OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. March 24, 2008

Transcription

1 OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 24, 2008 The Overland Park Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Mrs. Kim Sorensen, Chair. The following members were present, constituting a quorum: Mr. Richard Collins, Vice Chair; Mr. Tom Lance; Mr. David Hill; Mrs. Janie Thacker; Mr. Edward Ned Reitzes; Mr. John Brake; Mr. Bob Gadd; Mr. Steve Troester; and Mr. Mike Flanagan. Mr. George Lund was absent. Also present were: Mr. Bill Ebel, Director of Planning and Development Services; Mr. Bart Budetti, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Mrs. Leslie Karr, Manager of Current Planning; Mr. Mark Stuecheli, Senior Transportation Planner; Mr. David Dalecky, Planner; Mr. Keith Gooch, Senior Planner; Ms. Danielle Zeigler, Planner; Mr. Tony Meyers, Supervisory Civil Engineer; Mr. Aaron Dubois, Planning Technician; and Ms. Nancee Ellis, Recording Secretary. Approximately 25 people were in the audience. Manager of Current Planning Leslie Karr advised that there is a non-agenda item (Market Lofts Redevelopment project plan) staff is requesting the Planning Commission add to the agenda after the Consent Agenda is considered. CONSENT AGENDA (Approved item A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and I; Continued item H to the Planning Commission meeting of April 14, 2008.) A. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Deer Creek Commons West 129th Street. Application made by Nolte and Associates. B. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL T-Mobile Communication Tower West 135th Street. Application made by T-Mobile. C. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Commerce Bank Oakmont. Application made by Rees Masilionis Turley Architects. D. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Sunflower Lot 1 Vicinity of the southwest corner of 162nd Terrace and Metcalf. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. E. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Sunflower Lot West 162nd Terrace. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. F. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Corbin Crossing Vicinity of the southwest corner of 138th and Lamar. Application made by Polsinelli Shalton Flanigan Suelthaus, PC.

2 Page 2 G. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Equity Bank 8800 West 151st Street. Application made by Schlagel and Associates, P.A. H. SIGN CRITERIA Oak Park Mall Vicinity of the southeast corner of 95th Street and Quivira. Application made by CBL and Associates. I. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Overland Pointe Market Place Vicinity of 132nd Street and Hemlock. Application made by Kelly s Overland Pointe, LP. Mr. Mike Flanagan moved for the approval of the preceding consent agenda items as listed, with the exception of item H which has been continued to the April 14, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Edward Ned Reitzes and carried by a 9 to 0 vote. Mrs. Janie Thacker had not yet arrived. Mr. Dave Hill moved to add the following non-agenda item to the agenda as requested by staff. After a second by Mr. Flanagan, the motion passed by a 10 to 0 vote. Mrs. Thacker had arrived at the meeting. NON-AGENDA ITEM: Market Lofts Redevelopment Project Plan Vicinity of the northwest corner of 80th Street and Marty. (Approved) Director of Planning and Development Services Bill Ebel advised that a requirement in the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) process requires the Planning Commission s consideration on whether or not the project s development plan for the Market Lofts, L.L.C. project, at the northwest corner of 80th Street and Marty, is consistent with the City s Master Plan. Mr. Ebel relayed that in October 2006, the Planning Commission approved both a preliminary and final plan, with a deviation for a four-story building on this site. He said today, staff is requesting that this project development plan be reviewed for conformance with the Master Plan, which is a necessary and statutory requirement to continue with the TIF process. Mr. Hill moved that the Planning Commission has made a finding that the Market Lofts redevelopment project plan is consistent with the City s adopted Master Plan. After a second by Mr. Bob Gadd, the motion carried unanimously. REZONING NO Vicinity of the southeast corner of 159th Street and Metcalf. Rezoning requested from RUR-J, Rural District, Johnson County, to CP-O, Planned Office Building District, CP-1, Planned Restricted Business District, CP-2 Planned General Business District, RP-3, Planned Garden Apartment District, and RP- 5, Planned Apartment House District, to allow a rezoning for a new development that includes retail and residential uses. Application made by Polsinelli Shalton Flanigan Suelthaus, PC. (Approved) Senior Planner Keith Gooch advised that this request was originally considered by the Planning Commission in January 2007, with a recommendation for denial by a vote of

