Planning Commission. Monday, October 21, :30 PM

Transcription

1 Planning Commission AGENDA Monday, October 21, :30 PM A. ROLL CALL B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. CONSENT ITEMS Items listed under the Consent Items have been distributed to each member of the Planning Commission for review and study. The items conform to City requirements and staff has discussed conditions of approval with the applicant who is in agreement. These items are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion of the Commission with no separate discussion. If separate discussion is requested on an item, from either the Planning Commission or from the public, that item may be removed from the Consent Items and discussed immediately following the Consent Items. 1. APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 7, SUP : REVIEW OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PREVIOUSLY ISSUED TO CROWN CASTLE (FORMERLY T-MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS) TO ALLOW A 90-FOOT MONOPOLE TOWER, IN THE AG (AGRICULTURAL) ZONING DISTRICT, LOCATED AT W. 53RD STREET. LAST REVIEW, OCTOBER SUP : REVIEW OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PREVIOUSLY ISSUED TO T-MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS TO ALLOW A 120-FOOT MONOPOLE TOWER, IN THE AG (AGRICULTURAL) ZONING DISTRICT, LOCATED AT W. 47TH STREET. LAST REVIEW, OCTOBER 2009.

2 Page 2 Planning Commission 10/21/2013 D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF S ; SIGN VARIANCE FOR KREMERS AND FORBES, DDS, FOR SIGN LOCATION, LOCATED AT 6852 SILVERHEEL STREET. REQUEST SUBMITTED BY KREMERS AND FORBES, DDS, OWNER. E. NEW BUSINESS 1. REVIEW OF AMENDMENTS TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. F. OTHER BUSINESS G. ADJOURNMENT

3

4

5 Page 1 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 CITY OF SHAWNEE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 7, :30 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Commissioner Bruce Bienhoff Commissioner Augie Bogina Commissioner Dennis Busby Commissioner Nathan Fiser Commissioner Wendy Hageman Commissioner Brandon Kenig Commissioner Stephanie Meyer Commissioner Audrey Navarro Commissioner James Schnefke Commissioner Jason Sheahan Commissioner Stephen Wise STAFF PRESENT Planning Director Paul Chaffee Deputy Planning Director Doug Allmon Planner Mark Zielsdorf Executive Assistant Angie Lind (Planning Commission Meeting Called to Order at 7:30 p.m.) CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Welcome to the October 7th, 2013 meeting of the Shawnee Planning Commission. If you would, please rise join us in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BOGINA Item A is Roll Call. B. ROLL CALL CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Sheahan. COMMISSIONER SHEAHAN: Present. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Fiser. COMMISSIONER FISER: Here. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Meyer.

6 Page 2 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 COMMISSIONER MEYER: Here. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Busby. COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Here. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bienhoff. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Here. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bogina is here. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Schnefke. COMMISSIONER SCHNEFKE: Here. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Hageman. COMMISSIONER HAGEMAN: Here. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Kenig. COMMISSIONER KENIG: Here. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Wise. COMMISSIONER WISE: Here. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Navarro. COMMISSIONER NAVARRO: Here. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Item C. are Consent Items. C. CONSENT AGENDA 1. APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 16, CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SP ; SITE PLAN FOR QUIK TRIP #164, FOR AN OUTDOOR SEASONAL DISPLAY, LOCATED AT 6637 NIEMAN ROAD. REQUEST SUBMITTED BY DEANNA POPP FOR QUIK TRIP CORPORATION, OWNER. 3. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SP ; SITE PLAN FOR QUIK TRIP #166, FOR AN OUTDOOR SEASONAL DISPLAY, LOCATED AT JOHNSON DRIVE. REQUEST SUBMITTED BY DEANNA POPP FOR QUIK TRIP CORPORATION, OWNER. 4. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SP ; SITE PLAN FOR QUIK TRIP #185, FOR AN OUTDOOR SEASONAL DISPLAY, LOCATED AT W. 75TH STREET. REQUEST SUBMITTED BY DEANNA POPP FOR QUIK TRIP CORPORATION, OWNER. 5. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SP ; SITE PLAN FOR QUIK TRIP #226, FOR AN OUTDOOR SEASONAL DISPLAY, LOCATED AT SHAWNEE MISSION PARKWAY. REQUEST SUBMITTED BY DEANNA POPP FOR QUIK TRIP CORPORATION, OWNER. 6. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF FP ; FINAL PLAT FOR SILVER BROOK WEST, 2ND PLAT, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF QUIVIRA ROAD AND 48TH TERRACE. REQUEST SUBMITTED BY RAINMAKER SURVEYING FOR MICHAEL SULLIVAN AND ROBERT AND PAM HARRIS, OWNERS.

7 Page 3 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SP ; SITE PLAN FOR SIZZLES BBQ FOR A PATIO COVER AND ROOF EXTENSION, LOCATED AT W. 75TH STREET. REQUEST SUBMITTED BY HD ENGINEERING, ON BEHALF OF OWNERS. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Items 1 through 7 are listed under the Consent Item Agenda. Unless there is a request to remove an item from the Consent Agenda, the items will be approved in one motion. Is there a request to remove an item from the Consent Agenda? If not, is there a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Commissioner Meyer. COMMISSIONER MEYER: I move for approval of the Consent Agenda. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Hageman. COMMISSIONER HAGEMAN: I second. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: A motion and second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes. That is Item 1 through 7; if you have an application for that, the Planning Commission has approved it. (Motion passes 11-0) CHAIRMAN BOGINA: That takes us to Item D, which is New Business. D. NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Item number 1 is: 1. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF Z ; REZONING FROM AG (AGRICULTURAL) TO R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE BLOCK OF MIDLAND DRIVE. REQUEST SUBMITTED BY MARLISA VANKEMSEKE, OWNER. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Mark. PLANNER ZIELSDORF: The property is located on the north side of the block of Midland Drive. The property is zoned AG (Agricultural); with a request to be rezoned from AG (Agricultural) to R-1 (Single Family Residential). The property is unplatted and vacant, and has remained in its current configuration since at least the mid 1970 s. The property is 0.67 acres in size, with 110 feet of frontage along Midland Drive. Given the lot width of approximately 110 feet and the required side yard setback requirements of the AG zoning district, which are a onehundred (100) feet of combined width, this parcel remains unbuildable without approval of the rezoning. Public sewer is not currently available to serve this property. However, the applicant is working with Johnson County Wastewater to get public sewer service extended to this property. The four surrounding properties to the north, south and west are all zoned AG. These properties are unplatted and developed with single family homes constructed between 1925 and These parcels range in size from just over 1/2 acre up to 2 acres. Traditional residential developments of Dixie Hills Subdivision, Midland Heights, Macek Estates, and Cherease subdivisions are all zoned R-1 and located around these five AG zoned parcels. The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan anticipates low density residential development for this area, which is defined as one (1) to five (5) dwelling units per acre. This plat provides a gross density of 1.5 dwelling units per acre. Thus the request is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. All bulk requirements are satisfied or will be satisfied with approval of the rezoning. The 0.67 acre tract has 110 feet of frontage along Midland Drive, thus exceeding the lot size and lot frontage requirements of the R-1 zoning district. The front building setback for this property will

8 Page 4 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 be required to be a minimum of 50 feet from the front property line to maintain consistency with the other residential properties along Midland Drive in this area. All other bulk requirements of the R-1 zoning district shall be met, including the combined side yards of no less than 20 percent of the lot frontage width, with no side yard less than seven feet, and a minimum rear yard of 30 feet. Access to this property will be provided by a newly constructed residential driveway from Midland Drive. Access is adequate for public safety purposes. Rezoning of the property should not have a detrimental effect upon the surrounding area. The character of this area will not change as a result of the rezoning. The rezoning will bring an existing non-conforming parcel in to compliance with the zoning code and allow for it to be developed in a residential manner similar to the surrounding properties. The addition of a residential driveway access onto Midland Drive will not adversely affect traffic patterns in the area. And, denial of the rezoning request would not appear to benefit the public. The rezoning will allow the existing parcel to be developed with a single family home, which is consistent with the development patterns in this area. As far as staff s recommendation, staff recommends approval of Z , rezoning from AG (Agricultural) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) for the property located in the block of Midland Drive, subject to the following three (3) conditions: 1. Publication of the rezoning ordinance prior to issuance of a building permit; 2. Provisions for a connection to public sewer shall be made in accordance with Johnson County Wastewater prior to the issuance of a building permit; and 3. Bulk requirements of the R-1 zoning district shall be met, except that the front yard setback shall be a minimum of 50 feet. PLANNER ZIELSDORF: That concludes staff s presentation. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Mark, if I could ask real quick before the applicant? PLANNER ZIELSDORF: Yes. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: comes up? We re approving this without a plat or a plan? PLANNER ZIELSDORF: That is correct. It is an existing lot and basically, this lot is in existence as it is zoned AG. The applicant s just wanting to transfer ownership of that property for somebody who desires to build a single family home on that. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, it s a hundred and ten feet (110) along Midland; what s the depth? PLANNER ZIELSDORF: It s a 110 feet by about 250/230 deep. I think that s about right. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, approximately 30,000 square feet? PLANNER ZIELSDORF: It is exactly 27,570 square feet. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay, thank you. PLANNER ZIELSDORF: 0.67 acres. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Is the applicant present? APPLICANT MARLISA VANKEMSEKE: Yes. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Could you come forward? Could you give us your name and address, please? MARLISA VANKEMSEKE: Marlisa VanKemseke 5110 Forest Avenue, Kansas City, KS CHAIRMAN BOGINA: All right, thank you. You read the staff report?

