OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. September 8, 2003

Transcription

1 OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 8, 2003 The Overland Park Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Mr. Charles W. Hunter, Chairman. The following members were present, constituting a quorum: Mr. Ed Reitzes, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Lance; Mrs. Kim Sorensen; Mr. Tex New; Mr. David White; Mr. Richard Collins; Ms. Janie Thacker; Ms. Sharon Holsinger; and Mr. David Hill. Mr. George Lund was absent. Also present were: Mr. Bart Budetti, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Bob Lindeblad, Current Planning Administrator; Mrs. Leslie Karr and Mr. Bryan Bear, Senior Planners; Mr. Mark Stuecheli, Senior Transportation Planner; Ms. Peggy Sneegas, Administrator, Engineering Services; Mr. David Dalecky and Mr. Keith Gooch, Planners; Mr. Brad Munford, Planning Technician; Ms. Erin Fitzgerald, Kansas City Star; and Ms. Nancee Ellis. Approximately 30 people were in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 14 and July 28, (Approved) With regard to the minutes of July 14, 2003, Mr. Tex New moved for their approval. Mr. Ed Reitzes seconded the motion, which passed by an vote, including the vote of Chairman Charles Hunter, who voted on all agenda items. Mr. Richard Collins and Mr. David Hill abstained. With regard to the minutes of July 28, 2003, Mr. New moved for their approval, Mr. Collins seconded, and the motion passed by an vote. Mr. Reitzes and Mr. David White abstained. CONSENT AGENDA (Approved) A. FINAL PLAT NO Town & Country Manor Second Plat, vicinity of 154th Street and Mastin. Application made by Schlagel & Associates, P.A. Mr. Reitzes moved for the approval of the preceding consent agenda item as outlined. After a second by Mr. New, the motion passed by a 10 to 0 vote. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE NO. ZRR-2450 Amendments to and adding Sections through ; amending and repealing Sections , , , , , , , , , and ; repealing Sections through , regarding floodplain management. Application made by the City of Overland Park. (Approved)

2 Page 2 Administrator, Engineering Services Peggy Sneegas advised that the applicant, City of Overland Park, is requesting a rezoning approval of amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance relating to floodplain management in Section Ms. Sneegas stated that on August 6, 2003, the Community Development Committee authorized staff to publish for text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to repeal Section , which establishes Floodplain Zoning Requirements and adopts new Floodplain Management Requirements for development, which include Sections through As relayed in Staff Comments, these text amendments are proposed to meet the requirements of the Federal Management Association (FEMA) and enable the City to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Ms. Sneegas noted that in 1977, Overland Park adopted a Floodplain Zoning Ordinance and began participating in the NFIP. She relayed that some of the policies that staff has been enforcing, in the 1980s and 1990s, were not always codified in that ordinance, which would be done in the new proposed ordinance. Communities that adopt and enforce a floodplain management ordinance, meeting minimum NFIP requirements to reduce future flood risks, qualify for flood insurance provided by the federal government. As required by the state, Ms. Sneegas said staff has submitted the updated Floodplain Zoning Ordinance to them, and it was approved on June 23, That new ordinance was based on a new model ordinance that was submitted by FEMA. In taking the new ordinance and comparing it to the current ordinance, staff found that a lot of the regulations were the same, but better organized and clarified many of the ambiguities in that ordinance. Ms. Sneegas advised that staff is proposing to eliminate the entire Chapter as it is currently written and adopt this new format. Ms. Sneegas stated that the property this ordinance will apply to is the 100-Year FEMA Regulated Floodplain, which is known as the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), which is comprised of two components. The first component is known as the floodway, which is the property preserved to convey flood waters. The second component is known as the flood fringe, which is land that is susceptible to inundation by the base flood, but is subject to fewer restrictions. Ms. Sneegas said main provisions of both the existing and proposed ordinances include: (a) Floodplain Development Permit, establishing a requirement for obtaining a permit when developing or constructing within a SFHA and lists specific submittal requirements to obtain a permit; (b) Floodplain Administrator, designates a floodplain administrator for the City; (c) Duties of the Floodplain Administrator, identifies nine primary duties that the administrator must perform, including reviewing projects within the SFHA, issuance of floodplain development permits, maintaining records and enforcement; (d) General Standards, establishes the general standards for construction with SFHA, including identification of the floodway and flood fringe boundaries, interpretation of maps, modification to the maps, construction standards, and nonconforming uses; (e) Specific Standards, standards are established for residential construction, non-residential construction, and general design standards; (f) Floodway, restrictive standards are established within the floodway because it is an extremely hazardous area; (g) Recreational vehicles, unique standards are established for this specific application; (h) Permitted Uses Prohibited Uses, within the floodway,

