SEPTEMBER 14, 2015 OLATHE PLANNING COMMISSION

Transcription

1 SEPTEMBER 14, 2015 OLATHE PLANNING COMMISSION CASE LOCATIONS WARD 2 RZ ^_ WARD 4 P ^_ WARD 1 ^_ PR WARD 3 P PR ^_ ^_ ^_ P RZ ^_ P User: gradyrm Date: 09/09/2015 ^_ Case Applications Highway Arterial Street City of Olathe Lakes Stream

2 OLATHE PLANNING COMMISSION QUARTERLY WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 14, :30 PM TO 6:45 PM PLANNING COMMISSION CONFERENCE ROOM AGENDA 1. Kansas Open Meetings Act and Records Request-summary and overview by Legal Department (Chris Grunewald, Rrachelle Breckenridge) 2. Comprehensive Plan Update-summary of activities of Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, progress and schedule. (Amy and Dave) 3. Update to Unified Development Ordinance-discussion of possible amendments to UDO for annual update (Dan and Sean) 4. Project Update-discussion of development activity, final plan reviews and recent City Council actions and other items. If your schedule permits, please plan on a timely arrival so we can devote the time necessary to these important items.

3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY SEPTEMBER 14, :00 PM CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE QUORUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CONSENT AGENDA FINAL AGENDA 1. Standing approval of the Minutes as written from the August 24, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. Cases: SU , VAC , RZ , SU P : Request approval of a final plat for Hailey s Landing; a replat from three lots into a four-lot residential subdivision containing ± acres; located on the west side of Harrison Street, between Grace Street and Elm Street. Owner/ Applicant: Greg Prieb III/G.D. Properties and Investments, LLC Engineer: Harold Phelps/Phelps Engineering 3. P : Request approval of a minor plat for Townhomes at Fairfield Village, Twenty-Eighth Plat on 2 lots containing 0.18± acres; located in the vicinity of 167 th Street and Mur-Len Road. Owner/ Applicant: Engineer: Gary Jones/Fairfield Courts, LLC Douglas E. Ubben, Jr./Phelps Engineering, Inc. 4. PR : Request approval of a revised site development plan for Servpro containing 02.78± acres; located at South Keeler Street. Owner: Applicant: Engineer Jack and Clo Whitaker/Whitaker Properties, LLC Eric Hughes/Strickland Construction Co. Chris Hafner/Davidson Architecture and Engineering 5. PR : Request approval of a preliminary site development plan for 167 th and Lone Elm Industrial Park for 2 lots and 4 tracts containing 90.9± acres; located in the vicinity of 167 th Street and Lone Elm Road. Owner/ Applicant: Engineer: Frank Carter/ACCOSYS, Inc. Rich Muller/Van Trust Real Estate, LLC Daniel Finn/Phelps Engineering, Inc. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Olathe will provide reasonable accommodations for all public meetings. Persons requiring accommodations in attending any of our public meetings should contact the City Clerk s office at a minimum of 48 hours prior to the meeting.

4 6. P : Request approval of a final plat for Lone Elm Building I on one lot and two tracts containing ± acres; located on the northeast corner of 167 th Street and Theden Street. Owner: Applicant: Engineer: Frank Carter/ACCOSYS, Inc. Rich Muller/Van Trust Real Estate, LLC Daniel Finn/Phelps Engineering, Inc. 7. P : Request approval of a minor plat for Nottington Creek Replat on Lots 136, 137, 138 and Tract H Nottington Creek Third Plat, containing 1.82± acres; located in the vicinity of 177 th Terrace and Lone Elm Road. Owner/ Applicant: Engineer: Mike VanKeirsbilck/Mike VanKeirsbilck Construction, Inc. Harold A. Phelps/Phelps Engineering, Inc. REGULAR AGENDA - New Business PUBLIC HEARING 1. RZ : Request approval of a rezoning from County RUR to R-1 (Single Family Residential) for 1.97± acres; located at West 167 th Street. Owner/ Applicant: Thomas and Stacey Kelter PUBLIC HEARING 2. RZ : Request approval of a rezoning from C-2 and C-3 Commercial Districts to a R-4 Residential Medium Density Multi-Family and a Preliminary Development Plan for Ridgeview Senior Apartments, containing ± acres; located at the southeast corner of 116 th Street and Ridgeview Road. Owner: Applicant: Engineer: Larry Polsky/Norman & Elaine Polsky Family Charitable Foundation Neil Labelle/Dial Senior Apartment Development Group Lance Scott/CFS Engineers ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT

5 MINUTES Dan Fernandez, Planner II, made the following staff presentation: Planning Commission Meeting: August 24, 2015 City of Olathe City Planning Division Application: Location: Owner: Applicant: Staff Contact: SU Special use permit renewal for Olathe Solid Waste Transfer Station 1681 South Valley Road City of Olathe Kent Seyfried, City of Olathe, Public Works Department Dan Fernandez Site Area: 10.0± acres Proposed Use: Transfer Station Current Zoning: M-3 Land Use Zoning Comprehensive Plan Designation Site Industrial M-3 Industrial North Industrial MP-3 Industrial East Industrial M-3 Industrial South Industrial M-3 Industrial West Industrial M-3 Industrial 1. Comments: This is a request for renewal of a special use permit for the operation of a solid waste transfer station. The subject site is located at 1681 South Valley Road (one-quarter mile north of 151st Street and one-quarter mile west of Lone Elm Road, within the Lone Elm Industrial Park). The original special use permit (SU-14-94) for the transfer station was approved in Three renewals have been approved with five (5) year time limits in 2000, 2005 and Olathe Municipal Services is requesting another five (5) year renewal for the special use permit. Kent Seyfried, Solid Waste Manager, Olathe Municipal Services Department, has

6 SU PC Minutes cont. August 24, 2015 Page 2 submitted a letter explaining the transfer station operations and service agreement (see attached). The requested special use permit renewal does not involve any additional changes to the original site development plan or existing daily operations. The City will be changing solid waste disposal providers. Hamm Quarries, Inc. provided solid waste disposal under the previous special use permits. Deffenbaugh Industries will be the new disposal provider beginning in October The transfer station operates under a Solid Waste Transfer Station Permit issued by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) and the facility complies with all rules and regulations established by the State of Kansas. The facility has also been maintained according to all stipulations from the original special use permit and subsequent renewals. The applicant has notified the surrounding property owners via certified mail and posted a sign on the property per Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requirements. Staff has not received any correspondence for or against the proposal. 2. Details of Operation: The existing site is operated by the City of Olathe as a solid waste transfer station with an on-site scale house facility. The operation occurs within an enclosed building with each vehicle weighed at the scale house prior to entering the transfer facility building. With the new service agreement beginning in October 2015, solid waste will be delivered to the Deffenbaugh Industries Landfill in Shawnee, Kansas. The facility operates from 7:00 a.m. 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 7:00 a.m. to noon on Saturday. The facility implements a daily standard operating procedure to keep the surrounding roads clean. 3. Zoning, Uses and Character of Surrounding Area: The subject property is currently developed as a solid waste transfer station and is zoned M-3 (General Industrial District). Surrounding development consists of additional heavy industrial uses to the north (concrete plant) and west (quarry/demolition landfill), and other general industrial uses (office/warehouse) to the south and east. 4. Access/Streets: Transfer station traffic utilizes 149th Street and 151st Street for access to and from the industrial park. Direct access to the site is provided from two separate drives on Valley Road. 5. Utilities/Municipal Services: The property is located in the City of Olathe water and sewer service area. Utilities are available to the site. 6. Time Limit: Per Section of the UDO, special use permits have a time limit of five (5) years. The applicant has requested that the expiration date coincide with the Deffenbaugh agreement which would set an expiration date of September 30, 2020 for this application.

7 SU PC Minutes cont. August 24, 2015 Page 3 The Planning Commission can recommend shorter or longer time limits based on the circumstances of each case. 7. Conformance with Existing Plans and Policies: The subject property is currently developed as a solid waste transfer station and is zoned M-3 (General Industrial District). Surrounding development consists of additional heavy industrial uses to the north (concrete plant) and west (quarry/demolition landfill), and other general industrial uses (office/warehouse) to the south and east. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of SU with the following stipulations: a. The special use permit shall be approved for a five (5) year period and shall expire on September 30, b. The perimeter landscaping shall continue to be maintained in accordance with UDO requirements. Following staff presentation, Chairman Harrelson opened up the meeting to questions from commissioners: Chairman Harrelson: Any commissioner have a question? This is a special use permit request, and it is for how long? Mr. Fernandez: For five years. Chairman Harrelson: Is there anyone wishing to speak in support of this item? Kent Seyfried, Solid Waste Manager, City of Olathe, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Seyfried: As Dan mentioned, this is another renewal. It has been a successful operation for the City, a key component of our solid waste system in Olathe. We request your approval. Chairman Harrelson: Do you work at the facility? Mr. Seyfried: I m the division manager. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions? Comm. Freeman: I know we re looking at this area for several different long-term uses. With this location, the five-year limit, do you see that as part of normal business going forward, or have there been any consideration of, if a change is requested, what that would look like? Mr. Seyfried: We do not look to change. The location is, even though you consider it on the west side, it s pretty centrally located for Olathe. It keeps our trucks on the routes longer by being in that sort of central location, so it is ideal for us. It is an industrial area, so we don t have neighbor issues. There s not been a complaint on the facility in the 20 years that I ve been here. Chairman Harrelson: Any other questions? Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this item? Seeing or hearing none, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? Seeing

8 SU PC Minutes cont. August 24, 2015 Page 4 or hearing none, I ll ask the Commission if there are additional comments, or a motion to close the public hearing? Motion by Commissioner Rinker, seconded by Commissioner Horner, to close the public hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Chairman Harrelson: Any other comments? Comm. Freeman: I understand this area is industrial in nature. Long term, I know we re looking at this entire area for the City s planning. I think five years is appropriate at this point in time, but perhaps in the future, I d be interested in learning more about other options, and if there was a time period that might be a better fit. Motion by Commissioner Rinke, seconded by Commissioner Vakas, to approve SU , with the following stipulations: a. The special use permit shall be approved for a five (5) year period and shall expire on September 30, b. The perimeter landscaping shall continue to be maintained in accordance with UDO requirements. The roll being called, the result was as follows: Aye: Fry, Freeman, Davis, Nelson, Rinke, Vakas, Horner, Harrelson (8) No: (0) Motion carried 8-0.

9 MINUTES Dan Fernandez, Planner II, made the following staff presentation: Planning Commission Meeting: August 24, 2015 City of Olathe City Planning Division Application: VAC Vacation of waterline easement at South Black Bob Road (Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church of Olathe) Location: Owner: Applicant/ Engineer: Staff Contact: South Black Bob Road Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church of Olathe Phelps Engineering, Inc., Judd D. Clausen Dan Fernandez, Planner II 1. Comments: The following is a request to vacate an existing waterline easement at Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church of Olathe, located at South Black Bob Road. The applicant is requesting to vacate a 10 x approximately 90 section of easement located directly east of the existing building. The existing waterline has been relocated and a new easement dedicated due to the church addition currently under construction. The easement is being vacated since this portion of the easement will no longer contain a water line. 2. Public Notice: The applicant mailed the required public notification letters to surrounding properties within 200 feet per Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requirements. Staff has not received any concerns regarding the proposed easement vacation. 3. Utilities: The property is located in the City of Olathe water and sewer service areas. The Public Works Department has reviewed the exhibit for the right-of-way vacation and recommends approval as shown. 4. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the vacation of the waterline easement (VAC ) as described and shown in the survey exhibit.

10 VAC PC Minutes cont. March 9, 2015 Page 2 Following staff presentation, Chairman Harrelson opened up the meeting to questions from commissioners: Chairman Harrelson: Are there any questions from commissioners? Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this item? Judd Claussen, Phelps Engineering, 1270 North Winchester, Olathe, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Claussen: This is a pretty routine item. The reason for this water line vacation is because the church did an addition onto the east side of their church. The water line that existed is being vacated because it was in conflict with that addition. The water line was relocated out and around it. That project has been completed and the easement has been granted, so this easement is no longer needed. With that, I ll stand for questions. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this item? Is there anyone wishing to speak in favor of this item? Seeing or hearing one, are there additional comments, or a motion to close the public hearing? Motion by Commissioner Horner, seconded by Commissioner Davis, to close the public hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Chairman Harrelson: Are there additional comments, or a motion? Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Vakas, to approve VAC , per the following staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the vacation of the waterline easement (VAC ) as described and shown in the survey exhibit. The roll being called, the result was as follows: Aye: Fry, Freeman, Davis, Nelson, Rinke, Vakas, Horner, Harrelson (8) No: (0) Motion carried 8-0.

