OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. September 10, 2012

Transcription

1 OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 10, 2012 The Overland Park Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Mrs. Janie Thacker, Chair. The following members were present, constituting a quorum: Mr. Mike Flanagan, Vice Chair; Mr. Tom Lance; Mr. Edward Ned Reitzes; Mr. George Lund; Mr. John Brake; Mr. Bob Gadd; Mr. Steve Troester; Mr. David M. Hill; and Mrs. Kim Sorensen. Mr. Thomas A. Robinett was absent. Also present were: Mrs. Kristy Stallings, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Jack Messer, Director of Planning and Development Services; Mrs. Leslie Karr, Manager, Current Planning; Mr. Tony Meyers, Manager, Engineering Services; Mr. John Rod, Manager, Community Services; Mr. Mark Stuecheli, Senior Transportation Planner; Mr. Keith Gooch, Senior Planner; Ms. Danielle Zeigler, Senior Planner; Mr. Aaron Dubois, Assistant Planner; Mr. Steve Horner, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Ms. Alysen Abel, Civil Engineer II; and Ms. Kathleen Behrens, Recording Secretary. Approximately 20 people were in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 9, Chair Janie Thacker presented the July 9, 2012, Planning Commission meeting minutes for approval. Mr. Steve Troester moved to approve the July 9, 2012, Planning Commission meeting minutes. Mr. Bob Gadd seconded the motion, which carried by a vote 8 to 0 to 2. Mr. Tom Lance and Mr. George Lund abstained. CONSENT AGENDA: (Approved Items A through F, and continued Items G and H) A. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Advanced Health Care of Overland Park Vicinity of the northwest corner of Indian Creek Parkway and Roe. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. B. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Trail Point Plaza Vicinity of the southwest corner of 119th Street and Quivira. Application made by AZ Realty Trust I, L.L.C. C. FINAL PLAT NO Wilshire by the Lake, First Plat (Formerly The Vineyard) Vicinity of the northeast corner of 159th Street and Quivira. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. D. FINAL PLAT NO Wilshire by the Lake, Second Plat (Formerly The Vineyard) Vicinity of the northeast corner of 159th Street and Quivira. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc.

2 Page 2 E. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Wycliff Retail Center Exterior Improvements West 103rd Street. Application made by Piper-Wind Architects, Inc. F. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Red Lobster 9475 Metcalf. Application made by GHA Architecture/Development. G. FINAL PLAT NO Corbin Park Condominium 6901 West 135th Street. Application made by Green Engineering Services, Inc. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL Bluestem Subdivision Vicinity of the southeast corner of 151st Street and Quivira. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. Mrs. Thacker presented the Planning Commission Consent Agenda for approval and asked if there were any items that needed to be removed for separate discussion. With no further comments, Mrs. Kim Sorensen moved to approve Planning Commission Consent Agenda Items A through F, with Item G being continued to the October 8, 2012, Planning Commission meeting, and Item H being continued to the November 12, 2012, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Troester seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0. CONSIDERATION OF STAR BOND PROJECT Prairiefire Vicinity of the southwest corner of 135th Street and Nall. Application made by The City of Overland Park. (Approved) Mrs. Sorensen recused herself from consideration of this time as her firm is involved with the museum component of this project. Deputy City Manager Kristy Stallings presented the Prairiefire Star Bond Project for consideration. The determination requested of the Planning Commission is to find the project plan consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the development of the City. She recalled a similar request made in 2009 that was brought before the Planning Commission. Since that time, some elements of the project have changed. The Planning Commission also considered a revised preliminary plan in March of 2012, which was subsequently approved by the City Council in April Subsequent to that action, the developer submitted a request to the City to update the project plan to reflect the most current plan for the project. In accordance with state statute, there is a requirement that the City s Planning Commission find the project plan in conformance with the City s Comprehensive Plan, which is staff s current request. She explained that questions concerning the STAR Bond Act can be addressed by the City s Bond Counsel, Kathy Peters. The developer, Mr. Fred Merrill and his legal counsel, Mr. John Petersen from Polsinelli Shughart PC are also available to answer questions. With no questions posed, Mr. Mike Flanagan moved that the Planning Commission find the Prairiefire Star Bond Project Plan is consistent with the City s Comprehensive Plan for development in the City. Mr. Troester seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 9 to 0 to 1. Mrs. Sorensen abstained.

