OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. April 14, 2008

Transcription

1 OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 14, 2008 The Overland Park Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 1:35 p.m. by Mrs. Kim Sorensen, Chair. The following members were present, constituting a quorum: Mr. Richard Collins, Vice Chair; Mr. Tom Lance; Dr. David M. Hill; Mrs. Janie Thacker; Mr. Edward Ned Reitzes; Mr. George Lund; Mr. John Brake; Mr. Bob Gadd; Mr. Steve Troester; and Mr. Mike Flanagan. Also present were: Mr. Bill Ebel, Director of Planning and Development Services; Mr. Bart Budetti, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Mr. John Rod, Manager of Community Planning and Services; Mrs. Leslie Karr, Manager of Current Planning; Mr. Mark Stuecheli, Senior Transportation Planner; Mr. David Dalecky, Planner; Mr. Keith Gooch, Senior Planner; Ms. Danielle Zeigler, Planner; Ms. Pamela Fortun, Civil Engineer; Mr. Aaron Dubois, Planning Technician; and Ms. Pamela Blaszyk, Recording Secretary. Approximately 40 people were in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 11, (Approved) Mr. John Brake indicated that he would abstain from voting on the minutes for the February 11, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Mike Flanagan moved to approve the minutes for the February 11, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bob Gadd and carried with a vote of 10 to 0 to 1 with Mr. Brake abstaining. CONSENT AGENDA: (Approved) A. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL KFC/LJS Restaurant 8669 West 135th Street. Application made by Royal Construction Company. B. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Sonic West 75th Street. Application made by Polsinelli Shalton Flanigan Suelthaus, P.C. C. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Ritz Charles Wedding Chapel West 137th Street. Application made by Shughart Thomson and Kilroy. D. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Blue Valley Transportation Facility 7201 West 135th Street. Application made by Blue Valley School District.

2 Page 2 E. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Allied National Companies Vestibule Addition 4551 West 107th Street. Application made by Allied National Companies. F. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Antioch Antioch. Application made by Davidson Brown Architects. G. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Stanley Colonade 6535 West 151st Street. Application made by Davison Architecture. H. FINAL PLAT NO Watersedge First Plat Vicinity of the northeast corner of 159th Street and Mission. Application made by NSPJ Architects. I. SIGN CRITERIA Oak Park Mall Vicinity of the southeast corner of 95th Street and Quivira. Application made by CBL and Associates. J. FINAL PLAT NO Shoppes at Deer Creek Woods III, Fifth Plat West 133rd Street. Application made by Polsinelli Shalton Flanigan Suelthaus, PC. K. SIGN APPROVAL Recycling Center 6900 West 80th Street. Application made by The City of Overland Park. Current Planning Manager Leslie Karr indicated that Consent Agenda item A had been withdrawn. Staff was also asking for item F to be pulled from the Consent Agenda to discuss the revised elevations. Items H and I were being continued to the May 12, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. David M. Hill stated that he would not be voting on the Consent Agenda, since item D is an application made by his employer. Mr. Flanagan moved to approve Consent Agenda items B, C, D, E, G, J and K. Mr. Steve Troester seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 10 to 0 to 1 with Mr. Hill abstaining. Regarding item F, Final Development Plan for Antioch 127, Planner Dave Dalecky indicated that the applicant was requesting approval to allow a new pad site at the Antioch 127 Shopping Center, Antioch. The revised site plan shows that the parking lot on the east side of the building has through circulation. Revised elevations for the facades of the building showed that additional brick was provided as requested by the Site Plan Review Committee. Additional details were provided by adding a cornice around the raised entry feature, which would be on the southwest corner of the building. A rowlock brick detail course was added at the wainscot level around the base of the building. Those features were added as the result of a discussion with the Site Plan Review Committee, and the Committee was supportive of the proposed revisions. Staff was recommending the approval of this application with stipulations a through d. Mr. Chad Howerton, applicant, Strang Line Road, Lenexa, Kansas, was present. As Chair of the Site Plan Review Committee, Mr. Hill indicated that they spent some time with the applicant to review the revised elevations. He was pleased to see that

