat will be required to be resolved prior to plan approval.

A more detailed design of how the run-off being discharged off-site will be routed will be required as part of the final stormwater improvement plans for each final plat as well. And run-off is required to discharge to drainage points and not just at the property line where there is potential for this to cause erosion.

This development is not subject to the provisions of SMC Chapter 12.24, which pertains to the construction and maintenance of on-site stormwater detention facilities. The preliminary stormwater management study submitted by the applicant stated that there are no downstream flooding concerns, as defined by the Shawnee Design and
Construction Manual, and therefore, on-site detention is not required. Since detention is not being provided, the applicant is required to pay a one-time stormwater detention fee of $350 per lot and will be required to pay it as part of the final plat for each phase.

This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.16, Stormwater Treatment, which pertains to the implementation of Stormwater Treatment Facilities (STF) to preserve and enhance the quality of stormwater runoff.

(a) This development is required to satisfy a minimum Level of Service of 6.3 based on the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. The applicant is proposing the use of native vegetation, filter strips, bio-retention cells, extended dry detention, and signage of the Stormwater Treatment Facilities to meet the required Levels of Service. The Stormwater Treatment Facility requirements for Canyon Lakes will be addressed as a whole and not broken up into individual requirements for each plat.

(b) The applicant has prepared a Final Stormwater Treatment Report which has been accepted by Staff.

(c) All Stormwater Treatment Facilities required for this development shall be designed in accordance with Shawnee Design and Construction Manual.

Portions of this development lie within and adjacent to the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) for Clear Creek.

(a) None of the proposed lots encroach into the Special Flood Hazard Area, which is based on existing (1998) developmental conditions.
(b) As part of the subdivision grading plan, to be approved prior to the recording of the final plat, the landowner is responsible for identifying the Base Flood Elevations (BFE) of both the 1% annual chance flood based on existing (1998) development conditions and on the ultimate (future) development conditions for the watershed at the upstream corner of all lots adjacent to the Special Flood Hazard Area.

(c) In addition to those lots adjacent to the Special Flood Hazard Area, the subdivision grading plan shall also identify the Base Flood Elevations based on the ultimate (future) development conditions for the watershed at the upstream corner of all lots adjacent to any of the several proposed lakes within the development.

(d) The Minimum Low Opening (MLO) required for all structures on the above identified lots shall be a minimum of two feet higher than the ultimate Base Flood Elevation.

(f) No flood plain development activities, including grading, storm and sanitary sewer installation, or utility installation, shall be allowed within a Special Flood Hazard Area without first obtaining a Flood Plain Development Permit.

The stream corridor associated with Clear Creek, with the two smaller Clear Creek tributaries, have required setbacks of 40 feet to their confluence with each other. From that point to the confluence with Clear Creek the required setback is 60 feet. While the use of a stream corridor is limited to passive recreational activities, at least the first 25 feet of vegetation nearest the stream must be preserved in its natural state. And for this reason, no lot shall encroach or does encroach into the stream corridor.

All the lots within the development will be served by a public sewer system.

Telephone, electric and cable service facilities are to be placed within the rear and side yards as required by Policy Statement PS-24.

All utilities, with the exception of the large overhead transmission lines, shall be underground.

Public improvement construction traffic shall use the nearest major streets to access the site. Belmont Drive and 58th Terrace shall not be used to access the site by construction vehicles during the construction of the public improvements. Not for home construction, but for public improvement construction.

All fire hydrants with compliant fire-flows, and fire lanes as required by the Fire Department, shall approved prior to issuance of a building permit.

This development is also subject to the provisions of Shawnee Municipal Code (SMC) Chapter 12.26, which pertains to the City’s excise tax on new subdivision plats.

(a) Clare Road is not required to be improved as part of the development. The applicant is required to dedicate ROW along Clare. And as such Clare is classified as a major street, and therefore, the right-of-way dedicated for Clare is excluded from the area subject to the excise tax. Likewise, the right-of-way for Clear Creek Parkway is not included in the area subject to the excise tax.

(b) Clear Creek Parkway is being improved as part of a benefit district. The cost of these improvements are eligible as a credit against the excise tax. And the estimated cost of these improvements are $1,649,134.

(f) For the single family portion of the plat, the estimated gross excise tax for this plat is $1,256,956 calculated on a taxable area of 5,846,307 square feet at the current rate of $0.215 per square foot.

(g) And based on the estimate of the current tax rate and the estimated credits for the construction of Clear Creek Parkway, the applicant will not be required to pay an excise tax for this development.

This subdivision is subject to the provisions of Shawnee Municipal Code (SMC) 12.14, Park and Recreational Land Use Fund. Open space fees in the amount of $400 per residential lot shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. And open space fees are estimated to be $112,400 for the 281 single family lots.

RECOMMENDATION

As far as Staff’s recommendation, staff recommends approval of Z-01-17-03, rezoning from AG (Agricultural) and RS (Residential Suburban) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) subject to the following condition:

1. Approval of the rezoning request by the Governing Body and publication of the ordinance in the official city newspaper, as required by state law.

Staff also recommends approval of the single family portion of Preplat-05-17-03, Preliminary Plat for Canyon Lakes subdivision, a single family residential subdivision, located in the 23900-24700 blocks of Clear Creek Parkway, subject to the following conditions. And there’s 26 conditions that I’m going to read through.

