OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. July 8, 2013

Transcription

1 OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 8, 2013 The Overland Park Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Mrs. Janie Thacker, Chair. The following members were present, constituting a quorum: Mr. Mike Flanagan, Vice Chair; Mr. Edward Ned Reitzes; Mr. Bob Gadd; Mr. John Brake; Mr. Steve Troester; Mr. Tom Lance; Mr. David M. Hill; Mrs. Kim Sorensen; and Mr. Thomas A. Robinett. Mr. George Lund was absent. Also present were: Mr. Jack Messer, Director of Planning and Development Services; Mr. Steve Horner, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Mrs. Leslie Karr, Manager of Current Planning; Mr. Keith Gooch, Senior Planner; Ms. Danielle Zeigler, Senior Planner; Mr. Aaron DuBois, Assistant Planner; Ms. Rachael Wooldridge, Planning Department Intern; Mr. Cylus Scarbrough, City Planner; Mr. John Rod, Community Services Manager; and Ms. Cindy Terrell, Recording Secretary. Approximately 25 people were in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 13, Mr. Edward "Ned" Reitzes moved to approve the minutes from the May 13, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Bob Gadd seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 9 to 0 to 1. Mr. David M. Hill abstained from the vote since he was not present at the meeting. CONSENT AGENDA: (Approved Consent Agenda items A, B, C, D, E, F, H, I, K, L and M as stipulated; continued Consent Agenda items G and J to the August 12, 2013, Planning Commission meeting) A. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Overland Trail Middle School West 133rd Street. Application made by NSP Architecture. B. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Harmony Middle School West 141st Street. Application made by NSP Architecture. C. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Verizon Wireless West 135th Street. Application made by 135 Metcalf, L.L.C. D. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Vineyard Church of Overland Park Roof Lamar. Application made by Patrick Dolan. E. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL - Overtime Sports Bar Patio West 135th Street. Application made by Overtime Sports Bar and Grill. F. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL - Heartland Rehabilitation Hospital - Vicinity of the northeast corner of Nall and Indian Creek Parkway. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc.

2 Page 2 G. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL - Starbucks West 75th Street. Application made by Davidson Architecture and Engineering. H. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL - Quivira 95 Shops - Vicinity of the northeast corner of 95th Street and Quivira. Application made by Klover Architects, Inc. I. FINAL PLAT NO Highlands Village West First Plat - Vicinity of the northeast corner of Nall and Indian Creek Parkway. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. J. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL - The Fountains Shopping Center - Whole Foods Market West 119th Street. Application made by CSHQA. K. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL - Charles Schwab - Vicinity of the southeast corner of 135th Street and Metcalf. Application made by Red Legacy, L.L.C. L. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL - Clarion Inn Repainting West 108th Street. Application made by Prime Hotels, L.L.C. M. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL - Simoneau Sports Performance West 125th Street. Application made by Zimmerman Construction Company, Inc. Current Planning Manager Leslie Karr indicated that Consent Agenda items G and J were being continued to the August 12, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Karr indicated that Regular Agenda item Nos. 3, 6, 7, were being continued to the August 12, 2013, Planning Commission meeting, Regular Agenda item Nos. 9 and 10, were being continued to the September 9, 2013, Planning Commission meeting, and item No. 11 was withdrawn. Mr. Steve Troester moved to approve Consent Agenda items A through M, with the exception of items G and J, which were being continued to the August 12, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. After a second by Mrs. Kim Sorensen, the motion carried with a vote of 9 to 0 to 1. Mr. Hill abstained from the vote COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORK PROGRAM AND RELATED WORK TASKS Application made by The City of Overland Park. (Approved) City Planner Cylus Scarbrough stated that the Planning Department staff had held a workshop with the Comprehensive Planning Committee on Tuesday, June 25, 2013, at Overland Park City Hall. The purpose of the meeting was to lay out the proposed work plan for the Comprehensive Plan Work Program and Related Work Tasks (Plan). Those

