OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. July 14, 2014

Transcription

1 OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 14, 2014 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; and Mr. David M. Hill. Mr. Rob Krewson; and Mrs. Kim Sorensen were absent. Also present were: Mrs. Terry Happer Scheier, 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; Ms. Danielle Zeigler, Senior Planner; Mr. Aaron Dubois and Mr. Cylus Scarbrough, Planners; Mr. Mike Santos, City Attorney; Mr. Steve Horner, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Bryan Dehner, Fire Chief; Mr. Mike Casey, Deputy Fire Chief; Ms. Alysen Abel, Senior Civil Engineer; Mr. Scott McClure, PC Technician; and Ms. Pamela Blaszyk, Recording Secretary. Approximately 45 people were in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 9, Mr. Edward Ned Reitzes moved to approve the minutes for the June 9, 2014, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bob Gadd and carried with a vote of 8 to 0, including the vote of Chair Mike Flanagan, who voted on all of the items. CONSENT AGENDA: A. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN NO Ritz Charles Plaza Hotel - Vicinity of the southeast corner of 135th Street and Grandview. Application made by 135th Street Shops, L.L.C. B. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO Ritz Charles Plaza Hotel - Vicinity of the southeast corner of 135th Street and Grandview. Application made by Overland Park Lodging, L.L.C. C. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO Waterway Gas and Wash College Boulevard. Application made by Waterway Gas and Wash. D. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO Storage Mart West 91st Street. Application made by TKG Storage Mart, L.P.

2 Page 2 E. FINAL PLAT NO St. Andrews Villas - Vicinity of the northwest corner of 133rd Street and Melrose. Application made by JSRE, L.L.C. F. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO Bluhawk Marketplace - Vicinity of the southeast corner of 159th Street and Antioch. Application made by Price Brothers Construction, Inc. Current Planning Manager Leslie Karr asked that Consent Agenda item E, Final Plat No , St. Andrews Villas, be removed from the Consent Agenda for further discussion. Mr. Steve Troester moved to approve Consent Agenda items A, B, C, D, and F. The motion was seconded by Mr. George Lund and carried with a vote of 8 to 0. With regard to Consent Agenda item E, Final Plat No , St. Andrews Villas, Mrs. Karr indicated that staff identified a need to revise stipulation l with the language that was provided in the handout that was distributed prior to the meeting. Revised stipulation l indicated that "All easements and right-of-way shown on the plat to be vacated must be vacated prior to issuance of a building permit for a lot that is otherwise non-buildable. Mr. Jedd Claussen, applicant, Phelps Engineering, 1270 N. Winchester, Olathe, stated that they were in agreement with the stipulations, including revised stipulation l. Mr. David M. Hill moved to approve Final Plat No , St. Andrews Villas, with stipulations a through k and revised stipulation l. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tom Lance and carried with a vote of 8 to 0. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE NO Amendments to Chapter , Special Uses, of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Application made by The City of Overland Park. (Continued) According to Staff Comments, this item was to be continued to the August 11, 2014, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Reitzes moved to continue Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) No to the August 11, 2014, Planning Commission meeting. After a second by Mrs. Janie Thacker, the motion carried with a vote of 8 to 0. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO Amendment to Section , Downtown Form Based Code, of the Unified Development Ordinance. Application made by the City of Overland Park. (Continued) As noted in Staff Comments, this item was to be continued to the August 11, 2014, Planning Commission meeting.

3 Page 3 Mr. Gadd moved to continue Unified Development Ordinance Amendment No to the August 11, 2014, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Thacker and carried with a vote of 8 to 0. REZONING NO Vicinity of the northwest corner of 115th Street and Indian Creek Parkway. Rezoning requested from R-2, Two-Family Residential District, to RP-6, Planned High-Rise Apartment District, to allow a rezoning to incorporate additional land area into the City Place development. Application made by College 69 Associates, L.L.C. Senior Planner Keith Gooch indicated that this item regarded a request to rezone a.492-acre tract in the vicinity of the northwest corner of 115th Street and Indian Creek Parkway, to RP-6, Planned High-Rise Apartment District, to incorporate additional land area into the City Place development. The property to the north was recently rezoned as a part of the City Place development. There is a special use permit for an assisted living facility to the north and for some office, mixed use and some additional high rise apartments to the north and west. The area to the south and west of this property is zoned R-2 and is developed with duplexes. Parkland that is zoned R-1 is located to the east. The applicant purchased the subject site after the City Place rezoning was approved. This purchase allows for the connection of Indian Creek Parkway. There are no changes to the adjacent RP-6 piece of ground. There are some trails and landscaping shown on this piece of property and no other development will be occurring on the subject site. The same stipulations that were approved with Rezoning No , which is the rest of the City Place development, will apply to this piece of property. Staff was recommending approval of Rezoning No with stipulation a. Mr. Robert Johnson, applicant, Polsinelli, P.C., 900 W. 48th Place, Kansas City, Missouri, stated that he agreed with the stipulation. Mr. Hill asked what was the benefit of this land purchase. Mr. Johnson replied that they agreed to extend Indian Creek Parkway, which is partially on this piece of property. A trail will also be extended onto this land. Chair Flanagan opened the public hearing regarding this item. There was no response, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Reitzes moved to recommend to the Council approval of Rezoning No , to rezone to RP-6, Planned High-Rise Apartment District, to allow a rezoning to incorporate additional land area into the City Place development, with stipulation a. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hill and carried with a vote of 8 to 0. REZONING NO College Boulevard. Rezoning requested from CP-1, Planned Restricted Business District, to RP-6, Planned High-Rise Apartment District, to allow the conversion of an extended stay hotel to multifamily residential. Application made by Thiemann Real Estate Investments.

