OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. July 10, 2006

Transcription

1 OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 10, 2006 The Overland Park Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Mr. David M. Hill, Chair. The following members were present, constituting a quorum: Mrs. Kim Sorensen, Vice Chair; Mr. Tom Lance; Mr. Richard Collins; Ms. Janie Thacker; Mr. Charles Hunter; Mr. John Skubal; Mr. Edward Ned Reitzes; Mr. John Brake; and Mr. Mike Flanagan. Mr. George Lund was absent. Also present were: Mr. John Rod, Manager of Community Planning and Services; Mrs. Leslie Karr, Current Planning Acting Manager; Mr. Mark Stuecheli, Senior Transportation Planner; Ms. Peggy Sneegas, Engineering Services Administrator; Mr. David Dalecky, Planner; Ms. Julie Williams, Planner; Mr. Matt Jordan, Assistant City Manager; Mr. Keith Gooch, Planner; Ms. Danielle Zeigler, Planning Technician; Mr. Kirk Coonley, Principal Engineer; Mr. John Stone, Park Planner; Mrs. Stephanie Rizzo, P.C. Support Specialist Associate; Mr. Adam Lee, Overland Park Sun; and Ms. Pamela Blaszyk, Recording Secretary. Approximately 20 people were in the audience. CONSENT AGENDA: (Approved items A through H and continued item I) A. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Overland Trail Elementary School 6225 West 133rd Street. Application made by Nevius Serig Palmer Architecture. B. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Cottonwood Point Elementary School West 129th Street. Application made by Nevius Serig Palmer Architecture. C. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Blue Valley Recreation Maintenance Vicinity of the southeast corner of 137th Street and Switzer. Application made by Treanor Architects, P.A. D. FINAL PLAT NO Fairway Woods North Villas Seventy-First Plat Vicinity of 123rd Street and Long. Application made by Heartland Development, L.P. E. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Indian Creek Shopping Center Metcalf. Application made by Boice-Raidl-Rhea Architects. F. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Von Maur Vicinity of the southeast corner of 135th Street and Metcalf. Application made by Polsinelli Shalton Welte Suelthaus P.C.

2 Page 2 G. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Crystal Springs Vicinity of the northwest corner of 135th Street and Long. Application made by Crystal Springs, L.L.C. H. FINAL PLAT NO ERC Campus Second Plat Vicinity of the northwest corner of 139th Street and Metcalf. Application made by Peridian Group, Inc. I. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Corporate Lakes Lot 8 Vicinity of the northeast corner of 121st Street and Metcalf. Application made by Payne and Brockway, P.A. Current Planning Acting Manager Leslie Karr stated that Consent Agenda item I, the Final Development Plan Approval for Corporate Lakes Lot 8, was being continued to July 24, Mrs. Karr indicated that staff wanted to remove item C from the Consent Agenda for further discussion. Mrs. Janie Thacker added that she wanted item H to be removed from the Consent Agenda for additional consideration. Mr. John Skubal indicated that he would abstain from voting on the Consent Agenda since his employer worked on items A and B. Chair Hill added that he would abstain from participating in the consideration of Consent Agenda items A, B and C, and he would not be voting on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Edward Ned Reitzes moved to approve Consent Agenda items A, B, D, E, F, and G as stipulated. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mike Flanagan and carried with a vote of 8 to 0 to 2 with Chair Hill and Mr. Skubal abstaining. Regarding item C, the Final Development Plan for the Blue Valley Recreation Maintenance facility, Planner Julie Williams explained that the applicant was requesting the approval to construct a 7,728-square-foot maintenance facility, a covered equipment storage area and an additional 71 parking stalls for the complex. Staff wanted to add stipulation b to indicate that Prior to the issuance of any permit, plans shall be revised to show that no grading will take place in the stream corridor setback and be submitted to Engineering Services for review. Mr. Reitzes moved to approve Consent Agenda item C, the Final Development Plan for the Blue Valley Recreation Maintenance facility, with stipulation a and added stipulation b as read into the record. The motion was seconded by Mr. Flanagan and carried with a vote of 9 to 0 to 1 with Chair Hill abstaining. Regarding item H, Final Plat No , ERC Campus Second Plat, Ms. Thacker asked if the applicant had provided revisions to the stream corridor maintenance agreement. Planner Dave Dalecky replied in the affirmative, and he added that staff was recommending the approval of this item. Ms. Thacker stated that she would be voting against this item because she continued to oppose the realignment of the stream and the stream corridor and the encroachment of the buildings into the stream corridor.