9 Page 5 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 MARLISA VANKEMSEKE: Yes sir. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Are you in agreement with the recommendations? MARLISA VANKEMSEKE: Yes sir. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Is there any MARLISA VANKEMSEKE: Would you like to know what the Johnson County Wastewater said? CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Pardon me? MARLISA VANKEMSEKE: Would you like to know what the Johnson County Wastewater said? They ve been in contact with me. PLANNER ZIELSDORF: For the sewer. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Sure, if you d like to, sure. MARLISA VANKEMSEKE: They said that they would allow it, low pressure for $30,000.00, depending on what the builder wants or $90, for gravity depending on what the person who buys the property wants to build. So, they will not give me a yes or no answer. They want all plans to be presented to them first and then they will let the city know what they decide. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Is there any questions for the applicant by the Commission? Thank you. As a public hearing, does anyone from the public wish to speak on this item? PUBLIC COMMENT: I do. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Yes ma am. PUBLIC COMMENT: Well when, when she... CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Could you give us your name and address please? PUBLIC COMMENT: Barbara Lewis W. 65 th Street. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. BARBARA LEWIS: Shawnee. When she was talking about sewer, I m wanting to know how that is going to work if she hooks on and gets the right to hook on to sewers, is she going to go under the street, is she going to dig everything up and mess our yards up or how is that going to be done? I know the house across the street that s a little rental house, when he wanted to hook up to sewers, he had to put some kind of a pump line down the property line itself to the ditch. He could not go over anybody s property, under anybody s property to do this. So I m wondering, what s, how hers is going to work. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Mark, could you? PLANNER ZIELSDORF: I honestly don t have a good answer for you on how that will work. That will obviously be up to Johnson County Wastewater. I do know that there is a sewer line, sewer connection up in this vicinity here as well as one down here and then there s sewer lines that run along the backs of these properties here. So my, I hate to even throw out a guess, but I know I believe this property here is serviced by public sewer UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Yes. PLANNER ZIELSDORF: that connects into this line here and I would assume that they would probably going to run out here, just out closer to Midland Drive and extend it as a low pressure up to this point.

10 Page 6 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Although we don t know what the contours are of the property and which way it s flowing, but it can be served with a sanitary sewer and you made that part of your recommendation, is that true? PLANNER ZIELSDORF: That is correct. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. PLANNER ZIELSDORF: Yup. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there anyone else that wishes to? Yes ma am, could you come back up? BARBARA LEWIS: Well, when he was pointing out where the sewer, where it d go down Midland, I know my house is right there on the corner and there s a great big sewer thing right smack in my front yard already that they come and put blinds in it to clean it out and this and that. That was one thing I was wondering about, if she was coming over to my land to dig it up to get to that great big sewer or thing. I know when, I know what she s talking about the water does, yes, has been out there and they come over to our house, in our yard, looking at that deal. Then they didn t open it. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And your property is north of BARBARA LEWIS: I m catty-corner across the street from her. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: You re across the street from her BARBARA LEWIS: I m not on Midland. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay. BARBARA LEWIS: I m on 65 th Street right on the curve. I don t have and then too I was wondering if any of the cost is going on any of the home owners around there or is she going to be footing the whole cost of hooking the sewer up and moving it around? Or however she s going to do it. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: If there s a benefit yes Paul, do you have something? PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: The applicant is responsible for the cost of extending the sewer lines to the property. There may be some opportunities if that line passes by other properties that aren t currently sewered, that they could hook in in the future then there s a reimbursement that goes in back to the person that extended the line. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. BARBARA LEWIS: Well, is there a what I m saying is will the water department/wastewater give her permission to go across people s property and tear it up? CHAIRMAN BOGINA: I m not an attorney, but if there s an easement that the wastewater has to enter the property and they give her the right to do the same by offering her to have sewers, than I believe she has that legal right. But, I don t know all the implications that the wastewater district sets up for that. BARBARA LEWIS: Well, that s why I was wondering that too because the gentleman that owns the other house they had to go down his easement to the pump clear down to the corner, he had to put his own building, they would not let him come under the street or anything into that sewer pipe, cause he told us they wouldn t.

11 Page 7 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Yes, and I believe the staff has just recommended to the Commission that as part of the approval, that she connect to a public sewer. How she does so, would be up to the wastewater district. BARBARA LEWIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak on this item? Then we would be in Commission discussion. So Mark, if I could go over that one more time. So it s approximately a 30,000 square foot PLANNER ZIELSDORF: 27,000. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: That is or 27,000 square foot tract that has access from PLANNER ZIELSDORF: It has direct access onto Midland Drive. Or will. It has direct access, it will, the property will be accessed with a residential driveway. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay. And we don t have a plat or anything like that to know how many sites will go on there. But you PLANNER ZIELSDORF: For no, this particular property is for a single home. It s a single lot for a single home. Basically, what you ve got here is you have an existing home on this property, an existing home on this property, an existing home on this property, an existing home on this property, these are all zoned AG. This is a vacant parcel that has been in this configuration since the mid 70 s (1970) if not earlier and has remained vacant basically because there hasn t been a desire to develop it plus, sewers hadn t been available to them. The applicant who owns this is now wanting to sell this for the development of a single family home that they would basically place right there. It would be in-line with the existing homes that are on Midland Drive in that area. So basically this is a rezoning for a single parcel for one single family home. And that is why there s not a plat associated with it, because it s an existing lot. They are not subdividing it in any manner. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: If there was an intention for one single family home, why did they not go to an RS zoning request? PLANNER ZIELSDORF: Well, basically we ve got R-1 completely surrounding it. The City would probably like to see all of those properties zoned R-1, it would just be consistent with the other property we have in the area and so staff just felt it was recommended that they look at the R-1 zoning district would be in conformance with the surrounding subdivisions. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Is there any other questions for the staff? Commissioner Schnefke. COMMISSIONER SCHNEFKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. So Mark, it seems like all the lots and homes on those lots surrounding this particular lot are all sewered and watered and so forth I mean PLANNER ZIELSDORF: All of these subdivisions are sewered. This little pocket of AG is all on septic with the exception of the triangular piece here that was recently added to the public sewer system and they were able to connect up to this point here, I believe with a gravity flow, or not a gravity flow but a pump low pressure system. The rest of these pieces have not been connected to public sewer. Public sewer lines run down here along, or up here along 65 th Street they come down Widmer to about this point right here and run then to the south and then there s a line that runs over here behind the properties or behind the homes that are on the south side of Midland Drive. So it s just a little pocket that s, like I said, the homes that were there that were built from 25 to 54 (1925 to 1954) public sewers weren t available at the time those were

12 Page 8 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 built and development has kind of filled in around them in the 70 s and mid 80 s (1970 s and mid 1980 s) and that little pocket was just kind of left as it was. COMMISSIONER SCHNEFKE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bienhoff. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yes, a question for Mark and just to clarify with the condition of the sewer connection that has nothing to do with the rezoning only with issuing a building permit, so if we approve this and the property is sold, or stays in the same ownership and nothing is built, then there s no need to hook it to the sewer, is that correct? PLANNER ZIELSDORF: That would be correct. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there any other questions of the staff? Thank you. Does the Commission have any other discussion on this item? If not, if there s a motion for Item number 1? Commissioner Schnefke. COMMISSIONER SCHNEFKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Z , the rezoning from AG (Agricultural) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) at the Block of Midland Drive. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Subject to staff conditions? COMMISSIONER SCHNEFKE: Yes, subject to staff conditions. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Kenig. COMMISSIONER SCHNEFKE: Recommendations, sorry. COMMISSIONER KENIG: Mr. Chairman, I second that motion for approval. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. A motion and second to approve Z All in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes, thank you. (Motion passes 11-0) CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Item number 2 is: 2. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF S ; SIGN VARIANCE FOR KREMERS AND FORBES, DDS, FOR SIGN LOCATION, LOCATED AT 6852 SILVERHEEL STREET. REQUEST SUBMITTED BY KREMERS AND FORBES, DDS, OWNER. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Doug. DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Kremer & Forbes, DDS, is locating within a tenant space located in the Shawnee Crossings medical office building at 6852 Silverheel. Kremer & Forbes, is occupying the tenant space on the western-most end of the building, and has exterior walls that face north, west, and south. The north wall of the tenant space is adjacent to a parking area, and the west wall of the tenant space is adjacent to K-7 Highway. The south wall of the tenant space is adjacent to a detention basin for the development. The sign ordinance allows for a business to display one wall sign on each wall that faces street frontage, off-street parking area or a two way drive aisle. The applicant has received a permit for a wall sign denoting the business name on the north side of the building that faces the parking area. The applicant is requesting a location variance to place a second wall sign on the south side of the

13 Page 9 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 building. This sign would be in lieu of the sign that would be allowed by right on the west façade that faces K-7 Highway. The applicant feels that due to the building s situation on the property, the south façade has greater visibility from northbound K-7 Highway traffic than the west façade. The already approved wall sign installed on the north façade has direct visibility from Southbound K-7 Highway traffic, making a wall sign on the west façade unnecessary. Staff has reviewed the variance proposal and feels the proposed location of the sign would pose no adverse effects. Additionally, a sign placed on the west wall would not be visible from northbound K-7 Highway traffic, and thus would not serve to direct clients to the business. In terms of a recommendation, in the report, staff has noted that any sign placed on the west side of the building would not be viewable from northbound K-7 Highway traffic, and placement of a sign on the south side of the building would have no adverse effects. In light of these factors related to the wall sign, staff recommends approval of S , a wall sign location variance for Kremer & Forbes, DDS, located at 6852 Silverheel, subject to the conditions listed below: 1. The wall sign shall be placed on the south elevation of the building in the location indicated on the submitted color rendering; 2. The applicant shall not be allowed any additional wall signage on their tenant facade; and 3. All requirements of Shawnee Municipal Code 5.64 shall be met. A sign permit shall be obtained from the Planning Department prior to installation of the sign. So, just to go over this, essentially they are allowed a sign on this façade, they have a permit for that, they would be allowed by right. They have a sign on this west façade. Rather than doing on this side, they are wanting to move it around, on their tenant space on that south wall of the building, kind of faces towards the highway. That completes our report. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Is the applicant present? DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I don t see the applicant here. So, yes COMMISSIONER BUSBY: I think at this point in time, we should table it to the next meeting and give them a chance to show up. Otherwise, denying it makes no sense, but just tabling it would give them a chance to show up. COMMISSIONER MEYER: I have a question. This sign is already up, isn t it? DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I don t believe so. COMMISSIONER MEYER: I drive by there every day and I think the sign s already up and there s one already on the, I guess it would be the west side as well. So, I m just curious, because it seems like now, I think they have signs on what would be the south, west and north side currently, from what I saw today. PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: You may want to ask the applicant; and if they did put it up, why they put it up without a permit. COMMISSIONER MEYER: That was going to be my question. DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I was not aware of that. To be quite honest with you. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there a motion to table this item? Commissioner Busby. (Inaudible) CHAIRMAN BOGINA: You re not sure COMMISSIONER BUSBY: I move we table this to the next meeting (October 21, 2013.) CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you, and commissioner Bienhoff.

