OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. April 22, 2002

Transcription

1 OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 22, 2002 The Overland Park Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Mr. Charles Hunter, Chairman. The following members were present, constituting a quorum: Mr. Edward Reitzes, Vice Chairman; Mr. Robert E. Sanders; Mr. Tom Lance; Mrs. Charlene Conrad; Mr. Tex New; Mr. David White; Mr. Richard Collins; Ms. Nancy Diebel; Mr. David Hill; and Ms. Sharon Holsinger. Also present were: Mr. Bart Budetti, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Bob Lindeblad, Current Planning Administrator; Mrs. Leslie Karr, Senior Planner; Mr. Mark Stuecheli, Senior Transportation Planner; Mr. Bryan Bear, Planner; Mr. David Dalecky, Planner; Mr. Keith Gooch, Planner; Mr. Brad Munford, Planning Technician; Ms. Cait Purinton, Overland Park Sun; and Mrs. Barbara Potts, Recording Secretary. Approximately 40 persons were in the audience. CONSENT AGENDA: (Approved Items A and C through H) (Continued Item B) A. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL SANTA FE TOWERS APARTMENTS 8101 Santa Fe Drive. Application made by Santa Fe Towers Second Limited Partnership. B. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL SPRINT PCS COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA 6800 West 115th Street. Application made by Sprint PCS. C. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL CORNERSTONE BANK 9120 West 135th Street. Application made by Cornerstone Bank. D. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APROVAL DEER CREEK WOODS SHOPPES Vicinity of 133rd Street and Metcalf Avenue. Application made by Polsinelli, Shalton & Welte. E. FINAL PLAT NO HIGHLAND VILLAGE PATIO HOMES, SEVENTY- SEVENTH AND SEVENTY-EIGHTH PLATS Vicinity of 125th and Noland Streets. Application made by Highland Village Developers, L.L.C. F. FINAL PLAT NO DEER CREEK WOODS FIRST PLAT Vicinity of 133rd Street and Metcalf Avenue. Application made by Polsinelli, Shalton & Welte. G. SIGN CRITERIA OLD METCALF CENTER 7111 West 135th Street. Application made by Kenneth Frashier.

2 Page 2 H. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL CRIST DENTAL CLINIC Newton Drive. Application made by George Lund. Current Planning Administrator Bob Lindeblad announced that Consent Agenda Item B, Final Development Plan for Sprint PCS Communications Antenna, is continued to the Planning Commission meeting on May 13, In terms of Consent Agenda Item D, Final Development Plan for Deer Creek Woods Shoppes, Mr. Lindeblad reported that stipulation c, subset 2, has been deleted as a requirement because the street improvement has already been made. Mr. Lindeblad referenced Consent Agenda Item H, Crist Dental Clinic, and indicated that concern had been expressed as to whether all of the requirements had been submitted. He confirmed that the required items have been submitted, reviewed and are ready for approval. In regard to Consent Agenda Item C, Final Development Plan for Cornerstone Bank, Mr. Lindeblad removed this item from the agenda and indicated that staff will briefly give an explanation of a short meeting that the Site Plan Review Committee held regarding this project prior to today s meeting. Referring to Consent Agenda Item D, Mr. Tex New asked if the engineering issues were completed satisfactorily. Planner Bryan Bear replied that the applicant has obtained a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to address one of the issues. There are still a few technical design issues related to the construction of the retaining walls and buffer zones. Staff believes those issues can be addressed at the construction plan stage. Mrs. Charlene Conrad moved to approve Consent Agenda Items A, D, E, F, G, and H, as completed. Mr. Tom Lance seconded, and the motion carried by a vote of 11 to 0, including the vote of Chairman Charles Hunter who voted on all agenda items. Senior Planner Leslie Karr referred to Consent Agenda Item C, Final Development Plan Approval for Cornerstone Bank, 9120 West 135th Street. She explained that the applicant is proposing to use a split-faced block in place of the smooth-faced block that is approved for that business park. The Site Plan Review Committee met before this meeting to review the material palette, and it was their opinion that the split-faced block was an acceptable substitution for the smooth-faced block. If the Planning Commission is comfortable with this, staff would recommend that stipulation c be modified to read, All building material shall be consistent with the materials palette approved for the shopping center, except that the brown block may be split-faced material. Mr. David White moved to approve Final Development Plan for Cornerstone Bank, 9120 West 135th Street, with stipulations a, b and c, as read into the record. A second was made by Mr. Edward Reitzes, and the motion carried by an 11 to 0 vote.

