OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. August 24, 2015

Transcription

1 OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 24, 2015 The Overland Park Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Mr. Mike Flanagan, Chair. The following members were present, constituting a quorum: Mr. Steve Troester, Vice Chair; Mrs. Janie Thacker; Mr. Tom Lance; Mr. Edward Ned Reitzes; Mr. George Lund; Mr. Bob Gadd; Mr. David M. Hill; Mr. Rob Krewson; Mr. Thomas Robinett; and Mrs. Kim Sorensen. Also present were: Mr. Jim Kite, Councilmember; Mr. Jack Messer, Director of Planning and Development Services; Mrs. Leslie Karr, Current Planning Manager; Mr. Tony Meyers, Engineering Services Manager; Mr. Keith Gooch, Senior Planner; Mrs. Danielle Hollrah, Senior Planner; Mr. Aaron DuBois, Planner; Mr. Ty Nagle, Planner; Mr. Steve Horner, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Brian Shields, City Traffic Engineer; Mr. Ernie Longoria, Senior Civil Engineer; Mr. David Miller, Supervisory Civil Engineer; Mr. Lloyd Nichols, Senior Help Desk Support Specialist; and Ms. Cindy Terrell, Recording Secretary. Approximately 85 people were in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 13, (Approved) Chair Mike Flanagan presented the July 13, 2015, Planning Commission meeting minutes for approval. Mr. Tom Lance moved to approve the July 13, 2015, Planning Commission meeting minutes. Mrs. Kim Sorensen seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 11 to 0. CONSENT AGENDA (Approved Consent Agenda Items A, B, C, D, and E) A. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO The Contractor s Garage IV, L.L.C West 127th Street. Application made by Contractor s Garage IV, L.L.C. B. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO Blue Valley Harmony Middle School West 141st Street. Application made by Blue Valley School District. C. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO Nall Corporate Center II Vicinity of the northwest corner of 112th Street and Nall. Application made by Polsinelli PC

2 Page 2 D. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO Espirito Do Sul Metcalf. Application made by Larry Gates. E. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO Premier Learning Holdings Playground 7219 Metcalf. Application made by Premier Learning Holdings, L.L.C. Current Planning Manager Leslie Karr stated that all Consent Agenda items were ready for approval. Regular Agenda item Nos. 2, 3, and 13 were requested to be continued to the September 28, 2015, Planning Commission meeting. Regular Agenda item No. 1 was withdrawn. Mrs. Karr stated that item No. 18, Rezoning No , pertaining to the Brookridge redevelopment, would not be heard earlier than 3:00 p.m. today. Due to a conflict of interest with his employer pertaining to Item B of the Consent Agenda, Mr. David M. Hill said he would abstain from the vote. Mr. Edward "Ned" Reitzes moved to approve Consent Agenda Items A, B, C, D, and E as presented, including all stipulations. Mrs. Sorensen seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0 to 1, with Mr. Hill abstaining. REZONING NO Vicinity of the northeast and southeast corners of 95th Street and Metcalf, north to 93rd Street, east to Glenwood, and north of Sears. Rezoning requested from CP-2, Planned General Business District, to CP-2, Planned General Business District, and RP-6, Planned High-Rise Apartment District, to allow a redevelopment of Metcalf South and the French Market with a retail development and multi-family uses. Application made by Lane 4 Property Group, Inc. (Withdrawn) REZONING NO and West 110th Street. Rezoning requested from CP-O, Planned Office Building District, to RP-6, Planned High-Rise Apartment District, to allow senior apartments. Application made by 180 Holdings, L.L.C. (Continued) Mr. Bob Gadd moved to continue Rezoning No , and West 110th Street, to the September 28, 2015, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lance and carried by a vote of 11 to 0. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO El Monte. Special use permit requested for a ten-year period of time to allow the renewal of a kennel and pet spa. This property is currently zoned CP-2, Planned General Business District. Application made by Kennel Creek Pet Resort, L.L.C. (Continued) Mr. George Lund moved to continue Special Use Permit No , El Monte, to the September 28, 2015, Planning Commission meeting. Mrs. Janie Thacker seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 11 to 0.