3 Page 3 items were included in the packet attachments and are included in the Future Development Plan, Future Parks Plan, City Map, Greenway Linkages Plan, and the City s Official Street Map. Mr. Scarbrough indicated that a wide-ranged discussion was held with regard to what is included in the Plan and what needed to be updated this year and in the future. Under Planning Elements, staff attempted to provide the Planning Commission with an idea of when the update was planned for those items, which will happen on an asneeded basis. Staff discussed what was contained within the Plan and how the City's Plan compared to other communities. Staff will come before the Planning Commission at a future meeting to discuss other long-range topics, in their effort to improve the Plan. Vice Chair Mike Flanagan reported that he, along with Commissioner Gadd and Commissioner Lance, met with staff to review the Plan. He referred to page Nos. 20A and 20B of the staff report, noting that the Plan had been put into a schedule to provide a better snapshot of the progress to date. It will be a rolling review of the Plan. Core documents will be updated every two years. Plan elements will be updated every three to five years on an as-needed basis. He believed staff would monitor the Plan to make sure it remained fresh and alive. Based on some newer trends, they will examine environ-mental aspects and health-related elements that the City may be able to incorporate into the Plan. The committee voted 3 to 0 to approve the Plan. Mr. Flanagan moved to recommend to the Council approval of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Work Program and Related Work Tasks. Mr. Gadd seconded the motion which carried with a vote of 10 to 0. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO Vicinity of the southeast corner of 159th Street and Metcalf. Special use permit requested for an indefinite period of time to allow a lift station. This property is currently zoned CP-2, Planned General Business District. Application made by Johnson County Wastewater. (Continued) As noted in Staff Comments, this item was to be continued to the August 12, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Flanagan moved to continue Special Use Permit No to the August 12, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Sorensen and carried with a vote of 10 to 0. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO West 119th Street. Special use permit requested for an indefinite period of time to allow a doggie day-care/boarding facility. This property is currently zoned CP-2, Planned General Business District. Application made by Brookside Barkery and Bath Wellness Center. (Approved) Senior Planner Keith Gooch indicated that the applicant was requesting a special use permit for an indefinite period of time to allow a doggie day-care/boarding facility. The property is currently zoned CP-2, Planned General Business District. The neighborhood is characterized by commercial properties to the east and to the south. The

4 Page 4 property to the west is a church. Across 119th Street to the north is commercial property. Residential properties are located west of that commercial area. The Future Development Plan does not specifically address doggie day-cares, but does require special use permits. Mr. Gooch presented an aerial photograph of the existing property. The building is 15,000 square feet in size. Of this amount, 12,500 square feet will be utilized for the doggie day-care, with the remaining area to be used for a vet clinic. The applicant provided a description of the doggie day-care and proposed that there could be the potential for 120 dogs at any one time. According to the submittal, the day care typically is open from 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Overnight boarding would be sporadic and significantly less than 120 dogs. The site plan submitted by the applicant would remove 32 parking spaces on the south side of the building and replace them with an outdoor exercise area. There would be a total of 106 parking spaces between the applicant's building and the building to the east. Mr. Gooch said that staff believed there was enough parking for both uses. The area on the south side will be installed with K-9 grass, which basically looks like artificial turf. A new curb will be constructed to provide protection around the wall. A second outdoor area is being proposed on the west side of the building. That area will have chain-link fence. Two new islands will be installed to maintain 24 feet of drive and is required. The applicant will be responsible for maintenance of this area for drop-off, pick-ups and deliveries to the rear of the building. Photographs of the exits to the building were presented. Based on discussions with Johnson County Wastewater, Mr. Gooch indicated that both areas would be canopy-covered. In order to hook up to the sanitary sewer system, Johnson County Wastewater requires that areas be covered to prevent the entry of rainwater. The canopy would be positioned above the roof of the existing building. Staff explained to the applicant that the proposed canopy was a concern. The exact material and design is yet to be determined. The applicant is in the process of obtaining a vendor to provide the type of material. The outdoor run area is provided with a four-foot screen wall, a two-foot fence on top of the wall, and a large canopy structure to keep out rainwater. This is the initial permit request for the applicant. Therefore, staff was only recommending a five-year period of time although the applicant requested an indefinite period of time. Staff was being consistent with the other doggie day-care facilities in the City that have been approved over the past few years. One or two doggie day-care facilities have already received renewals. With the next renewal, the applicant could request a longer period of time; however, staff informed them that it was unlikely that the Planning Commission would support a special use permit for an indefinite period of time for this type of a facility. The applicant had concerns with the five-year time period. Staff recommended approval of Special Use Permit , for a five-year period of time with stipulations a through h. Mr. Flanagan referred to staff's concern of the proposed canopy and asked if it was because of the material, or was the material type still unknown. Mr. Gooch explained