4 Page 4 Planner Aaron Dubois stated that this item regarded a request by Thiemann Real Estate Investments to rezone the subject site to RP-6, Planned High-Rise Apartment District. This property, which is located at College Boulevard, is surrounded by a mixture of commercial and office development. There is an existing hotel that the applicant is requesting to rezone to RP-6 to allow a multifamily residential development. The proposal for this application is to convert 216 one-bedroom units to 107 two-bedroom units and one, one-bedroom unit and they will occupy the existing nine buildings. The applicant is proposing to keep the clubhouse and pool as two of its major amenities in the center of the property. They are also providing walking trails, open space and picnic areas. Other improvements with this application would include new sidewalks throughout the development, sidewalks to the public sidewalk connections along King and College Boulevard. There are no changes to the building exteriors; there will only be interior construction. Based on the type of units, a total of 195 parking spaces are required by ordinance. The applicant is providing 212 parking spaces. They are also providing street trees along College Boulevard and King to meet ordinance requirements. This application requires three deviations to be approved. The first deviation is from Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section for building height. The RP-6 zoning requires four-story buildings. The existing buildings are all three stories. The second deviation is from Section 5.13 of the Architecture Design Standards, which requires different building forms. In this case, all of the buildings are identical and already constructed. The third deviation is from Section 5.6.5, which requires all buildings to contain at least 40 percent masonry on each facade. The existing buildings provide less than 40 percent. All three of these deviations result from existing conditions from the original design and construction of the hotel. The applicant will be unable to go forward with this development without the deviations. The applicant and staff have provided a response to the five questions that were attached to these comments. The site plan does not show any changes other than the sidewalks. They are going to redo the entry feature with a new design. Staff was recommending approval of Rezoning , with stipulations a through f. Ms. Shannon Marcano, attorney for the applicant, White Goss, 4510 Belleview, said she was representing the applicant, David Thiemann, Thiemann Real Estate Investments, and Will Anderson, BHC Rhodes, the engineer for the project. Ms. Marcano noted that the request is to rezone from CP-1, Planned Restricted Business District, to RP-6, Planned High-Rise Apartment District. The existing building is an extended use hotel. The conversion is contemplated using the buildings as they were designed, so it is a comparable use and they are excited to present this project to the City. Thiemann Real Estate Investments owns and operates apartment complexes and multi-tenant developments in the Midwest. They manage about 4,000 units. They have management on-site and control the project throughout its life. With this project, they are reducing the number of units by combining the onebedroom units into two-bedroom units. The deviations they were requesting were the result of the existing conditions on the site. Ms. Marcano agreed with the stipulations. Chair Flanagan opened the public hearing regarding this item. Mr. Paul Denzer, Beverly, Overland Park, said he is the principal and manager for the three buildings that are immediately adjacent to this property at

