OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. January 9, 2006

Transcription

1 OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 9, 2006 The Overland Park Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Mr. Edward Ned Reitzes, Chair. The following members were present, constituting a quorum: Mr. David Hill, Vice Chair; Mr. Tom Lance; Mr. Richard Collins; Mr. Charles Hunter; Mr. John Skubal; Mr. George Lund; and Mr. John Brake. Mr. Mike Flanagan was absent. Mrs. Kim Sorensen and Ms. Janie Thacker arrived at 2:45 p.m. Also present were: Mr. Bart Budetti, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Bob Lindeblad, Current Planning Manager; Mrs. Leslie Karr, Senior Planner; Mr. Mark Stuecheli, Senior Transportation Planner; Mr. David Dalecky, Planner; Mr. Kirk Coonley, Principal Engineer; Ms. Danielle Zeigler, Planning Technician; and Ms. Nancee Ellis, Recording Secretary. Approximately 40 people were in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 14, 2005, and November 28, 2005 (Approved) Mr. George Lund moved for the approval of the November 14, 2005, minutes. Mr. Dave Hill seconded the motion, which passed by a 7 to 0 to 1 vote, including the vote of Chairman Ed Reitzes who voted on all agenda items. Mr. Tom Lance abstained. Mr. Charles Hunter moved for the approval of the November 28, 2005, minutes. After a second by Mr. Hill, the motion carried by a 7 to 0 to 1 vote. Mr. Richard Collins abstained. ELECTION OF 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS (Approved) As Chair of the 2006 Nominating Committee to nominate the Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning Commission, Mr. Collins said the Committee met and unanimously recommended that Mr. Hill be nominated as Chair and that Mrs. Kim Sorensen be nominated as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission for Chair Reitzes determined there were no other nominations for Chair or Vice Chair. He said the bylaws of the Planning Commission require that the election of Chair and Vice Chair be by ballot; however, as Chair he could suspend the rules. Mr. Collins then moved to suspend the rules in order to vote by acclamation and on behalf of the Nominating Committee, he nominated Mr. Hill as Chair and Mrs. Sorensen as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission for Mr. John Brake seconded the motion, which carried by an 8 to 0 vote. As new Chair Hill exchanged seats with outgoing Chair Reitzes, Chair Hill thanked him for his service over the last two years as Chair of this Commission. He thanked

2 Page 2 Mr. Reitzes for his leadership and mentorship to the entire Commission. CONSENT AGENDA (Approved items B, C, D, E, G, H, I, J, K, L, M and N; Continued item A to the Planning Commission meeting of January 23, 2006 and continued item F to the Planning Commission meeting of February 27, 2006). A. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Menorah Medical Center 5701 West 119th Street. Application made by Hoefer Wysocki Architects. B. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Corbin Park Loop Road Phase 2 Vicinity of the southwest corner of 135th Street and Lamar. Application made by Polsinelli Shalton Welte Suelthaus PC. C. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Erickson Community Welcome Center Vicinity of the northwest corner of 139th Street and Metcalf. Application made by Polsinelli Shalton Welte Suelthaus PC. D. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Cingular Wireless 8215 Metcalf. Application made by Selective Site Consultants, Inc. E. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL McCray Lumber El Monte. Application made by NSPJ Architects. F. FINAL PLAT NO Summerwood Estates Third Plat Vicinity of 159th Street and Quivira. Application made by Heritage Development of Kansas. G. FINAL PLAT NO Shoppes at Deer Creek Woods III Third Plat Vicinity of the northwest corner of 135th Street and Riley. Application made by Olsson Associates. H. FINAL PLAT NO Ranch Villas at Nall Hills Vicinity of the northeast corner of 103rd Street and Horton. Application made by Nall Hills Development, L.L.C. I. FINAL PLAT NO Heartland Replat First Plat 8707, 8709, 8715 and 8717 West 78th Circle. Application made by Shafer, Kline & Warren, Inc. J. FINAL PLAT NO Heartland Replat Second Plat 8720 and 8722 West 78th Circle. Application made by Shafer, Kline & Warren, Inc. K. FINAL PLAT NO MKM Replat First Plat 8764 and 8766 West 79th Circle. Application made by Shafer, Kline & Warren, Inc. L. FINAL PLAT NO MKM Replat Second Plat 8776 and 8778 West 79th Circle. Application made by Shafer, Kline & Warren, Inc. M. FINAL PLAT NO Fairway Woods North Villas Sixty-Eighth Plat West 122nd Street. Application made by Tom French Builder, Inc.