3 Page COMPREHENSIVE WORK PROGRAM AND RELATED WORK TASKS Application made by The City of Overland Park. (Approved) Manger of Community Services John Rod presented the 2012 Comprehensive Work Program and Related Work Tasks. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan Committee met this afternoon at a workshop to discuss the proposed 2012 Comprehensive Plan Work Program. Staff had recommended to the Committee that no changes be made to the Comprehensive Plan and the Official Street Map for this year. One of the main reasons for that recommendation is that staff conducted a major update last year, as well as they anticipate some major changes and studies for The Planning Commission recommendation will be presented to the Community Development Committee at their October 3, 2012, meeting to discuss the Planning Commission s decision. Mr. Flanagan stated the Comprehensive Plan Committee met this afternoon, and recommend no changes be made to the Comprehensive Plan or the Official Street Map in The reason they are recommending no change is due to a Park Master Plan that will be coming forth, as well as some other studies in The City also conducted a major overhaul of the Comprehensive Plan in 2011 to review all the different work groups and provided a through update. Mr. Flanagn moved to accept the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan Committee is to recommend no change be made to the Comprehensive Plan in 2012, including the Official Street Map. Mr. Lance seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance to add Section Unspecified Transportation Improvement Payments. Application made by The City of Overland Park. (Approved) Director of Planning and Development Services Jack Messer presented an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance related to unspecified transportation improvement funds, Section He stated that this method of funding has been used by the City for approximately 25 years to deal with transportation related projects in various rezonings throughout the City. The purpose of this ordinance is to freeze the rate paid for all of the rezonings that have occurred in the year in which they were rezoned. This amendment is part of an overall plan to address this funding source in a more comprehensive fashion. Mr. Messer stated that the Community Development Committee has already considered this amendment, and the Planning Commission s action is to follow, as well as the City Council consideration. The Ordinance Review Committee studied this amendment in August and voted 3 to 0 to recommend approval. Staff recommended approval of the proposed ordinance amendment. Mr. Edward Ned Reitzes asked if staff could provide a brief explanation, using an example, of how the amendment might work. Mr. Messer explained that in practice, each of the unspecified transportation funds is attached through a stipulation and

4 Page 4 rezoning. That stipulation provides the opportunity for someone to pay that amount at that time or pay that amount when they receive a building permit. In most cases, the applicant chooses to pay through the building permit method. For example, with a rezoning that occurred in 2008, the applicant might not get their building permit until By that time, the cost of those unspecified transportation funds would have increased by approximately 40 percent. The proposed ordinance amendment will freeze the rate paid to the time the applicant received their last rezoning. Chair Janie Thacker opened the public hearing. Upon receiving no comment, she closed the hearing. Mr. Reitzes moved to recommend approval to the Council of the amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to add Section , with regard to unspecified transportation improvement payments. Mr. George Lund seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0. REZONING NO College Boulevard. Rezoning is requested from CP-O, Planned Office Building district, to CP-2, Planned General Business District, to allow for commercial development. Application made by Polsinelli Shughart PC. (Approved) Planner Keith Gooch presented Rezoning No , located at College Boulevard. The applicant is requesting rezoning from CP-O, Planned Office Building District, to CP-2, Planned General Business District. He presented a vicinity map for the rezoning, which is surrounded to the east and south by CP-O zoning. The entire area was rezoned in 1981, and the proposed piece of property is being taken out of that rezoning. To the north is office zoning and CP-1 zoning, which is a hotel. CP-1 and CP-O zoning is to the west, which are developed as commercial office buildings. Mr. Gooch presented a plan that was approved in 2008 for the proposed property. The area that is being rezoned today is at the northwest corner. There is an existing fourstory building, the proposed building and a sit-down restaurant on the site. He presented the current plan zoned for two commercial buildings. Pad A will be a drug store, and pad B will be a multi-tenant building with a potential coffee shop with two drive-thru lanes. Current access to the site extends through a full turning movement off College Boulevard, and a new access point will be constructed as part of the plan. A total of 103 parking spaces are proposed for the 14,820 square-foot drug store building on pad A and the 5,900-square foot multi-tenant building on pad B. There are screening walls proposed that will be landscaped along College Boulevard to screen the parking lot and the drive-thru lanes from College Boulevard. There is only a drive aisle located between the buildings on College Boulevard, which is something staff requested. Staff also worked with the applicant to provide sidewalks between the two office buildings, the future office building shown on pad C, and between pad A and pad B, and then out to College Boulevard. Mr. Gooch stated that the buildings are proposed of stone and brick. The elevations are only available for the drug store. The other elevations will be revealed at the time of the final development plan presentation. Herringbone patterns will be used on the windows on the south and west elevations with metal trellises. Glazing is provided on the east and north elevations. Staff is concerned about whether the elevations primarily meet the Architectural Design Standards. At the time of final development