5 Page King Street, King Street and King Street. He was the owner of these properties when the hotel special use permit was applied for in The argument for getting the hotel approved was that it was a quasi-commercial use that would work in an office environment. The hotel project was opposed by a number of the neighbors. He was not opposed to the special use for a hotel, but he opposed the density and design of the project at the time. All of the office neighbors at that time were opposed to the hotel project. Before acting on this application, Mr. Denzer suggested that the Commission review the minutes from the initial special use permit hearings for the subject site. He wanted to highlight some points from the minutes of January 13, 1997; February 10, 1997, and February 24, The original hotel was submitted as a 120-unit extended stay hotel. The original property was part of a comprehensive office plan including Mr. Denzer's three buildings. The hotel project was for 162,000 square feet of improvements on three floors with a 53,000 square-foot footprint. The plans submitted by Holtze Executive Village showed that there were 185 total parking spaces on the property. During the public hearing, a number of issues and concerns were expressed. Staff expressed concerns about the building elevations, the design and the amount of brick versus stucco proposed for the buildings. Mr. Denzer felt that those issues are still relevant to the current proposal. The planner at the time advised that staff suggested five or six times that the applicant take the plans to the Site Plan Review Committee prior to the review by the Planning Commission. The applicant declined to do that. Mr. Hermes, who was a Planning Commissioner at the time, noted that the elements identified as staff concerns should be determined by the Site Plan Review Committee. After further discussion, Mr. Petersen, attorney for the applicant, indicated that the applicant's goal was to make the design fit in with the existing office development. It was not an office building, but it was intended to serve office development. Issues were also raised regarding the parking and the landscaping. Mr. Goodman, a Planning Commissioner at the time, said that once the project was built, the adjacent four-story building, which is one of Mr. Denzer's buildings, would be completely hidden from the view of people passing by on College. That was one of Mr. Denzer's concerns, and they lost a tenant because the signage was obscure. Mr. Denzer added that the matter ultimately went to the Site Plan Review Committee and the Site Plan Review Committee discussed the project during the February 10, 1997, Planning Commission meeting. At the February 24, 1997, Planning Commission meeting, it was noted that this was a 240-unit project that did not fit on the site. As a result of some ongoing negotiations, they lowered the height of one of the buildings to a one-story service building to reduce the number of units. They redesigned the parking, and they cut out all of the parking islands that were in the original design. One third of the parking spaces were identified as small car spaces in order to get the necessary counts in 1997 to have sufficient parking. With the current application, Mr. Denzer understood the rationale for approving the requested deviations is that there is something unique to this property. Mr. Denzer indicated that there is nothing unique about this property other than what was there by the actions of the prior landowner. He and some of the other neighbors are concerned with the proposed project. The hotel has not been a bad neighbor, but a hotel operates with a lower density and occupancy levels versus a residence. They have had some issues with parking overflow from the hotel on the adjacent sites. They have a lot of traffic because this site is totally packed with development. Mr. Denzer s land has green space with landscaping and parking, so the hotel guests frequently

6 Page 6 bring their dogs to use his property. He feared that with apartments on the subject site, this would be a bigger problem and there would also be parking concerns. He looked at the request for the waiver of the architectural design standards, the amount of masonry and the layout of buildings. If the existing buildings were not there, he doubted that they would consider an application for an RP-6 zoning today. This project has been discussed as being a 120-unit project when it actually has more than 200 units. While there are hardships here, the applicant's response is that they do not want to invest in making any modifications to the facades. If the Commission is inclined to entertain any conversion of this development to residential, it ought to look at a garden style RP-5 type of development and require that the modifications fit within the guidelines of an RP-5 District. He understood that the market demand is for apartments versus hotels, so the current owners are marketing this property as a possible conversion to apartments. Mr. Denzer thought that an RP-6 zoning would have a negative impact on the surrounding property owners. Mr. Christopher Smith, said he is the chief financial officer for Six or Seven, L.L.C., the owner of the property at College, which is located to the east of the subject site on the other side of King Street. He noted that many of his comments echo what Mr. Denzer stated. Mr. Smith indicated that he represents the owners, who were also concerned with potential adverse effects on their property as a result of rezoning the subject site to RP-6 and the potential redeveloped residential property. Those potential adverse effects deal with increased traffic and parking infringements, which they already encounter with overflow parking from the hotel. With a dense, occupied apartment complex, they were concerned that it will increase the parking infringements even further and cause them more inconvenience. Their building is 100 percent occupied by a single tenant, so all of their parking spaces are necessary for their tenant. In addition to the traffic, they are concerned about the potential safety concerns to any residents that move into this property and their children, as it is completely surrounded by commercial traffic five days per week. They understand the need to make business decisions and adapt. They believe that if a rezoning is to be considered, it should be an RP-5 District. If a variance is needed to allow 108 units, then they would be in agreement with that, but their concern is that by rezoning to an RP-6, that leaves the door open to a more dense alternative. Since no one else wished to speak, Chair Flanagan closed the public hearing. In response to the public hearing comments, the representative for the applicant, Ms. Marcano, pointed out that they are limited to 108 units by the stipulations to which they have agreed. Chair Flanagan asked if the hotel originally had 216 units. Ms. Marcano believed that was right. Mr. Reitzes asked how many parking spaces there are currently. Ms. Marcano replied that there are currently 212 parking spaces. Mrs. Thacker asked if the company has previously renovated a hotel into apartments. Ms. Marcano replied that she would ask Mr. Thiemann to discuss why he thought the apartments would be a good fit for this site. Mr. David Thiemann, applicant, 7 Carters Grove Court, St. Louis, Missouri, stated that they have done work on over 4,000 apartments in the Midwest. They are