5 Page 5 that staff's concern was potentially with the material, color, and height. The applicant will bring back the details at the time of Final Development Plan. Mr. Tom Lance asked if signage or lighting had been discussed. Mr. Gooch answered no. The lighting in the parking lot was already in place and he asked Mr. Lance if he meant the building lighting. Mr. Lance answered yes. He said if they decided to place a light out under the canopy it could glow in the dark. Chair Janie Thacker could not recall the covering requirements for the other doggie day-care facilities located throughout the City. Mr. Gooch stated that he had not worked on all the other doggie day-care facilities; however, the applicant would like to connect to the Johnson County Wastewater system, but they would not allow any rainwater runoff to enter their system. In order to avoid this from happening, installation of a canopy is required. He believed the other facilities are set up to flow into a natural vegetation area that cleans the urine before it runs into the creeks or soil. Mr. Gadd acknowledged an earlier comment that said the canopy would not allow any rainwater through, but asked if water could still flow through a canopy. Mr. Gooch replied there is the potential for some rainwater runoff, but the canopy would extend two feet over the fence so the likelihood of rainwater runoff is low. Johnson County Wastewater signed off on this proposed canopy. Mr. Larry Anderson, building owner, 435 North Broadway, Wichita, Kansas, stated his company purchased this building approximately 15 years ago when it was Cellular One, which later morphed into Verizon. Two years ago, Verizon vacated the property. The property was listed with a local broker who turned down prospective tenants such as pawn shops and auto parts stores. When the doggie day-are opportunity came along, his company became interested and even agreed to provide equity support to this venture. Mr. Anderson felt the continuity of the tenancy in the building was important. He said that the building was actually 9,000 square feet of doggie day-care, and the balance would be split between the existing retail tenants, Brookside Barkery and Bath Wellness Center. Bath Wellness Center is a veterinarian clinic, so the entire strip would become a full animal wellness center which has yet to be found in Overland Park. The three tenants would become a one-stop shop for people with pets. His company liked the concept well enough that they decided to support it from their position. Mr. Steve Mustoe, 5100 West 95th Street, Suite 260, Prairie Village, Kansas, counsel for the building owner, stated the issue with the proposed application being limited to five years related to financing. He did not believe financing would become available if the special use permit was only granted for five years. After review of the City's regulations, he noted that the Council has the authority to approve special use permits for ten years at a minimum. He believed the application would need to be approved for at least ten years in order to receive financing. That would be the minimum requirement to get this project up and running. He said the project would generate significant property tax dollars and sales tax revenue for the City. Mr. Ken Sanderson, vice president, Great Southern Bank, West 175th Street, Olathe, Kansas, stated he was the lender and chairman of the Johnson County South Center Planning and Zoning Commission. He reviewed the applicant's financial

6 Page 6 projections for tenant improvements and acquisition of the real estate. The two separate functions include purchasing the property and tenant improvements. Mr. Sanderson pointed out that with this particular application, the tenant improvements were substantial and close to reaching the seven figure mark. The requirement to pay off the tenant improvement list within five years made the project financially unviable. Therefore, he said the applicant would have to decide if they wanted to go for ten years. He felt they would need at least ten years to pay down, if not pay off, the tenant finish plans. Referring to the conditional use permits for the County, Mr. Sanderson said they could be issued for a maximum of ten years from the date of approval unless a longer or shorter conditional use permit was required or enabled by the regulations. He said when his bank examines conditional use permits, they typically look at them on a tenyear basis, and they are renewable. Mr. Anderson pointed out that there were other doggie day-care facilities in Overland Park. He assumed they received lease hold improvement allowances from their landlords. He stated this project was an approximate $3.2 million expenditure, which involved acquisition of the building, tenant improvements, and a new partnership. It is a significant capital commitment, which is the reason they asked for a ten-year period. He was in agreement with the proposed stipulations. Chair Thacker opened the public hearing on this item. There was no response, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Flanagan asked for clarification on the time elements for the five-year permit versus the ten-year permit and versus the indefinite period of time. He presumed the permit would initially be approved for five years and after the second renewal, it could be increased to ten years or to an indefinite period of time. Mr. Gooch replied that the City limited these types of uses during the initial period, much like they do with drinking establishments or other doggie day-cares. The initial permit is limited to determine any impacts to the surrounding property owners. No neighbors were present to protest the request. If the initial permit was granted for a ten-year period and issues arose, the applicant would be required to go through the City Council for revocation and then back before the Planning Commission to address any concerns. If the initial permit is only granted for a five-year period of time and any issues arose, those issues could be addressed sooner. Once resolved, the permit could be approved for a longer period of time. Mr. Flanagan asked if that was included in the ordinance. Mr. Gooch replied that the ordinance read that these permits could be issued up to ten years, but staff recommended a five-year permit as has been granted to other doggie day-cares in the past. Mr. Flanagan asked if other doggie day-cares in the City were initially approved for five years. Mr. Gooch answered yes. Mr. Flanagan asked if that was basically to protect the surrounding residences or businesses. Mr. Gooch answered yes. Mr. Hill said he was leaning towards supporting the five-year recommendation from staff. He believed the reason to limit the initial permit to five-years was to address issues, mostly operational issues, that could arise. Without making any promises, he felt with most of these types of permits when issues or deficiencies arise, they are