3 Page 3 8 to 3. The application was considered by the Council on March 3rd. Prior to Council consideration, the applicant removed the southernmost 6,000 square-foot retail building and removed the second-story retail space. The total square footage proposed was reduced from 417,991 square feet to 366,760 square feet a reduction of 51,237 square feet. Mr. Gooch stated that after public input and debate among the City Council, they voted 11 to 1 to remand the application back to the Planning Commission, directing the applicant to make changes to the plan. As part of the remand, the Council directed the applicant to do the following: (1) Reduce parking to the minimum required; (2) Provide more green space in lieu of the parking; (3) Provide more buffer to the adjacent single-family to the south and southeast; (4) Step the height of the three easternmost RP-5 buildings from three stories to two stories to give more transition from the adjacent single-family area; (5) Review the buffer provided for Willowbend on the north side of 159th Street and propose alternatives to provide better screening; (6) View the traffic impacts from the revised plan in detail; (7) Stipulate that no CP-2 be built south of 161st Street until the RP-3 berms, green space and detention areas are installed. The Council also commented, but did not include in the motion, a request for the applicant to look at the orientation of Lowe s to determine if an angled footprint would work better on the site. Mr. Gooch said the original rezoning request was CP-2 for approximately 50 acres extending down to the south property line along Metcalf; then RP-5 and RP-3. The two residential areas were not changed. He said the applicant is now requesting CP-1 at the northeast corner of the site, adjacent to Willowbend and Blue Valley Riding; and CP-O at the southwest corner of the site. Mr. Gooch said the Council requested that the applicant consider rezoning this to RP-3. However, based upon requirements in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), going from a commercial to a residential district cannot occur without re-advertising. Therefore, CP-O was the least intensive zoning district on this small parcel without re-advertising. The applicant s original request was for a total of 417,991 square feet of commercial and 360 residential units (312 units on the RP-5 portion and 48 units on the RP-3 portion). As relayed in Staff Comments, the revised plans submitted by the applicant indicate that the number of parking spaces has been reduced with a corresponding increase in total open space of 2.2 percent for a total of acres of green space. Because the number of restaurants that may ultimately locate within the development is unknown and because of higher parking demand for restaurants, some parking areas are shown as deferred. Those would only be constructed if warranted by the ultimate tenant mix. Mr. Gooch advised that the applicant has proposed a six-foot wrought iron fence around the perimeter of the development and an increase in the height of the berm around the southern boundaries from five to six feet. No changes are proposed to the berm behind the Lowe s. In order to maintain the maximum effectiveness of the berm, the orientation of the Lowe s has not been changed. However, Mr. Gooch advised that the size of the Lowe s building has been reduced to 16,629 square feet. The three midsized box buildings to the south have been increased by 15,907 square feet to provide an overall square footage on site of 366,038 square feet. He said the day-care facility that was shown with the original request has been removed, and that parcel is now proposed to be zoned CP-O rather than CP-2.

4 Page 4 Mr. Gooch said staff has added stipulations to the report to address the height transition and phasing requested by the Council. In reviewing the height transition, staff concurred with the applicant s proposal to provide the transition as a limit on height and not stories. It has been staff s experience that stories are not a good unit of measurement due to the variability in ceiling heights and roof pitches. Mr. Gooch stated that limiting the height as a measurement of feet will allow the applicant flexibility while still ensuring that the intent of transitioning building heights is met. The traffic portion of Staff Comments has been updated to discuss traffic impacts from the recent changes to the plan, and Mr. Gooch deferred to Senior Transportation Planner Mark Stuecheli to present his comments. Mr. Stuecheli referred Commissioners to page 38 in Staff Comments that looked at the traffic impacts with regard to recent changes to the project. He said a few days prior to the Council meeting on March 3, the applicant submitted a proposal for a reduction in building area on the retail portion of the site. A partial revision to the traffic impact study was also presented at that time. Mr. Stuecheli said Table V shown on page 40 of Staff Comments illustrates the substantial decreases in trip generation on the site resulting from the reduced building square footage and the resulting changes in intersection delay and Level of Service (LOS). He said it also includes other information provided by the applicant comparing the trip totals and 2030 capacity analyses results of the revised plan with the original proposal, the original Master Plan use assumption and a modified Master Plan assumption developed by the applicant. This was based on comments by staff that a smaller neighborhood retail center, with an increased area of residential development, might be considered to be an acceptable alternative. As relayed in Staff Comments, it is important to note that during the consultant s work on the revised delay calculations, it was discovered that a miscalculation had occurred in the original numbers. However, all of that information has been corrected and the revised figures result in a somewhat higher level of delay for the original development proposal. Upon reviewing the delay results for each of the four major intersections included in the table, Mr. Stuecheli stated that it is apparent that all of the intersections are projected to experience relatively long delays by However, the intersection that shows the greatest variation in delays and therefore impacted the greatest by the proposed project is 159th Street and Metcalf. Focusing on the 159th Street and Metcalf intersection, following the typical practice used to evaluate the traffic impacts of proposed development projects, staff estimated the potential development intensity for the original Master Plan alternative using the site s low density residential land use designation in the Future Development Plan. Referring to Table V, showing 2030 Projections, Mr. Stuecheli said the original plan (at seconds of delay if developed) was projected to result in a 38.5 second increase in delay over the original Master Plan assumption (84.1 seconds of delay). He said the revised plan reduces the projected delay to seconds, a 32.1 second increase over the original Master Plan. In staff s opinion, both of those increases in delay would have very noticeable negative impacts on future traffic conditions.

