CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. September 11, Minutes

Transcription

1 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION September 11, 2017 Minutes The City Planning Commission met in regular session on Monday, September 11, 2017, at 6:30 p.m., in the Commission Chamber of the Municipal Office Building with the following members present: Ms. Joanne Huey, Chairman Presiding, Mr. Jeff Carson, Vice Chairman, Mr. Jerrold Childress, Mr. James Connelly, Mr. James Ernst, Mr. Eric Gonzalez, Ms. Karen Jones, Ms. Susannah Pauley, Ms. Allison Rank and Dr. Daniel Serda, (Absent: Mose) Mr. Robin H. Richardson, AICP, Director of Planning, Ms. Janet L. Parker, CSC/APC, Administrative Assistant, Mr. Byron Toy, AICP, Principal Planner, Mrs. Jamie Hickey and Mr. Zach Flanders, AICP, Planners, and Mr. Patrick Waters, Deputy Counsel, were also present. Chairman Huey called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Legal Counsel Waters stated that a revised staff report was submitted to the Commission tonight for #SP with regard to item #11 under Factors to be Considered, the affects or perceived effects of radio waves from the tower are prohibited by Federal and State law from being considered as a factor for the Commission s consideration of the special use permit. Recording Secretary Parker read the Planning Commission Statement: We would like to welcome all present to the meeting of the City Planning Commission. Ms. Joanne Huey is serving as chairman this evening. The Planning Commission is a voluntary body of citizens, which will review each zoning proposal. For all change of zones, special use permits, vacations, and preliminary plan reviews on tonight s agenda, the Planning Commission makes recommendations to the Unified Government Board of Commissioners, who will then make the final decisions on Thursday, September 28, For final plats and final plan reviews heard tonight, the Planning Commission s decision is final and there will not be another hearing. The format for this evening s meeting is as follows: 1. As each application is called, we would ask that all those both for and against to please come to the front of the room. 2. The applicant will make the opening statement explaining the proposal. Please note that the applicant will be given fifteen (15) minutes to present their case. The fifteen (15) minutes includes the applicant, consultants and other members of the applicant s team. Members of the Planning Commission will then address any questions they may have to the applicant. Any persons wishing to speak in favor will be allowed to do so at that time. 3. Then those persons in opposition will be allowed to make their statements and ask questions. Please note that each member of the public who wishes to speak will be given five (5) minutes to express their opinions. Time may not be shared between speakers. 4. A speaker at the podium may request to extend their time and the Planning Commission may by two-thirds (2/3) majority vote extend any speaker s time in five (5) minute increments. September 11,

2 5. The applicant will then answer questions and make a closing statement. 6. The public hearing portion of the meeting will be closed and the public will only be allowed to address the Commission if a question is directed to them. 7. The Planning Commission will discuss the application and make their recommendation. 8. Also, all items/exhibits submitted and/or shown either to the Planning Commission or staff during the hearing will be retained and become part of the official record of these proceedings. In the event that persons in opposition want to formally protest a change of zone or special use permit, a means is available by a legal protest petition which can be obtained along with the necessary instructions, by calling the Urban Planning and Land Use Department at tomorrow morning. Any application receiving a unanimous vote of recommendation by the Planning Commission will appear on the consent agenda of the Unified Government Board of Commissioners. Unless there is a request to remove an item from the consent agenda by the applicant, a member of the Unified Government Commission, or other interested parties, the Planning Commission s recommendation will be adopted. The consent agenda is heard at the beginning of the meeting at 7:00 p.m. If you are interested in an item you should appear promptly on Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. to see what action is taken or to ask that it be removed from the consent agenda. The Planning Commission will also have a consent agenda as part of their meeting this evening. The Consent Agenda is the first part of the agenda. Items on the Consent Agenda are Final Plats, Final Plans or Special Use Permit Renewals that have received a staff recommendation to approve. Unless there is a request to REMOVE an item from the Consent Agenda by the applicant, a member of the staff, a member of the Planning Commission or other interested parties, the staff recommendation on all of the items on the Consent Agenda will be adopted by the Planning Commission at one time. I will read a list of agenda items on the Consent Agenda, and when I have completed the list the Chairman will ask if there are any requests to remove items. This is your time to come to the microphone and request that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda if you do not agree with the staff recommendation. All items not removed from the Consent Agenda will be approved by the Commission with the Staff recommendation. The Planning Commission is required to disclose contacts with regard to any item on the Planning Commission Agenda. Before each item I will ask if any contacts have been made and members of the Commission will be asked to disclose those contacts at that time. We appreciate the attendance of those here this evening and we recognize the seriousness of each case and each person s opinions, but would like to request that each side keep their comments as concise as possible. Your opinions will be forwarded to the Governing Body for their consideration in making a final decision. In addition, those who received notices for this evening s hearing will again receive them for the hearing on Thursday, September 28, We ask that anyone with a September 11,

