OVERLAND PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING. April 5, 1999

Transcription

1 OVERLAND PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING April 5, 1999 Mayor Ed Eilert called the Overland Park City Council meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present, constituting a quorum: Mr. Byron C. Loudon, Council President; Mr. Neil S. Sader; Dr. Jack Halligan; Mr. Michael J. Lally; Mr. Thomas C. Tim Owens; Mr. Carl R. Gerlach; and Mr. David G. Belpedio. Dr. Jay F. Lehnertz, Mrs. Georgia Erickson, and Mr. Greg L. Musil were absent. (excused) Also present were: Mr. Don Pipes, City Manager; Mr. Bob Watson, City Attorney; Mr. Bob Jones, Director of Human Resources; Mr. James Cox, Director of Parks and Recreation; Ms. Kristy Cannon, Director of Finance, Budget and Administration; Mr. Bart Budetti, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Ken Rodney, Manager, Information Technology; Mr. Alan Sims, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Marc Farrar, Assistant City Manager; Mr. Bob Lindeblad, Administrator, Current Planning; Mr. Brian Shields, City Traffic Engineer; Mr. Keith Faddis, Deputy Chief of Police; Ms. Florence Erickson, Administrator, Special Projects; Mr. Sean Reilly, Manager, Communications; Mr. Mark Stuecheli, Senior Transportation Planner; Mr. Tom Lance, Planning Commissioner; Ms. Mary Birch, Executive Director, Overland Park Chamber of Commerce; and Ms. Pamela Blaszyk, Senior Recording Secretary. Approximately 20 persons were in the audience. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Ed Eilert led the audience in the pledge of allegiance. MAYOR ED EILERT APPOINTMENT TO THE OVERLAND PARK PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT FOUNDATION, INC. TERM OF OFFICE Beginning Ending Vicki Lilly 11/01/97 11/01/00 REAPPOINTMENTS TO THE OVERLAND PARK PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT FOUNDATION, INC.: Wayne C. Byrd 11/01/98 11/01/01 Jim Boyle 11/01/98 11/01/01 Michael Armstrong 11/01/98 11/01/01 REAPPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES - POLICE PENSION PLAN: Keith C. Oliver 04/13/99 04/09/02 APPOINTMENT TO THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD: David Knopick 03/05/99 03/05/02

2 Page 2 Mr. Michael J. Lally moved for the approval of the referenced appointments and reappointments. After a second by Mr. Thomas C. "Tim" Owens, the motion carried with a vote of 7 to 0. NONAGENDA ITEM: Mayor Eilert announced that Mr. Chris McKenzie has resigned his position as the Executive Director of the Kansas League of Municipalities to become the Executive Director of the California League of Cities. The Mayor presented Resolution No to commend Mr. McKenzie on his outstanding job performance as the Executive Director of the Kansas League of Municipalities. Dr. Jack Halligan moved for the approval of Resolution No. 3060, honoring Mr. Chris McKenzie for his tenure as the Executive Director of the Kansas League of Municipalities. The motion was seconded by Mr. Owens, and carried with a unanimous vote. CITY MANAGER DONALD E. PIPES BID TABULATION - Departmental Fileservers. Manager, Information Technology Ken Rodney recommended approval of the low bid from Dell Computer Corporation, in the amount of $63,542.95, for the purchase of departmental fileservers. Mr. Owens moved for the approval of the acceptance of the bid from Dell Computer Corporation, in the amount of $63,542.95, for the purchase of departmental fileservers. After a second by Mr. Carl R. Gerlach, the motion carried with a vote of 7 to 0. CONSENT AGENDA: FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STAFF CONSENT ITEMS: CONFIRMATION OF INVESTMENTS - Confirming investments in the amounts of $5,422,428 in treasury bills and $6,000,000 in certificates of deposit. COUNCIL MINUTES - December 21, 1998, and January 4, EXPENDITURE ORDINANCE NO. 3B - Outlining the expenditures from the General Operating Fund for March 4 through March 17, CAPITAL PROJECTS EXPENDITURE ORDINANCE NO. 3C - Outlining the expenditures from the Capital Projects Funds for March 11 through March 17, CAPITAL PROJECTS EXPENDITURE ORDINANCE NO. 3D - Outlining the expenditures from the Capital Projects Funds for March 18 through March 24, 1999.

3 Page 3 CAPITAL PROJECTS EXPENDITURE ORDINANCE NO. 3E - Outlining the expenditures from the Capital Projects Funds for March 25 through March 31, APPLICATION FOR DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE - Sam Wal, Inc., d/b/a Sam Wal Restaurant, Antioch Road, Man Yi Chang, manager. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF CONSENT ITEM: GRANTING OF EASEMENT - KCPL for primary electrical service at the Arboretum/Botanical Gardens, vicinity of 179th Street and Antioch. PUBLIC SAFETY STAFF CONSENT ITEMS: APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF MASSAGE THERAPY BUSINESS LICENSE AND IN-OFFICE MASSAGE THERAPY LICENSE - Omo's Treatment Head to Toe, 7058 West 105th Street, Rhonda Omo, applicant. APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF MASSAGE THERAPY BUSINESS LICENSE - Studio 151, Inc., 6995 West 151st Street, Gaylene M. Durham, applicant. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE CONSENT ITEM: STORM WATER VARIANCE - LionsGate Golf Course, 143rd Street and Dearborn. STAFF CONSENT ITEMS: GRANTING OF PERMANENT EASEMENT - City of Overland Park as grantor and Water District No. 1 as grantee concerning property at the Overland Park Fire Station, vicinity of 137th Street and Switzer. ACCEPTANCE OF THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS AND AUTHORIZATION TO PAY AMOUNTS SPECIFIED - Consolidated Capital Equity Partners, L.P., concerning property at Indian Creek, west of Metcalf (vicinity of 103rd Street and Lowell): Permanent Drainage Easement $11,420 Temporary Construction Easement $17,000 ACCEPTANCE OF TWO (2) PERMANENT DRAINAGE EASEMENTS - Great Corner, L.L.C., concerning property at the northeast corner of 135th Street and Quivira.