11 MINUTES City of Olathe City Planning Division Dan Fernandez, Planner II, and Celia Duran, City Engineer, made the following staff presentation: Planning Commission Meeting: August 24, 2015 Application: Location: Owner Applicant: Engineer: Staff Contact: RZ : Rezoning from R-3 District to C-3 District and preliminary development plan for QuikTrip The northeast corner of Old US-56 Highway and Parker Street Hugo and Libby Valiente QuikTrip, Truitt Priddy Darla Holman, Holman Engineering Dan Fernandez, Planner II Current Zoning: R-3 Proposed Zoning: C-3 Site Area: Platted: 2.12± acres No Proposed Use: Convenience Store/Gas Station Plan Olathe Land Use Category Existing Use Current Zoning Site Design Category Building Design Category Site Transit Oriented Development Center Apartments R-3 (Proposed C-3) 4 D North South East Mixed-use Residential Transit Oriented Development Center Transit Oriented Development Center Single-family homes R-1 N/A N/A Vacant M-2 N/A N/A Apartments R-3 N/A N/A West Industrial Bank (vacant) C-2 N/A N/A 1. Comments: The applicant requesting a rezoning of the subject property from R-3 (Residential Low-Density Multi-family District) to C-3 (Regional Center Commercial District). The subject property was rezoned to R-3 in June There are 14 apartment

12 RZ PC Minutes cont. August 24, 2015 Page 2 buildings at the complex with 128 total units. This rezoning would result in the removal of the 5 westernmost apartment buildings with 56 units. These apartment units were constructed in approximately The proposed development includes a 5,773 square foot QuikTrip convenience store and a canopy with 10 fuel dispensers. The facility would be similar to the QuikTrip on 119 th Street, east of Ridgeview Road in Ridgeview Falls. 2. Site Conditions: As stated, the rezoning would result in the removal of five of the two story apartment buildings. Nine apartment buildings will remain east of the QuikTrip site. 3. Neighborhood Meeting / Public Notices: A neighborhood meeting was held on Tuesday, June 30 th, with notice sent to residents in accordance with UDO According to the applicant, no one objected to the application. There were questions and concerns regarding the traffic on the surrounding streets as well as questions about the scope of the project. A copy of the minutes from the neighborhood meeting was provided by the applicant, and is attached. The applicant has provided a postcard from a resident supporting the project and staff has received one call from a neighboring business owner opposed to the application. Notice of the public hearing was published in the newspaper, and the applicant has provided affidavits and receipts certifying that signs were posted and letters mailed in accordance with the Kansas Statutes and City of Olathe regulations regarding public notice of rezoning applications. 4. Zoning Requirements: a. Dimensional Standards: The project meets the applicable dimensional standards for the C-3 District. The building at its highest point is 22 feet which is shorter than the maximum height of 40 feet for this district. The actual setbacks for the building are as follows: the front yard is approximately 145 feet (minimum 40 feet); the north side yard is 71 feet (minimum 10 feet); the south side yard is approximately 74 feet (minimum 10 feet); and the rear yard is 77 feet (10 feet). The parking/paving areas do not meet the setback requirement of 15 feet from the street right-of-way for this zoning district. Parts of the parking area on the south and west property lines do not meet the setback requirement. The parking lot setbacks on these sides range from 0.25 feet to 10.5 feet. These reduced setbacks are due to the extensive KDOT right-of-way of Old US 56 Highway. Staff supports the reduction in the parking lot setbacks as the right-of-way requirements at this location are not typical. The parking area on the north side of the property will meet the setback requirement with the dedication of a street easement instead of right-of-way when the property is platted. b. Open Space: For C-3 Districts, the minimum requirement of open space can be reduced to 10% with higher building design and increased Category 1 materials. The building contains several architectural features and is well above the required 70% Category 1 material requirement on the primary elevations. The submitted plans show 20.1% open space for the proposed development which meets this requirement. 5. Development Requirements:

13 RZ PC Minutes cont. August 24, 2015 Page 3 a. Access/Streets: A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was conducted for this proposed commercial development recommending the following driveways: Driveway #1 right in/right out only on Dennis, 185 feet east of Parker Street Driveway #2 full access driveway on Dennis, 315 ft. east of Parker Street Driveway #3 right in only on K-7/Parker Street, 290 feet south of Dennis Driveway #4 right in/right out only on K-7/Old 56 Highway, 320 feet east of Lone Elm Road Staff has worked with the applicant to accommodate access on adjacent arterial streets in order to allow development of this site. The applicant has agreed to construct a right turn lane on K-7/Parker Street at Dennis. The City will relocate the traffic signal prior to construction of the right turn lane since this segment of K- 7/Parker is included as a future project in the City s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Additionally, the applicant will be required to construct a westbound left turn lane at Driveway #2. The driveways on K-7 require the Kansas Department of Transportation s (KDOT) approval since they are connected to a State Highway. KDOT has reviewed the site plan and proposed accesses and has the following comments: Driveway #3 is not allowed due to its proximity to two adjacent intersections. Driveway #4 will be allowed if the following conditions are met: The entrance needs to accommodate trucks. The entrance should be moved as far east as reasonable to allow maximum separation between the entrance and the intersection of K- 7/Parker and Old 56 Highway. KDOT requires that the entrance be outside the limits of the westbound to northbound right turn lane. Measures should be implemented to reduce or mitigate conflicts between the entrance and K-7 traffic, including: o o Provided save access for southbound exiting drivers who want to turn west onto K-7 and then south onto Lone Elm Road. Discouraging or physically prevented eastbound K-7 traffic from turning left into Driveway #4. Revised plans addressing these concerns must be submitted to KDOT before final approval. Dennis Avenue currently has existing bike lanes on the north and south side of the street. It is recommended that the existing bike lane shall be restriped as part of the traffic improvements. b. Parking: The UDO requires one space per 250 square feet of building area for a convenience store with gas sales which would require a total of 24 parking spaces. The plans show 68 parking spaces which meets the requirement. The final development plan shall include a photometric plan for parking lot lighting in accordance with the UDO requirements. c. Landscaping/Screening: The landscape plan shows a variety of trees and shrubs planted around the perimeter and within the interior of the site. However, due to the extensive right-of-way the applicant is requesting an exception to the landscape setback requirement on the north, west and south property lines. The plans show a

14 RZ PC Minutes cont. August 24, 2015 Page 4 10 foot landscape buffer on the north side where a 15 foot buffer is required. Portions near the right-of-way on the west and south sides have a zero setback where 10 feet is required. Due to the shape of the site and the right-of-way, staff supports the reduction in landscape setback. The development is subject to Landscape Buffer Type 3 on the east side of the property which abuts an R-3 zoned district. A Type 3 buffer requires a 20 foot wide buffer, trees and shrubs planted within the buffer, and a minimum 6 foot high wall or berm. The proposed buffer meets these requirements, including having both a 6 foot double sided fence and a berm. The plan also includes parking lot screening with rows of shrubs along Dennis Avenue, Parker Street and Old US-56. Due to the underground storage tanks on the west side of the property, the plan does not meet the parking/paving screening requirement along the west parking area. The applicant is requesting an exception to the parking/pavement screening requirement and has also planted additional shrubs in other locations throughout the site. Also, part of the screening on Old US- 56 Highway is located in the street right-of-way. The applicant will need approval from K-DOT to plant the landscaping in the right-of-way. The project meets the minimum required foundation landscape requirement of 25% on the primary elevations. The plan also shows landscaping within the parking lot islands and around the dumpster enclosure and utility box. The elevations show that all roof-top units will be screened from public view by a metal screening system. d. Utilities and Stormwater: The subject property is located within the City of Olathe water and sewer service areas. There are existing utilities to the site. 6. Site Design Standards: The subject property is to be rezoned to C-3 and the recommended composite design standards are Site Design Category 4 (UDO ) and Building Design Category D (UDO ). The applicant has submitted a response letter to address the specific composite design requirements for this development (see attached). Composite Site Design (Category 4) Outdoor Amenity Space Parking Pod Size Pedestrian Connectivity Detention and Drainage Features as Amenities Proposed Design Development has less than 65% open space and is on less than 4 acres The proposed parking lot has a total of 68 spaces. New sidewalks along Dennis Avenue and Parker Street; pedestrian crosswalks within the interior of the site Underground detention The following is staff s analysis of the composite site design requirements.

15 RZ PC Minutes cont. August 24, 2015 Page 5 a. Outdoor Amenities The requirement does not apply to the proposed QuikTrip since it is for developments with more than 65% open space or larger than 4 acres. b. Parking Pod Size Maximum parking pod size is 80 spaces. There are 68 spaces proposed on the plan. c. Pedestrian Connectivity/Bike Lane New sidewalks will be constructed along Dennis Avenue and Parker Street with this project. There will be stamped concrete walkways across the drive aisles and the applicant will need to include stamped concrete walkways within the interior of the site with the final development plan. It is recommended that the existing bike lane shall be restriped as part of the traffic improvements. d. Drainage Amenities The proposed development does not consist of any open drainage or detention ponds. An underground detention system will be utilized. 7. Building Design Standards Composite Building Design (Category D) Horizontal Articulation Vertical Articulation Focal Point Elements Façade Expression Building Materials Proposed Design Wall offsets with canopy and awnings Variation in height as viewed from the street Tower or raised parapet element Canopy, awnings, ornamental cornice Primary Façades: - West (front) elevation meets Category 1 building materials (90%) - North elevation meets Category 1 materials (91%) - South elevation meets Category 1 materials (90%) Secondary Façade: - East elevation meets Category 1 materials (98%) a. Horizontal Articulation The proposed building design includes six different horizontal planes for the wall offsets. The west elevation also has a canopy and awnings. The south and north elevations also includes canopies. b. Vertical Articulation The primary facades include roof parapets that are 6 feet above the roofline which meets the requirement of variation in height as viewed from the street. Also, the west elevation (the main entrance) has six different wall planes with varying heights. c. Focal Point Element The primary elevations have tower elements that produce variations in building height of at least 4 feet and project more than 1 foot from the primary façade plane. The tower on the west elevation varies 6 feet from the roofline and extends 8 4 from the primary façade plane. The towers on the north and south elevations vary 4 feet from the roofline and extend 2 8 from the primary façade plane.

16 RZ PC Minutes cont. August 24, 2015 Page 6 d. Façade Expression Tools The proposed building includes storefront glass, canopies, awnings and an ornamental cornice on all three primary elevations. The percentage of glass on each of these elevations exceeds the minimum of 25 percent required in the Category D Design Guidelines. The building also includes foundation landscaping. e. Building Materials - The proposed building would be constructed of brick, porcelain tile, glass and aluminum cornices. West Façade (Primary) North Façade (Primary) South Façade (Primary) Category 1 Category 2 Requirement (Category 1 / 2) Brick/Tile/Glass (90%) Brick/Tile/Glass (91%) Brick/Tile/Glass (91%) Aluminum (10%) Aluminum (9%) Aluminum (9%) 70% / 30% 70% / 30% 70% / 30% East Façade (Secondary) Brick/Tile (83%) Aluminum/Metal (17%) 60% / 40% The canopy covering the gas dispensers is to be constructed of brick columns with an aluminum cover. 8. Signage/Illuminated Banding The applicant is requesting exceptions for the proposed monument signs and illuminated banding on building and gas canopy. The plans show two monument signs on the property. One is located at the access drive onto Old US-56 and an additional monument sign located along Parker Street. Developments are only allowed two monument signs if the property is greater than 5 acres. This project is located on a lot that is 2.12 acres. Also, the signs need to be located at least 10 feet from the property line as required by the UDO. The sign along Old US-56 is located on the property line and the sign along Parker Street has a three foot setback. The applicant is requesting an exception to the number of monument signs permitted and to the setback requirement. Staff recommends only 1 monument sign per UDO requirements. Illuminated banding is considered an attention attracting device and is not permitted by the UDO. The plans show illuminated banding on the canopies of the building and on the gas canopy. The applicant is requesting an exception to allow the illuminated banding. 9. Rezoning Analysis The following are criteria for considering applications as listed in Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section and staff findings for each item: A. The conformance of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted planning policies.

17 RZ PC Minutes cont. August 24, 2015 Page 7 The future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as Transit Oriented Development. The proposed development is compatible with this future land use designation which includes high intensity commercial uses. B. The character of the neighborhood including but not limited to: land use, zoning, density (residential), architectural style, building materials, height, structural mass, siting, open space and floor-to-area ratio (commercial and industrial). The surrounding area consists of a variety of uses including a gas station. Residential single-family with standard size lots is located to the north; multi-family apartments are to the east; a bank on property zoned commercial is to the west along with a gas station to the northwest; and Old US-56 Highway and industrial zoned property is to the south. The proposed development meets the requirements for architectural style, building materials, height and open space of the proposed zoning. C. The zoning and uses of nearby properties and the extent to which the proposed use would be in harmony with such zoning and uses. The proposed zoning and development would be compatible with the existing zoning north of this area. There are nearby commercial developments including a gas station and the site will include an adequate buffer between the commercial development and the existing residential to the east of the property. D. The suitability of the property for the uses to which it has been restricted under the applicable zoning regulations. The property has been zoned multi-family and improved with apartments for many years. However, the location abutting Old US 56 Highway, Parker (K-7) and Dennis Ave. is highly impacted by traffic and might not be deemed a highly desirable multifamily site. A rezoning to commercial is appropriate for this location. E. The length of time the property has remained vacant as zoned. The property is not vacant and is improved with five apartment buildings. F. The extent to which approval of the application would detrimentally affect nearby properties. Approval of the rezoning application is not anticipated to detrimentally affect any nearby properties with the improvements for traffic and landscaping. The remaining apartments will have the required amount of parking for their use and buffer between the apartments and gas station meets the UDO requirement. G. The extent to which the proposed use would adversely affect the capacity or safety of that portion of the road network influenced by the use or present parking problems in the vicinity of the property.