3 Page 3 REZONING NO Vicinity of the northeast corner of 159th Street and Lowell Avenue. Rezoning requested from A-J, Agricultural District, to RP-4, Planned Cluster Dwelling District, to allow a multi-family development. Application made by Andrew Schlagel. (Continued) Mrs. Karr said the applicant is requesting a rezoning from A-J, Agricultural, Johnson County, to RP-4, Planned Cluster Housing District, to allow a 156-unit town home development with an overall density of 6.18 dwelling units per acre on a acre tract at the northeast corner of 159th Street and Lowell Avenue. The surrounding property to the north of this application is zoned R-1 and is currently under development as part of the Pinewood Subdivision. She said that two special uses, a cellular tower and a water storage tank, are located to the east between the applicant s property and U. S. 69 Highway. A farm is currently located to the south; however, the Master Plan identifies that the portion of this property fronting on 159th Street as single-family residential and business park uses. The property to the west is zoned A-J, Agricultural, Johnson County, and is undeveloped. A number of singlefamily homes and the Blue Valley School campus and activity complex are located south of 159th Street and west of Antioch Road. The intent of the RP-4 District is to allow attached and/or detached dwelling units designed as an integrated project with common, functional, open space. Concurrent with this zoning application, the applicant has filed a request (Rezoning No ) to rezone the adjacent 8.77 acres from A-J to CP-0, Planned Office Building District, and CP-2, Planned General Business District. These applications were filed together and are shown on the same site plan. The town homes are proposed as a combination of attached three- and four-dwelling units, and each unit has its own garage. Mrs. Karr explained that in each complex, the garages for two of the units are side entry, so that no more than two garage doors are visible from the street. Access to the site is provided from two driveways to Lowell Avenue. The internal access is private and the applicant has provided a stub connection in the southeast portion of the development for a potential future expansion. She noted that the property adjacent to the east is currently Master Planned for low-density residential uses. The buildings are proposed to be constructed primarily of stucco with some brick on all four sides. She added that a pool and internal path system have been provided. The applicant has submitted a Water of the US, including jurisdictional wetlands, determination for the site and the preliminary storm water management plan has been revised, as necessary. The Site Plan Review Committee has met with the applicant on several occasions to discuss the proposed town home development. The Committee has recommended changes to the plan to increase the amount of usable open space; use landscaping to better define the open space; soften the street design; improve the transition to the single-family neighborhood to the north and incorporate brick onto all four sides of the building architecture. The Committee met with the applicant today prior to this meeting and recommended by a vote of 2 to 0 to approve this site plan elevation, as it has been revised.

4 Page 4 The Future Development Plan identifies this property for low-density residential and medium-density residential development. Mrs. Karr said that approximately the northern one-third of the application area is Master Planned for low-density residential uses. Medium density residential development is defined by the Master Plan as developments with 5 to 12.4 units per acre. Therefore, the applicant s request is only partially in compliance with the Future Development Plan. This property was part of the Study Area, and at that time, the property owner proposed commercial land use on the north side of 159th Street from Antioch Road to U. S. 69 Highway. Because of existing commercial zoning within one mile of this tract, and suitability of the property for residential uses, the joint committee recommended low-density and medium-density residential uses for this tract, as currently indicated on the Future Development Plan. Mrs. Karr indicated that there are several goals and policies of the Master Plan, which are relevant to the applicant s request. As outlined in the written staff comments, these policies deal with protecting areas planned for Low-Density residential uses and reserving suitable sites for single-family subdivisions. In addition, the 2000 update of Planning Commission Research Topic No. 3, which deals with how much sewered but undeveloped land remains available for development in the City, it is estimated that with a build-out rate of 1,000 to 1,150 units per year, the land available for new single-family development may be absorbed by year 2005 or The Planning Commission Research Topic No. 5 observed the recent boom in multi-family development and the concentration of multi-family development in portions of the City. The report concludes that while there is no cause for alarm, based on the recent boom, it appears that the City should hold the line on areas shown on the Future Development Plan for low-density residential uses and not allow the areas to be converted to multi-family uses. Given the potential shortage of land for single-family development and the availability of areas Master Planned for medium-density residential at 159th Street and Lowell, staff cannot support the rezoning of areas appropriate for single-family development for higher density residential uses. The staff is also concerned that approval of this rezoning will set a precedent for additional requests for multi-family development within this vicinity on property Master Planned for low-density residential uses. Mrs. Karr referred to the applicant s plan which provides a potential street connection into the adjacent property, and that area is also Master Planned for low-density residential. In association with this request, Mrs. Karr said the applicant has filed a second zoning application (Rezoning No ) to zone an adjacent 8.77 acres to CP-0 and CP-2. These applications were filed at the same time and are shown on the same site plan. Because the traffic study required for Rezoning No has not been submitted, the associated case cannot be heard and the applicant has requested a three-month continuance. The applicant is requesting that Rezoning No be allowed to proceed as an independent application. Mrs. Karr said the area covered by Rezoning No is identified on the future development plan as medium-density residential. It is staff s opinion that considering