14 Page 10 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: I second. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: A motion and second to table S , a sign variance for Kremers and Forbes, DDS. All in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion tables. (Motion to table to October 21, 2013, 11-0) CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Item number 3 is: 3. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SP ; SITE PLAN AND S ; SIGN LOCATION VARIANCE FOR A FREE STANDING EMERGENCY CARE FACILITY HCA MIDWEST, LOCATED AT SHAWNEE MISSION PARKWAY. REQUEST SUBMITTED BY GEORGE BUTLER ASSOCIATES, ON BEHALF OF HCA MIDWEST, OWNERS. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Doug. DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: The applicant requests site plan approval for construction of a 9,858 square foot free standing emergency care facility. The project is located on the former Yarbrough s restaurant site. That building will be demolished prior to new development of the site. The subject property is zoned CH-O (Commercial Highway Overlay). Properties to the southeast and west are also zoned CH-O. Property to the east, adjacent to the east of the rear parking lot, is located in the City of Merriam and contains a funeral home. Property to the north is zoned RGA (Residential Garden Apartments) and contains one single family home, two duplexes, and one eight-plex dwelling unit. The First State Bank of Kansas and Millennium Marketing multi-tenant building are located to the west, while the Calvert s Express auto repair is located to the southeast. Right-of-way for Shawnee Mission Parkway and the adjacent frontage road is located to the south. Two driveway approaches will access the site from the frontage road. The eastern-most driveway will serve as the primary entrance to the parking lot, while the western driveway will serve as the dispatch area exit for ambulances. The existing expanse of asphalt parking currently behind the Yarbrough s building is being reconfigured with a significant traffic island to better define drive aisles and the new parking layout. Once the project is complete, this area will contain substantially more green space. Based on the building square footage for a medical clinic, 66 parking spaces, including 3 ADA spaces, are required on the site. The applicant has provided 54 spaces, including 4 ADA spaces, on the site. This is 19 % less than required by strict interpretation of the code. Recent zoning code amendments give the Planning Commission the ability to reduce the required parking count by up to 20%. To receive the reduction, the applicant must demonstrate a rational calculation to validate the reduction. The applicant believes the facility is not a true medical clinic, as it focuses on emergency services, provides a total of ten beds, and will have no more than 7 employees on maximum shift. Based on the 2006 Guidelines for Health Care facilities, 17 spaces would be needed. At this time, staff is comfortable with the amount of parking provided on the site. Staff also notes there is ample room for a parking addition should problems be experienced in the future. The Planning Commission shall determine if the parking reduction is warranted. All parking stalls and drive aisle dimensions meet the minimum size requirements of the zoning ordinance. The parking lot shall be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. And if anyone has questions, this is a large green area here, parking setback is noted here, so there is the ability to do a double loaded area of parking in front, if it becomes a problem in the future. But our feeling was, if we can serve it adequately now without

15 Page 11 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 tearing out that green space so that s a benefit to everybody. The building will be constructed primarily of light brown brick, with earth-tone stone veneer along the base and to surround various window areas. Two darker brick accent bands will also run horizontally near the top of all walls. Areas of light maroon cement stucco will break up the façade on the south, east and west elevations to add color to the structure. The roof will be flat and is capped with gray metal coping. Downspouts and metal mandoors have been painted to match the adjacent wall. Exterior utility meters on the rear of the structure have been painted to match the adjacent wall, and the roof ladder is located inside the structure so it is not visible. The combination of glass, brick and native stone creates a building of quality design that will substantially upgrade the area. The use of brick and stone as a primary material, as well as cement stucco as a secondary material, conforms to building materials suggested by the Commercial Design Guidelines. The applicant has indicated wall signage on the south elevation in the form of a brown translucent letter panel to identify the business. Two additional red emergency notification signs are shown on the south elevation for directional purposes. A monument sign will be placed behind the right-of-way line adjacent to the frontage road. The applicant also requests a sign location variance to place a wall sign on the west elevation in lieu of placing a wall sign on the east elevation that faces adjacent parking and is allowed by sign code. The elevation shows the west wall sign at the extreme northwest corner of the building so that it is visible to the adjacent shopping center. The sign reads 24/7 Emergency Care. The applicant has indicated it is desirable to alert local residents who visit the adjacent shopping center on a regular basis that an emergency department is available in their community. The applicant has also indicated that placing the sign on the east elevation, as allowed code, is not necessary because vehicles on Shawnee Mission Parkway will be able to view their allowed monument sign from either direction. In reviewing the request, staff notes the request will actually reduce visual clutter along Shawnee Mission Parkway. The Planning Commission shall determine if the requested variance is warranted and reasonable. Landscaping will be significantly altered in conjunction with the project. A parking lot island will be added so that more than six percent of interior parking areas will be landscaped. As a result, the existing expanse of asphalt will be broken up, and trees will be planted so that eventually the majority of the parking lot will be shaded. Frontage and open space trees shown on the landscape plan meet minimum code requirements. The applicant is also proposing to plant evergreen shrubs, flowering shrubs and decorative grasses as foundation and entry accents. The existing Yarbrough s trash enclosure will be removed and replaced with a new brick enclosure located at the rear of the property. Mechanical equipment on the roof will be enclosed with a cement stucco screen wall colored brown to match brick found on the building. The applicant proposes to place fill material within portions of the site situated in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), including portions of the regulatory floodway. No grading or land disturbance of any area lower than the established Base Flood Elevation (BFE) is allowed without first obtaining a Floodplain Development Permit, which shall not be issued unless it is shown that the proposed development activities will create no rise in the BFE at any point along the creek, as demonstrate through the submission of an Engineering No-Rise Certification. In terms of a recommendation, the Planning Commission shall determine if the requested parking reduction is appropriate given the proposed use of the facility. The Planning Commission shall also determine whether or not the requested sign location variance is reasonable and warranted. If so, staff recommends approval of S and SP , sign location variance and site plan for construction of a 9,858 square foot emergency care facility to be located at Shawnee Mission Parkway, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. That completes staff s presentation. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you Doug. Is the applicant present?

16 Page 12 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 APPLICANT: Yes, that s me. I m Harland Russell with George Butler Associates, 9801 Renner Boulevard in Lenexa. We are so happy to be here. We ve been working on this about two years. Can I answer any questions you might have? CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Have you read the staff report? HARLAND RUSSELL: Absolutely sir. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Does your client agree with the recommendations? HARLAND RUSSELL: Yes we do. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Is there any questions for the applicant of the Commission? COMMISSIONER NAVARRO: I have a question about the parking. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER NAVARRO: The expansion area for future parking if there becomes a shortage. How many more parking spaces can you add in that area? HARLAND RUSSELL: I think we can fit the 8 to 10 that would be needed in that space. COMMISSIONER NAVARRO: Okay? HARLAND RUSSELL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: The requirement would be you re asking for a change in the requirements from what 12, right? HARLAND RUSSELL: I thought it was 10. I m sure. The other place that we have that we could look at is some of the islands up in the middle of the area we could extend the east most island up there and get another parking space or two out of there as well. We don t feel like we ll have any problems with that. We d also presented some information to the staff; HCA has completed at least one other of these facilities in Virginia, we have construction in Texas and another one almost finished in Florida. All working on the about 50 to 55 space count. Again, because of the way the facility functions, it s a place that say you re out playing soccer and your son sprained his ankle, you go just like an ER, they would do, they would see what s going on, kind of triage the situation and either dismiss you or send you to the hospital. So there s no long term type stays where you would expect visitors to be coming in and out or exceeding the 10 rooms. One of the 10 rooms, it s my understanding, is actually a psychiatric holding area, so it s not actually a treatment room itself, so again, we think that based on the facility itself the parking is way more than adequate. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And what would you expect that process to be if it was determined in the future that more parking was needed? HARLAND RUSSELL: I assume that at staff s request we would come in and prepare a plan of how we could add those parking spaces CHAIRMAN BOGINA: At only the staff s request? HARLAND RUSSELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay. HARLAND RUSSELL: I m assuming that s where the request would come from. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Well, we wouldn t have to have another discussion about it. It s a requirement and HARLAND RUSSELL: Oh absolutely.

17 Page 13 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And if it was needed and staff determined it was needed, then you re saying that the client would comply. HARLAND RUSSELL: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: All right. Any other questions of the applicant? Commissioner Kenig. COMMISSIONER KENIG: Mr. Chairman, I had a question. I was wondering if you could just confirm traffic flow from Shawnee Mission Parkway; the drop-off zone for emergencies. Will that traffic enter directly from Shawnee Mission Parkway, going straight into it? HARLAND RUSSELL: Actually, it will enter from the frontage road. I don t know if I could point on here maybe. There s a row of Jersey barriers right along here, it s a concrete wall basically, so you would have to come in, I think that entrance is about here, you would come in and then down the frontage road and enter the site right here. COMMISSIONER KENIG: Okay. And the traffic DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Or come in through the signal down at Mastin. HARLAND RUSSELL: Or come in, yeah I guess the bottom line is you have to come in from the frontage road. COMMISSIONER KENIG: And so that traffic, so the canopy area, that traffic could go directly to the drop-off zone, drop-off and then circle around and then park within the lot. Is that kind of HARLAND RUSSELL: Yeah, and actually the drive width in this area right here is set up such that a car can come in and come through here and make a drop-off and then come back around and enter the parking lot in an emergency situation and then this drive back here is actually one way and this would be for ambulance traffic only. Ambulances would enter through the same location and come around the building and off load emergency personnel here and then stage the ambulance here while they re in processing and doing some of the things they do like paperwork. COMMISSIONER KENIG: Okay, so that is going to be marked one-way? Cause those were my questions, so that initial drop-off area, if that was going to be both ways, if traffic could go either way or if that was going to be marked HARLAND RUSSELL: Under the canopy will be one-way. COMMISSIONER KENIG: Okay. HARLAND RUSSELL: Yeah. You won t be able to come up and head left under the canopy. You ll have to go right and then come back around. COMMISSIONER KENIG: Okay, thank you. HARLAND RUSSELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Busby. COMMISSIONER BUSBY: I presume then this is for non-life threatening injuries, emergencies? HARLAND RUSSELL: I think this ER is to be treated just like any other ER you would go to. Then they would have the ability to go to, if it was a situation where they needed to move you to their hospital they would then move you by ambulance. COMMISSIONER BUSBY: And the reason I asked that is because many of the families, there s so many families in Shawnee that if somebody went to the emergency room, there would be more than two cars show up. There s big families; so if there s four and six cars showing up then that kind of changes it. That s why I wondered about that. Thank you.