18 RZ PC Minutes cont. August 24, 2015 Page 8 With construction of the required improvements to Dennis Avenue and Parker Street, the proposed use would not be anticipated to adversely affect parking or road network capacity or safety in the vicinity. The proposed development will have adequate parking on-site and the remaining apartments will also have the required amount of parking. H. The extent to which the proposed use would create air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution or other environmental harm. The site has been reviewed by stormwater engineering staff and is not expected to create excessive pollution or environmental harm of any type. I. The economic impact of the proposed use on the community. The proposed development will generate new sales and real estate tax revenue and will create new job opportunities. 10. Staff Recommendation A. Staff recommends approval of RZ for the following reasons: (1) The proposed development complies with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. (2) The rezoning to the C-3 district meets the Unified Development Ordinance criteria for considering zoning applications. (3) As stipulated, the proposed development complies with the development and performance standards of the C-3 zoning classification. B. Staff recommends approval of RZ with the following stipulations to be included in the rezoning ordinance: (1) A final plat shall be approved prior to the issuance of a stormwater or building permit. (2) All applicable street and traffic signal excise fees shall be payed prior to recording the plat. (3) A final development plan application shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division prior to submitting for building permits. (4) The convenience store and fuel canopy shall not include illuminated banding. (5) The public street improvements shall be designed to City standards and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. (6) A landscaping plan signed and sealed by a registered Landscape Architect in the State of Kansas shall be submitted with the final development plan.

19 RZ PC Minutes cont. August 24, 2015 Page 9 (7) Stamped concrete pedestrian crosswalks within the interior of the site shall be included with the final development plan. (8) A photometric plan shall be submitted with the final development plan showing the average foot-candles in compliance with the UDO. Cutsheets of the building and pole lighting shall also be submitted. (9) One monument sign shall be permitted for the development. The sign shall comply with UDO Chapter (10) Separate sign permits are required for all signage. (11) Additional shrubs/landscaping at the corner of Old US-56 Highway and Parker Street shall be added to provide screening for the parking/paved area per UDO requirements. Landscaping in the street right-of-way for Old US-56 Highway shall be approved by K-DOT. (12) Due to the tight constraints of the site, the parking/paving setbacks shall be reduced and range from.25 feet to 10.5 feet. (13) Due to the tight constraints of the site, the landscape setbacks shall be reduced and range from 0 feet to 10 feet. (14) As per KDOT, Driveway #4 will be modified to: a. accommodate semi-trucks without encroaching on adjacent lanes b. the raised island will be built outside the limits of the existing right turn lane c. provide mitigation to reduce conflicts between exiting drivers and K-7 traffic (15) A KDOT access permit for Driveway #4 is required prior to final approval of this plan. (16) A westbound left turn lane will be required at Driveway #2. (17) A northbound right turn lane shall be constructed by the applicant at the intersection of K-7/Parker and Dennis following relocation of the traffic signal by the City. (18) Driveway #3 is not permitted. The final development plan shall not have any access onto Parker/K-7. (19) All street improvements shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. (20) It is recommended that the existing bike lane shall be restriped as part of the traffic improvements. Following staff presentations, Chairman Harrelson opened up the meeting to questions from commissioners: Chairman Harrelson: Any questions for staff?

20 RZ PC Minutes cont. August 24, 2015 Page 10 Comm. Nelson: Regarding traffic, obviously that s a major concern for this project, especially with the great job that QuikTrip does. They design buildings well, they market well, and they have great things to bring to the site. My greatest concern is related to the exit from the property. Any traffic that s heading south on Parker or intending to go east on Old 56, the only access they re going to have is through what we re calling Driveway #2, which is the northeast driveway there. So, I m concerned about the amount of traffic that we re forcing to take a left turn onto Dennis from that single access point. Or, if they re heading west on Old 56, they re going to turn right and go down to Weaver Street, and then go down. So, we re going to have more congestion on Weaver Street. So, I m concerned about the movement out of there. It s great for everyone heading north, or great for everyone heading west on Old 56. I m really concerned for everyone trying to head east on Dennis and south on Parker. Can you speak to that? To me, I see a great concern for bottlenecking out of that property, which could force people to rush a little quicker than they should, for safety sake. Ms. Duran: As you know, QuikTrip is successful, so there is a lot of traffic generated in the morning and afternoon. Ideally, a site like this, we provide full access at all points. We talked extensively with KDOT on trying to provide a left-bound out on Old 56, and thought with the speeds and the proximity to the intersection, that wasn t a good idea. So, we don t feel like Parker is a good idea, so, the full access off of Dennis There are two accesses in and out. You re right; one goes eastbound, and the full one is westbound. Traffic is going to have to be reasonable and wait their turn. To develop the site, this is the only way in and out. We ve looked at the site, we ve looked at the trip generation, and with the peak hours, you know, this will be reasonable. Also, when we look at K-7, we will look down at Dennis. Right now, we re really restricted by right-of-way. So, we will look at what we can do, and if there are any improvements we can do on Dennis, we will do that now. Comm. Rinke: I believe the KDOT right-of-way along Old 56 probably dates back to when that used to be an overpass and diamond interchange. Do you have any reason to believe that KDOT would ever have use for that much right-of-way in the future? Ms. Duran: We ve talked to KDOT about that right-of-way. We re doing the transportation master plan right now, and that s one of the intersections we re looking at. We ve looked at some different options there. I think that s probably more access than they ll ever need, and we did talk to them, you know, do you want to relinquish. But, they re not really ready to until we have a proposed design there. We ve also talked about different options with K-7, whether the City has more access control. That would allow us to look at redesign of that intersection, too. So, yes, we re currently looking at it, and they re probably not going to use that much right-ofway. But, right now, they re not ready to relinquish that. Comm. Rinke: Actually, this probably feeds into a question for Dan. I was curious if there was any attempt for the applicant to maybe straighten out that southern line so they could pick up that landscaping that will be in the Mr. Fernandez: That southern property, move it to the south? Comm. Rinke: Yes, move it to the south a little bit. Mr. Fernandez: That was brought up. As Celia mentioned, KDOT is not ready to relinquish that right-of-way just yet. Comm. Rinke: I know one of the issues is the monument signs, and it seems like that southwest corner would have been the logical place to put a monument sign. But, there doesn t appear to be a location for that with the current plan. Mr. Fernandez: That would be ideal, but again, KDOT is not ready to relinquish any of their right-of-way.

21 RZ PC Minutes cont. August 24, 2015 Page 11 Comm. Rinke: I had a question on the illuminating banding. Is there difference between what s being proposed on this site versus what was approved by the City Council on 119 th Street? Mr. Fernandez: No. It s exactly the same. Comm. Rinke: Okay. If I recall, I think we went along with staff s recommendation to stipulate against that on 119 th Street and the City Council overrode our decision. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Chairman Harrelson: Any other questions? It appears that even though we are meeting the parking setbacks, we ve got a lot of setback. It s got to be 150 feet to 56 Highway from where cars will park on the south, and even on the west, up against the property line there. You ve got to have at least 50 feet to the street there, too, do we not? So, even though we don t technically meet the property line setbacks, the property line is going to be Mr. Fernandez: That s correct. That s why staff was recommending approval of those exceptions. There s a lot of right-of-way. Chairman Harrelson: There s a lot of space there. Even though it technically touches the property line, or comes close to it in several places. Okay. That s all I have. Is the applicant here to present? Truitt Priddy, 1120 North Industrial Boulevard, Euless, TX, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Priddy: I m a real estate project manager for QuikTrip. We are very excited about this site. We ve performed due diligence for some time now in regards to site selection and development. I d like to start this off by thanking staff. They have been miraculous to work with. They have collectively and diligently worked with us, KDOT, our third-party traffic engineer, Tom Fulton, and they ve really stayed in touch with this project, where the product you see up there would not be possible without them. So, I thank them. As I mentioned, we re very excited about this site. It s the same as the one on 119 th, or very similar. As far as the illuminated banding, we do prefer to have it. We don t think of it as an attention-grabbing device any longer. What it has become to us is really a brand. What we feel from customer surveys is that it makes people feel safe because we try to make it the same. So, without that red band, it s just not as safe. It s darker, etc. So, that s what we feel there. With all the stipulations that staff has set forth, we are comfortable with. We would ask for illuminated bands, and then, the monument sign is probably the only one that really stands out to us at this site due to the large amount of right-of-way. On Old 56, we have roughly 120 feet from our southwest property line to the road. So, realistically, we want people to be able to turn into our site at the Old 56 driveway and not pass us. If we reduce the monument down to one, perhaps, we would then have one on Old 56, and it would relinquish all of our southbound drivers on Parker where they could miss us, as well. So, the site is set up very uniquely to where we re not just throwing two monuments out there because we feel we want signage. It s really strategically placed for us. I assume you re going to have questions about that. But, as mentioned, staff has been wonderful to work with. You all know who QuikTrip is. We have a few stores out there, so I m going to be brief and just stand for questions. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions? I might ask about KDOT. I know we ve had continuations because of the discussions with KDOT. Do you have approval from them for the Entry #4? Or just an agreement in principle? Mr. Priddy: What they have provided us, along with Celia, is a letter pretty much stating the stipulations that they set forth in here for the traffic. So, once we supply them plans and apply for that permit meeting those stipulations, they will approve the permit.

22 RZ PC Minutes cont. August 24, 2015 Page 12 Chairman Harrelson: Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to come forward and speak in favor of this? Kate Forsythe, 500 South Troost, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Ms. Forsythe: I m a counselor at Westview Elementary School. I m here not to speak pro or con for the development. We re excited about having QuikTrip. But, my concerns have to do with the five buildings that are going to be torn down. I m here to advocate for the families. It s a unique situation. It s a small community of families. We have a real good working relationship with them, and we are concerned about what will happen to them. Many of the families in that apartment complex are in a unique situation. They work week to week, month to month, and it s difficult for them to have to make a transition to a new residence because they don t typically have first month s/last month s rent, much less a deposit. It s our concern that we really want to be kept in the loop in regard to what s happening so that we can support those families that may be displaced. A lot of families that are in this complex, 95 percent are on free or reduced lunch. Seventy-five percent are Hispanic, Spanish-speaking. Some of them are already identified under McKinney-Vento as homeless and are doubled up with other families. There s a possibility that this could create more families in those situations. So, it s important to us to be kept in the loop so that, if that does happen, we can help these families do what they need to do to keep some continuity and stay in one area. That s a problem a lot of times with this population, is lots of moving around. So, my concern is that we know what is going on, and when the time comes, that we can prepare them and help them and work with you guys as much as we can. Chairman Harrelson: I can tell you, if this item moves forward, it will go to City Council. We will announce at the end of this when this will go to City Council and you can watch the reaction of City Council. You can watch it on line, or even attend, if you like. Ms. Forsythe: Okay, thank you. Chairman Harrelson: Do we have anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of this item? Seeing or hearing none, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? I have three signed up. Faisal Asad, 951 South Parker, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Asad: Good evening, Commissioners. I live right in front of the QuikTrip. I own the 7-11 right there. QuikTrip is a good model, and they are definitely successful. We have been in that community for a long, long time. Customers know us, people know us, the school knows us. Just like any neighborhood store, we have tried to be a community partner. I m just asking you, you all know about this, that this is probably going to cost five other gas stations in this two-mile area to suffer huge losses. Within a mile and a half, there are five gas stations and C-stores. There is plenty of land where QuikTrip can go. Move down closer to I-35, or wherever. But, I mean, displacing all these people -? Just weighing the risk. I think a lot of trucks are going to move into this area from Old 56 Highway. That s going to be a safety issue. I just ask the Commission to consider this because it s definitely going to have an impact on a lot of small businesses that are out there. And the strip mall right behind me, there are many other businesses still in there. I m willing to take any questions. Chairman Harrelson: Are there any questions? Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to this item? Nils T. Siren, 204 South Troost, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments:

23 RZ PC Minutes cont. August 24, 2015 Page 13 Mr. Siren: I m glad the lady came from the school because I m of the same opinion. We have five buildings there. I have no idea how many people are going to be displaced, but we need low-income housing. We have enough gas stations in the area. I don t see any point in trying to displace five buildings full of people. There must be a couple hundred people in those five buildings. Those people are also the people that are buying stuff at the They used to bank at the Commerce Bank that was up there. They ve been going to the thrift stores. You re gradually sending them out. Plus, is there low-income housing available in the area? On top of that, we just took that school and spent a good chunk of money Westview and rebuilt that. It s a nice little school, and the Hispanics are big part of that. Largely, when you take down those five buildings, you ve probably moved out almost all Hispanics. I don t believe we ought to put the filling station in that spot, and just removing that housing without having some provision in the area for other low-income housing that s needed. That s it. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions? Mr. Siren: I don t know if anybody has been up to Westview School, but it s nice the way they rebuilt that place. You re knocking a lot of kids out of there when you take those five buildings. Chairman Harrelson: Mr. Fernandez, how many buildings are left -? Mr. Fernandez: There will be nine. Chairman Harrelson: Okay, so this would remove five, and there will be nine left. Mr. Siren: Well, I don t think they can move the people from the five into those nine. Chairman Harrelson: Well, you made a comment most of them, and it s a lot of buildings, no question, but it s only roughly one-third of the buildings that would be gone. Mr. Siren: Does anybody know of any plans for low-income housing in the area? Chairman Harrelson: I m not aware of that. We re here to hear the land use viability of the proposal, and that s our job here this evening. Beyond that, I don t know. The issue you re talking about is one of concern, obviously. Mr. Siren: Well, that s an awful busy corner to be sticking another filling station on it. Chairman Harrelson: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? Rao Chalasani, 202 North Parker Street, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Chalasani: My agenda is twofold. One is personal, and one is professional. The personal agenda is QuikTrip, the competition. Second, personal agenda is I was trying to buy some property in the area. I went to one property and there was an underground tank at one time there. And then, I tried to look at another property and there was an underground tank there. So, I dropped them both. Now, there s going to be more underground tanks that are going to come here, eventually, to buy this building, it s going to be a problem eventually when QuikTrip goes away. Like the other gentleman said, there s enough gas stations in that one-mile area. But, there may be enough for QuikTrip to be there. And I second the opinion of Mr. Nelson regarding that right-of-way onto Dennis because I have the same problem at my store at K-7 and Santa Fe. People coming in, when they try to go out, it s almost like boom. It happened to me. I can t count how many times that has happened. And when you re putting that spot there, that really puts a difficult situation for the trips. So, those are the two. The other thing. I approached Mr. Hugo [Valiente] regarding the property. I came to know about this last week. I asked if I could buy those five buildings, and instead of displacing them, keep them and continue my investment in the area. So, that s my professional and personal [inaudible].