3 Page 3 Mr. Reitzes moved to approve Consent Agenda item H, Final Plat No , ERC Campus Second Plat, with stipulations a, b, and c. The motion was seconded by Mr. Flanagan and carried with a vote of 9 to 1 with Ms. Thacker voting nay. PUBLIC HEARING 2006 Master Plan. Application made by the City of Overland Park. Community Planning and Services Manager John Rod indicated that this was the first of two public hearings before the Planning Commission on the 2006 Master Plan. The second public hearing would be held on July 24, He noted that prior to the July 24, 2006, public hearing, the Planning Commission would have a workshop to review the proposed changes in more detail. Over the past several months, the Master Plan Committee has held several workshops and two public informational meetings regarding the Greenway Linkage Plan for northern Overland Park. The Master Plan Committee is recommending the approval of the changes included in the packet materials. In addition to the standard updates of various elements, the two texts and several maps are included in the Master Plan documents. They have four major areas of change. First, some changes are recommended for Study Area No Second, two key changes are suggested for the Future Development Plan relating to annexations that had previously occurred. Third, there are changes for the Greenway Linkages Plan for northern Overland Park. Mr. Rod noted that the Greenway Linkages Plan for northern Overland Park are similar to the Greenway Linkage Plan that was adopted for the south in Fourth, there are recommended changes for the update and expansion of the Research Topic No. 3, which is a report on How Much Sewered Ground is Available in the City. Regarding Study Area No , earlier in the year the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a new future land use plan for the 543-acre area recently annexed into the City. The annexed area extends from south of 175th Street to 183rd Street and from Pflumm to Quivira. This study area excludes the 98-acre tract that is still in unincorporated Johnson County, which was included in last-year s Master Plan Study Area. The landowners within the study area were contacted and solicited for their ideas as to how they would like to see their land designated. Those landowners who responded asked for a mixture of land uses including low-density residential (1 5 units per acre), medium-density residential (5 to 12.5 units per acre), commercial, public and semi-public. The 112-acre tract that was recently purchased by the Blue Valley School District, west of Quivira between 175th Street and 179th Street, will be shown as public and semi-public. After reviewing the staff report, the Master Plan Committee agreed with the staff recommendation to have the majority of the area shown as low-density residential and the 112-acre tract acquired by the Blue Valley School District to be shown as public and semi-public. They would have greenway linkages along the stream corridors and along the roadways in the area. The Master Plan Committee s recommendation for low-density residential would allow a mixture of residential types with the new zoning district, the PRN, Planned Residential Neighborhood District. The PRN District allows density averaging for tracts of 40 or more acres. All of the major tracts in the study area are 40 acres or more in size. Aside from the large 543-acre annexation area, which was studied separately, future land uses are also proposed for two other recently annexed areas. Both of these recently annexed areas are proposed to be shown as low-density residential. One annexed area is the 40-acre tract on the

4 Page 4 southwest corner of the future extension of 167th Street and Switzer. The second area is the 257-acre area on the west side of Kenneth Road north of 167th Street. The draft Greenway Linkage Plan for northern Overland Park is new although many of the linkages have either been built or anticipated for a number of years. Several of the ideas for greenway linkages in the northern part of the City predate the Greenway Linkage Plan for the southern part of the City. The draft plan was prepared by staff and reviewed by the Master Plan Committee and other key staff members such as department directors. Two public informational meetings have been held to review the plan. As the plan was being prepared, it became apparent that certain compromises were reasonable to expect since the area has been built out for a number of years. The plan proposes linking the miles of off-street, multiuse trails north of I-435 with another miles of new off-street, multiuse trails. The types of trails that would be proposed for use in the northern part of the City would include type 1, which is a separate greenway linkage route through parkland; type 2, which would involve the addition of greenway linkage routes along thoroughfares as a substitute for a sidewalk on one side; and type 3, which would be along collector streets as a substitute for one of the sidewalks. Also, key on-street bike routes would be planned. In trying to get a link between certain facilities, parkland and existing trails, the only reasonable route is to recognize that they will have on-street bike routes and parallel sidewalks. They are still considering if the route in those areas should be marked or signed in some way. There were two maps dealing with the greenway linkage plan for Overland Park. One was the actual plan. The other map identifies the 14.5 miles of trails that are already built to the north of I-435 including the trails along Indian Creek, Shawnee Mission Parkway, and the trails in South Lake Park, and Cherokee Park. The plan also proposes almost 22 miles of off-street multiuse trails. Many of the off-street multiuse trails will be used in lieu of a sidewalk along collectors or thoroughfares. The plan will also recognize a compromise about the on-street bike routes that would be necessary to link all of the different parkland, City facilities and county facilities. Three key off-street multiuse trails will soon be built or are under construction. The first key trail would be along the south side of 87th Street, between the west side of I-35 in Lenexa and to the east side of U.S. 69 Highway. This trail is nearly complete. It is a 10-foot concrete, multiuse trail, which will be a major east-west connector in the northern part of the City. The second key linkage is a trail on the east side of Metcalf between 99th Street and 103rd Street. That trail will be a part of the project that will be done next year. Also, a trail will be built on the south side of the 103rd Street bridge over U.S. 69 Highway. That is a part of the major project that is underway for I-435 and U.S. 69 Highway. This will provide a major east-west linkage through the City, which is somewhat broken up by the U.S. 69 Highway. In light of the development of the draft plan for northern Overland Park, and as a result of comments received at the two public informational meetings, several additions are proposed for the Bike Route Plan. Many of the public hearing speakers were not aware of the Bike Route Plan that was adopted a couple of years ago. The Bike Route Plan was designed for those who are seeking more direct on-street routes through the City. That plan was revised in light of some of those comments and to make the plan consistent with the proposed Greenway Linkage Plan for northern Overland Park. The Bike Route Plan is Citywide and it shows existing routes