5 Page 5 At the March 3rd Council meeting, the applicant elaborated on the modified Master Plan assumption. Mr. Stuecheli relayed that as mentioned earlier, that alternative would include a conventional neighborhood shopping center that would be much smaller than the proposed retail area. The neighborhood shopping center would be adjoined on the east and south by a relatively dense multi-family project, with a less dense attached home development located near the east and south property lines. He said because of the increased intensity, the trip generation totals from the modified Master Plan alternative are much higher than the original Master Plan scenario. Mr. Stuecheli said despite the substantially lower retail floor area, the modified Master Plan trip totals are much closer to the revised plan than would be anticipated considering the higher retail intensity of the revised plan. He advised that the unexpected result occurs because Lowe s, even though it has a lot of square footage, is a relatively low traffic generator than some typical large box uses like a grocery store would generate. Also, much of the added residential area is shown in the higher density multi-story buildings. Because of the relatively reduced differential between the trip totals for the revised plan and the modified Master Plan and due to the different travel patterns for residential trips (more usage of U.S. 69 Highway for work-to-home trips) during the p.m. peak hours, Mr. Stuecheli said the resulting delay results are relatively similar (116.2 seconds for the revised plan and seconds for the modified Master Plan alternative). Staff does not consider that difference in delay to be significant. Mr. Stuecheli advised that the critical issue that needs to be decided by the Planning Commission and City Council is which Master Plan scenario to use as the base traffic condition for this site. Should the original Master Plan alternative, recognizing the existing Master Plan designation on the site, with the lower assumed traffic impacts be used in that comparison, or the modified Master Plan scenario with the more intense development. He said choosing the former results in a negative traffic impact in 2030, and selecting the latter means that the 2030 traffic impacts will be relatively neutral, compared to the Master Plan assumption. Mr. Gooch stated that staff still cannot support this request based upon the Master Plan and traffic issues; however, stipulations a through gg has been included in Staff Comments should the Planning Commission find the request appropriate. He said three new stipulations ee, ff and gg have been added to address some of the issues noted by the City Council. Mr. John Petersen, Polsinelli Shalton Flanigan Suelthaus, PC, said after receiving a recommendation for denial from the Planning Commission several weeks ago, the applicant considered both the negative and positive comments made by the Planning Commission and continued to try to refine the context and scope of the issues that would ultimately be considered by the City Council. He stated that the one constant that he heard by the Planning Commission was that this was a good plan but too intense and maybe in the wrong location Mr. Petersen said one issue was what is this project going to be compared against. In order to determine if the project is too intense and are the negative impacts, either real or perceived, too great, they must be compared against some static element. There was a suggestion from neighbors in the area who spoke during the public hearing and from the City s traffic engineering staff that the comparison should be low-density residential for the 80 acres, which equates to 181 single-family units. Mr. Petersen said while the City s traffic staff took that as a

6 Page 6 static point of comparison, planning staff did not. Planning staff believed it was reasonable to expect some retail there and suggested a neighborhood center of 150,000 square feet. Mr. Petersen said staff believed that the balance of the site will be residential and similar to the density being proposed by the applicant on the southern portion of the project. After that Planning Commission meeting, equipped with that information, Mr. Petersen said the applicant created a plan and took 150,000 square feet on the hard corner of 159th Street and Metcalf, took the density proposed for the southern half and laid them out across the remaining 63 acres of ground. The applicant took a combination of the RP-5 and the RP-3 products and laid them out in a transitional methodology similar to what occurred on the south. He said the applicant presented that plan to staff to get their opinion, and staff said the applicant was within a differential of 10 to 20 units of residential and suggested there be slightly more RP-3 in one area. He said that plan resulted in the Modified Master Plan that is referenced in Staff Comments of 150,000 square feet of retail and 793 residential units in two different formats. The applicant then worked with Mr. Stuecheli to re-analyze the traffic comparisons, which are shown in Table V. With the reduction of 51,000 square feet off the approximately 417,000 square feet that was originally presented to the Commission and comparing it to the static reference point of the Modified Master Plan, although that 22 years from now there may be a LOS F, the traffic impact is a virtual wash. Mr. Petersen said the Council looked at that information, evaluated it from a traffic standpoint and also evaluated it and compared it to what could occur there and what is being proposed. The Council looked beyond the fact there was more square footage and less residential proposed than the new Modified Master Plan comparison and considered the elements being offered by the applicant to justify the slightly higher retail and slightly less residential. He said the Council voted 11 to 1 to return this item to the Planning Commission with direction to the applicant to work on some very specifically articulated items. The Council relayed during that meeting that if these issues are addressed, the expectation would be that the item would be returned to the Council for a successful vote. Mr. Petersen said staff has outlined what the applicant has done with regard to working through the issues that were identified by the Council. He said the parking has been reduced to the minimum possible; green space was increased by almost 2.2 percent; buffering was increased along the southeastern portion of the site as well as the southern portion; the three most eastern RP-5 buildings were reduced in height to 36 feet, the same height as the RP-3 product that will be situated between the threestory RP-5 product and the single-family homes making it virtually impossible to see those buildings due to the buffer of the villa homes at the same height. This was accomplished by stipulation ee, which has been accepted by the applicant. He said the applicant was asked to be sure that all of the RP-3 berms and the detention area were done prior to the construction of any of the retail south of 161st Street, which is also addressed in new stipulations. Mr. Petersen said there were two changes in zoning. The Council asked the applicant to take the pad site that is in the northeast corner of the site, on 159th Street, and restrict that use to CP-1 rather than CP-2, providing a less intense use that interrelates with the north and to the east. He stated that the applicant agreed to that and by operation of the approval of this plan, a legal description will be provided to show that zoning will be CP-1 for that pad.

