OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. June 13, 2011

Transcription

1 OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 2011 The Overland Park Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Mrs. Janie Thacker, Chair. The following members were present, constituting a quorum: Mr. Mike Flanagan, Vice Chair; Mr. Tom Lance; Mr. Edward Ned Reitzes; Mr. George Lund; Mr. John Brake; Mr. Bob Gadd; Mr. Steve Troester; Mr. David M. Hill and Mrs. Kim Sorensen. Also present were: Mrs. Leslie Karr, Manager of Current Planning; Mr. Keith Gooch, Senior Planner; Ms. Danielle Zeigler, Senior Planner; Mr. Aaron Dubois, Assistant Planner; Ms. Pam Fortun, Senior Storm Water Treatment Engineer; Ms. Alysen Abel, Civil Engineer II; Mr. Jason Beske, Senior Planner; Mr. Steve Horner, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Lloyd Nichols, Senior Help Desk Support Specialist; and Ms. Kathleen Behrens, Recording Secretary. Approximately 25 people were in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 25 and May 9, Chair Janie Thacker presented the April 25, 2011, Planning Commission minutes for approval. Mr. Mike Flanagan moved to approve the April 25, 2011, Planning Commission minutes as presented. Mr. Bob Gadd seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0. Mrs. Thacker presented the May 9, 2011, Planning Commission minutes for approval. Mr. Dave Hill moved to approve the May 9, 2011, Planning Commission minutes. Mr. Flanagan seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 9 to 0 to 1. Mrs. Kim Sorensen abstained. CONSENT AGENDA: (Approved Items A through G) A. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL Shoppes at Deer Creek Woods, vicinity of the northwest corner of 135th Street and Metcalf. Application made by BRR Architecture, Inc. B. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Holiday Inn Express and Suites, vicinity of the northwest corner of 135th Street and Riley. Application made by BRR Architecture, Inc. C. FINAL PLAT NO Shoppes at Deer Creek Woods III Sixth Plat, vicinity of the northwest corner of 135th Street and Riley. Application made by Overland Park Express, L.P.

2 Page 2 D. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Nuts and Bolts Hardware Outdoor Display 9628 Nall. Application made by Nall Hills Center Association. E. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Head and Neck Surgery 5370 College Boulevard. Application made by Rose Design Group. F. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Northeast Metcalf Shopping Center Metcalf. Application made by Howell Construction Company. G. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL A.L. Huber Rooftop Turbine El Monte. Application made by Polsinelli Shughart PC. Mrs. Thacker presented the Planning Commission Consent Agenda and asked if there were items that needed to be removed for separate discussion. Mrs. Thacker removed Consent Agenda Item F for discussion. Mr. Flanagan moved to approve Consent Agenda Items A, B, C, D, E and G as presented. Mr. Steve Troester seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0. Mrs. Thacker referred to Consent Agenda Item F, Northeast Metcalf Shopping Center, and asked about the color palette that is suggested for use. She felt after viewing the building that the color selected was more monotone compared to the color of other nearby buildings. She asked how the color scheme was chosen and if there is potential to use colors that are more compliant with the other surrounding buildings. Senior Planner Keith Gooch noted that staff worked with the applicant to come up with a color palette that was agreeable to staff, and matched the other surrounding tenants color wishes. He explained that the applicant was present and could further expand on those details. He presented the color palette suggested for the building. Ms. Carol Howell, 1009 West 17th Street, Kansas City, Missouri, Howell Construction Company, explained that she was previously given color suggestions from the City using a lighter rosy pink color on the top half of the building. The lighter color has been selected. The accent trim will be the light stonewash color. There is a lot of difference in the two colors that will be used. The lighter color will be a natural block cement color, and the lower color is lighter and will go into the pink area. Mrs. Thacker did not see as much of the brick color compared to the two surrounding stores that have deeper colors. She felt the color palette stands out a lot more than the other buildings. Ms. Howell stated that the deeper color is quite dark. She noted that they were receptive to any suggestions, but their main issue is to use a waterproof product with a Thorocoat paint to stop the leaking. The suggested material absorbs water and the product does not come in any clearer coat. Mrs. Thacker referred to the picture of the color swatches and asked where the stonewash color would go. Ms. Howell stated that the stonewash color would be used for the accent striping. The next color, puddy tan, is the lighter part on the top of the building that is showing pink currently. The bottom color on the chart is Good Earth, which will be used at the lower part of the building and is currently shown as a