7 Page 7 correctable. He did not believe the Council was interested in revoking special use permits. To put things into perspective, Mr. Hill said the applicant was taking an obvious risk, but had to judge for themselves. He felt there was a history in Overland Park of working with applicants. Any issues that arise are worked through and mostly correctable. Mr. Gooch concurred. He pointed out that one of the City's doggie daycare facilities was approved for ten years on the first renewal. Per the applicant s request, he believed the other facility had renewed for five years. Chair Thacker noted that some doggie day-care facilities undergo very involved interior remodels, so a five-year permit is not out of the ordinary for this type of facility. Mr. Gooch believed all the other facilities of this type underwent both significant interior and exterior remodeling and improvements. Mr. Gadd asked if the City had ever not renewed a special use permit for a facility of this type. Mr. Gooch answered to his knowledge, no. Mr. Troester acknowledged Mr. Hill s observation that the City does not look to revoke these requests. It is up to the operators to maintain a good operation. Mr. Troester moved to recommend to the Council approval of Special Use Permit No , for a five-year period of time with stipulations a through h. Mr. Hill seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 9 to 1 with Mr. Lance voting nay. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO College Boulevard. Special use permit requested for a two-year period of time to allow a temporary commercial use in an industrial district. This property is currently zoned BP, Business Park District. Application made by Rick's Tailoring and Men's Wear. (Approved) Planning Department Intern Rachael Wooldridge indicated that the applicant was requesting a special use permit for a two-year period of time to allow a temporary commercial use in an industrial district. This property is currently zoned BP, Business Park District. The properties to the west and north are zoned BP, and the properties to the east and south are zoned CP-O, Planned Office Building District. Staff was recommending approval with no stipulations. Ms. Cheryl Wheat, representative for the applicant, Rubenstein Real Estate Company, L.L.C., 6310 Lamar, Suite 220, Overland Park, stated the request was the fourth renewal for this tenant. There have been no complaints. The lease renewal is contingent upon the passage of this special use permit. Chair Thacker opened the public hearing on this item. There was no response, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Flanagan moved to recommend to the Council approval of Special Use Permit No , for a two-year period of time with no stipulations. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Sorensen and carried with a vote of 10 to 0.

8 Page 8 SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO Vicinity of the southwest corner of 133rd Street and Long. Special use permit requested for an indefinite period of time to allow a new senior living facility. This property is currently zoned CP-O, Planned Office Building District. Application made by BL Development, L.L.C. (Continued) As noted in Staff Comments, this item was to be continued to the August 12, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. Mrs. Sorensen moved to continue Special Use Permit No to the August 12, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Flanagan and carried with a vote of 10 to 0. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN Silvercrest Assisted Living Facility Building Addition Metcalf. Application made by Silvercrest at Deer Creek. (Continued) As noted in Staff Comments, this item was to be continued to the August 12, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Tom Lance moved to continue Revised Preliminary Plan for the Silvercrest Assisted Living Facility Building Addition to the August 12, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Sorensen and carried with a vote of 10 to 0. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN - Villa St. Joseph Addition Rosewood. Application made by Carondelet Health Corporation. (Approved) Mr. Gooch indicated that the applicant was requesting approval of the Revised Preliminary Plan for the Villa St. Joseph addition located at Rosewood. The property is currently zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District, and was approved for a special use permit to allow a nursing home and extended care facility. A vicinity map was presented. Mr. Gooch noted that the property to the east was commercial. The properties to the south and west are zoned residential and developed with residential uses, and the property to the north is commercial and located in Leawood. He presented a rendering that noted the proposed addition and parking expansion at the northwest corner of the property. The approved plan showed an addition located in approximately the same location as this expansion request. The proposed plan includes additional parking located on the northwest side of the building. Currently, there is fire lane access and six additional parking spaces planned for the southwest corner of the site. The proposed addition is for the rehabilitation of patients who experience a surgery or stroke. Overnight patient stays will be provided. A total of 16 new beds will be located in this addition for a total of 132 beds. There are several large trees in the area that will need to be removed with this addition. Staff looked at other locations but, based on grades, this is the only area on the property for this type of expansion so the parking works. The fire access drive will be shortened. The fire department agrees with the plan. An additional 10