5 Page 5 Rezoning No alone has the potential to predispose the adjacent property for a use other than medium-density residential. In addition, part of staff s argument against this rezoning application is the availability of sufficient existing area at 159th Street and Lowell Avenue Master Planned for medium-density land uses. Because of the complexity of the land use issues associated with the combined zoning applications, the staff recommends that Rezoning No also be continued, so that it may be heard in conjunction with Rezoning No However, should the Planning Commission be comfortable considering this application independently of the associated case, Mrs. Karr said that staff recommends that Rezoning No be denied. She indicated that the storm water management issues have been addressed, and therefore, if the Planning Commission wants to recommend approval, staff has outlined stipulations a through h in the staff comments. Mr. Andrew Schlagel, Planning Consultant, Alhambra, on behalf of the applicant, said it is the request of the applicant that the following agenda item, Rezoning No , be continued for three months. According to Mr. Schlagel, the applicant met with the Site Plan Review Committee several times, and through those meetings, revisions have been made to lower the density and eliminate some of the units. Referring to the map, Mr. Schlagel noted that 159th Street is the southern boundary of the subject property, and Pinewood Subdivision is located to the north of this property. He explained that the western boundary will be the future Lowell Avenue (currently under construction), and to the east is U. S. Highway 69. He said the parcel, which is approximately 25 acres, is being proposed for the development of a town home community and would be owner-occupied attached single-family units with a low density of 6.18 units per acre. He pointed out that the RP-4 zoning designation allows a higher density than that. Mr. Schlagel informed the Planning Commission that these town home units would begin at $230,000. He explained that the town homes would be geared towards empty nesters who had larger homes and are now looking for a different type of product, such as a smaller easier-to-maintain home. Mr. Schlagel believed the term, Master Plan, consists of a general pattern and is not specific to each individual property. Given that, if the applicant would accept the staff s designation of one-third of this ground to be low-density and two-thirds to be medium-density, this would allow a density range on this same piece of ground from 213 to 233 units. However, the project includes 156 town home units, 30 to 40 percent less than that range. He explained that low-density allows a maximum of five units per acre, and the applicant has 6.18 units per acre. This is a gated community with an intermittent wrought iron fencing system to contain and define the property with landscaping in the open areas. A central cul-de-sac will contain green space with focal points, such as garden areas and sitting areas with a background of ornamental trees and evergreens, shade trees and planting beds to add color. The clubhouse has been relocated from the entry area to the central eastern portion of the subdivision. He said that several areas are interlinked by a pathway system that leads to the pool/cabana area, and storm drainage and a retention area are located at the

6 Page 6 lower portion of the site. At a density of 156 units, he believed this is a project that works very well for this site, and there is a market for this type of land use. He clarified that this land use is not to be confused with the traditional use of mediumdensity for apartments. Mr. Schlagel presented the building elevations, which showed stucco material highlighted with brick on all four sides of the unit. He said the applicant has internalized the parking court driveway placement of two of the units in a four-unit building in order to limit the number of garages facing the street, and thus, improve the streetscape. During the meeting with the Site Plan Review Committee and staff, the applicant also discussed improving the design transition from these units along the northern boundary to the anticipated future construction of the single-family units. Prior to this improvement, Mr. Schlagel explained that the four-unit buildings simply faced the street, orienting backyards to backyards. He indicated that these buildings have been turned sideways to create more green space. The two buildings were converted from four units to three units, so there is less building façade. In terms of landscaping, Mr. Schlagel said the applicant plans to have berms along the rear property line. The area will be supplemented by double rows of evergreens, as well as ornamental trees and shade trees, to assist in accomplishing the transition to the proposed single-family residential homes. Mr. Schlagel stated that the applicant wants to proceed on this development immediately. With the sewer system in place and Lowell Avenue under construction, he said the plan is to proceed with their project this year and return with the final plans as quickly as possible. He indicated that the applicant is in agreement with all stipulations. In response to Mr. Lance s question whether the applicant had talked with staff regarding the proper use and zoning of this ground, Mr. Schlagel said this is the second application on this piece of ground, so many discussions have taken place. He explained that the disagreement is with the philosophy, not with the choice of the development team. If the applicant would develop the northern one-third of the property as low-density residential (single-family or duplexes) and develop the southern two-thirds of the property as apartments, he said this would be in total compliance with the City. However, this is not the type of project the developer would like to build. He believed the proposed plan would be an appropriate land use for this area. Mr. Lance asked if the presentation at this meeting changed staff s opinion of this application. Mrs. Karr explained that the staff s position remains the same, which is the existing area is master planned for medium-density residential uses. Staff saw no reason to change an area designated for low-density residential to medium-density residential, when the applicant owns property that is already master planned to accommodate that. Mr. Hill pointed out that approximately the same amount of area is shown on the Master Plan as is appropriate for this type of development. He asked the reason that the applicant did not follow the Master Plan.