4 Page 4 ACCEPTANCE OF THE FOLLOWING TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS AND PERMANENT DRAINAGE EASEMENTS WHERE NOTED - Concerning the 1999 CDBG Residential Street Program (72nd Street, Lamar to Woodson; 73rd Street cul-de-sac, east of Lamar; 73rd Terrace cul-de-sac, east of Lamar; and 74th Street, Lamar to Woodson): 72nd Street 73rd Terrace Frank H. Rodkey, Trustee - permanent & Andrew D. Lyons temporary Margaret A. Fenimore - permanent 74th Street Glen W. Stanley, etal. Dolores E. Gearhart Sharon K. Evans Ouida N. Doss Forrest L. & Barbara L. Miller, Co-Trustees Jean & Margaret Baxter Christel E. Martin, Trustee Susan A. Creacy Paul F. & Shirley J. Frame Daniel J. & Maria E. McIntyre 73rd Street Emmanuel & Jill Arvin J. & Leona M. Barrett - permanent & Camburako temporary Gerald R. Hoffman Nicholas C. & Ferol L. Thielen Timothy J. & Lucille A. Arlene M. Yost O'Malley Jeannie Balda Brown Arlene M. McGehee ACCEPTANCE OF THE FOLLOWING TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS - Concerning property in the 1999 Residential Streets Program (Glenwood, 83rd to 85th; Woodson, 67th to 69th; Riggs, 83rd to 85th; 69th, Lamar to Nall; Lowell, 75th to 78th; Floyd, 67th to 69th; Robinson, 83rd to 85th; 69th, Santa Fe Drive to Metcalf; and Mackey, 87th to Santa Fe Drive): J.A. Cacy & Edys Cacy Loueta S. Hauber Lester Wheatley Gerald L. Deason Mr. Gerlach moved for the approval of the Consent Agenda, as stipulated. Mr. Owens seconded the motion, which carried with a roll-call vote of 7 to 0. REGULAR AGENDA: FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT: Neil S. Sader, Chairman Mr. Neil S. Sader reported that during a Special Finance, Administration and Economic Development Committee meeting held earlier in the evening, the Committee recommended approval of an expenditure of $5,000 for the City to become a member of the North American International Trade Corridor Partnership. The Committee also unanimously recommended that the Overland Park Convention and Visitors Bureau approve an expenditure of $5,000 to provide financial assistance for the 1999 NAFTA-related conference.

5 Page 5 Mr. Sader moved to affirm the recommendations from the Finance, Administration and Economic Development Committee to approve the $5,000 expenditure for the City to become a member of the North American International Trade Corridor Partnership, and to recommend that the Overland Park Convention and Visitors Bureau approve an expenditure of $5,000 to provide financial assistance for the 1999 NAFTA-related conference. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lally, and carried with a unanimous vote. STAFF REPORT: APPLICATION FOR DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT - RBA Kansas, Inc., d/b/a Rio Bravo Cantina, Metcalf Avenue, Brian F. Lyman, manager. (New Ownership) Director of Finance, Budget and Administration Kristy Cannon presented the application for the drinking establishment license. She explained that this is a new ownership and staff recommended approval of this request, contingent upon receipt of the new state license. Mr. Sader moved for the approval of the drinking establishment license, contingent upon receipt of the new state license. After a second by Mr. David G. Belpedio, the motion passed with a vote of 7 to 0. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT: Greg Musil, Chairman No report. STAFF REPORT: CONTRACT - Safehome, Inc., for installation of a security gate at the shelter. The project was approved to be part of the 1999 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. Administrator, Special Projects Florence Erickson presented the contract with Safehome, Inc. She explained this is a CDBG approved program for As indicated in Staff Comments, this grant provides $8,000 in CDBG funds for the installation of a security gate at the shelter. Mr. Gerlach moved for the approval of the contract with Safehome, Inc. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lally, and carried with a unanimous vote. AGREEMENT - Child Care for Low Income Advocacy and Support Program (CLASP) to provide child-care scholarships to low income families who are working or in-training and do not qualify for other subsidized child-care programs. According to Staff Comments, this agreement provides a grant for $8,500 for child care scholarships to low income families who are working or in-training and do not qualify for other subsidized child care programs. The grant was approved as part of the 1999 CDBG Program.