7 Page 7 combinations of new developments and renovations and buying existing development. This development is similar to the kinds of projects they have done in the past. Although this project was operated as an extended stay hotel, when it was developed, it was originally planned to be converted to two-bedroom apartments, just like they are doing. The original code approval provided for that transition, so they did not have to pursue a code change with the buildings. When they were originally looking at the project, they thought that they might want to subdivide the development and keep them as separate units. That would require some additional parking, depending on how many they had. They decided that it would be preferable to operate the development with 108 units so they would have adequate parking and they operate everything as two-bedroom apartments except for one, one-bedroom apartment. Mrs. Thacker asked if Mr. Thiemann felt that the available parking spaces would be adequate for this number of units. In addition to the occupants, they need spaces for the visitors. Mr. Thiemann replied that they are sensitive to that concern. As an apartment owner, it is important to have a good reputation in the community and for the property to be highly leased so that the property can operate profitably. If they do not have enough parking, people will be unhappy and they are not going to want to lease apartment space. They are the first ones to be concerned about having enough parking space. They are operating over 4,000 apartment units in the Midwest. They have a lot of properties and they have adequate parking and meet zoning requirements. One problem they encounter with parking is that it is not always in the right space. It is better to have the parking evenly distributed as it is with the subject site. People do not always want to walk more than 15 or 20 feet from their parking space to the front door, so they have parking conflicts in certain areas. With regard to the subject site, they do not anticipate a problem with parking based on their operating history. They think that the way the property is laid out is a benefit. Chair Flanagan noted that both public hearing speakers mentioned that the hotel patrons were using their parking lots and their lawns. The number of units is decreasing from 216 units down to 108 units, and they have enough parking. He asked how the apartment management would address these issues. Chair Flanagan asked if the landscaping is something that the patrons can walk through. Mr. Thiemann replied that they want to be a good neighbor. They do not want their residents to be parking on adjacent sites. When people sign the lease, every space in this property will be identified, numbered and allocated to an apartment. The residents will know that only they can use their parking spaces and no one else can park there. Also, they cannot use the parking spaces of the other residents. They will communicate that information to the residents. If a neighbor were to say that they were having a problem with people parking in their spaces, the management would have the license plate numbers and they would find out who is parking in the wrong space. They would contact them and let them know that is not allowed. If a car is towed one time, that is usually sufficient so that they do not park in the wrong spot again. They will have management on the site and their residents will have an average lease term of about 12 months. It is not like a hotel where people will be there for one or two nights. These are people who will live here and know the rules, and they will have to be in compliance. Chair Flanagan asked how they would handle visitor parking. Mr. Thiemann replied that visitor parking will be predominantly in the front near the clubhouse area. That area will be clearly marked so the residents can tell their guests where they should park.

8 Page 8 With regard to the sidewalk improvements, Mrs. Thacker asked if there is a perimeter sidewalk. Mr. Dubois replied that there is a public sidewalk on College Boulevard and King. There is not an internal sidewalk that surrounds the property. The trail system will be interior and most of it is already there for connections when it was a hotel use. They will also add some sidewalks along building No. 9 to allow for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) spaces. They have also provided a sidewalk connection to College Boulevard and another sidewalk connection to King. The property is surrounded by a masonry wall, so there are no midblock connections. The parking is screened with the wall, which is why they are not showing a solid hedge row that they typically see with developments. Mr. Lance asked if the City has received any complaints about any problems caused by this project. Mr. Dubois replied that he was not aware of any complaints other than receiving a call from the first speaker at today s public hearing, who expressed concerns about the density. Mr. Lance asked if there were any complaints to the Police or Fire Departments regarding this property. Mr. Dubois replied that he was not aware of any complaints. They did not do an extensive search because they did not hear of any issues. Noting that the public hearing speakers suggested that RP-5 would be a better use, Mr. Troester asked for staff to comment on that option. Mr. Dubois replied that staff discussed whether they would prefer an RP-5 or an RP-6 District for this site. Staff felt that it was better to have the density approved correctly and to get a deviation from the building height standards of RP-6 as opposed to getting a deviation from the density of RP-5, because this has a higher density than what an RP-5 project would allow. If the applicant was to sell the development to someone else who wanted to have more apartment units, they would have to come through the planning process to change the development pattern of the project and change the stipulations. They would review the parking numbers to see if it was possible. It would depend on what they want to do and they would review the development. Mr. Troester observed that it was almost a 1:1 ratio in terms of the number of sleeping units and parking spaces. Mr. Dubois noted that a one-bedroom unit requires 1.5 parking spaces while a twobedroom unit requires 1.8 parking spaces. To meet the code requirements, they must have parking spaces, and they provided 212 parking spaces. Mr. Gadd noted that there was mention of a masonry wall on the south and east sides. He asked if the wall also goes along the north and west sides. Mr. Thiemann replied that he understood that the masonry wall goes around the entire property. It is masonry pillars with ornamental iron connecting those pillars. Mr. Gadd clarified that the wall is 4 to 5 feet in height. Mr. Troester stated that the Commission and the City try to create some situations for mixed use and multiple use development. This area was created as a mixed use development and the different uses were supported by the hotels. The same rationale indicates that it is good to support office with residential and retail. While he appreciated the perspectives of Mr. Denzer and Mr. Smith, from his perspective, this is a good marriage between the two uses. He appreciated the concerns about parking and density; however, he believed that this is an excellent use for this location and he would support the application.