3 cell phone to please turn them off or switch to non-audio so you will not disturb the meeting. I will now read the items on the Consent Agenda (Starts at: 7:00) CONSIDERATION OF THE AUGUST 14, 2017 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION #SP MARCIE HUCKABY SYNOPSIS: Renewal of a Special Use Permit (#SP ) for live entertainment in conjunction with existing restaurant and drinking establishment at 8121, 8123 and 8125 Parallel Parkway. Detailed Outline of Requested Action: The applicant, Marcie Huckaby with MME LLC wants to continue to have live entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant/drinking establishment d/b/a The Dotte Spot Bar & Grill at 8123 Parallel Parkway. This address was formerly the Sunset Bar & Grill that operated from 2002 to March PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION #PR KIRK KING SYNOPSIS: Final Plan Review amending the previously approved final plan regarding a taller retaining wall northeast of the building area at 6925 Riverview Avenue. Detailed Outline of Requested Action: The representative, Kirk King with RELP Turner, LLC, has submitted this application to amend the final plan to incorporate a taller retaining wall with additional landscaping, and to add a private bus stop interior to the site for use by the KCATA. The items I have just read are on the Consent Agenda. At this time, does any member of the Commission wish to disclose any contact on any of the items? (No one responded in the affirmative.) Please include the following items as part of the record for all of the Items on the Consent Agenda: 1. The City s currently adopted zoning and subdivision regulations; 2. The official zoning map for the area in question; 3. The City s currently adopted Master Plan for the area in question; 4. The staff report and attachments dated September 11, 2017; 5. The application and other documents, plans, pictures and maps submitted by the applicant in furtherance of the case and contained in the official file; 6. The notices to property owners; and 7. The notice in The Echo for the special use permit. The Commission will vote to approve in one vote these items unless someone comes forward and asks that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda. Chairman Huey asked if any member of the public, staff or Commission wished to remove an item from the Consent Agenda. Planning Commissioner Connelly stated that he would like to remove #SP from the Consent Agenda. On motion by Mr. Carson, seconded by Dr. Serda, the Planning Commission voted as follows to APPROVE the remaining items on the Consent Agenda: Carson Childress Connelly September 11,

4 Ernst Gonzalez Huey Chairman Jones Mose Not Present Pauley Rank Serda Motion to APPROVE Passed: 9 to 0 Subject to: #PR : Urban Planning and Land Use Comments: None Public Works Comments: A) Items that require plan revision or additional documentation before engineering can recommend approval: B) Items that are conditions of approval (stipulations): C) Comments that are not critical to engineering s recommendations for this specific submittal, but may be helpful in preparing future documents: SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION #SP MARCIE HUCKABY SYNOPSIS: Renewal of a Special Use Permit (#SP ) for live entertainment in conjunction with existing restaurant and drinking establishment at 8121, 8123 and 8125 Parallel Parkway. Detailed Outline of Requested Action: The applicant, Marcie Huckaby with MME LLC wants to continue to have live entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant/drinking establishment d/b/a The Dotte Spot Bar & Grill at 8123 Parallel Parkway. This address was formerly the Sunset Bar & Grill that operated from 2002 to March Present in Support: Pearl King, representing the applicant, 827 Armstrong Avenue, Suite 200, Kansas City, Kansas Present in Opposition: No one appeared Staff Recommendation Starts: Director Richardson stated that the staff recommends approval subject to the stipulations in the staff report. The staff is recommending approval for five (5) years as there have not been any issues at this location. September 11,