3 Page 3 specific uses are permitted with all other uses being prohibited. Within the less restrictive flood fringe, two specific uses are prohibited; (i) Variances, The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) is established as the appeal board and variance criteria is established. Ms. Sneegas advised that the proposed ordinance will codify the existing procedures as listed in Unified Development Text Amendment ZRR-2450 as follows: (a) Grading within the SFHA, or relocation of a watercourse, cannot cause any increase in the Base Flood Elevation, except within the limits of the applicant s property with a Letter of Map Change. A waiver may be granted by the Floodplain Administrator under special circumstances (UDO Section A.4); (b) The Floodplain Administrator is given the authority to ask for Letter of Map Changes or Physical Map Revisions; (c) Procedures for the Administrator interpreting SFHA boundaries are explained in A.5. If the Administrator s interpretation is contested, the applicant may apply to FEMA to clarify the location of the Floodway or Flood Fringe; (d) Residential lots must be platted without the Special Flood Hazard Area encroaching upon a building lot ( A.7.f (5); (e) New construction of any residential structure shall have the lowest adjacent grade a minimum of one foot above the energy grade line of the base flood for fully developed conditions upstream ( B (1). Ms. Sneegas advised that the other changes that were caused as a result of the changes from the one model event to another model event are mostly general housekeeping, terminology and definitions. The more significant changes are: (a) The Codes Administrator will no longer be the Floodplain Administrator. The new ordinance gives the Planning Director the authority to appoint a Floodplain Administrator, which Ms. Sneegas relayed has been assigned to her, as the Administrator of Engineering Services; (b) The overlay zoning district concept is eliminated and areas within the FEMA regulated floodplain are identified as Special Flood Hazard Areas, instead of creating a zoning district; (c) A section which establishes the criteria for recreational vehicles has been included; (d) FEMA regulates a flood event that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The flood is called the base flood and for clarity, the term regulatory flood has been removed from the ordinance; (e) The obsolete references to Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps were dropped and the term Flood Insurance Rate Map was retained as the official map of the City that delineates the SFHA; (f) The storage and/or handling of hazardous material within the Flood Fringe is now prohibited. This requirement was recommendation No. 10 of the model floodplain ordinance by FEMA Region VII; however, FEMA s recommendations Nos. 1 through 9 were not incorporated into this ordinance; (g) FEMA s requirements for properties that must be reasonably safe from flooding are explained more clearly in the new ordinance s definition section. FEMA has always required the Floodplain Administrator to assure that sites are reasonably safe from flooding, but more specific information on how to accomplish this condition has now been published by FEMA; (h) Section F (1) adds a condition which makes it easier for the BZA to approve a floodplain variance for structures on one-half acre or smaller lots in developed areas. Ms. Sneegas advised that the Ordinance Amendment Committee discussed this item on August 8, 2003, and then on August 21, 2003, they recommended approval of the amendments as proposed. Ms. Sneegas said staff is recommending approval of Unified Development Text Amendment Ordinance No. ZRR-2450, with the recommended changes which staff

4 Page 4 just distributed. These relate to , Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction, regarding manufactured homes. While Ms. Sneegas did not believe this would be a commonly used section in Overland Park, staff did find some omissions in that section just before today s meeting that should be incorporated. Mr. New asked if base flood elevations have been established everywhere within the City. Ms. Sneegas replied that they are not up-to-date, adding that the new mapping is being done and eventually they will all be up-to-date. All the special flood hazard areas have base flood elevations that are enforced. She relayed that Indian Creek is being re-studied, and those elevations will be up slightly. She said the county studies that are being conducted through the Storm Water Management Action Committee (SMAC) Program are more comprehensive than what FEMA typically does. Therefore, those types of changes are not anticipated in future flood studies. Ms. Sneegas said the Tomahawk Flood Study has been completed and adopted. She said the Blue River Flood Study has not been adopted yet; however, it is at a stage where staff is using the engineering data. She advised that the Indian Creek Flood Study is nearing completion. Mr. Tom Lance clarified that Ms. Sneegas indicated that will no longer be in existence, and Ms. Sneegas replied that the existing sections of that entire chapter will be repealed. He noted, however, that the sheet just distributed by staff to Commissioners read: Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction, and Ms. Sneegas explained that sheet showing the changes will be part of the new adopted sections. As a member of the Ordinance Amendment Committee, Mr. Reitzes said the Committee believed that these proposed changes to the ordinance were long overdue in terms of setting up a streamline floodplain management process and procedure. It will also redefine some important terms to be clearer and intelligible. Chairman Hunter opened the public hearing, but with no one wanting to comment, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Reitzes moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council approval of the Unified Development Text Amendment Ordinance No. ZRR-2450, as recommended by staff. After a second by Mr. New, the motion passed by a 10 to 0 vote. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE NO. ZRR-2453 Amendments to Section regarding handicapped parking requirements. Application made by the City of Overland Park. (Approved) Planner Dave Dalecky explained that the purpose of this text amendment is to coordinate the required number of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible parking stalls with the International Building Code regulations and the UDO. He advised that the UDO has not been consistent with the ADA standards for several years, which has led to confusion for the development community who does business with the City. Mr. Dalecky stated that the Ordinance Review Committee has considered the proposed text changes and unanimously agreed to recommend approval of the revised changes to the UDO.

