OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. October 27, 2008

Transcription

1 OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 27, 2008 The Overland Park Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Mrs. Kim Sorensen, Chair. The following members were present, constituting a quorum: Mr. Richard Collins, Vice Chair; Mr. Tom Lance; Mrs. Janie Thacker; Mr. Edward Ned Reitzes; Mr. George Lund; Mr. John Brake; Mr. Bob Gadd; Mr. Steve Troester; Mr. David M. Hill; and Mr. Mike Flanagan. Also present were: Mrs. Leslie Karr, Current Planning Manager; Mr. Bart Budetti, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Mark Stuecheli, Senior Transportation Planner; Mr. David Dalecky, Planner; Mr. Keith Gooch, Senior Planner; Ms. Danielle Zeigler, Planner; Mr. Aaron Dubois, Planning Technician; Ms. Pam Fortun, Civil Engineer II; Ms. Alysen Abel, Civil Engineer II; Mr. Jason Beske, Senior Planner; Mr. Tony Meyers, Supervisory Civil Engineer; Mr. Lloyd Nichols, Senior Help Desk Support Specialist; and Mrs. Barbara Potts, Recording Secretary. There were three people in the audience. CONSENT AGENDA: (Approved Items A, G, H and K as stipulated; Continued Items B, C, D, F and J; and withdrew Items E and I) A. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Garden Terrace 7541 Switzer. Application made by Garden Terrace. B. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Corbin Park Vicinity of the southeast corner of 135th Street and Metcalf. Application made by Polsinelli Shalton Flanigan Suelthaus, PC. C. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL T-Mobile Wireless Installation at St. Thomas Aquinas Pflumm. Application made by T-Mobile Central L.L.C. D. FINAL PLAT NO Coffee Creek Crossing Fourth Plat Vicinity of the southwest corner of 167th Street and Switzer. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. E. FINAL PLAT NO Indian Creek Executive Center Third Plat Vicinity of the northeast corner of 119th Street and Indian Creek Parkway. Application made by Schlagel and Associates, P.A. F. SIGN CRITERIA Oak Park Mall Vicinity of the southeast corner of 95th Street and Quivira. Application made by CBL and Associates.

2 Page 2 G. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Westchase Grille Roe. Application made by Westchase, Inc. H. SIGN CRITERIA Lamar Office Centre Vicinity of the northwest corner of 143rd Street and Lamar. Application made by Slaggie Architects, Inc. I. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Chipotle Mexican Grill 5065 West 119th Street. Application made by Dungan Design Group L.L.C. J. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Midtown Tennis Club Outdoor Tennis Court Expansion 6700 West 110th Street. Application made by Columbia Equities, L.P. K. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Verizon 7201 West 75th Street. Application made by Dean Faulkender. Current Planning Manager Leslie Karr informed the Planning Commission that there were a number of design-related stipulations that needed to be addressed on Consent Agenda item K, Final Development Plan for Verizon. She confirmed that the applicant has addressed those issues, and the item is ready for approval. Mr. Mike Flanagan moved to approve Consent Agenda items A, G, H and K, subject to all stipulations. Mr. Steve Troester seconded the motion, which passed by an 11 to 0 vote, including the vote of Chair Kim Sorensen. Items B, C, D, and F were continued to the November 10, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. Item J was continued to the November 24, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. Items E and I were withdrawn. REZONING NO Quivira. Rezoning requested from RP-OS, Planned Open Space Single-Family Residential District, to RP-4, Planned Cluster Dwelling District, and RP-5, Planned Apartment House District, to allow a multi-family residential development. Application made by T. Percival, L.L.C. Mr. Flanagan moved to continue Rezoning No , Quivira, to the November 10, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. Mrs. Janie Thacker seconded, and the motion passed by a vote of 11 to 0. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL Heritage United Methodist Church Quivira. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. A motion was made by Mr. Troester to continue Revised Preliminary Plan for Heritage United Methodist Church, Quivira, to the November 10, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Edward Ned Reitzes seconded, and the motion passed by an 11 to 0 vote.