5 On motion by Mr. Carson, seconded by Dr. Serda, the Planning Commission voted as follows to recommend APPROVAL of Special Use Permit Application #SP : Carson Childress Connelly Ernst Gonzalez Huey Chairman Jones Mose Not Present Pauley Rank Serda Motion to recommend APPROVAL Passed: 9 to 0 Subject to: Urban Planning and Land Use Comments: 1. Please indicate any instances where KCK Police have been called to the establishment and any instances of complaints of noise or other concerns from nearby tenants or property owners since July Applicant Response: None to applicant s knowledge Staff Response: KCK Police Department reports only one call for service and that was on March 18, 2017 for a hold up alarm hit during a disturbance going on; there were no arrests made. 2. Have hours or days of live entertainment changed since initially approved in 2015? Applicant Response: Yes, live entertainment is the same hours, but only every other Saturday. 3. Approval would be for five (5) years. 4. If approved, all previous stipulations apply. Staff comments and applicant responses from 2015: 1. Because this is a strip center, there are not designated parking stalls for each tenant space. Please submit a detailed site plan that accurately shows the parking spaces in the parking lot. The parking ratio for establishments with live entertainment is one space for each 50 square feet of seating or assembly area plus one space for each remaining 200 square feet of total floor area. Based on the floor plan that was provided to staff, we determined the September 11,

6 building is 3,340 square feet. The seating area is 2,330 square feet. The required parking for this building is 52 spaces. Applicant Response: Attached please find a detailed site plan that accurately shows the parking spaces in the parking lot to be 101 spaces, including four handicap spaces well exceeding the 52 spaces required. The two center rows of parking alone (55 spaces) will fulfill the parking requirements. 2. There is no record of a special use permit for live entertainment for the previous owners of Sunset Bar & Grill. Applicant Response: In addition to State and City liquor licenses, the previous owner also had an annual entertainment license issued by the City. The applicant is without knowledge as to the reason the previous owner was not required to obtain a special use permit. 3. The applicant has stated that the proposed hours of operation are as follows: a. Doors: Monday through Saturday from 11:00 AM to 2:00 AM b. DJ and/or Karaoke: Friday and Saturday from 9:00 PM to 1:30 AM c. Restaurant (kitchen): Monday through Saturday from 11:00 AM to 10:00 PM The majority of the businesses within the strip center close before 9:00 PM. Applicant Response: The hours of operation are correct with the exception b) in that the applicant will have DJ/karaoke every Saturday and occasionally on Friday. 4. The applicant has stated that the estimated average attendance will be 50 people, when there is entertainment. Applicant Response: Average attendance of 50 people is based on the attendance over the years for identical entertainment at the same location and time. 5. Do you intend on employing security officers on Fridays and Saturdays? If so, whom, how many and how will they be dispersed through the building. Applicant Response: At this time the applicant does not intend to employ security officers on Saturday and the occasional Friday when they have the DJ/karaoke. Again, they base this on their experience over the years when they were employed by the previous owner. We want to be abundantly clear that the current owner desires to offer the exact same entertainment as the previous owner. Because the owners are aware of the importance September 11,