5 Page 5 throughout the City that can be used as a more reasonable and safer alternative route for getting through the City. The fourth major change proposed for the 2006 Master Plan is an updated report detailing by land-use category how much land remains unbuilt, the status of access to sanitary sewers, and the estimated number of years to reach buildout. These are the four major areas of change proposed for this year s Master Plan update. Chair Hill opened the public hearing regarding the 2006 Master Plan. There was no response, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Reitzes asked how many residents in the area between 175th Street and 183rd Street from Pflumm to Quivira were interviewed with respect to their preferences for rezoning the land. Mr. Rod replied that all of the landowners within the defined area were interviewed. One landowner owns three quarters of the land. The Blue Valley School District is purchasing the 112-acre tract. REZONING NO Mission. Rezoning requested from R-1, Single-Family Residential District, to MXD, Planned Mixed Use District to allow a mixed use development. Application made by Grubb and Ellis/The Winbury Group. (Approved) REZONING NO Vicinity of the northeast corner of 107th Street and Nall. Rezoning requested from RP-3, Planned Garden Apartment District, RP-6, Planned High-Rise Apartment District, CP-2, Planned General Business District, and R-1, Single-Family Residential District, to MXD, Planned Mixed Use District, to allow a mixed use development. Application made by Grubb and Ellis/The Winbury Group. (Approved) Mr. Charles Hunter indicated that he would recuse himself from the consideration of agenda item Nos. 3 and 4. Mr. Hunter left the room at 2 p.m. Mr. Dalecky stated that staff was recommending that Rezoning Nos and be heard and discussed concurrently. Grub and Ellis/The Winbury Group is the applicant for these items. The applications together create a comprehensive site plan for two sites that are in close proximity to each other between Nall and Mission with a brief interlude in between them, which is the Fox Hill commercial development. He pointed out the intersection of Nall and 107th Street and noted that 107th Street provides access to the AMLI at Cambridge Square apartment complex. The applicant is proposing a realignment of the road (currently known as 107th Street) that would curve to the north and back to the east where it would intersect with Roe and then become a four-legged intersection meeting with the existing Indian Creek Parkway. A bridge is proposed to cross Indian Creek going into proposed Mission Farms West beginning with a roundabout and continuing to Mission Road. The legs off the roundabout are proposed to be public streets. Both projects involve infrastructure changes to what currently exists or was contemplated in the recent past. The applicant s proposal would create a connection

6 Page 6 from Nall to Mission through the Highlands Village development, which is known as Rezoning No , go through Mission Farms West, which is Rezoning No , and then go into Mission Farms, which is the mixed use development that is currently under construction in Leawood. The Mission Farms West project has some components that exemplify the character of mixed use development that staff envisioned when they crafted the Mixed Use District ordinance. Mission Farms West is effective in creating a downtown character with the arrangement of the buildings along the public street. There is angled parking along the internal main streets, which is like the City s downtown area. The buildings also have a true mix of uses unlike some other mixed uses where they would have an office above a retail use without residential. When a development excludes residential, it does not incorporate the live, work, and play environment. The buildings of Mission Farms West are close together, which creates a vertical dynamic as opposed to a horizontal dynamic that is more typically seen in suburban development. To the north of the Mission Farms West project is currently individual residential homes zoned R-1. To the west is the Foxhill commercial development. To the east across Mission Road is a mixed use project under construction. The mixed use project includes a town home development. To the north of that area is the Mission Farms residential subdivision with new home sites on one-acre lots. The buildings in the Mission Farms West project are set up against the public streets and there is parking on the public streets, which is a unique condition. A pedestrian active zone is created where the first floor of the buildings along the southern public street are retail or office uses. There are residential units on the second, third and fourth stories. There would be four-story buildings on the north side of the public street and one-, two-, and three-story office buildings on the south side. The activity would be brought up against the street edge. The same thing occurs on the northern street segment where the buildings on the south side would have retail on the first floor and the above levels would be residential. The buildings on the north side of this street would be town houses and residential uses with three-story buildings. The development also includes one-story buildings along Mission Road. Those buildings are brought up against the property line between the public street and private property. The project incorporates several components to create the kind of mixed use the City is encouraging. A large parking area is enclosed by the buildings. The buildings are brought up along the public street edge. The site plan incorporates a lot of the ideas that were a part of the initial thought with the mixed use zoning. There is also a parking area to the south of the development between the buildings and I-435. The buildings that have a residential component would have below-grade parking garages for the residents who live on upper levels above retail. The site is a total of 24 acres. There are 227,000 square feet of non-residential uses. This is different from what was written in staff comments. There was a last minute change. The applicant is proposing that 159,200 square feet be dedicated to retail uses and 67,800 square feet be dedicated to office uses. There is no expectation that this will be the exact breakdown between office and retail. However, based on the design of the project, this is a likely outcome. One of the buildings in Mission Farms West is dedicated to office uses. The three-story building to the southeast of the roundabout, near the entrance to the development from the west, would have 85 residential units with a combination of town houses and condominiums. The buildings of Mission Farms West are designed to create the main street with retail on