5 Page 5 Staff recommends approval of the Unified Development Text Amendment Ordinance No. ZRR-2453, as proposed. Chairman Hunter asked if anyone in the audience wanted to comment on this item. With no one wanting to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Reitzes moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council approval of Unified Development Text Amendment Ordinance No. ZRR-2453 as recommended by staff. After a second by Mr. New, the motion carried by a 10 to 0 vote. REZONING NO Vicinity of the northwest corner of 159th Street and U.S. 69 Highway. Rezoning requested from A-J, Agricultural District Johnson County to RP-3, Planned Garden Apartment District and CP-0, Planned Office Building District, to allow a town home and office development. Application made by Andrew J. Schlagel. (Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 22, 2003.) Mr. Reitzes moved for the continuance as noted. Ms. Sharon Holsinger seconded the motion, which passed by a 10 to 0 vote. Mrs. Kim Sorensen left the meeting at 2 p.m. REZONING NO West 151st Street. Rezoning requested from RLD-J, Residential Low Density District Johnson County to RE, Residential Estates District to allow a religious facility. Application made by Polsinelli, Shalton & Welte. (Approved) Planner Keith Gooch stated that the applicant is requesting a rezoning from RLD-J, Residential Low-Density District, Johnson County, to RE, Residential Estates District, to allow a religious facility at 9001 West 151st Street. To the south and west of the application area are single-family homes on large lots. Mr. Gooch said to the east is a church, and north of the application area is a public library. Mr. Gooch advised that single-family homes are located to the south of the application area on property zoned A, Agricultural District, and RR-J, Rural Residential, Johnson County. A single-family home on property zoned RR-J, Rural Residential, Johnson County, is located to the west of the application area. Mr. Gooch said a church on property zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District, is located to the east. North of 151st Street, is a public library on property zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District. Mr. Gooch said the applicant is requesting this rezoning from RLD-J, Residential Low- Density District, Johnson County, to RE, Residential Estates District to allow an Islamic religious facility to be constructed on site. He advised that the RLD-J district does allow religious facilities but does require three-acre lots for all single-family homes. Therefore, the RE district would allow more flexibility in the future if additional single-family homes were proposed to be constructed on site. In the future, preliminary and final development plans will be required to be submitted for the proposed facility. Notification to the surrounding property owners will also occur with

6 Page 6 the preliminary development plan application. Therefore, there are no plans submitted with this rezoning request to be reviewed. Mr. Gooch advised that the Future Development Plan identifies this area as appropriate for very-low density residential (one-acre or more per unit). The requested rezoning to RE, Residential Estates District, which requires a minimum of one acre lots, does conform to this Master Plan designation. Mr. Gooch referred to a sheet distributed by staff which outlines the requirement in Chapter of the UDO, whereby the RE district shall contain a minimum of 40 acres of land for the initial rezoning. However, it does provide that the Planning Commission and Governing Body may waive this requirement if the proposed tract abuts an existing large-lot development and the proposed tract will enable a compatible extension of existing development. Mr. Gooch relayed it is staff s opinion that this rezoning does meet those waiver guidelines and therefore, staff recommended that the 40-acre minimum be waived as part of this application. He said staff recommends approval of Rezoning No with no stipulations. Mr. Gooch stated that staff was in receipt of a letter from Mr. James Orr, attorney, representing Mr. Chad Schaffer, who lives adjacent to the site of the proposed rezoning, and is opposed to it. He said Commissioners have been copied with the letter. Mr. Larry Winn, 8305 Outlook Lane, attorney representing the applicant, said his client seeks to have a religious facility just west of 151st Street and Metcalf, on the south side. He said the existing home would be converted slightly to accommodate religious services. Mr. Winn explained that the applicant applied for this rezoning at staff s suggestion to rezone the underlying ten-acre parcel to RE, which is consistent with the Master Plan and this area. He said there is a church immediately adjacent to the east, and he noticed in driving down 151st Street, he saw at least three churches between Antioch and Quivira, plus several postings of new churches being planned. Mr. Winn noted that within a block and a half of this site, at 151st Street and Antioch, at the southeast corner, is a Target store; at the northeast corner is Incred-a-bowl; and at the northwest corner is a recently approved new office project. He believed, from a common sense standpoint, to have RE in the middle of all that activity is probably the lowest possible common denominator for consideration in terms of land use. Mr. Winn anticipated there would be comments made at today s public hearing about sewer issues and site plan issues, which will be addressed at the appropriate time. He said the applicant has just started working with staff on the site planning process which will include addressing access off 151st and sanitary sewer issues. Mr. Winn stated that the sole issue before the Commission today is whether RE zoning for this ten-acre parcel in the Old Stanley area is an appropriate land use. Mr. White asked Mr. Winn to comment on an issue that attorney Jim Orr, representing a property owner nearby this proposal, noted in his letter, regarding the issue of the applicant and his ownership of the tract in question.