24 RZ PC Minutes cont. August 24, 2015 Page 14 Chairman Harrelson: Any questions? Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to this item? Dennis Hancock appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Hancock: Right out my back door is where the old water tower used to be. When that water tower was first put up, there were pictures of it in every newspaper in Kansas. Just south of that area is where [inaudible] raiders went to Gardner to murder some people; went on to Lawrence to burn the town, burn women and children to death, and shoot unarmed people. So, there is a lot of historical significance to the area. That s just two things. I love the area. The view from that area is awesome. Of course, I live upstairs. I am concerned about whether or not QuikTrip would be, you know, they change their employees. They don t let them stay in one store, as I understand it I could be wrong but it is a cultural mix. There s at least 20 languages spoken in this area. We get along really good in that area. It s like a tea party guy found out that some of people from Laos that speak Thai had sons in service to our country, and they had been deployed overseas. We quickly had Evangelical Christians praying for the safe return of our Buddhist sons. This is my concern. With the smaller stores, you know, we get a mix of cultures, and we can understand each other. Whereas with big stores, I mean, I m not putting down Wal- Mart or QuikTrip, but it s harder to get people to mix that way. I think culturally, that is significant. That s my concern. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions? Thank you. Sylvia Siren, 200 South Troost, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Ms. Siren: My concern is also with the traffic. I work at Olathe Medical Center, so that s my everyday drive. As it is right now, it s already a rather congested area, especially when you have the two southbound lanes merging into one. I just see this as adding a lot more congestion in that area. I don t understand a lot of these maps, but when I live this every day and think, my gosh, a QuikTrip is going to be bringing in a lot of traffic. Are you really going to have the infrastructure there to allow for traffic to occur without a lot of accidents with people trying to get in and out quickly? Chairman Harrelson: Thank you. Qaisar Lateef, 802 West 56 Highway, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Lateef: I m just here to make a comment. I used to do business over there, but we went out of business. The reason we went out of business was because of so many gas station businesses in that area. Our property had become an eyesore for 56 Highway. My comment is only, allowing this property would create more eyesores on K-7 and 56 Highway. So, I just wanted you to consider that. Are you ready to have those eyesores on both? Right now, we have the O Reily building that is empty, and [inaudible] trying to get out. I m just wanting you to consider the bunch of eyesores by having this one business coming in K-7 and 56 Highway. Those are my comments. Chairman Harrelson: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to this item? Govanni Garcia, 20 Edgemere Court, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Garcia: My house is going to be the closest one to the So, I have nothing bad to say about QuikTrip. When you want to go to the restroom, where do you go? QuikTrip. [Laughter.] My driveway is going to be parallel to the number 2. There s more than just traffic issues. There s also community issues. I know Dennis because he works at that We ve been there for 16 years, so I ve known him for a long time. We know people personally in those five

25 RZ PC Minutes cont. August 24, 2015 Page 15 buildings, and because of their income, they don t know where they re going to go. So, they re going to be dumping all the traffic on Dennis. You know after living there for a while that there s always going to be traffic, but with QuikTrip, you go to QuikTrip because you want to be fast, in and out. There s not going to be time for people to be patient and wait for you to back out in that driveway. Also, there s a matter of privacy for us because we have that driveway open. We at least know our neighbors, the people in the apartments. We ve been there for a while. Everybody knows who we are. With this QuikTrip, there s shady people out there. You don t know what to expect. You don t know the privacy you can get. [Referring to map.] Also, we leave a lot of stuff out, like tools. Our life and our privacy is basically right here, and we don t want everybody to know our business. We don t want everybody who goes to QuikTrip, hey, they re having a party at that house, let s see if we can get some free booze, or something. I mean, for us, it s privacy. It s community. It s more personal for us than anything. And we were even here, when we first moved from Dallas, there was a water tower. We ve seen people come and go. We know when there s traffic coming because of the train. We are family. We are against it because of the location. There used to be a 7-11 in front of Shooter s. I mean, it s not for their best benefit to be there, but it s not to my benefit for them to be there, also. We re looking out for our best interests. Chairman Harrelson: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing or hearing none, I ll bring it back to the Commission for questions. Are there any questions that were brought up that we need to address? Mr. Clements: I don t show any in my notes. Chairman Harrelson: I don t either. Most are similar, those in opposition. Any comments from commissioners? Comm. Nelson: I d like to know if either the City or the private consultant would like to address some of the traffic issues that were raised. I know we ve heard from the City, but we ve not heard from QuikTrip s consultant. Tom Fulton, Senior Project Manager, Olsson Associates, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Fulton: I managed the traffic study for our group. I was taking some notes as we went forward. One of them ties into your comment. It seems to be that east entrance Drive #2. The concern is for folks turning out, making a left turn, and causing congestion within an intersection. What I can share with you, we estimated trips and we assigned them to every entrance. In this case, in the morning, we expect 87 left-turners to come out of there, making a left. At the same time, there are five making a right, which represents 10 percent that go east. During the PM peak hour and those are the two peaks we looked at 91 make a left turn, and six make a right turn. The level of service there is what we call Level Service A. We look at queuing to see what potential [inaudible] one car. So, that tells me, from the traffic side, that they have enough gaps to pull out there safely into the intersection. That s one of the main reasons why the two entrances that exist now, we recommend that they be shifted a little bit further east to get a little more separation from the [inaudible]. That s basically pure mathematics, good traffic engineering if you have the access, this is what you could expect. That was what I heard as a lot of the comments and questions. As far as the rest of the access points, they re all challenging, and that s why we recommended right-in/right-out in various locations. Comm. Nelson: On that Driveway #2, is that a three-lane drive? There s going to be a separate right, separate left, and a separate in?

26 RZ PC Minutes cont. August 24, 2015 Page 16 Mr. Fulton: We made a recommendation to separate the lefts and the rights because even though there are a few right-turners, those could hinder the left-turners. We need to make sure we separate those few so the lefts can get out easily. So, yes. Comm. Nelson: Is there potential that Driveway #1 interferes with Driveway #2? People are trying to avoid the left-turners, so they go to Driveway #1 and increase the traffic from the property itself, slowing down the exit from Driveway #2. Are you tracking? Mr. Fulton: Yes. We had a lot of thought on that same thing. Anytime you allow access, you re going to increase the potential for conflicts. In this case, there s two existing entrances. There s still two remaining. One of those has been restricted to a right-in/right-out. But more importantly, to your question Sure. There s going to be right-turners coming out of the other access. But, that actually helps offset this entrance drive #2. So Drive #1 will help some of the right-turners, indirectly causing some conflicts crossing over the ones that are coming out of Drive #2. It s a tough site. We believe that that helps separate some of the vehicles, too, and it helps the overall site work a little better. Comm. Freeman: So, Driveway #2 on the top left section of what we re seeing, which is actually the northeast part of the property, again, there s going to be an entrance at that point as well as the entrance to the west? Mr. Fulton: Yes. The entrance to the east is what we call full access. That s the furthest away from the signal. The entrance to the west is what we call right-in/right-out. We will not allow left turns to come in or leave. They can only make a right-in or a right-out at that first entrance. It s limited. Comm. Freeman: I m not a traffic engineer. I see it s a complex property. My concern isn t with the traffic study. My concern is, if this area continues to flourish and traffic increases, is this going to be a sustainable model? Have you done any studies around that? Mr. Fulton: Actually, we did several scenarios, and one of those was, I believe, a year 2040 scenario, looking 20 years out, plus. Basically, we found that if growth continues like it is, there s going to have to be some larger improvements done, mainly at the US 56 and Parker intersection, like what was brought up earlier. And it s coming out on the transportation master plan. Comm. Freeman: Hopefully we ll get KDOT to approve some [inaudible] by that point. Thank you. Chairman Harrelson: Any other questions? Comm. Vakas: I have a question for Mr. Clements. I just wanted to verify that we ve had no official comments from USD #233 with regards to impact on enrollment. Mr. Clements: No official comment, no. They are aware of the application. Chairman Harrelson: Anyone else? Okay, thank you. I guess the instruction for the Planning Commission is we can make comments now, continue to make comments, or close the public hearing, in which case, we can still make comments before we vote. We can continue to give our feedback about the case, or close the public hearing and move to a vote. Motion by Commissioner Vakas, seconded by Commissioner Davis, to close the public hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Chairman Harrelson: Any discussion on RZ ?

27 RZ PC Minutes cont. August 24, 2015 Page 17 Comm. Rinke: I appreciate the concerns of the neighbors and the neighboring business owners. But, looking at this from a pure land use perspective, this looks like an appropriate use for this site. The only other comment I would have is with regard to the stipulations. In light of the fact that City Council approved 119th Street with the illuminated banding, I would be in favor of eliminating stipulation #4. Comm. Fry: This body is here, as you ve heard tonight, to aid in the decision of, is this a good use for the land? The topics of opposition that I ve heard were neighboring businesses, traffic, and displacement. That includes the history, the community, the school. All of those are very big issues. Nothing to just not think about. I think it s very important to think about every single one of those. A lot of those issues are very much political, and that s really not the function of this body, unfortunately. We have to look at this somewhat objectively as the use for the land itself. I think every single comment that was made tonight was great, about what that piece of property means to each of you. I would stand with Commissioner Rinke, looking at this as a use for the land, that it s a great use for the land. That s where I stand. Comm. Nelson: Obviously, I ve had some concern about that particular access and exit area. I don t have the expertise to say what works and what doesn t work in that area, so I have to lean on other people. This is a situation where, from my perspective, I wrestle with the good of the city versus the good of the neighborhood. I think it s good for the city to have this property there, to have this accessibility, this resource there. Bu, I don t think it s great for the neighborhood. We re not asking to go from a lateral change of rezoning here. We re asking for a significant change in the use of the property. I look at the impact on the neighborhood, on the school, on businesses, and I think those are all meriting conversations, and I think those are all part of this equation. Where the politics begin, where the politics end, I agree with Dr. Fry on that, and I wrestle with where all that falls into place. Because this isn t a lateral decision of how the property is going to be used, I m actually going to oppose this tonight. Because, while I think it s good for the city, I think it harms the neighborhood in this particular situation. Would love to see a QuikTrip in this area. They have studies that say this is a great location for it, and I want to see them thrive. I just do have some concern about this particular location. Chairman Harrelson: Anyone else? Comm. Freeman: I ll add one comment. Everyone else has had a lot of great things that I agree with, so I m not going to repeat those. My only discussion was on the illumination of the building. Per the UDO, I d prefer to move as we did previously and go against that. I don t want to set a precedence from our body being objective of changing that, and let City Council change it if they see fit. That s my opinion. Chairman Harrelson: Anyone else? I would tell you that we are encouraged the Planning Commission to keep an open mind prior to moving forward. I was fairly certain that I would support this request, and I think I still probably will. But, this property has been an apartmentstyle property for over 50 years now. In the life of every property, there s always changes, and certainly 50 years is enough to expect that something would probably change at some point, whether it gets redeveloped as another apartment project. In my mind, that s still the owners right to choose what they choose to do with that property. I moved here in 1976 and that corner has changed tremendously since we moved in. We actually lived on the west side, and my parents still live on the west side of Olathe, not far from this corner. It s changed a ton. So, the apartment complex there is kind of on an island. It used to be more of a sleepy corner back in the day, but it s not really a sleepy corner anymore. It s become somewhat busy, a lot busier. The roads have improved tremendously and there s a lot more traffic. So, whether it s appropriate now, you probably would never put an apartment project there now. It s really isolated on three sides by fairly busy roads. So, to me, the way it s developed almost necessitates that at some point, it does become commercial property rather than residential, just

28 RZ PC Minutes cont. August 24, 2015 Page 18 because of the changes that have been made around it. So, I don t know what s best, but QuikTrip is willing to come in and try something. It will probably work for them. They ll probably be successful there. I would also comment about the illuminated banding. I think I agree with Commissioner Freeman on that. Part of my reaction may not be the same. Mine is out of respect to those who are still going to be living there. That red glow, to me, if you re impinging it on the property owners that are there to begin with, and then, further inconvenience those that are left behind, I think what we ought to do is have respect for those who are left behind and make the City Council decide that that s an appropriate change. That s my opinion. I would support this request. Again, this is a property issue, as Commissioner Fry mentioned. But, the concerns about those families that are displaced, I hope that there are those in our community and I heard it mentioned, and I hope there are those in our community, if this does move forward, that there are those who would step forward and assist those individuals that are displaced. I don t know if that function exists within our City government, but I hope that we do have respect for those who are inconvenienced and are put in a very precarious situation. If that happens, I hope they do find some assistance and find housing. That said, is there a motion on RZ , or additional comments? Motion by Commissioner Fry, seconded by Commissioner Vakas, to recommend approval of RZ , for the following reasons: (1) The proposed development complies with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. (2) The rezoning to the C-3 district meets the Unified Development Ordinance criteria for considering zoning applications. (3) As stipulated, the proposed development complies with the development and performance standards of the C-3 zoning classification. Commissioner Fry s motion included recommending approval with the following stipulations to be included in the rezoning ordinance: (1) A final plat shall be approved prior to the issuance of a stormwater or building permit. (2) All applicable street and traffic signal excise fees shall be payed prior to recording the plat. (3) A final development plan application shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division prior to submitting for building permits. (4) The convenience store and fuel canopy shall not include illuminated banding. (5) The public street improvements shall be designed to City standards and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. (6) A landscaping plan signed and sealed by a registered Landscape Architect in the State of Kansas shall be submitted with the final development plan. (7) Stamped concrete pedestrian crosswalks within the interior of the site shall be included with the final development plan. (8) A photometric plan shall be submitted with the final development plan showing the average foot-candles in compliance with the UDO. Cutsheets of the building and pole lighting shall also be submitted.