7 Page 7 The southwest corner of the site was originally shown for a day-care operation, but it was going to be zoned as part of the CP-2 zoning. Mr. Petersen said the applicant has agreed to leave that as open space. At staff s suggestion, if the application is approved during this process, the applicant will take it from CP-2 down to CP-O. He said he intended to offer additional stipulations that would not allow any construction to begin on the entire site until an application is presented to take that pad site all the way from CP-O down to RP-3. This will ensure that area is a green amenity space for the villa product that is serving as a transitional buffer. Mr. Petersen said the applicant did look at the reorientation of the Lowe s building; although. it was not a condition of the remand. As both the applicant and staff agree, the reorientation of the Lowe s building to a more northwesterly orientation would not allow for maximizing the berming system. Referring to 159th Street, Mr. Petersen said traffic comes out from this center to the north to go either east or west on 159th Street with commercial activity across 159th Street. He said the backyards of homes in Willowbend are immediately adjacent to the 159th Street right-of-way. The applicant has been in discussions over the last ten days with representatives of Willowbend who suggested the applicant evaluate, as part of their improvements to 159th Street, constructing an eight-foot wooden fence along their back property lines with some additional landscaping. Mr. Petersen said the applicant received bids for that work today and anticipates completing that agreement with Willowbend. The agreement will be brought to the Council as an agreement conditioned upon the application being approved. At the encouragement of the Council, Mr. Petersen said the applicant continues to talk with the neighbors about issues the Council identified as well as some additional issues presented by the neighbors. Mr. Petersen distributed Exhibit B, proposed additional stipulations to those shown in Staff Comments, starting with stipulation hh through oo, following up on the three additional stipulations offered by staff as follows: hh No deliveries shall occur upon the site between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.; ii No recreational vehicles shall be allowed to park in the commercial parking lots; jj No spotlights, floodlights or other promotional attention-getting devices shall be utilized within the project. Special event permits may be submitted for City review, but applicant shall provide written notice of Special Event applications to all property owners within 200 feet; kk The Lowe s store manager will be made aware of all store stipulations; ll The owner and/or developer shall plant and maintain the landscaping described in the Site Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A; mm Prior to the issuance of any building permit for any building located south of 161st Street, the pad site located at the southwest corner of the site (approximately at the southeast corner of 162nd Terrace and Metcalf), as depicted on the Site Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A, must be rezoned to RP-3; nn Delivery trucks shall use established truck routes; and oo No public address (PA) system shall be located or utilized at the rear of the Lowe s store. Any speakers located in the Garden area will be separated by a solid wall to the rear area of the store. Mr. Petersen said the applicant has met with neighbors as recently as this morning and agreed that as this item moves into the final plan process, the applicant would work in terms of the landscape plan for specific materials. When bringing the toe of the berm to the property line, the applicant would make every attempt not to impact any existing trees that are off the applicant s property. He said the applicant could

8 Page 8 work through that and report to the Planning Commission the results of those efforts when bringing back each final plan phase for consideration. Chair Sorensen opened the public hearing. Mr. Don Stebbins, 7000 West 164th Terrace, president of the Board of the Blue Valley Riding Homes Association, said he was very heartened to meet with Mr. Petersen and other leaders of this project today. He said it is very valuable to have had added stipulations attached to the project because his obligation was to consider the residents who are directly behind Lowe s. Mr. Stebbins understood that currently the roads will only be built out to around the length of the development on Metcalf. However, he said the Blue Valley Riding area extends approximately three to four blocks further which is a concern. Mr. Rick Skaggs, Riggs Road, advised that one immediate concern relates to Lots 38 and 39 with an RP-3 property triplex directly behind them. To the east side, there are four triplexes that still do not show the kind of transitional space they need. In the current plan, he said it would be helpful to see how the applicant sketched out the 28-foot berm to see how the 16-foot dam would appear. Mr. Skaggs said it appears that the berm is higher than eight feet and nearer to a 15- to 20-foot berm, which is indicated as a typical residential berm. He was concerned because the drawing did not depict what the applicant intended to construct. With regard to the triplexes, he wanted to see the rear elevation. He said Mr. Petersen had previously told residents that they would not see, hear or smell the development. Today, looking at the plans, the buildings will not be entirely screened. Mr. Skaggs believed that there has been some deception on the applicant s part regarding what can and what cannot be seen from the residential areas. With no one further to address this item, the public hearing was closed. Responding to comments made during the public hearing, Mr. Petersen explained that as part of this project, the applicant will making future extensive improvements on Metcalf, south of this project, and on 159th Street. He stated that as time gets closer to the final design for landscaping and the dam design, the applicant would work with the neighbors on those issues. With regard to a comment made about him mis-representing the project, Mr. Petersen said he had misrepresented nothing. He agreed there may have been disagreements on several issues, but the applicant has done the best to their ability to move forward with a project that is economically viable and that will be special, with special buffering features to it. He advised that a 15- to 20-foot berm is not a typical residential berm whatsoever. Mr. Petersen clarified that he has relayed from the beginning that neighbors would not see, hear or smell the commercial development. He pointed out he did not say that neighbors to the east would not be able to see the high-end residential portion of the development. He stated that the neighbors have been tough, but he agreed they had a right to be. Neighbors have made this project a better overall plan for everyone concerned. Mr. Petersen asked that those Commissioners who originally voted to recommend denial take into consideration all of the improvements made by the applicant that the Council identified and recommend approval of the plan to the Council. Mr. Richard Collins commented that if the original Master Plan showed low density residential for this location, he was not sure that would be applicable here. He