7 Page 7 Mr. Winn replied that his client has the entire ten-acre parcel under a single contract. He said there are different take-down periods during that contract. As the church is hopefully successful and grows on the site, the applicant may want to exercise options on other portions of the site. Mr. Winn stressed that the church has no intention of buying the land and then subdividing it into one-, three,-or five-acre lots. Trying to understand the reason for the rezoning request, Chairman Hunter asked staff what could occur in an RE district that could not occur within the current zoning district. Mr. Gooch commented that the proposed rezoning allows more flexibility for the mosque. If only seven acres are purchased, then the remaining house would still have more than one acre of land which meets the RE zoning district minimum acreage requirement. Otherwise, there would have to be a minimum of three acres left for the remaining house if the zoning remains RLD-J Mr. Reitzes asked why the applicant should not apply for R-1 zoning, thereby a waiver would not be necessary. Mr. Gooch replied that R-1 is classified more towards a low density Master Plan designation while RE is classified towards a very low density classification. Applying for the R-1 district in this case would be in violation of the Master Plan whereby the RE district does comply. Chairman Hunter opened the public hearing. Mr. Jim Orr, attorney, 4800 Rainbow, Westwood, Kansas, said he represented Mr. Chad Shaffer, the property owner to the west, directly adjacent to the subject property. He said this approximate ten-acre tract is currently owned by Mr. VanDee, the applicant. He said apparently there is a contract to sell all or part of that tract to the Islamic Center for a place of worship. Mr. Orr s understanding, based on discussions with both Mr. Winn and staff, is that the contract is to purchase slightly more than three acres. He said there is a legal question as to who is the legal owner. Mr. Orr agreed with staff that currently, the RLD-J district does allow religious facilities but does require three-acre lots for all single-family homes. He said most recently, the City did rezone some property directly to the south of this tract as A- Agricultural, which are five-acre lots, with the trend to retain extremely low density. Mr. Orr said what now exists in this area are large lot estates, and in the context of large lot estates, the area is fully developed. He said the subject tract presently contains two houses, a large barn and a pond. Mr. Orr relayed that much of this area is deed restricted to five acres or more, which indicates it will not get denser, but will stay status quo. He said there are no sanitary sewers in this area, adding he would comment more on this later. Mr. Orr stated that the applicant is not building anything, but rather taking the present building and over three acres of land to convert it to a religious facility. He did not see the necessity to rezone this area, noting that if the applicant is buying a tenacre tract for use as a religious facility, this could be done right now. He said it is a waste of time and taxpayer s money to rezone this property because it is simply unnecessary. Mr. Orr wanted to point out some procedural flaws. With regard to the applicant s ownership of the ten acres, he said he has been unable to find an affidavit to support that fact. He advised that the UDO requires filing the affidavit with the application to avoid questions of ownership, as in this case.

8 Page 8 Mr. Orr said the applicant s announced reason to rezone this property is to have a religious facility. He said there is no reason to rezone for one-acre lots in order to have a religious facility. He said that ten-acre tract is ready for the applicant to move forward today with no action needed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Orr said there is no sewer or other information available, noting that the UDO requires, at the time of filing, assurance of adequate public facilities. He said the UDO requires, at the time the application is filed, a septic tank study be submitted, but none has been. He relayed that the UDO clearly indicates a site plan is needed, even though it is a minimal site plan. Mr. Orr advised that the site plan he saw today, which was not filed with the application as required by the UDO, was lacking a date, lacking a seal and lacking building elevations. Lastly, Mr. Orr said the UDO requires the filing, with the application, of certain proposed deed restrictions. He said Overland Park requires, before rezoning to RE, that property be deed restricted so that the cost of sidewalks, street lights and storm drainage is borne by the development itself not by the City at large. To his knowledge, none of those deed restrictions were proffered to the City for approval. In addition, Mr. Orr reminded Commissioners that the Kansas Supreme Court has set forth that spot zoning refers to when one lot is selected, owned by one owner, and it is given a different zoning classification from the zoning that surrounds it, which is illegal. Most of the property in this area will be restricted to five acres, it is fully developed as RLD, and the land to the south and east was rezoned to A, Agricultural in 1996, which is even less dense. He said what is being proposed is an oddball rectangle, unnecessarily thrust into the middle of extremely low density, which he viewed as spot zoning. Mr. Orr stated that thus far, it is known that the rezoning complies with the Master Plan; however, so does the present zoning. The rezoning proposed would increase the density even more than what the Master Plan envisions as opposed to leaving it as it is. Mr. Orr said no hardship can be claimed by the applicant because the applicant can pursue their religious facility today, tomorrow or even yesterday without any rezoning needed. Mr. Orr thanked the Commissioners for their time and asked that they deny this request. Mr. Hill noted that Mr. Orr had used the term extremely low density and similarly, very very low density during his presentation. Mr. Hill said he was not familiar with those terms, noting that the City uses the terms, very low density and low density. Mr. Orr explained that he had simply meant to say a lot of low density. He stated that the A, Agricultural designation is more appropriate than RE for this because there are people who have a lot of agricultural amenities and keep horses. Mr. Chad Speierman, England, stated that at the time of the Stanley annexation, he had served on a committee that was selected by Overland Park as part of the annexation group. During that time, he said that committee developed some plans, some of which have slowly been amended. He said promises were made by Overland Park, which residents hope are kept, that this area would be very rural and very residential. He said homes in his community sit on five-acre lots, and it is deed restricted to five-acre lots. He believed that Antioch was set up as a buffer since it was