5 Page 5 plan, staff will address those elevation issues. A statue is proposed to be located in the middle of the roundabout at the existing four-story office building, which is not shown on the plan. This was an item that created density bonuses for office development for the applicant. Several plans go back to the 1990s, but that statue will be relocated since they are reconstructing the drive off College Boulevard, removing the roundabout, and installing a private drive. Mr. Gooch referenced a letter that was submitted by a neighboring property owner to the south, Mr. Jim Markley, and offered to answer questions about that letter. Staff recommended approval of Rezoning No , subject to stipulations a through r. Mr. Tom Lance asked about Mr. Markley s location. Mr. Gooch pointed out Mr. Markley s site, which was located south of the detention area. Mr. John Petersen, 6201 College Boulevard, Polsinelli Shughart, PC, appeared on behalf of Stonecreek Management Company, who is the property owner of the now vacant office tract. He also noted that representatives were also present from Henzlik- Oliver Real Estate Company, representing the interests of Walgreens and Olsson Associates. He noted that the applicant has reviewed proposed stipulations a through r and finds them acceptable. He referred to the architecture of the Walgreens, noting there were a few minor architectural details the applicant has agreed to work out with City staff at the final development plan stage. Mr. Petersen referred to the inquiry raised by the neighbor to the south, stating that residence was technically located off the property line, a little farther to the south. The applicant considered the concern of this neighbor. Although the proposal is primarily office development, there will be some mixed uses interjected into the plan that will respond well not only to the office users but the hotel patrons across the street and some area residential. Mr. Petersen referred to the storm water issue, stating when the original office building was built, there was a berm constructed along the entire southern perimeter. The first approval contemplated a dry detention facility down to that corner, not to be constructed until there was development on the western portion of the site. One of the issues raised about the berm was that some small portion of the berm interfaces with the western portion, and the slope was a little too steep. The applicant will review this issue and revise as needed, assuming this will not impact the storm water study that has been reviewed and approved by staff. Currently, there is no inlet or functioning storm water facility in place. When they construct a storm water facility, which is required of the proposed plan, the discharge from the dry basin will tie directly into the storm water system. There will not be any overflow to the neighbors to the south. He felt the issue that was raised pertained to the steepness of the berm, which the applicant plans to obtain more details and discuss them with staff. The applicant has reviewed the stipulations, finds them acceptable, and requested approval. Mr. Bob Gadd referred to Mr. Markley s letter, where it states, neither the homeowner nor the homes association has ever been contacted by the developer, and asked if there was a reason for not contacting them. Mr. Petersen stated that the developer had contacted their engineer after they were made aware of the issue. However, there was no neighborhood meeting with the homes association, because there were no issues in terms of what interfaces with the neighborhood, such as height or size of the buildings, setbacks, berming, and storm water treatment. Nothing was changed by

6 Page 6 the proposed plan since the 1999 approval. The matter for Planning Commission consideration is the two acres along College Boulevard. He did not feel this proposal would rise to the need of having a neighborhood meeting, given the fact there are many acres of ground that will remain the same that have been approved for over 15 years. Mr. Gadd felt it was always helpful for all developers to contact immediate neighbors to a proposed project. He noted that Mr. Markley s letter is dated September 7th and asked when the developer had met with the homeowner. Mr. Petersen stated they had reviewed and exchanged information with Mr. Markley. He pointed out that staff has carefully reviewed their request, considering they have not changed anything that interfaces with or impacts the neighbors at all. He offered to bring the request back to the final plan stage and report the results of that effort. If any changes were needed, required, or recommended by staff, they would accommodate those changes. Mrs. Thacker opened the public hearing. Upon no comments made, she closed the hearing. Mrs. Thacker referred to comments made at the last meeting, where it was stated that they should ensure the rest of the property remains CP-O and no retail creeps into the southern part of the property. She asked if any precedence had ever been set where something like that might have happened. She felt the residents to the south could possibly be impacted by such a change. Mr. Gooch could not recall any instances. Mr. Steve Troester moved to recommend approval to the Council of Rezoning No , located at College Boulevard, including stipulations a through r. Mrs. Kim Sorensen seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL Compass Corporate Center College Boulevard. Application made by Polsinelli Shughart PC. (Continued) Mr. Reitzes moved to continue the revised preliminary plan for Compass Corporate Center, College Boulevard, to the October 8, 2012, Planning Commission meeting. Mrs. Sorenson seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO West 95th Street. Special use permit requested for a ten-year period of time to allow renewal of an existing communications tower. This property is currently zoned CP-2, Planned General Business District. Application made by American Tower Corporation. (Continued) Mr. Flanagan moved to continue Special Use Permit No , 3651 West 95th Street, to the November 12, 2012, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Gadd seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0.