3 Page 3 REZONING NO Vicinity of the southeast corner of I-435 and U.S. 69 Highway. Rezoning requested from CP-O, Planned Office Building District, to MXD, Mixed Use District, to allow a mixed use project. Application made by Stoltz Management Company. Mr. Bob Gadd moved to continue Rezoning No , vicinity of the southeast corner of I-435 and U.S. 69 Highway, to the November 10, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. A second was made by Mr. Troester, and the motion passed by an 11 to 0 vote. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL Corporate Woods Vicinity of the northwest corner of College Boulevard and Antioch. Application made by Stolz Management Company. Mr. Gadd moved to continue Revised Preliminary Plan for Corporate Woods, vicinity of the northwest corner of College Boulevard and Antioch, to the November 10, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. After a second by Mr. Troester, the motion passed by a vote of 11 to 0. REZONING NO Vicinity of the northeast corner of 95th Terrace and Mission. Rezoning requested from C-O, Office Building District, to CP-2, Planned General Business District, to allow a new retail building. Application made by Klover Architects, Inc. Planner Danielle Zeigler said the applicant is requesting a rezoning from C-O, Office Building District, to CP-2, Planned General Business District, to allow a new retail building. The 0.52-acre tract is located at the southwest corner of the existing Ranchmart South shopping center. The property is currently zoned C-O for office uses, however, the Master Plan does designate this area as being appropriate for commercial uses, so the request is in compliance with the Master Plan. The neighborhood is characterized by single-family homes to the south across 95th Terrace and multi-family residential across Mission Road. The applicant is requesting approval to allow a new 5,716 square foot retail building comprised of two levels. A house, which has been used for office purposes, is currently located at the site of the future building. Ms. Zeigler explained that this house will be torn down, and the new building will be constructed of brick, cast stone, and stone veneer with wood and steel accents to match the building upgrades on the main Ranchmart building. The applicant has provided two sets of building elevations for this site. One elevation is a potential future retail/office building at this location, and the other elevation is a satellite garden center for the existing hardware store in Ranchmart South. The existing garden center will remain at the current location until such time as the new retail/office building will be built.

4 Page 4 Ms. Zeigler said the proposed building location requires a deviation for the loading area on the south side of the building to be located six feet from the property line. She explained that the Infill Design Guidelines allow a 10-foot setback, but because of the grades in this location, the space needed for maneuverability in the drive area, and the height of the forklifts, the drive to the overhead door cannot meet the required setback. Since the site slopes drastically from north to south toward 95th Terrace, the applicant is making use of the grades for lower level storage for the garden center. Trees are proposed to screen the overhead door from the homes across 95th Terrace, and staff will work with the applicant at the time of final development plan approval to further screen views into the loading area. Most customer pick-ups for the garden center will occur on the northern side of the garden center where customers can back into the easterly parking space designated for loading. If a customer purchases an entire pallet of materials that are stored in the lower level, a forklift will be used to raise the pallet from the lower level to the customer s vehicle. She explained that this will eliminate excessive use of the loading area during peak times. The lower level is not intended to be staffed at all times, so the overhead door will remain closed most of the time. The parking for the proposed retail building will be shared with the rest of the Ranchmart South shopping center. The total square footage for the shopping center, including the new building, is 196,018 square feet, which includes 37,513 square feet of lower level offices, storage and vacant space. This property is subject to the Infill and Redevelopment Design Guidelines, allowing shopping centers in excess of 50,000 square feet to provide parking at a ratio of four spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. With this new building, parking for the proposed center would be required at a rate of 785 parking spaces. The proposed parking consists of 705 stalls, which includes parking in the existing parking garage and parking spaces on a future pad site along Mission Road. Because of the multi-level nature of the shopping center, staff is of the opinion that a deviation for the number of parking spaces is warranted. Ms. Zeigler explained that an additional parking deviation may be necessary at future stages of the project once details are worked out with additional final development plans. She commented that a parking deviation for 717 parking stalls was granted by the City Council on November 20, 2006, with the approval of a revised preliminary plan (PDP No ), and staff is comfortable with examining any further deviations with future phases. Staff recommends approval of Rezoning No , with stipulations a through h. Mr. George Lund inquired whether it would be possible for the applicant to move the building further to the north to alleviate the deviation. Ms. Zeigler explained that the grading slopes from north to south. In order to make the drive configuration work properly and the lower level ceiling high enough to accommodate the forklifts, this was the setback they were able to provide. Mr. Richard Collins inquired whether anyone reviewed the possibility of having the forklift entrance on the east side of the building. By doing it that way, they would not have to take up the southerly portion.