9 Page 9 known at the time of the annexation that commercial would spread on 151st Street, east and west, from old Metcalf towards Antioch. Due to that, Mr. Speierman said original agreements indicated that efforts would be made to hold commercial to the east of Antioch. He said adjacent property owners to this proposal are concerned about their lifestyles remaining somewhat agricultural. Mr. Doug Livingston, England, stated that his property backs up to the rezoning in question. Including his residence there are four property owners within 200 feet of this proposal, and all of them are opposed to this rezoning. He has lived here 27 years and has had minimal drainage problems; however, he believed with this proposal there would be significant problems. Replacing green space with asphalt to accommodate the anticipated 300 to 400 members for this facility would result in drainage having nowhere to go with no storm sewers. He was concerned also about problems downstream with all the water coming off 151st Street. He said there were no sanitary sewers in place. Mr. Livingston was opposed to this property being rezoned to RE. Ms. Holsinger advised that this facility could be built with the existing zoning, and she asked if Mr. Livingston was opposed to what was proposed being built here. Mr. Livingston said he was opposed to the rezoning. Ms. Holsinger pointed out that even if this property is not rezoned to RE and remains the same, the facility could still be built, which would include having the asphalt. Mr. Livingston said he was still concerned with runoff which would have to be addressed. Mr. Hill clarified from staff that with a parking facility to serve 400 people, there would have to be on-site detention. Mr. Gooch said all detention issues would have to be worked out with the preliminary development plan, prior to any approval by the Planning Commission or County. Mr. Hill clarified that the development plan would be done in such a way as to not increase the flow to Mr. Livingston s property, and Mr. Gooch concurred. Mr. Clyde Self, Antioch, said he was not concerned about the religious facility because staff would take care of that; however, he was concerned about what happens to the rest of this property. In his opinion, there has not been enough information, planning or foresight to plan for this facility. He was also concerned about the drainage and the sanitary sewer situation. Mr. Self urged Commissioners to leave this property zoned as it is. Mr. Chris Kunzle, England, stated that his family has searched for several years to find a property in an established rural setting surrounded by large lots. He said the east view from the front of his house looks directly onto the back side of the property in question. He believed the applicant was being greedy by asking for this property to be rezoned to the detriment of the neighborhood and to the expense of the neighbors. Mr. Kunzle believed that property values would suffer if a small parcel, such as being proposed, is allowed to get preferential treatment and is allowed to be obtrusive. He stated that he has chosen to live in this area, with its distinct type of lifestyle that it offers to him and his family. Mr. Kunzle said he has invested a lot of money to maintain and upgrade his property. He urged the Commission to deny this rezoning request and listen to the wishes of all the neighbors to retain it as it is. Mrs. Suzanne Shaffer, England, advised that she and her husband moved to this area after reviewing the current zoning and the Master Plan. She said there were

