PDF Format:

ApprovedPlanningCommissionMeeting.4.3.17.pdfApprovedPlanningCommissionMeeting.4.3.17.pdf


CITY OF SHAWNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES
April 3, 2017
7:30 P.M.

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

PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
Commissioner Randy Braley

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

A. ROLL CALL

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Good evening and welcome to the April 3, 2017 meeting of the Shawnee Planning Commission. We’ll start with roll call. Commissioner John Smith.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: Present.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Busby is here. Commissioner Bogina.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Here.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Commissioner Braley is absent. Commissioner Les Smith.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Mudgett.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you.

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: If you’ll please join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

(Pledge of Allegiance)

C. CONSENT ITEMS

1. APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2017.
2. SP-34-16-12; REVISED SITE PLAN FOR A COLOR CHANGE AT ATTIC STORAGE OF SHAWNEE, A SELF-STORAGE FACILITY PROPOSED IN THE 20300 BLOCK OF W. 66TH TERRACE. THE APPLICATION IS FILED BY NOLTE ARCHITECTURE FOR STRICKLAND CONSTRUCTION , DEVELOPER.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Items 1 and 2 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 to approve the Consent Agenda.

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

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: I second.

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 carried.

(Motion carried 9-0. Commissioner Braley absent)

D. NEW BUSINESS

1. 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: New Business. 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.

Doug.

MR. ALLMON: Good evening, Doug Allmon, Planning staff. I’ve put a copy of an aerial that shows the area that we’ll be talking about here. I’m just going to Government over the first couple pages of the report, and then Mark is going to follow up with more information.

REZONING REVIEW
1. The request is to rezone 24.3 acres from RS (Residential Suburban) to DU (Duplex) for the construction of 82 twin-villa units on 41 lots. If approved, the villas are proposed to be constructed as two of the last three phases of the entire Canyon Lakes residential development.

In May of 2001, rezoning and preliminary plat approval were granted for the Farmington Hills subdivision. The area of requested DU zoning was zoned RS at that time. No final plats related to the original Farmington Hills preliminary plat were recorded and no infrastructure improvements were ever undertaken for that subdivision.

2. The area of requested zoning is located on the east side of Clare Road to the north of the right-of-way line for Clear Creek Parkway that is currently under construction. Properties to the south (across Clear Creek Parkway) and east are zoned R-1 (Single-Family Residential). Property to the north is an unplatted property zoned R-1 that contains multiple, scattered non-conforming outbuildings, and the non-conforming storage of vehicles, material and equipment. Property to the west, across Clare Road, is zoned primarily AG (Agricultural) and contains seven (7) single family homes on larger lots. One lot zoned RE (Residential Estates) and containing a ranch-style home also fronts to Clare Road in this area.

3. The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area as appropriate for low-density residential uses. The area of requested DU zoning yields a gross density of 3.37 dwelling units per acre (82 Units / 24.3 Acres). This density is within the middle range of the low-density designation of less than five (5) units per acre as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. All lots proposed in the twin villa development exceed the minimum 12,000 square foot size requirement of the DU district, with many lots in excess of 15,000 square feet. In context of the entire Canyon Lakes development, the subdivision, as a whole, yields a blended gross density of 2.20 dwelling units per acre.

Generally, the low density residential designation implies single family residential is expected, and over the years, it has been anticipated single family development would occur. However, a well-designed duplex development at a low density can co-exist with single family residential development.

The Comprehensive Plan also states a desire to provide a variety of residential units throughout the community, and to provide diversity in housing design and placement. Provision of a twin villa housing option, while maintaining a low-density residential development pattern, appears to promote this objective. Based on these factors, the rezoning request for DU appears to be in general compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.

4. Clear Creek Parkway, which abuts the south edge of the area of requested zoning, is currently being improved from Hedge Lane Terrace, west to Clare Road as part of a benefit district. Access will 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.

It’s approximately here. (referring to aerial map)

Limits of no access will be dedicated along Clare Road to prohibit additional points of access onto a designated arterial street. Arapaho Street will be extended northward from Clear Creek Parkway to connect to 58th Place. Connectivity to the surrounding single family areas will be provided from the extension of Belmont Drive, a designated minor residential collector, from Belmont Elementary to intersect with Clear Creek Parkway. The points of access and the proposed street network for this proposed development are adequate for circulation and public safety purposes.

5. The rezoning should have little, if any, detrimental effect upon surrounding properties. The twin villa development is buffered at the northeast corner by a 100-foot wide overhead power line utility easement that must remain devoid of structures. Non-conforming uses directly to the north are separated from the development by an open space tract that is reserved for the overhead power line easement, as well as, construction of stormwater BMP’s for the project. The rear yards of the villa development are adjacent to Clare Road, which is classified as a minor arterial street on the City’s Circulation Plan. Open space tracts located adjacent to the east right-of-way line for Clare will be landscaped with a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees to provide additional buffering for the existing residential lots to the west. The density of the villa proposal is 3.37 dwelling units per acre. In combination with other areas planned for single-family development, the Canyon Lakes proposal would have a total of 363 residential dwelling units. This is actually one dwelling unit less than the 364 units that were approved for construction in the now abandoned Farmington Hills subdivision.

Although not normally required with a DU zoning request, the applicant has agreed to provide architectural elevations of the villas that will be built in the subdivision. The elevations portray varied roof lines and garage configurations, and utilize quality materials that would be typically found on single family homes. The villa design incorporates architectural features that impart the look and feel of a larger single-family home. To provide architectural control over the villas, the applicant has agreed to a rezoning condition of approval that ties the submitted elevations to any DU zoning of the property. The condition of approval is binding to this and/or any future owner of the property, and any request to change the approved elevations will result in re-notification of surrounding property owners within 200 feet of the request.

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 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 construction of villa units will provide empty-nester type living opportunities for seniors, millennials, and other residents that want maintenance provided for yards and snow removal in western Shawnee.

And I’m going to turn that over to Mark now.

PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW
MR. ZIELSDORF: Good evening. Mark Zielsdorf, City Planning staff. Like Doug said I’m going to review -- go over the Preliminary Plat portion of this.

The applicant has submitted a preliminary plat for the overall subdivision. The overall preliminary plat contains 41 twin villa lots and 281 single family lots. This particular preliminary plat review will cover the area proposed to be rezoned to DU containing the 41 twin villa lots.

1. Overall, the property consists of 164 acres of gently rolling pasture and ranch land, along with three ponds, natural stream channels and a wooded area located in the south central area along the stream channels. As Doug mentioned earlier, a large overhead electrical transmission line and the associated 100 foot easement bisects the property from the northwest to the southeast.

2. 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. And tonight we’re considering the duplex rezoning.

5. The proposed twin villa property consists of 24.3 acres and is currently zoned RS (Residential Suburban). The applicant has requested to rezone the property to DU for the development of 41 twin villa lots or 82 residential units.

6. The applicant has provided a phasing plan that indicates a multi-phased development with an anticipated build out of four to six years. And later phases will be in the northwest quadrant that include the twin villa homes along Clare Road.

7. All bulk requirements have been satisfied. The 41 DU zoned lots range in size from 12,067 square feet to 17,991 square feet, exceeding the minimum lot size requirements of the DU zoning district. Minimum lot frontages of 90 feet have been provided and front yard setbacks of 30 feet have been shown on the preliminary plat. Rear yard setbacks shall be 30 feet and side yards shall be no less than 10 feet. The applicant has indicated that the twin villa units will be for sale units. As such, the lots may be split one time, upon completion of the twin villa structure being built on the lot, for the transfer of ownership in accordance with SMC Chapter 16.16.

8. This portion of the preliminary plat is in general conformance with the Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan. With a density of 3.37 du/ac, the twin villa portion of the plat meets the established guidelines for low density residential development of between 1 and 5 du/ac.

As Doug mentioned earlier, the area combined with the single family lots brings the total density for the entire community to 2.20 du/ac.

9. The overall plat shows 17 tracts totaling 33.1 acres throughout the subdivision. This portion of the preliminary plat contains two tracts and a portion of another tract. The developer has indicated that all of the 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, stormwater treatment facilities, 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.

10. 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. The landscape plan will need to 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. And final landscape plans for these areas, as well as the other common tracts, shall be submitted along with the final plat submittal with each phase.

11. The applicant has provided architectural elevations of the twin villa homes proposed to be built. The design incorporates a variety of architectural features, including varied roof lines, garage configurations and quality building materials to provide the look and feel of a larger single-family home. The homes use a combination of hip and gable style roofs. The roofs will be covered in a 30 year, “Timberline” or equivalent architectural style of shingle, weathered wood in color. Stone and hand troweled stucco elements will be used on the front elevations, with engineered wood siding on the side and rear elevations. The use of stone and stucco accents will be used on some of the side and rear elevations. And a color palette has been proposed that will use several earth tone color combinations of greys and browns to add further variety and interest. The applicant has indicated the intent is to have the twin villa homes appear varied and unique to blend in seamlessly with the adjacent homes in this development.

(Sketches shown to Commission) And I’ve got some of those elevations that the applicant has provided here that I’ll put up on the screen real quick. And here would be a side elevation of that unit. And a rear elevation. Here’s an additional unit. And the side. And rear. Here’s a third elevation. Again, the side. And rear. And then a fourth proposed elevation with the side and rear elevation.

12. The applicant has indicated the twin villas and the single family homes will be one community and that the twin villa owners will have equal access to all of the same amenities throughout the subdivision. He has also indicated that the twin villa portion will be a maintenance provided community in regards to lawn care and snow removal services. The applicant has provided a draft copy of a master homeowner’s association declaration and a declaration of restrictions for the overall 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 all the lots within the subdivision, as well as the additional provisions of lawn care and snow removal services and supplemental assessments for the twin villa owners. Two copies of the final signed and executed documents shall be submitted for recording with the Johnson County Register of Deeds office along with the first final plat for the subdivision.

13. 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 is scheduled for construction in 2017 and 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 southbound. Staff will continue to monitor the development of Canyon Lakes and the Shawnee Golf and Country Club project to determine when this connection should be built.

14. Several points of access will serve this subdivision. Primary access to the twin villa portion will be from Clear Creek Parkway, a designated major collector. Arapaho Street will extend from Clear Creek Parkway north to 58th Street providing access to the twin villas. Access to the twin villas will also be provided from 58th Place, which is a designated local residential street, extending east between Clare Road and Belmont Drive, which is a designated minor residential collector. Two points of access will be provided from Clare Road, one at Clear Creek Parkway and also from a newly constructed 58th Place. Limits of no access will be dedicated along Clare Road to prohibit additional points of access onto the designated arterial street. The points of access and the proposed street network for this plat are acceptable for circulation and public safety purposes.