7 Page 7 SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO West 95th Street. Special use permit requested for five-year period of time to allow renewal of a contractor s storage lot. This property is currently zoned C-2, General Business District, and C-3, Commercial District. Application made by Tom Sheeley. (Approved) Senior Planner Danielle Zeigler presented Special Use Permit No , located at 8904 West 95th Street. Mr. Tom Sheeley is the applicant for the request for a special use permit renewal for a contractor storage lot for a five-year period of time. The property is currently zoned C-2, General Business District, and C-3, Commercial District. The zoning map shows single family homes to the north and west, and to the south and east are commercially zoned properties. She presented a 2012 aerial photograph obtained from Google Maps. The applicant is requesting approval of the renewal of the permit for the contractor s storage yard for a landscaping business. This is the third renewal request. The initial permit was issued in 2002 and renewed in 2003 and The 2005 special use permit was granted for a five-year period of time and was allowed to expire in 2010 and has not been renewed until the current request was made. Ms. Zeigler explained that contractor storage lots are only permitted with the approval of a special use permit. If a building were built to house the outdoor storage items, the special use permit would no longer be needed. Currently, the landscaping business stores mulch and dirt, snow removal equipment, and their pick-ups and trailers in the proposed storage lot. The applicant has indicated through the years of renewing the permit that it is their intent to build a building. However, at this time, given the economic conditions, there is no timeframe for when that might occur. When the original special use permit was approved in 2002, the staff report indicated they did not feel an outside contractor storage lot should be located at the site on a permanent basis and only recommended approval for one year. At that time, concerns were expressed by the neighbors, and the applicant indicated their intent to build a building. Since the permit was last renewed in 2005, staff has only received one complaint regarding the condition of the northern fence behind the building, which has been repaired. The original special use permit granted in 2002 limited the outdoor storage to the eastern 95 feet of the area and was required to have a fence installed in this location. Ms. Zeigler pointed out on the map where storage was intended to occur next to the tenant space, and the western portion was intended to be unused. When the permit was renewed in 2005, staff observed a missing section of the fence and stipulated that gates be installed. The applicant has indicated that those gates were needed to access that far west portion to remove debris. The gates are not there, and the applicant has indicated those gates were installed, but were removed in 2007 when the Paradise Bay Carwash to the south was constructed. Their construction staging occurred in this area. When the construction ended, a new tenant had moved into the contractor tenant space and was not aware they were not supposed to be using the western portion of the site. Therefore, items had been stored in that area. Since the original approval in 2002, staff had stipulated the west area be seeded and irrigated, which was torn up with the 2007 carwash construction. Staff has stipulated that seeding and landscaping be completed by October 31, 2012.

8 Page 8 Ms. Zeigler presented the 2012 plan, indicating the seeding and additional evergreens to be planted. This plan also shows the gates being re-installed. It also shows a new fence in one portion, which has been installed without a permit. The applicant has indicated they will be pulling a permit for that fence and installing a second set of gates along the east edge of the storage lot. This is for the Penske truck parking, which occurs at the other portion of the building. She presented photos of the site, and the west area that is to be unused, contractor storage area, and the new fence with the Penske trucks and gates yet to be installed. Given the fact the applicant has allowed the previous permit to expire without renewal for two years and has been using that western portion of the site that was to remain unused, staff recommends approving only a one-year period of time for the special use permit. During that one-year period, the applicant is expected to cease using that western area for storage and restore the landscaping. Staff has also included a stipulation regarding a building permit for the fence that was installed and the gate for the Penske truck area. Given the situation, staff also continues to question the appropriateness of an outdoor contractor storage lot at the proposed location on a permanent basis. Staff recommended approval of Special Use Permit No for a one-year period of time, subject to stipulations a through g. Mr. Flanagan agreed with the one-year time period for the special use permit. He asked what the City s plan would be to monitor the site to ensure the stipulations are followed, since there appears to be a pattern of non-compliance. Ms. Zeigler stated that typical enforcement is done on a complaint basis. It is difficult to view the western portion of the site, given it is totally surrounded by other properties and homes. Staff plans to visit the site November 1, 2012, to ensure all items have been done as stipulated. Mr. John Brake referred to staff s concerns regarding whether the site was appropriate for the proposed facility. He asked why the applicant was being recommended to use the site for another year when they are located at a place where they should not be and have also not followed the rules in the past. Ms. Zeigler stated that staff s thought was to allow the applicant time to get the site cleaned up, discuss any lease arrangements they might have with their tenant, and evaluate their long-term use of the site. Mr. Brake asked if staff was still concerned the location was appropriate for the use as was stated in staff s report. Ms. Zeigler stated that staff would be asking the applicant about their intent to use the site in the long term, as the current use of an outdoor storage lot is not the permanent solution for this property. Mr. Gadd referred to page No. 41F, which shows the western portion of the site that is to remain unused, and noted there were many different kinds of materials and debris stored on the site that should be cleared. He asked if that area would be seeded. Ms. Zeigler stated that area would be seeded, and the piles of dirt and mulch used in the landscaper s business would be moved to the actual allowed storage area. The entire western portion would also be seeded and irrigated. Chair Thacker requested the applicant come forward. Ms. Zeigler stated that the applicant had indicated he would appear, but was not present. Staff would try to make contact with him and suggested the item be tabled to the end of the agenda. Mrs. Karr suggested holding the public hearing, and then table the item to see if the applicant arrives to address the item.