5 Page 5 Mr. Duane Hicks, 1213 West 32nd Street, Independence, Missouri, said he is representing the applicant. In answer to the question about moving the building further to the north to alleviate the deviation, he explained that the layout has a minimum turning radius for the forklift in order to have a suitably sized building and to retain as much parking as possible. He explained that this layout was the only way it would work. In reference to the forklift entrance being relocated to the east side of the building, Mr. Hicks stated that the original plan was to put the entrance on the east side. However, there was a problem because of the steep grade. He explained that there is a cross slope and a fairly steep drive going into the building, which cannot be modified because of the location of the existing building, street, truck delivery area, and new truck dock that has been approved. He further explained that the severe cross slope would mean that the forklifts with pallets would have to drive in at an angle. He added that because of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) issues, accessibility would be a concern because of the steep drive. Mr. Tom Lance expressed concern that the residents to the south of this facility would have to view the stored items at the facility. Mr. Hicks assured the Planning Commission that the door on the south side of the building will be closed most of the time because of security issues. He explained that the storage area would not be staffed all the time, so the door would remain closed until they needed to access the stored items. Mr. Lance inquired whether the overhead doors on the south elevation could be moved to the east elevation at the south bay. He suggested that the lower level floor could be raised to a point where the grade would not cause any difficulty for the forklifts to raise the pallets to the upper level. Mr. Hicks replied that the applicant did consider that, but several issues came up in terms of raising the building. One of the issues was that he needed to have accessible parking stalls to get into the upper level. He explained that the applicant has an accessible parking stall with a ramp going into the sales area on the top level. If the lower level would be raised by two feet, it would create a switchback ramp that would take up one more parking space and a ramp that would have to be shared by forklifts and wheelchairs. In response to Mr. Lance s question about the type of lighting proposed, Mr. Hicks said that lights will be at the base of each of the stone columns and lights within the trellis aimed down onto the parking spaces. Mrs. Thacker expressed concern about the overhead doors on the south side of the facility. She believed the noise that is associated with vehicles backing up and the constant beeping sound would affect the neighbors across the street. She also questioned the need to have a storage area for hardware materials. Mr. Hicks explained that the storage area will be used to store items and keep the items on the outside to a minimum. He also indicated that the storage area is used to keep a dry inventory, rather than being exposed to weather conditions. He imagined