15. (a) All internal streets in this portion of the subdivision shall comply with their design standards for a local residential street. The conceptual street layouts provided are sufficient, as are the proposed centerline grades and vertical curve information provided with the preliminary plat.

(b) Clear Creek Parkway, which is the main east/west road through this development, is being constructed as part of a benefit district. Clear Creek Parkway is a designated major collector. Construction of this major street is already under construction and the contract for construction is being administered by the City of Shawnee’s Development Services Department.

(c) 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. And although permanent improvements are not required as part of this development, the applicant is responsible for making the following partial improvements to Clare Road:

16. (a) The applicant is responsible for submitting a streetlight improvement plan to the City for review and acceptance prior to preparing the signature copies of the final plat.

17. (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 discovered during the review of the final plans for each plat will be required to be resolved prior to plan approval.

(b) The applicant has only provided a conceptual storm layout for the preliminary plat. And while it is sufficient for reviewing the preliminary plat, revisions to the proposed system might be required. The applicant is responsible for submitting a detailed storm improvement plans for review and acceptance to the City prior to preparing the recording copies of each final plat.

18. The 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.
19. The overall 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 STFs to meet the required Level of Service. The STF requirements for Canyon Lakes will be addressed as a whole and not broken in to individual requirements for each plat. As such, at final build-out all STF requirements for the Canyon Lakes Subdivision will be satisfied upon completion of the last final plat improvements.

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

20. The twin villa portion of the preliminary plat does not lie within or adjacent to the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) for Clear Creek, nor is it within the stream corridor associated with Clear Creek or its tributaries.

22. All of the lots within this development will be served by a public sewer.

28. 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.

(b) Clear Creek Parkway is being improved as part of a Benefit District. And since Clear Creek Parkway is classified as a major street, the cost of these improvements is eligible as a credit against the excise tax. The estimated cost of these improvements is $1,649,134.

(f) For the twin villa residential portion of the plat the estimated gross excise tax for this plat is $212,185, calculated based on a taxable area of 986,908 square feet at the current rate of $0.215 per square foot.

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

29. This subdivision is subject to the provisions of Shawnee Municipal Code (SMC) 12.14, Park and Recreational Land Use Fund. Open space fees in the amount of $400 per residential unit shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Open space fees are estimated to be $32,800 for the 82 twin villa residential units.


RECOMMENDATION
As far as staff’s recommendation, although perhaps not what was generally expected for this area, staff believes the DU rezoning and the preliminary plat has several merits for approval. Given the density of the twin villa proposal, as well as the blended density of the subdivision as a whole, the request satisfies development parameters suggested by the Comprehensive Plan. The site is constrained by large overhead transmission power lines to the east and north, and also abuts property that contains the nonconforming storage of vehicles, materials and equipment. The area of rezoning also abuts Clare Road to the west, which is designated for improvement to arterial standards sometime in the future. Elevations provided of the twin villas depict units that are of quality design and utilize quality materials that will be replicated in the adjacent single family portions of the development. The proposed architecture would not be out of character in comparison to surrounding areas. Furthermore, the applicant has agreed to a condition of approval that ties the twin-villa elevations directly to the DU rezoning approval, binds this and any future owner to their construction, and requires re-notice should elevation changes ever be proposed. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of Z-02-17-03, rezoning from RS (Residential Suburban) to DU (Duplex
Residential) subject to the following two conditions:

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; and

2. The twin villa homes shall be constructed in accordance with the building elevations, including the materials and earth tone color palette, as approved by the Planning Commission. Any modification to the approved elevations shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission and Governing Body. If the applicant, or any subsequent developer, wishes to change the elevations as approved, then they shall be required to have the revised elevations considered by the Planning Commission. Consideration of any revised elevations will be done as part of a public hearing at a date and time specified, in which notification is provided to all owners of property within 200 feet of the perimeter of the property zoned DU. Notification will be sent by regular mail at least 20 days prior to the public hearing.

Staff also recommends approval of the twin villa portion of Preplat-05-17-03, Preliminary Plat for Canyon Lakes subdivision, twin villa residential subdivision, located in the 5800-6000 blocks of Clare Road subject to the following conditions:

1. Acceptance of the dedications on the final plat(s) 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 41 DU zoned lots on 24.3 acres;

3. All bulk regulations of the DU zoning district shall be met for Lots 282-322 on the preliminary plat, including minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet, minimum lot width of 90 feet, and a minimum front setback of 30 feet. Side yards shall maintain a minimum setback of 10 feet and rear yard setbacks shall be no less than 30 feet;

4. A DU lot may be split one time, upon completion of the twin villa unit constructed on the lot, for the transfer of ownership of each unit in accordance with SMC Chapter
16.16;

5. The landscape plan shall be revised to show the street trees lining Clear Creek Parkway to be place 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 submittal with each phase. The landscaping shall be installed in conjunction with the public improvements for each plat;

6. Two copies of the final signed and executed master homeowner’s association declaration, sub-homeowners association for twin villa units with provisions for lawn and snow removal services, and the 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 any portion of the subdivision;

7. 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;

8. 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.

9. 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;

10. 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;

11. 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. The detention fee is $350 per lot and will be required to be paid as part of the final plat for each phase;

12. The 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 further outlined in the staff report;

13. 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. The Base Flood Elevations are subject to the review and approval of the Development Review Manager;

14. 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 is responsible for obtaining a land disturbance permit as required by Codes Administration prior to undertaking any land disturbance or 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;

15. All of the lots within this development will be served by a public sewer system;

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

17. All utilities shall be placed underground;

18. The applicant is responsible for scheduling a pre-design meeting with Development Services staff prior to preparing any public improvement plans. Individual sets of the final street, storm drainage, and street lighting plans must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to commencing construction work on the site. These plans shall be prepared according to the standards in the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual;

19. 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(s) shall not access the site through the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Belmont Drive and 58th Terrace shall not be used to access the site by construction vehicles during the construction of the public improvements of any final plat;

20. 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;

21. All fire hydrants with compliant fire-flows, and fire lanes as required by the Fire
Department, shall be approved prior to issuance of a building permit. Minimum fire-flow and flow duration shall be as specified in Table B.105.1 of the International Fire Code. And fire-flow is measured at a 20 psi residual pressure;

22. 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), Kansas Division of Water Resources (DWR), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE);

23. 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. The final calculation of excise tax will be figured using the excise tax rate in effect at the time final plat is recorded;

24. This subdivision is subject to the provisions of Shawnee Municipal Code (SMC) 12.14, Park and Recreational Land Use Fund. Open space fees in the amount of $400 per residential unit shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. And open space fees are estimated to be $32,800 for the 82 twin villa residential units; and finally

25. The applicant is responsible for submitting a computation plat with the recording copies of the final plat(s).

That concludes staff’s presentation of the preliminary plat.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Doug and Mark. Is the applicant present? If he would please come forward and state his name and address, please.

MR. PRIEB: Greg Prieb, (Address Omitted).

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

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bogina.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Even though the staff does think that they have clarity as to what these plans are, could you go through what would be the minimum square footages you would propose, minimum amount of stone or brick or other masonry material you would use, the roof pitches and anything else you can think of, so that we could have something that binds? I don’t think that we have anything that binds this plan because it’s undimensioned.

MR. PRIEB: On the plans we submitted it was -- we looked at the DU zoning versus something more of a planned, and kind of creating a, I don’t want to say a hybrid combination of the two. But on the planned zoning you do smaller lots if I’m not mistaken. Is that right, Mark? On a Planned zoning district you can go down to smaller lots. And that’s not something that we wanted to bring in, to leave a door open to later on. So, if things happen, things change hands later on, it would leave a door open where this could end up with smaller lots. It’s not something that I wanted in that area.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Well, I think these are small lots for a duplex, but go ahead.

MR. PRIEB: So, that’s where came up with the idea of bringing and submitting drawings on different things. We did, and maybe they’re not as labeled as much as they would be on a planned district, but that’s something I’m open to adding to so there’s more clarification on it.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, if an average lot is 90-foot wide and there’s a 10-foot setback on the side, then you’re going to have a 35-foot unit across, correct?

MR. PRIEB: So, they’re all going to be two-car garages, so yes, correctly, roughly in that range.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Okay. And so your depth of 140 on an average minus the 35-foot building line and a 30-foot rear line gives you a maximum depth of 75-foot. And so your footprint, your maximum footprint is 2,600 square foot. Are they proposed to be two-story?

MR. PRIEB: They’re all going to be --

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Raised ranch.
MR. PRIEB: The demographic we’re shooting for is that empty-nester. We’ve gotten a lot of positive feedback from this. In fact, I forwarded some of it to Paul and Mark. I can’t remember if I sent it to Mark or not. I know it was Paul and also Dave Holtwick. Just giving them some of the feedback we’ve been getting for that area. So, we’re looking for everything to be a ranch style or reverse if need be, if they want to go down to the basement. So, looking for one bedroom with a dining room or master bedroom with a flex room upstairs, something of that range. Leaving the basement open for the options if people wanted to go down there to finish those as well. So, everything would be a two-car garage. We’re going for more of the nicer finishes in these units. I don’t expect to have a lot of families that buy these. I’m expecting more of the empty-nesters. So, square footage-wise, around that 1,300-1,500 range is roughly. I haven’t -- you threw a lot of numbers at me there real quick and I didn’t write them down.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: If the lot is 90-foot wide and there’s a 10-foot setback, so you have 70-foot of building in width. If you divided that directly in half, you would have a 35-foot unit twice. If you had 140-foot in depth and a 35-foot building line and a 30-foot rear line, you would have a maximum of 75-foot in depth, so that your maximum footprint of 35 times 75 is 2,600 is your maximum. And that includes the garage which would be 480 or so.

MR. PRIEB: Uh-huh.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, you’re prosing these units to be 1,300 on the first floor?

MR. PRIEB: I’m just kind of basing off other plans that we’ve built that are more of that ranch-style concept. So, my math may not add up to what -- you’re right on all your numbers right there. I’m just kind of giving you an idea of kind of what we’re looking for. So, it might be a little bit less than that. I have not added those numbers up that you’ve said on there to get an idea of the exact square footage of these. When I got with the Planning Department on there we concentrated on the elevations. I told our architect we wanted something that’s going to be more of the two-bedroom, nice kitchen, breakfast nook area with the possibility of going downstairs and doing more of a reverse concept. So, we spent a lot on the elevations on the time of it.