7 Page 7 Mr. Schlagel explained that two or three years ago, the property owner began with a total of approximately 87 acres. Over time, the property has dwindled down through the sale of property to a church and sales to other single-family developers, leaving a remainder of 33 acres. He indicated that the northern third of the property consists of single streets with lots on either side for approximately 15 to 20 lots. In the applicant s opinion, it would be difficult to build a successful subdivision with a limited amount of acreage. He also believed there is a strong market for the proposed type of development by the applicant. If these types of homes are considered to be a marketable product, Mr. Hill asked the reason the developer does not propose it for the entire property. Mr. Schlagel said it is dependent on road access and interchange improvements. He said there might be a more viable use on a small portion of the land as a transition into the site. Mr. Hill said the staff report suggests that all of the land should be included and considered as RP-4, Planned Cluster Dwelling District. Mr. Schlagel said that particular debate with staff is related to the next agenda item, Rezoning No , which would be CP-2 zoning, Planned General Business District, and CP-0, Planned Office Building District. He explained that there is nothing that links these two issues together in a legal sense or functionally in terms of utilities, transportation, or storm drainage. Mr. Sanders recalled a ridge line extending east and west, separating the land uses. He asked about the water flow to the northern portion of the property. Mr. Schlagel explained that the applicant s engineer brought all the storm drainage back to the southern portion of the property, so the water pipes into a detention basin. He believed the applicant did not anticipate releasing any water drainage to the north. Although he understood that Rezoning No and Rezoning No are separate topics, Mr. White said the staff s recommendation is to continue this application so the two can be considered together. However, it is the applicant s position that if the Planning Commission approves Rezoning No , this would not eliminate other uses than office for Rezoning No Mr. Schlagel explained that the applicant discussed and debated whether the second application, Rezoning No , should be continued or withdrawn. By continuing Rezoning No , this would allow ongoing discussions with other property owners in reference to the validity and merit of street improvements. Mr. White expressed concern that Rezoning No would have to be redesigned and considered a second time if the decision would be to link this development with Rezoning No Mr. Schlagel confirmed that this is a risk that the property owner is prepared to accept. Chairman Hunter asked the proposed land use of the undeveloped ground to the north and to the east, between the northern half of the subject property and the highway development.

8 Page 8 Mr. Schlagel clarified that the undeveloped ground to the north and to the east is not the applicant s property, however, he assumed it would be residential. He explained that his client has provided an opportunity for street access and has committed to a potential extension of the internal road system. Following up on the previous statement, Mr. Sanders questioned how access could be attained through the subject project. As he pointed out, the proposed project is to be gated. Mr. Schlagel replied that, hypothetically, if the undeveloped property would be an extension of this gated community, it could be accessed. After confirming that no one wished to speak for or against this item, Chairman Hunter declared the public hearing closed. Mr. White asked staff to explain the procedure in hypothetical situations. If Rezoning No would be approved, but Rezoning No would not be approved at a later date, he asked whether the entire project would need to be redone. Mrs. Karr said that it would depend on the type of project. If it would be the same developer, the two projects could be linked together and it would become an integrated zoning plan. Mr. White pointed out that there are no street connections between Lots 4 and 5. He believed that an entirely new plan would have to be resubmitted. Mrs. Karr explained that it would depend on the changes, but potentially, they would need to do a revised preliminary plan in some fashion. However, she did not know whether it would require new notification until staff knew the plan. Mr. Reitzes believed the key issue was whether to have this be an entirely multi-family tract or a split between multi-family and single-family development, as is Master Planned. According to the Master Plan, the northern one-third is Master Planned for single-family development. He asked how the determination was made and whether the destination was based upon the physical feature of the ridge line. Mrs. Karr confirmed that the physical feature was the reason for making that distinction between the two uses. She said the existing physical topography was used to naturally separate the two uses. She reiterated that the current Master Plan was established for this tract in Mr. Hill said that as a member of the Site Plan Review Committee, he discussed the issue of the ridge line with staff. He indicated that it is a major drainage line with two separate sewer districts one to the north and one to the south of that east/west line of demarcation. He understood that those issues could be overcome with creative civil engineering, and it appears that the applicant has done that. However, he believed the Master Plan makes sense. He expressed his concern about the land use to the east and the potential type of development. He also had concerns regarding the way the subject plan relates to Rezoning No , because it basically boxes in the plan and almost precludes other types of land uses. He believed the Master Plan, as shown, is a good one and would recommend that the City continue to strive to meet a land use plan that is as the Master Plan shows.

9 Page 9 In response to a couple of the questions, Mr. Schlagel said that although the question is how the next agenda item (Rezoning No ) relates to the subject plan, there is nothing to prevent the 8-acre tract from being accessed off 159th Street. It would be a totally independent residential community that works and operates without being connected by the proposed roads with these 156 units. He assured the Planning Commission that the applicant has given thought to a number of projects and has no hesitation to separate them. Although there is a land use decision, the applicant does not see the two plans together from an access point of view because there are many options. If an interchange was constructed at 159th Street and U. S. 69 Highway, Chairman Hunter asked how the ramp would be designed at the northeast corner. Mr. Schlagel explained that the City has participated in a study and hired a consultant, but the ramp design presently shows an on/off ramp on southbound U. S. 69 Highway to 159th Street. When asked by Chairman Hunter whether this would impact the water tower, Mr. Schlagel said that some of the property owners continue to discuss the issue of the design plan, which is one of the reasons for the continuance. He explained that the present design was endorsed by the City and by the applicant, but there is a significant amount of discussion by the private property owners along 159th Street as to how that would best be handled. He concluded that all parties are in favor of the construction of an interchange. In his opinion, Mr. Sanders said this application is one of land use. He said numerous discussions have taken place regarding this quadrant of land in terms of how the Master Plan should be formulated. He added that the Master Plan has been revised a number of times over the years, and the current Master Plan shows single-family or low-density residential to the north and medium-density adjacent to 159th Street. He believed the applicant has put together a very well-fashioned site plan. However, he did not agree with the application for town houses at this location. He believed that medium-density should be built over the entire site, which would cover both applications (Rezoning No and Rezoning No ). Therefore, on this particular issue, he agreed with staff and could not support the application at this time. Ms. Holsinger agreed with the previous comments and believed the current Master Plan needed to be given some credibility. Although she believed there is a need for this type of development, she was not certain this location is appropriate. She stated that she had not been involved in the discussions about the 159th interchange. She was uncomfortable in trying to get this application passed in anticipation of the interchange. She suggested that the subject application be continued and grouped with Rezoning No , because she believed that would provide a more complete picture. In response, Mr. Schlagel said he could clarify the record on the interchange issue. He said their understanding is that the present Master Plan indicates a potential interchange. The issue is when or if an interchange will ever be funded. He believed