3 Page 3 SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO Nall. Special use permit requested for a five-year period of time to allow an MRI trailer at Highland Corporate Campus. This property is currently zoned CP-O, Planned Office Building District. Application made by Polsinelli PC. (Approved) Mr. Gooch indicated that the applicant was requesting approval of a special use permit, for a five-year period of time, to allow an MRI trailer. The property is located at Nall and is currently zoned CP-O, Planned Office Building District. Mr. Gooch presented a vicinity map and noted that the property is part of the Highland Corporate Campus office development. To the west is an existing senior living facility. To the north is Shawnee Mission South High School. To the east is existing office development. To the south is Interstate 435. The five-year period of time would allow for the construction of a hospital located to the north of the existing building. There is presently an MRI facility on the campus site; however, it is deteriorated with limited use. A lithotripsy trailer was previously located on the site and the MRI trailer will be placed in that exact spot. The MRI trailer will be located onsite at all times. The lithotripsy trailer was a traveling unit that existed on the site only a couple days a week. The site plan showed the MRI trailer to be similar to a semi-tractor trailer. It will have an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) entrance to meet all requirements. The applicant requested a five-year period of time, since construction of the hospital is not scheduled to begin until Construction is slated to take approximately two years. In the event construction takes longer than anticipated, the applicant requested one additional year for the special use permit. The trailer will be well screened. The lot No. 7 building will screen it from the west. Lot No. 8 will screen it from the north and east. The trailer will not be visible from Interstate 435. Staff recommended approval of Special Use Permit No , for a five-year period of time, subject to stipulation a. Mr. Lance asked if the trailer was the same size as the lithotripsy trailer. Mr. Gooch believed so. Mr. John Petersen, applicant, 6201 College Boulevard, stated the staff report and oral testimony summed up the request. On behalf of the hospital, he asked for the Planning Commission s approval to accommodate this temporary facility. The University of Kansas Medical Center is seeking to expand its presence in the area and create a true campus in the vicinity of I-435 and Nall. As tenant leases expire, the hospital continues to occupy more space in the medical office building. There is increasing demand for medical services in Overland Park and Johnson County. KU Medical Center plans to commence construction once they finalize the planning process for an additional hospital facility to be located directly north of the existing facility. Timing of the lifecycle of an MRI machine does not perfectly coincide with the construction timelines. The current unit located in the hospital today has met its useful life. To provide the best care to patients, the hospital wants to bring a state-ofthe-art facility to the site to commence use almost immediately. Once the new hospital is finished, a permanent location for the MRI facility will be located inside the building. The applicant found stipulation a acceptable.

4 Page 4 Mr. Lance asked when the trailer would be installed for use. Mr. Petersen replied immediately upon approval. Mr. Rob Krewson asked if the trailer would require additional lighting, since the unit will be operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Mr. Petersen replied additional lighting might be required at night as it pertains to safety, because patients will be required to walk a short distance to the trailer after exiting the permanent structure. The hospital does not want to highlight the presence of the trailer on the property, other than the utilization between the building and the trailer. Chair Flanagan opened the public hearing on this item. Hearing no comment, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Sorensen moved to recommend to the Council approval of Special Use Permit No , Nall, for a five-year period of time, with stipulation a. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas Robinett and carried by a vote of 11 to 0. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO West 110th Street. Special use permit requested for a two-year period of time to allow a cell tower. This property is currently zoned CP-O, Planned Office Building District. Application made by New Cingular Wireless Service. (Approved) Planner Aaron DuBois indicated the applicant was requesting approval of a special use permit for a two-year period of time to allow a temporary cell tower. The property is located at 5454 West 110th Street. It is currently zoned CP-O, Planned Office Building District. The property is located at the southeast corner of I-435 and Nall in an existing office corridor. The property is surrounded by office use. Two hotels are located southeast and southwest of the property. The current office building is slated to be demolished with a future new development plan. AT&T and New Cingular Wireless have located antennas on the top of the building that will become unusable when the building is demolished. A temporary cell tower would allow AT&T to continue to provide cell service in the area, while the new building is constructed onsite. The applicant submitted a site plan showing the temporary cell tower being located at the southeast corner of the development, east of the 10-story building where the current antennas are located. The tower is 83 feet, 2 inches tall and provides for only one carrier. The lattice-style structure will not be of stealth technology, as the antennas will be visible at the top of the tower. For security purposes, the applicant is providing a temporary fence around the area. The tower is attached to a trailer and has a built-in equipment structure. Staff understands the need for a temporary service, because as the site is redeveloped, the applicant will not be able to provide the current cell coverage without the temporary tower. Currently, no demolition permits or redevelopment plans have been submitted for the property. Due to the unknown status of the demolition, staff feels a two-year period of time for the special use permit is not applicable in this situation. Staff would be more comfortable with a six-month timeframe, which would allow the site to have the development and demolition plans approved. With a six-month timeframe, there