3 Page 3 their suggested changes were made. The curved glass wall panel has a more prominent position on the face of the elevation. They have come to an agreement with the designer and the applicant to provide some uniqueness to the building while the building materials still relate to the other shopping center facilities. The Committee voted 3 to 0 in support of this application. Mr. Tom Lance asked what color of glass will be used for this building. Mr. Dalecky replied that the glass will have a subtle green tint. Mr. Howerton replied that the glass matches the other glass in the development. Mr. Lance asked if they would still have a choice to have the glass colored a light tinted grey or clear. Mr. Howerton replied that they would submit a sample to the staff, and they could determine if the glass is too green. Mr. Troester moved to approve item F, Final Development Plan, Antioch 127, with stipulations a through d. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hill and carried with a vote of 11 to 0. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Amendments to Sections , , , , , , , , , , , and relating to compliance changes due to annexation. Application made by the City of Overland Park. (Approved) Senior Assistant City Attorney Bart Budetti stated that the adoption of amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) was a requirement associated with the annexation of land into the City as a part of the annexation process. This practice has been followed for the last few annexations in terms of these types of ordinances. Chair Sorensen opened the public hearing regarding this item. There was no response, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Flanagan moved to recommend to the Council approval of the referenced Unified Development Ordinance amendments relating to compliance changes due to annexation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Edward Ned Reitzes and carried with a vote of 11 to 0. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Amendments to Section relating to subdivision regulations. Application made by the City of Overland Park. (Approved) Mr. Budetti indicated that Amendments to Section are related to subdivision regulations. This was a part of the annexation process, and they were required to make this commitment as a part of that process. Chair Sorensen opened the public hearing. Since no one wished to speak, the hearing was closed.

4 Page 4 Mr. Reitzes moved to recommend to the Council approval of Unified Development Ordinance Amendments to Section relating to subdivision regulations. Mr. Flanagan seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 11 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING Mid-Year Amendment to the 2007 Master Plan. Application made by The City of Overland Park. (Approved) Community Planning and Services Manager John Rod indicated that the Planning Commission was scheduled to hold a public hearing on the mid-year amendments proposed for the 2007 Master Plan. A second public hearing on this issue will also be held before the City Council on May 19, The main reason for the mid-year amendments is for a fairly quick consideration of the Vision Metcalf plan, which has been discussed before the public over the past one and one-half years. Mr. Rod indicated that they would review the Vision Metcalf plan highlights and other changes that would be recommended in light of the Vision Metcalf plan and the recent 8.5 square mile annexation, which would affect the Future Development Plan Map and several of the other maps that would be included in the Master Plan. This afternoon, the Planning and Development Services Director Bill Ebel would provide a presentation on the Vision Metcalf plan, and Mr. Rod would then highlight the proposed map changes. Mr. Ebel stated that he would discuss the goals of the Vision Metcalf plan and outline what is next in the process. Vision Metcalf has been a two-year arduous process that involved over 4,000 people. The Planning Commission, a technical committee, a steering committee, an executive committee and a citizen s advisory committee have participated in the process. The result was a 200-page document that outlines development along the Metcalf corridor. Two important terms associated with the plan are transformation and diversity of choice in the City. The ultimate goal of Vision Metcalf was main street revitalization and understanding in the context of suburban regeneration how they will treat redevelopment, infill development and sustain the City in the long term. The plan is to provide a main street, Metcalf, as an appealing place where people can live, work and play in one area. The first goal is to establish an identity for Metcalf as a place of diversity of choice within the City by creating a series of unique destinations and a diversity of lifestyle. The way that would be accomplished is to create five nodes or sub-areas along the corridor from I-35 to 123rd Street. The northern corridor, which is the entrance from I-35, is a gateway or an invitation into the corridor. The downtown area, which includes the area from 75th Street to 83rd Street, regards revitalizing the downtown character along the Metcalf corridor. The 95th Street and Metcalf sub-area, which has two arms at 95th Street and Nall and 95th Street and Antioch is the center of the corridor. It should become a civic showplace for the corridor. The Indian Creek subarea, from 103rd Street to I-435, has a character of commercial and transit hub connecting the corridor with I-435, which is the loop around the Kansas City region. The southern gateway, which is from 123rd Street to Blue Valley Parkway and Metcalf, becomes an upscaled version of downtown Overland Park with mixed uses of residential, commercial, office and retail. Four of the sub-areas will contain significant redevelopment.