10 Page 10 the City s position is to see an interchange at that location. He explained that the current RP-4 proposal is in no way committed to or dependent upon whether an interchange is located at 159th Street. Because of the complexities of the land use issues associated with the combined zoning applications, Mr. Hill moved to continue Rezoning No so that it may be heard in conjunction with Rezoning No Mr. Reitzes seconded. Mr. Schlagel emphasized that different issues exist on these two properties, in terms of utilities, sewers, detention and engineering. If that is the motion on the floor and the Planning Commission is prepared to vote, he would suspect that the applicant would withdraw the Rezoning No application. As he explained, the applicant would rather have direction on the planning of the subject property, as opposed to a continuance that is dependent upon another piece of property. He stated that a continuance of Rezoning No would not work for the applicant. Mr. White asked what the procedure would be if Rezoning No would be withdrawn. Senior Assistant City Attorney Bart Budetti said that the motion to continue this application needed to include a specific date. However, the applicant may wish to withdraw Rezoning No before the motion to continue Rezoning No is acted upon. If the applicant wishes to withdraw Rezoning No prior to acting upon the current motion, an unequivocal statement is needed to that effect and Rezoning No should be withdrawn officially for the record prior to this motion. Mrs. Karr noted the applicant s current request is for a continuance of Rezoning No to July 22, 2002, to present the commercial portion of the project. Should the applicant opt to withdraw Rezoning No at this meeting, she believed it would be appropriate to continue this item in order to redraw the plans to reflect that no action is taken on Rezoning No , because the zoning plan shows both of those zoning applications together. She believed it would not be appropriate to act on the plan as it is currently drawn. Mr. Rod Richardson, counsel for the property owners, disagreed with the former statement. As he explained, there is no land use connection to physically mandate that these two properties be handled together. He said the applicant is prepared to withdraw Rezoning No , rather than to have a continuance of Rezoning No When he attended a meeting in March that included a number of property owners, he came to the conclusion that the most logical reason not to link these two projects together was the fact that a decision had not been made by any of these property owners regarding the commercial portion of the property, and it may be awhile before it is resolved. He needs to have more information on the property in Rezoning No If Rezoning No is withdrawn, this would be acceptable to the applicant. He stated that the land under Rezoning No is ready to be developed, and the applicant is prepared to move forward. From a legal perspective, he did not believe it is appropriate to combine these two applications together, and as he explained, if he did not own the second piece of property, there would not be a discussion about connecting the two properties. He offered to withdraw the application for Rezoning No

11 Page 11 Since additional information has been presented and the subject property is being considered as a separate piece of land, Senior Transportation Planner Mark Stuecheli said this will limit access to the remaining piece of land, so that access could only be gained off 159th Street. Under the current plan that has been discussed for the interchange, which was approved as a concept for a preliminary plan a few years ago, the ramp was directly opposite of the proposed drive to the east. However, a potential change of that design has been mentioned in terms of moving it further east, which he believed would create an undesirable situation and would be unsafe for access. Mr. Hill said that if Rezoning No has been withdrawn, he would like to revise his motion. He moved to continue Rezoning No to the Planning Commission meeting of May 13, 2002, for the purpose of continuing to study the issue, given the revocation of Rezoning No Mr. Reitzes agreed to the revision and seconded the motion. Mr. White said he would like staff and the Site Plan Review Committee to work with the applicant to provide a plan that would connect the adjacent parcel with the subject parcel, however, he believed that would be impossible. He indicated that the applicant has provided various options for the future. In his opinion, inter-connectivity would make this a neighborhood, as opposed to two separate parcels. The motion carried by a vote of 11 to 0. REZONING NO Vicinity of the northeast corner of 159th Street and Lowell Avenue. Rezoning requested from A-J, Agricultural District, to CP-2, Planned General Business District, and CP-0, Planned Office Building District, to allow a mixed office and commercial development. Application made by Andrew Schlagel. (Withdrawn) Based on the previous statements regarding this item, Mrs. Karr announced that this item has been withdrawn by the applicant. REZONING NO Vicinity of 143rd Street and Nall Avenue. Rezoning requested from R-1, Single-Family Residential District, R-1A, Small-Lot Single-Family Residential District, RP-4, Planned Cluster Dwelling District, and RP-3, Planned Garden Apartment District, to R-1A, Small-Lot Single-Family Residential District, and R-1, Single-Family Residential District to allow for residential development. Application made by HNTB Corporation. (Approved) Planner Dave Dalecky said the applicant is withdrawing their request to rezone the portion of the subject property to R-1, Single-Family Residential District, but wants to move forward with the request to rezone R-1, Single-Family Residential District, to R-1A, Small-Lot Single-Family Residential District. The remaining 15.9-acre portion of the property is located in the vicinity of the northwest corner of 143rd Street and Nall Avenue.