1. Acceptance of the dedications on the final plat or plats by the Shawnee City Council and the recording of the final plat(s) with the Johnson County Department of Records and Tax Administration shall be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits;
2. The preliminary plat contains 281 R-1 zoned lots on 140.4 acres;
3. All bulk regulations of the R-1 zoning district shall be met for Lots 1-281, including minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet, minimum lot width of 75 feet, and a minimum front setback of 30 feet. The total width of both side yards shall be no less than 20 percent of the total lot width with no side yard less than 7 feet. Rear yard setbacks shall be no less than 30 feet;
4. The landscape plan shall be revised to show the street trees lining Clear Creek Parkway to be placed outside of the public street right-of-way, either within the common tracts or on private property. Final landscape plans for these areas, as well as the other common tracts, shall be submitted along with the final plat submittals for each phase. The landscaping shall be installed in conjunction with the public improvements for each plat;
5. Two copies of the final signed and executed homeowner’s association declaration and declaration of restrictions for the subdivision shall be submitted for recording with the Johnson County Register of Deeds office along with the first final plat for the subdivision;
6. The public street improvements required for this development shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards of the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and as outlined within the staff report;
7. The applicant is responsible for submitting final Construction Documents for the public street improvements to the City Engineer for review and acceptance prior to the final plat going to the Governing Body for acceptance.
8. The street lighting system required for this development shall be designed in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual and as outlined within the staff report;
9. The storm drainage improvements required for this development shall be designed in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual and as outlined within the staff report. The applicant is responsible for submitting detailed storm improvements plans for review and acceptance to the City prior to preparing the recording copies of each final plat;
10. This development is not subject to the provisions of SMC Chapter 12.24, which pertains to the construction and maintenance of on-site stormwater detention facilities. The preliminary stormwater management study submitted by the applicant stated that there are no downstream flooding concerns, as defined by the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, therefore on-site detention is not required. Since detention is not being provided, the applicant is required to pay a one-time stormwater detention fee. The detention fee is $350 per lot and will be required to be paid as part of the final plat for each phase;
11. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.16, Stormwater Treatment, which pertains to the implementation of Stormwater Treatment Facilities (STF) to preserve and enhance the quality of stormwater runoff. This development is required to satisfy a minimum Level of Service of 6.3 based on the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and as outlined within the staff report;
12. As part of the subdivision grading plan, to be approved prior to the recording of the final plat, the landowner is responsible for identifying the Base Flood Elevations (BFE) of both the 1% annual chance flood based on existing (1998) development conditions and on the ultimate or future development conditions for the watershed at the upstream corner of all lots adjacent to the Special Flood Hazard Area. The Base Flood Elevations are subject to the review and approval of the Development Review Manager;
13. In addition to those lots adjacent to the Special Flood Hazard Area, the subdivision grading plan shall also identify the Base Flood Elevation based on the ultimate or future development conditions for the watershed at the upstream corner of all lots adjacent to any of the several proposed lakes within the development. The Base Flood Elevation are subject to the review and approval of the Development Review Manager;
14. The stream corridor associated with Clear Creek has a required setback of 100 feet measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). The two smaller Clear Creek tributaries have required setbacks of 40 feet to their confluence with each other. And from that point to the confluence with Clear Creek the required setback is 60 feet. While the use of a stream corridor is limited to passive recreational activities, at least the first 25 feet of vegetation nearest the stream must be preserved in its natural state. And for this reason, no lot shall encroach into a stream corridor. All proposed stream crossings shall be constructed in accordance with Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, Division 2300, Storm Drainage;
15. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.20, Land Disturbance Activity, which pertains to site grading and erosion control measures. The applicant or landowner is responsible for obtaining a land disturbance permit as required by Codes Administration prior to undertaking any land disturbance for construction activities on the development site. The site grading and erosion control measures depicted on those plans must be prepared in accordance with SMC, Chapter 15.04, International Building Code, the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and all other applicable policies statements and administrative rules;
16. All of the lots within this development will be served by a public sewer system;
17. Telephone, electric and cable service facilities are to be placed within rear and side yards as required by Policy Statement PS-24;
18. All utilities shall be placed underground;
19. The applicant is responsible for scheduling a pre-design meeting with Development Services staff prior to preparing any public improvement plans. Individual sets of final street, storm drainage, and street lighting plans must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to commencing construction work on site. These plans shall be prepared according to the standards in the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual;
20. Public improvement construction traffic shall use the nearest major streets to access the site. Clare Road and Clear Creek Parkway shall be used for access to the site. The Contractor or Contractors for the public improvements shall not access the site through the adjacent residential neighborhoods. And Belmont Drive and 58th Terrace shall not be used to access the site by construction vehicles during the construction of the public improvements;
21. All public improvements for this development shall be constructed according to the applicable standards in the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. A public improvement permit will be required for all public street, storm, and streetlight improvements. Building permits will not be released for each plat in this development until all public improvements associated with that plat have been completed and accepted by the City;
22. All fire hydrants with compliant fire-flows, and fire lanes as required by the Fire Department, shall approved prior to issuance of a building permit. Minimum fire-flow and flow duration shall be as specified in Table B105.1 of the International Fire Code. Fire-flow is measured at a 20 psi residual pressure;
23. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all such permits as may be required by all Federal, State, and Local agencies, including, but not limited to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), the Kansas Division of Water Resources (DWR), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE);
24. This development is subject to the provisions of Shawnee Municipal Code (SMC) Chapter 12.26, which pertains to the City’s excise tax on new subdivision plats. Based on the estimate at the current tax rate and the estimated credits for the construction of Clear Creek Parkway, the applicant will not be required to pay an excise tax for this development. The requirements of the excise tax shall be satisfied prior to obtaining the Mayor’s signature on the signature copy of the final plat. And the final calculation of excise tax will be figured using the excise tax rate in effect at the time final plat is recorded;
25. This subdivision is subject to the provisions of Shawnee Municipal Code (SMC) 12.14, Park and Recreational Land Use Fund. Open space fees in the amount of $400 per residential lot shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. And open space fees are estimated to be $112,400 for the 281 single family lots; and
26. The applicant is responsible for submitting a computation plat with the recording copies of the final plat.