9 Page 9 believed this project provided an adequate measure of transition that moves from commercial down to a residential component. Mr. Collins believed that it would be unrealistic, from a traffic standpoint, for the Commission to look at this as low-density residential uses. He suggested traffic be considered from the Modified Master Plan that Mr. Stuecheli mentioned in his comments. With the proposed annexation and with new development occurring to the south, Mr. Flanagan said there will be other neighborhood centers and other regional centers to the south and west of this area. He believed those developments would alleviate some of the predicted traffic patterns, which caused him less concern about the traffic impact. Mr. John Brake believed this was definitely the area to have commercial development, although he hoped it were smaller. He commended the applicant for trying to comply with requests they have received. Mr. Lance asked staff if they had heard anything today during the applicant s presentation that changed their minds with regard to their recommendation for denial. Mr. Gooch said no. Mrs. Thacker viewed the extensive screening as an attempt to hide a development that perhaps should not be located here. She said she could not support this plan, mostly due to the guidelines for this type of development. She said a smaller development would be more appropriate in this area. In thinking about the practical use for this property, Mr. Hill questioned what type of development could be built here. He did not believe more very low density or rural large lot residential is practical here. Therefore, he believed that the Modified Master Plan in Table V took a very practical approach to land use development. He said Table V makes a very compelling argument that the net impact of this project is negligible between developing under that scenario or the revised plan being considered today. As a result, Mr. Hill thought that this plan, with its reduction of square footage, was much improved in terms of what other developments could occur here. Mr. Reitzes said there were good points to be made with supporting or denying this application. He liked the overall plan and design; however, the issue is what are the correct proportions for various parts of the project. He said the changes presented were welcome, but was unsure the applicant had done enough. Mr. Reitzes asked if it was wise to extend CP-2 as far south as the applicant has done. He said perhaps CP-2 should be smaller and restricted only to the area approximately to the north of 161st Street. He also said, in his opinion, RP-5 should be moved all the way to the west to front on Metcalf. Mr. Reitzes commended the applicant for making great strides and for moving in the right direction. Mr. Brake moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council approval of Rezoning No , vicinity of the southeast corner of 159th Street and Metcalf, with stipulations a through oo. Mr. Collins seconded the motion. Mr. Steve Troester asked if staff had reviewed the additional stipulations hh through oo distributed by Mr. Petersen and finds them acceptable. Mr. Gooch replied that staff had concerns about stipulation jj with regard to administering. Given that, Mr. Troester asked if stipulation jj should be removed. Mrs. Karr said yes.

10 Page 10 Mr. Brake said he would change his motion to eliminate stipulation jj and as the seconder, Mr. Collins concurred. Chair Sorensen relayed that she had previously voted against this application; however, she concurred with Mr. Hill s observations regarding the alternative plan and the resulting traffic impact. She said she would have preferred 150,000 square feet less of retail; however, the applicant made a good effort to address the Council s concerns and talk with neighbors, so she would support the motion. Mr. Troester said he has struggled with making a decision on this application like his fellow Commissioners. He commended the applicant for showing tremendous flexibility and tenacity with regard to the application, adding that he would support the motion. Mr. Gadd said this development was the best looking of any he has seen since he has been a member of the Commission. While he still had some concerns regarding traffic, he agreed with Mr. Hill that most any other development here would result in the same problems. Mr. Lance stated that he also found this to be a tough decision to make; however, he considered staff as the architects of the City. He complimented the development team who brought this project to the City but said he would concur with staff s recommendation for denial. The motion to recommend approval of Rezoning No passed by a 7 to 3 vote. Those opposed were Mrs. Thacker, Mr. Lance and Mr. Reitzes. REZONING NO Vicinity of the southeast corner of 159th Street and Antioch. Rezoning requested from RUR-J, Rural District, Johnson County, to CP-2, Planned General Business District, CP-O, Planned Office Building District, RP-6, Planned High-Rise Apartment District, and PRN, Planned Residential Neighborhood District, to allow an office and commercial development and mixed density residential neighborhoods. Application made by Price Brothers Development. Mr. Hill moved for the referenced continuance as noted. After a second by Mr. Reitzes, the motion passed by a 10 to 0 vote. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO Vicinity of the southeast corner of 159th Street and Antioch. Special use permit requested for an indefinite period of time to allow a hospital and related medical facilities. This property is currently zoned RUR-J, Rural District, Johnson County. Application made by Price Brothers Development. Mr. Hill moved for the referenced continuance as noted. Mr. Reitzes seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