3 Page 3 natural stone color. The color selected by the Council is called Stolen Kiss, and will be used on the accent piece of the front entry. This is the only place that color will be used. They were asked to paint the bollards in the front in black. Mr. Tom Lance asked about the manufacturer of the product. Ms. Howell stated they were purchasing the product through BASF Construction. Mr. Flanagan moved to approve Consent Agenda Item F, Final Development Plan Approval for the Northeast Metcalf Shopping Center, Metcalf, as presented. Mr. Troester seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Amendments to Section Cul-de-sac, pertaining to cul-de-sac length limitation. Application made by The City of Overland Park. Mr. Gooch presented Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Amendments to Section , which pertains to cul-de-sac length limitations. The City of Overland Park is the applicant for this request, which is to amend section to include RP-OE, Planned Open Space Estate Residential, and RP-OS, Planned Open Space Single-Family Residential, zoning districts in the cul-de-sac limitations. Both of these zoning districts were inadvertently omitted when this section was amended in 2010 as part of the new Site Design Standards. If approved, all cul-de-sacs within these two zoning districts would be limited to 1,000 feet in length consistent with the zoning district limitations in the R-1, Single-Family Residential, and R-1A, Small-Lot Single- Family Residential zoning districts. No other changes are proposed to this section in the UDO. Staff recommended approval of the amendments to Section Mrs. Thacker opened the public hearing. With no further comments, she closed the hearing. Mr. Edward Ned Reitzes moved to recommend approval of the Unified Development Ordinance Amendments to Section for the cul-de-sac limitation as recommended by staff. Mr. George Lund seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Amendments to Section of the Unified Development Ordinance relating to adoption of the Downtown Form-Based Code. Application made by The City of Overland Park. Senior Planner Jason Beske presented Unified Development Ordinance Amendments to Section of the UDO relating to the recently adopted Downtown Form- Based Code. The Form-Based Code was approved January 10, 2011, by the City Council, and the subsequent rezoning was approved May 2, During those proceedings, the City Council brought to staff s attention several items they felt should be amended in the Code. Staff also had adjustments to some of the items. First, was the predominant discussion among the Governing Body pertaining to the Certificate of Conformity Review Process. The process outlined in the Form-Based Code adopted an administrative approval process. One of the primary benefits of this approval process

4 Page 4 was to cut down the time it would take a developer to move through the development and approval process. The City Council outlined what they wanted to see in a staff approval process, and requested staff bring back a recommendation to Council. Staff reviewed several different thresholds and what the City Council would be looking at when they get a proposal. If a developer abides by the standards of the Form-Based Code, they receive a Certificate of Conformity from staff, and there would be nothing for the Governing Body to appeal. Staff is recommending a threshold of 25,000 square feet. If a building goes over this threshold or over four stories in height, staff is recommending the developer go directly before the City Council with a proposal for a compliance oversight review. This is not considered a hearing, but a process to look at the development proposal and consider whether it conforms to the standards of the Form-Based Code. Any development under 25,000 square feet would remain within the administrative approval process. If a development exceeds 25,000 square feet or goes over four stories, the developer would be required to send out a courtesy mailing that alerts surrounding property owners within 200 feet of a proposed development area that there is pending development approval in that area. The process is similar to the public notification two weeks prior to a hearing. An example of a building that would exceed the limits would be the Phoenix building in Downtown, which is approximately 30,000 square feet, three stories in height, and has a mezzanine level and the lofts. This type of development would be required to go through the compliance and oversight by the City Council. The Shetlar Law building, which is located by the Strang statue at Santa Fe and 80th Street is about 7,000 square feet, and two stories, which would go through the administrative approval process of staff. The CVS building at 75th Street and Metcalf measures about 25,000 square feet and would have to go through the compliance and oversight process. Mr. Beske stated the notification to surrounding property owners of a deviation request by an applicant should have been added to the initial approval process of the Form-Based Code. Paragraph B, pertaining to process and standards, was reworded from the initial paragraph that was already included in the Form-Based Code. The next section pertains to non-conformities, which stem from the public hearing discussion relating to what the public wants to see in the Downtown area and what changes the Council is willing to allow. First, there are several properties in the Downtown area that are already platted for single-family development that are not built upon. Some of those properties have been designated on the Regulating Plan, under Small Apartment Townhome development, for a different development than what they were originally platted for. Staff wants to see an allowance for those properties originally platted for single-family development to be allowed to build singlefamily developments upon those properties if they choose. Second, there is an act of God clause for single-family buildings. Individual business owners who own buildings in Downtown that are destroyed by an act of God do not want to be required to rebuild to the minimum height, which is two stories in the Form-Based Code. They want to have the ability to rebuild to a one-story. Staff took this issue further by saying that if someone has a two- or three-story building that is destroyed, they wanted that building owner to rebuild to a similar height or comparable. Third, property improvements were suggested. What staff came up with is if someone wants to renovate a building and the value of that renovation is 10 percent more, that would trigger compliance with the Site Design Standards for landscaping, pedestrian and vehicle access of the property.