9 Page 9 Mrs. Thacker deferred the applicant s presentation, and opened the public hearing. Mr. John Mallard, 8909 West 94th Street, stated that the proposed site would be located in back of the carwash facility. He noted that a fence was installed in back of his property, and he can see boards falling out of the fence and holes under the fence where his dog could escape. He felt uneasy about the applicant s situation. In looking over his fence, there is a view of the tarp and some of the items in the storage area. He stated he had not been contacted by anyone as to what is occurring on the proposed site, and he is concerned about having a storage lot in this area. Mr. Gadd asked Mr. Mallard to point out his lot on the map. Mr. Mallard indicated his property was near the western portion of the site that was not to be used. Upon receiving no further comments, Chair Thacker closed the public hearing. Mr. Reitzes moved to table Special Use Permit No to the end of the agenda. Mr. Troester seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO Vicinity of the northwest corner of I-35 and I-635. Special use permit requested for a three-year period of time to allow a billboard. This property is currently zoned MP-2, Planned General Industrial District. Application made by CBS Outdoor, Inc. (Approved) Assistant Planner Aaron Dubois presented Special Use Permit No , located in the vicinity of the northwest corner of I-35 and I-635. The request is made by CBS Outdoor, Inc., for a three-year period of time to allow the continuation of a billboard. The property is currently zoned MP-2, Planned General Industrial District. He provided a vicinity map showing the location. The Future Development Plan does not specifically discuss the appropriate location for billboards; however, the UDO requires this use obtain a special use permit. The request is for a 14-foot by 48-foot billboard. The billboard has existed in the current location since Staff feels the billboard continues to meet all ordinance requirements, regarding maintenance of the sign, including painting of the pole and landscape maintenance. Staff recommended approval of Special Use Permit No for a three-year period of time with no stipulations. Mr. David Hyatt, 2459 Summit, Kansas City, Missouri, CBS Outdoor, Inc., appeared as the applicant for the request. Mrs. Thacker opened the public hearing. Upon receiving no comment, she closed the hearing. Mr. Reitzes asked if three years was the maximum timeframe for approval of such a request. Mr. Dubois agreed. Mr. Troester moved to recommend to Council approval of Special Use Permit No , for a three-year period of time, at the northwest corner of I-35 and I-635. Mr. Lund seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0.

10 Page 10 SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO Glenwood. Special use permit requested for an indefinite period of time to allow a temporary parking lot at The Fountains. This property is currently zoned CP-O, Planned Office Building District. Application made by Andrew Schlagel. (Approved) Mr. Dubois presented Special Use Permit No , located at Glenwood. This is a request by Mr. Andrew Schlagel to allow the continued use of a parking lot for an indefinite period of time. This is an off-set parking lot for a shopping center. The property is currently zoned CP-O, Planned Office Building District. The property is located at the southwest corner of 119th Street and Glenwood, east of Metcalf. The properties to the west and east are developed as commercial shopping centers. A retirement community is located to the southeast, and the Blue Valley High School is also located to the southeast. The special use permit is for the use of a parking lot for The Fountain Shopping Center located at the southeast corner of 119th Street and Glenwood. Mr. Dubois noted that a special use permit was granted in 2008 for a parking lot at this location for a ten-year period of time. The purpose of the proposed parking lot is to handle overflow parking associated with the shopping center, because of the popularity of the Cheesecake Factory and other tenants. When the initial request for the temporary parking lot was made, staff expressed concerns that the parking lot could encourage speculative rezoning for commercial uses on the property. This has not been the case, and staff has made it clear to the applicant that the parking lot is intended to be of a temporary nature. The parking lot does not meet current parking lot standards, including island width, which is five feet instead of seven feet. Additionally, the parking lot is missing landscaped islands, street trees along Glenwood, and parking lot screening from Glenwood. The same developer currently owns the property where the parking is located, as well as the shopping center to the northeast, and they are able to control use of the site. Staff is not aware of any problems that have occurred related to this issue, and they have made several site visits and seen that the parking lot is used on a frequent basis. The current Fountain Shopping Center contains 725 parking spaces, which is the exact number required by ordinance based on square footage and the number of seats in the restaurants. The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) limits requests of this nature to ten years; however, in cases of extreme hardship, the Governing Body may consider granting a permit to a longer timeframe. The applicant has submitted a letter, stating the reasons for the indefinite timeframe, which was included in staff s report. One of the main reasons is for the long-term viability of the shopping center, as the applicant is in the process of selling the shopping center to a different developer. The revised preliminary plan is also included on the Planning Commission agenda, showing how the existing office buildings in the area would work with the parking lot if the lot is approved for a longer timeframe than ten years. Staff feels no hardship is shown, and would not be comfortable with any timeframe longer than ten years. However, if the Planning Commission feels a longer timeframe should be granted, staff has drafted stipulations e and f, which require parking lot screening and landscaping and reconstructed parking lot islands to meet current standards of 7 feet in width.