18 Page 14 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 HARLAND RUSSELL: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Could you give us your pitch on the sign variance? HARLAND RUSSELL: Yeah, actually I took a little time and came down early today because I ve been on the site a couple of times and had even called the architect when we first saw that sign on the location, I thought they meant to put it on the east side of the building and the reality is the east side, it wouldn t be visible from anywhere. On the west side, when you come in off of Goddard and turn onto the frontage road, about, I think you d have to get past the or into the parking lot of the Panera Bread and if you, today there is a white storage shed on the back of the building that s about the location of where the sign would be, we ll be a little bit higher, cause we re going to raise the site up about two and a half feet, you can actually see that white shed today back through there so I think the architects request or the request for the variance is there s a lot of things happening in and around that area with the shopping plaza, the bank, and just the ability to have that sign there and let people know that that s what that facility is. That s the, what the sign s all about. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: All right, thank you. And, it only states 24/7 Emergency Care? HARLAND RUSSELL: Yes. Actually, I think it s just 24/7 Emergency if I m or does it say Care too? DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I think it says yes, Emergency Care. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And it s in compliance with the 7% of the wall HARLAND RUSSELL: Correct, yes. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: area on which side? The west side or the east side? DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: It is on the west side. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: I mean, is it 7% of the wall area on the west side? DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: It would be, the way the code reads, it would be 7% of the east side, but there s essentially the same length and height building, so... CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Really. So, any other questions of the applicant? Thank you. HARLAND RUSSELL: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: We would be in Commission discussion. Commissioner Sheahan. COMMISSIONER SHEAHAN: Real quick, would there be a public session real quick or DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: This is not a public hearing item. COMMISSIONER SHEAHAN: Okay. (Inaudible) CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Typically for site plans that don t have changes, but we would take any comments if anyone has any comments if that s what you were suggesting. Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SCHNEFKE: I just have a comment. I think it s a good idea that that area be redeveloped, I m just curious based on the nature of the facility there if ambulances coming in and out, Shawnee Mission Parkway s busy, that frontage road tends to get complicated at some point, do you envision any traffic issues at all with what s being proposed? DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Our Engineering staff and Traffic staff, as he s said they ve been working on this for some time, they ve looked at this in detail and that has not been brought up as being a concern. I think the fact that the frontage road is there probably

19 Page 15 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 helps with that concern because you re not actually bogging down Shawnee Mission Parkway with traffic. COMMISSIONER SCHNEFKE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: If there s no further discussion, is there a motion on item SP ; or S ? And Doug, should they be separate motions or DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Separate motions would be a good idea since they are separate case numbers. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Navarro. COMMISSIONER NAVARO: Do we need to make a caveat that they need to, that they have to comply with the parking if there becomes an issue in the future? Is that something CHAIRMAN BOGINA: I believe we are waving that and so we could add that Doug, do you have a suggested DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: It s listed as a condition in the report that if difficulties or problems arise in the future, if we start experiencing problems with people parking on the frontage road at the staff level, or if even people start calling us and saying hey, I went to the emergency room and I couldn t find a place to park, then we ll contact the applicant or refer to that condition of approval and as he said, they d come back in with a revised site plan for you to review and hopefully approve. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: All right, thank you. Commissioner Kenig. COMMISSIONER KENIG: Mr. Chairman, I motion for approval of SP , site plan for a Free Standing Emergency Care Facility HCA Midwest at Shawnee Mission Parkway, subject to staff conditions. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there a second? Commissioner Sheahan? Commissioner Meyer, you jumped right in there. COMMISSIONER MEYER: I second. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: A motion and second to approve SP , a site plan for HCA Midwest, located at Shawnee Mission Parkway. All in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Nay. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Motion passes. (Motion passes 10-1) CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there a motion for S , a sign variance. Commissioner Bienhoff. CHAIRMAN BIENHOFF: Mr. Chairman, I would move for approval of S , the sign location variance for facility as noted in the staff report and subject to their conditions. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Sheahan. COMMISSIONER SHEAHAN: I second.

20 Page 16 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 CHAIRMAN BOGINA: A motion and second to approve S , a sign location variance for a free standing sign at HCA Midwest. All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Motion passes, thank you. (Motion passes 11-0) CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Item number 4 is: 4. CONSIDER PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS AND OFFICE BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Paul. PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Over the past few months, the Planning Commission has expressed an interest in revising the commercial building design standards regarding outside utility connection boxes and the commercial and office building design standards regarding access ladders on commercial office buildings. We ve prepared those revisions in the two sets of design standards that, we actually ran off new copies for you all, they were in your packet but it s just a front of a sheet and back of a sheet and you don t get the trifold effect. The other thing we did if you noted, there was a comment made regarding one of the buildings we showed on the Office Building Design Standard sheet, not that it s not a good building to have on the front cover, but we did switch it out and the lower building that you have is the Nazdar building in Perimeter Park and it has some pretty cool features on the front, so we thought it worthy of display. So staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the proposed revisions to the commercial building design standards and the office building design standards. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Is there any questions of the staff? Would that be in a form of a motion, Paul? PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: That would be in the form of a motion. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And is there a particular thing they would point to for approval? Just the PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Just the revised standards dated 9/27/2013 (September 27, 2013.) CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay. Commissioner Navarro. COMMISSIONER NAVARRO: I d like to make a motion to approve the proposed revisions to the Commercial Building Design Standards and Office Building Design Standards. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Wise. COMMISSIONER WISE: I ll second that motion. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: A motion and second, sorry I lost my agenda the proposed changes to the Commercial Building Design Standards and Office Building Design Standards. All in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed?

21 Page 17 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Motion passes, thank you. (Motion passes 11-0) E. OTHER BUSINESS CHAIRMAN BOGINA: We d be in Other Business, which is: 1. DISCUSSION ITEM - REVIEW OF AMENDMENTS TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Good evening. Planning staff and a lot of the other departments of the City have been doing a comprehensive, about year-long review of the City s Subdivision Regulations and as part of the on-going effort that one of our goals for this year is to take a look at our regulations that we have in different areas, policy statements, the effect planning and development as well as our brochures and our guidelines and our application forms and how-to lists. So, this evening what we thought we d do would be to begin a discussion on Subdivision Regulations. Wanted to let you see where we ve gone and what we re recommending you to do. We have a couple of polity issues that not necessarily staff isn t in agreement in with but just some items to get some more input from the Planning Commission. So, what our process would be this evening, is just have a discussion with the Planning Commission, let you know where we ve been and where we re going and then with comments that you make back to us this evening we ll make any revisions that you feel may be necessary and then at our next meeting bring them back for a little more thorough discussion and set the date for a public hearing which if we do that at our next meeting that would be the last meeting in November; amendments to the Subdivision Regulations are just like amendments to the City s Comprehensive Plan or a rezoning in a case. So real briefly, we ve had some Planning Commission workshops and we ve talked about what plats are and I think there s a preliminary plat and final plat and when we need a plat and when we don t need a plat. This evening we saw a situation where we didn t need a plat, it was a legal nonconforming lot of record, it was a vacant piece of ground that s been in existence since before 1974, so it basically was good to go however, over time it didn t meet lot requirements of today s zoning regulations, so we needed to rezone the property just to have it in conformance with zoning regulations so there was no need to do a plat or subdivide the ground because we weren t creating more lots than what was already there. So basically, Subdivision Regulations are allowed by state statute, cities can adopt and pass them. What it basically does is it creates a new legal description for a piece of property, designates the lot size, the width, the depth of the lot, the location of any utility easements that may cross the property and then in today s world, it prepares from that subdivision of that ground once the plat gets recorded the building permit can be issued for any of the lots on that portion of the subdivision. But basically, just as a reminder, the Planning Commission s responsibility, Planning Commission approves preliminary plats, Governing Body doesn t have anything to do with a preliminary plat; final plats, the Planning Commission approves the final plat and generally the only way we wouldn t do it is if it isn t in substantial compliance with something that had been out there that we hadn t seen before, in other words, if they came in with a final plat and it was going to be for duplexes and we had looked at the plat and it was for single-family, obviously we wouldn t be taking a look at approving that, they d have to go back through our process and then the Governing Body then accepts the dedications of rights-of-way, utility easements that are located on the plat and within those rights-of-ways are then where streets get built and are constructed. Briefly again, a preliminary plat is just an intent of a developer to develop a piece of property, the final plat is the formal document that formally creates the lots for which building permits can be issued. Submittal s, before it comes to the Planning Commission and in our staff report you ll note that the Fire Department, Development Services, Planning, Codes Administration, on some occasions the

22 Page 18 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 Police Department, we ve all done our reviews of the preliminary plats or final plats when they come in and meet the deadlines, what are, well part of that would require a series of meetings with the developer or an owner of property come in and then we visit and then let them know what we expect out of the plat and meet with their engineer and hopefully get everything in order. What we have is we call a yellow sheet, some developers call it the golden ticket that means you re substantially there, you re ready to file and what it does is over time we went to that procedure about 15 years ago we just have folks show up on our doorstep wanting to submit a preliminary plat and then we d spend 10 days going through and making all the corrections that are necessary so we meet ahead of time so when the applicant is ready for their submittal it s good to go we may find one or two things that need to be modified or reviewed but the interdepartmental team meets when it comes in and goes through what we expect to see. Preliminary plat, the preliminary storm drainage, preliminary street profiles, BMP s, stormwater retention/detention, we take a look at lot size requirements, we take a look to make sure that the utility easements are shown on the plat, the preliminary plat as you ll recall shows contour lines, it shows structures within 5200 feet of the surrounding area of the property that s being platted. So we ve gone through a pretty thorough review so when it s presented to you our Engineering Division knows that off the preliminary work the stormwater s going to work. They re going to be able to capture the stormwater that would be anticipated to run-off with the new development of the site with streets and patios and houses as opposed to being a vacant piece of ground. Then the same thing goes through with the final plat, we do our reviews and bring them on to you. Would a subdivision work if a plat was necessary, no building permit can be issued nor can the developer sell the ground until the plat s been recorded. Sometimes there are, in many cases there may be contracts that are issued on the properties. The developer installs all the public improvements with the exception of sidewalks and we ll have a little discussion about that, sort of how that works and so what happens sometimes with our procedures which are very common throughout the area so what we do in relation to sidewalks isn't an anomaly Lenexa, Overland Park, Olathe or Leawood do something differently but we did want to visit a little bit about it. Streets in subdivisions are initially constructed to meet current needs if a street be forecast at some point in time needing to be an arterial street we don t have the developer necessarily build the street to arterial standards, it may not pan out that we need that street that large which we do get the rights-of-way for it they ll build it probably to a collector standard is what Engineering Division will have so it can handle amounts of traffic and generally then those streets that we turn into major collectors or arterial streets or a project that comes in later and the City as a whole pays for the difference from the normal collector street to something that s larger and the rational for that is the streets become streets that are used by the public as a whole as opposed to just those in the subdivision. For example, Quivira at one time was a twolane street, now it s four-lanes; developers put in the initial two-lane and then when we expanded the street, we expanded it to a four-lane. There have been some situations where the City s gone in to spur development and has created a benefit districts and gone in and had it be a City project. One example is Johnson Drive; where it used to end at 435; Johnson Drive, the four-lane was put in as a benefit district street for a portion along with a waterline and that s the case take it out to K-7 Highway; another example was the late 80 s, we knew that the sewers were on their way, we wanted to encourage development to occur and so Monticello Road between Johnson Drive and 47 th Street was put in as a benefit district street and low and behold, as soon as the street got done, Frenchman s Creek was actually the first subdivision that came in and then right on its heels was Hillcrest Farms on the other side and sort of the rest went on with Monticello Road as we know. So we just real briefly, plats can come in, new subdivisions can come in all at one time with their final plat or they may come in in different segments. As a review for you again, a preliminary plat shows the general outline of the streets, generally where the lots are going to be, they show the lake area, the rights-of-way that we needed for Lackman Road, then if there was in this situation we have a landscape tract as well