5 Page 5 The second goal is for economic vitality. For this plan to be successful and sustain itself, it must generate wealth. That is done by expanding the residential choices and the commercial activity within the corridor. That is done in the plan by establishing a block and street system and creating denser uses in those sub-areas. Through an increased density in the block and street pattern, they should be able to sustain the economic vitality and generate the wealth that is required for the plan. The next goal would be for mixed use development. Vision Metcalf creates a greater vision for the sub-areas using mixed use with commercial, retail and office. The idea is to create sustainable neighborhoods where individuals can live, play and work within a five-minute walking distance. The fourth goal is to have green spaces, plazas and water features within each of the sub-areas. They want to include hardscape and streetscape treatments. They would be developing green space in areas that were once hardscaped with public infrastructure. The fifth goal is to have balanced transportation with a multi-modal transportation system. The plan accommodates various modes of transportation including buses, bicycles, pedestrian walking spaces and crosswalks, and parking structures to provide balanced transportation in each sub-area. Bus rapid transit is the recommended alternative for a major public transportation system; however, that is yet to be determined. They believe that public transportation throughout the corridor is critical to the plan. The corridor plan lays out the bus rapid transit route and its local stops, its priority stops and the pedestrian sheds that are created around those stops. The sixth goal is for the corridor to be pedestrian friendly. Vision Metcalf takes the City to the next level by creating walking spaces, wider sidewalks, and making pedestrians feel more safe as they are walking in those areas. The final goal in the plan was to create sustainability in each of the nodes. This is a large broad scale plan that incorporates renewable energy resources, storm water management, potential lead certification for buildings and multi-modal transportation. All of these elements create that sustainable environment within the corridor. Mr. Ebel proceeded to show four renderings of the Metcalf corridor to illustrate the potential results of the implementation of the referenced goals and objectives of Vision Metcalf. The first rendering was of the Downtown Overland Park area including the clock tower, the farmers market with an outdoor pavilion and a municipally owned and operated parking structure. The next rendering was of the 95th Street and Metcalf area, which included a civic showcase facility with a variety of restaurants, shops, walking areas, and water features. The civic showcase building was indicated at the location of the current K-Mart and it could be an arts building, an education building or a City Hall. The next rendering was of the Indian Creek sub-area. It included a commercial/retail transit hub for the multi-modal transportation that would allow people to come from regional transportation on the I-435 loop to the corridor to work, shop or live. The final rendering was of the Blue Valley area, which has the same elements of Downtown Overland Park in terms of providing similar land uses such as mixed use, residential, office and commercial, but with a modernistic approach.

6 Page 6 They will be presenting the Vision Metcalf plan to the Council on May 19, At that hearing, they will also present to the Council a list of implementation steps for how they could start the implementation of the Vision Metcalf plan over the next three to ten years. Mr. Hill asked where the most value was in terms of public investment and infrastructure. Mr. Ebel replied that they cannot accomplish this plan all at once. They are going to focus on one sub-area. Staff was recommending that they start to implement Vision Metcalf at the Downtown Overland Park sub-area. It already has some of the elements of the plan including the block and street pattern and the civic investment with the $23 million Matt Ross Community Center. They think there are some things they could do in Downtown Overland Park that would invite redevelopment into the area. A public investment strategy to invite redevelopment could be to bury all of the power lines in Downtown Overland Park, which would make it easier for developers to construct the type of buildings and streets they want in that area. That would possibly be the first public infrastructure investment in Downtown Overland Park. Mr. Hill inquired about the possible financial tools that might be available to developers. Mr. Ebel replied that the financial strategies will be developed. There is potentially the establishment of a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district to pay for the public infrastructure. There is also potentially a financial strategy in how the City is going to efficiently assemble the land for things like a parking structure. On May 19, they will propose to go forward and develop financial strategies as one of the first implementation steps. The first implementation step will be a Transit Feasibility Study in partnership with Johnson County and the city of Mission. They are trying to get a federal grant to start that process. Mr. Hill asked what tools would be available to the Planning Commissioners and staff to begin dealing with how they are going to look at projects including a form based code. Mr. Ebel replied that staff realized that a new development process is required for these sub-areas. In the interest of inviting redevelopment, they are going to have to ensure that the development process throughout the City may be modified to accommodate the redevelopment infill that they want to occur in the corridor. Whether or not it is a form based code or a hybrid of a form based code with their current process, it is something they will develop with input from the Planning Commission and the Council. In addition to a Transit Study, they will recommend an Engineering Study to look at the capacity of utilities and the cost of public structure investments. They will also develop a financial strategy, which would potentially include a TIF district and address the issue of land assembling. There will also be a new development process. The transition areas between the sub-areas will essentially remain as they are. The City will not take the measures to strongly invite redevelopment in the transition areas. They will need to create some Interim Design Guidelines to assist the Planning Commission and the Governing Body to determine what to allow in those transition areas if a development project is presented. They will create Interim Design Guidelines for the corridor to achieve the theme throughout the corridor. The last step will be to develop some kind of communication dialogue mechanism with the business community and the development community to keep them engaged in this process. They want to invite their feedback and input so that they know they are doing the things they want to accomplish and provide an environment where they will be interested in partnering with the City in developing the corridor.

