PDF Format:

ApprovedPlanningCommissionMeeting.11.16.15.pdfApprovedPlanningCommissionMeeting.11.16.15.pdf


CITY OF SHAWNEE

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

SHAWNEE JUSTICE CENTER

POLICE TRAINING ROOM

5850 RENNER RD

MINUTES

November 16, 2015

7:30 P.M.


PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENTSTAFF PRESENT
Commissioner Augie BoginaPlanning Director Paul Chaffee
Commissioner Randy BraleyDeputy Planning Director Doug Allmon
Commissioner Dennis BusbyPlanner Mark Zielsdorf
Commissioner Doug Hill
Commissioner Kathy Peterson
Commissioner Les Smith
Commissioner Sara Somsky
Commissioner Henry Specht
Commissioner Alan Willoughby
Commissioner Steven Wise
PLANNING COMMISSIONER(S) ABSENT
Commissioner Bruce Bienhoff
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Good evening and welcome to the November 16, 2015 meeting of the Shawnee Planning Commission. We’ll start with roll call. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Somsky.

COMMISSIONER SOMSKY: Present.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bienhoff is absent.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Busby.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bogina is here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Specht.

COMMISSIONER SPECHT: Here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Smith.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Here

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Hill.

COMMISSIONER HILL: Here.

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

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Item C is the Consent Agenda. Items 1 through 3 are listed under the Consent 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? Is there a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: I make a motion for approval of the Consent Agenda subject to staff’s recommendations.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I second the motion.

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

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes.


(Motion passes 10-0; Bienhoff absent)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Item D is: CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Paul.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: This request is to withdraw the previously issued special use permit issued to Angela Ferber to operate an athletic club in the Shawnee Plaza West Shopping Center, located 13217 Shawnee Mission Parkway. The special use permit was originally issued in in 2014. The Zoning Rules and Regulations were recently amended, and no longer require the issuance of a special use permit for athletic clubs containing less than 3,000 square feet. The 9Round Fitness facility contains 1,140 square feet; therefore, a special use permit is no longer required for its operation. Planning staff recommends withdrawal of SUP-06-14-11 a special use permit issued to Angela Ferber to operate 9Round Fitness, an athletic club, located at 13217 Shawnee Mission Parkway, since the Zoning Rules and Regulations no longer require a special use permit.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. The Commission have any questions for the staff? If not, is there a motion on this Item? Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I move that we pass the withdraw of SUP-06-14-11, per staff recommendations.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: I’ll second that motion.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and a second to approve the withdrawal of SUP-06-14-11, previously issued Special Use Permit to Angela Ferber for 9Round Fitness located at 13217 Shawnee Mission Parkway, all in favor?

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes.


(Motion passes 10-0; Bienhoff absent)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Item number 2 is: CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Mark.

PLANNER ZIELSDORF: The subject property consists of the northern 3.77 acres of a 10 acre parcel owned by the applicant. The parent parcel is located just east of Greens of Chapel Creek subdivision between 69th Terrace and 71st Street.

The property is characterized by gentle rolling grassland with scattered cedar and native deciduous trees. The topography becomes more prominent in the southeast corner where it slopes down to a stream channel and associated flood plain.

The applicant requests rezoning from AG (Agricultural) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) for the 3.77 acre parcel. The applicant also requests the approval of an accompanying preliminary plat containing 10 lots and one tract.

Surrounding property to the north and west is zoned R-1 and developed with single family homes within the Greens of Chapel Creek subdivision. Properties to the south and east are zoned AG. Property to the east consists of a large 27 acre parcel of pasture and range land containing no improvements. Property to the south consists of the remaining 6.23 acres of the parent parcel. This parcel is developed with a single family home with frontage onto 71st Street.

The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan anticipates low density residential development for this area. The plat provides a gross density of 2.65 dwelling units per acre, which is within the low density residential range, defined as one to five dwelling units per acre. The lots provided in this plat exceed the minimum size requirements of the R-1 district. Public sewers and other utilities are available to serve this area. The rezoning and proposed preliminary plat is in general conformance with the Plan.

Access to this subdivision will be provided from 69th Terrace, which is a local residential street. Existing 69th Terrace is adjacent to the north of the subject tract and terminates in a cul-de-sac to the east of the property. A new street will extend south from 69th Terrace to serve the lots within this subdivision. This new street will terminate at the south end in permanent cul-de-sac. The proposed lot layout, points of access and street network for this development are acceptable for circulation and public safety purposes.

The rezoning itself should have little, if any, detrimental effect upon surrounding properties. The rezoning request and the proposed density shown on the preliminary plat conform to the Comprehensive Plan. The development of this property with a short cul-de-sac serving single family lots was anticipated at the time the Greens of Chapel Creek subdivision was developed, although this particular property was not available for development at that time.