11 Page 11 REZONING NO Vicinity of the northwest corner of 167th Street and Switzer. Rezoning requested from RE, Residential Estates District, to R-1, Single-Family Residential District, to allow a single-family subdivision. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. (Approved) Mr. Gooch stated that this 0.25-acre tract is surrounded by property recently rezoned as part of Rezoning No and planned to be developed as a single-family residential development, The Farm at Garnet Hill. Land to the north is zoned RE and land to the south is zoned R-1. Mr. Gooch advised that this property was recently rezoned, but due to access to Switzer for the single-family subdivision, it has become necessary to rearrange the applicant s proposed lot layout. This proposed rezoning will allow all lots zoned R-1 to be located south of the main east/west street through the development, with all the RE lots located to the north of that street. This application does conform to the Master Plan, and Mr. Gooch said staff recommends approval of Rezoning No , with no stipulations. Mr. Tim Tucker, Phelps Engineering, offered to answer questions. Chair Sorensen opened and closed the public hearing with no one wanting to comment. Mr. Flanagan moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council approval of Rezoning No as requested. Mr. Steve Troester seconded the motion, which carried by a 10 to 0 vote. REZONING NO Vicinity of the southeast corner of 135th Street and Grandview. Rezoning requested from BP, Business Park District, to CP-2, Planned General Business District, to allow a commercial development. Application made by Shughart Thomson and Kilroy. Mr. Hill moved for the referenced continuance as noted. Mr. Gadd seconded the motion, which carried by a 10 to 0 vote. REZONING NO West 159th Street. Rezoning requested from RURJ, Rural District, Johnson County, to RP-OS, Planned Open Space Single-Family Residential District, to allow an open-space subdivision. Application made by Schlagel and Associates, P.A. Mr. Hill moved to continue the referenced item as noted. Mr. Gadd seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

12 Page 12 SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO Glenwood. Special use permit requested for a ten-year period of time to allow The Fountains temporary parking lot. This property is currently zoned CP-O, Planned Office Building District. Application made by Andrew Schlagel. (Approved) Planner Dave Dalecky stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a special use permit for a ten-year period to time to allow the continued use of a 110-stall parking lot for overflow cars for a restaurant in The Fountains shopping center. He said a special use permit was granted in 2003 for the parking lot for a five-year period of time. The purpose of the parking lot was to handle potential overflow parking problems that may occur because of the popularity of the Cheescake Factory restaurant. The parking lot is on vacant property zoned for office uses and the future location of a office building on the site. As relayed in Staff Comments, the same developer owns all of the properties in question and is able to control the uses of the site. At the time of the original request for the special use permit, the applicant indicated that the parking lot would be used by employees and for valet parking. This would create more customer parking spaces close to the restaurant. Mr. Dalecky said staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit No , for a ten-year period of time with no stipulations. Mr. Andy Schlagel, planning consultant, offered to answer questions. Mr. Troester said the retirement center that will be developed to the south will include a lot of parking. His concern was how people will know to park in the lot to the south and west and asked if that was self park or valet parking. He was concerned that shopping center patrons might begin to abuse the parking lot that belongs to the retirement patrons. Mr. Schlagel said the temporary parking lot was self-park, primarily for employee parking. He had no concerns about parking issues, adding that this parking is available to employees, and it is watched and monitored. Mr. Troester was concerned this would become a management issue once the senior living facility is established. Mr. Schlagel said the senior living facility applicant bought that ground from the developer of the shopping center. If there should be an issue, Mr. Schlagel was confident it could be worked out. Chair Sorensen opened and closed the public hearing with no one wanting to address this item. Mr. Flanagan moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council approval of Special Use Permit No , Glenwood, to allow a temporary parking lot for a ten-year period of time. After a second by Mr. Gadd, the motion passed by a 10 to 0 vote. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL Retreat at Maple Crest Vicinity of the northeast corner of 159th Street and Marty. Application made by Jantsch Architects, Inc.