23 Page 19 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 along Johnson Drive and along Lackman and then Granite Falls actually came in all at one time so we just have a plat of Granite Falls. In the case where there was a multiple one, this is Ridgestone Meadows out at 67 th Street and Woodland Drive up on top of the hill that gives you a good idea of how steep it falls off to the north of the property it shows the existing houses and subdivisions, the connector that was made off of Longview out of Oakleaf Acres and that have been platted back in the 80 s, it shows the stub for future development on to the west, the location of their detention area and then Ridgestone Meadows actually went in to two plats that the northern area came in first and then the southern area came in second and one of the reasons a developer may bring their plats in in multiple phases is they are required to do the public improvements that are included in the plat so with Ridgestone Meadows with the first plat those are the improvements the developer was required to put in and then when he came in on the second plat he was required to finish out the subdivision. Some subdivisions have three, four, five, six plats, that s where you may look at your legal description on your subdivision and it may be Ridgestone Meadows, Fifth Plat and it just indicates that it was the fifth one that was accomplished. One of the things to remind you also that we do, we didn t need to do it in Ridgestone Meadows place because the little stubs off the first plat were only one lot deep but if we had a situation where the first plat came to this area we d have the developer put in a temporary turn around, mainly for emergency and fire access and then we also at the end of the subdivision roads that are the temporary cul-de-sacs we have the developer put out the little sign that lets everyone know that it s the intent that the street is going to be carried on through at some point in the future. So with that, wanted to go through real quick what the changes are and we provided you with this evening with two sets of subdivision regulations. One still has red on it and what it is shows the strike-throughs of the new verbiage that may occur and in some situations you ll see something highlighted in yellow and it indicates for you that verbiage was previously in the Subdivision Regulations but we ve moved it to another location in total and we didn t take anything out. Then the second one because I know it becomes easier to read and glance through without strike-throughs and what s red and what s black, we just did a version with the strike-throughs taken out and the new verbiage all in if it makes it easier for you to kind of read and follow the next couple of weeks. So like I said, Planning staff completed a comprehensive review of Subdivision Regulations and we ve prepared a series of proposed amendments to them. Background: sections of Subdivision Regulations have been revised several times over the years. Last time there was a comprehensive change it was in The effort was a collaboration between the Planning Department, Development Services, Public Works and Fire Department. Staff reached out to local developers, surveyors and engineers to receive input and a review of the proposed amendments was made by Stephen Chinn with Stinson, Morrison and Hecker Law Firm and Stephen is a well-known land use lawyer in the Kansas City area. Regulatory authority: Kansas State Statute says cities can adopt Subdivision Regulations, there are regulations in Title 16 of the Shawnee Municipal Code (SMC) and they establish procedures and design the standards for the development of new subdivisions, there are other standards that are found in the SMC Design and Construction Manual, Title 11 of SMC relating to Stormwater Management and 2012 Fire Code and I bring that up because we ve tried to streamline our process for each of the departments that deals with these other various codes and in all of them were trying to relate something back to another and I ll let you know why we did that in a minute. The findings that we found were that staff, engineers and developers and land use lawyer found the existing regulations to be relatively reasonable and not providing an excess of regulation. Several items are to be noted an updated and the proposed amendments were classified in three categories. First of all were general amendments. Portions of the regulations were reorganized or consolidated to provide a greater ease in presenting the requirements in the text. And that s the areas where we said we ve still highlighted in yellow, we had some Design Standards that were often what we found to be kind of a weird place we really couldn t remember why we put them where we did so tried

24 Page 20 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 to get all the design requirements together and bring them up in one place whether it was for a preliminary plat all together or a final plat all together and then just general Design Standards all together. Outdated requirements were removed; probably the most infamous one we took a look we still required the little 5 ½ inch diskette to be submitted and so that s not in there anymore. Talk about electronic submissions so no matter what form technology takes, hopefully we re covered and don t have something sitting out there. We also had some regulations out there that just quite frankly didn t work in this world, they were probably unreasonable in there expectation and quite frankly from 1974 when they were initially adopted, even in 1974 they didn t work, but they were there. We had some advisory regulations in with the regulatory regulations and so the advisories are gone and done. We ve made references to the Shawnee Design Manual, Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, so we eliminate the duplication of reciting construction requirements in two locations so instead of the Subdivision Regulations saying how we re going to build our streets there going to be 27 feet wide; were going to have a 4 inch base; and we re going to have two 2 inch overlays; and this is how we re going to construct the curb; or a sidewalk is 4 foot wide piece of concrete that s 4 inches thick. We took those requirements out and put them just in and made reference to the Design and Construction Manual it works two ways and the Design and Construction Manual is updated as there s new technologies that are adopted that our Engineering Division accepts and are reasonable. We re seeing a lot of this with our BMP s or stormwater where instead of just using corrugated pipe, there re other forms of pipes now that can be used to help move stormwater, so we don t have to remember that if we amend the Design and Construction Manual that we also have to come back and amend the Subdivision Regulations, they re more applicable in that situation so we made that and we ve also made references to SMC Title 11 regarding the submittal requirements for Stormwater Management activities and those Stormwater Management activities which are the water quality issues that the EPA sort of gave us three or four years ago as well as retention and detention types of activity. We ve done some procedural amendments; we ve made some modifications regarding the timing for the issuance of public improvement permits. Public improvement permits now follow more in line with the plat, especially with the final plat we don t require while the final plat is ready for recording and they re about 90% complete, we ll now take the plat out to the county to have it weave through its process it may take three or four weeks, we can finish up the design and if they get the design work done and approved prior to the plat being recorded then they re basically up and ready to go. The way it works, is today we don t even take it out to the county until the designs are all finished and complete. That s one way we thought was good for the developers to keep projects moving and actually encourage them to move on. We re one of the few cities that do that. We also made some changes on timing. Preliminary plats are good for a year with the approved conditions and after that time they remain valid unless development regulations or design standards are adopted or amended that might affect the preliminary plat so we have the preliminary plat approved it could be good for, I guess, ever or whatever two, three years rather than setting a specific time limit rather than having someone come back through, basically if we ve made no changes to our design criteria there s no reason for that the plat isn t good any longer. One of the things that we had done when BMP s came in, in the BMP ordinance instead of subdivision regulations we put some timing issues in because we sort of caught developers behind the 8 ball. EPA says you do it effective of this date and you need to approve the regulations which we did so one of the things that we took a look at was if a subdivision has been platted where at least half the lots were platted or in subdivisions where at least half of the homes had been constructed we said you don t have to the BMP rules and regulations aren t going to apply for you; and one of the reasons we did that was the BMP s was going to take land away from development; they re maybe going to have to revise stormwater retention requirements, detention requirements, set more ground aside for BMP s; you know we have more of the rain garden type effect in backyards which have been sort of successful but if that s

25 Page 21 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 the route we go, we have to go out every year and make sure that folks still have the rain gardens in their backyard and they haven t mowed them over or they disappear and they re gone; so the whole procedure kind of sort of got messy for all of us. Preliminary plats that have some portions contained and final plats remain valid, unless the development regulations or design regulations that are adopted that affect the remaining portions of a final plat so just because we have the preliminary approved but now there s modifications, those modifications that you may need to make may only affect what hasn t been finaled that s been finaled is good to go. And then final plats approved but not yet recorded are valid for two years after the acceptance of the dedications; they may remain valid if development regulations and design standards don t change; a review option is available where if there are changes that are mandated and the developer, for whatever reason, doesn t want to make the changes that are required then he can come to the Planning Commission and say you know I don t want to have to comply with the water quality and standards and this is why I don t want to do it and then the Planning Commission can decide whether or not to extend it or something that s mandated is kind of hard to tell them otherwise but at least it gives them the opportunity if they have an issue. We have a new chapter outlining subdividers responsibility for public improvements that are required and reflects our current business practices. In other words, when Development Services requires streets to be put in, then basically most of it is there before building permits is issued and so if a house in a subdivision catches on fire, at least there s a street to get there, to get to it or when they run the sewer lines from the house there s a sewer line to hook into at the other end. A notation is made that no certificate of occupancy is granted until public improvements have been accepted as complete, that s more on the commercial end as opposed to the residential. The acceptance of the plat section has been replaced with a section titled Endorsement and Filing of Plat; it states who must sign the plats and the method of their recording. Basically, how we record plats are, we have the developer bring in the signature plats, we get all the signatures and take it out to the county to get it recorded, then the county calls us to let us know a plat s ready to record, we get the check from the developer, go out and record it; there may be a situation that there s a closing that s happening quickly and they got it through the county in an expedited manner and if we just aren t going to be able to get out there within a day or a day and a half, we ll call down to the Treasurer s office or Register of Deeds office and let them know that it s okay for them to record it as long as we get our copies up here. References to variances have been removed because there s no statutory authority to grant a variance. However, the Planning Commission s term of preliminary plat approval with both concurrences with the Governing Body when considering the final plat may allow an exception when there s special circumstances regarding the development of the site and the exception is not a requirement imposed by the Zoning Regulations. Here s kind of another one of those relationships between the Zoning Regulations and Subdivision Regulations and through the subdivision you can t give a variance for zoning and that s why Planning gets involved with reviewing of the plat; does it have the required lot frontage; does it have the required lot area for the zoning district which we re taking a look at for that plat. We have some design amendments. The City Engineer can determine when temporary improvements will be allowed; sometimes that s along a street like Claire Road; it may not be to our benefit given the topography on the west side if the east side s being developed to fully improve just half of it to the east side so the City Engineer and in your staff report you ll see where he said to do such and such circumstances, we re only going to be required to do temporary improvements because it s an overlay widening the road to a certain degree rather than installing a stormwater system that may need to get to the other side of the road but there s nothing on the other side of the road to collect it. That would be an example. And as provided in the 2012 Fire Code, special approval may be granted by the Fire Official to allow a cul-de-sac length of more than 750 feet or more than 30 residential units on a permanent cul-de-sac; that s a little quirk in the Fire Code that we ve adopted. Lots of non-residential subdivisions will no longer be required to