3 Page 3 N. FINAL PLAT NO Corbin Park Third Plat Vicinity of the southwest corner of 135th Street and Lamar. Application made by Polsinelli Shalton Welte Suelthaus PC. Mr. Lund moved for the approval of the preceding consent agenda items with the exception of items A and F, which are to be continued. After a second by Mr. Hunter, the motion carried by an 8 to 0 vote. REZONING NO Vicinity of the southwest corner of 77th Street and Metcalf. Rezoning requested from C-3, Commercial District, and R-1, Single-Family Residential District, to CP-2, Planned General Business District, to allow the redevelopment of a McDonald s restaurant. Application made by Andrew J. Schlagel. (Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 23, 2006.) Mr. Hunter moved for approval of the referenced continuance as noted. After a second by Mr. Reitzes, the motion passed by an 8 to 0 vote. REZONING NO Switzer. Rezoning requested from A-J, Agricultural District Johnson County, to RP-OE, Planned Open Space Estate Residential District, to allow the development of an open-space single-family subdivision. Application made by Schlagel & Associates, P.A. (Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 23, 2006.) Mr. Hunter moved for the approval of the referenced continuance as noted. Mr. Reitzes seconded the motion which passed by an 8 to 0 vote. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO Metcalf. Special use permit requested for a ten-year period of time to allow the renewal of a telecommunication tower. This property is currently zoned CP-2, Planned General Business District. Application made by Selective Site Consultants, Inc. (Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 13, 2006.) Planner Dave Dalecky relayed that the Planning Commission discussed this item at a public hearing on October 24, He said the issue regarding this special use permit is that the equipment cabinet is clearly visible above the compound wall that was intended to hide all of the equipment from view. The applicant has requested to leave the wall and the cabinet in place and add more landscaping including taller and more mature trees that would provide some immediate screening of the equipment cabinet. Mr. Dalecky said staff was not supportive of attempting to screen the cabinet with only landscaping and recommended that the wall be raised in height to completely screen the cabinet or the cabinet be lowered to sit below the existing wall. As relayed in Staff Comments, the Planning Commission continued the request so that the applicant and staff could pursue a mutually acceptable solution. The applicant continued to research the possibility of raising the wall and determined that the existing footing for the wall would not support an approximate four-foot increase in height. Therefore, the entire wall would have to be rebuilt to screen the equipment cabinet. Mr. Dalecky advised that the applicant has indicated this would be a

4 Page 4 substantial expense, particularly with the possibility that the equipment cabinet may be replaced in two years following technological advancements. Mr. Dalecky said the applicant also contends that the equipment cabinet that extends above the wall was issued a Certificate of Occupancy and considered acceptable and should be allowed to remain as it exists today. He said staff disagrees with the applicant and believes that the diagram that was approved for the installation of the cabinet showed a cabinet that would be entirely screened by the compound walls. Mr. Dalecky said staff indicated at the previous meeting that site inspections by the current planning staff prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for communication towers were not frequently done. He said the expectation was for all of the equipment to be screened by the compound walls, which is a requirement of the Unified Development Ordinance. Such techniques have typically meant a walled compound using the same materials as the primary buildings in the area. Mr. Dalecky said staff continues to recommend that this application be denied or continued with direction from the Commission that the applicant sufficiently screen the equipment shelter in the compound by either raising the wall height or by reducing the height of the equipment shelter that is in that compound. Mr. Lance asked if the applicant provided any structural engineering drawings or calculations that would substantiate their claim that the wall would have to be torn down and reconstructed based on its footing. Mr. Dalecky said no drawings were provided of the existing footings; however, a cost estimate was provided to staff shortly before this meeting. He advised that two of the walls (southernmost and easternmost) were pre-existing before the wireless communication tower was installed, and the applicant is not sure what those footings are. The other two legs of the wall were constructed by Selective Site Consultants, and those footings are known. Mr. Lance said there appeared to be a lack of communication because the module unit that was installed is a standard height. Mr. Dalecky replied that this issue was raised at the October 24th Planning Commission meeting, adding that the construction drawings provided to planning staff for the equipment cabinet that does extend beyond the height of the wall was shown to be at a height of ten feet and five inches. At that time, staff had reviewed the building permit application with the expectation that the cabinet would not exceed ten feet and five inches tall. Mr. Dalecky stated that the height of the compound is approximately nine and a half feet tall above grade, and the equipment cabinet is at least 13-feet tall. He said the equipment cabinet is taller than what was expected at the time the building permit was issued. In looking at the as built drawings 27C and 27D in Staff Comments, Mr. Collins noted that the dates on those go back to He said it appears that in 27D there was one cabinet at the time, and he asked if Mr. Dalecky knew whether that cabinet extended above the height of the wall. Mr. Dalecky replied that the cabinet does not. He said there are two equipment cabinets in the compound because there are two providers at this site. Drawing 27G showed something labeled the existing Nextel shelter, and Mr. Collins asked if that is the one that is 13 feet in height. Mr. Dalecky concurred. Mr. Collins clarified that sometime between 2000 and October 2005, which is the date on the 27G drawing, the Nextel shelter was constructed, and Mr. Dalecky said the Nextel shelter