7 Page 7 the first floor and condominiums on the upper three levels. There are town house units to the north of the development and retail buildings along Mission Road. The site provides for 100,100 parking stalls, which exceeds what the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) would require based on the uses identified by the applicant. There is on-street parking provided along the main streets that are internal to the project, which is a unique circumstance. Parking garages are provided for the residential units above the retail buildings. The building architecture is also one of the features that is indicative of mixed use development. There are vertical separations between buildings that would be in line with the character of a downtown type of development. The separations result from building articulation and different applications of the materials vertically along the facades. The elevations also encourage street activity. There are covered walkways with awnings and masonry columns that are supporting the awnings. Mr. Dalecky referred to an example of a retail building with elements that turn corners and create shadow lines. There are changes of materials along what would appear to be several store fronts, although one store could occupy several of the spaces. The change of materials gives the illusion that different buildings were constructed at different times, and it is indicative of a downtown character. A three-story office building would be located at the southeast corner of the roundabout. It also has a substantial amount of detail in the building articulation and varying rooflines. Mr. Dalecky referred to examples of one-story retail along Mission Road with an illusion of being two-story buildings. There are also elevations of mixed use components with retail on the first floor and residential units above in the next three stories. The applications of different materials are used to help provide a vertical separation. The building materials would be predominantly red brick, which is indicative of downtown main streets. The applicant is proposing to use EIFS material and pre-cast stone at the base of the buildings. Standing metal seam roofs will be used for the awnings. The large expanses of roofs would be covered with asphalt shingles. The buildings are divided vertically with changes of building materials. There is a great deal of activity and detail at the pedestrian level where there would be the retail uses of the buildings. Regarding the Highlands Village project, which is located between Nall and Roe, this development is not necessarily identical in the effectiveness of recreating a downtown area like Mission Farms West. However, Highlands Village meets the mixed use requirements effectively since the buildings are brought up to the street edge and there is a true mix of uses in the development. The buildings are set close to each other, which creates a more pedestrian-oriented development. The City map shows zonings of the site where there is currently RP-6 on the west edge of the project along Nall and 107th Street, RP-3 through the interior, and a substantial portion of commercial going from Roe to the middle of the development. The entire distance between Nall and Mission is a half mile. It is an extensive development that is unique for this area of Overland Park since there are no other undeveloped parcels of this size to the north of I-435. Mr. Dalecky referred to a map of the Highlands Village project site and pointed out the location of an existing single-family house and an ox-bow lake that does not have a connection to the stream channel of Indian Creek to the north. There is parkland to the north, AMLI at Cambridge Square to the south, and a QuikTrip to the southeast of the site. To the northeast is the Suburban Lawn and Garden center, and to the east

8 Page 8 and southeast is the Foxhill shopping center. To the south there is also a Corporate Medical Plaza and a three building office development. Across Nall to the west is the Shawnee Mission South High School campus. The applicant has divided the project into three subvillages defined as east, central and west. The east village is a retail oriented development consisting of five, one-story buildings that are brought up to the street, as required by the Mixed Use Design Guidelines. This creates a presence along the edge of Roe. The parking areas are internalized and broken up with parking blocks. Some of the buildings would have drive-through uses. The areas where there are drives or parking between the building and public street would require a wall or a low hedge to meet the Mixed Use Design Guidelines. Highlands Central is predominantly the office component of the project, although it includes some retail uses. There are two small, one-story buildings identified for restaurant uses and a seven-story office building that would include a parking garage. Some retail is proposed on the first floor of this building. There is also a two-story office building. Highlands West is predominantly residential. As noted in Staff Comments, the applicant is proposing a cluster of non-residential buildings at the intersection of 107th Street and Roe and four buildings along 107th Street. The non-residential element at the intersection of Nall and 107th Street includes two, 2-story buildings that face 107th Street (Buildings 12 and 13) and the first floor of two, 4-story buildings (Buildings 10 and 11). Mr. Dalecky noted that the residential buildings include a mix of four- to eight-story condominium buildings and there would be parking in the lower levels. This land has a high point at the intersection of 107th Street and Nall, and it slopes lower as the land nears the Indian Creek channel. The slope of the land provides an opportunity for the applicant to terrace the buildings. There are some taller buildings that would overlook some shorter buildings in the four-story range that overlook the Indian Creek channel and the public parks to the north of Indian Creek. The land use is not in compliance with the Master Plan as the designations are shown. However, a combination of the uses and the predominant residential has convinced staff that the project includes acceptable land uses. The overall site includes 57 acres from Nall to Roe. The total non-residential use consists of 272,200 square feet including 145,700 square feet of retail and 127,000 square feet of office. The project includes 402 residential units. The site provides for 1,955 parking stalls, which are a combination of surface parking and garages for the condominiums. There is also a parking garage for the seven-story office building in the Highlands Central development. The parking areas for Highlands East are set away from Roe. They are also divided into parking lots. Mr. Dalecky referred to some elevations of the proposed buildings. The plans have an emphasis on pedestrian circulation with sidewalks interconnecting the retail uses. The slopes provide for the terracing of the residential buildings to overlook the Indian Creek channel and some of the natural features. The architecture has been designed so that all of the buildings in the Highlands Village development have a similar contextual design in character. Those examples identify that there is a potential facade articulation in various rooflines created, which is indicative of the expectations for the mixed use ordinances as they were written. The materials will be predominantly red brick with EIFS and cut stone.