And also in answering your question on what’s the breakdown for material requirements, I had them do whatever looked good for those fronts, those elevations to nail down to. I didn’t have them put percentages on there. I’d be happy to add something like that to it.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And I could save some of this for my comment later, but to give you a chance to respond, I’m not favorable to taking a zoning of duplexes and leaving it sit there within a rural residential area. And for conceivably if you absorbed 40 houses a year 4 years from now, then have us come back 4 years and think about what we -- what you thought was going to be the style, design, size of those duplexes and what we thought it was if any of us are still here. And so in my thinking, I would have preferred a PUD, and the staff said it was your decision to go with the duplex (DU) zoning rather than a PUD. I would have preferred that because we could have said that, yes, this is the right amount of stone and this is the right looks that would blend well with a rural residential area. But since that did not occur, I would like to hear more about -- and we’re talking about something that you would conceivably build in 2021. But tell us what else you think the style, I guess that you would call these new traditional style.

MR. PRIEB: On the elevations we brought up with, I told our architect I want stuff that looks -- I want different looks. I want different rooflines, different elevations, front porches, grand entries, mixing the stone up, making -- I don’t want them to look like they’re reciprocated sides. I want them to look as different as possible. I’ve got a lot of houses to sell in this area and I want to make sure this looks good as well. So, not just for the houses that I’m building, but just the whole area in general being such a large project.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: On the single family would you think that you’re going to build part of them, most of them? Or what percentage of the single-family homes do you think you’ll build?

MR. PRIEB: I’m going in, planning -- I’m inviting other builders in. That’s great. I love to have more builders in there, but I’m also prepared to be the only builder in there as well.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, on the single family that you would propose to build, what percentage of stone or brick or other natural material would you use on a single family spec house or build to suit that you would do within a subdivision?

MR. PRIEB: I don’t get into the percentages of it. We do like when we mark our plans up we’ll put stone around the dining room windows or we’ll put stone around our grand entry area. So, I don’t have -- when we have our single family front elevations, we don’t nail it down percentage-wise, we do it on the areas that we’re building.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Okay.

MR. PRIEB: Sorry, I’m not -- I don’t have an answer. I don’t want to answer --

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: What type of market do you plan to hit to be in in the single family as either square footage or price?

MR. PRIEB: I’m building the Estates of Highland Ridge right now. In there, we’re in the upper 300s, lower 400 range. They’re all five bedroom. The four bedrooms upstairs, the flex room on the first floor. We’re in that 2,700-3,000 square foot range, all three-car garage, nine-foot basement walls.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Is it conceivable that you would absorb 40 units a year from the single-family subdivision?

MR. PRIEB: Plus or minus, it could be more. Actually it depends on the land we have -- how many lots we’ve developed out in front of us. Our Woodland Manor subdivision that we’ve got in a different city is going well right now. We’ll be over that. I’m building Greens of Chapel Creek and that subdivision is doing fairly well in there. I’m going to assume and guess they’ve sold over 40 in a year time. So, there’s a definite possibility to be larger than that.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, do you think Phase 9 is 2021?

MR. PRIEB: On the phasing of it that’s something that we, when we were asked for a phasing, we put something together on it. But it’s something -- once we get -- Belmont Street is going to be our first street we put in because I want to connect to the elementary school. It’s kind of -- it would be tough developing a subdivision, you could see the elementary school, but you have to go all the way out and around. So, that’s something that was a big deal to us to get Belmont. Once we get Belmont in, it really opens up and we can branch off of. So, it’ll leave the window open that we could go sooner to the twin villa area if we’d like. I don’t think it would be unheard of for us to get there sooner than four or five years down the road.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, what do you think you could tell us that would pin down what the -- besides the sketch, and we appreciate the sketch. But being undimensioned and all those -- it’s not typical of what we’d get on a plan that comes in. And I know it’s an unplanned zone that you’re applying for. But what else can you tell us about what we should expect from these duplexes in the future?

MR. PRIEB: I mean I’m not opposed to putting a hundred percent masonry on the front, where I’m not dealing with a large frontage area on, especially when dealing with a ranch-style concept, your front elevation is not a huge area. So, I’m not opposed to being a hundred percent masonry on the front. Actually what we put in the staff report there was a hundred percent masonry and also doing some on the sides and the back there. So, it’s having a lot of the gables and the wrap around areas, the porches, the grand entries, did I answer your question?

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Well, if we were here five years from now and you were building duplexes, how is it that from this plan that you’ve given us that we know that it’s what we approved?

MR. PRIEB: So, when we -- I had a volunteer -- I had a neighborhood meeting held at the elementary school with all the neighbors that came, just to get -- I saw a lot of just wild stuff on the Internet. I was like, oh, we need to nail this down just to get -- so there’s not so much bad press on this. So, we had our neighborhood meeting. And one of the things I came back with and talked to the Planning Department is I’m fine with putting stipulations in there that when we go back to file our preliminary -- when we come back for our preliminary, to have our elevations tied to it. Or when we apply for our building permit it doesn’t match the notes in the Planning Commission. I’m not opposed to giving this more teeth on it.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Okay. And how would you propose -- and you’ve proposed to do that when?

MR. PRIEB: Tonight. I mean is that --

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Final phase or --

MR. PRIEB: Or when we -- I guess I don’t understand the question.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Well, as we’re having a meeting tonight, when would you propose to do it?

MR. PRIEB: To do the --

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: To do your submittal, yes.

MR. PRIEB: For I was talking about --

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: To tie it down.

MR. PRIEB: I’m sorry. I guess I’m confused by that.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: You’re proposing to tie this down more so than the sketches?

MR. PRIEB: Oh, if that’s going to be what the Council decides that they want more additional information on our sketches, I’m not opposed to that. I’ll get with Mark to make sure I nail the different spots down. Something I talked with Aaron about a couple times, the attorney for Cary here.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Mr. March.

MR. PRIEB: Yeah, sorry.

MR. MARCH: We’re on a first name basis.

MR. PRIEB: Yeah. We e-mail often. Is to putting more stuff on there, I’m fine with that. I’m not opposed to adding additional information to it. This is kind of something I started with saying I’m voluntarily doing this, bringing this in as opposed to providing nothing. I just want to make sure I check the right boxes, I get all the information on there so that I don’t -- so, we’re moving in a positive direction.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Yes. And as I said, I’m not trying to redundant. It just would have been so much easier I think if it would have been a PUD to where this would have been a part of their requirements in an unplanned zone, a duplex zoning. It’s not a requirement, so we appreciate you volunteering it. In an R-2 and R-3, we have a requirement of certain amounts of stone or natural material, masonry material in the front. And we have other requirements just so that what we approve is what we see one day. But thank you. Chairman, that’s it.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Any other questions for applicant or staff? Bruce.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ve got a question for the applicant. How many bedrooms did you say these units were to have? And if you could talk a little bit about the expected sales price.

MR. PRIEB: Per unit, so if you have a twin villa, we don’t use the word duplex. That’s a dirty word from the 80s. On a twin villa, there’s two units. So, each unit would have either a master bedroom and either a dining room/office or a master bedroom and a secondary bedroom. And the price would be in the 320 range, mid-300s. So, kind of throwing some stuff out there right. But it’s going to be in that ball park. We can’t build anything for less of a price than that.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Could you explain a little bit your thought process on why it’s not a PUD, why you chose to go this route?

MR. PRIEB: How did we -- I don’t remember how we ended up getting to this -- just it was --

MR. ZIELSDORF: Mark Zielsdorf, Planning staff. When staff met with Greg initially and he proposed a duplex -- twin villa, sorry, the twin villa product, because it was just a straight twin villa duplex project, it wasn’t a mix of twos and threes and four-plexes or multi-family type of thing, it was just a straight clean twin villa type product, staff suggested that a duplex zoning would be appropriate adjacent with the single family. Generally the Planned Mixed Residential, or the PUDs is something we use when we’re talking about true multi-family where you’re talking about townhomes, three-plexes, four-plexes, apartments those kind of things. When we’re dealing with just straight duplex units we typically do the traditional duplex zoning.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Does that answer it? I’m sorry, but I have to go back and do something. I think I failed to ask Mr. Prieb if he agreed with staff recommendations when we started this. So, I presume you agreed with staff recommendations?

MR. PRIEB: Absolutely.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Commissioner John Smith.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: I’d like to know a little more of your thinking of why, I don’t know what word we used when all those duplexes and what -- why you feel these are appropriate for this area.

MR. PRIEB: When we bought this property, it’s 163 acres. And rather than just building one or two types and just -- I built an area in Olathe called Prairie Farms. And we have -- there is one size lot and it’s going to be 163 acres of it. Reading the different things, different articles online and trying to get a little bit of mixed use in there, we have some estate lots along the southern edge of Clear Creek Parkway. I don’t mean to talk negative about our Prairie Farms subdivision, but it’s just -- to have some mix in there. We picked that corner because it’s got -- it’s got the power lines. It’s got that -- I don’t know what that is, the north compost facility and then it’s got the Clear Creek Parkway on the side. So, it’s sectioned off a little more than the rest of it. It wouldn’t -- to me it didn’t make sense to put something we’re gearing towards empty-nesters next to the elementary school. I feel like a lot of people would make fun of us for that. That’s kind of an oxymoron there. On the south side of Clear Creek Parkway, on the southwest corner, there is the -- it would immediately back up to the large lot subdivisions. And that was something we talked about in the Planning Department that that wouldn’t be the ideal spot. Then on the other side the terrain gets a little wilder with the open channel setbacks and with the power lines over there. So, the corner we put it in tended to best fit, I don’t want to say obstacles, but with the power lines and the highway and, not the highway, Clear Creek Parkway -- no, Clare Road, so.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: Well, that’s helpful, but I still don’t quite understand that area, why you’re proposing to this [inaudible]. I have another question that’s really probably more for staff.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Please go ahead, John.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: On Number 16, on page 30, it says, “Telephone, electric and cable service facilities are to be placed within rear and side yards as required by Policy Statement PS-24.” I notice staff doesn’t use the perfect tense of the verb there, but at least I found in our area when Google Fiber came through as an example, instead of putting the service in the back of the where most of the service is located, they come through and used the front. So, is there a discrepancy there, or is our policy statement flexible enough to allow utilities to be put either in the front or the back?
MR. ZIELSDORF: Mark Zielsdorf, Planning staff. The policy statement requires that utilities be placed underground. The policy statement requires that utility pedestals be placed in the rear or the side yards. Generally utilities such as Google Fiber and those where they have flush-mounted pedestals, as long as those are in a right-of-way or in a dedicated utility easement, those can be placed in the front. But the intent of that policy is to keep all the telephone pedestals and the above ground electric boxes and all that stuff from being clustered in the front yards. So, the idea that some of the new communication lines that are in the flush-mounted boxes underground, those are permitted in the front.