5 Page 5 would be a better understanding of the future of the site and how long until the new structures will be built so staff could support a longer timeframe. If it is still unknown at that time, the applicant may seek a permanent location on another building or can construct a tower in the area. Staff recommended approval of Special Use Permit No , for a six-month timeframe, subject to stipulations a through c. Mr. Justin Anderson, applicant, 9900 West 109th Street, stated staff pinpointed the exact reason why the applicant requested the special use permit for two years in their presentation. At this point, there are a fair amount of unknowns. Earlier this year, AT&T received a Notice of Termination for its lease. After December 31, 2015, they will basically become a cell tower without a home. A six-month approval would only last through March New Cingular Wireless Service does not have to be off the building, which provides better coverage, until December 2015, which would effectively give them a three-month approval. The applicant was asking to keep the two-year request in place, because they do not know the specifics of the redevelopment, or if the developer will be able to come up with a partner for a 300,000-square foot commercial building and a design for the applicant s site. The developer is slated to begin demolition beginning in 2016; although, he did not have an exact date. The site is located in the middle of two existing search rings for AT&T. The applicant is searching for a permanent rooftop solution to the east on the Yellow Freight building, thus creating a bit of a gap to the northwest. They would like to come up with a solution with TopGolf, or with some other office buildings to the north. It is not AT&T s intent to be at this location on a temporary structure longer than they need to be. A Letter of Intent was submitted for a two-year period. If that is not acceptable, the applicant would be happy to acquiesce to a one-year period. That would give them enough time from demolition of the current site, installation of the temporary site, to finding a new location, negotiating a lease, and finalizing the necessary regulatory and permitting actions before installation on a permanent location. Mr. Gadd asked if the temporary tower would be erected immediately or if the applicant planned to wait until the demolition. Mr. Anderson replied their lease terminates in December 2015, and that is when they will deactivate from the location. They obtained a temporary license for the subject location with the property owner. The request for the temporary solution is due to the current site better fulfilling their coverage aspects. Mr. Gadd asked if AT&T would be the only company on the tower. Mr. Anderson answered yes, on the temporary site. Temporary towers are fluid and required to be in different places at different times. He used AT&T and Sprint as an example. If AT&T was done with their temporary site and needed to move it to another part of the country, Sprint would have to come up with an alternate solution. The City has a collocation policy. New Cingular Wireless Service is happy to use rooftop signal locations, because they are much easier for installation and permitting. It can, however, put them in somewhat of a predicament at times because one lessor might not want a tower on their project anymore or in this case, plan to tear down the building. If this was a permanent wireless pole site they would not have this issue and a monopole would be located in the parking lot. Mr. Gadd asked if Sprint could come onto the site and share the tower. Mr. Anderson answered no. AT&T does not like to share towers, because they are frequently required to move location. Sprint might have a different solution sooner or later, but that is a risk neither carrier wants to take. Mr. Gadd asked if the City had a requirement that more than one carrier is allowed to share a tower, or if that was not

6 Page 6 applicable to temporary towers. On a permanent location, Mr. DuBois responded that towers must provide for collocation. Staff understands temporary situations can be different. Mr. Lund asked if the tower would be stabilized by a trailer or by guy wires. Mr. Anderson replied they will use guy wires. Basically, the guy wires attach to the edge of the trailer. Mrs. Thacker asked how the location for the tower was determined. She questioned why it was not placed more internal to the site to be less visible from 110th Street. Mr. Anderson explained that the applicant worked with the property owner who gave them a 130-foot buffer to the east to locate the site. The property owner wanted it that far away because once the redevelopment demolition begins it will keep the parking lot operations a bit more fluid. If the site was located farther west or northwest, it would encroach onto the area where the applicant plans to perform the redevelopment. The tower would then need to be moved, which would require this same process with new legal descriptions. The applicant relayed that they would prefer the tower to be located closer to their site for the purpose of producing better coverage, but the presented area was the solution provided by the property owner. Mr. DuBois stated a Sprint cell tower application will be included on the September Planning Commission agenda. The Sprint tower will be located approximately due north of the AT&T tower. In addition, the property owner had preliminary discussions with staff about potential redevelopment. They will be required to file for permitting. The subject area will remain out of any future building construction, and/or parking structures or redevelopment of the site from a circulation and pedestrian area. Mr. Hill clarified that today s request was from AT&T. Sprint is presenting a similar request at the September Planning Commission meeting. Mr. DuBois said that was correct. Mr. Hill asked if staff s recommendation would be the same for Sprint. Mr. DuBois answered yes. Mr. Hill suggested they maintain consistency with both requests. Chair Flanagan noted that Mr. Anderson said the applicant would be agreeable to a one-year period of time, as opposed to two years. The motion will be for a six-month period of time. He asked if that would be acceptable, or should they deny the application. Mr. Anderson replied that if the Planning Commission can only allow six months at this time, they will accept and work with that decision. A six-month approval will essentially give the temporary site a three-month on-air time period, which would not allow much time for them to come up with a permanent solution. If they were granted one year, it would allow time to come up with a permanent solution if they see the redevelopment is not expeditiously moving forward. Otherwise, they will return in March and have this same conversation. Chair Flanagan asked if it would better serve the applicant to have the application brought before the Planning Commission in December for six months. Mr. Anderson replied the applicant would prefer to go through the approval process and have the commencement of the special use permit upon termination of the permanent site. Chair Flanagan opened the public hearing on this item. Hearing no comment, he closed the public hearing.