9 Page 9 The applicant was required to provide a transportation analysis for various potential scenarios, which would include one project without the other and then both projects together. The highlights of the study indicate that the proposed rezonings increase the average daily trips. One of the key factors is that the level of service of the intersections in and around the development would not be at unacceptable levels at the 2030 conditions. Storm water studies were also submitted, and there is a storm water deviation request for Highlands Village. He noted that Principal Engineer Kirk Coonley would also discuss this project. Mr. Conley stated that approximately one third of the Highlands Village project is in the floodplain. That third includes Highlands Village East and Highlands Village Central. This area also has two stream corridors. One is a tributary to Indian Creek and the other is Indian Creek. Tributary 10 flows from the south to the north, skirts around the end of the stub at 107th Street and continues up to Indian Creek. Tributary 10 will require a stream corridor deviation. Tributary 10 hugs Roe to the right and if that stream corridor is preserved, there will be some separation between Roe and developable area to the west of the stream corridor. The runoff from approximately 350 acres drains into this stream. A 100-foot buffer is required on each side of the stream as required by the ordinance. There is a developed growth of trees through much of the corridor. The City forester estimates that the ages of those trees average 20 years, and some of the trees are as old as 60. Highland Village East would occupy an area that would require a stream relocation to the central portion of the site. This requires a deviation. As in the past when applicants have proposed major impacts on streams, staff has not supported the requested stream relocation deviation. Because of that, the applicant hired a geomorphologist from Intuition and Logic. The geomorphologist has submitted two separate studies. One study was prepared in January that addressed issues along Tributary 10. Another study was presented last week that addressed issues that staff had raised regarding the Indian Creek stream corridor. Staff was objecting to the relocation of the streams because of a significant loss of trees. A rough estimate indicates that four acres of trees would be lost between the filled in channel that would be needed to create Highlands Village East plus some trees that would have to be removed when they put in the relocated stream channel. He explained that in order to create the proper dynamics for the stream, they have to meander the stream by clearing some other areas that are currently treed. It was staff s opinion that this does not conform to the spirit and intent of the Stream Corridor Ordinance. They did not include stream relocations as a part of the ordinance because they wanted to discourage them altogether. This is also unique in the fact that at this site, both the existing stream and the proposed relocated stream are in the floodplain. They would have thought that this would be one area where the stream could have been left undisturbed. The Corps of Engineers has issued an individual permit for this project. It is not current and needs to be updated. In that original permit, there was a special condition that required the applicant to restrict the clearing of timber and other vegetation to the minimum required to accomplish the work. It was staff s opinion that the relocating of the stream would disturb more timber than if the stream was left in place.

10 Page 10 This project has had a fairly long history including the discussion of relocating the stream that began in This is the only project of which staff was aware that had been under significant discussion prior to the development of the Stream Corridor Ordinance. The application for a Corps of Engineers permit was made in It was received in August It was then extended in December The City s Stream Corridor Ordinance went into effect in October 2002, and it provided a one-year grandfather provision for projects that were underway. At one point, staff encouraged the applicant to do the stream relocation work although they did not have all of the details of what they wanted to do with the site. However, the work was not done then. If the deviation is not granted, it would require a redesign of what has been presented that would affect both Highlands Central and Highlands East. Along the Indian Creek main channel, there is an adjacent corridor that would be of concern. The applicant has proposed this development to stay outside the stream corridor. Staff became concerned about two specific areas. One concern regards a steep bluff. In walking on the City s bike trail along Indian Creek in the City s park, there is significant erosion taking place. This was a part of the subject of the second geomorphology study. The conclusion was that the required 120-foot stream corridor would be reasonably adequate for this section of the stream. The other concern regards the geotechnical features of the site. There are some shale layers that are exposed in the bluff that may be underlying in the area. If they saturate the soil with a shale, it can become slippery when it is wet. That could potentially create some significant problems for building in that area. As a result of that study, the applicant pulled back a building and substituted a parking lot in that area. In staff s opinion, that concern has been adequately addressed. As long as the development remains out of the 120-foot stream corridor, adequate construction room is provided around the buildings outside the 120-foot zone, and there is no grading in the stream setback, staff does not believe a deviation is needed along the Indian Creek channel. Principal Engineer Kirk Coonley wanted to discuss flow regime. Mr. Dalecky previously mentioned an oxbow lake in the center of this project. This was at one time the main channel of Indian Creek. It has since been cut off, and there is a plug that separates the oxbow lake from Indian Creek. Staff was concerned with the erosion of the Indian Creek bank. They questioned what would happen if Indian Creek erodes to where the oxbow lake is located. Currently, the oxbow lake drains to the southeast and comes back down almost to 107th Street and joins Tributary 10. If that plug was to be removed, Indian Creek would try to recapture that meander channel. Right now it is not in a stable condition. Its alignment has been steepened, and it is trying to flatten its alignment. With the construction of 107th Street, if the crossing of the oxbow lake is shut off, that would effectively block Indian Creek from recapturing the channel and meandering down to where the proposed relocated channel is located. One of the questions they alluded to is if they should intentionally break this plug and design some kind of hydraulic solution to address how this area will drain. Another question is what would be the consequences if they should allow the water to continue to run to the south and let the creek eventually break the plug. Those are some questions that staff cannot answer at this time. They will have to be addressed as they move toward the design of the project. Highlands Village East and Highlands Village Central are in the floodplain. A part of the reason this area is in floodplain is because of the bridge on Roe over Indian Creek.