MR. PRIEB: Commissioner Smith, can I add one more thing? When you said why do you put that product. I wanted to touch on one more thing. I’m building the Estates of Highland Ridge, Highland Ridge Crossing, Grey Oaks, Greens of Chapel Creek, a number of those areas, all in Shawnee. And one of the questions we get is for maintenance provided or ranch style products. So, to answer your question that’s where some of that came from was a lot of the feedback we get in surrounding areas that we build in Shawnee was the buyer’s agents who we deal with in selling our homes have, I don’t want to say requested, but they’ve inquired about a product like this. So, that’s how it’s got involved in Canyon Lakes.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: Thank you. That’s helpful.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Any other questions for applicant or staff? Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I noticed that you’ve done the basics for a homeowners association. But one of the things in the duplex portion it was going to be maintenance provided, but that was only snow removal and lawn care, is that correct?

MR. PRIEB: Correct. We’re in that draft period of it right now. I want to iron out -- Stan Woodworth is my attorney, who does -- he probably does a majority of the homes associations in the area, someone I’ve been working with to model off of other projects like this. And so we’re having the Master Association for everything. We’ve been having that sub-association underneath it just for the maintenance provided. One of the things we were looking at was the roofs because the concern is hail damage. If one tenant or one -- or one homeowner replaces part of the roof and the other one doesn’t, so that’s another one to get into is the exterior maintenance to ensure that there is a consistency.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: That was where I was going. I really like the design. I may be one of those empty-nesters someday.

MR. PRIEB: I wouldn’t have thought that.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: But the thing about it is, is my concern was -- bless you. Was if they were split when -- at completion and you had two different owners, these appear to be upscale, so there is still going to be some pride in ownership. But differences of opinions, I see it in my subdivision right now.

MR. PRIEB: The hail damage is the big one.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Right.

MR. PRIEB: If a roof gets -- it may be one of those that the homes associations provides the insurance for all of them so that way it’s all done in unison. Where one company doesn’t do one side and the other one does the other side and the shingles don’t match, we don’t want that.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Right.

MR. PRIEB: So, that’s something we’ve been working with Stan on nailing our HOA documents down.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Commissioner Smith.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: Now, being president of a homeowners association, I would urge that in your covenants and your documents, and your attorney can help you here, but very clear when you as a developer are going to turn the common areas over to the homeowners association because that can be problematic.

MR. PRIEB: One of the companies we use is Home Association Solutions to run it. And I think they do a good job in the areas that we’re in. And I wanted to have them involved at front. They would be most likely the company we’d turn it over to. I might even have them run it in the beginning. Even though it’s a little more costly, but it creates that third-party-ness that a lot of our homeowners in other areas that we run like. So, having them involved up front to make sure they get things in there that they like for a matter of having some teeth in it.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other questions for applicant or staff? If not, as this is a public meeting, does anyone from the public wish to be heard? If you’d state your name and address, please.

Public Comments:

MR. MARCH: Good evening, 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 DeKamp who live across the street on Clare Road from this duplex project. We have a couple of people who are going to talk as part of our presentation in addition to myself. We have Vicki Noteis, who we engaged to review the compliance of this proposed duplex project, compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. And as you recall, the last time we were before you and when we were before the City Council, we actually asked everyone to put a pause on this development. Not just the duplex, but the single family because a traffic study hadn’t been done. Well, the wisdom of the City Council was to proceed with the rezoning on the single family. We felt troubled. We felt concerned by that because we know real world there are problems on Clare Road. So, we have commissioned a traffic study that confirms that there are very, very dangerous conditions on Clare Road today that impact life safety. And we think you all need to be aware of them. We think the developer needs to be aware of them. Because without something being done, absolutely being planned to be done, someone is going to get hurt or worse on Clare Road.
Clear Creek Duplexes
You Should Care About Clare
(and the Comprehensive Plan)
Presentation

As it relates to the duplex development, you all have asked some of the same questions we asked of the developer. What is this going to be? What is this going to be? And we really didn’t get a lot of definition. We said it’s going to be this, it’s going to be that. We asked the developer to continue the project and put it in a Planned District. There are actually two ways to do your planned zoning on the residential. The developer declined to go with the Planned District and said, I’ve worked it out with staff, we’ll put conditions on the zoning. And if you put enough conditions on the zoning, enough detail on those conditions, you kind of close to a Planned District. But we have ten pieces of paper with not any detail. These are line drawings. All of the backs of these buildings are the same. Nothing on the documents that have been submitted talk about how much brick, how much stone, what are the materials, how big are they going to be, how small are they going to be, what are the color pallets. Imagine you’re in the building permit office and he comes in with a building permit and you don’t know, does it fit or doesn’t it fit. We asked the developer to put pause and let’s come up with detailed design guidelines so we know exactly what the rules of the game are, so that we won’t have any conflict or controversy. But all we got were these drawings.

[Vicinity Map slide]
So, you all know where this area is. You’re familiar with it. It’s that red dot next to Clare Road. It’s to the west of K-7. It’s important to note where K-7 is, Clare Road and Mize are because they’re very specific categories of land uses called out in your comprehensive plan.

[Aerial video shown]
We think it’s important that you understand this area, so we had it flown. This is the development on the left-hand side. This is Clare Road. And we’re coming up against my client’s property on the right-hand side. Clare Road is a narrow road. Maybe they’re 15, maybe they’re 20 feet. There are no curbs, there are no gutters. There are big drop-offs on either side and it’s very, very dangerous today. But this is a largely, almost exclusively single-family, large lot residential area. We’re coming up where Clear Creek Parkway is going to be coming out and built. And all you can see is farmland or acreage, and then you get to the south, you get some very nice single-family homes. So, the introduction of a duplex into this area it’s spot zoning. It’s flat out spot zoning. It’s being put in without any relationship to anything around it. We’ll stop here and go onto the next slide.

[Existing structures and landscape slides]
This is one of the new houses that’s built to the south of us on Clare Road. This is one of the existing homes on the west side of Clare Road. This is one of the newer homes built on the west side of Clare Road. This is Mr. Boresow’s home, which is immediately to the north of this proposed duplex complex. And behind it you can see some of the other existing single-family development. Another home on Clare Road. Another home on Clare Road. Then you come a little bit further north you have the Belmont single-family subdivision that kind of encircles this development on the north and on the east. You’ve got the Belmont Elementary School and to the east of the Belmont Elementary School you have more single family. It goes all the way down the eastern border of the single family that’s being proposed by Mr. Prieb. There’s nothing else out here but single family development. It’s anathema to introduce a foreign land use concept into this area. And the Comprehensive Plan specifically talks to that, and I’d like to ask Vicki Noteis to come up and give you a little bit about her background and credentials and talk about why this is in violation of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Noteis.

[Vicki Noteis, AIA, Collins Noteis & Associates slide]
MS. NOTEIS: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Vicki Noteis. I’m an urban planner and an architect. I have worked in Kansas City and the region for over 30 years, and have been on several different sides of development issues. Our firm works for cities and municipalities as well as developers and private sector. I’ve also served in the public sector and on the Planning Commission, so it helps with our perspective of the different ways you’ve got to look at this in terms of balance. I was with the City of Kansas City, Missouri for 14 years and Director of City Planning there for seven. And these things, as you know, you deal with it every month, are complicated to put all together in one place to make sure you’re making a decision for the future that makes the most sense and doesn’t preclude something else happening that you said you wanted to have happen from your comp plan.

[Comprehensive Plan – Image slide]
Your comp plan has made it pretty clear that one of your goals is to have the City of Shawnee look like a city that’s not just an indistinguishable suburb from every place else. And there’s a lot of competition in the Kansas City region for strong suburbs. So, I think it’s an admirable goal that can’t really be separated from probably any case that you guys consider.

[Comprehensive Plan – Quality slide]
It also mentions in the plan that you desire growth and development, which is efficiently located, well-designed, and carefully integrated. And it’s that issue of being carefully integrated that I think needs a little more attention probably in this particular case.

[Aerial slide]
The project clearly spans an area that’s been undeveloped. It had a previous proposal that never got built on it. But you’re obviously moving your development from east to west and that’s where the market is. And I think that’s what, you know, there’s numerous reasons why the developer would be interested in this particular property. But looking at how it all relates together is something that I think is really critical. You do have I think integration in the proposal towards the east and north. But I think you’ve got to be careful about ignoring how this works on the western edge. And that this is actually your edge of single-family development here. The larger estate stuff to the west is a different character, also high quality. But I think this development turns its back on that and doesn’t make, I think on purpose, a lot of connections to Clare.

The emphasis has been on Clear Creek Parkway, which I think will be cool. But it also has the sides of all the single-family residences that face that. Nothing is going to face onto Clear Creek Parkway to take advantage of that higher quality roadway that you want to connect to the east. And it is planned to connect directly into Clear Creek Road with possibly a roundabout in the future. But with no improvements to Clare Road, I think that’s going to become an issue that’s making an existing situation worse and can possibly preclude some further development as you move farther west.

[Land Use Map slide]
Your comp plan calls for single-family residential development is the principal land use type, which I think makes a lot of sense.

[Low Density Residential Development Policies slide]
It says in your comp plan that it’s expected to remain as such in the future. And so I think the insertion of the duplexes or the villas is something that -- it doesn’t make a lot of sense where it is in the project or why it’s last to develop. And that the quality level that I think everybody, including the developer, is trying to get to is to make sure that the quality level of that matches the quality level you’re demanding on the single family. And I think you have to be careful about that because they all have their back to Clare Road. The rear elevations are pretty similar. And I think if you work on the design guidelines or ask for design guidelines that are more specific you may be able to improve that.

[Low Density RS Designation Areas slide]
The low density in the rural suburban designated areas, it’s very clear where we are here. It says in your plan that from K-7 to Clare Road you want residential suburban zoning district standards. That’s where this site is. From K-7 Highway to the west, it’s expected that single-family residential development between Gleason Road and Mize Road will be developed in a residential suburban manner that covers this area. And that west of K-7 where you have to transition into un-sewered properties west of Mize, that the retention of a somewhat open field to the area with residential suburban residential estates sized lots will be expected to occur again between Gleason Road and Mize.

The issue about the policies that I think that have been outlined in your plan, which is a good one, is something that if you’re going to deviate from that you need to know what the purpose of that is for. You can amend any plan. All plans get amended. And especially if something has a long build-out for four to six years that you want to make sure your decision today carries through and that you can record what you think is important to look at if it’s four or six years down the road possibly with a different owner, possibly with something else that happens in the meantime.