9 Page 9 parking spaces will be located at the northeast corner of the property. A total of 94 parking spaces are being provided, which is the exact number required by the ordinance. The applicant provided a parking count to determine the need for any additional parking. The five-day count showed only one time when there were more vehicles than parking allowed. Mr. Gooch stated that staff was in support of the amount of parking being provided. Mr. Gooch mentioned that the Planning Commission had received s from nearby neighbors that addressed the existing fence located along the south property line. Those neighbors were in attendance today. The fence was constructed when the residential property to the south was built. The fence is owned and maintained by those residents. Mr. Gooch pointed out the existing trees located throughout the area that will need to be removed with this project. One 18 inch caliper tree, as well as one 24 inch caliper tree are located in the detention area and cannot be saved. One 22 inch caliper tree and two 24 inch caliper trees will be saved and maintained. Mr. Gooch indicated that he asked City Forester Sarah Patterson to work with the applicant at the time of the final development plan to ensure the trees are maintained and the construction stays out of their area. Additional comments will be available to the Planning Commission at the time of Final Development Plan. The grading plan was presented. It will work together with the final development plan to possibly save those trees. The applicant's landscape plan was provided to the Planning Commission. Mr. Gooch indicated that the applicant and neighbors had met for discussions. The landscape plan will require an update at the time of the final development plan based on any comments or agreements between the neighbors and the applicant. The proposed elevations match the existing style of the building. Staff asked the applicant to attempt to better screen the rooftop equipment. Currently, the building does not have a parapet and the existing equipment is not well screened. The screening of the rooftop equipment will be reviewed further at the time of the final development plan. Photographs were presented showing where the parking lot ended, the existing fire access lane, the fence and various trees that will either be preserved or removed. Staff was recommending approval of the Revised Preliminary Plan with stipulations a through n. Mr. Flanagan asked how many trees would be removed. Mr. Gooch responded that two trees along the south property line would be removed, as well as several trees located in the area of the proposed addition on the property. Mr. Flanagan noted that he had walked the property. In the past, he stated the City had gone to tremendous lengths to protect tree lines and voluntary trees that grow up near fence lines. He asked who owned and maintained the fence. Mr. Gooch said the fence was owned by the residential property to the south. He stated that a total of eight trees would need to be removed, including the one at the entrance. Mr. Flanagan asked if a neighborhood meeting actually occurred to discuss these plans. Mr. Gooch replied that the neighborhood and applicant spoke together before today's meeting. They had also talked before today, but the two issues regarding the trees and fencing were discussed today.

10 Page 10 Mr. Hill asked Mr. Gooch to put up the previously approved plan. He felt it was important for the Planning Commission to understand what had been approved and how much of a change this plan involved. He said there was a parking area that would possibly have eliminated three trees if they had followed through on the approved plan. He referred to the site plan where it read 'future parking' and asked if there was a previously approved plan that would have removed the trees in that area. Mr. Gooch answered yes. Mr. Hill asked how many additional square feet proposed for the addition was there compared to the approved plan. Mr. Gooch responded that the applicant would have to answer that question. The proposed plan includes quite a bit of additional square footage. Mr. Tim Wilson, applicant, Linden Lane, Overland Park, stated he was an architect with SWD Architects, Inc., 315 Nichols Road, Suite 228, Kansas City, Missouri. He recognized Ms. Kathy Ensign, administrator of Villa St. Joseph, and Mr. Daniel Stricter, the original CEO of the Carondelet long-term care facilities. Addressing the square footage question, Mr. Wilson said the addition included approximately 12,500 square feet, compared to the original 6,800 square feet. He stated that the difference between the proposed project and the previous approval, was that in addition to the patient rooms, they were adding a physical therapy gymnasium and therapy/ rehabilitation pool. He pointed out the residential wing on the diagram that would house the 16 private patient rooms. He said it would fit in nicely with the existing patient wing and provide a location for the nursing staff. The new plan provides more of a central location for the existing and rehab patients. The primary difference between the new and old plan, is the additional square footage for that function. Mr. Wilson confirmed that eight trees would be removed. One tree is associated with the accessible connection to the public sidewalk system. Eight new trees have been provided in various other areas, along with replacing the missing street trees that have disappeared over the years, since the project was originally approved. Some additional shrub screening has also been proposed along 119th Street for parking at that location. From a site perspective, Mr. Wilson indicated that they attempted to maintain more of a quiet function with the neighbors to the south and to keep the wing in that location rather than relocate them. If that were to happen, it would potentially relocate the facility deliveries and other activity that happens on that side of the property. Architecturally, Mr. Wilson noted they remained contextual with the existing design. The building is not non-descript, but simple architecture. There is EFIS that runs along the lower portion of the roof and a concrete tile replica of Spanish tile that provides the mansard. The ceiling heights are somewhat different on the wing to the south. They raised the roof level one foot higher to accommodate the ability to put in bariatric lifts in the resident rooms to assist with the heavier patients. The ceiling level in the gymnasium and pool area has been raised two feet to provide additional room for equipment. Mr. Wilson stated that three options were considered on the roof system. Originally, the plan was to keep the false mansard level at the roofline. All the rooftop units would be visible and there would be a piece of screening around each unit. The second plan would bring the top of the parapet all the way up to cover the top of the