11 Page 11 It is not big enough to handle a 100-year storm. Water piles up behind the bridge and floods the area. There is concern that when they build a public street, it will have to be elevated high enough to be above the 100-year flood elevation. Another concern is that in this large of an area, there can be differences in the rates at which floodwater rises and falls. The conditions can be made worse if the openings under the street are not the appropriate size. One of the consequences is that the crossing of Tributary 10 may have to be as big as the bridge. They might not be able to accomplish this with a culvert depending on some hydraulic analyses that have not yet been performed. Other issues include filling in the floodplain. They have a no rise requirement on adjacent properties for placing fill in the floodplain. Some of the proposed fill is in the floodway. It is not just a City requirement. It is also a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirement. In order to address this issue, the Highlands Village project is relying on the flood control project that is proposed to happen concurrently with the Mission Farms West project. That project is a part of a Memorandum of Understanding that is being developed between the developer and the City to remove from the floodplain approximately 12 buildings that currently flood in the Foxhill commercial development. That project will lower the water levels sufficiently so the fill required for Highlands Village East and Highlands Village Central can be placed without causing the water level to be higher than it is today. If something happens where that flood control project does not happen, this project would need to be redesigned to meet the no rise requirement for placing fill in the floodplain. They do have a permit that does not reflect their current development. What it does reflect is 107th Street. Originally it was planned to go straight through the east/west road between Nall and Roe. The applicant has now proposed a different alignment. While there were substantial wetlands on the original alignment of 107th Street, the current plan has less impact on wetlands than the original plan. From staff s point of view, they think the Corps of Engineers would issue an updated permit when the applicant submits the required information. FEMA and the State of Kansas Division of Water Resources may be combined with the permits that will be required for the flood control project, or they could be separate. In summarizing environmental issues, they have to address floodplain fills, stream relocation, loss of mature trees, and wildlife habitat. There are major changes to the flow regime within the floodplain. To go forward with this project, it will be necessary to lower the flood levels. Staff is not in support of the stream relocation, but they believe the rest of the issues either have been or can be addressed. If the public flood control project is not constructed, this project will need to be reconsidered to deal with floodplain issues. Mr. Dalecky stated that he wanted to discuss the compliance of these projects with the Master Plan. The Master Plan designations currently identify the Mission Farms West development for open space use and low density on the northerly three fifths of the site. He pointed out the existing floodplain area. Mr. Coonley and he spent time talking about a flood control project as well as potential fill in the floodplain that could remove this area from the floodplain and convert it into developable land. The category of the low-density land use to the north had been an expectation for a long period of time as this property had been held by the same property owner for several years. The recent change to the Master Plan in the City of Leawood to mixed use

12 Page 12 development is a substantial reason why staff is considering mixed use development here, which is a contradiction of the existing Master Plan. Mr. Dalecky showed some pictures of the Mission Farms West property, the Mission Farms project under construction in Leawood, and the Highlands Village property. Highlands Village is in substantial compliance with the existing designations on the Master Plan. As noted in Staff Comments, the exception is the cluster of retail at the intersection of 107th Street and Nall and the buildings proposed for office along 107th Street. An exception is the non-residential component at the intersection of Nall and 107th Street. Staff is supportive of the proposed non-residential uses to the north of 107th Street as proposed by the applicant. The plan is effectively mixing uses, particularly with buildings that will contain residential and retail uses. Mr. Dalecky indicated that staff supported the proposed changes to the designations on the Master Plan. Staff was recommending the approval of Rezoning No , with stipulations a through w. Staff was unable to recommend the approval of Rezoning No , based on the analysis of the stream corridor deviation request. All of the other components of that application are found to be satisfactory to staff. The Planning Commission would have the options of denying the stream corridor deviation request, recommending a continuance of the item for the applicant to modify their plan, or approving the rezoning and the stream corridor deviation request. If the Planning Commission approves this request, staff would recommend the inclusion of stipulations a through hh. Regarding Rezoning No , Mr. Dalecky noted that stipulations b and f needed to be revised based on changes to the site plan. Stipulation b would indicate that the non-residential area would be 227,000 square feet rather than 223,300 square feet. Stipulation f would be revised to indicate that the payment should be $189,318 instead of $186,232. Mr. Richard Collins asked how Mission Farms, which is the project being constructed in Leawood, would compare with Mission Farms West. Mr. Dalecky replied that the Mission Farms project is under construction, and the applicant has some examples that show the overall plan for what is known as Mission Farms. Mission Farms and Mission Farms West will have a similar character. They are both mixed use projects, and they will have retail on the ground floor and residential units above. There will be other buildings in those developments that are either strictly residential uses or strictly retail uses. It is staff s opinion that the Mission Farms West project goes a little further in meeting the intent of true mixed use development. Mission Farms West has an internal public street system and parking along the public street system to allow through vehicular movement. Mission Farms has one way in and one way out. Mission Farms West also has buildings along Mission Road. In staff s opinion, Mission Farms West reflects more of a downtown development. However, the two mixed use projects have a complementary relationship with some similarities in the buildings. Mr. Collins asked if the project in Leawood would have a similar design to Mission Farms West. Mr. Dalecky replied that the applicant would discuss the materials. The building form would be similar. Regarding Rezoning No , Mr. Collins noted that on page No. 40 in Staff Comments the proposed retail and office appeared to have different numbers for the