Denial of the request would not appear to benefit the health and welfare of the community. A low density single family residential subdivision is the type of use that is compatible with and anticipated for this area. Greens of Chapel Creek was designed in a manner to accommodate a street connection to 69th Terrace for the future development of the adjacent property with additional single family homes.

As far as the preliminary plat, it contains 10 lots and one tract on 3.77 acres.

The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan anticipates low density residential development for this area. The plat provides a gross density of 2.65 dwelling units per acre, which is within the low density residential range, defined as one to five dwelling units per acre. The lots provided in this plat exceed the minimum size requirements of the R-1 district. Public sewers and other utilities are available to serve this area. The proposed rezoning and preliminary plat are in general conformance with the Plan.

All bulk requirements have been satisfied. Lots range in size from 9,096 square feet to 15,522 square feet. Minimum lot frontages of 75 feet have been provided and front yard setbacks of 30 feet are shown on the preliminary plat. The total width of both side yards shall be no less than 20 percent of the total lot width with no side yard less than seven feet. Rear yard setbacks shall be no less than 30 feet. All of the lots exceed the minimum requirements in the R-1 district.

The plat contains one tract of approximately 25,978 square foot (0.59 acres). This tract contains a stream channel and associated floodplain and may also contain a stormwater treatment facility. Tract A will be owned and maintained by a home owners association. The applicant will be responsible for preparing and submitting the appropriate home owner’s association documents along with the submittal of the final plat.

1. Access to this subdivision will be provided from 69th Terrace, which is a local residential street. Existing 69th Terrace is adjacent to the north of the subject tract and terminates in a cul-de-sac to the east of the property. Right-of-Way off 69th Terrace for the proposed street was provided in the Greens of Chapel Creek, First Plat. A new street will extend south from 69th Terrace to serve the lots within this subdivision. This new street will terminate at the south end in permanent cul-de-sac. The proposed lot layout, points of access and street network for this development are acceptable for circulation and public safety purposes.

2. 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.

3. The street lighting system required for this development shall be designed in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. 4. The storm drainage improvements required for this development shall be designed in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. The enclosed components of the drainage system must be designed to convey the stormwater runoff from a 10 percent (10-year return period) design storm, or from a 4 percent (25-year return period) design storm when the upstream tributary is larger than 40 acres. The open components must be designed to convey the runoff from a 4 percent design storm. The overflow components designed to convey the runoff from a 1 percent (100-year return period) design storm. 5. 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 applicant has provided detailed stormwater calculations that show that there is no downstream flooding within the 5000 acre watershed of this development. Since detention is not required, the applicant may pay a fee in lieu of detention in the amount of $350.00 per lot. The detention fee for this plat is $3,500 based on 10 lots. The fee must be paid prior to commencing construction work on any public improvements.

6. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.16, Stormwater Treatment, which pertains to the implementation of Stormwater Treatment Facilities (STFs). The applicant is proposing the use of preserved native vegetation to meet the Level of Service of a 4 for this project, although a stormwater treatment facility may be installed if needed to meet the Level of Service required.

7. This development lies adjacent to Clear Creek Tributary F, which is identified as a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). With the exception of Tract A and possibly a very slight portion of Lot 7, none of the lots lie within the SFHA. 8. The stream buffer associated with Clear Creek Tributary F has a required setback of 100 feet measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) as established in the field. The buffer area within this development shall be maintained as open space, including those portions on Lots 6 and 7. The City Engineer acknowledges that a portion of the proposed cul-de-sac will encroach into the buffer area and the those portions on Lots 6 and 7 may be planted with turf, which is deemed necessary for the successful completion of this development. All buffer areas beyond the limits of construction of the cul-de-sac and the stormwater treatment facility on Tract A shall be preserved, especially dense stands of native vegetation within the 25 feet closest to the top of bank. All proposed stream crossings shall be constructed in accordance with Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, Division 2300, Storm Drainage.

9. All utilities shall be placed underground. Telephone, electric and cable service facilities are to be placed within rear and side yards as required by Policy Statement PS-24, except as specifically varied or waived by action of the Governing Body. If the Governing Body approves the placement of utilities within the front yard, then such utilities are to be placed within the right-of-way and not within easements adjacent to the right-of-way. When an easement is needed specifically for either a sanitary or stormwater sewer, the easement must specify the intended use.

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

11. 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 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.

12. 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 this development until all public improvements have been completed and accepted by the City.

13. All fire hydrants, fire lanes, and fire suppression equipment as required by the Fire Department shall be installed prior to issuance of a building permit.

14. 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.

15. This subdivision is subject to the provisions of Shawnee Municipal Code (SMC) 12.14, Park and Recreational Land Use Fund. Open space fees in the amount of $400 per residential lot ($4,000) shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. The open space fee for Lot 11 will be waived, as this lot contains an existing single family home.