9 Page 9 Mr. Dubois clarified that he pulled up Google Maps and observed that the fence does not continue on the west side, although it is heavily landscaped. The other sides have a masonry wall. Mrs. Thacker indicated that it was hard to tell if there was a continuous fence to the north or if there were some gates. The applicant may want to find out if there is an exit that is encouraging the people to go to adjacent properties. Mr. Dubois added that they could review the gates with the final development plan. Mr. Reitzes observed that the layout of the development would work well with a multifamily use. They are converting the development from a short-term tenancy to a longer-term tenancy. The public hearing comments have some merit. One of the requirements of a unique site for a deviation is that the applicant has not created the situation by his or her own action. In this case, the applicant is creating the situation to the extent that they are changing the use. However, the use makes sense. They will have people coming in and out as they normally would, but they will be staying for a longer term than they were before. Mr. Reitzes moved to recommend to the Council approval of Rezoning No to rezone to RP-6, Planned High-Rise Apartment District, to allow the conversion of an extended stay hotel to multifamily residential with stipulations a through f. The motion was seconded by Mr. Troester and carried with a vote of 8 to 0. REZONING NO Vicinity of the northwest corner of 183rd Street and State Line Road. Rezoning requested from RURJ, Rural District, Johnson County, to R-1, Single-Family Residential District, to allow a single-family development. Application made by 175/State Line Partners, L.L.C. Planner Cylus Scarbrough indicated that the applicant was requesting a rezoning to R-1, Single-Family Residential District, to allow a single-family development on a 38.5-acre tract in the vicinity of the northwest corner of 183rd Street and State Line Road. The subject site is already developed with a single-family home, and it was recently annexed into Overland Park. This is not a planned district, so there is no preliminary design associated with this request. All engineering and traffic issues will be handled with the preliminary plat. Staff was recommending approval of Rezoning No Mr. Todd Allenbrand, applicant, Payne and Brockway, 426 S. Kansas Avenue, Olathe, stated that he was present to answer questions. Chair Flanagan opened the public hearing regarding this item. There was no response, and the hearing was closed. Mrs. Thacker moved to recommend to the Council approval of Rezoning No to rezone to R-1, Single-Family Residential District, to allow a single-family development. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lance and carried with a vote of 8 to 0. REZONING NO Vicinity of the southwest corner of 175th Street and Kenneth. Rezoning requested from RURJ, Rural District, Johnson County, to R-1,

10 Page 10 Single-Family Residential District, to allow a single-family development. Application made by 175/State Line Partners, L.L.C. Mr. Scarbrough added that the applicant was requesting approval of a rezoning to R-1, Single-Family Residential District, to allow a single-family residential subdivision in the vicinity of the southwest corner of 175th Street and Kenneth. The subject site was recently annexed into the City. It is developed with single-family homes on large lots and undeveloped parcels of land. The request is to allow a conventional district, so no preliminary plan is required. Engineering and traffic issues will be addressed with the preliminary plat. Staff was recommending approval of Rezoning No Mr. Todd Allenbrand, applicant, Payne and Brockway, 426 S. Kansas Avenue, Olathe, stated that he was present to answer questions. Chair Flanagan opened the public hearing regarding this item. There was no response, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Troester moved to recommend to the Council approval of Rezoning No to rezone to R-1, Single-Family Residential District, to allow a single-family development. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reitzes and carried with a vote of 8 to 0. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO West 135th Street. Special use permit requested for a five-year period of time to allow the renewal of a drinking establishment. This property is currently zoned CP-2, Planned General Business District. Application made by Coach's Bar and Grill. Senior Planner Danielle Zeigler indicated that the applicant, Coach's Bar and Grill, was requesting renewal of a special use permit for a five-year period of time to allow the renewal of a drinking establishment. This is the first renewal of this drinking establishment. The initial permit was granted in 2011 for a three-year period of time. The property is located within 200 feet of the Blue Valley recreation center, which is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District, which is why the special use permit is required. The Unified Development Ordinance allows drinking establishment renewals for a maximum of five years. The Overland Park Police Department has reviewed the police activity at this location and is not requiring any special conditions at this time. Staff was recommending approval of Special Use Permit No for a five-year period of time to allow the renewal of a drinking establishment. Mr. Brian Darby, applicant, 9089 W. 135th Street, Overland Park, was present to answer questions. Chair Flanagan opened the public hearing regarding this item. There was no response, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Reitzes moved to recommend to the Council approval of Special Use Permit No for a five-year period of time to allow the renewal of a drinking establishment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Troester and carried with a vote of 8 to 0.