That concludes staff’s presentation.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Doug, and thank you, Mark. Is the applicant present? If you’d come forward and state your name and address, please.

MR. PRIEB: Greg Prieb.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Address, please.

MR. PRIEB: Greg Prieb.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Your address?

MR. PRIEB: Oh, sorry. 651 North Somerset Terrace.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Mr. Prieb. Does the Commission have any questions for applicant or staff? Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Good evening. I have some specific questions about the stormwater drainage and the retention ponds that are normal ponds. You’re adding a significant amount of concrete and rooftop to a currently agricultural-ish area. Do you think that’s adequate? I’m not that familiar with the internal part of that property, I’ve never walked it because you can’t do that. So, what are your thoughts on that?

MR. PRIEB: I’m going to bring up my engineer for that question.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Perfect.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: If you would please also state your name and address. Thank you.

MR. TUCKER: Tim Tucker with Phelps Engineering. 1270 North Winchester, Olathe, Kansas. Yeah, I do feel that it’s adequate. We’ve done the study on the whole property, looked at downstream flooding, and it meets all City requirements.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Well, I notice that you’re well within the hundred year line, well, or thereabouts. And so I was just curious with natural grade and obviously taking away some absorption with properties.

MR. TUCKER: The pond shown there, although not designed for stormwater detention per City detention requirements, do function as water quality facilities. So, they do have a detention component to them, but not necessarily for the hundred year storm. So, the hundred year has been modeled and looked at from a fully developed condition to make sure that we have adequate passage.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Perfect. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other questions from the Commission for staff or applicant.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the engineer something that’s kind of hyper-technical, but could you tell me that -- I had two quick questions just in the same area. Could you tell me what the purpose of Tract P is?

MR. TUCKER: Say that again.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The purpose of Tract P, which is abutting Lots 233 and 234 on Clear Creek.
MR. TUCKER: The long skinny one?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, sir.

MR. TUCKER: That’s a landscape tract.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. And then if you went directly across the street there’s a 75-foot right-of-way and then there’s a 20-foot area that’s not denoted as to what it is. Is it part of Tract K?

MR. TUCKER: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So, it’s to be a -- is that a landscaping tract also?

MR. TUCKER: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Commissioner Smith.

COMMISSIONER JOHN SMITH: I’m not sure who my question should be addressed to. But under the Number 4, the Preliminary Plat Review, I notice that a roundabout is mentioned for the future intersection at Gleason Road. Due to the dislike of roundabouts, I’m wondering why we’re considering a roundabout in this area.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I’m assuming that was directed at staff, or is it directed at the applicant?

MR. PRIEB: That’s outside of my property range.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Right. That would be the traffic engineer guy.

MR. MANNING: Kevin Manning, Transportation Manager for the City. A roundabout is being considered at that location just to the fact of it allows continuous flow at a three-way intersection where you typically would have to come up to a stop if you’re going north or at least one direction. So, having a roundabout there allows for vehicles to just yield and not have to come to a stop.

COMMISSIONER JOHN SMITH: Well, this isn’t final as I understand this, so it could be reconsidered at a later date, is that correct?

MR. MANNING: I believe that’s the case, yes.

COMMISSIONER JOHN SMITH: Thank you.
(Off Record Talking)

MR. MANNING: Okay. So, excuse me. So, Clear Creek Road will be built coming up this summer and that is part of the final plan. And so there is another roundabout that’s planned on Clare Road and Clear Creek Parkway. So, that is not final at this point, but as Mark clarified for me the roundabout at Clear Creek Parkway and Gleason is planned and will be constructed at this point.

COMMISSIONER JOHN SMITH: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other questions for staff or applicant? If not, then this is a public -- I’m sorry. A public comment time. So, if anybody from the public wishes to comment on this may come forward and state your name and address. Mr. Prieb.

MR. PRIEB: I have a quick question for you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yes.

MR. PRIEB: Thank you for the opportunity for being out here and sacrificing your cars for a meeting. But I’d like to have the opportunity if there’s any questions from the public comments that I could address anything. Is that an option?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yes. Should be.

MR. PRIEB: Okay.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Should be no problem with this.

MR. PRIEB: You’re good with me for right now? You’re good with me to sit down?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Correct. We’re finished with you at the moment. And if you’d state your name and address, please.