16. The applicant is responsible for submitting a computation plat with the recording copies of the final plat. The computation plat should show the bearings and lengths of all lines, and the individual area, in square feet, of all lots, open space tracts, and right-of-ways, and the centerline miles of all newly dedicated streets. The County Engineer requests that all points shown on a plat be based on the Kansas State Plane Coordinate System of 1983, North Zone (NAD-83).

As far as staff’s recommendation, staff recommends approval of Z-03-15-11, rezoning from AG (Agricultural) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) subject to the following condition:

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

Staff also recommends approval of PrePlat-16-15-11, Preliminary Plat of Meadow of Chapel Creek subdivision, located in the 23600 Block of W. 69th Terrace, subject to the following thirty one conditions:

1. Acceptance of the dedications on the final plat by the Shawnee Governing Body and recording of the final plat with the Johnson County Register of Deeds shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits;

2. The preliminary plat contains ten lots and one tract on 3.77 acres;

3. All bulk regulations of the R-1 zoning district shall be met, including minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet, minimum lot width of 75 feet, and a minimum front setback of 30 feet. The total width of both side yards shall be no less than 20 percent of the total lot width with no side yard less than seven (7) feet. Rear yard setbacks shall be no less than 30 feet;

4. The provisions of the excise tax shall be satisfied prior to the Mayor signing the recording copies of the final plat. The developer may enter into an Excise Tax Abatement Agreement with the City that would allow for the suspension, partial or in full, of the excise tax provided the final plat is approved and recorded prior to expiration of the suspension of the excise tax as set by the City. This agreement between the property owner and the City shall be created, agreed upon, and executed prior to obtaining the Mayor’s signature on the recording copy of the final plat;

5. Open space fees in the amount of $400 per residential lot ($4,000), or the current open space fee rate in effect at the time a building permit is applied for, shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit, as provided by Shawnee Municipal Code (SMC) 12.14;

6. The applicant shall be responsible for preparing and submitting home owner association documents that provide for the ownership and maintenance of Tract A. Such documents shall be submitted to the City with the application of the final plat;

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 detailed within the staff report;

8. All internal streets shall comply with the geometric and roadway design standards for a local residential street per the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual and the applicable Standard Details;

9. Sidewalks are required along the east side of the interior streets. Sidewalk shall comply with standard details for location within the right-of-way and dimension;

10. The applicant is responsible for paying for city-installed street name signs prior to the issuance of a Public Improvement Permit for constructing the streets;

11. The applicant is responsible for submitting detailed street improvements plans for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to the final plat going to the Governing Body for acceptance;

12. The street lighting system required for this development shall be designed in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. The applicant is responsible for submitting detailed streetlight improvement plans for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to the final plat going to the Governing Body for acceptance. A public improvement permit is required to install the public street lights. The streetlights shall be installed prior to the release of the development for building permits;

13. The storm drainage improvements required for this development shall be designed in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and as detailed within the staff report;

14. Final storm improvement plans are required to be accepted by the City Engineer prior to the final plat going to the Governing Body for acceptance;

15. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC Chapter 12.24, which pertains to the construction and maintenance of on-site stormwater detention facilities;

16. Since no downstream flooding was indicated, detention will not be required; however, the applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of detention in the amount of $350.00 per lot. The detention fee is $350.00 based on 10 lots. The detention fee shall be paid prior to commencing construction work on any public improvements;

17. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.16, Stormwater Treatment, which pertains to the implementation of Stormwater Treatment Facilities. The applicant is proposing the use of preserved native vegetation to meet a Level of Service of 4;

18. All Stormwater Treatment Facilities required for this development shall be designed in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual and as detailed within the staff report;

19. The applicant shall execute and record, with the Johnson County Register of Deeds office, the City’s standard form entitled “Declaration of Stormwater Treatment Facility Maintenance Restrictions and Covenants” prior to the start of construction on the site civil items;

20. The applicant is responsible for obtaining a Floodplain Development Permit prior to commencing construction of the stormwater treatment facility on Tract A or undertaking any grading activities within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA);

21. No building larger than 120 square feet shall be constructed closer than 30 feet of the FEMA Zone “X” boundary as shown on the preliminary plat;

22. The applicant is responsible for identifying the Base Flood Elevations as detailed within the staff report;

23. The stream buffer associated with the Clear Creek Tributary F has a required setback of 100 feet as measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark as established in the field. The buffer area within this development shall be maintained as open space, including those portions of Lots 6 and 7. All buffer areas beyond the limits of construction of the cul-de-sac and the stormwater treatment facility on Tract A shall be preserved with native vegetation;

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

25. All utilities shall be placed underground;

26. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.20, Land Disturbance Activity, which pertains to site grading and erosion control measures. The applicant (landowner) is responsible for obtaining a land disturbance permit as required by Codes Administration 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;

27. 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);

28. 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 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;

29. 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 this development until all public improvements have been completed and accepted by the City;

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

31. The applicant is responsible for submitting a computation plat with the recording copies of the final plat.

This concludes staff’s presentation.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you, Mark. Is the applicant present? Please give us your name and address for the record.