5 Page 5 The final changes proposed are for Building Envelope Standards. Mr. Beske presented the first change, which is on page No. 402.A. He provided an example of buildings with two separate building envelope standards and two separate requirements. In the Form-Based Code, a property owner that has two separate building envelope standards across their property frontage can move that building envelope standard 50 feet one way or the other, but that still does not allow someone to come in and use the building for one function, because there would still be two building envelope standards fronting the one building. If someone wanted to use an existing building, they would have to use part of that building for two different standards. In this standard, one use would be chosen to be used across the entire frontage of their building. The final change is an amendment to the graphic on page No for the building heights. A minimum of 50 feet in height would have to be achieved for a depth of 25 feet on the first floor. With the building envelope standards, they would establish an environment to allow retail development to thrive. The maximum depth was changed to 20 feet instead of 25 feet. This change came about from the discussion of the possibility of a new road going in, such as one of the Optional streets. Someone may want to retain a portion of their building, but the portion of the building retained is less than 25 feet. Staff wanted to allow that situation to fit within the standard without needing a deviation. Mr. Beske referred to changes to the amendments as listed in the staff report. With regard to the Certificate of Conformity, staff wanted to amend the wording to Governing Body instead of City Council. Staff recommended approval of Unified Development Ordinance amendments to Section of the UDO. Mr. Lance referred to the mention of the courtesy mailing and asked how that would be monitored. Mr. Beske stated that an affidavit could be made a requirement, but staff was looking at this as an honor system to ensure that the surrounding property owners were notified of pending developments. Mr. Flanagan referred to the proposed language, and felt the word storey was misspelled, but that staff had suggested that term was using the old English term. He recommended using the traditional spelling of Story and Stories, because he felt it would cause some confusion. Mr. Beske felt this was a consistency issue and there was a proposal issued by the consultant that included this term throughout the document. If the Planning Commission and Council agree to change it, staff would change all the spellings. Mr. Gadd also felt the spelling should be corrected. Mrs. Thacker asked if the storey spelling was used throughout the UDO. Mr. Beske stated that term was used as a reference in the Form-Based Code only. Mrs. Thacker opened the public hearing. With no further comments, she closed the hearing. Mr. Troester moved to recommend to the Council approval of the Unified Development Ordinance amendments to Section related to adoption of the Downtown Form-Based Code and to include the substitution of the spelling of storey to story. Mrs. Sorensen seconded the motion.

6 Page 6 Senior Assistant City Attorney Steve Horner agreed with the Planning Commission s proposed change to the term storey, but from a legal standpoint he felt the original spelling is consistent throughout the code. He suggested that the Legal Department decide what the easiest way is to change the spelling throughout the code. He recommended that the spelling not be changed in one instance and left incorrect in other instances, as it might pose a legal issue against the City by meaning something different. Mr. Troester agreed with Mr. Horner s suggestion to modify the motion to leave out the substitution of the spelling of storey to story until further review by the Legal Department. Mrs. Sorensen also agreed. Mr. Reitzes referred to the courtesy notification to surrounding property owners and asked if that would include the property owners living within 200 feet of a proposed development. Mr. Beske agreed. The modified motion made by Mr. Troester and seconded by Mrs. Sorensen carried by a vote of 10 to 0. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO Metcalf. Special use permit requested for a ten-year period of time to allow renewal of a telecommunication tower. This property is currently zoned CP-2, Planned General Business District. Application made by Selective Site Consultants, Inc. Assistant Planner Aaron Dubois presented Special Use Permit No , located on Metcalf. This request is for a ten-year period of time to allow a 150-foot cell tower to continue its operations. The property is currently zoned CP-2, Planned General Business District. The property is located at the northwest corner of 119th Street and Glenwood, directly behind the existing Wal-Mart store. He presented a vicinity map showing the tower mostly surrounded by a mixture of office and commercial uses. A portion of landscaping is located along the western edge of the enclosure that is missing, which the applicant has agreed to plant. Stipulation b addresses this issue and gives the applicant a 90-day timeframe in which to plant the landscaping and bring it into conformance following the approval of this application by the City Council. Selective Site Consultants, Inc., is the applicant for this request. This application is similar to what was approved five years ago, and no changes were made to the site or additional towers or equipment. Staff recommended approval of Special Use Permit No for a ten-year period of time, including stipulations a and b. Mrs. Thacker asked when the last renewal took place. Mr. Dubois stated that the last renewal was for five years. Mr. Lance asked if the City could require the utility facilities mounted on the wall to be painted to match the wall. Mr. Dubois stated that the utility facilities are not mounted on the wall, but are adjacent to the wall. However, on the landscape plan, there are a couple of trees and evergreen trees that are missing that staff anticipates would somewhat screen the view of those utilities when installed. He also noted that they