10 Page 10 no expectations that there would be any changes, and this would be an area with estate lots and a buffer zone from the commercial development. Residents here like the privacy of the area and the ability to step outside their homes and enjoy nature. Mrs. Shaffer said residents also enjoy the lack of noise and light. She said people living here enjoy areas where children can run and play with no busy streets and traffic. There are areas where people can have horses, orchards, large gardens, with freedom to use the land without invading other people s needs and wants. Mrs. Shaffer stated that this way of life is part of the idea of the old Stanley that was promised to be upheld by Overland Park, and she asked that this promise be upheld. Mrs. LaRue Wyatt, England, stated that she and her husband purchased their lot in She said there was a declaration of restriction of the deed, noting that their declaration was not filed until after they had purchased their land. Mrs. Wyatt said she and her husband felt so strongly about those restrictions, particularly the five-acre lots, that they signed those restrictions. She stressed that it was important to her to be able to do as she pleases on her property without infringing upon the rights of her neighbors. Mrs. Wyatt said this was a united, supportive, neighborhood who are 100 percent opposed to this rezoning request. She said the use being requested by the applicant can be accomplished without a rezoning and asked Commissioners to consider that and deny the request. Mr. Chad Shaffer, England, stated that Mr. Orr has represented him today, but he wanted to share a couple of comments. He said this area is fully developed, with a specific nature of charm and uniqueness which is why residents chose to live here. He said they want to protect that. As Mr. Kunzle mentioned earlier, Mr. Shaffer said he too had gone to considerable time and expense to make the most of his large-acre lot. He said his home now has one of the largest and most unique water garden features in the entire Kansas City area, adding that this area allows him to do that. Mr. Shaffer believed that to approve this rezoning request would have immeasurable long-term consequences on the nature of this neighborhood, adding that the natural beauty and resources would be compromised. He also believed that the many interests of this community, many of who have spoken today, outweigh the perceived economic benefit of one individual, particularly when offers have been made to the applicant to purchase this property as is. Mr. Shaffer urged Commissioners to deny this rezoning request. Chairman Hunter clarified whether Mr. Shaffer was opposed to the rezoning or the construction of a religious facility on this site. Mr. Shaffer said he was opposed to the rezoning for the nature it has been requested. He was concerned that if it is rezoned to RE, the church would come in and maybe the church would not become as successful as anticipated. He said the church may then remain in a temporary house, and the needs of the drainage and sewers will become less important because it is a smaller church that is not thriving. Mr. Shaffer said the question will then be what to do with the remaining land around that, which can be broken up into different areas and into one-acre lots which the new RE zoning would allow, which is why he is opposed. With regard to the facility, Mr. Shaffer trusted it would blend into the environment. With no one further to comment, Chairman Hunter closed the public hearing. With regard to sanitary sewers and storm water, Mr. Winn said for many years, the applicant has simultaneously filed for a rezoning and preliminary plat approval as a

11 Page 11 part of one process. Recently, he said the City has changed that process; therefore, to suggest that the applicant does not have a storm water study turned in or a sanitary sewer in is not relative at this point in time. Mr. Winn said the applicant will have to submit a storm water study and a storm water solution that the City s engineering staff will review as with every project that comes before the City. With regard to sanitary sewers, the applicant will either hook onto the public sewer system and have that determined to be viable by the Unified Wastewater District or the applicant will go to some type of septic arrangement if deemed to be necessary. He stressed that the City will be involved in the site plan and aesthetic considerations the applicant will go through, as with any other project. Referring to comments at the public hearing regarding promises the City made in 1986 regarding the Stanley annexation, Mr. Winn stated that the only promise that was made was that for anyone in the annexed area, the City would not change their zoning or their life. He stressed that the City did not promise that those residents would then be in a position to control all other land use in that area. Mr. Winn pointed out again that staff suggested the applicant seek RE zoning as a way to deal with the larger parcel as the church expanded over the years and not have to do it a second or third time in different phases. Mr. Winn advised that RE stands for Residential Estate, that are one-acre net lots, which in his opinion would not have any negative effect on this neighborhood. He said this is the category that was invented for the Stanley annexed property that would be appropriate in that district. Mr. Winn noted that there is a Baptist church on the corner that is at least 35- to 40- feet tall that appears to tower over some of these residents homes. Right now, the only thing proposed on this tract is a utilization of a one-story ranch house with some modest additional parking. Mr. Winn urged the Commission to follow the normal procedures, with the legal entanglements that bind them and move this project forward. After that, the Commission will have the opportunity to look at the site plan before considering berms, parking lot screening, lights, landscaping, storm water and sanitary sewers as is normally done in that sequence. Chairman Hunter clarified from Mr. Winn that during the public hearing he understood a number of the lots to the south and west are deed restricted to a minimum lot size of five acres. Mr. Winn surmised that those are the lots on England, in the largelot subdivision, but he did not think that was uniform in the whole area. Chairman Hunter asked Mr. Gooch if he knew more about the deed restrictions in question, and Mr. Gooch thought those included the houses along England, but added that the City does not enforce them. With regard to Mr. Orr s comments about procedural flaws or things that were lacking in the application, Mr. Hill asked staff if they agreed. Mr. Gooch replied that the UDO does require that the affidavits be submitted with the application; however, staff has as always required all of the affidavits prior to the Planning Commission public hearing, which the applicant has submitted. If a property owner has a deed restriction, Ms. Holsinger asked if that encompassed their neighbors who may or may not have a deed restriction. Senior Assistant City