APPLICANT: My name is Gary Hardwick, I reside at (address omitted from record).

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Have you read the staff report?

Mr. Hardwick: Yes.

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

Mr. Hardwick: Yes.

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

Commissioner Smith: Does the City allow for us to require the sidewalk to be placed around the entire subdivision, you know in the staff report it said on the east side which is great if the streets ultimately connect, but in a cul-de-sac it’s not going anywhere, so it seems it would be better to allow pedestrian traffic to go somewhere which would be the entire perimeter of the cul-de-sac.

Planner Zielsdorf: The code does not require the sidewalk to go around the perimeter of the cul-de-sac, in fact, the code actually says the sidewalk should go on one side of a cul-de-sac only. Now in short eyebrows, when we may have only two or three lots, we may have them wrap the whole thing, but in this case, we would not require to have the sidewalk wrap around.

Commissioner Smith: I can see your point, but especially if we want to create a walkable sustainable community, you head down to the end of the cul-de-sac and turn around and come back up. Would the developer be willing to put sidewalks around the entire cul-de-sac?

APPLICANT: We’d think about that.

Chairman Bogina: Sir, you cannot speak from your seat.

APPLICANT: My name is Tom Wolf, I am the founder and president of JJM Ventures.

Chairman Bogina: Thank you, and your address...

Mr. Wolf: My address is (address omitted from record).

Chairman Bogina: Thank you. And, do you have a response to the Commissioner’s question?

Mr. Wolf: We would look into that would be my response.

Chairman Bogina: Thank you.

Planner Zielsdorf: If I might add to that, to be fair we would have to check with Development Services and Public Works Department. Part of the reason for that policy is to minimize and lessen the amount of maintenance that has to be done on these. So when we have sidewalks on both sides we have to do curb and gutter repair work and maintain those sidewalks as well.

Chairman Bogina: Did that answer your question Mr. Smith?

Commissioner Smith: Yeah, I got a very definitive maybe.

Mr. Wolf: There is a significant amount of requirements from the city, so we would look and see about these.

Chairman Bogina: Thank you. Are there any other questions for the staff or the applicant? Commissioner Peterson.

Commissioner PETERSON: This is probably more educational. Only lots 6 and 7 they are the ones that are affected by the 100 year floodplain. It clips the corner of both of those lots basically. Will those residents who purchased these lots be restricted from putting up any fencing or anything, or are there other regulations that speak to that, I am asking for education.

Mr. Hardwick: Fencing is not a structure.

Planner Zielsdorf: Generally the regulations would not allow a permanent structure. Fencing would be allowed in those areas.

Commissioner PETERSON: Under 125 square feet, correct.

Chairman Bogina: Commissioner Braley.

Commissioner Braley: Are these lots of similar size to Greens of Chapel Creek?

Mr. Hardwick: All are the same until you get to Lots 6 and 7, when the width is spread out.

Commissioner Braley: Okay. Is it the desire that the homes built in your development be of the character with the same as those along 69th Terrace?

Mr. Hardwick: Yes, they will be the same as those in Chapel Creek.

Mr. Wolf: Actually, the minimum requirements will be higher than the Greens of Chapel Creek, square footage wise.

Chairman Bogina: Would anyone in the audience like to speak on this item?

PUBLIC COMMENT: My name is Raman Wadehra. I reside at (address omitted from record), just across from the development. My question is, knowing that this development the only way in is through our development. We haven’t seen the restrictions, with traffic we heard about the square foot which sounds good. I’d like to see it in writing, because I feel I need to know how this will be a benefit to the neighborhood, that I want to see the improvements.

Chairman Bogina: Thank you. Mark, have you seen the preliminary homes association agreement?

Planner Zielsdorf: The applicant has submitted a draft copy of a Homes Association Declaration, and while those are private restrictions we look for certain things within those regarding ownership and maintenance of the common spaces and those kinds of things. We don’t review necessarily for whatever private restrictions they choose to have for their subdivision.

Chairman Bogina: Could you provide a copy to the gentleman, sometime at City Hall?

Planner Zielsdorf: Sure, we could make them available.

(Inaudible)

Chairman Bogina: As a public hearing we record this as a legal record.

Mr. Wolf: As far as the HOA, I am the one that drafted that and I used as a model the Greens, so and I took you know, what made sense in there and added some from other HOA’s. And so, it is a very similar HOA agreement as the Greens of Chapel Creek; like I said the additional requirements for the square footage as well.

Chairman Bogina: Could you identify yourself.

Mr. Wolf: Oh yes, I’m sorry, this is Tom Wolf, JJM Ventures. Did I answer your question?