29 RZ PC Minutes cont. August 24, 2015 Page 19 (9) One monument sign shall be permitted for the development. The sign shall comply with UDO Chapter (10) Separate sign permits are required for all signage. (11) Additional shrubs/landscaping at the corner of Old US-56 Highway and Parker Street shall be added to provide screening for the parking/paved area per UDO requirements. Landscaping in the street right-of-way for Old US-56 Highway shall be approved by K-DOT. (12) Due to the tight constraints of the site, the parking/paving setbacks shall be reduced and range from.25 feet to 10.5 feet. (13) Due to the tight constraints of the site, the landscape setbacks shall be reduced and range from 0 feet to 10 feet. (14) As per KDOT, Driveway #4 will be modified to: a. accommodate semi-trucks without encroaching on adjacent lanes b. the raised island will be built outside the limits of the existing right turn lane c. provide mitigation to reduce conflicts between exiting drivers and K-7 traffic (15) A KDOT access permit for Driveway #4 is required prior to final approval of this plan. (16) A westbound left turn lane will be required at Driveway #2. (17) A northbound right turn lane shall be constructed by the applicant at the intersection of K-7/Parker and Dennis following relocation of the traffic signal by the City. (18) Driveway #3 is not permitted. The final development plan shall not have any access onto Parker/K-7. (19) All street improvements shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. (20) It is recommended that the existing bike lane shall be restriped as part of the traffic improvements. The roll being called, the result was as follows: Aye: Fry, Freeman, Davis, Rinke, Vakas, Harrelson (8) No: Nelson, Horner (2) Motion carried 6-2. Mr. Clements: This will go to City Council on September 15, 2015.

30 MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting: August 24, 2015 City of Olathe City Planning Division Application: Location: Owner: Applicant: Staff Contact: SU : Renewal of a special use permit for an existing quarry operation for APAC 1600 West 151 st Street (Lone Elm Quarry) Deffenbaugh, Inc. L. Diane Tucker/APAC Kansas, Inc. David Clements, City Planning Manager 1. Comments: The Planning Staff is requesting a continuance for this application. A consultant has been retained to provide an analysis of the economic impacts of the quarry operation. This work is underway, and was not submitted in time for review and could not be included in the staff report for the scheduled August 24 th public hearing. This continuance will allow for a more complete review of the analysis. This is the second continuance. 2. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends continuing this application to the September 28, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Freeman, to continue SU , to the September 28, Planning Commission meeting. Motion passes unanimously.

31 MINUTES Other Matters for August 24, 2015, Planning Commission Meeting Mr. Clements: Just a brief reminder, our next meeting will be September 14 th, and we will have our quarterly workshop beginning at 5:30 p.m. Meeting adjourned.

32 STAFF REPORT Planning Commission Meeting: September 14, 2015 City of Olathe City Planning Division Application: Location: Owner/Applicant: Engineer: Staff Contact: P Final Plat for Hailey s Landing West side of Harrison Street, between Grace Street and Elm Street G.D. Properties & Investments, LLC / Gregory D. Prieb III Phelps Engineering, Inc. / Harold Phelps Amy Kynard, Senior Planner Site Area: ± acres Proposed Use: Single-Family Residences Current Zoning: R-2 Lots: 4 Tracts: 0 1. Comments: The applicant requests approval of a final plat for Hailey s Landing, a four-lot residential subdivision located on the West side of Harrison Street, between Grace Street and Elm Street. The proposed plat is a replat of a portion of Fishers Addition to Olathe (recorded in 1871) and a portion of Pilcher Place (recorded in 1882). This property is zoned R-2 and is currently subdivided into three lots. The applicant purchased the property with the intent of constructing three duplexes, which would be permitted by-right within the R-2 district. However, City staff and several residents within the neighborhood expressed concern about the introduction of duplexes into an area that is almost entirely developed with single-family homes, so staff approached the applicant about the possibility of constructing single-family houses. In exchange, the staff would support a plat application to replat the three lots into four lots to help offset the reduction in the number of units that would result from that change. 2. Neighborhood: The plat area is within the Original Town Overlay District, and the houses will therefore be subject to architectural review. Most of the houses on the east side of Harrison Street were constructed between 1950 and The vast majority of the houses on the west side of Harrison Street and beyond were constructed prior to The house directly adjacent to the north of this property was the home of former Governor George Hodges. It was originally constructed in 1892, and renovated in 1921 to its current design. The house has been listed on the Kansas Register of Historic Places since The Hailey s Landing plat area was formerly part of the George Hodges property and never developed since it was used as a large yard for the house. 3. Final Plat Review: a. Lots/Tracts: The plat includes 4 lots and no tracts. The three existing lots would be narrowed, with the boundaries redrawn to add a fourth lot along Harrison Street. Lot

33 P cont. Staff Report September 14, 2015 Page 2 widths range from 65 to 69 feet, exceeding the minimum lot width of 60 feet. Lot depths range from 108 to 112 feet. Lot areas range from 7,049 to 7,553 square feet, which exceed the minimum of 4,750 square feet per unit for the R-2 district. The plat shows a 30 foot building line, which would be equivalent to the minimum setback for an R-1 District. Since this property is zoned R-2, the front setback could technically be reduced to 20 feet for the R-2 district; however, the plat will prevail since it has the greater setback. The houses will meet the maximum height requirement of 2.5 stories or 35 feet. The required rear yard setback is 25 feet, and the required side yard setbacks are 7 feet each. b. Landscaping and Access: There are a number of mature existing trees on the property, some of which will need to be removed for construction of the houses. However, the applicant intends to save as many quality trees as possible since they add character to the lots. c. When three duplexes were proposed, staff worked with the applicant to find appropriate locations for the buildings and driveways with regards to tree preservation. Some units included side-entry garages, and driveways were shared where possible to minimize curb cuts and preserve additional trees. With singlefamily houses, the houses are more likely to be owner-occupied units, which makes individual (i.e. not shared) driveways much more important. Each house would have a front-facing two-car garage with its own driveway off of Harrison Street. Because this property is within the Original Town Overlay District, staff asked the applicant to investigate the possibility of rear garages. Several of the houses on the east side of Harrison Street have front-facing garages, but most of those on the west side of the street take access from alleys or parking courts. Unfortunately, these lots do not have access to any alleys, so it would be difficult to make rear garages work on these lots. The applicant also claims that homes with rear garages are more difficult to sell. While the applicant s previous plan for duplexes proposed some sideentry garages, the increased number of lots for the single-family houses results in a narrower width that prevents feasible side-entry garages. Staff requested but has not yet received a revised plot plan to see how the singlefamily houses and driveways will impact the ability to save existing mature trees. Due to the increased width of the curb cuts and reduced flexibility with regards to the location of the curb cuts, the replat for single-family homes may result in fewer trees being preserved. A recommended stipulation would require the applicant to work with staff to preserve as many quality trees as reasonably possible. d. Utilities: The property is located in the City of Olathe water and sewer service areas. The sanitary sewer private service line for the Governor Hodges house to the north runs underneath the corner of the north lot, which is not allowed. A public sanitary sewer main extension is required to correct this problem and allow the north lot to be developed. The owner of the Governor Hodges house has had some conversations with the applicant about possibly purchasing the northernmost lot to increase his yard area. If such a deal could be negotiated, the sewer main extension would not be required since the northern lot with the private service line would then be under the same ownership as the house served by that line. e. Stormwater/Detention: Due to the small size of this subdivision, erosion controls shall be the responsibility of each individual lot s builder.

34 P cont. Staff Report September 14, 2015 Page 3 f. Excise Taxes: The property has already been platted and is therefore exempt from street and traffic signal excise taxes. 4. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of P with the following stipulations: a. Prior to recording the plat, a digital file of the final plat (pdf format) shall be submitted to the City Planning Division. b. All on-site wiring shall be placed underground. c. All above ground electrical and/or telephone cabinets shall be placed within the interior side or rear building setback yard. However, such utility cabinets may be permitted within front or corner side yards adjacent to street right-of-way if cabinets are screened with landscape materials. d. A street tree/landscape plan is required to be submitted for review and approval by the City Planning Division prior to recording the final plat. As part of the landscape plan, the developer shall include the plot plans and work with City Planning Staff to prioritize and preserve quality existing trees wherever reasonable. e. These lots are located within the Original Town Overlay District, and the houses will therefore be subject to an architectural review in accordance with the Unified Development Ordinance. The applicant shall work with staff to ensure that the designs of the houses fit appropriately within the existing neighborhood. f. These lots shall be used for single-family houses and permitted accessory uses.

35 CHESTNUT ST ELM ST WALKER WALKER ST ST WABASH ST CHERRY ST WATER ST STEVENSON ST P GRACE TER GRACE ST HARRISON ST HARRISON ST De Soto?Ä Lenexa?Á?Á?Ä Lenexa!"`$ %&e( Overland Park Feet Grace United Methodist Church Gardner!"`$ Io Spring Overland Park User: gradyrm Date: 09/09/2015 HAILEY'S LANDING P

36 4 User: gradyrm Date: 09/09/2015 HAILEY'S LANDING MINOR PLAT HARRISON ST AND GRACE ST P SITE PLAN

37 4 User: gradyrm Date: 09/09/2015 HAILEY'S LANDING MINOR PLAT HARRISON ST AND GRACE ST P EXHIBIT A

38 STAFF REPORT Planning Commission Meeting: September 14, 2015 City of Olathe City Planning Division Application: Location: Owner/Applicant: Engineer: Staff Contact: P Townhomes at Fairfield Village, Twenty-Eighth Plat In the vicinity of 167 th Street and Mur-Len Road Fairfield Courts, LLC, Gary Jones Phelps Engineering, Inc., Douglas E. Ubben, Jr. Dan Fernandez, Planner II Acres: 0.18± acres Proposed Use: Townhomes Current Zoning: RP-3 Lots: Tracts: Comments: This is a request for approval of a minor plat for Townhomes at Fairfield Village, Twenty-Eighth (a replat of Tract A2), on 0.18± acres, located in the vicinity of 167 th Street and Mur-Len Road. The Courts at Fairfield Village, Second Plat (P ) was approved by the Planning Commission on July 23, No public easement or right-of-way will be dedicated with this replat and therefore the plat will not require City Council approval. 2. Final Plat Review a. Lots/Tracts The replat includes two (2) lots for two (2) individual but attached townhome units. b. Utilities/Municipal Services The property is located in the WaterOne service area and the Johnson County Wastewater sanitary sewer area. c. Streets Both units will have access to 168 th Place through a common private driveway. d. Street and Signal Excise Taxes The property is included in the benefit district for 167 th Street and Mur-Len Road and therefore the plat is exempt

39 P Staff Report cont. September 14, 2015 Page 2 from the street excise tax. The traffic signal excise tax was paid when the previous final plat (P ) was recorded and no additional fees are applicable. 3. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of P with the following stipulations: a. Prior to recording the plat, a digital file of the final plat (pdf format) shall be submitted to the City Planning Division. b. All above ground electrical and/or telephone cabinets shall be placed within the interior side or rear building setback yards. However, such utility cabinets may be permitted within front or corner side yards adjacent to street right-of-way if cabinets are screened with landscape materials. c. The developer is responsible for planting street trees, subject to UDO G. Such trees shall be planted at the completion of each phase of development.