7 Page 7 could ask the applicant to paint those utilities, but they are located on the Wal-Mart property. Mr. Flanagan referred to stipulation b, asking if staff monitored that type of activity to ensure that it actually happens. Mr. Dubois stated that in other instances where staff has required landscaping, for instance, at Ripple Glass, located across the street from the current applicant, staff notes the date given to them and conducts a quick site inspection to ensure that is done. If the applicant does not follow through as promised, the City can repeal the applicant s special use permit. Mr. Hill asked if staff felt the amount of missing landscaping was substantial or minor compared to what was approved and what they should have had at the site. Mr. Dubois stated two of the four trees missing were originally shown on the approved landscape plan. Overall, there were about 20 to 25 species of plants that were planted along the south and east sides of their enclosure and those were found to be largely intact. The pictures that were submitted when the applicant first came through show the evergreen trees and deciduous trees. Staff was working with the applicant to get an ownership affidavit, which is why the application had been continued many times. Mr. Hill was not sure if the applicant was deserving of a ten-year approval when they are not totally compliant; however, he felt since a small amount of the landscaping was missing from the pictures shown that they should be considered mostly compliant. Mrs. Thacker recalled that there was an issue five years ago with the landscaping, and asked if there was anything on record pertaining to that issue. Mr. Dubois agreed and noted that the proposed site was deficient of much of the landscaping, as well as the condition of the brick masonry enclosure in The application was originally requested for ten years, but the applicant only received five years to ensure they were able to bring the site into conformance. Staff has worked with the applicant since that time to ensure they were able to meet all ordinance requirements. Except for the two missing trees, staff feels the applicant has met all ordinance requirements. Mr. Trevor Wood, SSC, Inc., 8500 West 110th Street, Suite 300, appeared on behalf of the applicant, T-Mobile Central, L.L.C. He referred to the question regarding the painting of the electrical equipment, stating that was the utilities equipment, and they cannot do anything to that equipment. He noted that they would replace the landscaping as outlined by staff. He had previously appeared before the Planning Commission when this request came about five years ago, and the major issue he recalled was the concern of sheathing of the shelter shown on the south side. That shelter was sheathed in a brick appearance, addressing that issue at that time. He also pointed out that when they are notified by the City of deficiencies in landscaping and other issues, they are quick to make the necessary changes. In the current instance, the landscaping surrounding the compound is actually located on Wal-Mart property. Their preferred option of screening the electrical box is through the use of trees and landscaping. He felt that area was a low traffic area and only appears to be high traffic on the back side of the Wal-Mart, which is the east view of the facility. He agreed to all stipulations. Mrs. Thacker opened the public hearing. Upon receiving no comment, she closed the hearing.

8 Page 8 Mr. Lance asked if the painting of the electrical box could be included in the motion. Mr. Dubois pointed out that the applicant had noted that the electrical equipment belonged to Wal-Mart, and the applicant can only discuss that issue with the Wal-Mart Corporation, and would not be required as part of the approval of this request as it is not the intent of a special use permit. Mr. Wood noted that the electrical box is the utility equipment, which is owned by Wal-Mart, and they will not allow them to paint that equipment as they have had this request come up in the past. Mr. Troester felt painting the equipment would create a maintenance issue, and they should leave the equipment as is. Mr. Troester moved to recommend to the Council approval of Special Use Permit No , located at Metcalf, including stipulations a and b. Mr. Reitzes seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO West 135th Street. Special use permit requested for a five-year period of time to allow renewal of a drinking establishment. This property is currently zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District. Application made by the City of Overland Park. Mr. Dubois presented Special Use Permit No , located at West 135th Street. This is a request to allow the renewal of a drinking establishment for a five-year period of time to continue the operations of the drinking establishment for the St. Andrews Golf Course. The property is currently zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District. The property is located at the southeast corner of Nieman and 135th Street and is surrounded mostly by multi-family, commercial and some singlefamily residential. Since the outer walls of their clubhouse are located within 200 feet of residentially zoned property, they are required to obtain a special use permit. The City of Overland Park Police Department has indicated that over the past five years, there have been no major or alcohol related instances at this location. This is the applicant s third request for renewal of the permit. No applicant is present since the City is the applicant. He offered to relay further questions of the request to the Golf Division. He recommended approval of Special Use Permit No as presented. Mrs. Thacker opened the public hearing. With no further comments, she closed the hearing. Mr. Reitzes moved to recommend to the Council approval of Special Use Permit No , located at West 135th Street, for a five-year period of time. Mr. Lund seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO Frontage Road. Special use permit requested for a five-year period of time to allow renewal of a drinking establishment. This property is currently zoned CP-2, Planned General Business District. Application made by Tailgaters, L.L.C.