11 Page 11 Mr. Dubois presented the revised preliminary plan, which is the next agenda item, showing the three buildings and the existing parking lot remaining. The current plan calls for a building in this location. Staff recommended approval of Special Use Permit No , for a ten-year period of time, subject to stipulations a through d. However, should the Planning Commission recommend a longer timeframe; staff recommended approving stipulations a through f. Mrs. Thacker clarified that the stipulations outlined in staff s report were stipulations a through c. Mr. Dubois stated that a couple of corrections needed to be made to that portion of the report, which was to include a ten-year period of time and stipulations a through d. Stipulation d requires parking lot landscape screening and street trees. Mr. Lund asked if the proposed parking lot would have lights and if it would be lit at night time. Mr. Dubois agreed, but felt the applicant could address the current lighting conditions. Mrs. Sorensen asked if this was the third renewal for the special use permit and if the previous renewal was for five years. Mr. Dubois stated that the first special use permit request was made in 2002 for a five-year period of time, and the next renewal was approved for a ten-year period of time at the end of period. They have another six years remaining on their current permit. However, with the impending sale of the properties, the applicant is seeking the indefinite timeframe. This proposal would be the third request. Mr. Flanagan asked if it would be better for the applicant to accept the ten-year period of time, because going with an indefinite period of time would require them to install islands, landscaping and other things. If the applicant accepts the ten-year period of time, he asked if the applicant could keep the property as is. Mr. Dubois stated that approval is subject to the parking lot screening with street trees, and the applicant can keep the lot as is. However, if this special use permit is approved for a longer time period, staff would like to request that the property be brought into conformance. The property was given a different standard, because it was considered to be temporary in Mr. Andy Schlagel, Alhambra, planning consultant, appeared on behalf of GK Development, stating the developer has been the owner of the property, as well as the owner of The Fountain Shopping Center property and LaPaloma Shopping Center property for the last 35 years. They held the proposed property for several years as an investment piece before development occurred, first with LaPaloma and then with the Fountains Shopping Center. He felt the developers had done a good job with these developments, particularly with the Fountains, where they have excellent tenants, and with the Cheesecake Factory and Whole Foods, they have national tenants that are well known across the country and well used. Therefore, they developed a need several years back for the expansion of the parking on the side of the Fountain Shopping Center, which complies with the code and was zoned and designed that way in the beginning. As the Fountain Center began to develop out in terms of its tenant use, additional restaurants were attracted to the site. The higher parking ratio was required for those restaurant uses, particularly with the Cheesecake Factory, which has a major seating area and very attractive high turnover ratio. Whole Foods also draws people in from long distances and has a higher need than the standard four spaces per 1,000 feet. The overall standard is slightly over four spaces per 1,000 feet, and the proposed lot allows a little room to accommodate those existing restaurants,

12 Page 12 and the potential for some additional restaurants that may show interest in this location. Mr. Schlagel stated the reason and driving factor the applicant is requesting an indefinite period of time for the special use permit is that the property owners have an interest in selling the property on the Fountain Shopping Center site. Those who have looked at the site for potential acquisition are troubled by the parking lot that would be part of the Fountain property sale. The property and parking lot is separated by Glenwood, but it would involve one sale with a temporary special use permit. The situation becomes complicated due to the financing and how other components would be combined. Also, the long-term arrangement becomes more complex. He referred to the aerial photograph, noting the parking area is part of the five-acre vacant ground owned by the developer that sits directly south of the rear service access area of LaPaloma where employee parking also occurs. On the east side is Glenwood and the parking lot for The Fountains. The Sweet Life nursing facility has recently opened on the site, which is oriented toward Lamar. On the west side where there is pavement, there are parking areas for the rear of the shopping center and parking areas on the south side that are unused, which was part of the movie theater operation. This operation had a higher parking ratio. This same situation has occurred with the parking on the south edge of their parcel. Mr. Schlagel explained that the proposed facility was built with proper setbacks, has lighting, and some landscaping on the inside. He agreed with the stipulation to provide landscaping along the Glenwood frontage in terms of street trees and any other necessary screening. He pointed out that they are requesting a longer time period than a ten-year timeframe. He also noted that a couple of the current parking spaces will be lost when development happens on the remaining 3.5-acre vacant ground as they tie the lots together. His understanding of the property is that the ownership will likely change, and the developer plans to leave the property in the hands of a property owner committed to having quality tenants. He agreed with the stipulations and offered to answer questions. Mr. Gadd asked if the parking lot was primarily for employee parking. Ms. Schlagel stated that much of that parking is employee parking, which currently shows close to 80 to 85 percent occupied. The employee parking is located by the Cheesecake Factory and the Whole Foods store. Since these two facilities are so busy, the western half of the Fountains parking lot fills up quickly. Users in that area will park and walk across. Mr. Gadd stated that he visited the Cheesecake Factory often, and was not aware that parking was there and available. Mr. Flanagan felt the applicant would be better off accepting the ten-year time limit, because there are two ways in which to move this permit forward. The ten-year period of time would include stipulations a through d, or the indefinite period of time that includes stipulations a through f, and would include the Glenwood trees. The indefinite period would be viewed as a permanent parking lot, and the islands would be required. He asked if the applicant was sure about their choice in requesting an indefinite time period for the special use permit. Mr. Schlagel understood the conditions of both choices for the time period, but he was hoping to receive the indefinite period of time due to the given location and the fact he would rather put the landscape money into Glenwood. Glenwood has school traffic and traffic coming to and from the property. Given the size, location, and what surrounds the property, he felt they would get more for their money, than rearranging the site. Mr. Flanagan