6 Page 6 that the applicant would be able to keep more in stock if he is able to store it. He explained that the main items to be stored would be mulch, grass seed, fertilizer and gravel rocks. In terms of the concern regarding the noise associated with the vehicles, Mr. Hicks assured the Planning Commission that many of the vehicles, such as 18-wheelers and forklifts, will be used temporarily during the construction period. Mrs. Thacker also questioned the stacking of materials in an open area. She asked the height of the rail that goes around the materials in the open area. She expressed concern that the stacking of items could become unsightly. Mr. Hicks explained that a four-foot, nine-inch brick wall will be used to conceal the materials. He informed the Planning Commissioners that the materials would be behind this area. Since the idea is for customers to have hands-on accessibility, they would not want to stack items very high. Mr. Collins said he wants to make sure he understands the reason the applicant cannot put the entrance door to the lower level on the east side. He referred to the drawing that showed the driveway to the entrance on the south side of the building. The drawing shows varying distances from the driveway to the proposed entrance. One section is 948 feet, another is 949 feet, and the third point shows 950 feet north of the light pole. He said it was also mentioned that the grade was too steep to accommodate a forklift going into the building. In his opinion, a 12-inch retaining wall could be built on the north side the ramp into the east side of the building, which would alleviate the need for a deviation. Prior to granting a deviation, he wanted to make certain that there are no other alternatives available. If the applicant would build a 12-inch retaining wall on the north side the ramp into the east side of the building, Mr. Hicks explained that vehicles would have to go across the driveway and then basically continue driving downward into the building. As he explained, this would be a drive deck that would continue to go downward, so the applicant would potentially have to put in a big trench drain to funnel water runoff to prevent the water from going into the building. In response to Mr. Collins question if the elevation at the east building line is lower than the elevation at the curb, Mr. Hicks said the floor elevation is 949 feet inside the building, so the contour of the floor needs to be adjusted. Mr. Collins asked if it would be in order for the Planning Commission to continue this item so the applicant could review the possibility of adjusting the contour of the floor to be able to move the door to the east side of the building. Mr. Hicks said if the Planning Commission has a strong feeling about moving the door to the east side of the building, he would like additional time to review this issue. Mr. Collins stated that he cannot speak for the rest of the commission. He was merely offering a suggestion. He said the other Commissioners can speak for themselves. As he explained, he was just curious if that would be a possibility for purposes of the discussion of the deviation.

7 Page 7 Mr. Lance said one facet to get around this deviation is that the overhead door is too close to the property line. He suggested that the wall between the corner and the first column be moved to the west and back two feet. By doing that, there would be no need for a deviation, and to lose two feet out of a landscaped area would not be that critical. In response to the previous comments, Mr. Hicks clarified that the overhead door is ten feet from the property line, so the applicant would need to move the building four feet to make it completely clear. Mr. Lance commented that it is just an option, and he believed the applicant should do whatever it takes to avoid having to request a deviation. Mr. Hicks added that if the applicant moved the building four feet, he would probably lose one parking stall. However, the parking area could be shifted. Mr. George Lund believed the east side entry for the lower level would solve more than one problem. He would be in favor of moving the entry toward the east side. Chair Sorensen opened the public hearing. No one came forward. Mr. John Brake believed that CP-2, Planned General Business District, is the appropriate zoning for this tract of land. He also believed the applicant did an excellent job of buffering between the single-family homes to the south and the retail building and garden area. He expressed opposition to having the ramp face the singlefamily homes or subjecting the single-family home residents to heavy traffic, outside displays and noise that would occur if this would be changed from a business zoning. Mrs. Thacker stated that she is in agreement with Commissioner Collins suggestion to continuing this item and asking the applicant to investigate an east access door on the lower level. When she asked the applicant if he would be agreeable to a continuance, Mr. Hicks confirmed that this would be acceptable to him. Mrs. Thacker moved to continue Rezoning No , vicinity of the northeast corner of 95th Terrace and Mission, to the November 10, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Gadd seconded, and the motion passed by a vote of 11 to 0. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO Vicinity of the southeast corner of 146th Street and Nieman. Special use permit requested for a five-year period of time to allow a new telecommunication facility on a power pole. This property is currently zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District. Application made by Selective Site Consultants, Inc. Mr. Flanagan moved to continue Special Use Permit No , vicinity of the southeast corner of 146th Street and Nieman, to the November 24, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Troester seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 11 to 0.