9 Page 9 Mr. Dubois presented Special Use Permit No , located at 7955 Frontage Road. This request is to allow renewal of a drinking establishment for a five-year period of time. The property is currently zoned CP-2, Planned General Business District. The applicant for this request is Anthony Simone representing Tailgaters Bar and Grill. The property is located adjacent to I-35 and Frontage Road and surrounded mostly by residential, office and business park, and commercial development. The walls of this establishment are within 200 feet of residentially zoned property, triggering a special use permit requirement. This is the first request for a drinking establishment at this location by this applicant. A previous special use permit for a drinking establishment was approved for the establishment, Final Approach, in The UDO limits renewals of drinking establishments to five years. Staff received a letter from the Police Department indicating there were 13 police reports filed at this location since November of The incidents resulted from over-serving patrons, fighting and other alcohol-related altercations. The Police Department has major concerns with this location in terms of safety and over-serving their patrons; therefore, they are only recommending a one-year period of time for renewal. They also recommended the applicant work with their local alcohol and beverage control agent and the Police Department to correctly identify and quit serving intoxicated patrons, as well as security training for the employees of the restaurant. The applicant has been in contact with an Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) field agent, as well as started some additional training with his employees. He will be contacting a local member of the Police Department to begin any further training that is required. Staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit No for a one-year period of time, subject to stipulation a. Mr. Anthony Simone, 8408 West 89th Street, appeared as the applicant, stating he felt as everyone else did, as they experienced unacceptable behavior in their establishment. He explained that he had recently met with his employees, and they had agreed to sign a letter, stating that the policy is to not over-serve and that termination of their job will be the repercussion if they are determined to over-serve customers. He noted that they have a bouncer on duty on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights, which are their busiest nights. He pointed out that they had a problem with their previous bouncer, and that most of the Police reports were written before January of There have only been two reports written since hiring new security. He fully agreed to work with an ABC Officer and the Police Department to do whatever is necessary to maintain their license. Mrs. Thacker asked if the applicant agreed with stipulation a. Mr. Simone agreed. Mr. Flanagan asked the applicant why there were so many incidents occurring at his establishment resulting in the police reports. Mr. Simone stated that many of the incidents involved people who were staying at the Extended Stay Hotel located across the street from their establishment. Many people who stay there come to his establishment after work. He felt they could do a better job of identifying the people causing problems and turn them away up front. Many of their customers are neighborhood people, and not the people who have caused most of the problems. Many of their regular customers have been coming to their establishment prior to when they took over.

10 Page 10 Mrs. Thacker asked if the applicant understood the request is being recommended for approval for a one-year period of time instead of the previous five-year time limit. Mr. Simone agreed. Mr. Lund asked if the applicant previously had a five-year special use permit. Mr. Dubois agreed, noting the special use permit runs with the land, not necessarily the business owner or the current applicant. When the current special use permit ran out, which was originally approved in 2006 for the Final Approach Bar and Grill, the new owners were required to obtain a new five-year permit. Mr. Lund asked when the five-year permit expired and if the permit is recommended for a one-year renewal time period when would the renewal take effect. Mr. Dubois stated that the five-year permit would expire some time in July. When the new recommendation gets approved and published in the newspaper, it will supersede any existing permit if the applicant still had some time left on the most recent special use permit. If the one-year time limit is approved by the City Council, the business would have one year to work with the Police Department and come back to the Planning Commission to determine if the establishment has improved on the concerns of the Police Department. If the Police Department is comfortable with the operation continuing and the business were to limit incidents since they brought in the new security team, and they were moving in the right direction to reduce the incidents, they need one year to maintain a good record and then reapply for a five-year term. Mrs. Thacker opened the public hearing. With no further comments, she closed the hearing. Mr. Troester moved to recommend approval to the Council of Special Use Permit No , located at 7955 Frontage Road, for a one-year period of time, including stipulation a. Mr. Reitzes seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO Antioch. Special use permit requested for a two-year period of time to allow a commercial use in an industrial district. This property is currently zoned M-1, Industrial Park District. Application made by Ray Boyles Corvette Village, Inc. Senior Planner Danielle Zeigler presented Special Use Permit No , located at 5011 Antioch. Ray Boyles Corvette Village, Inc., is the applicant for the request. They are requesting a special use permit for a two-year period of time to allow a commercial use in an industrial district. The subject property is zoned M-1, Industrial Park District. This area is characterized by industrial and commercial uses with some commercial uses in industrial zoning districts via special use permit approval. This site has an existing 13,000 square foot building, and this is the first renewal request for Corvette Village at this location. The applicant services and restores vintage corvettes, and the 13,000 square foot building is ideal for them to do all their work indoors. They currently have five employees, and the site has 30 parking spaces. The original special use permit was issued in 2009, and the City Council required that a parking lot island be painted at the entrance to the site, which has been done. The applicant has provided pictures of the site and done a lot of clean-up and maintenance over the past two years. Staff recommended approval of Special Use Permit No for a two-year period of time as presented.