Chairman Bogina: Would anyone else like to speak on this item? Yes, sir.

PUBLIC COMMENT: My name is Steve Roederer, we live at (address omitted from record), which is directly across from where the new cul-de-sac is going in. Uh, you know we bought the second lot, and Jan in the audience here, she was the first lot right next door to us, and we bought these lots back in ’02, and from my understanding from when I was looking at this over the weekend and I was under the understanding, and one thing I want to mention is that we are not opposed, not opposed to this development, obviously it looks like a beautiful development. It’s going to be the same square feet as what is already in the Greens of Chapel Creek, and will be pretty like, um, what most of the people on our block built homes. Built homes with the fact that it would be a cul-de-sac. We have children in our neighborhood, as a matter of fact, there are these homes that are listed on the development of John Dugan. They all list as cul-de-sac, fairway or greens, adjacent to the golf course we paid obviously more money for these lots. I’m sure that any mother that would have been on our street would be concerned with the fact that there will be a lot more traffic. There are children that are accustomed to playing in the street, playing baseball, there are two children right next door to me who I believe are like seven and eight, right now, and uh, but there are about ten different families that are in there. You know when I live in a John Duggan development and bought this property, we bought this property right on the street here that it was a cul-de-sac lot. It’s a cul-de-sac street and I love this, and I would say has anyone considered coming in off 71st Street. There are basically ten homes on the street that will be affected, that will no longer be on a cul-de-sac. You are going to have ten new homes come in that are going to affect us. We were kind of the first ones out there, to get the development going, there wasn’t much out here going, we were going to take a chance, and then he ended up going bankrupt. So what I would say we were asking for, I’m sure there are other people who would like to stand up and say the same thing is would the developer consider, he has houses over there coming in off 71st Street and I believe the gentleman over there already spoke about the fact that at some point in time because of the idea of putting sidewalks all the way down the cul-de-sac because at some point the street will intersect with 71st Street anyway. If that’s the case why don’t we get it from the start? You already have ten homeowners right now that are going to be affected and we would not have a cul-de-sac anymore, so what would be wrong with it coming off 71st Street, and have your cul-de-sac as well come into a cul-de-sac and have those nice homes have a cul-de-sac just as we have, and the best place would be there. I made a copy for you of the listing, so you, um, what was part of Duggan’s. It has the lot numbers and the prices and exactly how this was sold to us as a cul-de-sac. Thank you.

Chairman Bogina: Thank you. Mark do you have a comment on that?

Planner Zielsdorf: I just wanted to address a couple of things. One, and I don’t know how these properties were marketed, when they were out there, but when this subdivision was the Greens of Chapel Creek first developed, it was platted with an opening along the south side of 69th Terrace for a future street connection. You can see that in, well, this isn’t the greatest example, you can see where the right of way was provided into that lot; so again, I don’t, I can’t speak to how the properties were marketed to the homeowners but it was always intended that there would be a break off of that cul-de-sac to an additional cul-de-sac. And, as to answer the question as to coming in off 71st Street. For those who may not be familiar with this site completely, there is a stream channel that goes down through there that’s very deep that would make a street through there very difficult, if not impossible, very impossible or practical and nearly impossible. So the idea was even with the idea the plat of Greens of Chapel Creek was created it always envisioned that a small cul-de-sac, at the time knowing that the ten lots on the northern half of the property would come down and have a stub down here just as shown currently, and then the southern half of the property would either develop off 71st Street or in conjunction with the larger property to the east of it. Hope that answers the question.

Chairman Bogina: Yes, thank you. You’ll have to keep it short since you have been up there for a second time.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Steve Roederer for the record again. And, Gary you had your property for sale a while back so I decided to go take a look, you know drive up your property from 71st Street just to see what was there. I’d never been back there before. You’ve got a beautiful piece of property there and I thought, my gosh, it goes back 5-600 feet from the road from 71st Street so from what this gentleman was saying I was going to suggest for all of you to go out and take a look at it. Because I mean if you are talking about taking basically the homeowners on our street that are on a cul-de-sac and taking even paperwork that says taking a cul-de-sac street to a non- cul-de-sac street. And I think everyone on our street would be opposed to that.

Chairman Bogina: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak on this item? Yes, sir, you need to keep it short.

APPLICANT: I’m Gary Hardwick the applicant. I’d just like to add that through all the years that the 69th Terrace cul-de-sac was in place there was a sign back there that said it was the intent that the street would extend onto adjacent property to go through, and that sign has since been taken down by somebody. But there was a city sign there that made that statement.

Chairman Bogina: Great, thank you. Yes, ma’am.