7 of security, they have consulted with Rick Whitby, retired Chief Deputy, Wyandotte County Sheriff s Department, regarding security needs and he has agreed to assist them with securing offduty law enforcement should it ever be an issue or the anticipated size of an event would require security officers. 6. Doors shall remain closed at all times as not to project sound through the parking lot to the surrounding residences. Applicant Response: The doors will remain closed at all times. Public Works Comments: A) Items that require plan revision or additional documentation before engineering can recommend approval: B) Items that are conditions of approval (stipulations): C) Comments that are not critical to engineering s recommendations for this specific submittal, but may be helpful in preparing future documents: Recording Secretary Parker stated that the Consent Agenda is now concluded and the Commission will move on to the Non-Consent Agenda. Starts: 14:40 SPECIAL USE PERMIT #SP ABDUL MAZID SYNOPSIS: Special Use Permit for a used car dealership at 1010 Merriam Lane. Detailed Outline of Requested Action: The applicant, Abdul Mazid, has applied for a special use permit to operate a used car dealership at 1010 Merriam Lane. This property was operated as an antique car sales business from 1987 to Since that time it has been operated as a variety of businesses including an automobile repair business from and a retail market (Kimo s Market) from In 2016, the property was issued a court summons for being a residential rental property without a rental permit. This case was dismissed. The property has received numerous code citations for graffiti, trash, and abandoned vehicles in the past, prior to Mr. Mazid s ownership. The following items were included as part of the record for this case: 1. The City s currently adopted zoning and subdivision regulations; 2. The official zoning map for the area in question; 3. The City s currently adopted Master Plan for the area in question; 4. The staff report and attachments dated September 11, 2017; 5. The application and other documents, plans, pictures and maps submitted by the applicant in furtherance of the case and contained in the official file; 6. The Notice in the Wyandotte Echo dated April 13, 2017; and 7. The Notices to property owners dated April 12, April 24, May 23, July 17, and August 22, Recording Secretary Parker asked if the Commission had any contact to disclose on this application. (No one responded in the affirmative.) September 11,

8 Present in Support: Bryant Parker, attorney for the applicant, 4510 Belleview Avenue, Suite 300, Kansas City, Missouri Present in Opposition: Erin Stryka, Executive Director, Rosedale Development Association, 1403 Southwest Boulevard, Kansas City, Kansas Staff Recommendation Starts: 1:11:50 Director Richardson stated that the Unified Government invested $7.6 million on Merriam Lane to attract businesses that were not used car lots. With regard to the initial conversations with Mr. Mazid, he was not part of those but the first thing applicants related to a used car lot are told is that they need a special use permit before they can operate and that is standard across the board in how those are addressed. At 1066 Merriam Lane in the last six months, the Unified Government turned down a used car lot that had a total of 7 parking spaces with a couple of inside spaces. He further stated that it has not been the practice of the Unified Government to do variances through the special use permit process (as discussed by the applicant s attorney) and he is not going to suggest that start tonight. There is a 50/50 sidewalk program so there is the ability to request funds for sidewalk construction. He does not know if that is available to commercial businesses. As to the issue about trash, he does not know what they are going to do with their trash if they do not have a dumpster; maybe they will sit it out at the curb as done for residential, which is not typical of a business address. No matter which direction the Commission goes with that, the condition to screen a dumpster should be included in the event that if they ever put a dumpster there, it would need to be screened. What will happen at 1010 Merriam Lane? There are inquiries from people to build new buildings and there have been new buildings built along Merriam Lane. There have been buildings rehabbed and remodeled. This is an old building and it is non-conforming as to parking for the use that it was. If it was residential, it would conform for parking. This is a change of use and it is much like changing the use of a building where you may have to put in sprinklers or another exit. When the use on this property is changed, then they have to comply with the code as this is not the historical use of the property. A variance would be required for the parking and they could apply for that at any time. He stated that 19 parking spaces are required and he does not see how the interpretation of the practice of the Unified Government has allowed those variances by special use permit. The only criteria that he is aware of that has been addressed by special use permit would have been where there was engineering discretion. For instance Kansas Speedway was allowed to have grass parking instead of full paved parking because of the irregular use of the large parking field. He does not know of anyone getting a bulk regulation variance through a special use permit. The applicant made a statement that denial would actually hamper redevelopment in the Southwest Boulevard Corridor and he does not see how that hampers that development. There is a cleaned up site with paved parking lot and a building that has been partially rehabilitated. Marketability is something that is judged by the market and not by one or two voices. There is a lot more interest in Merriam Lane than ever before and it looks great now. The Unified Government invested a lot of money to make it look good and to attract a different level of business there. Related to the comments on Factors 1 and 2, the attorney brushed off the comments related to the residential areas to the north but the commercial September 11,