Public Comment:

MS. KOONTZ: Yes. My name is Marsha Koontz. I live at (Address Omitted) in Lee’s Summit, Missouri, but I own land on 63rd Street in this area. And my land abuts to this development. And the roundabout issue I too hate them. Hate them. And I sat at the roundabout at Johnson Drive and Shawnee Mission Parkway yesterday morning for five vehicles to go around the roundabout before I could even get into it. So, they’re useless. But I also wonder how that run-off is going to affect my land because supposedly part of my land is in the flood zone. So, how is that going to affect my land? Is it going to make it even worse? Also are there sewers there? Have they been installed yet? And if so, I’d like to know when because I was not aware of any sewers being put in.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Would staff like to answer the question on the sewers? Have the sewers been put in yet? They have not been put in yet.

MS. KOONTZ: Okay. Not even to abut to the property on 63rd Street? Not for the development, but along that creek down there on the south end.

(Off Record Talking)

MS. KOONTZ: Okay. All right. And then when you put those in, am I going to be required to hook up to them if I should ever built out there?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That would be -- that would not be [inaudible].

MS. KOONTZ: Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Does anybody else wish to speak on this matter?

MS. LIND: There are sign-in sheets. So, if you’ll make sure they sign into them.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Please sign in.

MR. MARCH: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Aaron March. I’m an attorney with the White Goss law firm. I’m here tonight representing Cary and Pam Decamp, who live at (Address Omitted) directly on the west side of Clare from this property. I apologize. I don’t know if it’s allergies or a cold, but I’ve got it. First, before I go into my comments, I’d like to thank the applicant for agreeing to the continuance on the duplex case. We were also hoping that the applicant would continue this case as well for two main reasons. One, 281 lots are being proposed and a traffic study wasn’t done. Staff, we love staff. They’re wonderful. But to say that this project is not going to dump traffic onto Clare Road is just beyond comprehension and logic. We had hoped to take the time for the applicant to do a study or to allow us to do a study so we could say it isn’t going to be a problem or is going to be a problem, but let’s know ahead of time. To simply say it’s not going to be a problem because of what’s going on and the work that we’ve done in the area seems to be making a whole lot of assumptions. The applicant did stormwater study. The conclusions are all in here. It’s been analyzed. We know exactly what’s going to happen. Let’s take the time to figure out what the traffic is going to be. And if Clare Road needs to be fixed, Clare Road needs to be fixed. If Clare Road simply needs sidewalks, and there’s no mention of putting sidewalks on the developer’s side of Clare, it just says let’s deal with the pitch and the grade and this and that. But let’s take our time and study it. If it’s perfect and beautiful, as my grandfather would say, “Gay ga zinte hate,” you know, go with God. Let the project happen. But if Clare Road needs to be fixed for the safety of the people that live there today, if Clare Road needs to be fixed for the safety of the people that are going to live here and walk on the street, let’s know now rather than come back to the City in two, three, five, seven, ten years and ask the City to fix for it -- fix it at that time. So, I’d ask you not to vote on this application tonight. I’d ask you to continue it to allow us to work with staff and the applicant to see what about Clare Road.

But also there’s a fundamental question. Why are we rezoning this property? There are 281 lots being proposed here today. 162 of them can be built today under the existing zoning, under the RS zoning. An additional 54 lots just fall 1,000 square feet short of lot area to satisfy being able to be built under the existing zoning. You are zoning this from RS to R-1, 25 percent less lot area requirement, so that an additional 16 lots can be built, six percent of this development. Why are we solving for the lowest common denominator. There is a way to do this project, if not under the existing zoning RS, to do a planned residential development where can move a little bit here, move a little bit there, and we know exactly what quality and type of development we’re going to be getting. If we change the zoning to R-1, we all wish the developer well. We all wish them success. But what happens in five years if the market says, you know what, larger lots aren’t right and we need these lots to be 9,000 square feet across the board, not 12,000 square feet and they come back in for a revised preliminary plat and revise final plat. The rules of plat approval are much looser if the round peg fits in the round hole you got to approve the plat. You have much more control and discretion when it comes to a zoning.

On behalf of the Decamps, we don’t necessarily, and speaking only for the Decamps, we don’t necessarily have a problem with the number of units. We have a big issue with changing the zoning from RS. Let’s figure out a way to make it work. Let’s take some time and work with the applicant to figure out a way to make this right for everyone. But as importantly, but let’s figure out about the life safety issue dealing with traffic before we say yes to this. So, I’d ask you to continue and hopefully we can come back in two weeks and be smarter and come back and have all the answers that we need on traffic, have all the answers on why we’re rezoning to R-1 versus a planned development.

There might be changes, and I know I’m not supposed to talk about the duplex, but there might changes to the duplex area that impact this. And looking at all this holistically makes sense. We’d like to come back as one comprehensive program when we’re ready to bake this cake. So, I ask you to continue this case and allow us to work with the applicant. And I think we can work this out. We want to work it out, but allow us to get smart on the facts. Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you.

(Applause)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to be heard? Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to be heard on this matter? Please come forward, sir.

MR. KREHBIEL: Well, that was a tough act to follow. My name is Brad Krehbiel. I live at (Address Omitted). I’m a neighbor in the Sylvan Creek Estates subdivision, and I’m also a professional engineer in Kansas. I was reading through the packet and I must say for the most part the development looks like a high quality development and I don’t really have any issues directly with the development. But I am concerned with two things. One is the traffic study, which I don’t think anybody has really taken a hard look at Clare Road today. It’s already dangerous with the level of traffic we have today. And it’s only going to get worse with more traffic and I’m just afraid somebody is going to get killed out there. So, that’s one thing and I think he covered that very well.