11 Page 11 rooftop units. With that option, the building became more roof than anything else. The third plan worked back to partially screening the units with the roof parapet and adding the mechanical screens to the units. There is one entrance door for the residents to the south, which also acts as a required exit out of the building towards the east end of the parking area. As Mr. Gooch explained earlier, Mr. Wilson noted that they attempted to maintain the site trees as best as possible along the south. He presented a hand-drawn graphic that highlighted the street trees that were added back into the plan. Two trees were in question on the south by the neighborhood. There is one 18 inch caliper tree and one 24 inch caliper tree to be considered in the plan. The 18 inch tree falls within the foundation line of the building at that point and the connection that needs to be maintained. The 24 inch tree sits on top of the underground detention. Mr. Wilson referred to the fence, noting that it currently sat on top of a landscape berm that separates the two properties with a 10-foot buffer. He believed they had come to an agreement with the residents to the south that Villa St. Joseph would replace the existing fence with a new one and maintain it for 25 years. The residents understand the need to remove the two trees in that area and the addition of new trees to help overcome the situation. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Wilson how they planned to place a new tree in the plan area with the limited space, so it would not interfere with the building but still overcome the 10- foot hole it would be planted in to produce any type of benefit. Mr. Wilson replied that there was a 10-foot area of land. The berm itself is only 18 inches to 2 feet high. There is 25 feet of area between the building and the property line, which is plenty of space to position a new tree in that location. In their discussions with the surrounding neighbors, they have been clear in the fact that it would take time for a new tree to mature and provide the same amount of screening as what has been there in the past. Mr. Hill asked if the neighbors were aware of the difference in distance of the trees. Mr. Wilson answered yes. Mr. Hill referred to the rooftop units and asked if it had been confirmed with the manufacturer that they will take the type of screening being proposed. Mr. Wilson responded that according to his engineer, they will. Mr. Hill stated some will and some will not, based on how they move air. He did not want to get further along in the project and have them realize the plan would not work. Mr. Wilson confirmed that issue had been determined as to all their possibilities. Based on different manufacturers, they tried to get them as low as possible and investigated the shorter units, as well as what would be required from a minimum curb standpoint on the roof to support them. Mr. Hill said he was not necessarily speaking to the units on the new portion, but going back. Staff's request is they screen the existing units because that could become problematic. It was Mr. Wilson's understanding that it has been determined that the screening would be feasible. Mr. Flanagan asked how old the trees were that are planned to be removed. Mr. Wilson replied that there were actually more trees on the site than what was shown on the original plan. He believed the original plan was from 1987, so that would make the trees 20 to 25 years old. Mr. Flanagan asked if the neighborhood meeting took place that afternoon.

12 Page 12 Mr. Wilson confirmed that the applicant and surrounding neighbors came to a resolution that afternoon. An open forum neighborhood meeting took place on June 21, 2013, at the facility, at which time Ms. Ensign notified all the neighbors of the 200-foot required area. He said Ms. Ensign had also met with the president of the homeowners' association several weeks ago and walked the property. He believed several of the residents present at this meeting had reviewed the plan with Ms. Ensign as well to discuss their concerns. Mr. Flanagan noted that it was said they reached an agreement this afternoon that Villa St. Joseph would put in and maintain a new fence for 25 years. Mr. Wilson said that was his understanding. Mr. Flanagan presumed the new fence would be a bit taller, because the current fence did not quite completely cover the facility from view. He did not feel the current fence was attractive. Mr. Lance referred to the rooftop approach. He asked what color the unit screenings would be. Mr. Wilson explained that his proposal would be to use a similar color to the mansard tile so it flowed together. He did not want the colors to contrast. Mr. Lance asked if the closure around the units would include a door for access to that area, or would they have an opening that looped around. Mr. Wilson replied that the closure would have a section of the panel that fit to the existing unit. Typically, they would mount to the corners of the unit and that panel will be able to be removed for access to the unit itself. It will minimize the area and a minimal amount of area would be added on top of the roof to screen the unit. Mr. Lance asked if the fencing would be a duplicate of what is currently in place. Mr. Wilson could not answer that question and deferred to Ms. Ensign. Ms. Kathy Ensign, administrator, Villa St. Joseph, Rosewood, shared some of the history of Villa St. Joseph and the service they provide in the state of Kansas. In the late 1980's, the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet, a Catholic order of sisters who had sponsored healthcare in the Kansas City, Missouri, area for over 100 years, were asked by healthcare partners and community members to expand their services into Kansas by providing personal care and nursing facility care for the elderly. The site at 119th Street and Rosewood in Overland Park was selected and Villa St. Joseph was constructed with the opening of the facility on August 28, At that time, Villa St. Joseph was duly licensed as a Medicaid and Medicare provider to further the sister's mission to care for the poor and sick in the community. Villa St. Joseph was originally built as a 120-bed facility with an emphasis on care being for those in need of long-term care. At the time of construction, a plan to increase the number of beds by 24 was approved by the City of Overland Park. The increase in beds was determined not to be completed at that time. As the years have passed and healthcare needs of prospective residents have changed, fewer residents are now being admitted for long-term care stays. As more supportive services are now available in the community and available to individuals, and missions to long-term care facilities have decreased, while the need for short-term skilled nursing and wellness units has increased. In response to this change, Ms. Ensign stated that Villa St. Joseph had continued to provide long-term care services in the existing facility and attempted to recognize areas and renovate areas of the facility for shorter term resident stays, or for those who planned to return back to the community where they lived in either assisted living or independent homes. Ms. Ensign stated that residents who plan to stay short-term or return back into the community desire distinct parts of the facility for their care. As a result, they were