[Low Density Residential Development Policies slide]
And I think with that, one of the key things that we’re concerned about when you look at the comp plan as well as the traffic issues that we’re going to talk about here in just a second is that usually duplexes are used as a buffer, or they can provide that use when you’re looking at how they relate to single family. And markets are changing. A lot of people who are looking at investments in different kind of houses, downsizing and empty nesters are also looking for walkable neighborhoods where it may not be the same kind of typical suburban layout that you have with cul-de-sacs et cetera, where you walk part way and the only way to get home is to retrace your steps and go back the other way. So, without a grid system or something that allows those residents to actually really integrate with the rest of the development I think is lacking in this particular area. And I’m not sure what role it actually plays. Without -- I think one of the key issues is that you’re turning your back onto Clare Road when I think this may be your only opportunity to improve it.

As a former planning staff member and director, I was surprised that there wasn’t a condition that Clare Road get improved because I don’t know at what point that would fall on the City’s list of things to do when there’s so much competition for public funds and public improvements. But I think it’s a serious issue to act like this is the edge of all development in this particular part of the City and that you’re falling off the map when you get to Clare Road. There’s no improvement. There’s no relationship to the residential stuff across the street and there’s some serious concerns about safety and welfare and I think the comment, and I know the staff referred to this as well. I think I had a slightly take on it, was on page 17 of the staff report you said the 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. I think I would disagree from a professional standpoint that this doesn’t have anything to do with future health and safety and welfare. I think when you look at any kind of deviation from your plan you have to be careful about the precedent you’re setting. It doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea, but I think you have to at least look at that issue. And I think you have to understand that there may only be some opportunities when you’re adding density. Even if it’s low density you’re adding density to this particular area that has an impact on a road that has some issues going for it right now that I think need to be paid attention to.

And I’m going to let Janelle talk about that. Aaron, do you want to say something? I’ll get you over to your slide.

[Janelle Clayton, P.E., PTOE, President, Merge Midwest Engineering slide]
MS. CLAYTON: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Janelle Clayton and I am a traffic engineer. I have 15 years of experience. I’ve spent 15 years --

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Janelle, your address, please.

MS. CLAYTON: (Address Omitted). I have 15 years of experience in traffic engineer, mostly spent at George Butler Associates, and just started my own firm here in January. I’ve worked on countless traffic impact studies for similar types of developments as this one that we’re seeing tonight.

[Traffic Issues of Concern – Clare Road slide]
I wanted to talk about some of the traffic issues on Clare Road. There’s a significant vertical profile today on Clare Road near the entrance to the twin villa area. There’s very narrow lanes out there. There are no shoulders and there are steep drop-offs in that area. On top of that we’re adding traffic volumes to the roadway. And there are also some intersection site distance concerns and stopping site distance concerns along Clare Road.

[Traffic Volume – Canyon Lakes slide]
Typical traffic engineering practice would suggest that you would do a traffic impact study if you generate 100 vehicle trips per peak hour. As you can see here this is our trip generation table for the entire development. It certainly generates more than a hundred in the peak hour. In the a.m., a total of 250 trips and the p.m. a total of 317 trips. So, I was kind of surprised to see a traffic impact study wasn’t required. You’ll notice the Land Use Code for the villas is what ITE would call a condominium/townhouse land use code. That’s the closest thing to estimate traffic from these types of villas.

[Canyon Lakes Traffic Volumes on Clare Road slide]
So, this is kind of a breakdown of what we found out there today. Existing average daily traffic is 687 vehicles per day. On the a.m. Clare Road is carrying about 52 vehicles per hour. In the p.m. peak hour 76 vehicles per hour. And something interesting was that there is a high percentage of truck traffic out there today. That includes buses and those kinds of vehicles. And the median speed was found to be 42.5 miles per hour.

So, the additional trips generated by this development that would access Clare Road, and that includes single family and the dwelling unit, and the duplex units, would add an additional 1,269 vehicles per day, and an a.m. peak hour an additional 99 vehicles per that hour and 124 vehicles per hour in the p.m. peak hour.

[Traffic Issues of Concern – Intersection Site Distance slide]
So, another part of things that we do typically with a traffic impact study is look at intersection site distance for the proposed driveways onto the roadways. So, we measured the intersection site distance at Clare and 58th Place. And 58th Place is the driveway that connects there near the twin villa section. And we found there is an AASHTO recommended site distance for a right turning vehicle there is 335. And we only measured 247 feet in the field. So, that’s significantly shorter of the recommended site distance for that intersection.

[Traffic Issues of Concern – Stopping Site Distance slide]
And that is due to this crest vertical curve on Clare located just south of the proposed intersection. And so also -- we also look at stopping site distance along the roadway itself. Minimum AASHTO recommend is 250 feet, and we only measured 200 feet along that crest vertical curve. And that’s also a concern for the driveways that connect to Clare on the west side as well.

[Comprehensive Plan – Street Standards slide]
In the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the Street Standards there was a section there that said, “As development occurs, new streets are constructed and existing streets are improved to comply with applicable standards.”

[Clare Road – Minor Arterial slide]
And your minor arterial standards for your street plan here on Clare Road would be 11-foot lanes, maybe some sidewalks on either side.

[Clare Road Video shown to Commission]
We have a video here just to give you kind of a real world perspective and kind of feel for how Clare Road is when you’re driving it. So, this is north, I’m going to pause it here and give you some -- we’re coming from the north, heading southbound on Clare Road. So, you can see it’s very narrow. And also look at the pavement condition. That’s very uneven. There’s no shoulders. There’s also some steep drop-offs in areas. And you can see as this car is approaching -- oh, goodness. Sorry. We’ll watch it again. As that car approaches you’ll notice he’s hugging the edge of the road. And I can speak to that as I was driving out there multiple times, if you’re approaching another car you kind of have to hug the edge. Okay. So, there is the passing car. And we’re now starting to approach that crest vertical curve that I was talking about with the site distance concern. And, oh, goodness, I can’t push -- I’m sorry. I think that the space bar would have worked better. So, you can see there on the left side of the picture those power poles are is where the new driveway going to be coming in. And there’s the crest vertical curve of concern. The driveway will be right about in here. So, then this part of the road, the vertical nature kind of flattens out. Although you can see the pavement condition is still pretty bad. No shoulders and narrow lanes. So, we’ll pause it there.

[Photographs of Clare Road slide]
So, this is kind of a still picture. It gives you a better perspective of the steepness of that crest curve. And this picture I think shows the roadway condition. And with that high percent of trucks out there it’s only going to make the road condition even worse over time.

[Traffic Safety Conclusions slide]
So, I guess I just wanted to say that the ADT (average daily trips) generated by the entire development would generate another 3,260 vehicle trips per day. And that’s a pretty significant amount, especially when you think about 1,269 of those are going to be utilizing Clare Road. Clare Road has an inadequate intersection site distance today and inadequate stopping site distance, narrow and poor pavement. And also if you ever drive out there you’ll notice there is -- a few times I was out there, there were pedestrians trying to walk along Clare Road, which I thought they were very brave. And I understand there is also a lot of bicyclists and horseback riders that try to go down Clare Road. I think that especially when you look at your Street Plan statement that when developments comes in the road should be improved to meet the applicable standards, I think you should reconsider the stipulation that Clare Road should be redone. Thank you.

(Applause)

MR. MARCH: Mr. Chairman, before I move off of traffic I want to emphasize that --

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Would you introduce yourself so we have it on record, please?

MR. MARCH: I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman. Aaron March with the White Goss Law firm.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you.

[DU is not equal to RS slide]
MR. MARCH: Thank you. One of the main entrances into this development off of Clare Road is at one of the most dangerous places you could put it on Clare Road. Because of where it’s located there are going to be accidents. There’s just no doubt about it. There will be occasions, particularly with people going south on Clare Road going down to the high school. They’re going to be young drivers. If they’re going 45 miles an hour today when there’s not enough room to see somebody coming out of the development and turning there will be an accident. It’s the wrong place to put that intersection. It’s really clear that staff that says that DU duplex is low density. And they’re talking about the density impact of this project. But density isn’t the same as single-family residential development. There’s a difference.

[DU vs. RS Zoning Requirements slide]
The single-family RS zoning for one unit requires 12,000 square feet of lot area. It’s the DU it’s 6,000 square feet of lot area per unit. The rear yards are 35 feet in the RS and the rear yards in the duplex are 30 feet. And by the way, the preliminary plat that’s submitted to you doesn’t show the 30-foot setback on the rear lots. So, I question whether the density and the types of units that they want to put on this development can actually fit when you shrink these lots down to compensate appropriately for the mandatory building setbacks.

[Max Development Exposure slide]
If this is a -- if this continues to exist under the RS zoning, which it is today, and you can build single-family homes today. You can build up to 88 single-family lots today. The power lines that they say are a problem today, they’re building single-family homes right next to those power lines. The grandfathered uses on the north that they say are precluding development, they’re building single-family homes right near them. So, to say that you can’t build single-family homes, you can only build duplexes because of those two uses flies in the face of what they have platted and gotten approved for single-family development. But if you allow this to go to duplex in five years you have changed the rules of the game. The plat can be approved, an amended plat can be approved to double to have 176 units on this site. That’s a huge different, huge difference.

[Duplex Design Guidelines slide]
Again, if you’re going to approve this to a duplex zone and we say let’s hit pause. Let’s take the time and we have the time and we wish this would have been done before. Let’s come back with detailed written design guidelines and have that booklet with colored images, percentages, square footages called out in writing and approved as part of your zoning ordinance, so that when the building official is looking to issue a building permit, they know whether it complies or whether it doesn’t. If they want to change, and they can come in and apply to change it. We’ll go through the process and we’ll say we know what we’re changing from, what do you want to change it to. These simple drawings before you don’t give us any detail, don’t give us any confidence that the quality of development that we bought our homes under, when this was going to be RS, that we invested our time, effort and energy to approved, we thought this was going to be master plan for RS, at least we’ll have something to rely on that this will be a quality development. They’ve got some of this detail in their homeowners’ association covenants, conditions and restrictions. They’ve got architectural materials I would assume. They’ve got roofing materials. Let’s start with that and embellish upon it and put it into binding design guidelines from this project, so there’s nothing left to interpret.

[Photographs of duplexes]
This is a duplex. This is a duplex. That’s a duplex. These are duplexes. These are also duplexes. How do we know what we’re going to get with those sketches that you’ve had presented to you tonight.