13 Page 13 Mr. Hill moved for the referenced continuance as noted. Mr. Reitzes seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL Trailwoods Center Vicinity of the southeast corner of 95th Street and Nall. Application made by Landplan Engineering, P.A. Mr. Hill moved for the continuance of the referenced item as noted. After a second by Mr. Reitzes, the motion carried by a 10 to 0 vote. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL Erickson Retirement Community Metcalf. Application made by Erickson Retirement Communities. (Approved) Mr. Dalecky stated that the applicant is requesting revised preliminary plan approval to allow an increase in the height of the long-term care component of the development. The applicant is requesting to go from a two-story, corridor based building concept to a combination of two-story and four-story cluster concept for the long-term care building. The property is currently zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District, with an indefinite special use permit for an assisted living facility. Mr. Dalecky advised that the currently approved plan shows a building where the rooms open onto a corridor that generally links all of the rooms in a circle. The proposed change to the building creates smaller neighborhoods from groups of 12 beds that have common areas and amenities. As relayed in Staff Comments, the changes to the living arrangement will require changes in the building design. The beds are proposed to be clustered in groups of 12, for a total of 144 beds, which is a reduction in the number of long-term care residents from 152 beds. Mr. Dalecky relayed that the building will be constructed in two phases. The first phase is the southern wing, with two-story buildings. The second phase is the northerly wing, with four-story buildings. Each floor of each wing will include two clusters of neighborhoods. Staff Comments relayed that the architectural character of the long-term care building will be very similar to the other buildings that are under construction. Stone, brick and stucco are used for the building s exterior finish materials. Mr. Dalecky advised that staff has discussed a concern with the applicant regarding the amount of brick and stone on the building facades compared to the other residential buildings on the site. The applicant s architect has agreed to study this and provide percentage calculations and comparisons to the existing buildings on the site. He said staff is comfortable addressing this issue at the time of final development plan approval. Mr. Dalecky said staff recommends approval of Revised Preliminary Plans for Erickson Retirement Community subject to stipulations a through d. He stated that stipulation

14 Page 14 b should be corrected to read 129,787 square feet of extended care floor area instead of 106,000 square feet as shown. Of importance is that there is a reduction in total bed count from 152 to 144, resulting in the actual density being reduced while the square footage has increased slightly. Mr. John Petersen, Polsinelli Shalton Flanigan Suelthaus, PC, acknowledged some input from staff regarding their concern about the brick and stone on the building facades. Rather than the percentage of brick and stone being proposed, he believed a reorientation or movement of those buildings could replicate more closely the existing residential buildings under construction. Mr. Petersen agreed with all stipulations, and he offered to answer questions. Chair Sorensen opened and closed the public hearing with no one wanting to comment. Mr. Troester said that this revised plan was presented to the Site Plan Review Committee. He said it was a much more interesting plan in terms of architectural appeal than what had been proposed previously. Mr. Reitzes moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council approval of Revised Preliminary Plans for Erickson Retirement Community, Metcalf, with stipulations a through d and stipulation b as revised by staff. Mr. Troester seconded the motion, which carried by a 10 to 0 vote. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL 151st Street Development Vicinity of the northeast corner of 151st Street and Metcalf. Application made by Block and Company, Inc. (Approved) Mr. Dalecky said the applicant is proposing a reduction of 5,710 square feet from the currently approved plan, which includes 26,564 square feet of building floor area. The approved plan for the development includes three buildings, a drive-thru restaurant at the northerly end of the site, a multi-tenant building in the middle, and a tunnel car wash. He said the proposed change is to remove a portion of the retail square footage from the building in the middle of the site. The proposed plan now shows the building to be a stand-alone bank building. Mr. Dalecky said the revised site plan will allow for wider islands separating drive aisles from parking areas and reduces the impervious cover of the site. The site plan has been adjusted accordingly to allow for some grade differences to be made over modest slopes in turf and some retaining walls have been removed. He said the increased island widths are also beneficial for trees that will be installed on the site. Mr. Dalecky relayed that the revised site plan provides for a flow of traffic within the site that is similar to the original plan for this project. Only a relatively minor site design issue is still outstanding. In order to provide for an easier future extension of an internal driveway to the property to the east, if that connect is needed in the future, staff recommends that a landscaped island be added at one location along the east property line as shown in Exhibit A. He said the applicant has clearly stated that they do not want to do that at this time and preferred to defer it at the time the connection

