APRIL 25, 2016 OLATHE PLANNING COMMISSION

Transcription

1 APRIL 25, 2016 OLATHE PLANNING COMMISSION CASE LOCATIONS WARD 2 P ^_ P ^_ P P WARD 4 WARD 1 ^_ PR WARD 3 ^_ P User: gradyrm Date: 04/20/2016 ^_ Case Applications Highway Arterial Street City of Olathe Lakes Stream

2 CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE QUORUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CONSENT AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday April 25, :00 PM FINAL AGENDA 1. Standing approval of the Minutes as written from the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission meeting Cases: P , SU PR : Request for a revised site development plan for Saddlewood Storage consisting of 3.81± acres; located at South Mahaffie Street. Owner/Applicant: Don Plowman/P9 Investments, L.L.C. Engineer: Jeffrey Skidmore/Schlagel and Associates 3. P : Request for a final plat for Woodland Manor, Third Plat consisting of ± acres; located in the vicinity of 108 th Street, 1/3 mile west of Woodland Road. Owner/Applicant: Greg Prieb/Riverstone Realty, Inc. Engineer: Tim Tucker, P.E./Phelps Engineering, Inc. 4. P : Request for a final plat for Woodland Manor, Fourth Plat consisting of ± acres; located in the vicinity of 107 th Place, 1/3 mile west of Woodland Road. Owner/Applicant: Greg Prieb/Riverstone Realty, Inc. Engineer: Tim Tucker, P.E./Phelps Engineering, Inc. 5. P : Request for a final plat for Grayson Place Villas, 1 st Plat consisting of 8.07± acres; located in the vicinity of 119 th Street and South Valley Road. Owner/Applicant: Tom Langhofer/Prairie Haven Partners, LLC Engineer: Todd Allenbrand/Payne and Brockway 6. P : Request for a final plat for Grayson Place Villas, 2nd Plat consisting of 4.34± acres; located in the vicinity of 119 th Street and South Valley Road. Owner/Applicant: Tom Langhofer/Prairie Haven Partners, LLC Engineer: Todd Allenbrand/Payne and Brockway In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Olathe will provide reasonable accommodations for all public meetings. Persons requiring accommodations in attending any of our public meetings should contact the City Clerk s office at a minimum of 48 hours prior to the meeting.

3 7. P : Request for a final plat for Boulder Creek, First Plat consisting of ± acres; located on the west side of Mur-Len Road, ½ mile south of 167 th Street. Owner/Applicant: Dan Knight/Day3, LLC Engineer: Mark Breuer, PE/Schlagel and Associates, P.A. REGULAR AGENDA - New Business PUBLIC HEARING 1. SU : Request renewal of a special use permit for an existing quarry operation for APAC on 153.0± acres; located at the Olathe Quarry and Landfill, West 159 th Street. Owner: APAC Kansas City, Inc. Applicant: L. Diane Tucker, Agent/APAC Kansas, Inc. (Continue to June 27, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting) PUBLIC HEARING 2. SU : Request renewal of a special use permit for an existing landfill operation for APAC on 153.0± acres; located at West 159 th Street. Owner: APAC Kansas, Inc. Applicant: L. Diane Tucker, Agent/APAC Kansas City, Inc. (Continue to June 27, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting) ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT

4 City of Olathe City Planning Division MINUTES The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dean Vakas, with the following members present: Mike Rinke, Jeremy Fry, Ryan Freeman, Ryan Nelson and Chip Corcoran. Absent: Ann Horner, John Almeida and Erin Davis. Recited Pledge of Allegiance. The Chairman read the standard ex parte statement. Commissioner Nelson indicated he had ex parte communication pertaining to an unidentified matter. Chairman Vakas reported three instances of ex parte communication. Commissioners will identify the source of their ex parte communication as they reach the relevant item in the agenda. A motion to approve Consent Agenda items 1 and 2 was made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Rinke. Motion passed unanimously. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting: April 11, 2016 Application: Location: Owner/Applicant: Engineer: Staff Contact: P The Villas at Sunnybrook, Fourteenth Plat The Villas at Sunnybrook, Lot 1, 115 th Street and Clare Road Clay C. Blair, III/ Dennis Patterson, Sunnybrook Homes, LLC Schlagel & Associates, David A. Rinne, P.S. Marlee Schuld, Planning Intern Acres: 0.335± acres Proposed Use: Duplex Current Zoning: RP-2 Lots: Tracts: Comments: This is a request for approval of a minor plat for the Villas at Sunnybrook, Fourteenth Plat (a replat of a part of Lot 1), on 0.335± acres, located south of 115 th Terrace and east of Sunnybrook Boulevard. The Villas at Sunnybrook, First Plat (P ) was approved by the Planning Commission on February 14 th, A final site development plan (PR ) for The