12 Page 12 The subject property is currently an undeveloped leg of the Links at Lionsgate, a single-family residential subdivision, and Nicklaus Golf Club at Lionsgate, a private golf course and clubhouse. Mr. Dalecky said that approximately two-thirds of the lots approved with the preliminary plat of Lionsgate have been platted. Several singlefamily homes have been constructed and several are under construction. All of the golf course has been platted and is now being developed. He indicated that all of the immediate adjacent property is being developed as part of the Nicklaus Golf Club at Lionsgate. Beyond the golf course is single-family residential. In July 1993, a substantial rezoning request (Rezoning No ) was approved to allow a mixture of residential communities, two office districts, a retail shopping center, and a private golf course comprising the Lionsgate comprehensive plan. The subject property regarding this application is a portion of the Lionsgate Comprehensive Plan and is currently zoned R-1. The existing property to the north is R-1A zoning, and to the west, south and east, it is zoned R-1. The Lionsgate Comprehensive Plan has developed with a series of rezoning requests and revised preliminary plans, culminating in the land uses that exist today. Mr. Dalecky said the changes from the approved zoning to the actual development are as follows: 1) The alignment of the collector street, Lamar Avenue, has shifted slightly from the original proposed alignment. This has created a sliver of unutilized, and therefore, unnecessary RP-3 zoning; 2) The 5.3-acre, RP-4 zoned area along the north boundary of the subject property, is now part of the Nicklaus Golf Club at Lionsgate golf course. The RP-4 zoned area is not a separate parcel and could not be developed, as shown on the approved plan, without revising the golf course plan; and 3) The majority of the 16.7-acre, R-1A zoned area at the northeast corner of the subject property, has been incorporated into the golf course and the remaining portion is now proposed to be R-1. The area zoned R-1A that overlaps the golf course could not be developed as residential lots without revising the golf course plan through the public hearing process. The developer may subdivide lots that meet or exceed the minimum R-1A standards on that part of the R-1A zoning district that is not part of the golf course. Mr. Dalecky indicated that the request to rezone 15.9 acres to R-1A is an exercise in transferring an existing small-lot single-family residential district to a different location of the site. This transfer is internal to the development and, in staff s opinion, results in no adverse impacts to the adjacent properties. The total acres and context of the proposed R-1A zoned area is nearly identical to the existing R-1A property. The proposed rezoning has the lots internal to and backing up to the golf course, similar to the current R-1A zoned property. He said a street connection to 137th Street into the subdivision was proposed with the existing R-1A zoning. That connection was removed with the golf course plan and preliminary plat. Mr. Dalecky said that no adverse traffic impacts or environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of this zoning request. The Future Development Plan identifies this property for low-density residential uses and open space. Mr. Dalecky explained that low-density residential uses are identified as those with a density of greater than one and less than or equal to five units per acre. Therefore, the applicant s request is in conformance with the Future Development Plan.

13 Page 13 According to Mr. Dalecky, the Master Plan indicates three criteria for the location of small-lot single-family subdivisions. The first criteria is that a small-lot single-family subdivision is used as a buffer between lower-density development and land uses of higher intensities. The second criteria for the location of small-lot single-family subdivisions is that it be adjacent to heavily traveled streets, such as thoroughfares, highway or interstates. The third criteria is where flexibility in subdivision design is necessary to preserve natural features, provide for greenway linkages or to avoid floodplains. Staff believes the three criteria regarding the R-1A zoning request have not been met; however, staff believes the request for R-1A has merit, because it is transferring the small-lot single-family residential district to a different location and not creating a new district. Mr. Dalecky noted that the proposal of integrating small-lot single-family residential districts into developments with significant open space is a major theme of the City s new open-space zoning districts. He explained that the elements of this application and the open-space zoning district are not a direct comparison, because the openspace district would require that no more than one-half of the open space could be a golf course. In staff s opinion, the similarity between this application and the openspace zoning district is an important factor for not strictly applying the Master Plan location criteria. Staff recommends approval of Rezoning No with no stipulations. Since she has a business relationship with Lionsgate, Ms. Sharon Holsinger excused herself from the discussion of this application. Mr. Mark Simpson, Lionsgate Golf Developers, Farley, said the R-1 zoning application has been withdrawn, as requested by City staff, to clean up some remnant zoning left over from the 1980s and early 1990s. He informed the Planning Commission that there are some ownership issues at this time, but they would be happy to consider the R-1 zoning in the future when it is resolved. He indicated that the applicant wants to proceed forward in shifting to the R-1A zoning, because there has been a response to this market by potential home buyers. As he explained, they had four models open yesterday, and 900 people went through these models in five hours. He said many home buyers have inquired about maintenance-provided villa lifestyle on the golf course. In response to that, he is proposing to do this. Mr. Sanders said it appears as though there has been transferring or relocating from the existing R-1A to the south. Mr. Simpson confirmed that R-1A property has been relocated He explained that when Jack Nicklaus and the Golden Bear staff came into town to design the golf course, the topography played a much bigger role to them than the land use. The Golden Bear staff wanted a strip of land that was a low place for their golf course, and this land was zoned R-1A, so the developers are making adjustments to this plan to satisfy the Golden Bear staff. Mr. Sanders asked what assurance the City has that the existing R-1A will return to R-1 zoning.