13 Page 13 understood that stipulation e would address Glenwood. Mr. Schlagel suggested dropping stipulation f, but accepted stipulation e, if it only addressed the landscaping for Glenwood. Mr. Flanagan understood the parking lot would likely be a permanent lot at the site, and he felt interior islands should be included with the landscaping. Mrs. Thacker opened the public hearing. With no comments to be made, she closed the hearing. Mr. Horner stated that if the Planning Commission chooses to approve the special use permit beyond ten years, they would need a finding of extreme hardship to justify going beyond ten years. Mr. Reitzes asked for clarification of whether the special use permit would run with the land, and continue to be in effect for years down the road if the property is sold and approved for ten years. Mr. Dubois agreed. Should the surrounding property develop, Mrs. Thacker asked if the parking could be incorporated into the development to eliminate the need for the permit. If the surrounding property is to be developed, Mr. Dubois stated the parking lot could remain indefinitely. The development is set for the three office buildings with surrounding parking, not to include the Fountains Shopping Center. The Fountains Shopping Center parking lot would only be counted toward the Fountains parking requirements. Although there is nothing to stop someone who happens to work at one of the office buildings from parking there, nothing is in place to control that issue. However, the parking ratio and counts would be separated. Mr. Gadd asked if there was any way of justifying an extreme hardship in this matter. Mrs. Karr stated that no standard was in place to define situations where staff has recommended an indefinite period of time. Those kinds of recommendations have only taken place when some kind of substantial building investment has been made, such as a hospital, hotel or retirement facility development. Mr. Dubois added that the ordinance allows an indefinite time period to be approved if an extreme hardship is shown to be worthy. He referred to the letter Mr. Schlagel submitted, stating it would serve as a request for a hardship, but staff did not see an existing hardship. However, that decision is for the Planning Commission and the City Council to make. Mr. Troester agreed with staff s recommendation for the ten-year time period. He was concerned about what the appearance would be in 10 to 15 years, especially if an indefinite time period was approved and the remainder of the development does not happen. Mr. Troester moved to recommend to Council approval of Special Use Permit No for a ten-year period of time, including stipulations a through d. Mrs. Sorensen seconded the motion. Mrs. Thacker asked for clarification of stipulations e and f. Mr. Dubois stated that stipulations e and f would only be included in the approval if that approval was going to be for an indefinite time period or something longer than ten years. Mr. Reitzes did not recall any similar instances addressing these issues, and felt a very unusual set of circumstances existed. He felt the strip center was very visible and gets a lot of use, but he was not sure it rises to the level of an extreme hardship. He supported the motion for a ten-year period of time.

14 Page 14 Mrs. Thacker noted that Mr. Schlagel had indicated a number of the parking spaces are used by employees. She asked what the expectation was for the development and where the employees of the Cheesecake Factory would be parking. She also asked where most of these employees would be expected to park if there was not sufficient parking. Mr. Dubois stated that would be a determination of the landlord and tenant in choosing where they would want their employees to park. Typically employees would park somewhere near the restaurant. The applicant has indicated they want to keep those spaces, which are adjacent to the tenant spaces, for customer use. They do ask some of their employees to park across the street. The motion made by Mr. Troester and seconded by Mrs. Sorensen to recommend to Council approval of Special Use Permit No for a ten-year period of time, including stipulations a through d, carried by a vote of 10 to 0. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL La Paloma Plaza Vicinity of 119th Street and Glenwood. Application made by Andrew Schlagel. (Continued) Mr. Dubois presented the revised preliminary plan for La Paloma Plaza, 119th Street and Glenwood, stating the applicant is requesting this item be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting, pending the City Council decision on the indefinite period of time requested with the corresponding Special Use Permit No He pointed out that this revised preliminary plan would only need to be effective should an indefinite timeframe be granted by the Council. The continuation would be to the October 8, 2012, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Troester moved to continue the revised preliminary plan for La Paloma Plaza, located at 119th Street and Glenwood, to the October 8, 2012, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Reitzes seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0. PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL Summerwood Estates Vicinity of the southwest corner of 159th Street and Quivira. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. (Continued) Mrs. Sorenson moved to continue the preliminary plan for Summerwood Estates, located in the southwest corner of 159th Street and Quivira, to the October 8, 2012, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Flanagan seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL West Park Center Vicinity of the northwest corner of 87th Street and Farley. Application made by Polsinelli Shughart PC. (Continued) Mr. Flanagan moved to continue the revised preliminary plan for West Park Center, northwest corner of 87th Street and Farley, to the October 8, 2012, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Troester seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0.