8 Page 8 SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO West 151st Street. Special use permit requested for a five-year period of time to allow an increase in height for an existing communications tower. This property is currently zoned RR-J, Rural Residential District. Application made by SBA Towers, Inc. Mr. Gadd moved to continue Special Use Permit No , West 151st Street, to the November 10, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. A second was made by Mr. Flanagan, and the motion passed by an 11 to 0 vote. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO West 159th Street. Special use permit requested for a two-year period of time to allow an off-site development sign. The property is currently zoned RR-J, Rural Residential District. Application made by Wyngate Development, L.L.C. (Withdrawn) Chair Sorenson announced that Special Use Permit No has been withdrawn. PRELIMINARY PLAT NO Cottages at Woodridge Vicinity of the northeast corner of 132nd Street and Hemlock. Application made by Reveda of Overland Park. (Tabled) Planner Dave Dalecky said the applicant is requesting approval of a 49-lot and seventract preliminary plat for a townhome development. The 7.6-acre property is located in the vicinity of the southwest corner of 132nd Street and Hemlock. The property is currently zoned RP-4, Planned Cluster Housing District. Mr. Dalecky explained that this is multi-family project that was rezoned in The development includes one-, two-, four- and five-unit buildings. The buildings are placed on the site to create parking courts for driveways and garage access. A primary loop drive goes through the site for access to the courts and connects to 132nd Street in two locations. The property is currently platted as a large contiguous lot. Mr. Dalecky explained that it was previously intended to be an extension of the apartment development to the west. The developer is subdividing the property to allow individual ownership of each townhouse unit. The common areas will be platted as tracts and will be the responsibility of the homeowners association to maintain. Staff recommends approval of Preliminary Plat No , Cottages at Woodridge, subject to stipulations a and b. When Chair Sorensen asked the applicant to come forward, the staff informed her that the applicant was not in the audience. She asked staff to contact the applicant. Chair Sorensen opened the public hearing.

9 Page 9 Dr. Jacqueline Hadnot, Hemlock, asked what the distance would be from her property line along Hemlock and the townhouses to be constructed. Mr. Dalecky said the townhomes will be 25 feet from the north facing façade of those buildings to the backs of the lots in the Brandon Place subdivision. Dr. Hadnot commented that many of the trees were removed when the developer initially cleared the land. She asked if a privacy fence would be built. Mr. Dalecky did not recall that a privacy fence was part of the plan to construct along the common property line. However, he said the owners of the townhomes will have the option for a privacy fence around the patio of each unit. He indicated that additional landscaping is also shown. He informed Dr. Hadnot that the final plat, which include the final landscaping plan, is available in the lobby of the Planning Department in City Hall. In response to Dr. Hadnot s question whether any of the units will be Section 8 housing, Senior Assistant City Attorney Bart Budetti said there is no way at this point to know whether Section 8 housing is a possibility. He assured her that the project is not Section 8 housing. After confirming that no one else wanted to speak for or against this item, Chair Sorensen closed the public hearing. She said the item is back before the Commission for action or to table until the end of the meeting. Mr. Lund referred to the plan and said he noticed shaded areas that look like they used to be driveways. He asked for clarification. Mr. Dalecky said those are symbols on the map to indicate a route for emergency vehicles to cross a reinforced turf area, should fire apparatus need to get into the portion of the paved drives. Rather than backing out, those emergency vehicles will hop the curb and drive over reinforced curbing. It is a geo-grid component or some type of structural element that is below the turf, so the apparatus does not sink into the ground. Chair Sorensen announced that Preliminary Plat No and the next agenda item, Final Plat No , for Cottages at Woodridge, will be moved to the end of the meeting to allow staff to make a phone call to the applicant. FINAL PLAT NO Cottages at Woodridge Vicinity of the northeast corner of 132nd Street and Hemlock Street. Application made by Reveda at Overland Park. (Tabled) PRELIMINARY PLAT NO rd Street Oxford Substation Vicinity of the southwest corner of 144th Street and Antioch. Application made by Selective Site Consultants, Inc. Mr. Flanagan moved to continue Preliminary Plat No , 143rd Street Oxford Substation, vicinity of the southwest corner of 144th Street and Antioch, to the