13 Page 13 proposing the 16-bed addition to Villa St. Joseph, which would allow those of their community the ability to receive critical care in an environment with the needed tools to achieve their highest level of practical function. The proposed addition would offer those in need of care, following a hospital stay, the ability to enter the proposed facility through an entrance where only short-term residents would reside. The rooms in this addition will be private suites and provide the advanced equipment needed to assist these residents and meet their highest potential for function based on their individual diagnoses. The proposed unit will provide an area for those in need of bariatric care, which would include ceiling lifts for safer transfer of residents and provide for the safety of the staff. This need has been expressed by the community. Ms. Ensign noted that aquatic therapy would also be offered for the rehabilitation of residents who are admitted following orthopedic procedures and other various medical conditions that require the use of non-stress therapy. A community wellness program is scheduled to be developed. In this unit, advance teaching for strengthening, fall prevention, and maintenance of other functional abilities would be offered. The unit would be staffed by full-time, specialized personnel in the areas of speech therapy, physical therapy, and occupational therapy. The same level of expertise will be offered in nursing services to assist prospective residents with new diagnosis, training each of them how to care for their individual needs, and to assist them to be able to return back into their community home. Another service that is in high demand requires that piped-in oxygen be offered in the new addition. Ms. Ensign said it was their goal to have a specialized respiratory therapy program, to assist residents with success in returning to their homes and prevent to a return back to a hospital setting. Ms. Ensign stated that the applicant appreciated the Planning Commission's consideration and support of the proposed addition, as they believe that the demands of the healthcare community required these additional services. The authorization of this addition would allow the ongoing viability of Villa St. Joseph and would allow them to continue to provide the quality of care for which they have been known for, as well as to provide the Sisters of St. Joseph, their sponsor, the ability to continue their mission in the state of Kansas. Chair Thacker asked if the applicant was in agreement with stipulations a through n. Mr. Wilson answered yes. Chair Thacker opened the public hearing on this item. Mr. Mel Kirk, representative, Hawthorne Terrace Homes Association Board of Directors, 5124 West 120th Terrace, Overland Park, stated he appreciated the opportunity to speak before the Planning Commission today. He stated when Hawthorne Terrace Homes Association first heard of this plan on June 10, 2013, they were upset and had concerns. Their primary worries pertained to the roofline, addition of the Heating Ventilation and Cooling units, the removal of trees, and what would happen with the fence. As mentioned earlier, his homes association maintained the fence for 25 years and had never received any outside support. They believe the fence involved an issue of fairness.

14 Page 14 Mr. Kirk was pleased to announce that before today's Planning Commission meeting, the homes association representatives met with the CEO of Carondelet Health Corporation, Mr. Stricter, and reached a gentleman's agreement that the applicant would plant more trees along the property line that separated Villa St. Joseph from the neighborhood and would assume the responsibility to maintain and ensure a good fence for the next 25 years. He stated that the applicant provided the option of locating the fence on either property. He said that the homes association would have to discuss this and receive approval from all their members before a final decision is made. He expressed that the homes association appreciated the staff's work. After reading the City staff report, they were impressed that they had many of the same concerns and had done their best to address those concerns. Mr. Flanagan asked Mr. Kirk if he was representative of the Hawthorne Terrace Homes Association and that the association was in agreement with the removal of the trees, on the assumption that more trees would be planted. He noted that the existing trees were older than 25 years, so it would certainly take time for the new trees to grow to the height they are today. Mr. Kirk confirmed that the homes association fully understood that issue. He pointed out that their concerns were very sincere, but they also respected the right of Villa St. Joseph to make improvements on their own property. In respecting that right, the homes association realized they would be required to give up some privacy, which is important to them. They want to make sure that eventually there are enough trees along the south property line and eventually a nice, high quality privacy fence is installed. Over the years between those two things, they will increasingly receive more privacy. They are willing to concede other difficulties if those things are accomplished and the applicant cooperates. Mr. Flanagan said the City would make sure that happened. Mr. Flanagan asked Mr. Kirk if the homes association and Villa St. Joseph agreed to install a new fence. The existing fence would be removed and a new fence would be installed. Mr. Kirk clarified that those details were yet to be determined, but Villa St. Joseph had committed to a new fence and the homes association decided they wanted it. It was his understanding that Villa St. Joseph would continue to maintain and pay the insurance on the existing fence, or replace the fence with a new one. The homes association would not give definite authorization until their membership is consulted and they come up with a final decision. Mr. Flanagan asked if the homes association wanted a taller fence installed. Mr. Kirk replied that they would like a seven foot fence that would be more in tune to privacy. The current fence is six feet tall, but the upper portion is lattice. He classified it more as a neighborhood fence than a privacy fence. It is the hope of the homes association residents that the privacy fence will be improved and more trees are added so as years go by, their privacy would be improved. In conclusion, Mr. Kirk said that he did not think there could be anything done about the fact that when this addition is made the activity level and many other aspects of the project would be detrimental to the neighborhood. He said Villa St. Joseph had their rights and are respected. If they follow-through on the commitment made to the homes association this afternoon, he did not believe there would be any organized resistance to the plan on the part of the residents affected. There are 71 residences in the homes association and 41 of them are within 200 feet of the property line. Mr. Flanagan referred to the present fence and said when he walked the fence line the other day, he was able to look right onto people's decks. He suggested installing a