The other thing is stormwater. There was a drainage study done and there’s a lot of talk about downstream from this development, but there’s no talk at all about upstream, which would include Sylvan Creek Estates. And we’ve had at least two hundred year floods, hundred year events that I know of since we’ve lived there since 1994. At least two of the houses down on the south side of the development south of the creek have flooded already. And we’re adding more drainage into the creek to the east, which can only back up the water even more coming to the west. So, I would ask the engineer if he looked at what happens upstream of the discharge into Clear Creek. And then the other part of that would be the discharge from the southwest area that goes between Lots 3 and 4 of Sylvan Creek Estates. That goes into the ditch that’s across the street from our house. And I can tell you that ditch runs very, very full already with even a moderate rain. And this can only make that worse also. So, I would hope that the engineer is taking a really good look at what happens upstream of the development as well as downstream. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you.

(Applause)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Please. And don’t forget to sign in either, please.

MR. BROWNELL: I’m Jeff Brownell, (Address Omitted). One, I love seeing the development in Western Shawnee. We’ve lived out there for about 17 years. But again, with the traffic study, I mean, just by looking at this, I mean, we had two boys through Belmont Elementary and Belmont Drive is dangerous in the morning with just the grade school. And you can see by looking at this, if you’re coming on Johnson Drive you’re not going to traverse across that Clear Creek Parkway if you live on the north end of that subdivision. You’re going to come down Johnson Drive, cut through Belmont or go down Clare. And actually I like to cycle a lot, but I don’t ride my bike on Clare Road because the visibility is horrible because you can’t see people drive over the middle of the road just in case someone is coming. But, yeah, Clare Road right now is I think somewhat dangerous. And I also have kind of a question on -- I know it says Canyon Lakes, but some of those lakes, I’m a little confused. Are those really retention, stormwater retention ponds, or is it -- because we have a pond by our neighborhood in Highland Ridge and it’s really just an attractive nuisance. It’s constantly covered with algae and we get homeowners’ complaints about what we’re going to do about. It doesn’t circulate. I mean if there’s water in it it’s stagnant and there’s growth on it. I think and you look at these lakes are really -- some of them are just the length of a couple lots and not even as wide. So, that’s just kind of some of my concerns about it.

MR. BORESOW: Good evening everybody. Thank you for having -- my name is Jerome Boresow. I reside at (Address Omitted), and I need to change my speech up a little. But first of all, what Mr. March said about the traffic, you know, this is just huge. It’s a very, very important -- I think it needs to be taken into consideration with you guys with the Planning Commission, I do have a few comments that I would like to make. First of all before I say that, I know that this -- Mr. Prieb said that they had been working on this for two years. Okay. Now, I find it hard to believe that only people within 200 feet of this rezoning were notified, and we were only notified a few weeks ago. First of all, if we would have been notified two years ago, I would have done -- I would have hired somebody to do a traffic study for them. Two weeks just isn’t enough. We need more time in order to, like Mr. March said, first of all, I’m dressed like this because I really wish this would have been discontinued like we asked. I know that hundreds of people sent e-mails out to try to get this continued for two more weeks. But I should have been at my son’s court of honor tonight, which is two blocks away. But I’m here because I care. I moved here 25 years ago and me and my wife we’re raising three kids here. We love the open feel of Shawnee. And we need to keep it that way. Unrelated to this project, after Greg had his meeting, I don’t know if you guys are aware. He had a meeting he invited us all to. I voiced my concerns with a councilman right after Mr. Prieb’s meeting. I’m not going to name names, so I won’t. But I had some real issues with the whole Menard’s thing that’s going in, which is actually a factor in everything coming out of Johnson Drive and 55th. I think it’s going to be horrific. The amount of traffic that’s going to be coming from Menard’s, this development and probably the old Price Chopper someday, it’s all feeding straight to these three roundabouts which 12 cars can’t even drive around right now without an accident. The citizens around here deserve better. This councilman’s response to me, which I quote, “But it will bring in $550,000 a year to the City.” That was his answer. This answer was not the answer I was looking for. All these rooftops, and really Greg knows, I like this plan. I really do. It’s got a lot of potential. It just needs some tweaking. But the issue is that we need to start caring about the people that live here, not about the almighty dollar. Oh, great, that Menard’s. It’s a terrible, terrible location. I mean when all that traffic comes out of there where are they going? They’re going down Hedge Lane to K-7. Okay. They’re not going to go down to Clear Creek, get on that drive two miles or whatever that is and come out Shawnee Mission Parkway. These are big trucks. I mean not all of them, but there’s going to be a lot of trucks coming in there. Once that gets going, you know, they’re thinking that, oh, somebody will start occupying the Price Chopper, you know, more density, more density. But there’s a lot of traffic problems on 55th Street, Johnson Drive, eventually Clare Road because people are not going to be able to even get on the tract so they’re going to go straight up 55th Street, Clare Road around up to 83rd Street to, you know, Lawrence or wherever. If indeed the Good Starts Here, it must begin tonight. You, the Planning Commission, must have Prieb go back to the drawing board and present a plan that really -- that needs very, very little work. I mean the majority of these plans are zoned RS and he says has over 12,000 square foot lots, so why rezone? [inaudible] Rezoning happens and there is good for it. However, rezoning decisions should not be based on good intentions. Unfortunately, Aaron talked about, well, the recession that began in 2008, a lot of things can happen on the way to building a new development. If this rezoning process goes through as it has been presented, Prieb or any developer will retain the right to build a denser possibly lower quality neighborhood than they are presenting tonight. Nothing is locked in stone. If it was, in 2001, when you got -- when Farmington Hills was approved, which it was, it wouldn’t have been changed. But now we’re ten years later, or however many years later, we’re trying to re-change it. Everything tries to get re-changed. Let’s see. In addition, he would retain the right to sell the rezoned land at a potentially higher value just by the nature of successfully navigating the rezoning process and affording a new developer and an opportunity to create a project which is completely different from the feel. He, heaven forbid, faced the prospects of losing financial or having the project fail for economic reasons totally out of his control. Meanwhile, the neighborhood, us, we’re face with a faced with a set of freshly zoned land that could be developed at some point in the future under design quite different from what we see in here today. Because there are no guarantees that the plan he presents tonight, one that will come to life, I cannot support the request for any of the rezoning as it stands, no matter how much of the development philosophy and initial plans that they showed tonight. Even Mr. Prieb in his meeting a few nights ago insinuated that if he won the lottery another developer might be finishing this project. He said that. You know, I wouldn’t have said that tonight, but fortunately we videotaped the entire meeting. But anyway, regardless, the Comprehensive Plan is to provide the basis or guide for the public action to ensure a coordinated and harmonious development, which we best provide the healthy safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of us. I will say in the Land Use Guide it states that the planning process must emphasize the protection of established residential areas in order to enhance Shawnee’s regional’s status as a desirable, stable bedroom community. To even thing of even rezoning the areas in back of this large estates, I’m actually talking about Sylvan Creek, would provide unharmonious flow. We feel that there is not plenty of substantial justification to approve this rezoning the entire of ground to entirely R-1. And you will hear -- please, for justifiable reasons that I have stated and that you will hear, oh, I don’t know who else is going to hear, but you should not be able to approve this rezoning tonight. I do want the Planning Commission -- what I was going to say at the end. I do not want you guys to be planning to build a wall around our city, okay, not to keep others from coming in, but to keep us from leaving. Because when we do things like this, it’s going to drive us out. It is. There’s just way too many houses. I’ve got kids that go to Belmont, too. They talk about the traffic. And traffic is probably the biggest issue that needs a study on it. I don’t know if any of your guys have ever driven down Belmont. And it’s not just in the morning or in the afternoon because, you know, they have basketball there, volleyball, scouts, everything else. It’s all day long. Literally cars are lining up on the street to get into the school. And it’s not a big road. It’s two lanes. I mean it’s traffic congestion. Anyway, indeed, if the Good Starts Here, let it start tonight. Thank you for your time respectfully, Jerry Boresow. You guys take into consideration and hopefully you guys will do the right things.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you.