12 Page 12 Attorney Bart Budetti replied that deed restrictions are a form of a contract for people who own property generally one person who owns a large tract to be subdivided, may record deed restrictions. People who purchase that property are then subject to those deed restrictions. Mr. Budetti said deed restrictions, by their nature, apply only to that subject property, adding they are private agreements between private property owners which do not involve government in any way. He said deed restrictions cannot be extended to private property owners or to property beyond their ownership. Ms. Janie Thacker clarified that the applicant owned the entire ten acres, and Mr. Gooch concurred. She also clarified that any improvements made to this property for parking would require the same requirements regardless of whether the property remains under its current zoning or is changed to RE. Mr. Gooch said that is correct. With regard to the three-acre lot, Ms. Thacker asked if the applicant should decide to expand it, that would require the use of their adjacent lots and would require a rezoning. Mr. Gooch replied that depends upon what happens with this rezoning. Ms. Holsinger noted that Mr. Orr indicated that the requested rezoning was an exception to the existing zoning; however, she clarified that was not true. Mr. Gooch agreed, adding that R-1 is to the north of 151st Street; as well as CP-O. He said to the east is also R-1, which is an existing church. To the south and to the west is lower density classification zoning districts. He said all of the districts fit into the very low Master Plan classification for this property. Ms. Holsinger clarified then that the argument of spot zoning is not accurate here, and Mr. Gooch concurred. In looking at a map of the area, Mr. Hill noted that the current Future Development Plan designates the quarter section immediately south of this subdivision as low density, which is a candidate for R-1. Immediately north and immediately south of this property, the Master Plan designates that as low-density residential. Mr. Gooch confirmed that is one to five units per acre. Mr. Hill asked how long the subject property for this application has been designated as very low density residential. Mr. Gooch replied since the property was annexed in Mr. Hill asked if a request has been made for any other category to be created that would be more reflective of this extremely low density residential. Current Planning Administra-tor Bob Lindeblad interjected that the RE district was made to be a City district very similar to the County s RR district. Both districts have a minimum one-acre lot requirement, and the RE district was created to mimic the RR district. Because of his involvement with the Community Development Committee and the Master Plan Committee, Mr. White said he became very much aware of the restrictions and promises that were made concerning this property and the entire Morse area, which lies to the west of it. As a result, he agreed with Mr. Winn regarding the promises that were made by the City, adding that the City has honored its obligations and its promises to do its best to maintain the general flavor of the Stanley/Morse community. He disagreed with many of the speakers at the public hearing who seemed to characterize one-acre lots as being equivalent to the slums, because just to the west, there are a lot of one-acre lots that contain luxurious homes. He disagreed there would be any significant effect on market prices because 10, one-acre lots are proposed to be built. Mr. White stated there is development along 151st Street that is coming and will continue to come. He said it was fortunate for residents that there were deed restrictions along England; however, Mr. White said that would not dictate the development style in this area. He said there is no market for property on five acres anymore.

13 Page 13 Mr. White believed that staff recommended the applicant request this rezoning because if, for example, five or six acres are carved out in the middle of the tract, leaving an acre or two on the ends, it does provide for some flexibility from development so that it is not just unused property. Being able to develop one, two or three one-acre lots on the fringes of this, if the mosque does not use it, is not opposed to the Master Plan. However, Mr. White said he was going forward with the understanding that the mosque will occupy and develop almost all of the land; therefore, this will probably not be an issue. If this rezoning is approved to RE and the mosque does not get built and an application is presented for one-acre single-family lots on this site, Chairman Hunter clarified that staff did not object. Mr. Gooch replied that the requested zoning meets the Master Plan designation of one acre lots as does the RR-J zoning to the west. Therefore, staff would not object to one-acre lots being developed here. Mr. Reitzes stated that this area is Master Planned for very low density. Given the nature of circumstances along 151st Street and the market that exists, realistically, he said there should not be expectations for this tract to be identical in terms of five-acre lots, but rather one acre per unit as a minimum and maybe more. With no further discussion, Mr. White moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Rezoning No , 9001 West 151st Street, as requested. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reitzes. Mr. Collins relayed that this is a tough decision; however, he said the requested zoning fits into what is master planned in this area, and he would support the motion. He said he was sensitive to residents in the surrounding area, but he was also sensitive to the Master Plan, noting that there are other religious facilities up and down 151st Street. Mr. New agreed with comments made by Mr. Collins, adding that doing anything other than approving this application would be re-active rather than proactive. Ms. Thacker said she cannot see a reason for rezoning this property, adding that the applicant could use the property as it is now zoned to build the facility. She said she could not support the motion to rezone. Chairman Hunter agreed this was not an easy decision; however, the bottom line is that in looking at the Master Plan and the legality of the application, it is difficult to not support the motion to approve this application. He said he appreciated the feelings shared at the public hearing by those who live in this area. The motion passed by a 7 to 2 vote. Mr. Lance and Ms. Thacker opposed. Mrs. Sorensen had left the meeting REZONING NO Vicinity of the northwest corner of 135th Street and Metcalf Avenue. Rezoning requested from CP-2, Planned General Business District to CP-2, Planned General Business District, to allow a retail center. Application made by Polsinelli Shalton & Welte. (Approved)