26 Page 22 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 have direct frontage to a street provided there s permanent access easements are shown on the plat; perpetual access maintenance agreements will be filed and recorded with the plat. I know some of you are familiar with and have been around a while, a lot of times we ve had the commercial plats come in where we, the way our regulations were today, you have to condo it where all the parking lots and the drive aisles are common for everybody and the business actually only owns their building. Overland Park and Lenexa both have gone to this type of a situation so what would happen, if you remember the Shawnee Plaza plat, we had some funny lot lines from the buildings clearing back that extended up Midland Drive and they had to make sure they had their 100 feet of street frontage along there so you have some things that look a little crazy and why do we do it, so now they could have their own lots but we d have the access easements that are recorded that actually provide them access back up to Midland Drive. In addition to drainage, utility, sanitary sewer and landscape easements, stormwater management easements shall also be noted on the plat that s been the case for about the last three years; we just hadn t spelled it out. Tree preservation easements outside of the city right-of-way or enforced by the property owner so the subdivision there s been confusion, you know, along the way so that s been called out some times because so and so s been cutting down trees in the tree preservation easement and so we go out and take a look and let them know that if you want to enforce it, your subdivision is going to have to do that with their through the deed restrictions that they have on file that if it s in the right-of-way we can still have some control on it but when it s private property, just to make it clear, the City s not the enforcer. And then there are a couple of other policy issues that we wanted to have a little discussion with the Planning Commission to see if it s something you re interested in us pursuing or something that you re not necessarily interested in. One is minimum house size. Overland Park provides in their regulations regarding the minimum size of a home in a subdivision; currently, we don t have those requirements. We may say that this is what the developer intends to do, but there s nothing there for us to enforce it even if we make it a condition on it, we don t have the ability to do that. So what happens in Overland Park is when a subdivision receives preliminary plat approval the Planning Commission assigns a classification to the subdivision, I m going to show you how that works in just a minute. The classification in Overland Park is based on the total livable floor area of the home. And in Overland Park, the calculation is made using the gross floor area minus garages and basement area. Classifications are separated by 200 square foot increments where the minimum house size allowed by code and if Shawnee were to adopt a similar regulation, this is how it would look. And you re a number 1 subdivision if you have 1,100 square feet; 2 1,200; you re a number 3 if you have 14 (1,400) and so on and so on in increments of 200 (square feet); you know, the qualifiers that we use could be different than those used in Overland Park, the definition could be the livable floor area includes a finished floor area in the basement at the time of construction to coincide with the building permitting and estimated total value of construction. As you re all aware, when Codes folks issue a building permit that it may be for the value and the permit is issued for 2,200 square feet but that is for, that includes everything that is finished so a situation would be if you have a house and it s from ground level up its 1,500 square feet and you re finishing off 700 square feet in the basement area, our permits issued for 2,200 square feet, the same as if you had a house, and that would not be with a walk-out; the same would be with a house that had a walk-out, would be the 1,500 square feet plus the 700 in the area and it just happens to walk-out so the livable area both is basically be the same when you walk-out and one you don t walk-out; or it could be segregated by a type of home constructed, we could look at something where we could do it if it was a ranch; this is your qualifier if you re a story and a half; this is a qualifier if you have a walk-out, if you don t have a walk-out. I mean that s something that we could do if you were interested in pursuing that and then that way when the preliminary plat comes in we assign it, you re a number 5 subdivision. In Overland Park, what happens is they don t let it vary more than two numbers so if I m the first subdivision out there and I m a number 5, then I know the

27 Page 23 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 subdivisions around me can be a 3, 4, 5, 6 or a 7. The problem Overland Park is starting to find, is especially out in the southern part, that they have all these subdivisions that are 9 s, they ve got some newer developers who are looking at doing some pretty cool homes, but instead of being 2,200 square feet, they re 1,800 square feet and so that got to be their quandary so now what do we do? We ve kind of got ourselves stuck. So they let the Planning Commission decide whether or not it s appropriate to go more than the two at the hearings that they have, there s a difference of opinion and as to whether or not that should occur or not. The other item that we wanted to talk a little bit about, are sidewalks. And you all know that sidewalks in residential neighborhoods are required to be constructed on one side of the street. Location of the sidewalks noted on the plat so when the preliminary plat comes in, and then the final plat comes in, there s that heavy line that is parallel to one side of the street, generally it s on the side of the street that s nearest to an elementary school that the students are going to attend that s approved. So, if you got your plat approved and at the time your children are going to Clear Creek Elementary out in the De Soto School District and your subdivision was north of the school, your sidewalks would be on the south side of the street or the west side, then when redistricting occurs, all of a sudden you re in the Riverview Subdivision and if it were a new plat, your sidewalks would ve been on the north side or the west. So, rather than saying you have to come back in if your school district changes, just the important thing is the sidewalks are there at the time and we try and put them in on one side of the road or another. There may be other exceptions that when a development may be adjacent to an older subdivision back before we took a look at trying to make it easier for kids to go to school and if it was on the opposite side rather than all of a sudden in a new subdivision having the sidewalk flip to the other side of the street, we ll just go ahead and carry it on the side it was on. Currently, sidewalks are installed by the home builder when the lot is developed. The developer doesn t put them in, there s some reasons a little bit I ll let you know why we do that, but as a result it may be a few or several years before a sidewalk along a residential street may be completed. I pulled up one for you real quick just to kind of show you what I m talking about. I also have a picture, but this is out at the Estates of Highland Ridge and you ll notice where we ll have the homes that were built we have the sidewalk has been installed and then we have lots where there s no homes and then we have the sidewalk installed and then an empty lot and then a sidewalk, an empty lot, a sidewalk. These houses were constructed 2005/2006. Some of these were 2008/2009 so our question is how long do we wait for the sidewalk to be usable by everyone now that you have folks residents living out there and they want to walk on the sidewalk and they walk here, go out in the street, and then come back in and go back out. So at what point in time is it long enough to try and do something or is it just really not an issue and you hope that at some point in the future the subdivision would be built out as it was intended to be built. So an alternative would be to have the developer install the sidewalks. We talked about that as a staff along with the stormwater, with the streets and the stormwater collection system. The downside to this alternative is when you have construction equipment to construct the house it breaks the sidewalk, it s going to need to be replaced so you re rebuilding the sidewalk again and then also a sidewalk in the future location of where the driveway s going to be also removed out so there may be some double duty in what you re paying. The first alternative was just to keep like we do today another alternative could be to require the developer to establish a benefit district prior to issuance of the first building permit for a lot contained in a specific plat. So if it comes in the first plat, the developer would also record a request to establish a benefit district and it would be for the construction of sidewalks not yet developed in a specific period of time and then have the city include the remaining sidewalks and annual sidewalk construction contract and assess the cost of the sidewalks back to the owner so if we went that route one of the things the developer would turn in to us to also record with the plat and any covenant they may have we establish the benefit district and then say in 3 years whatever is not built in the section in the city will have in annual program that would most likely be dumped into our regular maintenance sidewalk

28 Page 24 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 maintenance program go and build the streets and then those assessments go back to the property owner the reason that we would need to do it up front is that the developer is the one who owns all the property up front and set up the benefit district we just want say the benefit district until the sidewalks were constructed so if you were let's say for ease that this is the second plat and these homes were built within 3 years or something the benefit district area created Benny so I could be accepted the benefit district they wouldn't be in so the only lots that would be assessed the cost of the sidewalks for to finish it out now obviously anyone on the side of the street weather is no sidewalk they're not going to be included in the benefit district so that was one of our thoughts and we do get some questions you know when are you going to finish the sidewalk I think a lot of it when you explain to you the resident that the developers doesn't do it it's windy your house constructed and before your home with constructed there was no sidewalk in front of your house and that sort of house gotten place and then people understand that sometimes when a subdivision drags out probably isn't the best time to talk about it. With the recession, a lot of issues that the subdivisions have had that probably would have been rolling along but you just never know. The other advantages that having the developer do the benefit district the plastic round the developer me not only this lot anymore but because the benefit district that property owner is going to be in the office district to do the sidewalk. Kind of a not so quick... So are there any comments on any of the regulations or any comments on the last 2 policy issues you'd like us to... CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Dennis. COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Paul, how much trouble are you having with the sidewalk issue? Neither proposal sounds exciting to me. But I don't know how much problems you're having right now. PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: You know, we get calls off and on I think a lot of times when we discuss with residents what the situation is they understand I think it's been more noticeable probably in the last 3 or 4 years because in 2009, 10, and 11 instead of building 500 homes and a developer would go through a subdivision relatively quickly and where we're issuing 50 permits and then you had some that went into foreclosure where there was absolutely no activity going on until the banks are now just starting to crank out some of those subdivisions that are in pretty good shape. There's still some out there where its just literally a mess where some of the tactics the developers took to try and make it more difficult for the foreclosing institute to sort of sort some things out. We have some subdivisions that are probably 15 years old that there still may be an empty lot or two it just depends on which side of the street they are on and if the sidewalks are not there or not. You know it may be something that we want if you are interested to put on the back burner see how developments come through this time and then take a look in Review at it in a couple years go along we will let you know that in 2012 was a pretty good I think decent year being the new normal for building permits being issued back around has been even better for us or about right now where we are or where we were for all of 2012 so I think there are some subdivisions that are starting to come out of it. What you are not seeing, which with this whole sidewalk issue is probably a positive that subdivisions that have attracting new owners and the foreclosure is complete the lights that were already in place what I did for the street and the storm sewers have been approved your scene building permits issued on that. We are still not seeing a lot of the new subdivision work or extension of any streets in existing subdivisions. Pretty much what's going on now is I'm not going to say a mop up, but are lots available that you can come in and that's why they're selling regardless of where they are. One exception would be up in Grey Oaks. They have done their sixth plat and 7th plat where they've done new streets and everything but Grey Oaks was never foreclosed upon or never had bankruptcy the developer with solvent enough that he could make it through the recession and just sort of kept on moving