6 Page 6 INTERLOCAL SERVICE AGREEMENT - Board of County Commissioners of Johnson County, to provide a grant of $50,000 to provide the availability of home repair services for income-eligible Overland Park citizens. As indicated in Staff Comments, this agreement provides a grant of $50,000 to the county to provide the availability of home repair services for income-eligible Overland Park citizens to assist income-eligible homeowners to correct property code violations as cited by Neighborhood Preservation inspectors. AGREEMENT - YWCA of Kansas City, Missouri, Inc., to provide a $20,000 grant for child care scholarships for before- and after-school care and supervised summer care for school-aged children whose parent or guardian is an Overland Park resident. AGREEMENT - The Greater Kansas City Housing Information Center to provide a grant of $11,820 for comprehensive housing counseling services to low- to moderate-income families and individuals. Mrs. Erickson indicated that the referenced agreements are all CDBG contracts and they are a part of the approved 1999 CDBG Program. Mr. Byron C. Loudon moved for the approval of the four referenced agreements. The motion was seconded by Mr. Belpedio, and carried with a vote of 7 to 0. RESOLUTION NO Setting a public hearing concerning the unsafe structure at West 126th Street. (Report to Governing Body No. 99-5) Mrs. Erickson presented the Report to Governing Body No and indicated that staff was recommending the approval of Resolution No. 3057, setting a public hearing on May 17, 1999, regarding the unsafe structure located at West 126th Street. Dr. Halligan moved to accept Report to Governing No. 99-5, and to approve Resolution No. 3057, setting a public hearing on May 17, 1999, regarding the unsafe structure located at West 126th Street. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sader, and carried with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORT: Georgia Erickson, Chairwoman No report. STAFF REPORT: BID TABULATION - Judgmental Use of Force Simulator. Deputy Chief of Police Keith Faddis recommended the rejection of all bids for the judgmental use of force simulator. He explained that the bids either failed to comply with all specifications or they were over the budgeted amount. The motion to reject the bids for the judgmental use of force simulator was moved by Mr. Owens, and seconded by Mr. Lally. The motion carried with a unanimous vote.

7 Page 7 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT: Thomas C. "Tim" Owens, Chairman No report. STAFF REPORT: BID TABULATIONS: 1999 Street Improvement Program. City Traffic Engineer Brian Shields indicated that staff recommended the acceptance of the low bid from Reno Construction Company, in the amount of $2,590,961.30, for the 1999 Street Improvement Program Curb Repair Program. Mr. Shields stated that staff recommended the acceptance of the low bid from T.S.C., Inc., in the amount of $408,270.20, for the 1999 Curb Repair Program. Dr. Halligan moved for the acceptance of the low bid from Reno Construction Company, in the amount of $2,590,961.30, for the 1999 Street Improvement Program, and for the acceptance of the low bid from T.S.C., Inc., in the amount of $408,270.20, for the 1999 Curb Repair Program. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loudon, and carried with a vote of 7 to 0. LINE EXTENSION PETITION AND AGREEMENT - Water District No. 1 concerning the Overland Park Fire Station, vicinity of 137th Street and Switzer. Mr. Shields indicated that this item regarded the relocation of a water main street crossing to be funded through the CIP. The document has been reviewed and approved by the Law Department. Staff recommended approval of this item. Dr. Halligan moved for the approval of the line extension petition and agreement. After a second by Mr. Owens, the motion carried with a vote of 7 to 0. PAYMENT AGREEMENT - Water District No. 1 concerning the Overland Park Fire Station, vicinity of 137th Street and Switzer. Mr. Shields noted that this request regards the payment agreement for the new Fire Station, located at 137th Street and Switzer. The Law Department had reviewed this document and staff recommended approval of this request. AGREEMENT - City of Prairie Village for the public improvement of Nall, 83rd Street to 95th Street (1999 Street Improvement Program). Mr. Shields said that this agreement with the City of Prairie Village is for the improvement of Nall, from 83rd Street to 95th Street. AGREEMENT - EnecoTech for underground water monitor wells in the vicinity of 107th Street and Roe.

8 Page 8 Mr. Shields presented the agreement with EnecoTech for underground water monitoring wells in the vicinity of 107th Street and Roe. SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 1 TO KDOT AGREEMENT NO Secretary of Transportation of the State of Kansas for the traffic signal installation at I-35 Frontage Road and Farley. Mr. Shield explained that this agreement is for a new traffic signal to be located at the intersection of the I-35 Frontage Road and Farley. Mr. Owens moved for the approval of the four referenced agreements, as presented by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gerlach, and carried with a unanimous vote. RESOLUTION NO AUTHORITY TO AWARD CONTRACT AND COMMITMENT OF CITY FUNDS - Secretary of Transportation of the State of Kansas for the traffic signal installation at I-35 Frontage Road and Farley. Mr. Shields noted that this item relates to the traffic signal referenced in the previous item. The City's portion of the cost of the project will be $7, Mr. Owens moved for the approval of Resolution No. 3052, authorizing the Secretary of Transportation of the State of Kansas to award and execute the necessary contracts for the completion of the work on this project, and committing the expenditure of $7, of City funds for this project. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loudon, and carried with a vote of 7 to 0. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION: PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENT AGENDA: SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT NO Vicinity of Corporate Woods. Overland Park Arts Commission, applicant, is requesting a special event permit to allow temporary signage for Art in the Woods. This property is currently zoned CP-O, Planned Office Building District. SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT NO Metcalf. HobbyTown USA., applicant, is requesting a special event permit to hold a racing event in the parking lot of the Regency Park Shopping Center on Sunday mornings from May 23 through October 17, This property is currently zoned CP-2, Planned General Business District. PLAT NO FINAL - The Wilderness, 5th Plat. Vicinity of 163rd Terrace and Ash. The Wilderness Investors, L.L.C., applicant. Phelps Engineering, engineer. The Planning Commission approved this item on March 8, 1999, by a vote of 8 to 0. PLAT NO FINAL - Morse Village Estates, 2nd Plat. Vicinity of 155th Street and Oakmont. Morse Village Estates, Inc., applicant. Phelps Engineering, engineer. The Planning Commission approved this item on March 8, 1999, by a vote of 8 to 0. PLAT NO FINAL - Morse Village Estates, 3rd Plat. Vicinity of 155th Street and Oakmont. Morse Village Estates, Inc., applicant. Phelps Engineering, engineer. The Planning Commission approved this item on March 8, 1999, by a vote of 8 to 0.