7 Page 7 Mr. Hill suggested amending stipulation b and picking a date that would apply to this application and the upcoming Sprint application, rather than wait for the applicant to present something for which to conform. The date of June 30, 2016, would give the applicant the first six months of 2016 to find a solution. If one or both carriers do not come up with an alternate solution within that timeframe, they can return in May 2016 for additional discussion. Mr. DuBois said staff would be acceptable to the June 30, 2016, date. Vice Chair Steve Troester concurred with Mr. Hill. Mr. Krewson said he would agree to the amended stipulation. Mrs. Thacker agreed with the June 30, 2016, date. The tower is very visible from the street. She asked if the telecommunication industry or the property owner designated a preferred spot to locate the tower. Mrs. Karr believed the property owner dictated the location of the tower. Staff discussed screening but if the building did get demolished and the site was under construction, there would be a lot of material in the immediate area for a period of time, and the temporary trailer would not be much of an eyesore in a construction environment. Mrs. Thacker asked if the Sprint application coming in September was a second temporary cell tower location. Mr. DuBois answered yes. It is located directly north of the subject application in the same parking area. Mrs. Thacker asked why the towers could not be placed adjacent to each other. Mr. DuBois said that would be a question for the applicant. Mr. Hill moved to recommend to the Council approval of Special Use Permit No , 5454 West 100th Street, with stipulation a, amended stipulation b to end the special use permit time period on June 30, 2016, and stipulation c. Mr. Krewson seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 11 to 0. Mr. Hill left the meeting at 2:00 p.m. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN NO Antioch Woods Apartments 8716 West 106th Terrace. Application made by Davidson Architecture and Engineering. (Approved) Mrs. Karr indicated the applicant was requesting approval of a revised preliminary plan to allow a damaged apartment building to be rebuilt. The property is located at 8716 West 106th Terrace. The property is currently zoned RP-3, Planned Garden Apartment District. This item was originally considered at the June 8, 2015, Planning Commission meeting. After the Council approved the item, staff discovered a notification error; therefore, a new public hearing is required. This is an existing apartment complex. One building in the complex was damaged by fire and the applicant intends to rebuild it. The western two-thirds of the original 18-unit building will be demolished and rebuilt. They will move the new portion of the building 10 feet away from the remaining one-third. The eastern one-third of the building will remain with some repairs. A new building will be constructed to the west and will contain 12 units. The existing six units will remain, so the overall unit count will stay the same.

8 Page 8 The existing buildings have mansard roofs. Staff discussed with the applicant how to tie together the two projects. Staff ultimately felt the existing architecture was not modern and it would not be beneficial to tie a new building to the existing building. The applicant provided an option that showed how the remainder of the development could be updated to be more consistent with the new construction. The new building will have 36 percent masonry, which is slightly less than the required 40 percent; however, the rest of the development has no masonry. The property is not platted, so platting will be required. The new construction needs to be elevated above the base flood elevation, which the applicant has proposed to do. They are also required to have a deviation from the stream corridor requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Based on the fact that the building is being moved a bit beyond its current location and out of the stream corridor, staff is in support of the deviation. Staff recommended approval of Revised Preliminary Plan No , with stipulations a through e. Mr. Lance asked if the Site Plan Review Committee had reviewed the plan. Mrs. Karr believed they had reviewed the plan when it was initially presented in June Mr. Powell Minnis, architect, Davidson Architecture and Engineering, 4301 Indian Creek Parkway, said Mrs. Karr did a great job describing the project. The applicant essentially wants to rebuild the fire-damaged building. They are in agreement with stipulations a through e. Chair Flanagan opened the public hearing on this item. Hearing no comment, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Krewson moved to recommend to the Council approval of Revised Preliminary Plan No , Antioch Woods Apartments, 8716 West 106th Terrace, subject to stipulations a through e. Mrs. Thacker seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 11 to 0. PRELIMINARY PLAT NO Antioch Woods Apartments 8700 West 106th Terrace. Application made by Worcester Investments. (Approved) Mrs. Karr stated the applicant was requesting approval of a two-lot preliminary plat for an existing apartment complex. The 4.01-acre property is located at 8700 West 106th Terrace. The property is currently zoned RP-3, Planned Garden Apartment District. Because the property is not platted, approval is necessary prior to allowing the applicant to rebuild the fire-damaged building. Staff recommended approval of Preliminary Plat No , Antioch Woods Apartments, 8700 West 106th Terrace, with stipulation a. Mr. Powell Minnis, architect, Davidson Architecture and Engineering, 4301 Indian Creek Parkway, stated the applicant was in agreement with stipulation a. Mr. Reitzes asked if there was a plan to renovate the other buildings and replace some of the mansard roofs on the other structures on the site with gabled roofs. Mr. Minnis replied the roofs are stable and maintained well. There has been no timeframe