11 Page 11 SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO West 95th Street. Special use permit requested for a five-year period of time to allow the renewal of a drinking establishment. This property is currently zoned CP-2, Planned General Business District. Application made by Johnny's Tavern. Ms. Zeigler indicated that the applicant, Johnny's Tavern, was requesting special use permit approval for a five-year period of time to allow the renewal of a drinking establishment. A special use permit is required because the property is located within 200 feet of the Morningview subdivision, which is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District. This is the first renewal of the drinking establishment. The initial special use permit was granted in 2011 for a three-year period of time. The UDO allows drinking establishment renewals for a maximum period of five years. The Overland Park Police Department has reviewed the police activity at this location and is not requiring any special conditions at this time. Staff was recommending approval of Special Use Permit No for a five-year period of time to allow the renewal of a drinking establishment. Mr. Louie Riederer, applicant, 8719 W. 95th Street, Overland Park, agreed with the five-year period of time. Chair Flanagan opened the public hearing regarding this item. There was no response, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Lund moved to recommend to the Council approval of Special Use Permit No for a five-year period of time to allow the renewal of a drinking establishment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reitzes and carried with a vote of 8 to 0. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO Reeds. Special use permit requested for a ten-year period of time to allow a squad house for the Overland Park Fire Department. This property is currently zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District. Application made by The Overland Park Fire Department. Mr. Scarbrough stated that the applicant, the Overland Park Fire Department, was requesting approval of a special use permit for a ten-year period of time to allow the use of a single-family home for an emergency medical service (EMS) squad location. The house is located in the Nall Hills subdivision on property zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential. The purpose of the EMS squad house is to allow for improved response times for the Fire Department. However, there would not be any large firefighting equipment at this location. Several neighbors have expressed concerns about the appearance of the house and whether there would be any large firefighting equipment or antennas at the house. The Fire Department intends to maintain the single-family character in the appearance of the house. They will replace the garage doors so that they can park a SUV or a light truck at this location. They would keep the truck inside the garage, and the squad house would be staffed 24 hours per day. Generally, public facilities are located in residential districts, so staff is supportive of this request. Staff was recommending approval of this special use permit for a ten-year period of time with no stipulations.

12 Page 12 Mr. Gadd clarified that the truck at this facility will be smaller than a typical fire truck. Mr. Lance asked if there will be signs outside of the residence. Mr. Scarbrough replied in the negative. Mr. Lance clarified that there were no plans for a basketball goal at this location. He asked if they will be rolling out the vehicle with flashing lights and the sound of sirens. Mr. Scarbrough noted that the applicant could answer that question. Regarding the equipment that will be at this address, Mr. Reitzes asked where it is currently being housed. Mr. Scarbrough replied that could be answered by the applicant. Mr. Bryan Dehner, applicant, fire chief, Overland Park Fire Department, Hemlock, Overland Park, indicated that the Fire Department was asking permission to use a private residence for a public facility to allow the EMS squad house. They are looking for a location in this vicinity to increase the coverage in the eastern contract area where they have been receiving services from another fire department for some time. They have relayed to that organization that they have had a desire to increase the level of service to that area with an advanced life support (ALS) first response capability. That would allow them to have paramedics on fire trucks and squads and those types of services. They have not yet been able to achieve that goal, so it is clear that the Overland Park Fire Department will have to implement that type of service for this area. This EMS squad would cover the area of Overland Park where they do not currently have ALS first response coverage. In the City, Area Nos. 9, 2 and 6 are the ninth, second and sixth busiest square miles in terms of calls to the Fire Department. The firefighters are coming from Fire Station Nos. 2 and 4 to respond to calls in these areas, which are in the furthest perimeters of their response district, and this occurs several times per day. This scenario is what led the Fire Department to search for a place to be located in the area where the calls are coming from, so they can have an improved response time. They currently do not have anything in the short-term in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for $4 million to $6 million to build a fire station or convert hospital space or commercial space. The proposed option would afford them the ability to put a two-person squad at the subject site. One person would be an EMS lieutenant to respond in an area where they get a lot of calls. While this solution is unique, it is not the first time it has been done in the County. It is more of a transition. The City of Olathe used a home as a transition to a more formalized fire station. The Overland Park Fire Department is attempting to repurpose contract dollars that they are currently spending to invest in this location to provide improved service. When they introduced the EMS squad house concept to the home owners association at the Nall Hills block party on Sunday, June, 22, they answered a lot of questions. They are not intending to place large fire trucks at this location. He clarified that only one unit will be parked there. There are different vehicles that they designate for squads. If the Tahoe is being repaired, there may be a pickup type chassis truck that they would use at the location to respond to medical calls with a two-person crew. They have established themselves as good neighbors. Their fire stations are located in neighborhoods and they interface with those neighborhoods. Every location has house rules. They will make sure that they do not inconvenience their neighbors by using their lights and sirens until they reach Nall, 103rd Street, or other main thoroughfares. They will not have signage at this location. The neighbors will know