29 Page 25 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 and it shows. You take a look at the number of building permits in those years and Grey Oaks is right up there, if not the top performer year after year even through the recession. The numbers weren t necessarily as high, it may not have been the same number of buyers but they still hobbled along. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Paul, could you tell us how long the city requires street lighting and would that differ from sidewalks? PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Street lighting we require to be put in with the streets and the storms. (Inaudible) CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there a way, could the developer as another alternative, could the developer bond the work or the sidewalk funds that are need for future PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: If you would like us to pursue that route we can. I know Overland Park has sort of a funky escrow fund where they take it up front but Overland Park then doesn t go in and they make the escrow be good for 20 years before they go in and do something. And it may be for street too not only sidewalks. That s a long time to have something sitting out there, but that could be an alternative we could certainly take a look at. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And I know Overland Park has had their minimum square footage standards for some time but they re probably the only city around that has that now. Shawnee used to years ago. PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: A long, long, time ago. (Inaudible) CHAIRMAN BOGINA: I m older than you think I am. PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Prior to 74 (1974) we had some of those requirements. The other city who has something kind of, that was interesting is, Leawood. And Leawood, instead of having a minimum house size, they have a maximum house size. And one of the reasons for that is, we called because it was opposite of what you d think, or expected to happen but what was going on they passed a regulation that Prairie village ended up not doing where a property owner would go in and buy a small ranch home on a large lot in Leawood and then tear the ranch house down and build a large, large, home on the lot or maybe bought two ranch houses and built one large home and Leawood just thought it was not appropriate. They wanted to keep that image of when JC Nichols developed over in Leawood and so they actually have a maximum house size in the older neighborhoods. Lenexa off and on has had the minimum house requirements that has gone on but There s one way, you know, if there is a concern as to whether the minimum house size is going to be that s fine, usually it s currently done through some deed restrictions and it s up to the property owners to enforce those deed restrictions. Like I said, the way we calculate our permits issued building permits is total livable area at the time that they take out the building permit and that s how we run our calculation. If you look at the appraisers office, he will take, he ll split it out and have the area above ground and then the area below ground but it s all figured in to the calculation itself, it s not that it s ever excluded at all so it will show up. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay. And, you would recommend that we review the information and that it will on the agenda a different night? PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: What I d like you to do is if there s any of these options you want us to pursue, certainly the one about the bonding and escrowing, I ll have our bond attorney take a look at that issue and come back at the next meeting for us, but if there s

30 Page 26 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 anything else that you want us to pursue further, we will. We will try and drop them into figure out where the best place is to drop that information in the Subdivision Regulations. Obviously we d do something about sidewalk. That s where we ll talk about the construction of sidewalks and who does what when. That will be there then CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Sheahan. COMMISSIONER SHEAHAN: In regards to the sidewalk issue, if at all possible to, if we could see a cost analysis of how that affects the property cost, where you put them in, tear them out, put them back in again? And that way we can have an idea of what it s going to cost the developer or the builder or the property owner. Cause eventually all those costs get passed along. It s just going to push up the price, so having an idea of what those costs would be PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Yeah and Commissioner Sheahan you re exactly right. I think if the sidewalks are there and the sidewalk gets broken, it has to be replaced and my guess is that the property owner ultimately is going to bear that additional cost rather than, I don t think the developer or the home builder is just going to eat it and let it go by. There may be some disagreements as to why you had to break, why your equipment broke the sidewalk, but I will be glad to get you what those costs are and let you know. (Inaudible) COMMISSIONER WISE: you re just paying for that much more concrete to be poured if it gets torn up. One thing I will say that I think is good too though is that you are referencing things in one place rather than two (Inaudible) COMMISSIONER WISE: duplicate it you re going to get caught somewhere that you did it wrong, something didn t get caught, so I think that s good. PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: And that was sort of the process when we did our Zoning Regulations a couple of years ago in those types of situations we just made a conscience decision in house that we re going to use the Zoning Regulations, you know in this situation so then other codes reference the Zoning Regulations or we re going to reference other sources in zoning regs and that seems to work out fairly well and I think in a lot of cases it, that is forces the developer to look at the other document also which they may find some things or remind them of some things that they need to know too that they ve forgotten. Any comments on the house size? Tweaking or something to COMMISSIONER KENIG: I m a little curious as to Leawood, if they have a maximum house size requirement, how does that factor in for people who are doing or building additions on to their homes like sunrooms or other types of additions? PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Yeah, I think it s related to, what I can figure out, it s related to new construction within a certain area of the community COMMISSIONER KENIG: Okay. PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: And they, whether they use I-435, you know that s sort of where Leawood made the change from a lot of the older ranch style homes and then when Leawood South came in in the mid to late 70 s (1970 s) those tended to be some bigger houses at that point in time. Sort of the way it reads and the logic is for the situations where it was a rebuild/teardown in an existing, that had a whole different style of home then what was being constructed. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So is there any enthusiasm or study for the minimum lot sizes? I mean minimum home sizes? Jason.

31 Page 27 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 COMMISSIONER SHEAHAN: So where, I m just curious, what s driving the conversation there; the minimum house size square footage? Where s the input coming from? Is it city, public, builders, developers or PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: It was from the city. COMMISSIONER SHEAHAN: Could you go into more detail there? PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: We have a Council person who suggested that maybe we take a look at doing that, whether it was appropriate or not, so we thought this was the appropriate forum. You all deal with it all the time, every day and do we see some issues or do we not? I think one of our goals certainly throughout the community is to provide a diversity in our housing types and housing styles regardless of the location of the community that you live in and I sort of eluded to some of the issues Overland Park faced was then, well I live in a number 9 subdivision and I don t want even a number 7 to be next to me, you know, that kind of thing that goes on and we ve seen it go on here and that was one of the reasons back in the early 90 s (1990) when we did some amendments to our Zoning Regulations we used to have R80, the R40, the R10, and the R09, R15, R25 and the number after the R was the minimum lot size and we just combined some of them. The R40 and the R80 became Residential Estates; R15 and R25 became Residential Suburban; and then the R10 and R09, I went through battles even predates Augie on the Planning Commission, where it was going to be the end of the world if there was an R09 subdivision next to an R10 subdivision even though the lot width was basically the same there was a 1,000 more square feet and that subdivision couldn t nearly be as good as our subdivision well, some of them got built and I think generally over time the public realized that there wasn t, you couldn t even notice the difference because it was mostly in a backyard was where it was happening and COMMISSIONER NAVARRO: I personally think it over complicates things to create more designations because ultimately at the end of the day the public is going to come in here and say this is what we wanted when we bought our house, we didn t want these kinds of variations next door to us and it, I really think that it limits our options in the future whereas opposed to letting people come in and present their plans then making a judgment on what all the plans are suitable for development. COMMISSIONER SHEAHAN: When, just out of curiosity, when was the timeline that s proposed? PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Probably April/May. COMMISSIONER SHEAHAN: So prior to PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Prior to any public hearings that have recently occurred. COMMISSIONER SCHNEFKE: Paul does this tie in to the debate that we had a couple of, a month or so ago on PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: This is what I tried to... COMMISSIONER SCHNEFKE: subdivision. PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE:...let Jason know that we were in the midst of looking at this prior to anything that s come about in the last 6 months. This has been a year-long effort and we know what some things are out there that other COMMISSIONER SCHNEFKE: So if we had had something like this in place, would that have made it more complicated, or less, or what s... PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Well it depended on

32 Page 28 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 COMMISSIONER SCHNEFKE: Because that was their big issue right, is they were getting smaller houses next to a bigger house in the subdivision. PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: It could have, though their deed restrictions, it was there already. COMMISSIONER SCHNEFKE: Yeah, but the bankruptcy PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: In the deed restrictions COMMISSIONER SCHNEFKE: Made that null and void didn t it? PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: The developer COMMISSIONER SCHNEFKE: Or was that the covenants? PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: The developer after, and I hate to keep I want to be real careful COMMISSIONER SCHNEFKE: What? Did I violate some kind of Sunshine Law here? PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: In a situation where you have a bankrupt subdivision, there are times that a developer comes in after the bankruptcy and foreclosure is cleared and makes changes and amendments to his subdivision regulations which may, or deed restrictions, which may or may not occur and the situation that we re talking that we re sort of familiar with, all the developer did was took advantage of what had previously been in the deed restrictions, he didn t do anything different, but took a little step further and said okay, I ve exercised the right that the previous owner had done, I ve acknowledged that, I m exercising the right and as a matter of fact, I m saying that I ve acknowledged the right and so I m not going to do it again. Deed Restrictions are imposed by the developer and not enforced by the COMMISSIONER NAVARRO: Yeah, and can t you keep those kinds of issues in the realm of Deed Restrictions? When you buy a home, if you want to live in a neighborhood where all the houses are 5,000 square feet, you can move to a neighborhood that has Deed Restrictions or Covenants that the developer has put in place. In my personal opinion, the more the city gets involved in enforcing those kinds of Covenants and Restrictions, the more complicated the process for plan submission becomes. PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: And one of the things our attorneys told us a few years ago was don t be making this a condition of zoning or a subdivision because you don t have the authority to do that in a traditional subdivision. In a Planned Unit Development you still may be able to but traditional zoning you don t have the right to do that so that s why a couple years ago for those of you who were on the Planning Commission noticed that when we have rezoning s for plats or something that comes through, the rezoning is only subject to publication of approval of the Governing Body and a publication in the newspaper. We may, in a staff report, make mention that this is what the developer has said his intent is going to be, that developer may go away and the land s still zoned Residential Estates, or something like that. The zoning stays and the subdivision may change over time. We there? CHAIRMAN BOGINA Okay, is that it? Thank you, Paul. PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Okay, so what I m going to bring back is we re going to investigate a little more on the sidewalks about requiring a developer, either setting up an escrow fund or performance bonds for somewhat the terms are for those may be over a certain period of time. And if nothing else, I think it will, if we do decide to go that route, I think it will encourage developers to actively finish their subdivisions and build things out rather than them dragging on, and I think the developers, that s their ultimate goal too. They ve got a loan on the property, they need to pay off, so ultimately they want to move through quickly and get that