5 Page 5 was installed in 2001 or early Mr. Collins asked what the City s records show in terms of a building permit for that cabinet. Mr. Dalecky replied that the building permit shows the dimensions of that cabinet. If this special use permit is denied today, Mr. John Skubal asked Mr. Dalecky what would occur. Mr. Dalecky said the application would continue to the City Council with a recommendation by the Commission for denial. Should the application be denied by the Council, the applicant is not granted the land use and the tower would be removed. Mr. Lance said at the last Planning Commission meeting when this item was discussed, there was discussion about the efflorescence on the exterior face of the wall screening the utility meters and the transformer. Mr. Dalecky replied that staff and the applicant believe those issues have been resolved, noting that the applicant has agreed to remove the efflorescence and add more landscaping to screen the meters and transformer cabinet. Mr. Treavor Wood, Selective Site Consultants (SSC), 8500 West 110th Street, copied the Commission and staff with a letter from a Selective Site Consultant engineer, which relays that the existing wall will not support the additional loading required to go up in height with the wall. He said there are rough-cost estimates for both replacing the wall and for modifying the shelter so it is not visible. Mr. Wood stated that the applicant did make a good-faith effort to comply with what the City was asking; however, the sub-tenant has communicated with the owner of the site, and it has been determined that it will not be feasible to pursue burying the shelter or to reconstruct the wall. Mr. Wood said the applicant looked at what the City is asking for in conjunction with the ordinance. He said Mr. Dalecky pointed out the final development plan provision in subdivision 12 of the cell tower ordinance and that all sites are subject to final development plan approval. In reviewing the old file for a special use permit on this project, Mr. Wood found the applicant had applied for a final development plan on this project for T-Mobile. There is a specific note in the final development plan that the wall would be seven feet in height, which he presumed was an interior wall height because there is a difference in grade between the interior of the compound and the exterior of it by approximately two and a half feet. In looking at the condition that was part of the analysis from the development plan approval dated November 27, 2000, it is clear what the wall was intended to be. Mr. Wood said in reviewing that against the building permit that was received by Nextel dated February 7, 2001, and the subsequent certificate of occupancy issued to Nextel for this installation, it is very clear that the shelter that was placed within the compound by Nextel would be visible at the time they constructed the site. In looking at a few of the tower sites that SSC is familiar with by working with other carriers to allow collocation on existing tower sites in the past, Mr. Wood said going through the aesthetics and typicality of requesting walls such as the one in question, he found that this wall is atypical and screens the existing shelter better than many sites around the City and is more attractive. He distributed some photos to Commissioners of a few sites around the City to make his point. Mr. Wood also noted that some of these sites have come up for special use permit renewal. While he had not reviewed the City s records to determine whether the owners of these towers also sought a similar request, he wanted to point out that there were a number of towers

6 Page 6 located where there are high traffic counts on busy streets or in residential areas where there are no masonry walls. Mr. Wood shared some photos with Commissioners of areas in the City of walls that do not entirely shield the shelters from view. The first photo was the site at 151st Street and U.S. 69 Highway, a Global Signal site, where an existing shelter is visible to those entering U.S. 69 Highway off 151st Street and proceeding northbound. He said the shelter is relatively prominent and is situated behind a wooden fence. The next photo showed a cell site, owned by Global Signal at 162nd Street and U.S. 69 Highway that had no screening at all. He said it sits adjacent to U.S. 69 Highway on the east side of the highway where there are thousands of vehicle trips every day. Mr. Wood noted that this special use permit had come up for renewal recently, and SSC represented one of the initial applicants that had amended a special use permit at that site. He said there was no request that the wall be increased in height to protect the view from the shelter. Another photo was at 103rd Street and Metcalf, at the northeast corner of the intersection. Mr. Wood said the shelter is above the wall, adding that special use permit was amended in 1999 with no request by the City that a wall be reconstructed to fully hide the shelter. The next photo was of a communication tower site at the Overland Park Fire Station adjacent to U.S. 69 Highway on the west side, where many vehicles pass this site daily. There is no screening surrounding any of the equipment at the site. The next photo was of a shelter at the base of the Santa Fe Water Tower in downtown Overland Park within a highly residential area. Mr. Wood said the shelter is prominent from above the wall. Another photo showed a shelter view of a highly commercial area at the southeast corner of 75th Street and Metcalf where there are also outlying residential uses. Mr. Wood said the last photo is of a cell-tower site at approximately 119th Street and Metcalf on the Time Warner Cable property. He said this special use permit was amended last year, and there was no request in the amendment that the shelter at the base of the tower, existing or proposed, be screened from view on a highly traveled corridor. Mr. Wood asked that Commissioners look at this reasonably and that the applicant be allowed to plant the landscaping that has been proposed, which is extensive. He said rather than rule out reconstructing the wall altogether, SSC proposed to Mr. Dalecky that they stipulate that they would plant the proposed landscaping now. At the time the special use permit comes up for renewal, if the landscaping does not sufficiently hide the shelter, SSC would discuss reconstructing the wall. There is a school of thought in some communities that constructing a wall to a height of over ten feet can be imposing. Mr. Wood said SSC still believes that would be the case here and that what the applicant proposes is a much softer approach. He said only the top one to two feet of this shelter is visible when proceeding northbound off Glenwood at the intersection of Glenwood and 119th Street where there is not a lot of traffic. Mr. Lance referred to a site and utilities plan that Mr. Wood shared with Commissioners. He said it appears that the north and west walls have some hatch marks on them and asked which wall was the new wall. Mr. Wood pointed to the new wall, which was constructed in conjunction with a T-Mobile project when the tower was built. He said the document to which Mr. Lance referred is the final development plan that was issued in conjunction with the T-Mobile application that was subsequent to the approval of the special use permit in 2000 for the tower project itself. Mr. Lance asked which wall had a two-foot by one-foot foundation. Mr. Wood said SSC did not construct the other wall; therefore, the footing is not known. He said the wall that SSC did construct has a two-foot by one-foot foundation footing, which is not