13 Page 13 who is there, but they are not attempting to interface with the public as they would with a traditional station. Once the unit is in the garage, the door will be closed. They looked for a spot where they will have minimal impact. This house is in the floodplain. It is across the street from the park that the crew could use for any physical fitness activities. This location also provides them with good access to Nall and Lamar. Mr. Lance asked what changes will be made to the exterior of the building. He asked if the garage would have glass doors. Fire Chief Dehner replied that the current resident has a suburban, so that size of a vehicle fits in the garage. They intend to take out the two garage doors and replace them with one, double residential garage door. It would not have glass. Mr. Gadd asked how many people would be at this location at any one time. Fire Chief Dehner replied that they would have two crew members at this location. They work 24-hour shifts, so they would report in the morning and relieve the crew that is there, and they would leave. Except for at 8 a.m., when there would be a change in personnel, there would be two individuals in that facility. All training would be conducted at a different location, so that unit would go to receive training and another fill-in squad would be at the site. There is one time during the day when Johnson County Med-Act will deliver the mail and supplies, so those individuals may drop off some material in the garage. That would be the extent of the people at that site. Mr. Gadd asked where the fire personnel would park their cars. Fire Chief Dehner explained that a part of their exterior upgrade would be to improve the driveway. They would make sure that while their unit would be inside the garage door with the garage door closed, they would also have room for two cars to park on the driveway. They may need to have a couple of cars park on the street during the personnel change at 8 a.m., but it would be their intention to have the cars for the two-person crew parked in the driveway for the 24-hour period. In addition to the SUV, Mrs. Thacker asked if the pickup trucks could be parked in the garage. She asked if these vehicles would be for transporting the public or if they would just be used to transport staff. Fire Chief Dehner replied that this unit would be used for the first response in concert with the ambulance. The two-person crew would be handling the first response, and the ambulance would be arriving to transport the patient. They do not intend to park a transport ambulance at this location. If it is not the Tahoe, there are other types of vehicles that are smaller than a fire truck. It could be the pickup truck with a camper shell that they have stationed at 138th Street, or another type of pickup truck that is located at station No. 4. They may interchange various vehicles, but there will be one unit at one time in that garage. Mrs. Thacker asked if they anticipate an average number of trips. Fire Chief Dehner replied that this unit will run about ten calls per day. Chair Flanagan asked who would take care of the lawn at this location. Fire Chief Dehner replied that the residents of the house will not maintain the lawn. Director of Parks Services Greg Ruether will ensure that they have a contractor to take care of the lawn. In terms of snow removal, they will have a snow blower there so the crew can get out of the driveway. Chair Flanagan clarified that the City will be responsible for the general maintenance of the house. Mr. Gadd asked if they will be joining the homes association there. Fire Chief Dehner replied that they have contacted the Nall Hills Homes Owners Association. He noted that the president of the homes association, Mr. Mark Sutton, was present. Their