7 Page 7 Noting that there would be Interim Design Guidelines for transition areas, Mrs. Janie Thacker asked if there would be guidelines for the node areas. Mr. Ebel replied that they would initially focus on a new development process for Downtown Overland Park. They would also work on the Interim Design Guidelines for the transition areas. They may also look at Interim Design Guidelines for the specific sub-areas outside of Downtown Overland Park. It is important to remember that they have a plan, if it is accepted. Should development be presented in one of the sub-areas, they at least have a starting point to consider. Mr. Troester asked if in going forward they would create a document that regards a basis of design so as they are inviting business leaders and developers to develop projects, they can inform them that they are looking for a standard of quality. They would want structures that would last for the long term and reflect a sense of the community. Mr. Ebel replied that in addition to the visual characterization of a form based code, they will also need to address the issues of quality with the types of materials and construction. Noting that it would take time to accomplish the goals of the Vision Metcalf plan, Mr. Hill assumed that they would be asked to approve developments that do not comply with the plan in the interim. He asked that staff would keep in mind that they will need to have some clarity and tools to help them in looking at development as soon as possible. Mr. Ebel replied that it will take 30 or more years to implement the plan. They will continue to take incremental steps towards the plan. The renderings that were presented were what the corridor would look like after 30 years. In the interim, there would be multiple projects to work towards that goal. Mr. George Lund asked if they are considering a public transportation system that would go further to the north or south than the area encompassed by the Vision Metcalf plan. Mr. Hill replied that the Transit Study would cover the area within the corridor. He assumed that in the long term, public transportation would need to have regional connectivity that would go to the airport, the plaza and the southern reaches of Overland Park to take people to the corridor. Initially, the transportation will be focused within the corridor. Mr. Rod indicated that the map changes to reflect Vision Metcalf would only be on the Future Development Plan Map. In looking specifically at the plan, they will have it represented with dash lines that outline the area that was included as a part of the Vision Metcalf plan. The various nodes would be identified, and the Future Development Plan Map will include references to the Vision Metcalf plan. There is too much detail to be reflected on a map of that scale. They are trying to generalize the concept and the area and provide references back to the specific document. If the mid-year amendments are approved, they would be adopting the entire document at this point. Future updates would only update the reference maps and the summary document. They would not be adopting the entire plan each time there is an update, since it would have already been adopted. The Future Development Plan Map would also reflect the area of the recent annexation, which is 8.5 square miles. They had proposed going all the way down to the state line to the east, the county line to the south and Lackman to the west to identify a broader area. By including that area, the map would provide ideas of what is proposed within the City and what is proposed adjacent to the City. The north half of what had been called the Blue Valley Plan is also called the urban fringe area. In

8 Page they did a joint plan with the county and the City to put together a future land use plan for unincorporated Johnson County in an area that was adjacent to the City. That area was basically to the north of 183rd Street between Pflumm and State Line. That area has been mostly incorporated into the City through previous annexations or the most recent annexation to the west of U.S. 69 Highway. For the rest of the land uses, they would be following the map that they had previously. They decided to reflect the rest of the Blue Valley Plan as adopted by the county on the Future Development Plan Map with the exception of the small areas that were not included in the urban fringe area. They would show the areas that were incorporated in the most recent annexation as grey without a designated land use. The area to the west of U.S. 69 Highway, south of 183rd Street, north of 203rd Street and east of Antioch would be shown as grey. There would be another pocket of land to the west of that area that would be shown as grey. Otherwise, a specific land use would be indicated within the area annexed by the City and outside the City it would indicate the adopted Blue Valley Plan as identified in the Rural Comprehensive Policy Plan for Johnson County. In the next 1.5 years, they will be putting together a new Future Land Use Plan for the entire 8.5 square miles. That will be adopted at the end of next year as a part of the 2009 Master Plan amendments. A number of boundary changes would be reflected on the other key maps including the Official Street Map, the Greenway Linkage Plan Map for southern Overland Park, the Future Parks Plan Map, the Bike Plan Map, and the Community Services and Neighborhood Facilities Map. Those would be the recommended changes to this year s Master Plan Map. The key change would be to reflect the Vision Metcalf Plan. The other key change would be reflecting the Vision Metcalf Plan on the Future Development Plan Map and the rest of the annexation areas on the other maps included in this year s plan for the mid-year amendments. Later this year, they would present the changes that are normally a part of their annual updates. Mr. Rod noted that after the public hearing is held, staff is recommending the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 101, a resolution adopting the Mid- Year Amendments to the 2007 Master Plan. Chair Sorensen opened the public hearing. There was no response, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Richard Collins moved to recommend to the Council the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 101, a resolution adopting the Mid-Year Amendments to the 2007 Master Plan. He added that this item was reviewed by the Master Plan Committee. The purpose of the Master Plan is to help indicate what they can expect in the future. The Kansas Legislature requires that they review the Master Plan every year. In this case, the City has undertaken a monumental task of trying to look in the future in terms of what is going to happen along the Metcalf corridor. They are presenting the Vision Metcalf Plan in the context of the Master Plan to give the public and staff the ability to see what they would like to have accomplished on the Metcalf corridor. Although the Master Plan can be changed, it gives them a starting point to consider where they want to go in the future. Mr. Hill seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 11 to 0.

