Yesterday, me and my buddy from Arbor Landing met with Olathe City Planning staff to discuss the proposed apartment project. Below is a summary of what we found out.
Below is a list of the City folks involved in this proposal. If you have comments, I strongly encourage you to express those to these parties or better yet, schedule a meeting with them.
Emily Carrillo: Olathe City Planning Department
913.971.8917
Comments to Emily need to b e made by August 31st as she is the staff member who submits the department’s recommendation to the Planning Commission.
Robyn Essex: City Councilmen, District 1
913.971.6368
rressex@olatheks.gov
John Bacon: Mayor
913.971.8500
Jbacon@olatheks.gov
Meeting Summary:
Project Density:
Emily indicated that the City Planning staff will approve the rezoning for this project. This is seen as a low density residential development, R – 3 Zoning which allows up to 17 dwelling units per acre. This conforms to the City’s Comprehensive Growth plan. I have a map excerpt from that, I’m working on getting files of this and other maps out to you.
Architectural Building Standards:
The City has very detailed and sophisticated standards for projects such as this to make sure that they fit in with the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhoods.
As of yet, the developer has not submitted any details or plans on how they will conform to this. The City staff has notified them of their responsibility to provide before project consideration. Two similar multifamily projects that this developer has built in Michigan have significantly inferior architectural treatment. These standards include such things as:
- Setbacks and articulation of the building facades at specific intervals
- Articulation of roof cornices
- Specific qualities of building materials to match the surrounding neighborhood
- Balconies
- No open stairways
Traffic Considerations:
The required traffic study was conducted in June 2024. When asked, the City staff were unaware if there was any consideration included for the additional traffic generated from school traffic.
The staff indicated that they believed that this was a valid consideration and that they would look into this.
The staff indicated that the developer included a gated entry on the south portion of the site because they believe that it was a requirement by the City fire department. The staff indicated that they will ask for a response from the fire department.
Additional code requirements for “external connectivity” were pointed out to the staff. They expressed no understanding of this and indicated that they would look into the details of this requirement.
Site Development:
The code requires specific buffering at the perimeters of the project. Where the site abuts residential areas, landscaping (trees) with either a 6’-0” high fence or earthen berm is required. To date, the developer has not indicated any details as to how they will conform to this. The city staff have also requested this info. Landscaping is required at site entries, drives and walks.
City code also requires that 30% of existing trees on the site must remain or replaced.
Along the north side of the site, there is a significant grade drop down to the Price Chopper parking lot. The current plans do not indicate any methods that are planned to address this condition. City staff indicated that they will request additional info about this.
Tax Assistance:
City staff explained that the only public funding is a program called LITEC (I don’t know what that stands for.) It is a program administered by the State. Apparently, it is a program where tax credits for construction costs are granted to the developer. The City staff indicated that they have no knowledge if the developer is or will pursue this.
Folks, that’s what I’ve learned so far. As I mentioned, don’t be shy in contacting or better yet, meeting with the various City staff to express your opinions or to ask questions.
I’ll pass on any developments that I come across. Thanks.
- Larry Jordan