40 MUR-LEN RD MUR-LEN RD P TH CT KIMBLE ST 168TH PL 168TH TER Feet DR BRADLEY De Soto PL 169TH Gardner?Ä!"`$ Lenexa?Á?Á Io Spring?Ä Lenexa!"`$ %&e( Overland Park Overland Park User: gradyrm Date: 09/08/2015 TOWNHOMES AT FAIRFIELD VILLAGE 28TH PLAT P

41 4 User: gradyrm Date: 09/08/2015 TOWNHOMES AT FAIRFIELD VILLAGE 28TH PLAT MINOR PLAT 167TH ST AND MUR-LEN RD P SITE PLAN

42 STAFF REPORT Planning Commission Meeting: September 14, 2015 City of Olathe City Planning Division Application: PR Revised site development plan for Servepro Location: Owner: Applicant: Engineer: Staff Contact: S. Keeler Street Jack and Clo Whitaker, Whitaker Properties, LLC Strickland Construction, Eric Hughes Davidson Architecture and Engineering, Chris Hafner Sean Pendley, Senior Planner Site Area: 2.78± acres Proposed Use: Industrial Plat: Platted (Certificate of Survey) Zoning: M-2 Building Area: 15,130 sq. ft. (existing building) 6,600 sq. ft. (existing warehouse) 11,200 sq. ft. (proposed warehouse addition) 1. Comments: This is a request for a revised site development plan for Servepro located at South Keeler Street. A final site development plan (PR ) was approved in 2010 for the existing warehouse. The applicant is proposing an 11,200 square foot addition to the warehouse building at the rear of the property to provide additional storage space. The building addition is considered a major change since it consists of an increase greater than five percent of the existing floor area. Therefore, a revised development plan must be approved by the Planning Commission. 2. Zoning Requirements: a. Setbacks The proposed building addition meets the required building setbacks for M-2 districts. The future parking spaces on the north parking lot meet the parking/paving setbacks. b. Building Height The maximum building height for M-2 districts is 55 feet from finished grade. The proposed building addition is consistent with the existing one-story building with an approximate height of 26 feet. 3. Development Requirements:

43 PR (Staff Report cont.) September 14, 2015 Page 2 a. Access/Streets There are no changes proposed for the existing access drives on Keeler Street. The proposed development does not warrant any traffic improvements. b. Parking The site plan identifies existing parking and future parking on the north parking lot. The plan shows 27 additional spaces for future parking. This parking is not required for the warehouse addition and the applicant is showing for future demand. A parking lot permit is required for the future parking. The parking lot plan shall identify parking spaces for persons with disabilities per ADA standards for Accessible Design. c. Lighting Parking lot light poles will be required for the future parking lot. A photometric plan shall be submitted for the future parking lot in accordance with the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). d. Landscaping The landscape plan shows new deciduous trees along Keeler Street. The trees consist of three Autumn Purple Ash trees and three maple trees. The Ash trees are on the prohibited tree list according to the UDO due to threats for insects/disease (Emerald Ash Borer). An alternative deciduous or ornamental tree is required. There are shrubs along the existing parking lot facing Keeler Street and these shrubs will remain with future parking. Foundation landscaping is also located around the existing building. e. Stormwater/Detention The proposed development is not subject to current stormwater management requirements since the increase in impervious area is less than 5,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing to replace a portion of the existing gravel parking with turf grass to offset the increase in building area. The stormwater management plan has been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. f. Public Utilities The site is located within the City of Olathe sanitary sewer area and Johnson County Water District #1. Services are currently available to the site. g. Architecture/Building Design The sides of the proposed building addition consist of ribbed metal wall panels which are consistent with the existing warehouse. The west elevation facing Keeler Street includes a stone veneer and texture wall metal panel that resembles stucco. The Building Design Category F requires a minimum of 20 percent Category 1 building materials and 60 percent Category 2 materials on primary elevations. The primary facade exceeds the required material standards and the building addition is compatible with existing development. 4. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of PR with the following stipulations: a. A parking lot permit is required for future parking.

44 PR (Staff Report cont.) September 14, 2015 Page 3 b. A parking lot lighting plan, in accordance with Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requirements, shall be submitted with future parking lot permit. Details shall be submitted for light poles and fixtures. c. The parking lot permit shall identify parking spaces for persons with disabilities per ADA standards for Accessible Design. d. The proposed Autumn Purple Ash trees shall be replaced with an alternative deciduous tree or ornamental tree per UDO requirements for street trees. e. As required by the UDO, all exterior ground or building mounted equipment, including but not limited to mechanical equipment, utility meter banks and coolers, shall be screened from public view with landscaping or an architectural treatment compatible with the building architecture. f. All new on-site wiring and cables shall be placed underground.

45 152ND ST TER BRENTWOOD 153RD TER CORNICE ST KEELER ST PR MAHAFFIE ST 153RD CT 153RD PL De Soto?Ä Lenexa?Á?Á?Ä Lenexa!"`$ %&e( Overland Park Feet Gardner!"`$ Io Spring Overland Park User: gradyrm Date: 09/08/2015 SERVPRO BUILDING ADDITION PR

46 4 User: gradyrm Date: 09/08/2015 SERVPRO BUIDLING ADDITION SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN S KEELER TER PR SITE PLAN

47 4 User: gradyrm Date: 09/08/2015 SERVPRO BUIDLING ADDITION SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN S KEELER TER PR LANDSCAPE PLAN

48 4 User: gradyrm Date: 09/08/2015 SERVPRO BUIDLING ADDITION SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN S KEELER TER PR BUILDING ELEVATIONS

49 City of Olathe City Planning Division STAFF REPORT Planning Commission Meeting: September 14, 2015 Application: PR Preliminary site development plan for 167 th and Lone Elm Industrial Park Location: Owner: Applicant: Engineer: Staff Contact: Vicinity of 167 th Street and Lone Elm Road ACCOSYS, Inc., Frank Carter Van Trust Real Estate, LLC, Rich Muller Phelps Engineering, Daniel Finn Sean Pendley, Senior Planner Site Area: 90.9± acres Proposed Use: Industrial Zoning: MP-2 (Planned General Industrial District) Plat: Unplatted, final plat pending (P ) Building Area: 716,040 sq. ft. (Lot 1) Lots: Two 540,000 sq. ft. (Lot 2) Tracts: Four Plan Olathe Land Use Category Existing Use Current Zoning Site Design Category Building Design Category Site Industrial Area/ Greenway Undeveloped MP-2 6 F North Industrial Area Office/Warehouse MP South Primary Greenway Park RP East Industrial Area Agricultural RUR (County) - - West Industrial Area Office/Warehouse MP-2 - -

50 PR Staff Report cont. September 14, 2015 Page 2 1. Comments: The following is a request for a preliminary site development plan for the167th and Lone Elm Industrial Park. The proposed development includes two large industrial lots and four common tracts with a total area of 90.98± acres. The proposed building on Lot 1 has a total area of 716,040 square feet and the building on Lot 2 is 540,000 square feet. The buildings have loading docks and trailer parking on the east and west sides of the buildings, facing away from 167 th Street. A final plat (P ) for Lone Elm Building 1 is on this agenda. A separate final plat will be required for Building 2 prior to development of this property. 2. History: The subject property was rezoned to MP-2 (Planned General Industrial District) in 2004 (RZ ). The rezoning included a preliminary plat for eight industrial lots on 156.9± acres. A final site development plan (PR ) was approved in 2004for Systems Material Handling, now known as TVH. Additional building expansions have since been approved for TVH. No other buildings have been developed in this industrial park. A final plat was approved for one lot and one tract for SMH Industrial Park (P ) in The proposed preliminary site development plan includes the remaining property in the industrial park. 3. Zoning Requirements: a. Setbacks The proposed buildings and parking meets the required building setbacks and parking/paving setbacks for the MP-2 district. b. Building Height The proposed buildings vary in height from 38 feet to 42 feet. The maximum building height for M-2 districts is 55 feet from finished grade. 4. Development Requirements: a. Access/Streets The existing collector street (164 th Street) will be extended south to 167 th Street. This new street extension (Theden Street) follows the alignment of the original preliminary plat. Both lots will have access drives on Theden Street and 167 th Street. Street improvements are shown for 167 th Street, including a center two-way left-turn lane and rock shoulders. Additional street right-of-way is proposed for 167 th Street and Lone Elm per City requirements. The applicant is required to complete a pavement analysis with cores to determine how the existing pavement needs to be improved and the structure of the widened section. Final details for street improvements shall be provided with the public improvement plans as required by the City Engineer. b. Parking The site plan shows 288 parking spaces for Lot 1 and an additional 127 future spaces for a potential total parking of 417 spaces. There are 145 future trailer parking spaces. Lot 2 has 277 parking spaces and 81 future trailer parking spaces. According to the Unified Development Ordinance, a parking analysis is required for warehousing and distribution facilities. The applicant has indicated proposed parking

51 PR Staff Report cont. September 14, 2015 Page 3 will meet the demands for the proposed buildings and deferred parking is shown for Lot 1 to accommodate any increased demand for future users. The final site development plans shall identify accessible parking comply with ADA requirements. Photometric plans for parking lot lighting shall also be submitted in accordance with Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requirements. c. Landscaping The preliminary landscape plan shows new deciduous trees and evergreen trees around the perimeter of the parking lots and buildings. There are existing trees along the east property line of Lot 1 and the west side of Lot 2. These trees will be preserved with the proposed development and will help screen the view of loading docks and future trailer parking areas. There are shade trees located within the parking lot landscape islands. Shrubs are identified around all parking areas facing public streets per UDO requirements. Foundation landscaping will be required for portions of the buildings per UDO O. d. Public Utilities The site is located within the City of Olathe sewer area and Johnson County Water District #1. A sanitary sewer main extension will be required to serve the proposed development. e. Stormwater/Detention The development includes detention basins and BMPs for stormwater quality. The plan shows drainage easements and BMP easements. The final plat shall identify the required easements or they shall be dedicated by separate instrument prior to grading. f. Mechanical Equipment Any rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened by roof parapets or screen walls to match the building. All exterior ground or building mounted equipment, including but not limited to mechanical equipment, utility meter banks and coolers, shall be screened from public view with landscaping or architectural treatment compatible with the building architecture per UDO requirements. 5. Site Design Standards: The subject property is located in an Industrial Area according to the Comprehensive Plan and the recommended composite design standards are Site Design Category 6 (UDO ) and Building Design Category F (UDO ). The following sections include a summary of the composite site and building design requirements and proposed features for the Main Event development. a. Parking Pod Size The Site Design Category 6 standards have a maximum parking pod size of 320 spaces. All of the proposed parking areas, including future parking and trailer parking areas, are below the maximum parking size requirements. b. Drainage Features The proposed development maintains the natural drainage areas in Tracts B, C and D and existing trees are preserved. c. Buffer Areas The proposed development meets required building setbacks and perimeter landscaping along arterial streets.

52 PR Staff Report cont. September 14, 2015 Page 4 6. Building Design Standards: The following is an analysis of the composite building design requirements. The applicant has submitted a narrative to address the specific building design standards for the two industrial buildings. Composite Building Design (Category F) Primary Facade Building Materials Overhead Doors Proposed Design Variation in building height, 2-4 parapets every 100 of façade width, 5 wall offsets at corners of buildings. Primary Façades meet required material standards (see table below for detail percentage) Secondary Façades meet required material standards Clerestory windows above doors and along north and south elevations a. Primary Façade Expression All facades include variation in roof heights with parapets extending 2-4 feet above roofline. There are also 5-foot wall offsets with canopies at the corners of the buildings where offices are located. b. Building Materials The proposed buildings consists of concrete tilt wall panels with reveals, reflective glass and metal canopies and overhead doors. All sides of the proposed building meet the definition for primary façade because they face or are visible from a public street or private drive that serves customers. The following is a breakdown of the materials and required standards. Primary Facades (South Elevations) (East/West Elevations) Secondary Facades (North Elevations) East Building 1 Catergory 1 Category 2 Requirement (Category 1 / 2 / 3) Concrete (Detail)/ Glass (92% / 8%) Concrete (Detail)/ Glass (88% / 5%) Concrete (Detail)/ Glass (94% / 6%) Concrete (Detail)/ Glass (90% / 3%) N/A 20% / 60% / 20% Metal doors (7%) 20% / 60% / 20% N/A 20% / 20% / 60% Metal doors (7%) 20% / 20% / 60% The proposed buildings exceed the standards for Category 1 materials on primary and secondary facades as outlined for Category F developments. c. Overhead Doors - Category D design standards require clerestory windows above overhead doors or windows in the doors themselves. The proposed buildings include 4-4 x 6 clerestory windows above the loading docks on the east and west elevations.

53 PR Staff Report cont. September 14, 2015 Page 5 7. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary site development plan (PR ) with the following stipulations: a. Final site development plans shall follow the general layout and design of the preliminary site development plan and building elevations dated August 31, b. Public street improvements for 167 th Street shall be provided as identified on the preliminary site plan and as required by the City Engineer. c. The final site development plans shall show and label all water quality/quantity easements and Best Management Practices (BMP) for stormwater. d. Final plats shall be approved and recorded prior to building permits. e. The final site plans shall identify parking spaces for persons with disabilities per ADA standards for Accessible Design. f. A total of 127 parking spaces is allowed for deferred parking on Lot 1 as shown on the site plan. If it is determined that additional parking is required, some of the deferred parking shall be improved as necessary. A parking lot permit is required for any new parking or trailer storage areas. g. A parking lot lighting plan, in accordance with Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requirements, shall be submitted and approved with the final site development plans. Details shall be provided for the light poles and fixtures. h. Sign permits are required for wall signs and monument signs in accordance with UDO i. Outdoor storage and display of equipment, materials or products shall be prohibited with the exception of trailer parking as identified on the preliminary site plan. j. As required by the UDO, all exterior ground or building mounted equipment, including but not limited to mechanical equipment, utility meter banks and coolers, shall be screened from public view with landscaping or an architectural treatment compatible with the building architecture. k. All new on-site wiring and cables shall be placed underground.