9 Page 9 REZONING NO Vicinity of the southeast corner of 159th Street and Antioch. Rezoning requested from RUR-J, Rural District, Johnson County, to CP-2, Planned General Business district, CP-O, Planned Office Building District, RP-6, Planned High-Rise Apartment District, and PRN, Planned Residential Neighborhood District, to allow an office and commercial development and mixed density residential neighborhoods. Application made by Price Brothers Development. (Approved) SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO Vicinity of the southeast corner of 159th Street and Antioch. Special use permit requested for an indefinite period of time to allow a hospital and related medical facilities. This property is currently zoned RUR-J, Rural District, Johnson County. Applications made by Price Brothers Development. (Approved) Chair Sorensen indicated that Rezoning No and Special Use Permit No would be considered simultaneously. Senior Planner Keith Gooch stated that these items were continued from the February 25, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission wanted the following issues to be addressed: 1) Down-sizing the amount of commercial to help alleviate traffic concerns; 2) Removing some parking to get closer to four parking spaces per 1,000 square feet as required by ordinance or deferring the construction of the parking; 3) Adding buildings along 159th Street to get closer to the requirements of the Commercial Design Guidelines; 4) Lessen the amount of stream deviation requested for Tributary A and F; 5) Review the design of the office development along Antioch; and 6) Provide a more direct route for emergency vehicles to the hospital. Three major changes have occurred on the plan. First, three buildings were added along 159th Street. Second, the floor area of the commercial development has decreased from 1,130,121 square feet to 1,030,121 square feet, which is a reduction of 100,000 square feet. There have not been any changes in the RP-6 development, the office plan or the special use permit for the hospital since February 25, Third, the applicant has opened up the stream corridor on the southern portion of the site along Antioch. That is where Tributary A and Tributary F are located. The applicant has removed several cottage homes in the southeast corner of the site to maintain the entire stream corridor, which was identified as Tributary F. With the reduction of 100,000 square feet, the required parking has also decreased. They are showing 4,337 parking spaces. The ordinance would require 4,120 parking spaces, so that is 217 more spaces than what is required by ordinance. They have moved buildings 1D, 2A and 3A to the 159th Street frontage. They have increased the amount of building frontage along 159th Street from 188 lineal feet to 402 lineal feet, or 16 percent of the 159th Street frontage. The Commercial Design Guidelines require 60 percent of the thoroughfare frontage to be occupied by a building frontage, decorative architectural walls, landscaped entryways, signage features, a required focal point, or site amenities. The applicant has also provided along that same thoroughfare frontage approximately 1,800 lineal feet of landscaping and/or decorative wall to meet this requirement. Those will be further adjusted with the final development plan if this application is approved.

10 Page 10 The environmental impacts section in Staff Comments was rewritten to reflect significant changes to the revised plan regarding the stream corridors. As noted in Staff Comments, Tributary A was previously shown as being eliminated. The revised plan eliminates the northerly 750 feet of Tributary A in a pipe system, but preserves and enhances the southerly 750 feet of stream. Tributary F was previously shown as being eliminated. The revised plan preserves all of Tributary F, which is approximately 345 feet of stream. Engineering Services no longer has the same issues with the plan that they had previously, and they find the revised plan to be acceptable. Mr. Gooch noted that the office pods are somewhat speculative and may not necessarily end up the way they have been presented. With the reduction of the 100,000 square feet of commercial, the Transportation staff has reviewed the new traffic study, and the impacts on the surrounding network have been reevaluated and found to have been decreased to a level of service E. The main issue the Planning staff has is the Master Plan, which identifies this site as Mixed Use. A Master Plan amendment that occurred in the last three years shows approximately 500,000 square feet of non-residential including 200,000 square feet of office, and 300,000 square feet of commercial. This project proposes one million more square feet than that amount. That is the outstanding issue that the Planning staff still has with this project. Based on the application s non-conformance with the Master Plan, staff does not support Rezoning No Staff is presenting revised stipulations a through ll. The changes are as follows: 1) Stipulation b still showed 303 units in the PRN area, and it is actually 296 units; 2) Stipulation ll has been added, which regards the parkland tract that is potentially going to be dedicated and runs along the main stream corridor through the application area. Special Use Permit No is for the hospital that would include 400 beds and 940,000 square feet. There is no change in the special use permit. Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission take the same action for the special use permit that they take for Rezoning No whether it is to approve, continue or deny the application. The special use permit could not be approved without the rezoning because of access issues. Mr. John Petersen, applicant, Polsinelli Shalton Flanigan Suelthaus, 6205 College, indicated the vision of the Price Brothers Development Company is to develop this 300-acre tract with mixed uses under the auspices of one development concept. A lot of detail went into putting together the various pieces of this project. The project includes a town center concept, the incorporation of a hospital, and new state-of-theart design living opportunities for future and current residences of Overland Park. They are proposing a housing product that is in demand and is being used across the United States. They feel that this project is sustainable. It could take ten or more years to develop this project, and the Price family hopes it will be in place for decades in the future. This project would have a positive economic impact in Overland Park that would help with the significant infrastructure improvements that are needed in the southern part of the City. The owner, the design consultants and the attorney left the February 25 meeting acknowledging the areas of concern with their proposal. With a project of this magnitude, they cannot necessarily make every decision completely right for the first