13 Page 13 retail and office square footage in comparison to the presentation. Mr. Dalecky explained the power point slides provided by the applicant identified the breakdown of square footage dedicated to the various sub villages. Table I on page No. 40 was prepared by Senior Transportation Planner Mark Stuecheli. Mr. Stuecheli added that there are often differences between what was prepared in a traffic impact study and the final product, because the traffic study is done at the front end of the process before it is filed and there are some modifications. There were no major changes with the plan, and the traffic study results did show that the impact was not critical. If there are some changes or increases in the trip generation, it would probably not have a significant impact on the nearby intersections. Mr. Collins asked if Mr. Stuecheli compared the plan that was approved in 1967 with the current plan. Mr. Stuecheli replied that there was a reference in the report about that plan. They looked at the residential component that was shown in the 1967 plan and used that as it was on higher ground. With the 1967 rezoning, almost the entire CP-2 area was in the floodplain. They thought it was not reasonable to use the numbers from the 39-yearold rezoning as a realistic indication of what would be approved on the site. They worked out a situation where they could determine what portion of the original CP-2 site would be developable at this time. They applied that same percentage to the overall retail square footage in the original zoning and reduced the total retail that is the base number. They have already made that adjustment. With that adjustment in place, the traffic impacts are not to the point where they are concerned. Mr. Collins asked what would trigger the need for detention. He noticed that Staff Comments indicated that detention is not required with Rezoning No Mr. Coonley replied that detention is usually required because of downstream flooding problems. In the past, when a stream was over 1,500 acres they did not require detention for problems on streams of that magnitude and larger. Both of these projects are next to a major stream so there is no detention requirement. That has not been the City policy in the past, although it might become the City s policy in the future. Generally they find that when they have a large drainage area, the detention has minimal impact. Mr. Collins asked if the Stream Corridor Ordinance grandfathers in projects where an application was filed prior to one year before the enactment of the ordinance. Mr. Coonley replied that was for the original year when the ordinance was passed, and there was a grandfather period. The projects today that are grandfathered are the ones that had an approved development plan. The alternative is that they have to comply with the City s storm sewer ordinance, which would require those streams to be piped if they are not in compliance with the Stream Corridor Ordinance. Mr. Collins asked if that 1967 plan would qualify Highlands Village for being grandfathered. Mr. Coonley replied that the project could be grandfathered if the stream was piped. Mr. Collins asked how many other stream relocations have been authorized. Mr. Coonley replied that a stream relocation was approved for the Erickson project. Another stream relocation was approved two and a half years ago, which is now known as Deer Valley at 159th Street and Bluejacket. They bull-dozed the stream two years prior to the time the City considered that application. Mr. Collins asked how extensive were those streamway relocations compared to this. Mr. Coonley replied that the drainage area for this application involves 350 acres. The Erickson drainage area involved approximately 450 acres. In terms of the physical stream deviation, the Erickson stream relocation was relatively minor. It was kept in the same general area