54 ST 164TH ST THEDEN LONE ELM RD PR TH ST De Soto?Ä Lenexa?Á?Á?Ä Lenexa!"`$ %&e( Overland Park Feet Lone Elm Park Gardner!"`$ Io Spring Overland Park User: gradyrm Date: 09/08/ TH AND LONE ELM INDUSTRIAL PARK PR

55 4 User: gradyrm Date: 09/09/ TH AND LONE ELM INDUSTRIAL PARK PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 167TH ST AND LONE ELM RD PR SITE PLAN

56 4 User: gradyrm Date: 09/09/ TH AND LONE ELM INDUSTRIAL PARK PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 167TH ST AND LONE ELM RD PR LANDSCAPE PLAN

57 4 User: gradyrm Date: 09/09/ TH AND LONE ELM INDUSTRIAL PARK PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 167TH ST AND LONE ELM RD PR UTILITY PLAN

58 4 User: gradyrm Date: 09/09/ TH AND LONE ELM INDUSTRIAL PARK PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 167TH ST AND LONE ELM RD PR GRADING PLAN

59 4 User: gradyrm Date: 09/09/ TH AND LONE ELM INDUSTRIAL PARK PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 167TH ST AND LONE ELM RD PR BUILDING A FLOOR PLAN

60 4 User: gradyrm Date: 09/09/ TH AND LONE ELM INDUSTRIAL PARK PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 167TH ST AND LONE ELM RD PR BUILDING B FLOOR PLAN

61 User: gradyrm Date: 09/09/ TH AND LONE ELM INDUSTRIAL PARK PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 167TH ST AND LONE ELM RD PR BUILDING A ELEVATIONS - SW

62 User: gradyrm Date: 09/09/ TH AND LONE ELM INDUSTRIAL PARK PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 167TH ST AND LONE ELM RD PR BUILDING A ELEVATIONS - NE

63 User: gradyrm Date: 09/09/ TH AND LONE ELM INDUSTRIAL PARK PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 167TH ST AND LONE ELM RD PR BUILDING B ELEVATIONS - SW

64 User: gradyrm Date: 09/09/ TH AND LONE ELM INDUSTRIAL PARK PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 167TH ST AND LONE ELM RD PR BUILDING B ELEVATIONS - NE

65 STAFF REPORT Planning Commission Meeting: September 14, 2015 City of Olathe City Planning Division Application: P Final Plat for Lone Elm Building 1 Location: Owner: Applicant: Engineer: Staff Contact: Northeast corner of 167 th Street and Theden Street ACCOSYS, Inc., Frank Carter Van Trust Real Estate, LLC, Rich Muller Phelps Engineering, Daniel Finn Sean Pendley, Senior Planner Acres: ± acres Proposed Use: Industrial Lots: 1 Current Zoning: MP-2 Tracts: 2 Streets/ Right-of-way: Existing Required Proposed 167 th Street 20 (½ street) 60 (½ street) 60 (½ street) Theden Street N/A (total) (total) 1. Comments: This is a request for approval of a final plat for Lone Elm Building 1. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of 167 th Street and Theden Street. An associated preliminary site development plan (PR ) for 167 th and Lone Elm Industrial Park is on this agenda. 2. Final Plat Review a. Lots The plat consists of one industrial lot and two common tracts. The plat shows the required building setbacks for M-2 districts. b. Public Utilities The site is located within the City of Olathe sewer area and Johnson County Water District #1. A sanitary sewer main extension will be required to serve the proposed development. Public utility easements are identified on the plat.

66 P (Staff Report cont.) September 14, 2015 Page 2 c. Streets/Right-of-Way The plat includes street right-of-way for Theden Street and additional right-of-way for 167 th Street per City requirements. d. Stormwater/Detention Easements are identified for Best Management Practices for stormwater detention. The plat shall identify these as a "Permanent Stormwater Quantity/ Quality Easement". The easements need to be identified on the final plat or dedicated by separate instrument prior to grading permit. e. Excise Taxes The final plat is subject to a street excise tax of $0.215 per square feet. Arterial street right-of-way is exempt from excise taxes. Based on the net plat area, 46.21± acres, the required street excise tax is $432, The final plat is subject to a traffic signal excise tax of $ per square foot of land area for office districts. Based on the net plat area, 46.21± acres, the required traffic signal excise fee is $19, The required excise fees shall be submitted to the City Planning Division prior to recording the final plat. 3. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of P with the following stipulations: a. The final plat is subject to a street excise tax of $0.215 per square foot for a total amount of $432, The required excise fee of shall be submitted to the City Planning Division prior to recording the final plat. b. The final plat is subject to a traffic signal excise tax of $19, The required excise fee of shall be submitted to the City Planning Division prior to recording the final plat. c. The final plat shall identify the appropriate easements for "Permanent Stormwater Quantity/ Quality Easement". The dedication should indicate the entity responsible for ownership and maintenance of the stormwater facilities. d. Prior to recording the plat, a digital file of the final plat (pdf format) shall be submitted to the City Planning Division. e. All above ground electrical and/or telephone cabinets shall be placed within the interior side or rear building setback yards. However, such utility cabinets may be permitted within front or corner side yards adjacent to street right-of-way if cabinets are screened with landscape materials.

67 164TH ST THEDEN ST LONE ELM RD P TH ST De Soto?Ä Lenexa?Á?Á?Ä Lenexa!"`$ %&e( Overland Park Feet Lone Elm Park Gardner!"`$ Io Spring Overland Park User: gradyrm Date: 09/08/2015 LONE ELM BUILDING 1 P

68 4 User: gradyrm Date: 09/09/2015 LONE ELM BUILDING 1 FINAL PLAT 167TH ST AND LONE ELM RD P SITE PLAN

69 STAFF REPORT Planning Commission Meeting: September 14, 2015 City of Olathe City Planning Division Application: P Replat of Lots 136, 137, 138 and Tract H Nottington Creek Third Plat. Location: Owner/Applicant: Engineer: Staff Contact: In the vicinity of 177 th Terrace and Lone Elm Road Mike VanKeirsbilck Construction, Mike VanKeirsbilck Phelps Engineering, Inc., Harold A. Phelps Dan Fernandez, Planner II Acres: 1.82± acres Proposed Use: Single-family Current Zoning: R-1 Lots: Tracts: Comments: This is a request for approval of a minor plat for Nottington Creek (a replat of Lots 136, 137, 138 and Tract H of Nottington Creek, Third Plat), on 1.82± acres, located in the vicinity of 177 th Terrace and Lone Elm Road. The area was rezoned to R-1 (RZ ) in March 2005 with the final plat (P ) being approved in June No public easement or right-of-way will be dedicated with this replat and therefore the plat will not require City Council approval. 2. Final Plat Review a. Lots/Tracts The replat includes 3 lots and 1 tract. The replat will increase the size of Lots 136, 137 and 138. Tract H will be narrowed along 177 th Terrace. A waterline easement the width of Tract H runs along 177 th Terrace so no landscaping has been planted within this area of the tract. Any dead trees in Tract H along Lone Elm Road shall be replaced prior to recording the plat. b. Utilities/Municipal Services The property is located in the WaterOne water and the Johnson County Wastewater service areas.

70 P Staff Report cont. September 14, 2015 Page 2 c. Streets The lots have access to 177 th Terrace and Millridge Street which are already constructed. d. Street and Signal Excise Taxes No street or traffic signal excise fees are due with this minor plat since the fees were paid with a previous plat. 3. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of P with the following stipulations: a. Prior to recording the plat, a digital file of the final plat (pdf format) shall be submitted to the City Planning Division. b. All above ground electrical and/or telephone cabinets shall be placed within the interior side or rear building setback yards. However, such utility cabinets may be permitted within front or corner side yards adjacent to street right-of-way if cabinets are screened with landscape materials. c. Any dead trees in Tract H along Lone Elm Road shall be replaced prior to recording the plat.

71 175TH ST 175TH TER BROCKWAY ST 176TH ST NORE STON ST MILLRIDGE ST 176TH TER 177TH ST P LAVERTY ST Feet 177TH TER 177TH CT LONE ELM RD De Soto Gardner?Ä!"`$ Lenexa?Á?Á Io Spring?Ä Lenexa!"`$ %&e( Overland Park Overland Park User: gradyrm Date: 09/08/2015 NOTTINGTON CREEK REPLAT P

72 4 User: gradyrm Date: 09/08/2015 NOTTINGTON CREEK MINOR PLAT 177TH TER & LONE ELM RD P MINOR PLAT

73 City of Olathe City Planning Division STAFF REPORT Planning Commission Meeting: September 14, 2015 Application: RZ Rezoning from County RUR to R-1 (Single Family Residential) for 1.97± acres Location: Owner/Applicant: Staff Contact: West 167 th Street Thomas and Stacy Kelter Amy Kynard, Senior Planner Current Zoning: County RUR Proposed Zoning: R-1 Site Area: 1.97± acres Existing/Proposed Use: Single-Family Residence PlanOlathe Land Use Category Existing Use Current Zoning Site Design Category Building Design Category Site Conventional Neighborhood & Secondary Greenway Single-Family Residence County RUR 1 N/A North Conventional Neighborhood & Secondary Greenway Elementary School & Farm RP-1 & County RUR 1 N/A South Conventional Neighborhood Pond & Single- Family Homes County RUR (unincorporated) East Conventional Neighborhood & Secondary Greenway Vacant/ Agriculture County RUR (unincorporated) West Conventional Neighborhood & Secondary Greenway Large Lot Single- Family Homes County RUR (unincorporated) 1. Comments: The applicants request rezoning of the subject property from County RUR to R-1 (Single-Family Residential District). The subject property was approved for annexation at the July 21, 2015 City Council Meeting (ANX ). The rezoning is required to provide a City zoning classification for the newly annexed property. The applicants do not propose any new development on the site other than an accessory swimming pool for their existing single-family house. 2. Zoning Requirements: The existing house and proposed swimming pool meet all dimensional standards, and no new development is proposed at this time.

74 RZ (Staff Report cont.) September 14, 2015 Page 2 3. Development Requirements: a. Platting The property is unplatted, and the property owners have annexed into the City to take advantage of a provision that allows them to acquire a onetime building permit for an accessory use without platting. The property will need to be platted prior to any additional building permits or development. If the property is platted, it will be subject to street and traffic signal excise taxes in accordance with the Municipal Code. b. Access/Streets The house is accessed by an existing driveway off of 167 th Street. There is currently only 40 feet of right-of-way along 167 th Street, and 60 feet is required for this arterial street. Since the property is not proposed to be platted at this time, the property owners shall dedicate this right-of-way by separate instrument. c. Utilities The property is located within Johnson County Wastewater and WaterOne service areas. The existing house is adequately served by utilities, and no new development is proposed at this time. 4. Composite Design Standards: Because the property is designated on the Future Land Use Map as Conventional Neighborhood, if any new development is proposed in the future, it would be subject to Site Design Category 1 and Building Design Category A (depending on lot size). 5. Rezoning Analysis: The proposed zoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with existing uses within the surrounding area. 6. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of RZ with the following stipulations: a. Sixty (60) feet of half-street right-of-way is required along 167 th Street. Adequate right-of-way shall be dedicated by separate instrument. b. The property is eligible for a one-time building permit without platting. Any further building permits shall require the property to be platted.

75 165TH TER 165TH TER ST 166TH ST WARWICK ST Madison Place Elementary SUNSET RIDGEVIEW RD 167TH ST RZ TH TER De Soto?Ä Lenexa?Á?Á?Ä Lenexa!"`$ %&e( Overland Park Feet Gardner!"`$ Io Spring Overland Park User: gradyrm Date: 09/08/2015 REZONING COUNTY RUR TO R-1 RZ

76 167TH ST RZ Ä? Á? Ä? Á? $ "! 4 0 o I Feet REZONING COUNTY RUR TO R-1 User: gradyrm Date: 09/09/2015 RZ $ "! ( e & %

77 STAFF REPORT Planning Commission Meeting: September 14, 2015 City of Olathe City Planning Division Application: Location: Owner Applicant: Engineer: Staff Contact: RZ Rezoning from C-2 and C-3 Commercial Districts to a R-4 Residential Medium Density Multi-Family and a Preliminary Development Plan for Ridgeview Senior Apartments Southeast corner of 116 th Street and Ridgeview Road Norman and Elaine Polsky Family Charitable Foundation/Larry Polsky Dial Senior Apartment Development Group/Neil Labelle CFS Engineers / Lance Scott Dan Fernandez, Planner II Current Zoning: C-2 & C-3 Proposed Zoning: R-4 Site Area: ± acres Proposed Use: Senior Apartments Plan Olathe Land Use Category Existing Use Current Zoning Site Design Category Building Design Category Site Conventional Neighborhood, Mixed-Use Residential Vacant C-2/C-3 (Proposed R-4) 3 B North Conventional Neighborhood, Secondary Greenway Bank, Townhomes, Single-family C-1, RP-3, R-1 N/A N/A South Mixed-use Residential Vacant CP-2, NC, CP-3 N/A N/A East Conventional Neighborhood, Mixed-use Residential Single-family, Senior Housing R-1, RP-3 N/A N/A West Conventional Neighborhood Single-Family R-1, RP-1 N/A N/A 1. Comments: This application was filed for a rezoning from C-2 (Community Center Commercial District) and C-3 (Regional Center Commercial District) to R-4 (Residential Medium-Density Multifamily District). The subject property is located at the southeast corner of 116 th Street and Ridgeview Road. The site was rezoned to C-2 and C-3 in September 1984.