11 Page 11 time it is considered. They made some revisions to see if some of the areas of concern could be addressed while they maintain what they are trying to accomplish with this site. The overarching issue was with the density. Staff indicated that overall it was a good design, and they would continue to work on refinements. They were told that it was too dense, because there were concerns about the Traffic staff s opinions and their testimony about the street capacity impact. They were told they had too much square footage and parking, which resulted in having to pipe some natural stream systems, thus eliminating some natural open spaces and impacting water quality. They went back and started looking at the density of the project. They revised the plan and removed 100,000 square feet of retail. That was a significant effort because of the time that had been invested in designing the street network, the grid system, the town center concept, and talking to potential tenants, anchors and small shops. They were able to bring back an iconic type of project and earned the support of the Traffic staff. One of the key issues was the impact on the streamways. Tributary A and Tributary F were the points of discussion. Staff had already indicated that the impacts on the other tributaries, such as street crossings, were minor in nature. They worked with staff and developed a way to enclose half of Tributary A and leave half of it open with enhancements in the southern part of the channel. They are maintaining a significant portion of the stream system as an amenity to the project and an element of functionality. They came to an agreement with staff so they could support all of the deviations that would be requested. The streetscape along 159th Street was a point of discussion. Their position was that they wanted the main street concept, the walkability and the streetscape idea to be within the grid system of the site. They did not want to encourage this type of activity along a six-lane 159th Street that will serve as a major arterial that accesses a major new interchange at a major highway. They felt that a better concept design would be to allow people to park in the parking lot, get out of their car, and dine, shop and recreate in an urban walkable environment. It was their initial position that pad sites or shopping opportunities along 159th Street would discourage that concept. The Commercial Design Guidelines encourage buildings to be placed along a street to provide screening and buffering so that people outside the site do not see the proverbial sea of parking along 159th Street. They had two buildings along 159th Street. They chose to adhere to the Commercial Design Guidelines by using another allowed methodology, which includes entry features, wall systems and significant landscaping that would present a 3-foot high buffer in terms of landscaping, walls and iconic features along the street. These elements adhere to the requirements of the Commercial Design Guidelines. Staff had a different opinion and wanted to have more buildings along the frontage. They tried to reach a compromise and get closer to what staff concluded in their opinion. They introduced three additional buildings along 159th Street. The other areas still have a 3-foot high wall system alternating with 3-foot high landscaping and the entry features. They were able to significantly approach a compromise. They are dealing with opinions when they discuss good or bad impacts. Their prior plan showed buildings along 8 percent of the 159th Street frontage, and they now show buildings along 16 percent of the frontage. Their prior plan had the wall system, landscaping and the entry feature along 52 percent of the 159th Street frontage. With the buildings, the total reached 60 percent of the 159th Street frontage, which is required under the design guidelines. With their additional buildings and landscaping, they have moved the combination of

12 Page 12 those various allowed elements from 60 percent to 89 percent of this frontage being screened from the 159th Street corridor. He asked the Planning Commission to consider that if they factor in the next tier of buildings they have on the southern perimeter of that parking lot, there is a system of buildings that are providing relief and screening from 159th Street. They have reached a fair compromise, and he asked the Planning Commissioners to come to the same conclusion. With regard to the Master Plan, they could not overcome a difference of opinion with the Planning staff. They would have to respectfully disagree and ask the Commissioners to take into consideration all of the elements that have been discussed in hours of appearances before the Planning Commission, the Site Plan Review Committee, the review of staff testimony, and their submittals. They would need to determine what makes sense for today, long-term sustainability, and in terms of the design goals and guidelines for the City. The Master Plan is a broad brush that indicated this site should have 500,000 square feet of commercial, over 1,000 apartments, and between 400 and 500 single-family homes. The Master Plan regards uses rather than design. The developer invested in this property and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in studying the market including the housing product that would be needed to the south. He looked at the shopping needs in the southern part of the City. In terms of a community need, they looked at providing health care. Also, they had to consider what types of use would be sustainable and make the most economic sense in the long term. Another consideration was the cost that any development on this site would have to contribute for infrastructure improvements that would benefit the public at large. Mr. Petersen indicated his agreement with all of the stipulations as proposed or modified by staff. Mr. Brake asked how high the landscape wall was on 159th Street. Mr. Petersen replied that the Design Guidelines indicate that buildings should be used for screening along with 3-foot walls or 3-foot continuous hedges. They have provided 3-foot walls and taller species of plants that will enhance the screening. They have exceeded the minimum requirements of the City in terms of enhancing the parking lot screening. Mr. Flanagan asked about a more direct route for emergency vehicles to get to the hospital. The emergency route currently goes through the apartment complex, and then there are a couple of traffic controlling devices and a roundabout, which could be difficult for emergency vehicles to get around. He was surprised that the hospital was not placed at the extreme north or south of the site with a direct route for emergency vehicles. Mr. Petersen replied that was on the list of items they reconsidered. Price Brothers management did not make that determination. They went to the Shawnee Mission Hospital, which is their partner, to discuss the site layout. The hospital personnel indicated that the site design would work and function well. They pointed out that there were multiple ways into the site from the north and the south. If any one area was blocked off, there were other points of access. Mr. Flanagan replied that he did not understand why they would install the traffic calming devices from a safety standpoint. Mr. Petersen pointed out that ambulances use their sirens and lights, but they do not drive particularly fast. The idea is to get to the hospital safely. He was sure that the hospital evaluated that aspect of the site with their review. Mr. Lance indicated that he liked many aspects of the project. He was not concerned with the turnabouts at the intersections of the streets. The emergency vehicles