9 Page 9 FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL - Emmanuel Baptist Church, Metcalf. Mantel & Teter Architects, applicant. Emmanuel Baptist Church, owner. The Planning Commission approved this item on March 8, 1999, by a vote of 8 to 0. REZONING NO Vicinity of 139th Street and Metcalf. Polsinelli, White, Vardeman & Shalton, applicant, is requesting RP-3, Planned Garden Apartment District, to allow development of an apartment complex. This property is currently zoned RP-3, Planned Garden Apartment District. The Planning Commission approved this item on March 22, 1999, by a vote of 10 to 0. Ordinance No. Z REZONING NO Vicinity of the southeast corner of 150th Street and Antioch. K.K.S., L.L.C., applicant, is requesting CP-O, Planned Office Building District, to allow the construction of an office building. This property is currently zoned R-1BJ, Single- Family Residential District. The Planning Commission approved this item on March 8, 1999, by a vote of 9 to 0. Ordinance No. Z Mr. Owens moved for the approval of the Planning Commission Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sader. Mr. Belpedio asked that Rezoning No. 99-6, item No. 8, be considered separately from the Consent Agenda. Mayor Eilert provided an opportunity for members of the audience to address item Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 7. There was no response. The motion to approve the Consent Agenda, with the exception of item No. 8, carried with a roll-call vote of 7 to 0. Regarding item No. 8, Rezoning No. 99-6, Mr. Belpedio asked what could happen with this tract in the future if the Rezoning were approved and the proposed buildings were not constructed. Administrator, Current Planning Bob Lindeblad replied that under Overland Park's planned zoning, the site plan and the building elevations that were submitted are on file. Stipulation a indicates that the development shall be in accordance with Exhibit A, the site plan, and Exhibit B, the building elevations. Any significant changes, as outlined in the Unified Development Ordinance, cannot be made to the plan without a new rezoning or an application that requires public hearings. The significant changes are defined to include an increase in the height or the size of a building, and a decrease in the building setbacks by over 5 percent. The landowner has a right to request changes and to go through the planning process. That does not mean that any change will be approved. Mayor Eilert opened a public hearing on this item. Mr. John Maddox, said his property is adjacent to the subject property. He suggested that any profit from the proposed project would be at the expense of the quality of his neighborhood. He routinely picks up trash in his backyard from Sonic and McDonald's. He often calls the bowling alley to ask them to lower the volume of music. He has occasionally called the police because of the high level of noise coming from the bowling alley. He routinely hears a truck picking up the trash from the bowling alley at 4:30 a.m. Mr. Maddox said that the parking lot lights from Perkins were shining into his kitchen window. After asking Perkins to adjust their lights and getting no response, he had to ask the City staff to require Perkins to change the

10 Page 10 direction of the light. Mr. Maddox claimed that after developers get their building permits, they are no longer concerned about the impact of their project on the neighbors. He feared that if the plan as presented was not built, another developer would request the approval of a two- or three-story building on the site. The development would have an impact on his neighborhood. According to Mr. Maddox, the only reason to approve this project would be to allow the applicant to make more money. He asked the Council to consider the concerns of the neighbors as they make their decision on this issue. The subject site is a small piece of land and it is a buffer between his land and the bowling alley. Ms. Elisabeth Krueger-Luthi, 8311 West 150th Street, said she is a representative of the Brittany Pointe and Brittany Highlands home owners. Ms. Luthi explained that her property directly abuts the subject site. Ideally the residents of Brittany Pointe and Brittany Highlands would prefer that the existing 4.5 acres be maintained as a green space. This green space would provide greenery to visually soften the buildings and the pavement in the area. It would help to improve the environmental conditions by providing shade, air purification, oxygen regeneration, ground water recharge, retardation of runoff, abatement of noise, glare, and heat, a buffer to complimentary land use, and a habitat for the wild life that has been displaced by the destruction of tree and grass areas. This green space would be a place of beauty for residents in the area. However, Ms. Luthi understood that there would not be a monetary value to the landowner of the subject site for leaving the land undeveloped. The proposed plan has been presented by K.K.S., their architect, their attorney, and City staff as being the best alternative to what could be a worse situation. The residents have made an effort to work with what has been presented to the Planning Commission. However, they have valid concerns and they asked that the Council would fairly represent them in this manner. Ms. Luthi explained that the residents of the neighborhood presented a list of stipulations that they wanted to be included with any approval of this application. First, they asked that the setback between the residential property and the subject site be increased to 34 feet, with 6 feet of green space to the side shared with the Incred-abowl. Ms. Luthi explained that the applicant has granted that request. Second, they asked that the office buildings be no higher than a one-story level of 18.5 feet. Staff has stated that the Unified Development Ordinance addresses this issue. Ms. Luthi stated that the residents did not want the building height to ever exceed the one-story height. Third, she asked that the office buildings be restricted from operating any 24- hour service. They were informed that the Planning staff would not make that recommendation. If the City could not place this restriction on the subject site, she asked why the businesses in residential homes must adhere to multiple restrictions regarding the hours of operation and the number of cars that can drive up to their property throughout the day. She assumed that the City has regulated home business office hours to assist neighborhoods from being greatly disrupted by traffic to home businesses. If the City feels that home business hours must be regulated, Ms. Luthi questioned why the business hours could not be regulated on the subject site as it abuts residential property. Fourth, Ms. Luthi asked that there be no mechanical devices, such as air conditioning units and/or heating units located on the roof or to the back of the two office buildings abutting the Brittany Pointe area. Fifth, Ms. Luthi asked that lighting on the back of the building be prohibited and that any lighting be kept to the barest minimum. Sixth, the residents asked that landscaping be required