[General Development Guidelines slide]
So, some of you have said is there a need for this development? Under your master plan, it says if it cannot be shown that a need exists for the proposed use the zoning request is doubtful. And then it says if abutting property owners, if damage to abutting property owners is probable, we think it will be, if you don’t think traffic fatalities is damage, we think it is, adequate screening and development can’t control that, then the request should be denied.

[Low Density Residential Guideline slide]
However, if you want to deviate you need to provide exceptional design with high quality building materials. We don’t know that that’s going to be the case.

[Conclusions slide]
And if you’re going to approve this, and we hope that you don’t, but if you’re going to approve it, let’s have very detailed and specific design guidelines that provide exceptional design, exceptional building materials, and let’s not turn our back onto Clare Road. Let’s ask a developer to improve a road condition that they’re going to add 1,269 cars a day to. Because if you don’t do it now, you’ll never get a developer to do it again. And I’ve seen it myself. I’ve said yes to it before as a condition. You have it here as well. You can improve the eastern half of Clare Road. You don’t need to wait till you get all the right-of-way. And you only need to improve, if anything, the part at 58th Street, which is the most dangerous part. Deal with that hill. Knock it down. To the north and to the south Clare Road are relatively flat. All right. It’s a 15 length bad condition asphalt. But let’s fix the problem where the danger is today. So, we ask you not to approve the rezoning. But should you approve the rezoning, make the developer fix Clare Road and let’s have very specific detailed high quality design guidelines. Thank you very much.

(Applause)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Is there anyone else from the audience that wishes to be heard on this matter? I’m sorry. Is there anyone else from the audience that wishes to be heard on this matter? Please come forward and state your name and address, please.

MS. SAUCERMAN: Where am I talking? Oh, here. Hi. I’m Patty Saucerman. I live at (Address Omitted). When you vote tonight, please think about this. My neighbors and I are all okay with a lovely subdivision. We knew one was coming and we’ve been kind of waiting for it. But we want a housing development probably similar to what all of you have, a house on this side, a house on that side, a house across the street and maybe a house behind us. Houses all around. We would like a street that has two full lanes and curbs similar to what each of you guys enjoy when you drive to your homes. You have curbs on your streets and they’re safe. They don’t have ditches on the side. So, I want you to just put yourself in our shoes before you -- when you looked at Clare Road, what would be looking at is the backs of houses and the backs were all pretty similar and ugly. But the backs. It wasn’t this -- the pretty stone fronts. So, I ask you to put yourself in our shoes, think twice about voting on these duplexes. And my neighbors and I will all thank you very much.

(Applause)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Does anyone else care to be heard on this matter?

MR. GEYER: Hi. I’m Richard Geyer. I live at (Address Omitted). I’ve lived there for many years. It’s in Hidden Woods. And I drive obviously every day on Clare. I’m also a civil engineer. I did a number of years in California in the Bay area. And I’m just appalled at Clare Road, the condition, the narrowness, the traffic. And there’s a lot of bicycling there in the summer. I’m not opposed to development, it’s just Clare Road that bothers me here, the narrowness and the road condition and the bicycles in the warm weather. And I’m just -- we drive it every day obviously. But I’m just shocked that there isn’t a call for more either widening or better pavement condition and considering the size of this development. In California, when I worked, we always required the development to do an overlay of roads like this, either a half street or full street overlay along the frontage or more. And I didn’t hear any call for that. The road is not in good condition. There is patching done every year, year in and year out. There’s patching that’s -- but that’s my main objection is Clare Road with its potential volume of traffic increase. And the bicycling in the warmer weather is -- I don’t know if you’re aware of that. There’s quite a bit of that out there because of the rural character. I’m not opposed to development. I’m just not in concert with not doing more road improvements on Clare Road. You know, that’s my objection. And I’m happy to live in Shawnee and I’m happy to be able to have you hear me on this. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you.

(Applause)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Does anyone else care to be heard, please?

MS. KING: I’m Beckie King from -- I live at (Address Omitted). We’re the house that when you come out of our driveway we can’t tell if someone is coming over our hill. Every time we turn into it or turn out of it it’s very dangerous right there. We have lots of people that come to our house, so you need to consider not just the people that are going to be moving in there, but also everyone that comes and visits them, family, friends, consider repair trucks. You know, anybody that comes to your house you’ve got that volume of people coming, not just the people that are living there on Clare Road. Also I have a question. I heard or understood that they are considering putting a roundabout on Clare. If there is a roundabout going in, I’m kind of confused why would there be a roundabout if they don’t expect an increase in traffic? That doesn’t make sense to me. Could you address that, please?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I’m sorry. I don’t think there is anything been decided or talked about on a roundabout on Clare Road. Is that correct, Doug?

MR. ALLMON: I think she’s referring to the roundabout that’s part of the City improvement plans for Clear Creek. It’s over on the east side of this property.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: But not Clare Road?

MR. ALLMON: No. I don’t believe at Clare Road. Our traffic manager is here if you’d like to ask him.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Please.

MR. MANNING: So, right now -- Kevin Manning, Transportation Manager for the City. Right now Clear Creek Parkway is being built and expanded. There is a roundabout, a portion of a roundabout that’s going to be built as part of that project. Basically at the intersection of future Gleason with Clear Creek Parkway. The City’s future plan also shows a planned roundabout at Clear Creek Parkway and Clare Road. Now, that’s not a guarantee or anything that’s necessarily going to happen. That would still have to go through the normal City Council process approval at that point. But that is shown as a potential improvement at this point.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Does anyone else care to be heard on this matter?

MS. KING: Excuse me. I also wanted to share -- I have not heard, but my in-laws were coming to our house one day and had a critical accident right on Clare Road turning left into our own driveway. My father-in-law is an excellent driver and I have never seen him get a ticket in his life. He looked and couldn’t see anybody coming over the hill and it put both my mother-in-law and my father-in-law in the hospital. So, I wanted you to know that that is a very dangerous place. We have 20 to 30 young people that come to our house once a week. As I said, you have to consider not just the people that live in those homes or anybody that’s added to that district, but everybody that visits them, family, friends and what not. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Please.

MR. BOLDRY: Tom Boldry. I’m at (Address Omitted). I appreciate all the comments on Clare Road. It’s been needed to be said for many, many years. I’ve lived out there for 22 years. And every other year we get some crap oil and chip rock thrown on our street. So, I have drive throwing rock at my cars. That’s what I get for all my taxes that I pay out there. I have no sewers. I have -- we have no sidewalks. We have nothing out there. So, I’m glad that’s being finally addressed. I hope they take that seriously. My main point about the development, and I’ve seen the plans, I like the plans. But this whole thing about the duplexes, the bottom line, the only reason those are being put in there is because it makes the developer more money. That’s the bottom line.

(Applause)

MR. BOLDRY: That’s all it comes down to. This is about, well, I’ve got requests for it and that kind of stuff, I don’t buy it. I think he looks at this as we’ve got this little square, we can pack in basically double -- 325 a unit. That’s 700,000, a piece of property where the R-1 properties are only going to be 325. So, he’s doubling his money on a single same piece of land. And I think that’s what this whole thing comes down to is him wanting to build a higher density to make more money. And in order to do that, even if we consider doing that, you’re going to throw all that extra traffic on Clare. So, I have a big issue with Clare and always have been. I’m glad everybody has brought that up that this needs to be addressed. But this all boils down to dollars and sense on what the builder is going to make on that small piece of property. And that’s the only reason he’s putting it in there. Thank you.

(Applause)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that cares to be heard on this matter? Please come to the podium.

MR. OSTERHOLM: Good evening. My name is Mark Osterholm. I live at (Address Omitted), which is just down the street from the elementary school. And I’m not going to beat a dead horse here. I think we’ve covered the traffic issues out there. And being on Belmont with the proposed extension of Belmont to Clear Creek, I think that’s going to propose a traffic issue on Belmont as well because all the traffic coming from the north and from the west south of Shawnee Mission Parkway is all going to come down Johnson Drive and 55th. And if you believe the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, you’re going to find out that everybody is going to go down Belmont to access not only the proposed duplexes, but just about every other residence that’s being built in that area. I think some of the committee has alluded to something that I wanted to say. And that is the proposed duplexes in this area is a little bit odd. And the gentleman before just brought it up that, you know, the studies, the interviews, the studies that were done that this is what’s needed. And even Mr. Prieb himself alluded to the fact that building villas for millennials or people with no children around an elementary school is a little bit odd in itself. And so I think that’s a big concern. I don’t think any of us are opposed to any development in there and we do welcome it. In fact, myself, I would consider leaving my home on Belmont to purchase a little bit larger home in that area. The one thing that gets me is also that with the duplexes being the last part of this area being developed, if I were a future purchaser of a piece of property in this new area and I purchased one of the homes that was going to back to this duplex, seeing an open green field, but later finding out that it’s going to be duplexes or villas in there, that would change my decision on whether I wanted to build or purchase a home on that particular property. So, people moving in along that whole strip that’s going to back and surround this, if they are aware that there’s going to be duplexes in there, those properties probably would not sell very well. And I think somebody brought up earlier that same thing. If this was your area, would you approve the same thing if you walked out of your house every day and saw, you know, an open green field or a nice residential neighborhood, and then somebody came in and said, hey, this piece of land that became available that you look out to was purchased and going to be developed. And what you will soon look out to or drive by is going to be duplexes or townhomes, I think you would probably feel the same way. Somebody also mentioned the fact that you’ve got 82 villas. You’ve got 82 units that are going in on all these properties. And if those units were replaced with homes the number of people, the density would actually go up with homes as far as number of people because each villa, if you’re looking at empty nesters, that’s going to be two people per villa. That’s four for one whole complex or one whole -- the twin villas together. Most single-family homes generally are in the range from four to six members in a family with children that would be going to Belmont, which is also another reason for the development in that area to populate the rest of Belmont Elementary which is at half population now. So, like I said, most of the other issues have been addressed earlier on, so I’m not going to go over those. And that’s all I’ve got. So, thank you.

(Applause)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Does anybody else wish to be heard on this matter? Please.