9 corridor is very narrow along Merriam Lane. In fact, most of the lots do not meet modern commercial depths. If you are going to do a new commercial development, plat off new lots, only the very deep industrial lots would meet those standards. The residences are in many cases very close and in many ways act as a residential street. The residences are very important and the investment that the Unified Government has made to improve the character is important to that particular factor to be considered. The Unified Government went to a lot of expense to improve the look of the neighborhood and to be competitive with their neighbors. You might expect driving out of Kansas City, Kansas into Overland Park you are driving the wrong way because you might expect Kansas City, Kansas to look like Overland Park and Overland Park to look like Kansas City, Kansas because our street is new, bright, in good shape, it is modern, and a complete street. This building has been around for a long time; it is a C-3 business and has had a variety of uses. The last one was residential and the C-3 zoning would allow residential occupancy under certain circumstances. They probably did not obtain the right building permit or rental license. The residential use was probably not inherently illegal; they probably just needed additional permits to make it legal. With regard to Factor 5 related to the master plan, while retail or commercial businesses are allowed in business and research parks, he thinks that he would anticipate that the standards in a business park for a use being in a different format and not just parking cars along the edge of the street and sidewalk. There is more to the master plan than just the use allowed; it is how the use is designed and integrated into the environment of the community. Director Richardson stated with regard to Factors 7 and 11 the convenience and welfare or the relative gain to the public health and safety, to some degree this piece of property is involved in a much larger environment. That goes to the point of the city trying to make this area better and the vision of the community as to what better means does not include used car sales. They have indicated that the building has been improved so he does not see a health and safety issue the way it is right now. If there are issues that come up, Code Enforcement can address those issues. He stated that he also has a Zoning Enforcement Officer now so he will be more involved in this process. He stated that with the factors to be considered, the testimony from the neighborhood group (and he agrees with the comments made by Ms. Stryka) related to how this will be perceived in the neighborhood, he does not think that it is just adding 6 more cars and it is okay. We should not allow 6 here and encourage someone to buy the next one and change the use as well to something different. That is over time how that goes. There have been opportunities in the community to pause and not put things in. There were opportunities to put something else where Cerner went in. In this case, he thinks that it is fine to say no to this, as was done to the one down the street, and move forward and depend on Erin Stryka/Rosedale Development Association and the UG Economic Development Department to find a good user for this. Director Richardson stated that the staff recommends denial subject to his comments and the comments in the staff report. Motion and Vote Starts: 1:41.05 On motion by Dr. Serda, seconded by Mr. Gonzalez, the Planning Commission voted as follows to recommend DENIAL of Special Use Permit Application: #SP : Carson No Childress No Connelly No September 11,

10 Ernst No Gonzalez Huey Chairman Jones No Mose Not Present Pauley No Rank No Serda Motion to recommend DENIAL Fails: 2 to 7 On motion by Ms. Rank, seconded by Ms. Pauley, the Planning Commission voted as follows to recommend APPROVAL of Special Use Permit Application #SP for two (2) years subject to reviewing the sidewalk placement within two years, brick restoration compliance at the end of year one (as per the proposal of the applicant) and the condition of the landscaping plan within two years and subject to the applicant going before the Board of Zoning Appeals for the parking: Carson Childress Connelly Ernst Gonzalez No Huey Chairman Jones Mose Not Present Pauley Rank Serda No Motion to recommend APPROVAL Passed: 7 to 2 (STAFF NOTE: Landscaping is a code requirement; any deviation/variance from the code is the authority of the Board of Zoning Appeals and cannot be deferred by the City Planning Commission.) Hearing Starts: 1:44:15 SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION #SP SCOTT GOBLE SYNOPSIS: Special Use Permit for a telecommunications tower at Parallel Parkway. Detailed Outline of Requested Action: Mr. Goble is seeking approval of a Special Use Permit to build a 150 foot tall self-support stealth monopole wireless tower for T-Mobile and related ground equipment enclosed within a wood board fence compound. The site is the future home of the American Royal facility. The following items were included as part of the record for this case: 1. The City s currently adopted zoning and subdivision regulations; 2. The official zoning map for the area in question; 3. The City s currently adopted Master Plan for the area in question; 4. The staff report and attachments dated September 11, 2017; 5. The application and other documents, plans, pictures and maps submitted by the applicant in furtherance of the case and contained in the official file; September 11,