15 Page 15 is needed, based on the development of the property to the east. Mr. Dalecky said this is not a stipulation but only staff s recommendation. Mr. Dalecky said staff recommends approval of Revised Preliminary Plans for 151st Street Development, subject to stipulations a through n. Mr. David Eickman, Olsson Associates, 7301 West 133rd Street, agreed with staff stipulations. Mr. Gadd asked why the applicant did not want to make the connecting link as requested by staff. Mr. Eickman said the owner wanted to use that additional space as another parking stall until such time the future development to the east needs that connection, which may be five to ten years from now. Mr. Lance asked why the square footage was reduced, and Mr. Eickman replied that it related to the detention, because previously, the applicant would have to detain water underground. By removing the retail space, an above ground detention was feasible. Mr. Hill asked if it is staff s intent that the recorded easement will clearly indicate who is responsible for paying for the improvements shown in Exhibit A. Mr. Stuecheli explained that typically there is an access easement that gives the property owner to the east the right to travel across there but normally, there are no specifics about how this type of situation will be handled. He said presumably, it would be the responsibility of that future applicant who would connect to it to build the driveway connection and whatever else may be necessary. In this case, a landscaped island would be required. Mr. Hill clarified that the burden of the financial obligation is to be incorporated into the development plan of the property to the east. Mr. Stuecheli said if the applicant does not build the island now, it would be a requirement of the property to the east to do that. Mr. Lance relayed that he would like to see the peninsula island pursued further. Mr. Stuecheli said the next item relates to the final plans for this development, which would be an opportunity to address that. Mr. Gadd agreed with Mr. Lance. Mr. Flanagan moved for the approval of Revised Preliminary Plans for 151st Street Development, vicinity of the northeast corner of 151st Street and Metcalf, with stipulations a through n. The motion was seconded by Mr. Troester and passed by a 10 to 0 vote. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL 151st Street Development Vicinity of the northeast corner of 151st Street and Metcalf. Application made by Block and Company, Inc. (Approved) Mr. Dalecky advised that this is the companion item to the preliminary plan that was just discussed. The applicant is requesting final development plan approval to construct the internal drive, some of the parking and some of the other infrastructure elements on the site. The primary issue is the peninsula island access to any future development to the east, and staff recommends a peninsula be constructed during the initial phase of the development.

16 Page 16 Mr. Dalecky said staff recommends approval of these final development plans for 151st Street Development with stipulations a through j. Mr. David Eickman, Olsson Associates, 7301 West 133rd Street, agreed with stipulations a through j. In looking at the aerial photography, Mr. Hill believed it was very likely that the parcels to the east will be developed at some point in the future. He said the likelihood that a connection will be needed in the future is great; therefore, he suggested the burden of the development improvements that are shown in Exhibit A be the responsibility of the developer of this proposed development. He recognized that the easement would be recorded, and the remaining road would be installed to make the connection by the developer to the east. Chair Sorensen asked if Mr. Hill wanted that in the form of a stipulation, and Mr. Hill concurred. Mr. Dalecky advised that additional stipulation k would read: The applicant or developer shall construct the peninsula island shown in Exhibit A of the Staff Comments for the access drive that connects to the property to the east. Chair Sorensen asked if the applicant wanted to comment on additional stipulation k. Mr. Eickman advised that presently the applicant is not presenting final plans for the parking area, adding that right now final plans are only for the roadway for the infrastructure that passes that parking area. He believed that the additional stipulation k could be included at a later date with the final development plan for that parking lot. Mr. Dalecky advised that Mr. Eickman makes a good point, and suggested that stipulation k could be revised to add the wording after east to read, at such time the phase of the development, including the parking area, is proposed to be constructed. Chair Sorensen asked if Mr. Eickman was in agreement with the revised wording, and he said he could agree to it. Mr. Flanagan moved for the approval of Final Development Plans for 151st Street Development, vicinity of the northeast corner of 151st Street and Metcalf, with stipulations a through j shown in Staff Comments, and additional stipulation k as read into the record by staff. Mr. Reitzes seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL Stonegate Aquatics Facility 9701 Antioch. Application made by the City of Overland Park. Mr. Hill moved for the referenced continuance as noted. Mrs. Thacker seconded the motion, which passed by a 10 to 0 vote. PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL Coffee Creek Crossing Subdivision Pool Vicinity of 169th Street and Melrose. Application made by NSPJ Architects.

17 Page 17 Mr. Reitzes moved for the continuance of the referenced item as noted. Mr. Gadd seconded the motion, which passed by a 10 to 0 vote. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL Daybreak Ridge Vicinity of the southeast corner of 151st Street and Quivira. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. Mr. Troester moved to continue the referenced item as noted. After a second by Mr. Brake, the motion carried unanimously. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT NO Daybreak Ridge Vicinity of the southeast corner of 151st Street and Quivira. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. Mr. Flanagan moved for the referenced continuance as noted. Mr. Gadd seconded the motion, which passed by a 10 to 0 vote. FINAL PLAT NO Daybreak Ridge Vicinity of the southeast corner of 151st Street and Quivira. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. No action was required. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT NO Woods at Colton Lake Vicinity of the southwest corner of 151st Street and Switzer. Application made by Schlagel and Associates, P.A. Mr. Flanagan moved for the referenced continuance as noted. Mr. Reitzes seconded the motion, which passed by a 10 to 0 vote. FINAL PLAT NO Woods at Colton Lake Third Plat Vicinity of 151st Street and Switzer. Application made by Schlagel and Associates, P.A. No action was required. At 4:15 p.m., with no further business, Chair Sorensen adjourned the meeting. Minutes transcribed by Nancee Ellis. Kim Sorensen, Chair