14 Page 14 Mr. Simpson said he would agree to include a stipulation that the existing R-1A zoning would return to R-1 zoning. He explained that they wanted to eliminate the RP-3 and RP-4 zoning today, but due to technical issues regarding the ownership, they were not able to do that. Mr. Hill said he would like to add the stipulation that the existing R-1A zoning would return to R-1 zoning. He asked whether the applicant s intent is to return the property to R-1 zoning when he is able to resolve the RP-3 and RP-4 zoning issues. Mr. Simpson confirmed that to be correct. In observing the irregularly shaped tract that is proposed for R-1A, Mr. Reitzes asked the reason to have R-1A. He suggested that the entire property be zoned as R-1, because he believed there would be a demand for R-1 along the golf course. Mr. Simpson replied that when they had the four models open, approximately 200 people related their interest in maintenance-provided villas. He explained that there are a significant number of empty nesters who are seeking this type of housing in this area. He noted that these villas would be priced from $500,000 to $800,000 per villa. These maintenance-free villas would provide total services, including washing their windows twice a year, cleaning the gutters, changing the filters in the furnace, and operating the sprinkler system for the property owner. Therefore, he chose to eliminate the 39 single-family lots and create 46 lots for villas to answer the market demand. Mr. Brick Owens, landscape architect for HNTB, said he has been involved with the Lionsgate project since He said they have been orchestrating the design of individual villages throughout the process to meet the demand for this kind of living style. In fact, HNTB has decreased and increased the lot sizes for the Links at Lionsgate that were approved a couple of years ago, based on the market demand. He said comments have been received from home owners who want to live in this area because of the high-quality living style known as Lionsgate. As stated earlier by Mr. Simpson, 39, 90-foot-wide lots were eliminated and changed to make 46, 75-foot-wide lots. He explained that the living style is a four-sided architecture, which is more expensive on a single square-foot cost basis than a typical large singlefamily home being built in Lionsgate today. Because of the higher expense and their desire to have a maintenance-provided living style, these types of home owners and buyers are very particular. Thus, the developer s intent is not to decrease the quality but to increase the visibility and the desire to live at Lionsgate. The changes are actually an adjustment for the market. The Nicklaus Golf Club has reviewed the plans from the golf course side, and they have no issue with this proposal. Mr. Dalecky interjected that a stipulation limiting the development of the existing R-1A zoning would not be appropriate for this rezoning application. He assured the Planning Commission that this area will develop as standard R-1, similarly to the current Links at Lionsgate. Chairman Hunter opened the public hearing.

15 Page 15 Mr. James Lasalle, 215 West 18th Street, Kansas City, Missouri, said he represented his parents, Dr. and Mrs. Anthony Lasalle who own a home in Lionsgate, located at Outlook. He referred to the map, which showed the R-1A zoning that would be across the golf course from his parents home. When his parents originally purchased their property and built their home in Lionsgate, which has homes ranging in value from $800,000 to $1.2 million, they expected to look out over the golf course into an area that is similar to their large single-family home, not villas. Therefore, his parents, as well as other home owners in Lionsgate, wish to protest this rezoning, pending the creation of a petition to officially protest it. He explained that one of their concerns is that when they purchased this property, they were told that the property across the golf course would be similar. Their second concern is the impact on their property values. After confirming that no one else wished to speak for or against this item, Chairman Hunter declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Owens informed the Planning Commission 140 notices were mailed to the surrounding home owners because of the zoning change. A home owners meeting was scheduled for last Thursday. He indicated that only two home owners attended the meeting, and their concerns were similar to the Lasalle s. The answers given by Lionsgate were that they also desire quality homes and lifestyle. Lionsgate personnel stressed the importance of a successful development that would not interfere with the success, value or quality of the existing homes. In reference to the separation of homes, this plat and these homes will not be any closer together, because the rear yard setbacks and location of the homes are the same setbacks as approved for singlefamily homes. He concluded that they considered the intricate part of the design, and this proposal does not diminish that separation or the quality. Mr. Richard Collins asked the setback from the Lasalle s property line to the golf course and the setback from the property line of the villas to the golf course. Mr. Owens confirmed that both setbacks are the same distance, which is 150 feet. Since staff indicated that a stipulation could not be made regarding the R-1A zoning, Mr. Tex New asked legal counsel if there would be a way to make certain the R-1A zoning does not remain if this application is approved. Mr. Budetti said that one way it can be done is for the Planning Commission to initiate the rezoning petition, and for the applicant to state that he does not object to it. A second way would be to make a request to file that application and defer approval of this until then, so they could be heard together. Based on Mr. Budetti s comments, Mr. New moved to recommend to the Council Rezoning No , vicinity of 143rd Street and Nall Avenue, to allow for R-1A zoning, with the understanding that staff will pursue some type of action to remove the existing R-1A zoning. Mr. White seconded. According to Mr. Lindeblad, due to the shape of the existing R-1A zoning and the tract of land to be developed, there would be no way that a cul-de-sac can be developed to R-1A standards at this time. He explained that there is no area in which to build a cul-de-sac to the north, which would encompass all R-1A development. He also