11 Page 11 Mr. Lance asked if there was a reason why there could not be more than two years approved for this application. Ms. Zeigler stated that the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) currently limits commercial use in industrial district to a two-year period of time, and is what the applicant applied for and what staff published in the newspaper. Mr. Ray Boyles, 5011 Antioch, appeared as the applicant. Mr. Lance asked if any painting occurred inside of the building. Mr. Boyles stated that those services were outsourced. Mr. Reitzes asked how many corvettes would be parked on the lot on a typical day. Mr. Boyles stated that there would be about 20 to 25 corvettes parked indoors and about 3 to 5 corvettes parked outside depending on the weather. Mrs. Thacker opened the public hearing. With no one wanting to comment, she closed the hearing. Mr. Hill moved to recommend approval of Special Use Permit No , located at 5011 Antioch, for a period of two years as outlined by staff. Mr. John Brake seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO College Boulevard. Special use permit requested for a two-year period of time to allow a temporary commercial use in an industrial district. This property is currently zoned BP, Business Park District. Application made by Rick s Tailoring and Men s Wear. Ms. Zeigler presented Special Use Permit No , located at 6398 College Boulevard. Rick s Tailoring and Men s Wear is the applicant for the request for a twoyear special use permit to allow a commercial use in an industrial district. The property is currently zoned BP, Business Park District. This area consists of Business Park and Office uses. This is the third renewal request for this applicant at this location. The initial permit was issued in Although it is primarily a retail operation, the business also includes tailoring, Internet sales and wholesaling. The location includes a large storage room, a rear access door, and a loading dock to accommodate the Internet and wholesale portions of the business. The applicant has indicated the daily number of customers coming to the location is approximately 20 to 30. Due to the low volume of customers and with no complaints by neighboring tenants, staff feels there is an adequate number of parking spaces. Staff recommended approval of Special Use Permit No for a two-year period of time. Ms. Cheryl Wheat, 6310 Lamar, Suite 220, property manager for the property in question, appeared on behalf of the applicant and stated the property was previously managed by Rubenstein Real Estate. She noted that the applicant has not changed his operations, does not have a lot of walk-in customer traffic, and has not created any parking problems. Mrs. Thacker opened the public hearing. With no comments being made, she closed the hearing.

12 Page 12 Mr. Flanagan moved to recommend to the Council approval of Special Use Permit No , located in the vicinity of 6398 College Boulevard for a two-year period of time. Mrs. Sorensen seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO West 125th Street. Special use permit requested for a ten-year period of time to allow renewal of a communication tower. This property is currently zoned CP-1, Planned Restricted Business District. Application made by T-Mobile Central, L.L.C. (Continued) Mrs. Sorensen moved to continue Special Use Permit No , West 125th Street, to the July 11, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Flanagan seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO West 95th Street. Special use permit requested for a five-year period of time for a recreation facility in an office zoning district. This property is currently zoned CP-O, Planned Office Building District. Application made by Roxanne Higbee. (Continued) Mr. Gadd moved to continue Special Use Permit No , 6580 West 95th Street, to the July 11, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Flanagan seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO Lenexa Drive. Special use permit requested for a 15-year period of time to allow renewal of temporary office use in an industrial district. This property is currently zoned M-1, Industrial Park District. Application made by Polsinelli Shughart, PC. Mr. Beske presented Special Use Permit No , located at 8915 Lenexa Drive. The applicant requests renewal of a special use permit for a temporary office use in an M-1, Industrial Park District, located in the Congleton Industrial Park. He presented a vicinity map showing the surrounding uses being predominantly industrial with some retail uses. The renewal is for the Kansas Department of Social Rehabilitation Services, who initially received a special use permit in 2001 for an 11-year period of time. Staff had recommended a two-year period of time; however, the City Council approved the 11-year period of time. This site is nearly five acres, with a 50,000 square foot building that the Kansas Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) moved into in 2001, and has been operating at this site ever since. There have been no negative impacts due to this commercial use in the industrial district that staff is aware of. The applicant has requested a 15-year time period. Staff recommended approval of the renewal for Special Use Permit No for a 15-year period of time. Mr. Curtis Holland, 6201 College Boulevard, Suite 500, appeared on behalf of the applicant. He noted that the request involved a unique situation, in that it is an office use in an industrial park district. The facility was originally located in Olathe, Kansas, and there were some environmental issues that became known with respect