7 Page 7 going to support the weight of an additional four feet of material. Mr. Wood recalled that in October, SSC had been before the Planning Commission on another project for another client in which SSC did propose a 12-foot masonry wall at staff s recommendation. In that instance, a larger footing was in place. Mr. Lance clarified that the existing footing for the first wall is unknown, and Mr. Wood concurred. Mr. Lance asked if any attempt was made to determine that information. Mr. Wood said yes, adding that SSC has had some discussions with the management company that manages cell-tower installations on Wal-Mart property about the possibility of obtaining plans, but SSC was unsuccessful in obtaining those plans. Mr. Lance asked if SSC could excavate down to determine the footing, and Mr. Wood said it would be difficult because the wall is tied into the wall that T-Mobile built. SSC would have to take apart a portion of the wall that they did not construct. Assuming there was an enormous footing there, Mr. Wood said SSC would still have to decommission a sufficient enough amount of the wall to get to the portion of the T-Mobile wall, which would result in it being cost prohibitive. Mr. Collins stated that construction costs in 2001 were $30,000, which he assumed was for the antenna and the two walls. Mr. Wood replied that figure was supplied by Nextel, and he did not know what that amount covered without consulting with them. Mr. Collins said he asked because if that cost was for two exposures, south and east, in 2001, he questioned the report from Mr. Owens at SSC indicating the wall could cost between $100,000 to $140,000 to be replaced. Mr. Wood explained that cost is not associated with the wall, adding that T-Mobile did construct the wall. He said the cost quoted in the letter by Mr. Owens is for placement of the shelter/ cabinet. For the Commission s benefit, Mr. Dalecky referred to page 27D in Staff Comments, which showed the contours of the site as they interact with the walls of the compound. He said the grades are similar, if not the same, on the interior of the compound as they are on the outside. At the northeasterly corner, the elevations of the compound are two and a half or three feet higher than they are at the southwest corner of the compound. Mr. Dalecky said the height of the interior wall at the southwest corner of the compound is the same as the height of the exterior of the wall. Therefore, the grade s interior has a slope where the height of the wall is much less on the northeasterly portion of the compound where the wall might be six feet tall or less. In traversing the site to get to the southwest corner of the compound, the height of the wall is approximately nine and a half feet tall on the interior as well as the exterior. Staff has deduced that the Nextel cabinet extends about three to three and a half feet above the wall height. Mr. Dalecky said the construction plans provided to the City at the time the Nextel cabinet was being permitted, showed the cabinet height to be ten and a half feet tall. Staff s position is that the cabinet is taller than the height specified in the building permit that was issued. Mr. Hunter asked Mr. Wood to comment on the building permit elevation plan showing a height of ten and a half feet versus the existing thirteen-foot tall elevation. Mr. Wood stated that in looking at the approved final development plan language and the ten and a half foot tall shelter, it was clear that the shelter would be above the wall with what the applicant submitted. He said the shelter elevation was not the only document that was submitted in conjunction with the building permit. There is also a shelter foundation plan that was provided. Mr. Wood said he believed the site was constructed as Nextel showed it would be constructed and the certificate of occupancy