11 Page 11 that is in addition to the City's landscaping requirements. She asked that the landscaping be in place within six months of approval of this request by the City Council. Seventh, she asked that a stipulation be added requiring that signs be posted on the east end of the proposed development to prohibit skate boarding, bicycling, and roller blading. The residents whose properties abut the subject site have already experienced the destruction of fences and landscaped areas by teenagers and children walking through their yards and jumping over fences to get to the commercial area. Staff suggested that the signage would be the responsibility of the property owner. Finally, Ms. Luthi asked that all and any access from the existing commercial property to the proposed business property be permanently denied. Ms. Maddox, 8407 West 150th Street, said the bowling alley property is adjacent to her backyard. She asked how many Councilmembers had driven by the subject site. Six of the Councilmembers responded in the affirmative. Ms. Maddox feared that the proposed development would drive away the wildlife and diminish the peacefulness of their area. She did not want a building so close to her backyard. Teenagers disturb her peace by yelling and playing their boom boxes in the bowling alley parking lot. She was told before the bowling alley was built that it would be a quiet establishment. She called the bowling alley twice Saturday night to ask them to turn down the music. Ms. Maddox feared that the conditions in the area would further deteriorate if this application was approved. Ms. Joy Hays, attorney, 6700 Antioch, was present on behalf of the applicant, K.K.S., L.L.C., a group of dentists and orthodontists, who would like to develop a portion of the subject tract as their office site. Ms. Hays displayed a copy of the preliminary plan. She noted that the entire green area is included in the rezoning application. However, K.K.S., L.L.C., was not purchasing the entire tract. Although the applicant was not purchasing the entire tract, City staff requested that the entire tract be included in this rezoning application. Ms. Hays was aware of the concerns of the neighbors. She saw the requests that were presented previously during the Planning Commission public hearing. The 34-foot setback request has been accommodated. The buildings, as proposed, are one-story buildings. The applicant would be required to use the preliminary plan, as proposed, as a part of this rezoning. The applicant was willing to add substantial landscaping to their plan. The landscaping would be addressed to a greater extent with the final plans. The applicant was willing to comply with the staff recommendations regarding those issues. Ms. Hays clarified that a 24-hour business operation is not planned and is not a part of this application. The applicant was willing to follow the City regulations pertaining to the placement of the lights or the air conditioning and heating units. Ms. Hays understood that these types of issues would be more fully addressed with the final plan. They would be willing to put up a sign, as requested by the residents, to prohibit skateboarding, roller blading, and bicycling. Ms. Hays expressed agreement with all of the staff stipulations. Staff recommended approval of this application. The Planning Commission also unanimously recommended approval of this proposal. Dr. John Stone, said he has been a dentist in the Stanley area for 19 years. Dr. Stone, in cooperation with two other doctors, began looking for larger office space three years ago. They thought that the subject site would be an excellent location for their facility as it is in the growing southern part of the county. They have been

12 Page 12 working on the plan for 1.5 years. Dr. Stone suggested that his building would provide a buffer between the residential area and the bowling alley. As no one else wished to speak, the hearing was closed. Mr. Loudon asked if the application was for a 31,000-square-foot office development consisting of three buildings. Mr. Jeff Kolchinsky, architect, 110 North Cherry, Olathe, explained that the doctors wanted to apply for a rezoning for the portion of the tract they were going to develop. However, the City's planning staff felt that the entire tract should be zoned CP-O at the same time. Furthermore, the staff felt that a Master Plan for the entire development should be provided at this time. His clients only own one piece of the tract upon which they plan to build one building. When they are finished with the project, they will have one building on one lot with one paved parking lot. The remaining portion of the tract would remain undeveloped until another developer came forward. The initial phase of the dental building would include 8,000 square feet. The building may be expanded another 3,000 square feet to a total of 11,000 square feet. Mr. Loudon asked if Mr. Kolchinsky had the authority to speak for the property owner of the other two tracts. Ms. Hays replied that Mr. Kolchinsky has been designated as their agent and has filed a form with staff for that purpose. The owner has reviewed the preliminary plan. Mr. Loudon recalled that the applicant for the Incred-a-bowl built their project under county zoning. However, when they were considering the use of a City zoning for their project, they presented a plan that included extensive landscaping on the northern tract. When they chose to maintain the county zoning, they excluded the subject site from their project and they refused to do any landscaping on the northern tract. He was concerned about the landscaping component of this request as that was part of the Incred-a-bowl plan that was presented to the adjacent neighbors. The landscaping was one reason the neighbors had not presented a protest petition with the Incred-a-bowl application. He believed that the adjacent landowners had a reason to be concerned about the landscaping. If Mr. Kolchinsky did not have authority to represent the owner of the other two tracts, he asked how the Council could be sure that the landowner would comply with any stipulations regarding the landscaping. Ms. Hays said she understood from discussing this issue with staff that the landscaping must be reviewed in detail with the final plan. Mr. Loudon asked if the applicant submitted a detailed landscaping plan at this time. Mr. Kolchinsky replied they have submitted a landscaping plan as required for the rezoning petition, which includes a schematic landscaping plan. The plan indicates shade trees, screening trees or ornamental trees. It is not required that the plan must be specific to species with the rezoning application. Mr. Loudon replied that he would support the point raised by the residents regarding landscaping. He felt that the landscaping should have been completed with the original rezoning. It would take the consent of both property owners (Ms. Hays client and the landowner of the remaining two-thirds of the tract) to provide the berms and landscaping that are needed for the entire site. Ms. Hays replied that her client was willing to commit to providing the landscaping that was to be presented with the final plan. They would commit to maintaining the building and to complying with the requirements on their final plan. They cannot force the landowner to provide a final plan for the remaining two-thirds of the tract as there are no purchasers for that part of the site. Mr. Loudon indicated