11 6. The Notice in the Wyandotte Echo dated July 20, 2017; and 7. The Notices to property owners dated July 19, 2017 and August 2, Recording Secretary Parker asked if the Commission had any contact to disclose on this application. (No one responded in the affirmative.) Present in Support: Mr. Scott Goble, PAMCORP LLC, 574 South Barnstable Street, Nixa, MO Present in Opposition: No one appeared Staff Recommendation Starts: 1:51:52 Director Richardson stated that the staff recommends approval subject to the stipulations in the staff report. Motion and Vote Starts: 1:53:20 On motion by Dr. Serda, seconded by Ms. Jones, the Planning Commission voted as follows to recommend APPROVAL of Special Use Permit #SP : Carson Childress Connelly Ernst Gonzalez Huey Chairman Jones Mose Not Present Pauley Rank Serda Motion to recommend APPROVAL Passed: 9 to 0 Subject to: Urban Planning and Land Use Comments: 1. The owner shall agree to relocate pole if it interferes with future development on this site. 2. All landscaping and screening requirements must be met prior to building permit approval. Public Works Comments: A) Items that require plan revision or additional documentation before engineering can recommend approval: B) Items that are conditions of approval (stipulations): 1) The proposed 24 CMP culvert under the driveway entrance shall be RCP in accordance with UG standards and criteria. September 11,

12 2) The plans shall show the existing Water One waterline that parallels with N 118 th Street, going north-south where the proposed driveway, excavation, and underground electric line cross. 3) The proposed 5 to 10 excavation for the driveway culvert crossing may conflict or reduce the cover of the existing Water One waterline. Please coordinate with Water One and obtain a release letter from Water One regarding the proposed excavation and improvements. 4) Any redesign shall be coordinated and approved by UG staff prior to construction permit acquisition. 5) Construction plans shall meet UG standards and criteria, and shall be reviewed and approved by UG prior to construction permit acquisition. C) Comments that are not critical to engineering s recommendations for this specific submittal, but may be helpful in preparing future documents: Hearing Starts: 1:54 SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION #SP LESTER YOUNG SYNOPSIS: Home Occupation Special Use Permit for a barber shop at 3401 North 30 th Street. Detailed Outline of Requested Action: The applicant, Lester Young, is seeking a home occupation special use permit to operate an in-home barbershop. The applicant states that part of the house is used as a residence, and the other side, attached to the home, will be the barbershop. The proposed business will have one employee in addition to Mr. Young. The business hours will not exceed 7:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. The barbershop will not serve more than two clients at any one time and will not include any signs advertising the business. The following items were included as part of the record for this case: 1. The City s currently adopted zoning and subdivision regulations; 2. The official zoning map for the area in question; 3. The City s currently adopted Master Plan for the area in question; 4. The staff report and attachments dated September 11, 2017; 5. The application and other documents, plans, pictures and maps submitted by the applicant in furtherance of the case and contained in the official file; 6. The Notice in the Wyandotte Echo dated August 17, 2017; and 7. The Notices to property owners dated August 16, Recording Secretary Parker asked if the Commission had any contact to disclose on this application. (No one responded in the affirmative.) Present in Support: Lester Young, applicant, 3401 North 30 th Street, Kansas City, Kansas William Parker, Independence, Missouri Present in Opposition: No one appeared Staff Recommendation Starts: 1:58:45 Director Richardson stated that the staff recommends approval subject to the stipulations in the staff report. September 11,