8 Page 8 was rightfully issued for a shelter that would be above the top of the masonry wall that was constructed by T-Mobile. Mr. Wood wanted Commissioners to understand that Nextel came in after this site had been constructed. This is subsequent in time to when T-Mobile had the permit issued, both the special use permit and final development plan and their building permit. He said Nextel came along approximately six to eight months after the site had been fully constructed. Mr. Reitzes asked if the applicant has considered putting on a surface material or cladding the existing equipment shelter to match the masonry color of the retaining wall. Mr. Wood said that is a great idea. Mr. Skubal clarified that the applicant indicated that potentially within two years the size of the cabinet may diminish and could be replaced. Mr. Wood said that is speculative, adding that what he indicated is that the subtenant has lease rights and it is always possible that the subtenant s goals for wireless service might change, which means the shelter could be relocated. The subtenant could also choose to use a different platform for equipment in which case the shelter in question would be removed. Mr. Skubal asked if a lot of time was spent in arriving at the $100,000 to $140,000 cost for the wall extension, tearing it down and replacing it. He said he did not see any demo costs or linear feet of wall included with that amount. Mr. Wood said he did not work up those figures, adding that those were factored in by Mr. Owens, who drafted the letter. Mr. Skubal asked how many linear feet are involved. Mr. Wood believed what the City has contemplated is that over 200 linear of feet of wall would need to be removed and a portion of the wall that goes from north to south beyond that in order to tie it back in. Because there is a significant amount of electrical equipment at the site, a major portion of the work would have to be done by hand, because there is significant grounding in and around the area. The demolition cost may entail mostly manual labor to get this done, plus the cost for the reconstruction of the masonry wall. Mr. Skubal clarified that a contractor was not retained to determine the costs for this demolition. Mr. Wood replied that a contractor was not retained due to Mr. Owens experience and knowledge having been the designer on hundreds and hundreds of cell sites in the past. Chair Hill opened the public hearing but with no one wanting to address this item, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Collins asked Mr. Dalecky to comment on Mr. Wood s contention that the City has allowed many other sites to go unscreened and why they do not comply with the ordinance. Mr. Dalecky replied that some of the locations mentioned were built prior to the current ordinance. Specifically, the equipment compound at the Time Warner site at 119th Street is not visible from 119th Street, because it is completely behind the Time Warner building and service area parking lot. He said some of the sites mentioned by Mr. Wood are obscured from nearby streets. Mr. Brake asked for comments from fellow Commissioners about the feasibility of the applicant possibly cladding the accessory building to be compatible with the rest of the site. Mr. Lance favored extending the wall height rather than trying to apply a material to the modular units. He believed the applicant could use an EFIS-type

9 Page 9 product that could extend to the correct height. He said if there was a problem with the compatibility of the appearance between the EFIS and the masonry, the masonry could be skim-coated which would look like it was all done at the same time. Chair Hill said he believed the cladding idea had some merit. He believed that if the cabinet that the wall is screening looks the same as the wall, then there is harmony. He did not like the combination of the beige and the two browns with the current color scheme and the screening wall. Chair Hill said if the Commission is interested in the cladding approach, he wanted to see the materials proposed before making a final decision on it. Mr. Reitzes commented that the applicant seemed to think the cladding idea was a reasonable solution. The only other alternative would be to clad the retaining wall in a color that matches the equipment cabinet. Mr. Skubal did not want to do something that would make something that is already wrong worse, and he did not think it was the Planning Commission s job to try to find a solution to this. Unless he was convinced differently, he said he would vote to deny this application. Mr. Lance suggested perhaps it would be beneficial to ask for a continuation in order for this item to go back to the Site Plan Review Committee for a possible solution. Mr. Hunter agreed with Mr. Lance and then moved to continue Special Use Permit No to the Planning Commission meeting of February 13, 2006, to allow the applicant and the Site Plan Review Committee an opportunity to find a design solution for cladding the outside of the equipment facility. Mr. Lance seconded the motion. Mr. Skubal believed the motion proposed a good compromise. He encouraged the applicant to return to the Commission with a professional set of drawings from someone who has made these types of applications to an existing brick wall. Mr. Hunter clarified that the intent of his motion was to clad the equipment facility not the entire wall. He pointed out that the wall matches the rest of the shopping center, which should not be changed. Mr. Lance commented that he did not favor cladding the modular unit itself, but could support cladding the wall around it. Mr. Reitzes believed the intent of the motion is to allow staff, the applicant and the Site Plan Review Committee to determine the most feasible way to achieve the desired end result. Mr. Hunter concurred. Chair Hill clarified that the Site Plan Review Committee and the applicant are to focus on the cabinet but will also give consideration to design solutions for the wall as well. The motion passed by an 8 to 0.

10 Page 10 SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO Vicinity of the southeast corner of 127th Street and Pflumm. Special use permit requested for an indefinite period of time to allow a retirement housing development. This property is currently zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District. Application made by Haven Development Group, Inc. (Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 13, 2006.) Senior Planner Leslie Karr advised that the Commission first considered this request at its November 14, 2005, meeting at which time the Commission directed the applicant to reconsider the layout of the project to create a better buffer to the adjacent single-family neighborhood. Mrs. Karr said the revised plan has located single-family detached units along the southern boundary of the project, revised the footprint of the multi-family units and reoriented one entry door for each duplex to give the appearance of a large singlefamily home. She said as a result of the changes, the number of units on the project has increased from 42 to 44 units with a density increase from 5.8 dwelling units per acre to 6 dwelling units per acre. The lot coverage changed from 44.8 percent to 42.6 percent. Mrs. Karr said the applicant has indicated that there is 20.8 percent open space provided on the project, and they have provided a 20- to 25-foot rear yard. This project is located at the southeast corner of 127th Street and Pflumm. This intersection has medium-density residential on the northwest corner in Olathe, commercial office uses on the northeast corner in Overland Park and on the southwest corner in Olathe. Mrs. Karr said the property is master planned low density residential, which results in one to five dwelling units per acre. Mrs. Karr said the applicant is proposing to save approximately 36 percent of the trees on site primarily on the southern boundary of the property. Some trees are shown to be saved which will be impacted by the installation of a storm sewer. She said staff questions whether those trees will survive. Staff has recommended that larger caliper trees be planted on the southern property line to compensate for the mature trees on site. Mrs. Karr advised that staff referred the applicant to the Site Plan Review Committee who was satisfied with the transition proposed by the applicant but did request several modifications to the plan. One modification was for additional offsets along the rear of the multifamily units that face adjacent thoroughfare streets. Other modifications were the used additional stone on the end of the units, massing of the duplexes to have the appearance of a single-family home, identification of patio areas and incorporation of a median within the entry drive. Mrs. Karr relayed that the applicant has submitted all of these changes but one, which is the offset to the multifamily units. The applicant indicated that offsetting would negatively impact the square footage of the units. She said the applicant has indicated that because of the grade changes, the building will be stepped, which will provide more vertical offset to the building height and roof plan. Staff Comments relayed that the Future Development Plan identified this property for Low-Density Residential development, which is defined as one to five units per acre. The Master Plan also makes recommendations for retirement communities and recommends that they go on properties that are master planned for medium-density

