Despite vocal opposition from nearby residents, plans for a retail and apartment development at 151st Street and Mur-Len Road are set to move forward.
The Olathe City Council approved the mixed-use development 6-1 at a meeting last week.
Mayor John Bacon and Councilmembers Matthew Schoonover, Robyn Essex, Dean Vakas, Jeff Creighton and Kevin Deneault OK’ed the plan. Councilmember LeEtta Felter was the sole dissenting vote.
Because residents of the site’s adjacent neighborhood submitted a protest petition before the meeting, the project required at least six yes votes.
While the proposal cleared that threshold, councilmembers still raised concerns during the meeting, particularly about increasing traffic at the already busy intersection of 151st and Mur-Len.
The proposal
The approved development consists of two buildings on a 9-acre vacant lot. One building would house retail, including space for a drive-thru. The second would be a three- to four- story building that houses 207 apartment units on the top floors and retail on the ground floor.
The developer, Phelps Engineering, also included 331 parking spaces in the plan.
The site sits next to Sutherlands at the Heritage Square Shopping Center.
While the site is already zoned for commercial use, the city council vote amended an existing zoning ordinance from 2003 that city staff have said are outdated and no longer align with current development standards.
Staff previously told the planning commission that the older ordinance had restrictions that would impede redevelopment of the site.
Staff said approving the amendment would allow the site to be redeveloped in a way that better reflects the city’s current land-use goals.
City officials also said the mixed-use proposal aligns with PlanOlathe, the city’s comprehensive plan, which encourages higher-density housing near retail centers, major corridors and employment hubs to support walkability.
However, opponents of the project have argued that the proposed apartments are incompatible with the surrounding single-family neighborhoods.
Resident opposition
Opposition to the proposal started building before the planning commission meeting last month. Nearly two dozen neighbors attended a developer-hosted meeting on Nov. 12. Within days, a nearby resident launched an unofficial petition urging the city to reject the rezoning.
The petition outlines a range of concerns including traffic and privacy.
Four residents addressed the planning commission at the Dec. 8 meeting.
“An apartment complex is totally out of place here,” said nearby resident Margaret Kennedy, who described traffic in the area as already “terrible.”
Others focused on how the height of the proposed buildings could affect adjacent homes. Denise Wallman, whose property sits directly south of the site, said a multi-story apartment building would overlook her backyard.
“If you allow a multi-story apartment building there, anybody that lives up in the third or fourth story will be able to look down into my backyard and invade my privacy and peace of mind,” Wallman said.
Jennifer Slaton, whose property also backs up to the site, said traffic in the area is already “a nightmare” and argued that a large apartment complex would only worsen existing problems.
“I personally would be welcoming of a box store,” Slaton said. “I would rather look at the back of a building that’s one to one and a half stories versus three stories of balconies looking at my backyard.”
In response to those concerns, the developer added a proposed 6-foot decorative fence along the south and east edges of the property.
The planning commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning.
In a last ditch effort to stop the development, nearby residents submitted a protest petition before the Jan. 6 meeting. Protest petitions are official documents in which citizens can formally oppose a government action. The petition required valid signatures from 20% of residents within a designated area adjacent to the site in order to be successfully submitted.
A total of 16 residents, or 21%, signed the petition — which meant the rezoning required a ¾ majority, or six votes, to pass.
Traffic concerns take center stage
City council focused on traffic impacts at the Jan. 6 meeting.
City Engineer Nate Baldwin said staff predict the development would lead to a 3.4% increase in traffic in the morning and less than 2% increase in the afternoon.
Councilmember Creighton, who was previously on the planning commission, asked about adding an additional traffic light at the intersection.
Baldwin said the city has no plans to add another signal but can adjust the timing of the traffic lights as needed.
Councilmember Felter, whose ward encompasses the site and was the lone dissenting vote, echoed concerns about traffic.
“I’ve had convos with multiple people regarding this matter,” she said. “That’s a nightmare to drive, especially in the morning, trying to go to Olathe South for example.”
Councilmember Schoonover asked staff if there’s anything that can be done to Mur-Len to accommodate the increase in traffic.
Staff said nothing is in the works in the current Capital Improvement Plan to widen the street.
Councilmembers expressed no concerns for the privacy issues brought up by neighboring residents.
What’s next?
With city council’s approval, the developers can now begin the permitting process. They have not provided a timeline for construction.