33 Page 29 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 taken care of. CHAIRMAN BOGINA Thank you. Does the Commission have any other business? Jason. Commissioner Sheahan. COMMISSIONER SHEAHAN: Real quickly, I know we ve been here a long time, but I just wanted to make a follow up comment from our previous meeting, we ve kind of had a conversation in regards to CIP and specifically to portions of that that related to the development near Erfurt Park and I know one of the comments that was made in the minutes was hopefully they take notice on how much time we spent on this conversation. So, I attended the City Council Committee meeting the following evening where that point the CIP was presented in the Committee format and Paul I m going to have you correct anything I misspeak here on, but we had our meeting Monday night, Tuesday night they look at CIP, the minutes of this meeting have not been published, they have a presentation done by staff and it was not Planning and Zoning, or I m sorry, not the department staff, I believe city Administrator did it and they, and it was a blurb. A 30 second, oh by the way they mentioned this again, so just as a going forward in future years, I think if we want to have an effect on how CIP is presented going forward from this body it needs to be in print and it needs to be in that CIP report prior to us passing it. So, would that be a fair statement Paul? PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Yes, but the thing you need to remember, the documents that are at the Committee meeting have been published the Wednesday before. So I m glad you brought it up so the Planning Commissioners know Tuesday morning I fired off the to everyone that this is what the Planning Commission decided instead of it sort of being forgotten because it hadn t been two weeks or whatever. You know, one of the things that we as a staff can take a look at is maybe lengthening that period of time between when the Planning Commission makes our recommendation and that way it goes on for the Governing Body to review it. That may be the best way for us to do it to assure that more information gets out there. CHAIRMAN BOGINA Thank you. Doug, you have a report? DEPUTY DIRECTOR ALLMON: I didn t, but I talked to Wendy (Commissioner Hageman) before the meeting and let her know that the stone and tile at the SCI building is up. CHAIRMAN BOGINA Is it? And have you gone by and looked? Is it DEPUTY DIRECTOR ALLMON: I CHAIRMAN BOGINA Is it the building inspector who does that stuff or? DEPUTY DIRECTOR ALLMON: That would be me. (Inaudible) CHAIRMAN BOGINA Are they on a Temporary Occupancy Permit or are they on a Permanent? DEPUTY DIRECTOR ALLMON: They are on an extended Temporary, I believe now. CHAIRMAN BOGINA So somebody has to go by now and see that he s or is there other issues or only issue is temporary? DEPUTY DIRECTOR ALLMON: I believe that was the only issue. CHAIRMAN BOGINA Okay. And Paul, you think there s a way the inspection department could not waive, not give temporary permits, like on things that the Planning Commission requires? PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: That s Planning staff s determination whether they get the temporary or not so we will duly note those.

34 Page 30 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2013 CHAIRMAN BOGINA Okay, thank you. (Inaudible) CHAIRMAN BOGINA I know he probably said he s going to get that tile up next week back in 08 (2008) or 09 (2009) or whenever it was. PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: This was certainly the slow boat from China that we all hear about all the time, jokingly so CHAIRMAN BOGINA So, if there isn t anything else, is there a motion to adjourn? F. ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER SCHNEFKE: Mr. Chairman, I move for adjournment. CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Is there a second? Commissioner Meyer. COMMISSIONER MEYER: I second. CHAIRMAN BOGINA There s a motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? COMMISSIONERS Aye. CHAIRMAN BOGINA Opposed? Motion passes, thank you.

35 City of Shawnee TO: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 21, 2013 FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNING STAFF SUP ; SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW 90-FOOT MONOPOLE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER W. 53 RD STREET T-MOBILE, FORMERLY VOICESTREAM This is a consent item. This is the scheduled review of a special use permit issued to Voice Stream, now known as T-Mobile, to construct a 90-foot monopole communications tower at W. 53 rd Street. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW The special use permit was originally issued in September The special use permit was last reviewed in October, The tower has been constructed in conformance with the site plan approved with the special use permit. Staff has received no complaints and public safety officials report no problems with the tower. Currently, there are two other co-locates on the tower. As required by the special use permit, the company will agree to continue to enter into good faith negotiations with other carriers. RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission extend SUP , for T-Mobile to operate a 90 foot monopole communications tower at the northeast corner of 53 rd Street and I-435, subject to the following conditions 1. Review of the special use permit in four (4) years; and 2. The applicant shall continue to enter into good faith negotiations with other telecommunications providers to allow co-habitation of this monopole, and shall agree to its removal should this technology become obsolete. 1

36 2

37 HOLLIDAY DR Location 435 AG N I435 HWY W 53RD ST! Y RENNER RD PI PO S I435 HWY SUP T-Mobile Communications Tower W. 53rd St. T-Mobile µ ,140 1,710 Feet 3

38 4

39 City of Shawnee TO: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 21, 2013 FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNING STAFF SUP ; SPECIAL USE PERMIT T-MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER (RIVERVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL) WEST 47 TH STREET 120-FOOT CANISTER TOWER SELECTIVE SITE CONSULTANTS FOR T-MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS This is a consent item. This is the scheduled review of a special use permit issued to T-Mobile for the construction of a 120-foot canister type telecommunications tower for T-Mobile Communications located at Riverview Elementary School, West 47 th Street. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW This is the scheduled review of the special use permit issued to T-Mobile for the construction of a canister (monopole) type telecommunications tower at Riverview Elementary School, located at West 47 th Street. The special use permit was originally approved in October, The special use permit was last reviewed in October, Staff has received no complaints and public safety officials report no problems with the tower. As required by the special use permit, the company will agree to continue to enter into good faith negotiations with other carriers. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends an extension of SUP , a special use permit for T-Mobile to construct a 120-foot canister monopole tower, located on the Riverview Elementary School property, at West 47 th Street, subject to the following conditions; 1. The applicant shall supply a letter indicating they agree to enter into good-faith negotiations with other communication providers to allow co-habitation of this tower, and shall agree to its removal should this technology become obsolete; 2. The height of the tower shall not exceed 120 feet, and shall be a canister type tower with antennas hidden inside the tower; 3. All landscaping shall be planted according to the submitted landscape plan prior to issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy; and 4. Review of the special use permit in four (4) years. 5

40 6

41 AG Location R1 Y AG PSF SUP T-Mobile Tower Riverview Elementary Lovelace & Associates µ Feet 7

42 8

43 City of Shawnee TO: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 21, 2103 FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNING STAFF S ; SIGN VARIANCE (LOCATION) KREMER & FORBES, DDS 6852 SILVERHEEL WHITNEY GRAVES, AGENT The applicant requests approval for a sign variance for the location of a wall sign at 6852 Silverheel, in an area not adjacent to a double loaded parking area or street frontage. The application is filed by Whitney Graves, agent for Kremer & Forbes, DDS, owner. This request was tabled by the Planning Commission at the October 7, 2013 meeting. No one was present at the meeting to answer questions of the commission. Staff has informed the applicant and sign company that a representative should be present at the meeting. In response to a question at the meeting, staff notes that the applicant has installed the sign without a permit. The applicant can provide the reason the sign was installed without approval of the variance or receipt of a sign permit. If the Planning Commission approves the requested sign variance, it is noted that the fee for the sign permit will be doubled as per city code. SIGN VARIANCE REVIEW 1. Kremer & Forbes, DDS is locating within a tenant space located in the Shawnee Crossings medical office building at 6852 Silverheel. Kremer & Forbes, DDS, is occupying the tenant space on the western-most end of the building, and has exterior walls that face north, west, and south. The north wall of the tenant space is adjacent to a parking area, and the west wall of the tenant space is adjacent to K-7 Highway. The south wall of the tenant space is adjacent to a retention basin for the development The sign ordinance allows for a business to display one wall sign on each wall that faces street frontage, off-street parking area or a two way drive aisle. The applicant has received a permit for a wall sign denoting the business name on the north side of the building that faces the parking area. The applicant is requesting a location variance to place a second wall sign on the south side of the building. This sign would be in lieu of the sign that would be allowed by right on the west façade that faces K-7 Highway. The applicant feels that due to the building s situation on the property, the south façade has greater visibility from northbound K-7 Highway traffic than the west façade. The sign code does allow the Planning Commission to grant a sign variance regarding the location of a sign, provided it is placed on a wall immediately adjacent to the business, and when site factors warrant the request. 9

44 PLANNING COMMISSION RE: S ; SIGN VARIANCE FOR LOCATION, KREMER & FORBES, DDS; 6852 SILVERHEEL OCTOBER 7, 2013 PAGE 2 2. The applicant believes the sign variance is warranted because the south façade of the building has direct visibility from northbound K-7 Highway traffic. The already approved wall sign installed on the north façade has direct visibility from Southbound K- 7 Highway traffic, making a wall sign on the west façade unnecessary. Staff has reviewed the variance proposal and feels the proposed location of the sign would pose no adverse effects. Additionally, a sign placed on the west wall would not be visible from northbound K-7 Highway traffic, and thus would not serve to direct clients to the business. 3. The applicant has provided a letter from the property owner indicating they have no issue with the placement of the sign on the south elevation. The applicant also acknowledges they are aware that if the variance is approved, no additional signage may be placed on the west elevation. RECOMMENDATION In the report, staff has noted that any sign placed on the west side of the building would not be viewable from northbound K-7 Highway traffic, and placement of a sign on the south side of the building would have no adverse effects. In light of these factors related to the wall sign, staff recommends approval of S , a wall sign location variance for Kremer & Forbes, DDS, located at 6852 Silverheel, subject to the conditions listed below: 1. The wall sign shall be placed on the south elevation of the building in the location indicated on the submitted color rendering; 2. The applicant shall not be allowed any additional wall signage on their tenant facade; and 3. All requirements of Shawnee Municipal Code 5.64 shall be met. A sign permit shall be obtained from the Planning Department prior to installation of the sign. 10

45 11