11 Page 11 and higher; therefore, the applicant s request both in terms of density and the Master Plan is not in conformance. Mrs. Karr said staff is satisfied that changes to the site plan have addressed the primary concerns of creating an adequate transition from the existing single-family neighborhood. Staff recognizes that the character of this area has changed a lot since the last zoning application in Staff is recommending approval with stipulations a through l shown in Staff Comments. If this site was built out as a single-family R-1 type project, Mr. Hunter asked what the setback requirement would be from the single-family homes to the south. Mrs. Karr said the required rear yard setback is 25 feet. He clarified that these properties will be the same distance from the single-family homes to the south as they would have been had this been a traditional single-family project. Mrs. Karr said that is correct for units 20 through 23, adding that units 19 through 27 have somewhat of a shallower setback with a 20-foot setback along that property line. Mr. Hunter asked about staff s opinion on requests for some changes to the back of the two large buildings. Mrs. Karr replied that is a good thing anytime an applicant can articulate the back of a building to avoid having an expanse of wall. Mrs. Kim Sorensen and Ms. Janie Thacker arrived at 2:45 p.m. Mr. Lance asked if every unit would have a patio and if so, their size. Mrs. Karr said the applicant could expand on that. Mr. Andy Schlagel, planning consultant representing Haven Development Company, relayed that this area has changed significantly over the years as staff pointed out. The previous plan had a lot of merit, and Mr. Schlagel said one of the strongest directions that came from the last Planning Commission public hearing was asking the applicant to make some modifications to move the larger buildings from the south side to the exterior of the site. After a lot of hard work by staff and the applicant, he was pleased to present the Commission with the plan he had displayed on the board. The larger buildings have been moved out to either the center of the site or the extreme northwestern corner of the site. Mr. Schlagel said the applicant has provided a new product that was not on the previous plan, which includes 18 individual detached single-family units all the way along the western, southern and southeastern property line. The three remaining twin villas that front onto Haskins have been redesigned. The amount of open space has been increased on the site, and the number of trees on the site to be saved has risen from previous numbers. Mr. Victor Applebaum, president of Haven Development Group, 8101 College Boulevard, advised that he felt the new plan presented today was remarkable. Referring to the multifamily buildings that sit on the perimeter along 127th Street, he said they back up to the other five unit buildings directly behind them. All of those are a considerable distance away from the single-family property. He said the Site Plan Review Committee had commented on the lack of adornment and asked for 40 percent or more masonry in the form of stone or brick. Mr. Applebaum believed that stone would be more appropriate and blend better with the surrounding neighborhood. He said since then, a lot of stone has been added to the buildings, plus some decks have been added, which helps with the offset effect that the Site Plan Review Committee mentioned. He said every home has either a patio or a deck.