(Applause)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Does anyone else care to comment on this?
(Off Record Talking)

MS. RAGSDALE: I’m Iva Ragsdale. I live at (Address Omitted). I just moved in. I’m new.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Would you state your name and address for the record and sign in, please. I couldn’t hear you.

MS. RAGSDALE: Okay. Iva Ragsdale, (Address Omitted).

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you.

MS. RAGSDALE: Frankly, I kind of like having my serene little country like nothing there. It’s fantastic. That’s why I bought it. It’s great. It’s this nice little chunk of country heaven. And, you know, the nice thing about, you know, coming to this area is unless you know about Clare Road you don’t know about Clare Road. I mean before that I was down at 5150 Clare Road, so I’ve been in the area for a little bit. But it’s nice, it’s quiet except for the street. It’s a little busy. So, I don’t know that adding 200 and some odd houses is really in the best interest with that kind of traffic. We’ve already been run off the road with one of the dump trucks. It was really not nice. But that’s a lot of houses and you’re taking away the tranquility. I mean I bought five acres because I wanted five acres. I wanted that peace and quiet. That’s my sanctuary. And you guys are kind of taking that away and throwing in 280 neighbors that I didn’t really ask for. But that’s my little thought.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you.

(Applause)
MR. MADISON: Hi there. My name is Scott Madison. I live at (Address Omitted). And I am here to probably to more or less reiterate a lot of the points that have already been brought up tonight. You know, the concerns about the drainage, the concerns about the traffic. I don’t think that a traffic study has been done. I know staff did their best to make a good judgment. If I was on that staff I would probably disagree with them. I’m a guy that reads a lot, so I got here early and I enjoyed reading through this packet. It’s very interesting, very informative. You guys do a lot of hard work. But I did note there is another development that you guys approved tonight over at 76th and Clare. That density is 1.8 and there was no need to rezone any of that. Okay. That’s kind of an observation I made. Like everybody in this room I am not a fan of roundabouts. But I understand that they’re a necessity. I don’t mind them until they come into my back yard. And then in reading through this, and it wasn’t read out loud, that there is going to be a roundabout in the future at Clear Creek and Clare. Now Clear Creek comes between my mailbox and my neighbor’s. I would not want to see a roundabout at the top of my driveway. So, if you would give these people a little due, maybe consider a continuation for a couple weeks until we get some more facts and some more numbers I would appreciate it. Thank you.