9 Page 9 established to remove the mansard roofs. The long-term process will be to address the roofs on an as-needed basis as maintenance is required. Discussions are ongoing. Chair Flanagan opened the public hearing on this item. Hearing no comment, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Thacker moved to approve Preliminary Plat No , Antioch Woods Apartments, 8700 West 106th Terrace, subject to stipulation a. Mr. Lund seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 11 to 0. FINAL PLAT NO Antioch Woods Apartments 8700 West 106th Terrace. Application made by Worcester Investments. (Approved) Mrs. Karr indicated that the applicant was requesting approval of a two-lot final plat for an existing apartment complex. The property is located at 8700 West 106th Terrace. The property is currently zoned RP-3, Planned Garden Apartment District. The applicant has proposed to phase in the final plat. This plat only pertains to the new apartment building that is being rebuilt as part of the project. Staff recommended approval of Final Plat No , with stipulations a and b. Mr. Hill clarified that excise tax is normally collected on newly platted properties. He asked if excise tax would be collected on this plat. Mrs. Karr replied that the applicant will be required to pay excise tax on the project with the final plat. Mr. Hill said that is usually stipulated and was not in this instance. Mrs. Karr acknowledged that it would be appropriate to add stipulation c, calling for the excise tax to be paid. Mr. Krewson asked if the excise tax contributed to the applicant phasing in the plat. Mrs. Karr answered that was the primary reason. Since the applicant is not doing anything to the other buildings, it is not required; however, they are required to pay the excise tax on anything they plat. Mr. Powell Minnis, architect, Davidson Architecture and Engineering, 4301 Indian Creek Parkway, stated the preliminary plat was for the entire property owned by Worcester Investments. If more improvements are required to be made to the property in the future, more lots will be divided on the preliminary plat. The final plat will acquire the building permit for the three-story apartment building that will be located on one of the lots shown on the final plat. The applicant was in agreement with stipulations a and b, and added stipulation c relating to excise tax. Mr. Hill moved to approve Final Plat No , Antioch Woods Apartments, 8700 West 106th Terrace, subject to stipulations a and b, and added stipulation c. Mr. Gadd seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 11 to 0. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN NO Parkview at the Wilderness Vicinity of the southeast corner of 159th Street and Roe. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. (Approved)

10 Page 10 Planner Ty Nagle indicated the applicant was requesting revised preliminary plan approval to allow an increase in units. The subject property is located in the vicinity of the southeast corner of 159th Street and Roe. The property is currently zoned RP-4, Planned Cluster Housing District. The revised preliminary plan will change from duplex units to six-plex condominiums. The original rezoning application from 2003 approved a similar product to what is being proposed with this application, consisting of 36 units throughout six buildings. In 2009, the developer received approval for duplex buildings totaling 20 units. The density created with the application is 1.13 units per acre and in accordance with current RP-4 zoning. At least two off-street parking spaces will be provided for each unit, with a minimum of 18 feet per driveway space. Aside from the pedestrian network, the internal street network for the development is currently constructed. The applicant has proposed to connect to the public sidewalk system along Roe and the walking trail to the south. The surrounding area is single-family and multi-family residential, with Blue River Elementary School and Blue Valley Middle School located to the south. It is predominantly undeveloped to the east. The surrounding street network, has a thoroughfare to the north and a collector to the west. It is expected to handle any additional traffic generated by the site. The southbound collector loops to the west and is not a through street. The proposed buildings for the application are similar in massing, architecture, and layout to what is currently built to the north; however, building No. 1 to the east will be a row-home style. Each building façade will have at least a 40 percent masonry surface in accordance with the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Mr. Nagle presented elevation drawings and pointed out the garage for each unit and the row-homes. Staff received public comment from a nearby citizen concerned about density and related issues. That person was put in contact with the developer. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on August 12, 2015, at the Haven Clubhouse. The discussion mostly addressed the purpose of the application. Traffic was addressed. The applicant plans to use the temporary existing apron for construction access. Staff recommended approval of Revised Preliminary Plan No , Parkview at the Wilderness, in the vicinity of the southeast corner of 159th Street and Roe, subject to stipulations a through n. Mr. Judd Claussen, engineer, 1270 N. Winchester, Olathe, Kansas, recognized Mr. Greg Prieb, owner, Prieb Homes, Inc., the contract purchaser of the property. The property has been in existence since 2003 when the streets were originally built. In 2009, the property product changed. In 2003, Mr. Claussen stated the plan included six-plex condominium buildings with a total of 36 units. The last plan was presented in The condominiums were not selling and the recession was underway. At that time, the developer cut back the density and decided to build duplexes. The density change required a redo of the utilities which would have been cost prohibitive and the plan never came to fruition. The current plan returns to the original density of six, six-plex buildings in nearly the exact location as the original 2003 plan. The proposed buildings are different from the original plan. The original plan included condominiums with different ownerships above and below. The proposed duplexes are townhouse-style buildings.