15 Page 15 more private and taller fence. He believed the homes association would have a lot of control over the type of fence that was eventually installed. Mr. Kirk confirmed that the applicant committed that would be the case. He was confident they were honorable people. They spoke directly with Mr. Stricter. With no further public comment, Chair Thacker declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Flanagan asked if it would be possible to include a stipulation that the trees would be added. He felt a stipulation should be added for the new fence so it was documented. Mr. Gooch replied that the exact number of trees was still undetermined. The stipulation could state that additional shade trees were required along the south property line and would be determined at the time of the final development plan. Mr. Gooch noted that Mr. Wilson had commented earlier that they had come to an agreement with the residents to the south that the facility would replace and maintain the fence for 25 years. He said there would be no way for the City to review that in 25 years. He discussed this with Senior Assistant City Attorney Steve Horner and they wrote the following stipulation. 'Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a private agreement between Villa St. Joseph and Hawthorne Terrace subdivision providing for the construction and maintenance of the fence along the south property line.' Mr. Flanagan believed the stipulation read well and asked if it should be added at this time or at the time of the final development plan. Mr. Gooch replied it could be added at this time. Mr. Horner noted if the two additional stipulations were added to the final motion, the applicant would need to agree with the them. Mr. Troester commended the applicant and residents to the south. He noted that a lot of situations today involved entitlement issues, and he appreciated the fact that all parties involved recognized the people's rights without creating a big commotion. Mr. Reitzes felt the proposed plan was viable and fitted within the parameters of the lot. He felt it would be a welcome addition to the existing facility. He was in favor of the two additional stipulations. Chair Thacker confirmed with the applicant that they were in agreement with the addition of stipulations o and p. Mr. Reitzes moved to recommend to the Council approval of Revised Preliminary Plan for Villa St. Joseph Addition, Rosewood, with stipulations a through p. The motion was seconded by Mr. Troester and carried with a vote of 10 to 0. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT NO Wilshire by the Lake - Vicinity of the northeast corner of 159th Street and Quivira. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. (Continued) As noted in Staff Comments, this item was to be continued to the September 9, 2013, Planning Commission meeting.

16 Page 16 Mrs. Sorensen moved to continue Revised Preliminary Plat No , to the September 9, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Flanagan and carried with a vote of 10 to 0. FINAL PLAT NO Wilshire by the Lake Third Plat - Vicinity of the northeast corner of 159th Street and Quivira. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. (Continued) As noted in Staff Comments, this item was to be continued to the September 9, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. No motion was required. DFD CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY - Garage Deviation Valley View Drive. Application made by Dwayne Hodges. (Withdrawn) This item was withdrawn from the regular agenda. SIGN APPROVAL - Johnson County Community College College Boulevard. Application made by Johnson County Community College. (Approved) Mr. Scarbrough indicated that the applicant was requesting a sign approval to make alterations to three existing signs on the property of Johnson County Community College, located at College Boulevard. The three signs are located on the rightof-way advertising of the community college. Two of the existing signs are monument signs. One sign is located towards the north of the property near Oakmont and College Boulevard. The other monument sign is located on the east boundary of the property along South Campus Drive and Quivira. There is also an existing wall sign that they plan to change leading into the athletic fields near the north side of the campus on North Campus Road. A photograph of the existing sign located on the north property was presented to the Planning Commission. The sign is 180 square feet tall and positioned on an approximate 5-foot base. The applicant has proposed to keep the base and the size and structure of the sign the same, but replace the copy on the sign. The sign located on the east boundary is exactly the same, with the exception of the wording 'Quivira Road Entrance'. The sign located on the retaining wall near the athletic fields of the complex was presented as it exists today. A rendering of the new signage was presented. The applicant would like to change the sign colors. Mr. Scarbrough stated the lettering on the signs would change, as well as the school symbol. The wall sign is approximately 96 square feet in area and has individual channel letters, unlike the monument signs that will remain the same with the new sign. The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) states that campuses or religious facilities with a land area of greater than 10 acres can have greater signage if approved by the Planning Commission. Generally, monument and wall signs for college campuses less than 10 acres in size have a minimum size area of 50 square feet. If the Planning Commission found it appropriate for Johnson County Community College to have a greater sign package, they could grant approval. He said that