PUBLIC COMMENT: My name is Kimberly Parker. I live at (address omitted from record). I was one of the very first on the list. Myself and my husband just moved in over the summer and we had been waiting to get into that neighborhood for about 10 years. We finally move in because it was on a cul-de-sac and on a green and it is a beautiful little cul-de-sac, there were kids there and we have kids and if you look at that cul-de-sac and put on another street in with a full street with ten houses you’re not really being fair to those ten houses that are not part of our neighborhood, there’re not part of our subdivision. They won’t get access to the amenities. You know, think about the people who originally bought the houses so when these people sell that won’t know that they aren’t part of the Greens and they can’t use our pool and our parks and everything else. And I don’t know that it won’t be fair for them to have their own access to71st Street, rather than coming in our neighborhood through our subdivision and cul-de-sac into theirs. It’s just kind of like a cut off there, it just cuts them off into sort of their own little area. I just don’t know if it’s fair to those people buying in there. I wouldn’t like to have my house back in there. Thank you.

Chairman Bogina: Thank you. Yes, ma’am.

PUBLIC COMMENT: My name is Jane Doyle and I live directly across from this proposed project. My address is (address omitted from record). I’ve asked Steve to read a statement that I’ve prepared because my voice, I’m losing it. With your permission, may I do that?

Chairman Bogina: Yes, ma’am.

MR. Steve Roederer ON BEHALF OF MS. DOYLE: I built my house in 2003 and I have enjoyed living on 69th Terrace for twelve years. There are twelve homes in the block and we enjoy friendly block parties such as pit roasts, Halloween cook-outs, birthdays. This proposed development will take away all these good things and celebrations and be replaced with traffic congestion, traffic tie-ups, and removal of any ability for our guests to park on the street. More importantly though, there are 18 children living on the block. The younger ones will not be able to ride their scooters or bikes in the cul-de-sac and some other children cannot park their cars or have any parking for their friends. This proposed plat should have been reversed with the cul-de-sac on the northern end of the property with ingress and egress on 71st Street. With construction traffic and home traffic can feed out onto 71st Street and on east to Hedge Lane. This 71st Street access would avoid the roundabout at Gleason and 67th and the curved narrow street, and the short cul-de-sac in question at 69th Terrace. Through the years I’ve watched the wide load construction equipment and moving vans try to navigate the roundabout and end up backing and breaking down the curbs of the roundabout. Our school busses have trouble making the turn at the top of the hill when there are trucks parked. In summary, I wish your Commission would drive out to 69th Terrace and see for yourself what a mistake approving the plan as proposed would be. Thank you.

Chairman Bogina: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? Yes, ma’am.

PUBLIC COMMENT: My name is Gwen Kennedy. I live at (address omitted from record). I’m on that pie shaped lot on the corner of 69th Terrace. One issue that I have, I actually have a few things to make sure I ask questions about. I wasn’t ever given written notice that said this meeting was even happening. I happened to be walking my dog down the street and saw this little sign. So I thought we were supposed to be gotten notice when there is supposed to be a zoning change. So which is one issue why there aren’t very many people here tonight. Again traffic, we have several more houses as you guys know that are going to be built in the Green of Chapel Creek that are going to place a lot more traffic going with the roundabout and you add ten more houses which is 20-50 plus cars on our street alone is creating excessive. Again, my paper work, my legal documented paper work since we moved in here from Southern California we shopped. We found this house. We were told by John Duggan that the people who owned that private land and we were told it was Duggan green space and that there would be a playground built there. Duggan used to mow that area because at one point I think he knocked down all your guys trees and went back and pulled them up. I know you guys must have felt horrible to steal your property like that and we didn’t know until we moved in. Eight months later we found out that it was private property and it belonged to Sandy. So we purchased this house thinking that it was going to be green space and a playground area in accordance with Chapel Creek. Now I know a lot of real estate people make promises. Our documented legal document when we bought the house states that it is a cul-de-sac. That I can show that to anybody who wants to see it. It is my understanding that at one point there was a lawsuit against the City of Shawnee that there was a floodplain back there. Did that get rectified?

Chairman Bogina: If you could, lets save all your questions for the end of your presentation.

Ms. Kennedy: Okay, sorry. Okay, my next question is do the Shawnee residents have to pay for the taxes for these houses going in, and I also have the question about the sidewalks as well. I think everything else has been…. Oh, one more question about what kind of fencing is going to be required for the Greens of Chapel Creek, or for, see I even made that mistake, the Meadows of Chapel Creek. Are there going to be any requirements there and also what is the ball park of square footage and what do you think the By-Laws are for the greens of Chapel Creek square footage?

Chairman Bogina: Thank you. Why don’t we have Mark come up and…yes sir.