13 Page 13 that if this application is not remanded back to the Planning Commission, he wanted to see the final plans approved by the Council. He particularly wanted to see the landscaping as presented with the final plan. Ms. Hays noted that she could not present a final plan for the entire tract as they had no control over the site other than the portion that was being purchased by her client. Mr. Loudon noted that the remaining two-thirds of the site may never be developed. He asked why the entire tract is being rezoned at this time. Mr. Lindeblad explained that the applicants asked about rezoning one corner of the tract to build an office building. Staff looked at the plan and noticed that a triangular piece of land would be landlocked with no access that would still be zoned R-1BJ with office on one end of the tract. Under planned zoning, the ordinance indicates that tracts should be zoned and planned together. All of the area is shown as commercial on the Master Plan. In staff's opinion, this was a good opportunity to zone this tract for office so that it could not be changed unless there is a rezoning application. If landscaping for the entire tract is put in place at this time, a portion of the landscaping may have to be demolished if there is grading for the remaining two-thirds of the tract in the future. He did not believe that it was unusual to request to develop a tract in phases. Mayor Eilert asked if this tract has been considered by the Council prior to the application for the Incred-a-bowl. Mr. Lindeblad replied that there was an unpublished commercial zoning and some office approved for this tract. Mayor Eilert clarified that when the Incred-a-bowl applicant discovered they could use the county zoning, this tract was left in limbo. He asked what is the difference between this request and what had been previously approved by the Council for this site. Mr. Lindeblad replied that the previous zoning included a full access to 150th Street from the entire shopping center. This plan would limit the access for this office site to 150th Street. There would not be any access to 150th Street from the commercial development. Staff believed this plan would help to protect the residential area. Mayor Eilert asked if the landscaping could be considered with the final development plan. Mr. Lindeblad replied in the affirmative. He added that the neighbors want landscaping across the entire tract at this time including the portion of the site that is not being developed. Mr. Gerlach asked if this rezoning would prohibit the landowner of the remaining portion of the tract to request commercial. Senior Assistant City Attorney Bart Budetti replied that the landowner has consented to this proposed rezoning. He added that the City almost always requires landscaping to be added with the final plan. He was not aware of the City previously requiring landscaping prior to the final plan. If there is a buffer that is to be constructed which will not be changed, such as a berm along a street, that part of the plan may be required with the early phases of the development. The other type of landscaping is almost always required with the final plan. Ms. Hays emphasized that the issue with this request is a rezoning. The other issues are appropriate to be considered with the final plan. Her client has agreed to comply with the City requirements with the final plan. Mayor Eilert noted that the east end of this property would remain as green space until it is developed. Mr. Lindeblad added that the only development that could occur in that location is the current plan, without another public hearing. Mayor Eilert clarified that if a development plan is presented for the remaining portion of the tract, the landscaping and berming would be addressed with the final plan. He understood

14 Page 14 that the final plan for the building to the far west of the tract, near Antioch, would be presented in the near future. The rest of the tract would remain as green space until a development plan was submitted. Mr. Lally moved to approve Rezoning No. 99-6, vicinity of the southeast corner of 150th Street and Antioch, as stipulated, with added stipulation g, which would indicate that the final development plans for this tract would be reviewed by the Governing Body. Mr. Gerlach seconded the motion. Mr. Lally agreed with staff's suggestion to rezone the entire tract at this time in an attempt to make the tract compatible with the adjacent commercial and residential developments. Mr. Lally believed that the critical component to the adjacent residential area must be addressed with the final plan. He suggested that the applicant of the subject site should take the list as presented by the residents very seriously. They have offered a compromise in that the office development is realized while a buffer is provided for the residents. He felt that the stipulations with the final plan should provide a win/win situation for the office development and the residential area. Mr. Gerlach commented that it was important to be sure that there would not be a 24-hour operation in the office and that the heating and cooling units should be covered or insulated so the residents cannot hear the sound. He agreed that these concerns should be addressed with the final plan. Mr. Sader indicated that he would vote against the motion. He questioned the wisdom of changing the zoning of the entire tract from a residential zoning to another zoning without a specific plan for the entire tract on file. The distance between the backyards and the buildings seems too close. The current zoning would provide the residents more control so that they could require the Council to review any future rezoning request. Mr. Lindeblad explained that this land is Master Planned as commercial retail. The proposed rezoning would limit the use of the tract to office zoning. Any request to zone this land as commercial would require a rezoning. Dr. Halligan clarified that the issue of prohibiting a 24-hour operation would be discussed with the final plan. Mr. Loudon reminded the Council that there were hard feelings on both sides with the Incred-a-bowl application. In light of the fact that the rezoning application is for the entire tract, he suggested that the landowner be required to provide landscaping for the entire perimeter of the tract with this request. The City controls the situation at this time. If the landowner intends to have the entire tract rezoned so one-third of the tract can be sold, this is the time to require the landowner to landscape the perimeter of the entire tract. Mr. Loudon moved to amend the motion to add a stipulation requiring landscaping for the entire perimeter of the tract with the final plan. Dr. Halligan seconded the amendment. Mr. Lally asked if Mr. Loudon was asking that in addition to the landscaping for the proposed development including the westernmost building, the landscaping on the eastern portion of the tract must be presented at the same time. Mr. Loudon replied