10 Page 10 November 10, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Reitzes seconded, and the motion passed by an 11 to 0 vote. FINAL PLAT NO rd Street Oxford Substation Vicinity of the southwest corner of 144th Street and Antioch. Application made by Selective Site Consultants, Inc. (Continued to November 10, 2008) No motion was required. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Mr. Gyro s Restaurant 8575 West 135th Street. Application made by Jovaras Properties. Mr. Dalecky said the applicant is requesting final development plan approval to allow a commercial building, located at 8575 West 135th Street, to have rooftop mounted mechanical equipment remain unscreened. He explained that the building was constructed as a multi-tenant retail building in the Village of Overland Pointe shopping center. The building is designed with thematic Greek architectural details and Mr. Gyro s Greek restaurant is the primary tenant of the building. The building has been occupied with a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the past two years while the issue of the rooftop screening is being discussed. The owner of the property has now made a request for a deviation of the requirement for screening to allow the building to remain as it is and for a Final Certificate of Occupancy to be issued. As stated in the written Staff Comments, the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requires all rooftop mechanical equipment to be screened from public view with an architectural treatment which is compatible with the building architecture. He explained that the phrase, screened from public view, means not visible from any adjoining properties or any street right-of-way. Mr. Dalecky explained that the Planning Commission or City Council may grant a deviation if they find that all of the UDO requirements have been met. The ordinance identifies five criteria for a deviation, and all five must be satisfactorily addressed for the Planning Commission to support a deviation. Staff has provided their response to the five criteria, which include uniqueness, impact on adjacent property owners, hardship, public safety and welfare, and intent of the ordinance. In terms of uniqueness, the building is a single story commercial building among a group of buildings in a shopping center. Although the building does have some thematic characteristics of Greek architecture, it is not particularly unique in staff s opinion. The second criterion is impact on adjacent property owners. Mr. Dalecky said that staff is of the opinion that there is an impact to the adjacent property owners in terms of the fairness of the requirement of screening mechanical equipment from view from adjacent properties and the surrounding public streets.

11 Page 11 Mr. Dalecky referred to the third criterion, which is hardship. He said that the staff does not believe there is a hardship for this property owner to adequately meet the requirement for screening the rooftop mechanical equipment. In regard to public safety and welfare, the staff does not anticipate any impact on public safety and welfare should the deviations be granted. The last criterion is intent of the ordinance. The ordinance is intended to provide for an aesthetically pleasing streetscape and view for the residents and visitors to the community. The planning department and City officials have gone through a great deal of effort to create ordinances and design guidelines, review development plans, and make developers aware of the requirements to screen rooftop mechanical equipment and other utility and mechanical equipment on all sites within the City. Mr. Dalecky presented slides of the building as seen from 135th Street, looking southward, and pointed out that the mechanical equipment could be seen above the parapet behind the gable feature. He said that basically, these images show the mechanical equipment is visible from every vantage point. Mr. Dalecky said that staff is aware that there are some buildings in the City that have visible mechanical equipment that is preexisting from the time the requirements were adopted into the ordinance. As sites redevelop, he explained that the mechanical equipment must be screened per the current regulations. Staff is not supportive of the deviation request and recommends that the applicant find a satisfactory solution to screen the rooftop equipment. Should the Planning Commission find the application acceptable, Mr. Dalecky said that staff recommends stipulation a, which reads, A deviation is granted to allow a portion of the rooftop mechanical equipment to be visible from view. The rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened as completely as possible by the existing building parapet. Mr. Flanagan expressed concern that the materials used to conceal the rooftop mechanical equipment might look worse than the existing building. Mr. Dalecky said the screening will be similar materials and match what is on the current building. Mr. Jim Sullivan, Sullivan Palmer Architects, 8849 Long, Lenexa, Kansas, said he was not involved in the original design of the building. He explained that he was hired afterward to address this problem. He believed it was a situation where the owner and the original architect felt like the parapet was tall enough to screen any mechanical equipment on the rooftop. Following construction, they discovered that was not the case. He indicated that there are four existing rooftop units. It seems to him that the unit on the south end of the property is the one that seems to be the most objectionable. He believed that in the building owner s opinion, there could be some understanding that with some improvements in the rooftop screening, they could satisfy the ordinance without creating four additional boxes to cover the existing mechanical units. The applicant s opinion is that he is not going to extend the parapet up for the entire perimeter of the building and, therefore, he is going to have the same original boxes. In his opinion, some of the units are more objectionable than others, such as the one on the south. He believed the others only extend slightly above the existing parapet, and a person would really have to look to find the mechanical units.