(Applause)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Does anyone else care to be heard? Please.

MR. MIZE: Hello, I’m Jack Mize, (Address Omitted). I wanted to reiterate everything is talking about with the traffic. My concerns are, you know, with Menard’s, the traffic flow with Walmart on Silverheel, the traffic flow from the new library that’s going to be on Silverheel, there’s a lot studies that need to be done about that Silverheel intersection at Shawnee Mission Parkway. Currently people fight to get right onto K-7 north. There’s constant congestion there now. And now you’re talking about additional traffic flow there potentially coming across the Clear Creek Bridge. Okay. So, if it’s not going to go across that direction it’s going to head north up Hedge to meet with Menard’s, to meet with everybody else joining K-7 north and southbound. I travel extensively all over the country and roundabouts are everywhere and I get it. But if you go and sit at those intersections, sit at Walgreens, sit at, you know, CVS, Auto Zone there and just watch the traffic. There is almost an accident of some kind every hour there. People are not familiar with them. They’re not wide enough. The traffic patterns obviously are an issue or the city wouldn’t have went through and repainted them again and sent out information about how to drive through them multiple times, right? I have -- my wife and I moved into the neighborhood in 2000. I’m a resident of Highland Ridge. I’m also on the board of Highland Ridge. We have some concerns about the traffic flow down at 55th Street. Clare Road is also an issue. I have a son that goes to DeSoto High School. And his direct access to DeSoto High School is down Clare and out west. The visibility issues between Mr. Boresow’s house going south are tremendous. There’s almost an accident there all the time. There’s bikers at night. There’s things out there -- there’s no streetlights. There’s a lot of problems. So, I would put forth -- I love the idea of the neighborhood. I don’t really have a problem with the neighborhood. I do have a problem with the traffic flow through Belmont and the roundabout at Gleason. And I honestly have an issue with how these people are going to find their way to K-7. Because right now that’s Johnson Drive. They’re not going to go up Silverheel. If you go up Silverheel you can’t turn left to go into McDonald’s or Price Chopper now anyway if you come off Silverheel north. So, you add another 200-plus families, 400-plus cars, that’s a lot of people.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible] Belmont.

MR. MIZE: Yeah. There right by Belmont, right through the kids. I have three kids that go to school, have been going to school through Belmont. It’s definitely going to be an issue. So, I’d just like to ask for the continuance for two weeks so we can look at it, get a better idea of the traffic patterns through that area because I’m telling you it’s a major problem. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you.

(Applause)

MS. HELLERICH: I’m Carrie Hellerich. I’m at (Address Omitted). I’m in Belle Meade Farms. I’m on Clare every day. Not so much anymore because of the new development that’s gone on off of K-7 by the Highland Ridge Reserve and Belle Meade Farm Reserve. It has helped that that road has been slightly widened and smoothed out, but I don’t know how many times I’m in the car with my two girls that are at school at Belmont, sixth and third grade. Well, my sixth grader is at Millcreek. There are pedestrians. There are runners. There are bicyclists that don’t understand you cannot see on Clare. And I am so terrified I’m going to hit somebody. And all of us, we encounter it every single day, multiple times a day. That’s sometimes the road I choose to go to K-7 because it’s less traffic. And yet it is still so dangerous. A traffic study must be done. It impacts so many of us on Clare. And if that due diligence is not done, then it is not fair to the residents that have moved out here and out to Western Shawnee to get away from the congestion of south Overland Park. This is what we’re getting away from. This is why we like -- this is why I like my four acres and my two acres of treed lot. This is why we did this. This is the beauty and the draw of Western Shawnee. I’m not opposed to development. I am opposed to development that has not been given due diligence and done proper studies. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you.

(Applause)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is there anyone else that cares to be heard on this matter? If not, then we’re in Commission discussion. Commissioner Braley.
COMMISSIONER BRALEY: I really -- I like [inaudible; talking off mic]. I think there are some concerns that you brought to the table that are valid. I too live on the west side of K-7 at 75th and Gleason. And I knew development was going to be coming out that way when I moved out there, but it will be no surprise to my fellow Commissioners, but I think that north-south movement on west of K-7 from Gleason, Clare, all of that needs to be on the radar for the City and their Capital Improvement Plan. But I will say it has been sort of my impression of the City that as development has occurred, they have been responsive to understanding the impacts as they progress and respond to those. Monticello is a good recent example of improvements because of the high school and the congestion. And they responded, widened, added extra lanes and responded to the congestion that occurred there. Yeah. I mean, you know, the City has made an investment in Clear Creek Parkway to bring it up there. It’s nice that a developer has stepped forward to put some development around that investment so it isn’t just a roadway sitting out there with nothing really on it. So, those are my kind of thoughts on it.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. One of the interesting things to me is there’s a very nice development out there R-1, RS, there really is a little bit of difference, but not a lot of difference between the two. And it seems like one heck of a good thing. Now, Clear Creek Parkway, the City is doing a part of it, and then this developer is going to take care of the rest of it. Now, I’m not a traffic engineer, but that’s going to take care of a lot of the traffic flow. And I was out there and drove Clare Road and, gosh, I wish the City would please fix Clare Road as long as -- as well as other areas in the City that the City is in the process of trying to get to that point to do that. But also open up some of these other streets out there. It almost seemed to me in some ways maybe it was going to help traffic flow. And I’m quite positive there isn’t anybody out there that’s going to agree with me. Thank you.