MR. HARDWICK: Yes, she was, I forgot your name… Gwen was correct, our north tree line got taken down when Dugan was in charge of building Greens of Chapel Creek development. I’ve heard rumors through the years that he failed to do a lot of things that he promised to people but since he’s no longer in charge of it; as far as the cul-de-sac goes, the new City regulations are, the 69th Street cul-de-sac is a 50 foot radius cul-de-sac; the new requirements for cul-de-sacs is 60 foot to allow plenty of room for trucks to turn around in; it’s a fire issue, their trucks are bigger and they need more room so they don’t have to back up; and the cul-de-sac won’t have an island in that; they kind of deter the islands in the cul-de-sacs because it takes away room for them to operate and set up equipment in the case of an event; I think that’s pretty much it.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: If you could go through the fencing; do you have a fencing requirement and if so, what would it be?

MR. HARDWICK: The (Inaudible), we actually reviewed the HOA papers of the Greens of Chapel Creek and ours is a very close similarity to it, as far as the requirements. We’re not here to disrupt the Greens of Chapel Creek; we, Sandy knows a lot more people than I do, that’s my other half; but we’re not planning on changing anything; the construction of the homes is going to be the same parameters; I actually work at a company that makes stone veneer, we supply a lot of stone veneer to the builders that have put up in the Greens of Chapel Creek and so we want to maintain that same look where the stone requirements are there and the typical siding they have there and things like that.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Do you think you could be specific on the square footage and the fencing and how it fits?

MR. HARDWICK: (Inaudible)

MR. WOLF: The draft of the HOA has the homes as far as square footage; ranch homes are 2,500 sq. ft.; 1 story to 2 story homes is 2,800 sq. ft.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you.

MR. WOLF: So, that is much bigger than the, considerably bigger than the Greens of Chapel Creek current requirements. We left open this, the ability for fencing and those things to be determined by the HOA; our intent in this area is gonna be nice or nicer than the existing homes right around there, so we expect this to be a very semi-exclusive area and the homes we expect to be $450,000.00 and above after the home is built, so…

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. And, I think you had a question on notices…(Inaudible). Mark, could you check the City records and see if she does (Inaudible) 200 foot…

PLANNER ZIELSDORF: We have a copy of the letter that was sent and a list of all the property owners and the addresses that they were mailed out to.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There was a 200 foot minimum…

PLANNER ZIELSDORF: 200 foot minimum surrounding; we deposit them in the mail; I can’t speak to once they get from the post office where they go, but they were mailed out as required…

(Inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Did we require a receipt?

PLANNER ZIELSDORF: No. Code or Statute does not require a return receipt. Once they’re deposited in the first-class mail that’s…

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. And, did you have a fourth question that I missed?

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I have quite a few questions actually. Floodplain…

PLANNER ZIELSDORF: You probably know more about that than…

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: The lawsuit, yes.

MR. HARDWICK: I was the lawsuit initiator; it was in regarding to the south side of the property versus the north side; the north side is completely out of the floodplain and never has been in the floodplain; the creek veers about midway on the east property line which is the line running north and south; the creek veers across (Inaudible) and then the creek’s over there and as it gets further, the lots on the east side, as it gets further around like behind Lot 7, the floodplain (Inaudible) floodplain and none of the houses are encroached upon that whatsoever; you have 30 foot setback, you have 100 foot buffer away from the 100 year floodplain, okay, that’s not the centerline of the creek, that’s the 100 year floodplain, 30 foot buffer, 100 foot buffer, okay and just the very tip of Lot 7 on the rear, on the southeast portion of the Lot 7 the buffer is barely there on the property so the creek is way over on the east of the project; there is no water; the land slope goes, it elevates from east to west and so there is no chance of water rising to that point; also, the floodplain is on the south end of the property, not the north end; the north end is free and clear of flood issues.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you.

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: My question is the lawsuit.

MR. HARDWICK: The lawsuit was settled.

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Okay.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: But we have to record questions and so, but you did, okay, so there was a lawsuit, you settled with the City and so that answers the question?

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Yes sir.

PUBLIC COMMENT: I’ve got a question. I’m Gary Tranbarger (address omitted from record), I live in the Greens of Chapel Creek. I have a question. I have issue with the significance of the title Meadow of Chapel Creek. We’re the Greens of Chapel Creek; Meadow of Chapel Creek; I live on Meadowlark Lane, I come in 10 years later and buy in this area, I’m assuming that’s all connected; I know it’ll all be worked out, but anyway, I learned about this this evening at our HOA meeting that we’re having this hearing and there was people invited that knew nothing about it as well; I’m sure it’s gonna be, could be, will be, probably a nice development there but we do have some questions and issues that haven’t fully been addressed. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak on this item? So we will be in Commission discussion.

PUBLIC COMMENT: I have a question for the developer.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Well, number 1 you can’t speak from your seat, but number 2 we, you don’t direct questions to the developer, you direct them to the Commission. So, if you have a quick question to the Commission then please, you can do so.