12 Page 12 He believed the money, effort and the additional screening would not enhance the property. The applicant would like to improve that rooftop somewhat, but he feels that creating four additional boxes to cover up the mechanical units is not justified in his case. Mr. Hill said it was mentioned that the applicant would like to make some improvements, but no details were given in terms of the actual improvements that are planned. He asked if he could elaborate a little more in regard to the applicant s plans. Mr. Sullivan explained that he would like to get some reactions from the Commission relative to the improvements they would suggest. He said he would take those comments and suggestions to the applicant. He would like to be able to negotiate and have a conversation with him about the suggestions. Mr. Collins stated that the Planning Commission is governed by the Unified Development Ordinance. He explained that the UDO does provide for certain circumstances under which they can grant a deviation. He referred to comments made by Mr. Sullivan that screening all of the mechanical equipment would not be justified in this case. In order for the Planning Commission to comply with the UDO, he is struggling with what makes this case so unique or what the hardship would be that would be any different from the Red Robin or Taco Bell. He asked what makes this project different from those other buildings within that complex where they did screen the rooftop equipment. In response, Mr. Sullivan said he could not give reasons that would make this different from the other businesses in this complex. Mr. Gadd asked if the intent is to have four separate boxes to cover each unit or one box to cover all four units. Mr. Dalecky said that staff has not set a preference. He did not believe that staff expects the applicant to have four separate boxes or one single box to screen everything. He explained that there are several ways to achieve what the ordinance would require. Mrs. Karr said that staff has been working with the applicant over the last two years, and they have not had a proposal from the applicant as to how they would propose to screen the units, which is what brought this application to this point. She explained that the applicant asked for a deviation as opposed to coming forward with an alternative for screening units. Mr. Lance believed that someone knew what the requirement was when this project first started, and there was a lack of communication between all the parties. In his opinion, the responsibility has to go back to the owner and filters down to the architect and then filters down to the mechanical engineer. He said there is no continuity. He favors screening the rooftop units whether it is one screen for all units or four individual screens. As he pointed out, this has been a policy for many years. Mr. Troester agreed that the City ought to have a proposal from the owner that outlines a process that can be satisfactory. In his opinion, one unifying screen for the equipment would probably be the most desirable solution. Thus, he believed it is fair

13 Page 13 for the Planning Commission to ask the applicant to come forward with some suggested methods of screening. From his perspective, Mr. Lance said his comment to Mr. Sullivan is whether he would like a continuation or a motion for denial. Mr. Sullivan said he would prefer a continuation so they could submit a screening solution for the Planning Commission to review. Mr. Collins believed it is important for the owner to understand that the City has an ordinance that governs this sort of issue, and for the Planning Commission to deviate from that ordinance, they need to have a good reason. Secondly, he believed a continuance is in order. It is his understanding that staff has been dealing with this project for two years. He advised the owner that it would be important to take action versus being served with a citation for failing to abide by the building codes. He stated that the Planning Commissioners are trying to accommodate everybody as much as possible, given the constraints that they work under with the UDO. With the understanding that there will be a good faith effort on the part of the owner, Mr. Collins moved to continue Final Development Plan or Mr. Gyro s Restaurant to the November 24, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Flanagan seconded, and the motion passed by a vote of 11 to 0. PRELIMINARY PLAT NO and FINAL PLAT NO Continued from earlier in the meeting. PRELIMINARY PLAT NO Cottages at Woodridge Vicinity of the northeast corner of 132nd Street and Hemlock. Application made by Reveda of Overland Park. (Approved) Chair Sorensen announced that the applicant arrived for the items that had been tabled earlier. She asked the applicant to go to the podium and give his name and address. Mr. Richard Eisner, Pawnee Lane, Leawood, Kansas, offered to answer question regarding his proposals. Mr. Collins informed the applicant that a resident had questions during the public hearing in regard to trees that have been cut down on the northern edge of this property. She also wanted to know if the intent of the applicant is to construct a privacy fence to buffer the townhome subdivision from her residence. Mr. Eisner said he is not aware of any trees being cut down on the northern edge of the property. He pointed out that his project is not even close to the northern boundary of the property. He clarified that he is developing further south on this property. He added that the site has always been barren with the exception of the boundary, and he had no reason to develop into the hedgerow area. Mr. Collins stated that another concern mentioned during the public hearing was the possibility that this development might be Section 8 housing. When he asked the applicant if he planned to have any Section 8 housing, Mr. Eisner assured the