12 Page 12 As mentioned by Mr. Schlagel, Mr. Applebaum said there are single-family cottages, villas and patio homes that border the single-family neighborhood to the south. The front of the buildings, if anything, would be the only thing those homeowners would see. Mr. Applebaum showed Commissioners a representation of the three proposed twofamily villa buildings that would be on Haskins. He commended the efforts of the Site Plan Review Committee in helping with the view from Haskins, which appears to be a large, one-story ranch-style building, even though there are two homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Lance referred to a private driveway that goes to Building 12, noting that when backing out of this building they do not have much maneuvering room compared to Building 1. Mr. Applebaum said it would be no problem to make an adjustment to allow more room for the Building 12 driveway. Mr. Hunter asked if the driveways were asphalt, and Mr. Applebaum replied no that they are all concrete. Referring to units 19 and 20, Ms. Thacker said a few trees are shown to be preserved; however, it looked like there is vegetation all the way up to the property line. She asked what kind of grading was present that would prevent preservation of the existing vegetation to the property line. Mr. Applebaum believed that the trees to which Ms. Thacker referred were not of the caliper of trees required to be saved, but the goal is to save as many trees as possible. Mr. Jim Green, 730 West Frontier, Olathe, relayed that a field survey was done to locate all of the 12-inch and larger caliper trees on the site. In the area between buildings 19 and 20, there are other trees that may be 4- to 6-inch trees that may be worth saving. He said no grading is planned, and if it is possible to retain these trees, that was the intent. Ms. Thacker clarified that when the applicant meets with the City Forester, the trees to be preserved will be identified, and Mr. Green concurred. Chair Hill opened the public hearing. Ms. Sharon Paugh, Haskins (Nottingham by the Green), said she was very happy when she found her home here and was assured that the empty lot across the street would remain as R-1 and would be either a church or single-family homes. She distributed to Commissioners several photos of Nottingham by the Green and the 103rd Street and Nall area where Mr. Applebaum is building villas for comparison of the two neighborhoods. The first photo was of an existing home in the 103rd Street, west of Nall area, and the next photo was a sampling of homes in Nottingham by the Green. She pointed out that the lots in Nottingham were much larger and the rooflines were taller. The third photo showed the three duplexes on 103rd Street, west of Nall, which are proposed to be across the street from her home on Haskins. Photo four showed an east view of that street said photo five showed two multifamily homes with porches across from each other, which she said was a distance of ten feet. Photo six showed the distance between two homes in Nottingham by the Green, which was 50 to 70 feet in some cases. Photo seven showed how close the developer has to put his development next to existing homes. Photo eight showed the distance between the homes on 128th Street, which is the cul-de-sac backing up to single-family homes. Ms. Paugh said photos nine and ten were of the duplexes and an existing home.

13 Page 13 Photos eleven and twelve showed the back of a multifamily dwelling at 103rd Street and Nall. Photo thirteen showed the amount of forest that exists, and Ms. Paugh said scrub trees are part of the natural look of Nottingham. She believed the developer would do what he could to preserve existing trees; however, she did not think it would be possible with all of the building and equipment needed there. Photo fourteen showed the proposed entrance and exit on Haskins, and she said it was unfortunate that Haskins has to be the entrance and exit to this housing development. Photo fifteen showed some of the commercial buildings in the neighborhood at the southwest corner of 127th Street and Pflumm. Ms. Paugh said one of the main reasons neighbors oppose this development relates to safety, and she referred to photo 16 showing the proposed entrance and exit. She said drivers cannot see around the corner to go to the stop sign. Also, when entering Haskins it is difficult to see people pulling out, and it was not designed for 88 cars to be coming in and out there. Mr. Collins asked who had promised Ms. Paugh that the property in question would be developed either as a church or single-family residential development, and she replied that the realtor had made that promise. Mr. Collins asked how long she had lived in her home, and Ms. Paugh said three years. Mr. Jeff Shackelford, Haskins, recalled that in 1999 there was a rezoning request made for this property, which he opposed. He said the main reason that rezoning was denied was because the density was too high. Mr. Shackelford noted that staff had indicated a lot of things had changed; however, this tract of land has not increased in size, yet staff supports a plan with 44 units. When he built his home eight years ago, the property was zoned R-1, and he assumed the City Council would adhere to the Master Plan. He said this is the second developer who has wanted to rezone this property, but the property has never been offered at fair market value as R-1 housing. He was also concerned about the removal of trees for this development, adding that during the summer his view of Pflumm is blocked by 30-foot tall trees. Mr. Shackelford said 44 units are proposed for this development and all of those residents will use Haskins to come and go daily. He has a five-year-old son who plays in the front yard, plus there were many small children living across and up the street. Mr. Shackelford was trying to understand how it is acceptable to approve a plan with 44 units today on the same tract of land that in 1999 was not acceptable for 34 units. Mr. Mark Simpson, Farley, said he has owned the land in question for over 20 years. When Nottingham by the Green was developed, it was a joint venture between him and the Hanover developer. He said this tract of land was offered to his partners who had numerous plans for this property but nothing worked. Mr. Simpson said there are two, four-lane thoroughfares surrounding it, and all the lots are heavily discounted. When this property was zoned in 1989, it was Master Planned for a 25,000-square-foot retail development; however, with the golf course being built, it was agreed that the proposed retail be moved to 135th Street. Mr. Simpson advised that in the 17 years he has been trying to sell this property, there has been no interest from medical office people, church representatives, or health clubs. The high quality development now proposed is the very best effort to develop this property. He said it would be an asset to Overland Park and provide different housing options from Nottingham by the Green. He commended staff for doing a great job, as well as Mr. Applebaum who has tried to accommodate the many requests made of him by residents and staff to change his plan.