13 Motion and Vote Starts: 1:58:55 On motion by Mr. Carson, seconded by Ms. Jones, the Planning Commission voted as follows to recommend APPROVAL of Special Use Permit #SP : Carson Childress Connelly Ernst Gonzalez Huey Chairman Jones Mose Not Present Pauley Rank Serda Motion to recommend APPROVAL Passed: 9 to 0 Subject to: Urban Planning and Land Use Comments: 1. Approval of the special use permit shall be for two (2) years 2. Hours of operation shall not exceed the hours of 7:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. 3. The business shall not exceed one employee in addition to the members of the immediate family residing on the premises. 4. The business shall not serve more than two (2) clients at any one time. 5. The business shall not display any signs advertising the business on the property. Public Works Comments: A) Items that require plan revision or additional documentation before engineering can recommend approval: B) Items that are conditions of approval (stipulations): C) Comments that are not critical to engineering s recommendations for this specific submittal, but may be helpful in preparing future documents: Hearing Starts: 1:59:05 PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION #PR DENTON STEIN SYNOPSIS: Preliminary and Final Plan Review for installation of purified ice and water kiosk at 6000 Leavenworth Road. Detailed Outline of Requested Action: The applicant has submitted a preliminary and final plan review application in order to install a purified ice and water kiosk in the parking lot of the Sunset Plaza shopping center at 6000 Leavenworth Road. The proposed kiosk will measure 13 feet by 8 feet and 1 inch and will feature water and ice vending capabilities on the outside façade of the structure (customers will not enter the structure). September 11,

14 The following items were included as part of the record for this case: 1. The City s currently adopted zoning and subdivision regulations; 2. The official zoning map for the area in question; 3. The City s currently adopted Master Plan for the area in question; 4. The staff report and attachments dated September 11, 2017; 5. The application and other documents, plans, pictures and maps submitted by the applicant in furtherance of the case and contained in the official file; and 6. The Notices to property owners dated August 4, Recording Secretary Parker asked if the Commission had any contact to disclose on this application. (No one responded in the affirmative.) Present in Support: Denton Stein, applicant, KC Water Vendors, 3661 North 83 rd Street, Kansas City, Kansas Present in Opposition: No one appeared Staff Recommendation Starts: 2:06:30 Director Richardson stated that the staff recommends approval subject to the stipulations in the staff report. Motion and Vote Starts: 2:07:55 On motion by Mr. Carson, seconded by Ms. Jones, the Planning Commission voted as follows to recommend APPROVAL of Preliminary and Final Plan Review #PR : Carson Childress Connelly Ernst Gonzalez Huey Chairman Jones Mose Not Present Pauley Rank Serda Motion to recommend APPROVAL Passed: 9 to 0 Subject to: Urban Planning and Land Use Comments: The following are stipulations of approval: Parking and Circulation September 11,

15 The ice vending structure and bollards shall not encroach on any drive aisles. Parking Lot Condition The parking lot pavement for at least 24 feet in all directions surrounding the proposed structure shall be resurfaced and maintained in good condition. Commercial Development Overlay Zone: The ice vending machine shall comply with the commercial development overlay zone including the following requirements: Façade Materials and Color The building façade must be 50% masonry. The remaining materials must be a durable, economically maintained material that will retain its appearance over time, such as stone, brick, stucco, or cementious siding. Intense, bright, black, or fluorescent colors shall be used sparingly and only as accents. The ice vendor shall use the exterior materials in the attachments section of this staff report. Landscaping and Screening of Parking Please provide a continuous row of shrubs screening the parking lot from adjacent public streets. Shrubs must not exceed a maximum of 30 inches at maturity. Street Trees Provide one street tree for every 30 feet of street frontage between the parking lot entrances. Screening of Mechanical Equipment All mechanical equipment or other utility hardware whether on the ground of on a building shall be screened from public view. Condition of Structure The structure, pavement area, bollards, awnings, landscaping, and all other aspects of the ice vending structure shall be maintained in excellent condition at all times. Public Works Comments: A) Items that require plan revision or additional documentation before engineering can recommend approval: B) Items that are conditions of approval (stipulations): 1) Any improvements, including landscaping and sanitary sewer connection within the right-of-way shall be coordinated with Public Works and the Leavenworth Road Project. 2) Construction plans shall meet UG standards and criteria, and shall be reviewed and approved by UG prior to construction permit acquisition. September 11,