15 Page 15 that he at least wanted the berming on the property line of the entire tract to be constructed at this time. Mr. Owens indicated that he may not support this application because of the credibility issue that arose with the Incred-a-bowl application when this entire tract was considered. He was concerned about the buffering of the tract. He wanted the issues as presented by the residents to be addressed. When the Council was considering the rezoning for the Incred-a-bowl, the Council indicated that the buffering must be adequate. At that time, the applicant indicated they would provide the buffering. He was not sure that the applicant had provided adequate buffering with their development. Mr. Owens suggested that this item be remanded back to the Planning Commission. Mayor Eilert recommended that the Council follow the Planning Commission recommendation to approve this application with the addition of the two added stipulations that were offered. With the original rezoning for the Incred-a-bowl, there was the ability to require landscaping, berming, and additional amenities to lessen the impact to the surrounding neighborhood as the entire tract was included in that application to the City. Ultimately, the Incred-a-bowl was developed under the county zoning and the subject tract was not included. He believed that this smaller tract should have been a part of the larger tract. It is unfortunate that the Incred-a-bowl owners did not proceed under the City zoning with the previous application. However, the additional stipulations that have been offered requiring the final development plans to be considered by the Council and the addition of landscaping on the entire perimeter of the tract would help to make this an acceptable situation. Mr. Belpedio said he was against the motion. He would prefer seeing a final development plan for the entire tract. He was concerned that the adjacent residential neighborhood would be devalued as a result of this project. It is a unique situation with the Incred-a-bowl in the area and this circumstance deserves a careful review. He asked that the City staff devise another plan. Mr. Loudon agreed with the Mayor's assessment of the situation. The home owners in Brittany Pointe would have been better off with a City zoning for the Incred-a-bowl tract. That plan would have included landscaping along the entire perimeter of their properties. Unfortunately, some people in Wellington Park thought that they could keep the Incred-a-bowl project from being developed in that location. Ultimately, Incred-a-bowl was developed under the county zoning and the owner did not develop the portion of the tract that is now the subject site of this proposal. That circumstance was a disadvantage to the Brittany Pointe residents. The stipulation regarding landscaping along the entire perimeter of the tract would reinstate some of the amenities that would have been required had the tract been developed under the City's zoning. He would vote in favor of this motion to try to right past wrongs. Mayor Eilert clarified that the approval of the motion to approve the rezoning would require 8 votes. The motion for the amendment would require a majority vote. The motion to amend the original motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2, with Councilmembers Belpedio and Sader voting nay. The amended motion to approve Rezoning No failed with a vote of 4 to 3, with Councilmembers Sader, Owens, and Belpedio voting nay.

16 Page 16 Dr. Halligan moved to remand Rezoning No back to the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Belpedio, and carried with a vote of 7 to 0. Mayor Eilert noted that the Planning Commission should address the issue regarding landscaping on the entire tract. REGULAR AGENDA OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: RESIDENTIAL DAY-CARE PERMIT NO West 91st Street. Ms. Angela Owens, applicant, is requesting the renewal of a residential day-care permit for a three-year period of time. This property is currently zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District. Mr. Lindeblad indicated that this was the first renewal request for this day care. Therefore, a day-care permit for a three-year period of time is allowed under the City's ordinance. The applicant obtained her initial permit one year ago. The applicant has received the updated inspections and licenses. Staff recommended approval of this request. Ms. Angela Owens, applicant, was present to answer questions. Mayor Eilert opened the public hearing on this item. There was no response and the hearing was closed. Mr. Sader moved for the approval of Residential Day-Care Permit No. 99-1, for a threeyear period of time. After a second by Mr. Owens, the motion carried with a unanimous vote. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL - United Investors Park. Vicinity of the southwest corner of Shawnee Mission Parkway and Lamar. CDFM2 Architecture, Inc., applicant. Waddell & Reed, Inc., owner. CP-O zoning granted under Rezoning No The Planning Commission approved this item on March 8, 1999, by a vote of 9 to 0. Mr. Lindeblad indicated this request was for the approval of revised preliminary plans for an office park. The applicant was requesting a revision of the preliminary development plan to move 2,984 square feet from Building A to Building F, which was originally shown as a 110,000-square-foot four-story building. Only minor revisions in the footprint of the building are proposed. The parking lot configuration, which includes a two-level parking deck, also has minor changes. While this application does not require a public hearing, the City Council told the area residents that those owners within 200 feet, as well as the Walmer Homes Association, would be notified by the City of any changes in the approved preliminary plan. The City sent out notification letters and there may be individuals present who wish to comment on this plan. At the Planning Commission meeting, a representative of the Walmer Homes Association spoke in support of the plan stating they had met with the applicant to review the changes in the plan. They indicated their approval of the plan if the development was constructed as it was proposed.