78 RZ Staff Report cont. September 14, 2015 Page 2 The proposed development consists of a 3 story senior apartment building with a total of 146 units with surface parking, detached garages and carports. The housing consists of studio, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom units. The property will feature amenities such as a swimming pool, bocce ball/shuffleboard courts, community gardens, sitting areas and a park area. An initial concept for development of the site included internal, built-in garages at the first floor. Staff would prefer built-in garages for the project, but the applicant notes that internal garages would require a taller building height, make the garage doors more visible from Ridgeview Road, and reduce landscaping around the building. The applicant proposes the detached garages and carports as an alternative to the early concept of built-in garages. While the carports would offer a more affordable parking option for residents than the garages, staff suggests that the carports be eliminated from the plan and the development include all detached garages as more of a quality design feature. 2. Site Conditions: The subject property is currently vacant and has never been development. 3. Neighborhood Meeting / Public Notices: A neighborhood meeting was held on Tuesday, August 25 th, with notice sent to residents in accordance with UDO The sign-in sheet indicates 17 people in attendance, but the applicant has stated that approximately 30 residents were in attendance, with only one sign up per couple. Those in attendance asked questions about the management of the development, traffic, automobile parking, building design, lighting and amenities. A resident living northwest of the site also asked about stormwater run-off from the development. The applicant states that one attendee spoke in opposition to the project. Staff has not had any correspondence for or against the proposal. A copy of the minutes and sign-in sheet from the neighborhood meeting was provided by the applicant and is attached. Notice of the public hearing was published in the newspaper, and the applicant has provided affidavits and receipts certifying that signs were posted and letters mailed in accordance with the Kansas Statutes and City of Olathe regulations regarding public notice of rezoning applications. 4. Zoning Requirements: The proposed preliminary plan meets the applicable dimensional standards for the R-4 District. All building setbacks are met and the building at its highest point is 44 ½ feet which is less than the maximum building height of 50. The plans include 49% of open space. 5. Development Requirements: a. Access/Streets: The project will have three access points. The main entrance will be on Ridgeview Road with additional access drives on 116 th St. to the north and 118 th St (Sunset) to the south. The Ridgeview Road entrance will be right-in/right-out only. b. Landscaping/Screening: The landscaping plan includes a variety of trees and shrubs throughout the property including the perimeter of the site, within the landscaping islands and the interior courtyards. The landscape plan generally meets the requirements of the UDO. Staff is stipulating that additional landscaping be added to the southwest corner of the site and along Ridgeview Road. A detailed final landscape plan will need to be submitted with the final development plan, and include the seal of a registered landscape architect.

79 RZ Staff Report cont. September 14, 2015 Page 3 c. Utilities and Stormwater: The subject property is located within the City of Olathe water and sewer service areas. The developer will need to coordinate with the respective utility providers for future water and sewer connections. 6. Site Design Standards: Composite Site Design (Category 3) Proposed Design Landscaping adjacent to sidewalks Outdoor Amenity Space Parking Pod Size Less than 40 Pedestrian Circulation System Additional Pedestrian Connectivity Connections to Driveways on Adjacent Properties Open Drainage and Detention Areas as Amenities Courtyard at front entrance Courtyard, outdoor seating space, swimming pool, park area, trails, bocce ball, putting green, fire pit Sidewalks, stamped concrete crosswalk Pedestrian gateway, connection to adjacent developments Connection to property to the south Dry bottom detention basins with landscaping, rain gardens a. Landscaping adjacent to sidewalks: The plans show a courtyard with seating areas and landscaping. b. Outdoor amenity space: The development includes several outdoor amenities including a swimming pool, bocce ball/shuffleboard courts, gardens, a dog friendly park, a fire pit and several seating areas. The outdoor amenity requirement for Category 3 is 10% of the site area. The plans are showing 2.15 acre of outdoor amenity space, or approximately 16% of the site area. c. Parking Pod Size: The parking pods are broken up with landscape islands and are less than the maximum size of 40. The project will consist of 205 parking spaces which will include 87 surface parking spaces, 70 garage spaces, and 48 carport spaces. d. Pedestrian Circulation System: Sidewalks have been included throughout the site and will connect to the sidewalks along 116 th St. and 118 th Street (Sunset Drive), and to the existing sidewalk along Ridgeview Road. The plans also include stamped concrete crosswalks in the parking areas. Staff is stipulating that a trail be added to the park area on the southeast corner of the site. e. Additional Pedestrian Connectivity: The applicant has provided a pedestrian gateway along Ridgeview Road using landscaping and has also provided connections to neighboring properties. f. Connections to Driveways on Adjacent Properties: A driveway connection is provided south to the commercial areas in Ridgeview Falls.

80 RZ Staff Report cont. September 14, 2015 Page 4 g. Open Drainage and Detention Areas as Amenities: Two detention basins are located on-site with one at the northeast corner of the property and one at the southwest corner along Ridgeview Road. The basin at the northeast corner has landscaping on three sides. The basin along Ridgeview Road has some landscaping but will require additional landscaping to provide greater screening along Ridgeview Road. The project also includes several rain gardens throughout the site. 7. Building Design Standards: Composite Building Design (Category B) Horizontal and Vertical Articulation of Primary Facades Transparent Glass on Primary Facades Ground Floor Pedestrian Interest Front Facing Entry Element on Primary Facade Garage subordinate to Primary Facade Building Materials on Primary Facade Building Materials on Secondary Facade Transition to R-1 and R-2 Districts Proposed Design Wall offsets, variation in height and roof forms 21% and 22% (25% required) Transparent glass, architectural details Projecting entry element, canopy Detached garages will be used Primary Facades: 75% Category 1/25 % Category 2 Secondary Façade: 58% Category 1/42% Category 2 N/A Building located more than 100 from R-1 zoned property a. Horizontal and Vertical Articulation: The proposed building design uses wall offsets with the use of building projections and decks on all four elevations. The building also has changes in height and roof forms. The design also includes elements such as canopies, dormers, and trellised sunscreens over the windows. b. Transparent Glass on Primary Facades: Building Design Category B requires 25% transparent glass on the primary facades. The elevations are showing approximately 21% glass for the west elevation, 22% for the south and north elevations and 23% for the east elevation. The applicant has stated that the percentage of glass has been maximized for a building this size and for this use. An exception to this requirement is being requested. Due to the size of the building and the variety of architectural features used, staff supports the exception request. c. Ground Floor Pedestrian Interest: The proposed building includes the use of transparent glass, foundation landscaping, architectural details such as railings, sunscreen elements and a canopy over the front entrance. d. Front Facing Entry Element on Primary Facade: The primary entrance is located on the west elevation which includes a projecting entry element with a large canopy.

81 RZ Staff Report cont. September 14, 2015 Page 5 e. Garage Subordinate to Primary Façade: Detached garages and carports which will be located on the side and rear elevations. The garages will be constructed of stone, stucco and composition shingles to match the main building. The open carports will have peak roofs to match the garages. f. Building Materials on Primary Façade and Secondary Facades: West Façade (Primary) North Façade (Primary) South Façade (Primary) Category 1 Category 2 Requirement Stone/Stucco/Glass (75%) Stone/Stucco/Glass (75%) Stone/Stucco/Glass (75%) Siding (25%) Siding (25%) Siding (25%) (Category 1 / 2) 70% / 30% 70% / 30% 70% / 30% East Façade (Secondary) Stone/Stucco/Glass (58%) Siding (25%) 50% / 50% The proposed building materials consist primarily of stone, stucco, glass and cement board siding. To be considered Category 1, genuine stucco needs to be used. The elevations on all four sides meet the minimum requirement for Category 1 materials. Staff is stipulating that additional stone be added to the primary elevations. The elevations also include standing seam metal on portions of the roof. Staff is stipulating that the standing seam metal be replaced with a material that is more compatible with residential development in the area. g. Transition to R-1 and R-2 Districts: A building or portion of a building located within 100 of an R-1 or R-2 district may be no more than 35 feet or two stories in height. The closest R-1 zoned property to the east is approximately 280 from the building so this requirement does not apply. 8. Economic Analysis: The applicant has submitted an analysis comparing the economic impact of a commercial development to the proposed multi-family residential development at this site. The analysis can be found in the response letter included with the packet. This information indicates that the proposed use will provide tax revenue that compares favorably with a conceptual commercial plan. The applicant also notes that this project will have a positive effect on existing commercial uses in the area, and could lead to further development in Ridgeview Falls. The applicant has also stated that the senior apartments will be above market rate with higher rents than other senior housing developments in the area. 9. Rezoning Analysis: The following are criteria for considering applications as listed in Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section and staff findings for each item:

82 RZ Staff Report cont. September 14, 2015 Page 6 A. The conformance of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted planning policies. The future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as mostly Conventional Neighborhood with Mixed-Use Residential along the south property line. The proposed development conforms to the following Comprehensive Plan policies: Principle LUCC-8.1: Mixture of Complementary Land Uses. Encourage and enable a mixture of complementary land uses in major new developments. Whenever land uses are mixed, careful design will be required in order of ensure compatibility, accessibility and appropriate transitions between land uses that vary in intensity and scale. Principle HN-2.5: Senior Housing. Address the needs of an aging population. Provide neighborhoods with a variety of housing styles and prices that meet the particular needs of seniors and enable residents to age in place. B. The character of the neighborhood including but not limited to: land use, zoning, density (residential), architectural style, building materials, height, structural mass, siting, open space and floor-to-area ratio (commercial and industrial). The area is characterized by variety of uses including multi-family, single-family, commercial and senior housing developments. There is no specific architectural style or building material precedent in this area. C. The zoning and uses of nearby properties and the extent to which the proposed use would be in harmony with such zoning and uses. There are areas north of the site zoned R-1 single family residential. South, east and west of the property are locations of multi-family zoning that would indicate the proposed project would be compatible with existing development. D. The suitability of the property for the uses to which it has been restricted under the applicable zoning regulations. The property is currently zoned C-2 and C-3 and the property has been zoned this commercial classification since 1984 without any development. This location would not be a first tier retail location, due to its distance from 119 th Street. There are sites nearby that have commercial zoning that have not developed, indicating a lack of retail market conditions in the vicinity. E. The length of time the property has remained vacant as zoned. The site is vacant since it was initially zoned commercial in F. The extent to which approval of the application would detrimentally affect nearby properties.

83 RZ Staff Report cont. September 14, 2015 Page 7 Approval of the rezoning application is not anticipated to detrimentally affect any nearby properties. The preliminary plan indicates a 279 building setback from the single family homes to the east, and the plan provides large open space areas and buffers from these nearby homes. With Aberdeen Village to the east, and senior facilities west on Sunset Drive, and Legacy Apartments west on 119 th Street, the trend of development would indicate that multi-family zoning for senior living facilities is appropriate for the area. G. The extent to which the proposed use would adversely affect the capacity or safety of that portion of the road network influenced by the use or present parking problems in the vicinity of the property. The proposed use would provide a reduced number of peak hour trips as compared to a potential commercial development. The senior housing facility also includes more than the required number of parking spaces. H. The extent to which the proposed use would create air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution or other environmental harm. The site has been reviewed by Stormwater Engineering Staff and is not expected to create excessive pollution or environmental harm of any type. I. The economic impact of the proposed use on the community. The applicant prepared a revenue analysis of the proposed development, and compared the project to a commercial development scenario. This analysis indicates that the value of the proposed senior apartments will generate a greater real estate tax return than a small retail/office development. Additionally, development of the site will provide street and signal excise taxes. The project would provide a positive economic impact on the community. 10. Staff Recommendation: A. Staff recommends approval of RZ for the following reasons: (1) The proposed development complies with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. (2) The rezoning to the R-4 district meets the Unified Development Ordinance criteria for considering zoning applications. (3) The proposed development complies with the development and performance standards of the R-4 zoning classification. B. Staff recommends approval of RZ with the following stipulations to be included in the rezoning ordinance: (1) A final plat shall be approved prior to the issuance of a stormwater or building permit.

84 RZ Staff Report cont. September 14, 2015 Page 8 (2) All applicable street and traffic signal excise fees shall be payed prior to recording the plat. (3) A final development plan application shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division prior to submitting for building permits. C. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary development plan, with the following stipulations to be included with the final development plan: (1) Additional stone shall be added to all primary elevations with the final development plan. (2) Genuine stucco shall be used on the building elevations. (3) The amount of glass required for the building elevations shall be 21%. (4) Standing seam metal shall not be used and shall be replaced with a material approved by the Planning Division for the final development plan. (5) The detached garages shall be constructed with siding and stone on all four elevations to match the building. (6) Open-sided carports shall be deleted from the site plan, all parking shall be in detached garages. (7) Additional landscaping shall be added to the west side of the detention basin along Ridgeview Road for screening. (8) Additional landscaping shall be added to the southeast corner along the perimeter. (9) A trail shall be included in the park area that connects to the interior sidewalk network. (10) As required by the UDO, all exterior ground or building mounted equipment, including but not limited to mechanical equipment, utility meter banks and coolers, shall be screened from public view with landscaping or an architectural treatment compatible with the building architecture. (11) All on-site wiring and cables shall be placed underground.

85 116TH ST RIDGEVIEW RD RIDGEVIEW RD BELL COURT DR BURCH CIR LENNOX ST 116TH 116TH ST ST BRENTWOOD ST 116TH ST CIR BURCH ST LEN NOX 117TH ST RZ PENROSE ST 4 SUNSET DR Feet 117TH TER 118TH ST FELLOWS ST De Soto Gardner?Ä!"`$ Lenexa?Á?Á Io Spring?Ä Lenexa!"`$ %&e( Overland Park Overland Park User: gradyrm Date: 09/08/2015 RIDGEVIEW SENIOR APARTMENTS RZ

86 4 User: gradyrm Date: 09/09/2015 RIDGEVIEW SENIOR APARTMENTS REZONING C-2, C-3 TO R-4 116TH ST AND RIDGEVIEW RD RZ SITE PLAN

87 4 User: gradyrm Date: 09/09/2015 RIDGEVIEW SENIOR APARTMENTS REZONING C-2, C-3 TO R-4 116TH ST AND RIDGEVIEW RD RZ RIDGEVIEW PERSPECTIVE