MR. JONES: My name is Mark Jones. I’m at (Address Omitted). And if I don’t -- I don’t speak for a living, so hopefully I don’t sound too ridiculous. But one thing I did want to point out when it comes to Clare Road is right in front of our property, from the road to about a five-foot drop is about six inches. It seems like there’s a bunch there because the grass is overgrown. I had one of my employees flip a mower down there at one time. It really is dangerous there. That’s one thing. We don’t live in that property yet. We’re going to be renovating that property. But when we do, I have three kids, they go to Belmont. I do have concerns with Belmont, the road, where they drive through that residential and there’s going to be a lot of traffic. That is a little bit scary and a lot of teachers have expressed that as well. But Clare Road, it is dangerous. And I apologize if I’ve done this to somebody. I have put several people in the ditch. I have a big truck and it’s intimidating. And I come over the hill and I’ve had people swerve and go over into the ditch. It’s probably happened 10 to 15 times and I’ve only been there for about a year and a half with the contract on that property. So, it is an issue. I also have a history in building homes. I own a company that we buy and sell properties. When I first got into real estate I was a realtor in development and that was in the early 2000s. And we had big plans. The plans looked great. We wanted to do amazing things. We had the drawings, too. The drawings, I’m just going to be honest with you, and a lot of guys probably have experience in this. The drawings mean nothing when it comes to the sketches. Sketches look great. But the reality is when a house is built that’s completely different. They can be super blank and super plain. And the moment for us when we started to -- our builder and our developer at that time, I didn’t have a say in it. I was just that fly on the wall trying to help. The first thing we did is we stopped doing nine-foot foundation walls. And we stopped -- we took everything down a foot. From every room we made it smaller to make -- to try to pull profit out of that property. We did cheaper windows. We did cheaper roofing. We did those things. I don’t think anybody goes in with the intention of doing that. The builder that I worked with and the developer, they had, I mean, they had great hearts. They wanted to do the right thing. The reality is they had to make profit and they had employees. And those things, they weren’t scripted out. So, I sat down, I mean, I spent weeks going through every detail to try to find loopholes to where we could save money. So, I just -- if we’re going to do that, I would just -- I would recommend having some type of plan, something because I don’t think people have the intention of doing that. I’m not saying that him or the people around him would. But if crap happens, and I don’t know if that’s the right word to say, but if bad stuff happens, then some people that’s just kind of how it works. So, I just wanted to share my two cents. So, thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you.

(Applause)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Does anyone else --

MR. BROWNELL: Jeff Brownell, (Address Omitted). What I really wanted to mention, I think in one of the presentations someone had or mentioned spot development. That’s really what this is. Like we live in western Shawnee, have for almost 20 years. I work for Bayer Animal Health up the road here. And everyone that lives out west or anyone that comes and visits or is looking to relocate, I’m like you’ve got to go out west. That’s where it’s all single-family housing. And we used to live in Monticello Farms and we moved before they built all the duplexes there. If you go down 64th Street, you look at these duplexes are about the same size as those in Harrington Park or whatever I think it is now. But if you drive down the back side of that street and saw all the back of the houses with the little six-foot picket fence separating the back side, it looks exactly the same. And if you go down Woodland from Shawnee Mission Parkway to Johnson Drive like towards Casey’s, it doesn’t make -- I’ve always wondered why they did it. You’ve got the Hills of Forest Creek and then they extended the bike trail that comes across there. You’ll hit Hills of Forest Creek, you go down, there’s just about that size of a section of duplexes right there on Woodland that are backed up to Lakepointe subdivision and it’s all single-family homes because we were looking to build in there, too. But it was like, well, what are they going to do with all that land there and sure enough like duplexes went in. And now we live in the Estates of Highland Ridge. And we’re the last brown house where they’re building on 51st Terrace. And I’m telling you they’re nice houses, over a $400,000 selling point. I love that for my property value. But the back of that house, I’m telling you, is probably at their front door. And now we’re like, and we used to be between that and Belle Meade Farms. And it’s the same thing. It’s just too dense because while you put a nice house with the covered porch and all that and the back yards are 30 feet. I think these lots were 11,000-19,000 with a 3,000 some square foot house. Our first house in Shawnee was about 2,000 square feet on a 12,000 square foot lot. You couldn’t get two of those on that lot. I mean these are going to be very dense. And I love the aerial view, too, because as you go past there, those are nice beautiful homes. And if you’re coming down Clare, you come up on these duplexes, it doesn’t make sense. It’s just like down there on Woodland between the Hills of Forest Creek and Lakepointe. There’s just a section of duplexes that, I don’t know maybe it’s part of the break-even analysis, I don’t know. But it doesn’t make sense to me. It doesn’t fit out there.

(Applause)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Does anyone else care to be heard on this matter?

MR. FRANZWA: My name is Fred Franzwa. I live at (Address Omitted) just west of the proposed Canyon Lakes development. I renovate houses for a living. Have to think conceptually walking through a renovation where things might fit, where it’s best fitted. I liken this development to a kitchen renovation. And if you can imagine this is our kitchen renovation, me going into a homeowner and saying I think this would be a great place for a toilet right in the center of your kitchen. That’s what we’re proposing here. This does not fit.

(Applause)

MR. FRANZWA: Duplexes do not fit in western Shawnee. It’s as simple as that. Thank you for your time.
(Applause)

MR. BORESOW: Good evening. My name is Jerry Boresow. I’m at (Address Omitted). Everything -- I’m not going to repeat a whole lot. I just wanted to add a few little notes to something that Fred just said. This spot zoning, it’s not a place for it. Mr. Prieb, if you had people that said, oh, but we’ve heard people want it. At the City Council meeting last week, they went over the Shawnee satisfaction survey, so proud of it. One thing that they left out was the part, Question 23 and 24 about multi-family housing, including duplexes. Seven percent of the people think we need duplexes. Ninety-three percent says we don’t need any more duplexes or multi-housing in western Shawnee.

(Applause)

MR. BORESOW: One other note. Somewhere in the staff, they did bring up a few other duplexes or other subdivisions or developments that had duplexes. I want to point out that every single one of those developments were all east of K-7. Totally contrary to the Shawnee Master Plan, which the corridor west of K-7 is one issue. East of K-7, you have the 435 corridor. They’re throwing in stuff that isn’t even a part of the corridor west of K-7. Anyway, I urge you guys to vote these duplexes down. Single family houses. That’s what it’s -- it’s a place for it. And that’s it. Thank you very much.

(Applause)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Does anyone else care to be heard? If not, then we’re in Commission discussion. Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: In general, while I have to agree with the comments made. When I first looked at this I wasn’t comfortable with the duplex use in this area. I felt like single-family homes were probably a better fit in this. I also think, even the duplexes or twin villas could work that we don’t have. I don’t feel we have sufficient information to really limit, you know, the design down the road.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Anyone else? Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I don’t think anybody argues the fact that Clare Road has its own complications and it is something that is on a master plan. I don’t know, I can’t remember where it fell. And I think it was based on development and how much the traffic count would rise because of that to create a more desperate need. Not saying that there is not a need now. But it puts that in that dilemma of which came first, the chicken or the egg. And so we appreciate your comments and do understand those. I appreciate you bringing those to our attention again. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Mudgett.
COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: First of all, I wanted to thank everybody for coming out. It’s great to see people that are passionate about their neighborhoods and Shawnee in general. That’s great. So, you guys are always welcome. Thank you very much for coming out. I have to be honest. When I first heard about this plan I was really excited about maybe my mother-in-law getting in one of these maintenance-free duplexes. But now I’m not so sure. Because she’s in the market.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Then, Commissioner Mudgett, I’d ask you this question. If there was more detail with it, would you be more comfortable with it?

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Yeah. I think at a bare minimum I agree with all the comments. There needs to be more specifics about the design specs. I think that’s a given.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Commissioner John Smith.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: Well, I too appreciate the people coming out and letting us know their opinions on this. I also appreciate the fact that this is separated from the project, so we had an opportunity to discuss this separately. I think the lack of detail is a concern here, too. But even if we had more detail I’m not sure this is the right place for this type of units.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Commissioner Les Smith.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I’m going to go back and just deal with some of the specifics, especially with Mr. March’s comments, which predominately were Clare Road, specifics regarding the buildings and high quality design guidelines. And I take along with part of that the rear elevations as well or foresight elevation design. And I do need clarification -- that was a great staff report, but that was a lot of reading. Is there no plans or no requirements of the developer to even improve half of Clare Road or to escrow any funds or anything? Anybody that can answer that for me?

MR. MANNING: So, when this development was originally conceived staff looked at the possibility of improving half of Clare. And the roadway is such that you can’t half of it, it would have to be done all at once. And so typically the City does not put the entirety of the roadway on a developer. Just like when the people on the west side built their homes they were not expected to improve Clare. Clare is anticipated to be improved at some undetermined point in the future in terms of our master plan. And at that point both sides obviously would be done. And City staff felt like that was going to be really the only way to get that done is to do it all at once as opposed to breaking it into two pieces.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Well, I agree it’s a difficult road to -- you really can’t do it half a side. But is there any thought about why we didn’t ask the developer to escrow some funds towards that that might help spur that improvement sooner?

MR. MANNING: Does the City have a mechanism for that?

MR. ALLMON: The funds that would be earmarked for street improvements is through our City’s excise tax. They’re actually participating in a benefit district for the creation of Clare Road. Because of that, they actually get credits to that excise tax amount. And as you look at the report it was clear that they have actually paid more I think than the credits are for improving Clare Road.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Clear Creek Parkway.

MR. ALLMON: The benefit district is for Clear Creek. The excise tax would have applied for the entire subdivision.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Okay. Thank you. And Clare Road obviously is an issue. Quite frankly, I wholeheartedly support the development. I don’t consider it spot zoning. And the reason the developer wants to build it is because there’s a market for it, and that’s his decision not necessarily ours. That being said I came in here all gung-ho ready to make a decision and go watch some basketball. But Clare Road is really in worse condition than I thought it was as far as the traffic and what not goes. I don’t know what we can do about that. The rest of it is all something that we can fix. And it sounds like the developer is willing to fix it. Density doesn’t scare me at all. Clare Road is a problem. That’s all I have.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Quick question. I’m not sure if it would be appropriate to ask if the developer would be agreeable to tabling the item for further discussion and planning purposes versus of a --