13 Page 13 to their previous building. The applicant relocated to Overland Park and the City s ordinance required a special use permit. The applicant has been located at their current site for the last 11 years. The reason for requesting the renewal of the special use permit for a 15-year period of time was the fact that the landowner/building owner, Glenn Zumbehl and Kansas SRS, recently extended the lease terms to 15 years, subject to approval of a special use permit. As part of that, the property owner upgraded the parking lot, reroofed the building, installed green glass, more energy efficiency glass, and restructured parts of the interior, spending a significant amount of money. There have been no issues to arise on this property. He noted that he had received a phone call from one of the neighboring property owners asking about the notification letter they received. After explaining to the property owner what it involved, that property owner was not concerned. He also pointed out that this was a significant employer in the community with 250 employees. He asked for approval of the special use permit with the 15-year renewal time period. Mr. Reitzes asked how long a period the current special use permit encompassed. Mr. Holland stated that the current special use permit was for a 10-year period of time. Mr. Reitzes asked if the applicant had requested an exception or deviation originally. Mr. Holland stated that the rules initially allow for a two-year period of time, but an additional period of time can be requested, which was requested and granted given the circumstances. Mr. Reitzes asked if the current lease was getting ready to terminate or expire. Mr. Holland stated the current lease is being renewed for 15 years. Mrs. Thacker opened the public hearing. With no comments being made, she closed the hearing. Mr. Lance favored the 15-year period of time renewal and felt if any issues arise, the City could revoke the special use permit. Mr. Lund moved to recommend to the Council approval of Special Use Permit No , 8915 Lenexa Drive, for a 15-year period of time. Mr. Flanagan seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0. PRELIMINARY PLAT NO Wilshire Ridge, vicinity of the southwest corner of 165th Street and Antioch. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. Mr. Gooch presented Preliminary Plat No for Wilshire Ridge, which is located in the vicinity of the southwest corner of 165th Street and Antioch. The applicant is requesting a preliminary plat for a 76-lot, 5-tract, single-family residential development. The property is currently zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District. The request is for approval of a 76-lot, single-family subdivision on acres with a density of 2.5 units per acre. The property was previously approved for the Pines at Antioch, which was never recorded. Access to the plat is provided from Antioch, 165th Street, and then a future connection to the west if that property is developed. Most of the lots are approximately 70 feet wide. The subdivision has five tracts, which are located mostly along Quivira. Tracts A and B are the proposed 25-foot landscape easement along Antioch, and Tract C is the proposed pool tract. Tracts D and E are the required detention areas.

14 Page 14 The property is located adjacent to 165th Street, which is a collector street. The applicant will be responsible for connecting a sidewalk from its present terminus all the way to the end of the western edge of the property. Staff has reviewed the plat except for some minor technical errors, but all ordinance requirements have been met. Staff is supportive of the applicant s request and recommended approval of Preliminary Plat No , subject to stipulations a through l. Mr. Lance asked how Tract B would be developed. Mr. Gooch stated that Tract B is the 25-foot landscaping easement. Mr. Lance asked if only landscaping would be used in this area. Mr. Gooch stated that the applicant would be able to verify that issue. Mr. Brick Owens, principal landscape architect with NSPJ Architects, 3515 West 75th Street, appeared on behalf of Wilshire Ridge. He stated that their request is essentially a replat of the street system that takes out two lots to provide an amenity center. Those lots are located interior to the project for easy access. They have been successful with marketing the character and personality of Wilshire Farms. Mr. Owens referred to Tract B, stating they would be using a berm for the landscaping on that tract, and they would make it as tall as possible and still have the ability to be mowed along the tract on Antioch. He also demonstrated on the pictures the buffer plantings along Antioch and the corner, and some of the amenities they are hoping to provide in the detention and open space areas and walking trails. Detailed plans will be shown at the final plan stage. Mr. Lance asked what the applicant s landmark traits were in all their developments. Mr. Owens stated they would be providing cul-de-sac islands. Mrs. Thacker asked if the applicant was agreeable to stipulations a through l. Mr. Owens agreed. Mrs. Thacker opened the public hearing. With no comments being made, she closed the hearing. Mr. Flanagan moved to approve Preliminary Plat No for Wilshire Ridge, vicinity of the southwest corner of 165th Street and Antioch, including stipulations a through l. Mrs. Sorensen seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0. FINAL PLAT NO Wilshire Ridge Vicinity of 165th Street and Antioch. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. Mr. Gooch presented Final Plat No for Wilshire Ridge, located in the vicinity of 165th Street and Antioch, stating this was the first phase. The final plat is for a 38-lot, 4-tract, single-family residential development on 15.1 acres. The property is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District. Access to and from the site is provided off Antioch. Four tracts are being planned as part of the first phase, and Tract A and D are the proposed 25-foot landscape easements along Antioch. The landscape plan will be required at the time of the construction approval for the streets. Tract B is the proposed required detention, while Tract C is the proposed pool tract located internal to the subdivision. Street trees will be required along all residential streets in the subdivision. Staff has reviewed the plat, and except for some minor technical errors,