Anybody else have a comment up here? Commissioner John Smith.

COMMISSIONER JOHN SMITH: Well, I drove Clare Road today because I -- although I live in western, I’m on the east side of K-7. But a lot of things that they said about Clare Road, I think there is an element of fact there. To me it seems like, you know, when we’re doing developments like this, which comes first, the chicken or the egg. And that’s I think more the issue that we’re considering here and that’s something we all have to deal with.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for staff.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Mudgett.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: When, Paul, did the notifications go out about the development to the neighborhood?

MR. CHAFFEE: As per state law requires [inaudible; talking off mic]

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Okay. Thank you.

MR. CHAFFEE: In that 200 foot [inaudible; talking off mic]

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: How many residents is that?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It’s right -- yeah. Nineteen families.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Yeah. And has there been any kind of official traffic study of the area been made?

MR. MANNING: So, there are many different reasons why a traffic impact study could be done. One of them is typically when you have an area that is kind of nearing capacity and you have a big development come in and you need to understand how the roadway network is going to be impacted in order to make roadway improvements. In this case we have a good idea of the traffic out in the area. And obviously this is a new development coming in where there’s not a lot of existing traffic. And so with the Clear Creek Parkway and the existing roadway network staff is confident that the roadway network can handle any additional traffic that’s going to be created by this development.

(Audience comments from gallery)

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Menard’s, the new development north of the duplexes going up on the north side, K-7 --

(Banging gavel)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Actually we’re in Commission discussion now, so [inaudible; talking off mic] all we have here. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Peterson.
COMMISSIONER PETERSON: First of all, I always love to see residents take the time to come out. I know there will be instances where you may not feel you were heard, but please understand that that’s not necessarily true. I have some concerns about Clare Road. I do remember from the studies that it has been on people’s radar. But at current, the Density of population hasn’t created that high enough on the ladder. Not saying that this is going to be the tipping point. I don’t know. That’s way over my pay grade. But I think this. They’ve addressed the stormwater. They’ve done a look forward. I think zoning it all one classification is incredibly helpful whether Greg wins the lottery or not. But we’re not done yet here. We’re just rezoning this. There is not a final plat. There are other steps left to happen where we can perhaps further look into concerns of the citizens, is that not true?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yeah.

MR. CHAFFEE: The preliminary or final plats are [inaudible; talking off mic] --

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Right.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Right.

MR. CHAFFEE: -- subdivision [inaudible] home construction or street construction can take place within the subdivision.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Okay. Thanks.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Commissioner Peterson. Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Probably [inaudible] traffic. So, it looks -- people who want to go south on K-7 or east on Shawnee Mission Parkway are going to go Clear Creek Parkway to Gleason south and pick up the extension of Shawnee Mission Parkway and that gets you to 7.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. Silverheel.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: It doesn’t go --

MR. MANNING: In fact right now, so --

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: It doesn’t go all the way.

MR. MANNING: On this map right here there’s a piece of Gleason that’s planned at some point in the future from this roundabout and that would connect down to existing Gleason. There’s about a quarter mile gap right now, in addition it would be another quarter mile of roadway that exists, but it would be improved at that point.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other Commissioner discussion? If not, then I’ll accept a motion. We have these broken up into two actions. The first is rezoning and the second part of it would be preplatting. I’m sorry. The second part would be preplat. So, do I hear a motion on the rezoning?

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Mr. Chairman. I would move --

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bogina, please.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: I would move for approval of Z-01-17-03, a rezoning from AG (Agricultural) and RS (Residential Suburban) to R-1 (Single Family Residential), for a Single Family Residential Subdivision, located in the 23900-24700 blocks of Clear Creek Parkway.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Is there a second? Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: I will second that motion.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: There’s a motion and a second for Z-01-17-03, rezoning from Agricultural and Residential Suburban to R-1 Single Family Residential, for a Single Family Residential Subdivision located at 23900-24700 blocks of Clear Creek Parkway. All in favor say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carries.
(Motion passes 8-0; Commissioners Bienhoff, L. Smith absent)

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bogina.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: I would move for approval of Preplat-05-17-03; a Preliminary Plat Review for Canyon Lakes which covers the area proposed to be rezoned (Z-01-17-03) and already zoned R-1, generally located in the 23900-24700 blocks of Clear Creek Parkway.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Is there a second? Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: I’ll second that motion.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Commissioner Braley. There’s a motion and a second to approve Preliminary Plat for Canyon Lakes which covers the area proposed to be rezoned (Z-01-17-03) and already zoned R-1, generally located in the 23900-24700 blocks of Clear Creek Parkway. All in favor say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carried. Thank you.
(Motion passed 8-0; Commissioners Bienhoff, L. Smith absent)

E. OTHER BUSINESS

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Does staff have anything else for the Commission? Thank you. Does the Commission have anything else for staff? If not, I’ll accept a motion for adjournment.

F. ADJOURNMENT

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Mr. Commissioner, I’d like to make a motion to adjourn.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Mudgett.

(Audience talking in background)

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I second the motion.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I second. Second by Commissioner Peterson. I’m sorry? All in favor say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Oppose nay. Motion carried. Thank you.
(Motion passed 8-0. Commissioners Bienhoff, L. Smith absent)

(Shawnee Planning Commission Meeting Adjourned at 8:56 p.m.)