14 Page 14 Planning Commission that none of the townhomes would be used for Section 8 housing. Mr. Collins asked if the applicant could give some type of a guarantee that there would not be any Section 8 housing in this development in order to appease the resident s concerns. Mr. Eisner stated that these townhomes are cottage style homes that have a base price between $229,900 and $299,900. He said it is very unlikely that this will become a rental community. Mr. Gadd said another concern that was brought up was whether screening would be along the northern edge of the property. Mr. Eisner stated that there are already trees at the northern edge of the property. He added that two-inch caliper Maple trees will line the western boundary. When asked by Chair Sorensen if the applicant agreed with stipulations a and b as presented in the written Staff Report, Mr. Eisner confirmed that he is in agreement with both stipulations. Mr. Troester asked staff if the companion final plat will include the landscaping plans and development plans, so that staff will be able to review the details. Mr. Dalecky explained that this question was posed earlier when the Planning Commission was deliberating. He stated that there is an approved final development plan for the entire project, which includes some amenity features and a path in the green space area that is identified as Tract G. He explained that this tract was a component of this property and is still zoned as R-1, but it is now part of this development. He pointed out that the final development plan includes clusters of trees to be planted and a meandering path that goes through the property for the benefit of the residents of this particular project. Mr. Dalecky wanted to make sure everyone is aware of the question that he asked the applicant, which was whether any trees were removed when the storm drain was installed, and his answer was no. He added that there is the possibility that some trees might have been removed at some point to enable the City to construct the bike/hike trail on City property. He also indicated that some trees may have been removed on the easterly portion of the site to install the bridge abutment. A motion was made by Mr. Flanagan to approve Preliminary Plat No for Cottages at Woodridge, vicinity of the northeast corner of 132nd Street and Hemlock, with stipulations a and b. Mr. Gadd seconded, and the motion passed by a vote of 11 to 0. FINAL PLAT NO Cottages at Woodridge Vicinity of the northeast corner of 132nd Street and Hemlock. (Approved) Mr. Dalecky presented Final Plat No for the Cottages at Woodridge. As mentioned, this is the companion final plat to the preceding item. The property is

15 Page 15 located in the vicinity of the southwest corner of 132nd Street and Hemlock. The developer is subdividing the property to allow individual ownership of each townhouse unit. The common areas will be platted as tracts and will be the responsibility of the homeowners association to maintain. Staff recommends approval of Final Plat No , subject to stipulations a and b. Mr. Richard Eisner, Pawnee Lane, Leawood, Kansas, stated that he is in agreement with stipulations a and b. Mr. Flanagan moved to approve Final Plat No , Cottages at Woodridge, vicinity of the northeast corner of 132nd Street and Hemlock, subject to stipulations a and b. Mr. Reitzes seconded the motion, which passed by an 11 to 0 vote. There being no further business, Chair Sorensen adjourned the meeting at 3:05 p.m. Minutes transcribed by Barbara Potts. Kim Sorensen, Chair