11 Page 11 The notification area extended from 159th Street, Roe to Kansas City Power and Light s property to the east and south to the floodplain. Many residents received notification of the project. The neighbors questions were answered and their concerns were addressed at the public meetings. The homeowners association (HOA) invited the developer to the clubhouse two weeks ago for a meeting. Approximately 12 to 15 property owners attended that meeting. Their main concerns involved traffic. While this plan is an increase in units from the 2009 plan, it is not an increase from the original 2003 plan and the initial infrastructure. They plan to use the existing apron at the entrance for construction access to build the site and keep construction equipment off the private streets to the north. This would result in less disturbance to the neighbors. The applicant is in agreement with stipulations a through n. Chair Flanagan asked if the notification area exceeded 200 feet from the project. Mr. Claussen explained that the project is part of the larger Haven and Cottages at the Wilderness plan. The area being changed is located in the middle of that property. Since it was part of a much bigger plan, the applicant was required to notify everyone inside the project and within 200 feet of the project area. Chair Flanagan opened the public hearing on this item. Mr. Charles Fertig, 4503 West 159th Terrace, Unit No. 110, stated he lives in a condominium at Haven and Cottages at the Wilderness. The residents expressed a great deal of concern about additional traffic being generated by the six new buildings. At full build-out, the project will create 76 new units and will probably generate the addition of approximately 100 vehicles to the area. Ingress to and egress from Haven and Cottages at the Wilderness is off Roe. It is a short stub street with poor sight lines pulling out from 160th Street. It will be difficult for drivers to see up the hill to the construction from the 159th Street widening project. Down the hill is a curb where drivers tend to accelerate up the street at rapid speeds, so ingress and egress of the development can be difficult at times. He asked for more consideration to be given to an additional entrance near the vicinity of what will be a construction road on 159th Street. An apron is already built which he believed to be an oversight when the area was originally platted. Mr. Fertig stated complications will stem from converting the units from the original condominiums that were to be six-plexes into townhouses. The townhouses will be individually-owned. Haven and Cottages at the Wilderness is a condominium association and it will be difficult to assimilate the townhouses. It could become a huge complication, because the street that runs through the property is private. If the condominium dwellers are not HOA members, it will add to the confusion. Hearing no further comment, Chair Flanagan closed the public hearing. Mr. Claussen stated that he and his client had initial concerns regarding an increase in traffic. The developer does not want to build anything that will create traffic problems, because the project is located at the end of the cul-de-sac. The existing drive is necessary for ingress and egress traffic. The applicant had an independent consultant study the area. The consultant found the increase in traffic would not be significant. The findings also showed that the current infrastructure is more than capable of handling any traffic increase over the original 2009 plan. He reminded the Planning Commission that the proposed plan was exactly the same as the 2003 plan for which the infrastructure was built.

12 Page 12 Chair Flanagan asked about the possibility of a second entrance. Mr. Claussen replied that a second entrance would require the removal of units. The existing development is struggling to develop, so a loss of units would further hinder the success of the project. Mr. Gadd asked if the HOA situation would be the responsibility of the developer or of the HOA. Mr. Greg Prieb, owner, Prieb Homes, Inc., 651 North Somerset Terrace, Olathe, Kansas, stated he had been in talks with the attorney that established the current HOA and inquired how to structure that procedure with the condominiums. Some residents voiced concerns about a shared road, since the northern portion was recently resurfaced. The developer will determine how to structure in the development in order to share costs, redo any roads, and handle snow removal. Mr. Gadd asked if shared costs would involve a separate HOA. Mr. Prieb replied that the current residents are members of a separate HOA. Mr. Gadd asked if there was any way to join the two developments into one HOA. Mr. Prieb replied he is working with the attorney to structure something that will work for both parties. Chair Flanagan referred to the City's Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget over the next five years and advised that the current plan is to widen 159th Street, Nall to Mission. He lives in a subdivision on 159th Street, and there is a single entrance into the development. He understood why the developer would not want to remove existing structures to put in a new entrance. Mr. Krewson stated the proposed plan was similar to the previously approved plans. The traffic issues were addressed by both the consultant and the City. He understood the residents' thoughts about increased traffic, especially if the current traffic situation is already something of a concern. As far as an extra entrance is concerned, the developer does not want to lose the developable track of land. He was comfortable with the proposal. Vice Chair Steve Troester moved to recommend to the Council approval of Revised Preliminary Plan No , Parkview at the Wilderness, in the vicinity of the southeast corner of 159th Street and Roe, subject to stipulations a through n. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reitzes and carried by a vote of 11 to 0. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN NO AMLI at Clear Creek Vicinity of the southwest corner of 135th Street and Quivira. Application made by AMLI Development Company, L.L.C. (Approved) Senior Planner Keith Gooch indicated that the applicant was requesting approval of Revised Preliminary Plan No , to allow a change to an approved stipulation. The project is located in the vicinity of the southwest corner of 135th Street and Quivira. The property is currently zoned RP-5, Planned Apartment House District. A vicinity map and an aerial of the property were presented. The applicant is requesting a revised preliminary plan to remove a stipulation that was approved with the original rezoning in 2000, as part of Rezoning No Stipulation j required the owner and/or developer to establish an escrow account, or provide a Letter of