15 Page 15 all ordinance requirements have been met. Staff recommended approval of the Final Plat No for Wilshire Ridge, subject to stipulations a through k. Mr. Brick Owens, principal architect with NSPJ Architects, 3515 West 75th Street, appeared on behalf of the applicant. He noted that this was the first final plat for 38 lots of a total of 76 lots. This will allow the applicant to create their front entry monument and begin the subdivision amenity center. He agreed with proposed stipulations a through k. Mr. Troester moved to recommend to the Council approval of Final Plat No , including stipulations a through k. Mrs. Sorensen seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0. FINAL PLAT NO Summerwood Estates Fourth Plat, vicinity of the southwest corner of 159th Street and Quivira. Application made by Summerwood Associates, L.L.C. (Continued) Mrs. Thacker announced that Final Plat No for Summerwood Estates Fourth Plat was being continued to the August 8, 2011, Planning Commission meeting and no motion was required. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Ripple Glass Recycling Bin West 135th Street. Application made by Ripple Glass. Mr. Dubois presented Final Development Plan for Ripple Glass Recycling Bin, located at West 135th Street. This is a request for a new Ripple Glass recycling container. The Ripple Glass recycling container would be placed in front of the existing Price Chopper center at the southwest corner of the interior parking lot. The applicant and staff discussed this site to identify a location that would be reasonably obscured from the public street and adjacent properties, but still give a reasonable amount of visibility to the container. This location will be tucked into the existing landscape island and would be slightly screened from the streets by existing landscaping, as well as buildings built along 135th Street and Quivira. The applicant is requesting a deviation to not require screening of the recycling bin with either curbing and masonry walls or additional landscaped trees. Staff is comfortable with continuing the operation of the Ripple Glass containers for three years without the required screening. Staff will then evaluate each location after the initial three-year time frame to determine whether landscaping or masonry walls would be required. Staff recommended approval of the final development plan for Ripple Glass, subject to stipulations a through e. Mr. Gadd referred to the previous discussion of this item, stating they had said then that the bins must be located within two parking spaces. Mr. Dubois agreed and stated that the other locations used lateral space across a parking area; however, staff and the applicant felt this would be a better location and occupy three spaces, but it would be tucked into a landscape area instead of out along the interior street. The stipulation for the required two parking spaces was removed. Mr. Gadd asked if the stipulation could require three parking spaces. Mr. Dubois agreed.

16 Page 16 Mr. Lance recalled from the past that an adjacent business had the privilege of putting their advertisement on these facilities and asked who that would be in the current case. Mr. Dubois felt that advertiser would be Price Chopper, because they are partnering with Ripple Glass. He offered to confirm that information with the applicant if there are additional sponsors at this location. Mr. Brake asked why they are waiting three years to determine whether screening is needed. Mr. Dubois stated that was the information the applicant provided to staff, and the three-year timeframe would allow them to determine if they are making a profit. He noted that the applicant could further elaborate on that issue. Ms. Stacia Stelk, Ripple Glass representative, 1642 Crystal Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri, appeared on behalf of the applicant. Mrs. Thacker asked about the suggestion made about limiting the location to three parking spaces and asked if the applicant was agreeable to that suggestion. Ms. Stelk agreed. Mrs. Thacker asked if the applicant agreed with the proposed stipulations a through e. Ms. Stelk agreed. Mr. Lund asked how often the containers would would be removed by empting the glass inside. Ms. Stelk stated that the pickups would vary by location. For instance, the glass recycling container at Deer Creek Market Place is emptied every five days. Some containers in the community, such as the Sprint Campus, are only emptied twice per month. For the more infrequent pick-ups, the property host will call to schedule an empty and return with Deffenbaugh Industries. Deer Creek has Passionate Glass Recyclers in the area to use, and it is easier to use a regular pickup schedule so there is never a delay in service from their hauler. Mr. Lund stated that he used the recycle bin at Deer Creek, and he noticed that it was very full a day ago. Ms. Stelk noted that they are trying to tweak something in regard to what occurred last summer with the increase in consumption of adult beverages during the summer months. They have also noticed an uptake of glass recycling. She suggested changing that pickup to every four days instead of five days. Ms. Stelk referred to an issue that was raised in the past regarding the logos on the bins, noting all the bins have the logos of their investor. Boulevard Brewing Company, UMB Bank, DST Systems, Owens Corning, who makes insulation from the recycled material, and Deffenbaugh Industries is their hauling partner. As far as Price Chopper locations, they are in the early stages of a strategic partnership with Price Chopper. At their grocery store locations, they are working with them, and they will also be allowed to put their logo on the recycle bin. Other than the logos mentioned, no other logo is involved. Mr. Dubois suggested adding stipulation f, that the recycling bins shall occupy no more than three parking spaces. Mr. Flanagan moved to approve the final development plan for Ripple Glass Recycling Bin, located at West 135th Street, including stipulations a through e and additional stipulation f. Mr. Troester seconded the motion. Mr. Brake noted that it states in the discussion that after three years, the applicant will have to screen the container if it is successful, but he did not see that in the stipulations to show that is able to be done. Mr. Dubois stated that they can add in