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I think it’s an appropriate question. And the one thing would be, if we’re willing -- if we want it tabled because we want more definition on the quality and size, et cetera of that, and I think at that point in time maybe he could put that into writing for us if we think that’s that important. Or, and I’m not sure if this is the case, or could change it into a planned unit development. And I’m not sure if that’s the case at all. So, you can kind of just disregard that as just that might be options that the developer could get together with staff and decide what might be best if we’re uncomfortable with not having enough definition. Quite frankly, the sketches I saw, and I realize they’re sketches, look very nice, and I wouldn’t be ashamed of having them anyplace in the City of Shawnee. They’re nice looking. Are they the perfect fit for out there? I’m not sure that’s the case. But if we can’t decide because we need more definition on what he’s -- on what the materials, et cetera are going to be, then that would be a reason we could table it. Commissioner Peterson, do you have something? No, I’m sorry.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: No, I don’t.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bogina.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Mr. Chairman, I would agree some of the comments that I think it is spot zoning in my opinion should we zone this to DU. But I’m not unfavorable to the plan. I think that this should be an attached style single-family area if that’s what the -- either the -- because of the electrical lines or whatever reasons to get the type of housing that the developer feels is that he wants to build and market. And I think predominately we would all like to see the required, in a PUD, the required architectural plans that lay out sizes and the amenities and those things. And so we could table if Commissioner Bienhoff thought it was a good idea and the majority. But I think it’s something that they need to -- I would not be -- myself, I would not be favorable to a duplex zoning surrounded by that rural residential and other single family because it’s going to sit there for five years and the developer is probably more successful today than he was five years ago. But things could change in five years, and that’s no aspersion on him. He’s a quality builder. But we’ve had plans that five years ago we approved that didn’t work out. And this could be something that didn’t work out and we’re left with it, with just some sketches that --

(Applause)

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: -- some sketches that deal with some size of house and some style of house that -- and I think we need more, whether we table it. And I don’t know if it means that we table it or whether we just take an action on it.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Smith.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: I’d like to recommend something, thank you, if I may. We really are faced with trying to make a decision that we don’t feel comfortable we have all the information that we need. I don’t think that’s fair to the developer on his side. So, you know, perhaps it is wise, or if he wants us to take action this evening it doesn’t look very promising, but prepared to do that. Let’s see if we can get what most of us are talking about as far as some definition, some guarantees of these four folks what’s going to happen over there. Four folks? Four folks. And secondly, I’m still interested in what the timing for what Clare Road can be. Because we’re not talking about needing it improved tomorrow. If we are talking five years plus from now, I just would like that information to know how all that kind of fits together in the puzzle with the City’s Capital Improvement Plan and Transportation Plan.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Smith?

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: The traffic engineer I think might enlighten us here a little bit. Sorry for interrupting you, sir.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: That’s okay.

MR. MANNING: Once again, Kevin Manning, Transportation Manager. One thing I omitted earlier is that when we’re talking about improving Clare, we’re talking about adding drainage. We’re talking about expanding, most likely a three-lane section with potential bike lanes. One of the things that is going to be going on with Clare Road next year, a few years ago Shawnee citizens passed a three-eighth of a cent sales tax for pavement improvements. And part of that was upgrading almost all of the City’s chip seal roads to asphalt roads. And so Clare Road next year will actually be upgraded and will receive a fresh coat of asphalt, about three or four inches. So, it’ll be transitioned from a chip seal road to asphalt in the summer of 2018. So, there will be some kind of intermediate pavement improvements next summer.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Yeah. And I understand that’s the problem. It’s not just about going out and saying we’re going to widen the road. It’s got serious consequences for storm drainage and other things. It’s probably a high dollar project.

MR. MANNING: It would be, yes.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Yeah. Okay. My only point is I don’t -- I just -- if we don’t feel like we have all the information that we need I don’t really see how we move forward on it. But I’m only one person. I’d like to get everything we can for these people and go from there.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very fine. I will say this though, that if we table it, even -- the developer is here. He’s hearing what we’re wondering about and questioning. It would be up to him as to whether he added those details or left the proposal the same as it is right now. So, we’re not demanding that has to be done. It’s that we’re giving him a chance to do that to address some of the questions we’ve had, address some of the questions that people -- or the public. And then he can make a determination and answer, possibly answer those questions if we table it.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: That’s right. That even Mr. March, the representative, suggested we hit pause and try to figure all this out. It’s probably not a bad idea.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very fine. I will make a suggestion though. We’ve asked -- if we’re going to do that we’ve asked a lot of information out of Mr. Prieb. The only thing I would say is we’ll -- if somebody wants to table it, it be for 30 days. That would give him plenty of opportunity and plenty of time to answer the question. And for the audience, we really don’t enjoy going over these things meeting after meeting. But this sometimes is in the best interest of everyone to be able to answer everybody’s questions and be thoughtful about what our approach is on this.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Commissioner.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: My question is, is if we choose to not take a vote on this and to table this, are we expecting -- are we going to give the developer and the community specific checklists that we want to see back? And we have to also understand that with whatever we do with that there is additional investment on his part. I just -- to create that stuff for us. I’m not saying that’s a yes or no up or down, but we have to understand what we’re asking him. And this is a rezoning, not a final plat. So, that’s all I have to say about that.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Mr. Bogina.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Well, and I know we all understand, but it’s an unplanned -- we’re in an unplanned zoning district. And because of that we can’t make a requirement for the plans and the square footages and the -- just as we wouldn’t on a single family. The developer has volunteered, but I think it’s so sketchy that maybe some of us have said that we don’t really know whether or not something would be in compliance or wouldn’t. But myself, I think that this is the opportunity for a PUD and not a duplex zoning to where it would be attached single family that we would have the requirement of individual plans or samples of individual plans with the amount of -- and a style of material and a style of home, the color pallets and all those things as part of the requirements. And coming back with a duplex zoning application in my opinion to where all we’re going to do is discuss maybe it will look like this five years from now doesn’t really get us to an approved stage either. But again that’s just me. If the Chairman wants a motion, I would move -- I would make one.

MR. ALLMON: Could I comment?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Anybody have another comment? Doug. Please, Doug.
MR. ALLMON: I think procedurally if that is a direction that you are going to go that would be up to the applicant to withdraw this application. He would deserve a thumbs up, thumbs down vote, or a table because the Council is the ultimate decision-maker on the zoning that he has requested. If a PUD was something that the Planning Commission was interested in encouraging, he would have to withdraw this application and come back with a new posting and essentially a new application for Planned Unit Development because there are different zoning requirements for submittal for a PUD. And that would be at the discretion of the applicant to do that.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Okay. That doesn’t mean we can’t table, it, but is it to the benefit of everyone to do that?

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Well, Mr. Chairman, I --

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bogina.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: I think I can count the noses as to what the outcome would be should we vote on it. And I think that the tabling allows the developer if he chooses to to consider his options more so than perhaps a vote tonight.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other comments? If not --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. I guess I was just curious if we could ask the developer if he would be interested in a table or a vote.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Mr. Prieb, please.

MR. PRIEB: Thanks for having me up here. So, I understand -- do I have an architectural or is it zoning? If we do the tabling on it, I want to make sure that -- I guess I can work with Mark in Planning on it to make sure. He gave me a pretty healthy list here on the plans and what to come back with. I just wanted to make sure I get my correct marching orders on what you guys would want. Is it a zoning or is it architecture?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Doug, would you enlighten us a little bit?

MR. ALLMON: I’ve been listening, and I think what I’m hearing is that you’re wanting more time to refine the elevations, four sides, all four side as far as what the buildings are going to look like, the detail level that we would require for a PUD. I don’t think at this point you’re suggesting, since you are possibly going to table any sort of denial at this point. So, the zoning would still be for DU. But as Mr. March had talked, we would basically tie this down as though it were a PUD in terms of what the buildings are going to look like. And I think that’s what I heard. There may be some also -- may be also some opportunity to find out more about Clare Road as Mr. Smith suggested. But we would need specific parameters of what this time was to be used for. I think if it’s for refining the elevations, we at the staff level can certainly do that with the applicant. All of that being said there is nothing binding for you to approve or deny tonight. We could table, bring that information back to you May 1st.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Agree?

MR. PRIEB: So, it would be -- so, we’d be voting on tabling?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: One of the issues is if we table -- if we deny it outright, then you have to come in with brand new plans. And so we want to be fair to you. We want to be fair to the public. So, us tabling it would give you a chance to answer some of the questions we’ve had.

MR. PRIEB: Okay.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Okay. Is that correct?

MR. ALLMON: Actually the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council. If you vote to deny, the Council can still override your approval by a specific vote. That’s the procedure for a DU zoning. To be very clear, if you make a recommendation for denial tonight, it would still go on to City Council.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: And they could approve it the way it sits right now exactly. I think, quite frankly, we’re doing everybody a favor by tabling it, rather than it going to the Council. And I don’t know the Council that well, knowing what they might do. We could kind of be proactive on it a little bit.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: My question.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: So, what we’re asking, we have a proposed rezoning for DU, which has very specific parameters of -- as opposed to a Planned Unit Development, which also has its own parameters, correct? But we’re asking the developer to come back to us with basically PUD requirements. And if those are not kept, whether he wins the lottery like was said at one point in time and he decides to go to Aruba or wherever and somebody else buys this, that that can change. My deal is I’ve been sitting here and listening and I’m not even sure what we’re asking him. Are we asking him to come back with spec homes that --

(Recording Error)

MR. ALLMON: -- dimensions. Everything that would be required if this were a PUD. And then those elevations that were refined, if the majority of the voting body agreed that that was something that they wanted to approve, those would be tied to the rezoning. And the rezoning then would bind this developer or any future developer to their construction. If those plans were to change, then they get to go through new notification and we look at the changes to those all over again with input. That’s the process I think that’s being laid out.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Mudgett.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Yes, Commissioner, I have a question for the applicant. So, Greg, would you agree to table the application for so long a time as it would take you to develop specific design specifications that are quantifiable for the exterior finish and maybe the landscape material for each of the plats? Does that make sense?

MR. PRIEB: Yes.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Similar to what you put in your standard PUD.

MR. PRIEB: Yes.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Does that make sense?

MR. PRIEB: Uh-huh.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Okay. That’s all I have.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Oh, I can’t make a motion. Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I move that we table this till May 1st and --

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is that the May 1st meeting roughly?

MR. ALLMON: The first Monday.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: And Greg knows, has a good list of what to bring back and we’ll go from there.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Is that your motion?

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: That’s my motion.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Z-02-17-03. Mr. Willoughby, you can read those off.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I move to table Z-02-17-03, Rezoning from RS (Residential Suburban) to DU (Duplex Residential), and Pre-Plat 05-17-03, Preliminary Plat for Canyon Lakes.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Second.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: There’s a motion and a second on this issue, and I’m not going to get it back here on the rezoning. All in favor say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Oppose nay. Motion carried. It’s tabled to the May 1st meeting. May 1st meeting.
(Motion passed 9-0; Commissioner Braley absent)

E. OTHER BUSINESS

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other business for this -- from the staff?

MR. ALLMON: We have no other business.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any Commission business for the staff or staff business for us?

F. ADJOURNMENT

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I move for adjournment.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Second.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: There’s a motion and a second for adjournment. All in favor say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carried. We’re done. Thank you.
(Motion passed 9-0. Commissioner Braley absent)

(Shawnee Planning Commission Meeting Adjourned at 9:49 p.m.)