13 Page 13 Credit for one-half the cost of the portions of 137th Street and Caenen not constructed as part of the project. When the property is platted, the plat shall include one-half of the right-of-way for those portions of 137th Street and Caenen. An oversight was made by City staff and the escrow was never provided to the City for the part of 137th Street and Caenen not constructed with the AMLI Development Company, L.L.C.'s (AMLI), first phase. Staff sent a letter to AMLI asking for the escrow amount. They worked with Colonial Presbyterian Church to develop an agreement on the construction of 137th Street and Caenen. They reached an agreement that states AMLI is responsible for approximately 375 feet of 137th Street as it traverses west from Quivira. Colonial Presbyterian Church will be responsible for the remainder of 137th Street and Caenen from its present terminus. Colonial Presbyterian Church is in the process of selling the ground on the south side of 137th Street, as well as the area between 135th Street and 137th Street, Caenen to Rosehill. With that development, the two adjacent streets are expected to be constructed by the property owner. Staff supported the removal of stipulation j. Mr. Gooch stated it was similar to how they handle most of the current development in the City. Construction responsibility is on the person adjacent to the property. Staff recommended approval of Revised Preliminary Plan No , subject to stipulation a. Mr. Evan Fitts, representative for the applicant, Polsinelli PC, 900 West 48th Place, Kansas City, Missouri, stated when the subject property was originally rezoned in 2000, a stipulation was placed on the property to post an escrow for the construction of 137th Street and Caenen, which were the portions not constructed with AMLI's original construction of Clear Creek Apartments. The stipulation also required the dedication of the necessary right-of-way for those two streets to be constructed. Through an oversight, the escrow was not posted, but the right-of-way was dedicated. The developer was alerted of that fact in 2014 and brought before the City a private agreement entered into between AMLI and Colonial Presbyterian Church. The agreement provides that at the time the streets are constructed, they are to be constructed at the cost of Colonial Presbyterian Church. The agreement is recorded against the property and binding against all successors and assignees. Through its planning and zoning approval, the City retains the right to control when the streets are constructed. The private agreement governs the cost of how the streets are constructed; therefore, any requirement to post an escrow at this time is duplicative and unnecessary. He offered to present a PowerPoint presentation of maps to the Planning Commission. Chair Flanagan opened the public hearing on this item. Hearing no comment, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Sorensen moved to recommend to the Council approval of Revised Preliminary Plan No , AMLI at Clear Creek, in the vicinity of the southwest corner of 135th Street and Quivira, with stipulation a. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Thacker and carried by a vote of 11 to 0. DOWNTOWN FORM DISTRICT (DFD) CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY NO InterUrban Lofts, 7904 and 7908 Conser. (Approved) Mrs. Karr indicated that the applicant was requesting approval of DFD Certificate of Conformity for the InterUrban Lofts located at 7904 and 7908 Conser. She presented

14 Page 14 a vicinity map showing the general location of the project within the Downtown Form- Based District. The property is currently designated as townhomes/small apartment on the majority of its frontages. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 57,200 square-foot, four-story, mixed-use building that includes 41 residential units, 8,500 square feet of first floor office space, a 53-space underground parking garage, and a 3,476 square-foot open space area. A recent amendment to the Downtown Form-Based Code (Code) allows the option for a live/work design at this intersection, which provides the applicant the opportunity for commerce uses on the first floor of their building. The parking garage for this project is accessed off 79th Street. Because of the grades on site, the garage is partially below grade. The Code does allow for four-story buildings, provided the building height is limited to 58 feet. The Code also requires that the average finished floor elevation be a minimum of three feet, but no more than eight feet above the exterior sidewalk elevation. The building height at 79th Street and Conser is 56 feet. Because the grade falls from the northeast corner of the site to the southwest corner, more of the garage is exposed at the southwest corner of the property, which is the rear elevation. There is about 10 feet of finished floor exposed for the garage, although the overall building height stays at 58 feet overall. The applicant is proposing to add angled head-in parking along Conser, which provides them with 15 on-street shared parking spaces for the project. The building is proposed to be constructed of concrete, stone, composition siding, and stucco. This project was submitted prior to a recent amendment to the Code requiring 40 percent masonry; however, this application does provide 39 to 43 percent masonry on the north and east elevations. The commerce space on the east elevation has direct access to a patio in front of them. This portion of the building sits back a bit from the garage that is providing the pedestal for the building. There is access along that portion of the building, both at the south and at the main entry. There is a handicap ramp serving the project. It is located on the north side of the building and wraps around to the northeast. That particular condition is preventing direct entries from the north office locations, but they each have a balcony to serve them. The building is U-shaped, which allows an opportunity for the open space to be provided on that deck. Stormwater detention is required. The applicant submitted a plan that is acceptable to staff. There are several deviations that are required for this application. They were all outlined in the staff comments. A number of them have to do with the architectural requirements of the Code. Staff was in agreement with the applicant's analysis of these items and recommended approval of those particular deviations. With regard to a few deviations that warrant some discussion, one is the street section. The Code section currently does not allow for angled head-in parking. That section has been recently amended. This request is in conformance with the recently adopted Code amendment. The applicant is proposing to reduce the half section for a future alley on the back side of the building. The Code would call for 10.5 feet of half street alley. The applicant is proposing 7.5 feet. It is unclear whether the alley will actually ever be built but if redevelopment continues in the area, the future of that alley can be determined. In