14 Page 14 Senior Planner Bryan Bear advised that this tract is approximately 17 acres, currently zoned CP-2, Planned General Business District. The applicant is requesting to rezone from CP-2, Planned General Business District to CP-2 to allow for the development of a retail center. He said the purpose of the request is to combine the approved plans for two shopping centers into one unified plan. Mr. Bear stated that this property has been approved for two separate shopping centers. The first center is Deer Creek Woods Shops, at 133rd Street and Metcalf, the northernmost of the two shopping centers. The other center is Tomahawk Creek Plaza, at 135th Street and Metcalf, the southernmost of the two centers. Between the two centers, they total 141,300 square feet. Mr. Bear said the applicant s request to combine these two shopping centers into one center results in an improved site plan over the last two centers because the design, architecture, landscaping and parking lots, including the traffic flow between the two centers, can all be coordinated as though the center is one rather than being developed in two separate concepts. He said the result will be 2,638 square feet more than the previously approved plans, which still comply with the City s Land Use Intensity (LUI) Guidelines. Mr. Bear advised that there are a number of engineering issues associated with this project, having to do with the piping of a small section of stream that goes through the Tomahawk Creek Center Plaza property down towards 135th Street. He said those issues are being worked out between staff and the applicant s engineer, and staff does not see this as an issue that cannot be surpassed with this application. The Stream Corridor Ordinance is not applicable to this project because the previously approved plan also included the concept of piping a segment of that stream channel. Mr. Bear said this property is indicated as commercial on the Future Development Plan Map. Staff Comments show that the property is medium density residential, which is incorrect. Staff recommends approval of this application, subject to stipulations a through t. Referring to Staff Comments which relayed that permission to do the off-site work is a key component of the plan, Mr. New asked staff if that has been obtained. Mr. Bear said the applicant could address that, adding it is a lot easier now with the same developer for both shopping centers. Mr. New also asked if the wetlands issue has been resolved by the applicant, and Mr. Bear advised that will have to be addressed at the appropriate time. He said the Corps of Engineers has agreed to allow the wetlands to be mitigated in the Johnson County Wetlands Mitigation Bank. Referring to Staff Comments and the total number of square feet, Mr. Hill noted that the currently approved plan totals 141,300 square feet of retail development; however, the plan submitted totals 138,938 square feet. Mr. Bear said it is confusing to show in written form; however, the approved center, combining both the north and south centers together, total 141,300 square feet. This application includes the entirety of both shopping centers except for the bank, which is located north of 133rd Street. Mr. Bear advised that the difference results in 2,638 square feet less than what the applicant is proposing.

15 Page 15 Mr. John Petersen, Polsinelli, Shalton & Welte, represented K-150, LLC, the applicant for this rezoning. He believed that this common ownership has generated a better plan. Mr. Petersen said the applicant acknowledges there are some significant storm water issues on the site, noting that approval has been obtained from the Corps of Engineers. In working through the final plan and building permit, the applicant will be working with staff in terms of some of the water dissipation issues and all the other issues raised in Staff Comments. Mr. Petersen advised that the applicant has obtained the necessary building permits, which are presently being reviewed, in order to commence improvements to Riley Street, which is the street that will access this property and the office ground from 135th Street to the north. In response to a question posed by Mr. New earlier, Mr. Peterson stated that the applicant has worked out a remediation mechanism with the Corps of Engineers regarding the 0.29 acres of wetlands on the property. With regard to Building No. 3, Mr. Hill asked if it had any physical limitations as to why it is placed on a north and south access, asking if it could be placed east and west. Mr. Petersen believed it was because the applicant is trying to follow the new design concepts of putting the buildings up on the street for the purpose of utilizing the buildings to shield the parking. Mr. Hill believed if that building was turned to an east and west access, that criteria could be better met. Mr. Chip Corcoran, civil engineer, Olsson Associates, explained that the reason Building No. 3 is orientated vertically is that there is a deep sanitary sewer easement that runs through that property. To the west of this building, there is a culvert easement. Between the two easements, the only way to orientate Building No. 3 is north and south. Mr. Lance asked the applicant to comment on how so many different buildings and sizes were chosen. Mr. Petersen said he would defer to staff since the applicant worked extensively with them to develop this site plan. Mr. Bear said staff is happy with the design of the plan and the building architecture as proposed. The plan before the Commission today is slightly revised from the plan shown in Staff Comments to better meet some of the criteria that are in the design guidelines. He said staff believes that the circulation works out very well for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. If the Commission is not comfortable with the site plan at this stage, Mr. Bear wanted them to know that it would be difficult to modify the entire design for the shopping center later on because there would be final development plans come in for each individual building. Therefore, he said if the Commission is uncomfortable with the site plan, it should be addressed now before any approval is given. Mr. Lance asked fellow members of the Site Plan Review Committee for their opinions. Mr. Hill clarified that Building Nos. 6 and 8 presently exist. Mr. Bear replied that Building No. 8 is completed. He said Building No. 6 has been approved, and the applicant is working on construction drawings for it. He advised that the building permit has been issued for Building No. 5.