13 Page 13 traverse those paths many times over the years, and they know what is there and where they are going. He asked how this project would be phased and how the street system would be placed in conjunction with the phasing. Mr. Petersen replied that they do not have a specific phasing plan in terms of the street system. This project will be presented with many sub final plans. The Planning staff and the Planning Commissioners would be evaluating each final plan. They would probably begin the residential development first, followed by retail and then the medical development. They would need street systems that provide multiple points of ingress and egress and the capacity to handle the traffic. This kind of retail does not lend itself to phasing as well as the more traditional linear with pad site developments. Once the critical mass is there and the retail begins, the interchange has to be under construction and in place. A lot of the development will happen at the same time. Mr. Lance asked at what point does the critical mass develop to where the hospital would be interested in constructing their project. Mr. Petersen replied that as the demand to the south grows, they will start to see the hospital constructed with a phase one type of service followed with overnight beds at a later phase and then another wing of beds at a later phase. They will build the phases as they anticipate they are needed. Mr. Lance asked if this project is approved, when would he predict that construction would begin on this site. Mr. Petersen understood that the residential construction would begin in two years. The ownership team would be actively working on putting together the leases on the retail, because they will have to generate the revenue needed for the interchange financing. At the same time, they cannot build the size of retail that they want for this site unless there is an interchange. It will be a public/private partnership to see when the retail/commercial part of the site is developed. Mr. Lance asked if some of the pad sites along 159th Street might be built before the major commercial area is constructed. Mr. Petersen replied that he was doubtful that would occur. This type of development does not lend itself to the level of market that they want to attract with this project. With regard to the phasing of the project, Mr. Flanagan noted that the area needs services that would be provided in a neighborhood center such as gas stations, grocery stores and medium style restaurants. They do not need any more banks. With the housing explosion to the west and the new annexation, they will be looking at housing additions to the south. As someone who lives close to this area, that is what they are looking for in the area. Mr. Petersen replied that there is a grocery store component as a part of this project. There are other designations on the Master Plan as things continue to grow to the south. A part of the phasing will be in response to the homes that continue to be built in the south. Another aspect of the project will be to provide a new place for some types of retailers. Mrs. Sorensen opened up the public hearing regarding Rezoning No She noted that this is the second public hearing they have had regarding this item. Mr. Rick Hesseltine, Antioch, stated that he did not support this plan. He lives across the street to the west of the CP-2 area, which has been master planned for mixed use. They have not discussed the special study that was done for this area, which indicated that there should not be this intense of a use for this land because of the surrounding land uses that include residential, a school and church. While this might be a good plan, it is not right for this area. The amount of square feet that was reduced is less than 10 percent of the square footage. The commercial needs to be reduced further. There are plans for more commercial on Metcalf. There is enough