17 Page 17 The issue for Council consideration regards the traffic impacts. At the time of the preliminary plan approval, there was discussion regarding the improvement of the Lamar and Shawnee Mission Parkway intersection. In an attempt to alleviate traffic congestion where there is a Level of Service (LOS) F, there was a stipulation that the Council had to review any final development plans to determine if any additional street improvements were to be made with any new building. Senior Transportation Planner Mark Stuecheli could provide more information on this concern. Staff recommended approval of the Revised Preliminary Development Plan and the Planning Commission also recommended approval of this request on March 8, 1999, with the condition that the City Council decide if any street improvements would be required prior to the occupancy of this building. The Planning Commission approved stipulations a through d. The next agenda item, the Final Development Plan for United Investors Park Building F, is related to this request. Mayor Eilert asked if there are any new issues to discuss that were not already considered with the rezoning. Mr. Lindeblad replied that the decision was deferred regarding the street improvements to be required with the first building. Mr. Stuecheli explained that at the time of the rezoning consideration one year ago, a definite street project had not been identified. The applicant had been instructed to prepare a cost estimate for consideration of widening the southeast corner of 63rd Street and Lamar to allow the construction of a second northbound left-turn lane. That improvement would require cooperation with the city of Mission to allow the construction to occur in that city and, if necessary, to acquire the right-of-way. The entire cost of that improvement was to be financed by the developer. In the interim, the developer asked Mission if they would cooperate with that project. Mission has indicated that they are not interested in that project. However, they suggested the opening of a median break at 63rd and Glenwood. This concept was proposed by the city of Mission, however, it has not been endorsed by Overland Park. This issue must be addressed as there is a stipulation that requires the applicant to construct the second northbound left-turn lane on Lamar prior to the occupancy of the next building on the subject site. The existing LOS in the afternoon at that location is E. With the traffic from this development, the LOS would change to an F. Traffic conditions have been worse than what was anticipated with the original rezoning in 1993 and there was a requirement to make an improvement to that situation before another building was opened. The applicant was requesting that they submit to the City the escrow payment of the estimated cost of building the right-turn lane as they cannot make that improvement without Mission's consent. Mr. Stuecheli recalled that the escrow payment would be approximately $137,000. The applicant wants that to be their sole commitment to the improvement of the traffic situation in this area. However, the cost of the Glenwood project has not yet been determined and it would cost more than the widening of Lamar. The Glenwood project would require a reconfiguration of one of the ramps coming off Metcalf up to Shawnee Mission Parkway. Some technical issues remain unresolved regarding the frontage road. The Council has the ability with stipulation d to approve this project without addressing the existing traffic problems. However, the Council should realize that the proposed building would be constructed with the payment of the escrow and without any street improvements in the area.

18 Page 18 Mayor Eilert commented that he would prefer the widening of Lamar and the Glenwood project to occur. He asked if the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) had completed the Metcalf study. Mr. Stuecheli replied that Mission conducted a study of Metcalf over one year ago. The study included a consideration of Shawnee Mission Parkway and Metcalf. Some recommendations were made and Mission was pursuing a different approach at Johnson Drive. He was not sure of the determination that had been made regarding this portion of Shawnee Mission Parkway. Mayor Eilert asked if a determination was made regarding the second ingress/egress onto Lamar. Mr. Stuecheli replied that driveway was included in the original rezoning plan. It was stipulated that the second northbound left-turn lane would need to be constructed prior to the construction of the next building. Mayor Eilert asked if stipulation d was added at the time of the last rezoning. Mr. Stuecheli replied the stipulation was added with the revised preliminary plan approval. Mr. Lally understood that the approval of the revised preliminary plan was not a major issue. However, it is important to have a clear plan in place for the handling of traffic with the final plan. He questioned the wisdom of approving the final development plan before the cities of Overland Park and Mission come to an agreement for the handling of traffic in the area. Mr. Stuecheli replied it is a policy consideration. In his opinion, the traffic situation should be addressed. The traffic would be somewhat worse with the approval of this plan. Dr. Halligan asked what are the unresolved issues with respect to the median break at Glenwood and 63rd Street. He questioned why Overland Park, Mission, and United Investors have not resolved the traffic issues. Mr. Stuecheli replied it was a Mission project rather an Overland Park project. It would be helpful to have a detailed cost estimate for the project. He understood that Mission was hoping that the state would include this project in a highway program. It was uncertain if that would be a possibility. A lot of technical issues with the project remain unresolved. Dr. Halligan asked if a traffic signal would be placed at the median in the future. Mr. Stuecheli replied that was a possibility. Mayor Eilert noted that KDOT was involved with this issue. Mr. Stuecheli replied that KDOT, United Investors, Mission and Overland Park are all concerned with the project. Up to this point in time, KDOT has not supported a median break in that location as they closed a median break in that area years ago. To convince KDOT of the validity of this improvement, it would be necessary to have a more detailed study and cost estimates. Mr. Scott Seitter, Levy and Craig, 6310 Lamar Ave., was the representative for the applicant. He explained that the applicant, Waddell and Reed, Inc., has grown to the point where they are using all the available space at United Investors Park. They are renting space off site and it is important that the construction of the project begin as soon as possible. Waddell and Reed, Inc., will likely be the sole tenant in the new building. He asked for the Council to take action on both the preliminary and the final development plan. Mr. Seitter accepted the staff stipulations. However, regarding stipulation c, he received a letter from the Walmer Homes Association located in Overland Park and the Melhaven Homes Association located in Mission. The homes associations requested that the driveway onto Lamar in the southeast corner of the applicant's property be eliminated from the final development plan. Because of the neighborhood concerns expressed, the driveway was removed from the plan contrary