14 Page 14 but moved somewhat to accommodate some buildings. It was not as significant as this steam relocation. Regarding Indian Creek, Mr. Tom Lance asked if they have any record as to how much creep has developed on the cut banks on the north and south sides of Indian Creek. Mr. Coonley replied that the geomorphologist who was hired by the applicant had studied aerial photographs and looked at the stream migration. However, he was not present. Mr. Lance asked if there was some way to curtail the cut banks so they do not drift. Mr. Coonley replied that they would generally not like that approach. It tends to be hard to know how to do it without creating some unintended consequences. The geomorphologist at one time indicated that if they do something along Indian Creek, it will take a major effort to address that issue. Mr. Lance stated a few years from now, the cut banks could create a bad problem. Mr. Coonley noted that is part of the reason they have the Stream Corridor Ordinance with a 120-foot buffer along Indian Creek. Part of the presumption is that as much as 60 feet along the banks could be lost to erosion over the years. That is built into the Stream Corridor Ordinance and one reason why they have that buffer. Regarding the earlier question, he was told that Indian Creek is moving one foot per year. That would not occur everywhere. That would be where the cutting is most pronounced. Mr. Reitzes noted that since the Future Development Plan identifies approximately one quarter of the site at Mission Farms West for low-density residential and the remaining three fourths as open space, he asked if the applicant had discussed the possibility of leaving part of the site as open space. Mr. Dalecky replied that the answer to that question involves both projects. The applicant has proposed that there be a property ownership swap. Currently, a triangular piece of land at the northerly portion of the Highlands East area is in Roe Park and belongs to the City. The applicant had proposed that in association with the flood control project, there should there be a land swap for a parcel that is bordered by Indian Creek to the southwest and Mission Road on the east. The 20-acre area would be dedicated to the City as open space. It would not be productive open space that could be used for fields or parking. It would be part of the flood control project where there would be excavation of the area, and it would just be left undeveloped. The land swap is not directly a compensation for the green space that would be lost to the Mission Farms West development. As a function of the flood control project, the Mission Farms development would have a setback of 150 to 200 feet to the east of the edge of the Indian Creek channel. There is some open space associated with this project. He added that the basic concept of a mixed use project is an urban development. Regarding Mr. Collins reference to Table I on page No. 40 of Staff Comments, Mr. Dalecky noted that the table indicated 310,450 square feet of non-residential that would include the retail office. Based on the latest plan with some modifications that were part of the Indian Creek Channel Stability Study and other concerns, the total square footage for non-residential uses for Rezoning No is 272,700. That is approximately 40,000 square feet less of non-residential uses, which improves the average daily trip discrepancy numbers. He noted that would coincide with a revision to stipulation h of Rezoning No , to reduce an overall cash payment for unspecified transportation improvements from $258,915 to $227,432. Mr. Greg Musil, attorney for the applicant, Shughart Thomson and Kilroy, 9225 Indian Creek Parkway, Suite 1100, indicated that he was representing the development teams for Rezoning Nos and Mr. Musil said that he first became involved

15 Page 15 with this project in These projects are unique infill developments for this part of the City, and they will spur adjoining redevelopment. The projects are to have a mixed use urban design that will have a vertical integration of different uses. They are of a size and scope that has not been tried before to the north of I-435. Mr. Doug Weltner, a representative for one of the development teams, first met with Director of Planning and Development Services Roger Peterson in December 2000 to discuss the Highlands Village project. They have had intense discussions with staff regarding this project. When there have been reasonable opportunities to compromise, that has happened. There is one point of disagreement, and that is with the stream relocation. They met one time with the Site Plan Review Committee to present a basic idea of the site layout and architectural design. Three questions are critical to the future of the development of this type of project in Overland Park. First, they must consider if they are willing to accept the type of design standards and density that they have set in their ordinances for mixed use development that will be something slightly different from development in the past. They have said they want more density and high rise residential to support retail and office uses on the site so they can share parking, traffic and work, live and play in the same area. Second, they need to decide if they are willing to look at the big picture of these projects combined with flood control and the connectivity of a bridge and a street as opposed to focusing on technical issues. Finally, regarding Highlands Village, the City s consideration will go far in determining whether the City is willing to accommodate and keep the promises that were made in 1967 with the approved rezoning. As Planning Commissioners, they have a chance to answer those questions and to allow these projects to go forward with a recommendation to the Council. Mr. Musil observed that they are not aware of any opposition from their neighbors. The Foxhill business owners have been dealt with extensively because of the flood control projects and the implication of an improvement district. The projects are environmentally sensitive and meet all of the policy goals and guidelines of the City with the exception of the stream relocation opinion of staff. The developments will allow the flood control project to proceed, which is otherwise unlikely to happen. In good faith, they have diligently worked with staff over five years to make these projects a reality. Mr. Musil introduced the development teams who were present and he indicated that Mr. Robert Prager, Intuition and Logic, was the geomorphologist who worked on this project. Staff would agree that Mr. Prager is a leading expert on geomorphology, which is the study of streams. Mr. Prager has studied both Indian Creek and Tributary 10 and submitted his recommendations to staff. His recommendation is that the relocation will work, and the 120-foot buffer along the Indian Creek stream corridor is sufficient for this project. Mr. Musil referred to an aerial photograph of the two rezoning areas and pointed out the tract to the south of I-435 that would be donated to the City. He noted that in the 1960s, the City envisioned a continuation of Indian Creek Parkway across Indian Creek to Mission Road. Indian Creek Parkway stubs in the Foxhill development to the east of Roe because the City intended to eventually put a bridge there. By building a bridge in conjunction with this project, the City s vision from the 1960s will be fulfilled. The flood control project is important. Without the flood control efforts, neither of these projects would be possible, and the Foxhill business cannot be taken out of the floodplain. He referred to a map of the existing floodplain based on a recent study of