16 Page 16 explained that the existing R-1A is mostly located in the golf course, and the cul-desac to the east is currently zoned R-1A, so a subdivision with R-1A lots could not be approved, because most of the tract is zoned R-1. The motion carried by a 10 to 0 vote. Ms. Holsinger was out of the room. PRELIMINARY PLAT NO VILLAS AT THE LINKS Nall Avenue. Application made by HNTB Corporation. (Continued) Mr. Lance moved to continue Preliminary Plat No , as noted above, to the May 13, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. Mrs. Conrad seconded, and the motion carried by a vote of 11 to 0. Mr. Dalecky said that for those wishing to follow this application to the City Council meeting, it would be heard on May 20, SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO Vicinity of the southwest corner of 137th Street and Metcalf Avenue. Special use permit requested for a three-year period of time to allow a drinking establishment. This property is currently zoned CP-1, Planned Restricted Business District. Application made by Polsinelli, Shalton & Welte. (Approved) Senior Planner Leslie Karr said the applicant is requesting approval of a special use permit for a three-year period of time to allow a drinking establishment at the southwest corner of 137th Street and Metcalf Avenue. This property was recently approved for zoning to CP-1, Planned Restricted Business District, for a Macaroni Grill Restaurant. The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requires a special use permit for drinking establishments located within 200 feet of property zoned for residential uses. Since the surrounding property to the south is currently zoned R-1, Single- Family Residential, Mrs. Karr indicated that a special use permit is required. Mrs. Karr said that staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit No for a three-year period of time. Mr. John Petersen, Polsinelli, Shalton & Welte, 6205 College Boulevard, appearing as the applicant, offered to answer questions in regard to the application. Chairman Hunter invited comments from the public in regard to Special Use Permit No There being none, he closed the hearing and referred the item for action. A motion was made by Mr. Reitzes to recommend to the Council approval of Special Use Permit No , Macaroni Grill Restaurant, vicinity of the southwest corner of 137th Street and Metcalf Avenue, for a three-year period of time to allow a drinking establishment. Mr. Sanders seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.

17 Page 17 SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO College Boulevard. Special use permit requested for a three-month period of time to allow a temporary facility. This property is currently zoned CP-0, Planned Office Building District. Application made by Diagnostic Imaging Centers. (Approved) Mr. Dalecky said the applicant, Diagnostic Imaging Centers, is requesting approval of a special use permit for a three-month period of time to allow a temporary facility. The subject property is located at 5500 College Boulevard and is currently zoned CP-0, Planned Office District. As explained by Mr. Dalecky, the permanent MRI equipment is being removed and replaced with new equipment, and therefore, the applicant is requesting a trailer containing a temporary mobile MRI Scanner be permitted at this location in order to continue providing MRI service to their patients. The trailer containing the equipment would be located in the parking lot along the west side of the Diagnostic Imaging Center building. According to Mr. Dalecky, the City has approved a temporary mobile MRI Scanner at this location two times previous to this request. The first occurrence was in December 1996 for a two-month period of time, and the second time was in September 1997 for a three-month period. Staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit No for a three-month period of time, subject to stipulation a which reads, Property building permits and inspections shall be obtained for the trailer and its electrical service prior to beginning operation. Mr. Lance referred to the plan and indicated that it appears as though the mobile unit would be parked on some of the parking stalls. He asked whether this would upset the balance of the availability of parking. Mr. Dalecky replied that the parking was reconfigured recently along Nall Avenue to increase the amount of parking available, and this mobile unit would not reduce the amount of required parking spaces for this particular use. Ms. Karen Curley, 9637 North Campbell Drive, Kansas City, Missouri, assured the Planning Commission that the parking spaces to be used for the mobile unit would not be located in the handicapped parking area. She indicated that all of the patients will check in at the main building and be escorted by one of the technologists to and from the mobile unit. She agreed with stipulation a. Chairperson Hunter invited comments from the public in regard to Special Use Permit No There being none, he entertained a motion. Mrs. Conrad moved to recommend to the Council approval of Special Use Permit No , 5500 College Boulevard, for a three-month period of time to allow a temporary facility. A second was made by Mr. Sanders, and the motion passed by a vote of 11 to 0.