15 Page 15 staff's opinion, the applicant's proposal provides the minimum acceptable allowance for an alley. The project requires 12 street trees. The applicant's landscaping plan currently shows four street trees. With the angled head-in parking, there is a bit of a narrow street area in front of the building, but staff believes there are additional opportunities to provide street trees and would support a deviation to a certain extent for street trees. A stipulation was included directing the applicant to continue to work with staff and the City Forester to find ways to incorporate additional street trees and landscaping around this project. There are a number of large trees onsite and some that will have to be removed as part of the redevelopment. There are also trees along the common property line, so staff included stipulations for tree preservation plans as part of the construction. The finished floor elevation requirement in the Code is 3 to 8 feet above the exterior sidewalk. The Code does not specifically address what happens on a non-public rightof-way side of the street. The overall building height stays within the allowed height allowances, and staff is comfortable with that particular deviation request. The Code has a limit of a building footprint of 120 feet of continuous attached street frontage. The applicant's ownership is 175 feet, north to south. The building has a lot of undulation along the front elevation. Because of his ownership, staff is comfortable with that deviation. Staff recommended approval of DFD Certificate of Conformity No , with stipulations a through u, as outlined. Mrs. Karr offered to answer any questions. Mr. Lund asked how the applicant planned to handle stormwater retention. Mrs. Karr deferred to Supervisory Civil Engineer David Miller to provide the details. Supervisory Civil Engineer David Miller stated the stormwater detention would be handled under the parking garage where there are a series of storm sewer pipes. Stormwater will be collected at that location and routed across the north side of the property to the adjacent street to the west. The stormwater will then tie into an existing storm sewer. Mr. John Petersen, attorney for the applicant, Polsinelli PC, 6202 College Boulevard, stated he was happy to appear this afternoon on behalf of the property owner and the proposed developer and operator of a great new addition to the downtown area of Overland Park, InterUrban Lofts. He recognized Mr. Hal Shapiro, principal, REAL Property Group; Mr. John Gaar, lead design architect, Finkle Williams Architecture, and Mr. Roger Cassity, vice president, Renaissance Infrastructure Consulting. All of the principals of the design team were also present to answer any questions. Mr. Petersen stated this was a significant and exciting day for everyone who has been involved in development in Overland Park for a decade or more, particularly in downtown Overland Park. Leading up to the formation of the Downtown Form-Based District, the Downtown has been a primary focus of the City of Overland Park and recognized by the development community as an area that needed revitalization. One of the key elements identified as a prerequisite and necessary to bring in capital investment was to bring people back to the Downtown area to live there. The Millennials and empty nesters need to come to the area to create an area where

16 Page 16 walkability is key. Density to Downtown had to not only come in the form of commercial use, but people will live Downtown, work there, and play there. Mr. Petersen said the Downtown district was approaching 500 new residential units ready to be built. He believed InterUrban Lofts would be a great addition to the area. Mr. Petersen addressed the Overland Park Downtown Form-Based Code. With any good code, no matter how well thought through it might be, when it begins to be implemented to specific sites and specific kinds of buildings, there has to be tweaks. He said the development team and staff need to step back and state that they understand the spirit and intent of the Code provisions and the thoughts behind them, but they might not be able to quite meet the letter of the Code to accomplish the overall goals. Thus, there is the concept of deviation within of the Code. Deviations in the more traditional preliminary final plans tend to have a negative context in that someone might be trying to get away with something without adhering to all of the principles. He felt as they began to see the Code utilized, deviations would serve as a positive tool, so they are able to take the goal of the Code and modify it slightly as it fits into a particular application. For deviations, the Code requires a hearing before the Planning Commission and the Governing Body. Mr. Petersen did not believe there had been that many applications taken under the Form-Based Code. He did not think there had been any that did not require a number of deviations as staff articulated in their oral presentation earlier and in the written staff report. The staff report included 11 deviations. That sounded like a significant number, but he felt those deviations were rather minor in nature and all stayed within the context of advancing the spirit and intent of the Code. Mr. Petersen said the project was to take two lots that were historically used for singlefamily residences, transitioned from ownership to rental, and at one time one of them may have had a commercial use. The plan took those two structures at a prominent corner within the context of the Downtown Form District and created a utilization that is consistent with the long-term vision of the development plan. He said that would be in accordance with the regulating plan for townhomes, small apartments, and general urban utilizations along 79th Street and Conser. It is proposed to be a mixed-use with office use on the first floor and additional stories up for residential. Mr. Petersen referred to the map the development team used to determine the appropriate uses as they looked at the different components of the Downtown development area. He explained the colors of the map to the Planning Commission. He noted that the application was in accordance with acceptable use. It was in accordance with the height and the breadth of the facility being proposed. The applicant used the proposed deviations to refine the exact sighting of the building and implementation of the plan within the context of the application. The project would be a near $10 million investment and a project with cutting edge design. It would bring elements of urban living and suburban sensibilities. It would have an influence not only to the core of Downtown, but to the outward areas that are also contemplated for development. Mr. Petersen presented the proposed floor plan, noting the office utilization along Conser and along 79th Street on the north. The first floor includes some living units in the center facing out to the public amenity area and on the south. The U-area of the building will be a nice area for residents and represents, in an urban sense, an open space.