16 C) Comments that are not critical to engineering s recommendations for this specific submittal, but may be helpful in preparing future documents: Hearing Starts: 2:08:45 PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION #PR PAMELA VICKERS SYNOPSIS: Final Plan Review for H&M retail store at 1803 Village West Parkway. Detailed Outline of Requested Action: The applicant, Pamela Vickers wants to modify the exterior 24,831 square foot tenant space for H&M retail store, formerly Saks Fifth Avenue off 5 th by painting the brick white and remove the canopies from the storefront. The following items were included as part of the record for this case: 1. The City s currently adopted zoning and subdivision regulations; 2. The official zoning map for the area in question; 3. The City s currently adopted Master Plan for the area in question; 4. The staff report and attachments dated September 11, 2017; 5. The application and other documents, plans, pictures and maps submitted by the applicant in furtherance of the case and contained in the official file; and 6. The Notices to property owners dated August 16, Recording Secretary Parker asked if the Commission had any contact to disclose on this application. (No one responded in the affirmative.) Present in Support: Pamela Vickers, applicant, ADD: Fitch, Inc.,16435 North Scottsdale Boulevard, Suite 195, Scottsdale, Arizona Brian Mahoney, Head of the West Region Construction for H&M Present in Opposition: No one appeared Staff Recommendation Starts: 2:24 Planning Director Richardson stated that this is a corner location of The Legends which has been highly designed and has awnings so people can walk through the site in inclement weather and not get too wet. There have been some changes that were made without staff approval and the representative from H&M has caught them (Dave and Busters). The Cavenders was approved and meets the standards of the center. It has rock and brick and EFIS. He showed the Commission a picture of the H&M store that Planning Commissioner Carson referred to. Once the brick is painted, he considers that to be a forever change because it is very difficult to make the brick look as good as it did once you take the paint off. The painting of the brick, painting of the storefront and removal of the awnings is not in keeping with the structure of The Legends. They are getting ready to renovate the former T-Rex building and The Legends is proposing awnings. The staff is working with them; it is a very tall structure so they are going through a very detailed brick work, etc. to make it so it does not look like something new was September 11,

17 done that did not meet the same quality as the previous building. Fuddruckers is an out lot and not part of the main center and all out lots have different characteristics to them. The staff recommended against the changes of that one as well, the Commission might see why at this point. The staff will address the items that the applicant brought to the attention of the staff with The Legends management because they were probably not permitted when they did them. If you google H&M storefronts they are generally lighter in color but they are not uniformly white. There is plenty of room for them to put up their sign with a light background and red letters. When Jack-in-the-Box came in, there were people lined up onto I-70 and that store did not meet exactly their design criteria either. If you are the thing, you are the thing and people are going to find you. The Legends is something that is not messed with regarding the brick work, awnings and the character that gave the center its popularity and has made it so successful. The staff recommends denial of this application and they should continue to meet the design criteria of the center. Motion and Vote Starts: 2:31:58 On motion by Mr. Ernst, seconded by Ms. Rank, the Planning Commission voted as follows to DENY Final Plan Review Application #PR for the reasons outlined in the staff report: Carson Childress Connelly Ernst Gonzalez Huey Chairman Jones Mose Not Present Pauley Rank Serda Motion to DENY Passed: 9 to 0 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m. September 11,