14 Page 14 land to put commercial uses somewhere else and not across the street from homes that have been there for 10 to 20 years. According to Mr. Hesseltine, the Master Plan is a legally binding document, and this project is infringing on his rights. He wanted Tributary A to be completely open to buffer the homes on Antioch from commercial. Commercial buildings along the road were not the way to buffer homes from other commercial. The project would not be effected by leaving Tributary A completely open. They would lose three office buildings on the corner that could be relocated on 159th Street to create the buffer that was mentioned by staff. He wanted a frontage road along U.S. 69 Highway so the emergency traffic would not go in front of his house. Mr. Bruce MacArthur, Switzer, indicated that most emergency traffic runs are primarily to residences, and they can never have sirens that do a good job if they do not intrude on residences in the area. This is understood by all. However, the idea of having a hospital where any access by an emergency vehicle is going to go through a residential area is inconsiderate. He could not imagine people wanting to purchase a residential property that they know would be on the emergency route. The hospital area should be more accessible to the major street or on the intersection rather than in the residential area. Mr. David Conrad, 8702 Larson, said that he was opposed to the regional retail component of this project. He believed that it would have a negative impact on existing retail in Overland Park. He was also opposed to the retail because of the density and traffic impacts. The trade area of a regional retail center is in a radius of approximately 30 minutes of drive time. Oak Park Mall, the 135th Street corridor, and the 119th Street and Metcalf retail are within the 30 minute area. This project will be competing for the same customers as their existing retail. Because there is little population to the north of 159th Street at this time, some retail will fail because shoppers tend to go to the latest and greatest retail as opposed to supporting the existing retailers. The consultant for the Vision Metcalf study predicted that 119th Street and Metcalf would likely become the next retail center to experience reduced sales and store closures. This proposed retail center would increase the likelihood of that scenario. He believed that it is fiscally irresponsible for the City to spend millions of dollars on the infrastructure to the south and encourage suburban sprawl. This development would pay a share of the cost for infrastructure improvements, but the streets that are located a distance away from this project would also have to be improved. By overbuilding commercial and high-density residential, the City is destroying the character of the area. This is impacting the quality of life for the people who live in Stilwell, Stanley and the recently annexed area. Later this evening, the County will be having a public hearing regarding Stilwell s request to incorporate. These people are thinking about increasing their taxes to avoid living in the City. This project is an example of what they are trying to avoid. The northern area of the City is experiencing decline, and several grocery stores and neighborhood retail centers are vacant or struggling. The business mix is changing from first tier retailers to second and third tier retailers with tattoo parlors, pawn shops, and check cashing stores. Metcalf in the north is in danger of becoming another Troost. He wanted this project to be placed in northern Overland Park. He encouraged the Planning Commission to deny this project and the developer to refile this application in three to five years after more houses are built and the economic conditions have changed. Since no one else wished to speak, the hearing was closed.

15 Page 15 Chair Sorensen opened the public hearing regarding Special Use Permit No Mr. Rick Hesseltine, Antioch, indicated that since this item is connected to Rezoning No , he wanted this application to also be denied or continued for six months to give the applicant time to reevaluate the amount of commercial and adhere to the Master Plan. Since the last meeting, he has been considering the right uses for this land. He did some research on the Internet and found a landmark case that occurred in 2000, which was Lake County of Northern Trust Bank versus County of Lake, Case No The case involved 266 acres. The developer wanted to put in industrial, retail and residential uses on land that was farmland and zoned residential. Lake County decided that the developer was asking for too much density for this piece of land and denied the rezoning application. The developer sued the county, and the case was appealed. The attorney presented the eight following factors to consider with a rezoning: 1) The existing uses in zoning of nearby property; 2) The extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning restrictions; 3) The impacts on the health, safety and morals of the general welfare of the public; 4) The relative gain to the public compared to the hardship imposed upon individual property owners; 5) The suitability of the subject property for the zoning proposed; 6) The length of time the property has been vacant or zoned considered in the context of land development in the vicinity; and 7) The community need for the proposed use and the care for which the community has undertaken to plan this land-use development. Mr. Hesseltine added that they have gone over the land uses in the Master Plan. He felt that the project would have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. This project would generate twice the amount of traffic that would be generated by the use that is indicated in the Master Plan. He was of the opinion that this rezoning application was wrong for the site and needed to be denied. Since no one else wished to speak, the hearing was closed. Chair Sorensen allowed the applicant to address the issues that were mentioned during the public hearing. Mr. Petersen stated that he would restrict his comments to the issue of the impact along Antioch in terms of the development. He reminded the Commission that there was a comparison of this project to what was Master Planned for the site, which is Mixed Use. In the area that is across the street from Mr. Hesseltine s residence, the Master Plan indicates 500,000 square feet of commercial. They attempted to be sensitive to the seven to nine home owners who will have their driveways accessing a six-lane thoroughfare in the future. They have at the minimum provided a 100-foot landscape buffer that would be used along Antioch. As a result of their discussions with the Engineering Services staff, the tributary will range from 100 to 200 feet of open space and landscaped area. As they bring in final plans for the landscape area, they will exhibit sensitivity in interfacing with the residential across the street. Mr. Lance observed that the traffic is the key issue. He asked how much they would have to change this proposal to get the development in sync with the Traffic staff. Senior Transportation Planner Mark Stuecheli replied that they evaluated the proposed plan and the changes they made by reducing the retail square footage and converting a portion of the medical office (which generates more trips) to standard office. The result is that there is a level of service (LOS) E at the most critical intersection, 159th Street and Antioch. If it is just one location in the immediate vicinity that is an issue as a result of this project and if the intersection is barely at a