15 Page 15 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APRPOVAL Douglas L. Smith Middle Basin Wastewater Treatment Plant College Boulevard. Application made by Johnson County Wasterwater. (Approved) Mr. Dubois presented a revised preliminary plan requested by Johnson County Wastewater for the Douglas L. Smith Middle Basin Wastewater Treatment Plant, located at College Boulevard. The property is currently zoned R-1, Single Family District; however, a special use permit to allow the wastewater treatment plant has been in existence since He presented a vicinity map of the location where U.S. 69 and College Boulevard intersect. To the east is the Shannon Valley subdivision; north of the development is the Corporate Woods Office development; south of the development is an existing middle school and elementary school; and to the west across U.S. 69 Highway is the undeveloped Galleria site. The applicant is requesting a revised preliminary plan to allow modifications to the existing wastewater treatment plant. The applicant is proposing to expand the solids processing building located at the north central portion of the site. The expansion reduces the setback with the property to the north, thus triggering the need for a public hearing and a revised preliminary plan. A total of 62,346 square feet of building area will be located throughout the site, and a total of 360,109 square feet of other structures and treatment facilities, which include the ponds and tanks on site. This is an increase from the approved building area of 52,717 square feet and an increase in other structures of 339,264 square feet. The revised plan calls for 6,586 square feet of new building area and 19,153 square feet of other structures. The first phase of the new construction will include the 2,587 square foot addition located at the solids processing plant. This addition will allow for a new polymer room, electrical control room and a relocated exterior staircase. Other future expansions include a new phosphorous recovery building, a new pump station, and other treatment structures, which are all located in the center of the development. Staff is comfortable with the preliminary elevations as they are choosing to match the brick on the existing building in both color and design. He provided a picture of the expanded area. The exterior staircase is where the expansion will take place and be pushed further out to the north. Staff recommended approval of the revised preliminary plan for the Douglas L. Smith Middle Basin Wastewater Treatment Plant, subject to stipulations a through g. Ms. Susan Pekarek, Johnson County Wastewater, 4800 Nall, Mission, appeared as the applicant and stated they were attempting to gain City support for their Solids Dewatering Project. This is the third project in a series of projects. They have been to the Planning Commission in 2005 for a liquids expansion project and neutral removal, and in 2008 for the solids improvement and expansion project. The treatment plant is located with U.S. 69 Highway on the west and College Boulevard to the north. Their work is actually taking place in the solids processing building. There are other future facilities that have been included in previous development plans, which are anticipated facilities that may be needed to meet forthcoming regulations. There is also a future facility shown at their solids treatment building, which is a processing building that would be used for phosphorous recovery, if needed in the future.

16 Page 16 Mr. Mike Kalis, HDR Engineering, 3741 Northeast Troon Drive, Lee s Summit, Missouri, referred to the map, stating there will be building additions on two sides and a portion on the north side, which is the part that will trigger the setback. He pointed out the relocated stairwell, and another expansion on the south side for the electrical room. Paving work needs to take place on both sides, and a paving project is in progress at this time for the rest of the plant. After that construction is completed, the proposed construction can take place. He referred to an architectural floor plan, noting to the north is the bigger addition and the polymer facility. Polymer is a chemical used in processing the sludge. They are currently using an outdated method that involves manhandling sacks of polymer and loading them, which is not the safest, cost-effective and best way to handle polymer. A bulk mechanical hoisted system will replace this process, which is much more cost-effective, as well as safe and clean for the staff to handle. The electrical room is a means of gaining a separate and controlled environment that can be dryer and cooler in the summer, and a clean place for the electrical equipment, instrumentation, and control equipment to be stored. Mr. Kalis provided a view from the northeast, at the north side of the building where the stair tower is currently located that will be relocated. He referred to a view of the south side, stating that was the area for the additional electrical room. He also pointed out a view from the north at the polymer addition, and the relocated stair tower. Mrs. Thacker asked if the applicant was in agreement with stipulations a through g. Ms. Pekarek agreed. Mr. Lance referred to the two additions and asked if there would be a Phase I and Phase II work done. Ms. Pekarek stated they were expecting both additions to take place in the project currently requested. Mr. Lance asked when the construction would start. Ms. Pekarek stated they are currently taking bids on the project, and they would expect construction to begin early next year, January Mr. Lance asked about the length of time of the construction. Mr. Kalis stated the construction would take about a year and a half to complete. Mrs. Thacker opened the public hearing. With no comments to be made, she closed the hearing. Mr. Lund moved to recommend approval to the City Council of the Douglas L. Smith Middle Basin Wastewater Treatment Plant located at College Boulevard, including stipulations a through g. Mr. Troester seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL Oak Park Plaza Vicinity of the southeast corner of 97th Street and Quivira. Application made by Klover Architects, Inc. (Approved) Mr. Gooch presented a revised preliminary plan for Oak Park Plaza, located at the southeast corner of 97th Street and Quivira. The property is zoned CP-2, Planned General Business District. He presented the vicinity map, noting Oak Park Mall and Oak Park Plaza were zoned and planned together. The most recent plan for the Oak Park mall showed 1,934,933 square feet of gross floor area and 1,705,667 square feet of that floor area is leasable. The new proposed construction is for a new 75,120 square foot retail building (Building CC). With this new square footage, the actual