14 Page 14 intent is to be a good neighbor and to comply with the home owners association rules and covenants. Chair Flanagan opened the public hearing regarding this item. Ms. Susan Kavanagh, Maple Drive, stated that she lives around the corner from Reeds Drive. She sells real estate in Johnson County. She understood why the City wants to place a squad station in this area. It is more cost effective for the City, and it will provide a more efficient service for the surrounding nursing homes and rehabilitation centers. While this move benefits the City, Ms. Kavanagh did not feel that it would benefit her neighborhood. She wondered if the City conducted an impact study on the effects of this facility on their neighborhood from the standpoint of property values. Their neighborhood has had an influx of young families in the past few years. This is a great neighborhood in a great location. Her neighbors have small children. If she were showing properties in her neighborhood, she would be required to disclose this substation to all potential buyers. She asked if the Commissioners had small children, would they choose to buy a home near a 24-hour squad station. Her concern is that the property values will decrease. While this is good for the City and they have said that there will not be a lot of noise from the squad or a lot of impact on the neighborhood, she disagreed from a real estate standpoint. She felt that this use would be at the expense of her neighborhood. Mr. Terry Horan, Reeds Drive, noted he is the third house to the north of the proposed squad station. When he learned of this proposed use, he was pleased, and he supported this request. His wife teaches emergency life support (ELS) and advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) certifications. The response time for a stroke or cardiac victim is critical. He was glad to hear that this use is being proposed and their response time in this area would be reduced. He was not concerned about the noise. Mr. Horan attended the block party and spoke to Fire Chief Dehner and his captains. He believed that the crew would respect the neighborhood and refrain from using the sirens until they get to the main thoroughfares. He already hears sirens on Nall and 103rd Street, and that would not change. Mr. Horan supported this proposal. Mr. Mark Sutton, 6009 W. 99th Street, Overland Park, president, Nall Hills Homes Association, indicated that Fire Chief Dehner informed them of this proposal about one and one-half months ago, so they have had time as an organization to look at the pros and cons of this application. They have reviewed their by-laws and covenants, and they acknowledge and agree that the use outlined in Special Use Permit No is not in violation of any declaration, restriction or covenant applicable to the property located within the Nall Hills subdivision at Reeds Drive. Mr. Sutton realized that some members of the homes association have expressed their concerns. More than 100 people attended their block party on June 22, and the feedback that they got from those members was positive. The ones that he talked to are in support of this special use permit approval. They do not see anything changing. The house will structurally be the same, and it will be used as any other residence with people eating and sleeping there. They will clean snow off the driveway. They will go in and out of the garage like the rest of them do four to six times per day. There will be no sirens and lights until the squad reaches the thoroughfares. They feel that those concerns have been addressed by Chief Dehner and his staff. There is a park to the south of the house and Nall is located 100 yards to the east of the house. They asked Chief Dehner about the use of the equipment relative to young children in the neighborhood, because there is a park across the street. Chief Dehner has

15 Page 15 assured them about the crew following the speed limits. The park has a highly used soccer park in the fall and spring so the overflow of parking goes on Indian Creek Parkway up to the house at Reeds Drive. During those discussions, they talked about alternative routes that the squad would take by going west to Lamar or north on Reeds up to 103rd Street. The homes association members feel that they have addressed those concerns satisfactorily. Mr. Sutton believed that the squad house will be a good neighbor. He believed that the City will take care of the property and keep it up to code. He understood Ms. Kavanagh's concerns about property values, and it is something they have discussed. However, if the physical nature of the house and the use of the house is not going to change from its residential use today, he did not anticipate that this use would affect property values. Different realtors can have different opinions on the use. Mr. Robert Kobe, Reeds, said that he lives directly to the north of the subject house. He did not want the Fire Department squad to be next door. He agreed with Ms. Kavanagh s comments. People move to this area to be in the Shawnee Mission School District. He felt that there were other preferred locations for the squad house that would not interfere with their property values. Mr. Kobe has been a resident at this location for 28 years. He has several elderly neighbors that he respects. He understood the need for something like this for his neighbors. However, there are other properties available without interrupting the structure of the Nall Hills area. Mr. Kobe noted that Mr. Sutton indicated that the garage doors would be open about six times per day, but Fire Chief Dehner indicated that the squad would be responding to ten calls per day. Mr. Kobe assumed that there would be shift changes three times per day and he assumed that a shift change would occur at 11 p.m. He feared that the late night activity would disturb the neighborhood. Mr. Charlie Gilbert, Reeds, stated that he supports this application. The Fire Department has made three visits to his home in the past few years. This squad house would improve their response time. The realtor said that she would have to tell the prospective buyers that there is a fire station in the neighborhood. The house is in a floodplain, and that would impact the house values more than a squad house. Ms. Kristen Martin, Reeds, indicated that many of her concerns such as the noise and structural changes have already been addressed. She was also concerned about the property values. A lot of young families with children are moving to this area, and she wanted to be sure that the neighborhood remains stable. Since no one else wished to speak, Chair Flanagan closed the public hearing. In response to the public hearing comments, Fire Chief Dehner clarified that they work 24 hour shifts and there is one shift change per day that occurs at 8 a.m. He had a chance to speak with some of the public hearing speakers at the open house block party. He could offer their experience with the five existing fire stations that they have operated for generations. They have house rules at every fire station to minimize the impact. With this house, they will keep the Tahoe in the garage, and the crew will use the house to eat and sleep. They want to minimize their impact on the neighborhood, and they will not take that for granted. Mr. Troester stated that the compelling factor is that this area is not served very well. He lives relatively close to 95th Street where there is a fire station and over the years, he does not notice it anymore. In response to Ms. Kavanagh's comment that this use