14 Page 14 Mr. Collins asked why this property was not included originally with the Nottingham by the Green development. Mr. Simpson replied that when Nottingham by the Green was developed, there were roughly 600 home sites there, plus the golf course. He explained that when developing property there are a, b, c and other lots. He said these lots were always the other lots, and builders did not select these lots first. He said no one wants their home to back up to a four-lane thoroughfare. Mr. Simpson believed that residents who choose to live here would be empty nesters whose primary residences are someplace in the Sunbelt. Mr. Simpson said in 1988 he hoped to see a church development here, noting that he has tried everything he can think of to make that happen. He said there are other tracts very similar to this one with 151st Street and Mission Road being one. Each year in January he does a mailing to every church south of 75th Street and west of Holmes in Kansas City marketing both the site in question and the 151st Street and Mission Road site and offering to finance a church development for 25 percent down with 2 percent interest for five years to allow time to build. However, not one contract has surfaced from that offer, and that mailing has been done each year for the last dozen years. Every July the exact same mailing is sent to every contractor who builds churches in the area in the hopes of finding some interest. However, since 1988, churches have changed their philosophy and have sought campuses. Those who want a church are small, have little money and are meeting in schools. He stated that he has also tried attracting a health club, a medical office, regular office and lower-end residential. Chair Hill relayed that the Planning Commission has a sub-committee known as the Master Plan Committee, and each year that committee undertakes an exercise whereby it evaluates the Master Plan and appropriate uses for land. He asked Mr. Simpson if he had given any thought of submitting something other than singlefamily residential if he knew the property would not be single-family residential. In response, Mr. Simpson said he has always believed this would be a church development. Mr. Jim Otto, West 128th Street, relayed that his home will probably be the most affected by this development. On the northwest corner of the site there is a highend multifamily building. One of the buildings is empty that was built three or four years ago, and there is a hole in the ground because the developer cannot complete the project, which has gone into bankruptcy once and been taken over by a bank. He questioned Mr. Simpson s comments about empty nesters wanting to buy in this area, since they had an option across the street on the northwest corner from the proposed development. He said those places have gone bankrupt. Mr. Otto stated that he knew lots of churches that would like to build here, and he knew lots of builders in his neighborhood that would love to build single-family homes on that lot because they told him so; however, the cost is prohibitive. He said this entire issue is simply about money. Mr. Otto said he chose to live in Overland Park because it had regulations, adding that he would have never purchased his home had he known there could be 44 units on seven acres. He said he was confused because he heard Mrs. Karr state that this plan clearly does not conform to the density standards. He also did not believe the developer planned on saving the many existing trees. Mrs. Otto, West 128th Street, said she was a realtor with Prudential of Kansas City Realty at 8101 College. She said that Myra Canaster had been present but had to leave and asked Mrs. Otto to pass some comments on for her. Mrs. Otto said

15 Page 15 Ms. Canaster has been known as the neighborhood specialist in Nottingham by the Green since it was developed and has had more listings and sales than anyone. Mrs. Otto said this property was zoned low-density residential when she and her husband purchased their home. She recalled that in 1999 a rezoning request for RP-4, planned cluster housing was denied by the Council. She understood that if Mr. Applebaum was rezoning this property for what he has proposed, it would be rezoned to RP-4, which is what he will get with approval of this special use permit. Mrs. Otto understood one of the criteria for approving a special use permit is demonstrating a need for that use in that location. She argued that there is no need for this use here. She said there are five new subdivisions being built, maintenance provided and marketed towards senior citizens. She said if this land was priced appropriately, R-1 housing could be built here because it sells for $30,000 to $35,000 per acre. She thought that Mr. Simpson had this land priced at $550,000 for the seven acres, which is why a builder has not been able to build 14 homes on a cul-desac that should be there. She said people love Nottingham by the Green because of the lot sizes. If this application is approved, there will be three homes and a street behind her property line, which does not conform to the neighborhood. Mrs. Otto said the corner cannot be developed; therefore, the developer is proposing to put 44 units on six acres, which is over seven units per acre. In that part of Nottingham there are just two homes per acre. She said that results in tripling the density from one neighborhood to the next. Mrs. Otto was also concerned about having only one ingress and egress point for so many homes. She said there is a curve and a hill that obstructs the view from cars coming around that corner and is where those potential 88 cars would be coming from. Because of her real estate background, Mrs. Otto knew that home values of every home that backs up to this area would be negatively impacted if this application is approved. She also asked who holds the developer accountable for saving the trees he has promised to save. Ms. Mara Millner, Haskins, asked if the developer s reason for using Haskins as the entrance and exit to the proposed development was to make it appear to be a part of Nottingham by the Green. She also asked if the developer planned on requesting that the proposed new residents be able to use the facilities at Nottingham by the Green. Ms. Millner asked what the proposed name of this development would be. In Olathe on the northwest corner are retirement facilities, and Ms. Millner asked if this type of housing was needed in such close proximity. With no one further to comment, Chair Hill closed the public hearing and asked the applicant to respond to questions and comments that were raised. Regarding the need for a special use permit, Mr. Schlagel relayed that Overland Park will increasingly see projects of this nature across the City and across the country due to the large number of baby boomers and changing of housing styles. He said the developer feels very comfortable that this type of project, if approved and constructed, would be successful. With regard to the entry on Haskins and traffic concerns, Mr. Schlagel advised that staff s traffic comments indicate that there are no traffic problems whatsoever envisioned with this proposed project. He explained that access off Haskins is dictated to the developer by the conditions that currently exist and is not something the developer tried to create.