PUBLIC COMMENT: I’ll make it short. Could the Commission check into having the developer see what it would cost to have the street cut in from 71st Street instead of 69th Terrace? I think that would solve a lot of the problems, because obviously there’s a few people here tonight, I think you would have a lot more on the next meeting; a lot more others. But, if they could check into see what it would take to bring this development in from 71st Street. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Mark, I think you addressed that before, but what do you think it would take to breach the creek with the street from the south, engineering wise? I know we don’t have the City Engineer here…

PLANNER ZIELSDORF: (Inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: How deep is the channel?

PLANNER ZIELSDORF: I’m not an engineer. I’m not even gonna begin to guess what it would cost. I could tell you if in fact it could be breached, it would be significant… (Inaudible) They would probably construct the street from 71st Street… (Inaudible) If they’re gonna go through the expense to bridge that stream then it wouldn’t be worth their while…(Inaudible).

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: (Inaudible) from 71st?

PLANNER ZIELSDORF: It could either be a cul-de-sac from 71st Street or it could be a lot of that southern part is actually in the floodplain and so my guess is a lot of what’s left on that lower part is probably gonna be incorporated with development that may occur to the east one day when that larger piece, that 27 acre piece and it will probably be used predominately for storm drainage, storm water treatment facility of some type, so…

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

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Yes sir.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Thank you. (Inaudible) This is what this land’s made for, it’s just a perfect cul-de-sac development and breaching the topography to get there, quite frankly you’d have to build high-rises because of the cost. I feel badly for the people who think it wasn’t in the future plans, but as Mark said, there’s right-of-way there to provide access to this land and this is just, that ground is perfect for it. And again, I’m (Inaudible) I live on a 10 lot cul-de-sac that was developed and I can tell you traffic really wasn’t an issue when I (Inaudible) 10 houses or so with 2 cars you’re talking about spread out over the course of time they, just really quite frankly, it’s not a big deal. The lots are good sized; as far as the requirements for the home sizes, I think it’s just a, quite frankly a quality development.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. If there is no other discussion, is there a motion on this item? Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: I’ll make a motion; it has to be two motions correct? First one, motion to approve the rezoning Z-03-15-11, AG to R-1; and the second, PrePlat-16-15-11, the preliminary plat Meadow of Chapel Creek at 23600 Block of W. 69th Terrace for JJM Ventures, per staff recommendations.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Is there a motion or a second on this item? Commissioner Busby.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I’ll second the motion.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and a second to approve Z-03-15-11 and PrePlat-16-15-11 a Rezoning from AG to R-1 and Preliminary Plat for Meadow of Chapel Creek subdivision at 23600 Block of W. 69th Terrace, all in favor?

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes, thank you.


(Motion passes 10-0; Bienhoff absent)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Item number 3 is: CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Paul.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: The Planning Commission, at the October 5, 2015 meeting reviewed proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations. The commission authorized publication of a notice of public hearing to be held on November 16, 2015. The City Attorney proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations to provide further clarity regarding building setbacks. During his work, he has determined that more precise verbiage regarding setbacks and temporary structures can assist the city in enforcement of the regulations.

A series of interrelated amendments are being proposed. The amendments revise the definition of “setback” and provide a definition of a “temporary structure.” The general requirements regarding accessory structures is proposed to be modified to refer to the bulk requirements rather than the bulk setbacks to better conform to the definition of “Bulk.” With the addition of the term temporary structures, the additional use regulations for the traditional residential districts are proposed to be amended to remove the verbiage “under the currently adopted building code.” Finally, in the Height and Area regulations for a series of zoning districts, the word “setback” has been added to the minimum yard requirements.

Staff has attached a redlined copy of the proposed amendments that will be reviewed.

As a brief review, the proposed regulations modify the definition of “setback” and adds a definition of a temporary structure. Various sections of the code in the residential zoning districts are amended to note that tool sheds, utility sheds, and greenhouses that are considered temporary structures are permitted under certain conditions. Also, the height and area regulations for these districts are amended to add the word setback in the following description, minimum yard setback requirement.

After receiving public input and discussion of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the proposed amendments as suggested by the City Attorney.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Does the Commission have any questions for the staff on this item? If not, Commissioner Busby do you have a motion?

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Hearing no further discussion, I move to approve amendments to the Zoning Regulations to provide further clarity regarding building setbacks.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Specht.

COMMISSIONER SPECHT: Second.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and a second to approve the proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations to provide further clarity regarding building setbacks, all in favor?

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes.


(Motion passes 10-0; Bienhoff absent)
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Paul, do you have some other business for the Commission?

Director Chaffee reminded Planning Commissioners that there were five weeks in November, so the next meeting will be in three weeks. Also, staff will discuss the provision of sidewalks on both sides of the street in cul-de-sacs in certain cases with Development Services.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Any other questions for the staff? If not, is there a motion to adjourn?

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: I move to adjourn.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Hill.

COMMISSIONER HILL: I second that motion.

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

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes, thank you.


(Motion passes 10-0; Bienhoff absent)