5 P PC Minutes - continued April 11, 2016 Page 2 Villas at Sunnybrook was approved March 28 th, As the duplexes are completed, the individual units are being subdivided (replatted) for separate ownership. No public easement or right-of-way will be dedicated with this replat and therefore the plat will not require City Council approval. 2. Final Plat Review a. Lots/Tracts The replat includes one (1) lot for two (2) individual but attached units and one (1) tract (Tract L), which will serve as a common yard area. Tract L will be dedicated by separate instrument to the Villages Condominium Association, which will maintain all properties outside the units with the exception of the Limited Common Elements (driveways, covered decks) located within the tract. The Limited Common Elements will be maintained by the unit owners. b. Utilities/Municipal Services The property is located in the Johnson County WaterOne service area and the City of Olathe sanitary sewer area. c. Streets Both units will have access to W. 116 th Terrace through a common private driveway. d. Street and Signal Excise Taxes Excise fees for the Villas at Sunnybrook were paid at the time of recording the original plat. Therefore, no additional excise fees will be required for this plat. 3. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of P with the following stipulations: a. The area table on the plat shall be revised to show correct total area (sf) prior to recording. b. Prior to recording the plat, a digital file of the final plat (pdf format) shall be submitted to the City Planning Division. c. All above ground electrical and/or telephone cabinets shall be placed within the interior side or rear building setback yards. However, such utility cabinets may be permitted within front or corner side yards adjacent to street right-ofway if cabinets are screened with landscape materials. d. The developer is responsible for planting street trees, subject to UDO G. Such trees shall be planted at the completion of each phase of development. Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Rinke, to approve P , with the following stipulations: a. The area table on the plat shall be revised to show correct total area (sf) prior to recording. b. Prior to recording the plat, a digital file of the final plat (pdf format) shall be submitted to the City Planning Division.

6 P PC Minutes - continued April 11, 2016 Page 3 c. All above ground electrical and/or telephone cabinets shall be placed within the interior side or rear building setback yards. However, such utility cabinets may be permitted within front or corner side yards adjacent to street right-ofway if cabinets are screened with landscape materials. d. The developer is responsible for planting street trees, subject to UDO G. Such trees shall be planted at the completion of each phase of development. Motion passes unanimously.

7 City of Olathe City Planning Division MINUTES Dan Fernandez, Senior Planner, made the following staff presentation: Planning Commission Meeting: April 11, 2016 Application: SU : Request approval for the renewal of an existing Special Use permit for an amusement and recreation establishment, Stone Pillar Winery Location: Owner: Applicant: Staff Contact: Woodland Road Tom and Marcie Hoff, Trustees/Stone Pillar Vineyard & Winery Michael K. McVey, Trappito Miller Griffin, L.L.C. Dan Fernandez, Planner II Site Area: 13.5± acres Proposed Use: Events Building Area: 4,340 square feet Land Use Zoning Comprehensive Plan Designation Site Vineyard/Winery CTY Rural Conventional Neighborhood North Single-family Residential CTY Rural Conventional Neighborhood East Single-family Residential RP-1/CTY Rural Conventional Neighborhood South Single-family Residential CTY Rural Conventional Neighborhood West Olathe Northwest High School RP-1 Conventional Neighborhood 1. Comments/Background:

8 SU PC Minutes - continued April 11, 2016 Page 2 This is a request for a renewal of a Special Use Permit to allow an amusement and recreation establishment at the existing winery/vineyard. The Hoff family has been farming this property for over 150 years and use approximately acres of the site to grow grapes and produce wine. The business is registered as Kansas Agritourism site which promotes traditional agriculture as a tourist destination within the state. The initial Special Use Permit (SU ) for an amusement and recreation establishment at this property was reviewed by the Planning Commission in March The Planning Commission recommended approval, subject to a stipulation that concerts only be acoustic music, out of concern for potential noise. The City Council then approved the permit for a period of three years with an expiration of May 10, The council chose to allow amplified music, subject to noise monitoring at the property line and restrictions on loudspeaker location. The special use permit renewal (SU ) was reviewed by the Commission in April The winery was permitted to have concerts with amplified music on Fridays until 10:00 p.m. and non- amplified, acoustic music on Saturdays and Sundays. The approval also stipulated that buildings on-site comply with the Fire Department regulations and Building Codes. The Special Use Permit was approved with a one (1) year time limit. 2. Details of Operation: Stone Pillar Vineyard and Winery is a farm winery that grows its own grapes and manufactures its own wine on premises. The applicants operate the winery under the Kansas Alcohol Beverage Control Handbook for Farm Wineries which allows for the manufacturing, sampling and selling of wine at the site. Please see the attached mission statement and project narrative provided by the applicant. The vineyard and winery is a family owned business with two employees and twenty-five part-time workers. Volunteers are also recruited to help harvest the grapes in late summer and early fall. The tasting room is open most of the year from 12:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. Wednesday through Sunday. During the months of June, July and August the tasting room is open until 8:00 p.m. The site also hosts a variety of events, concerts and fundraisers. The applicants constructed an open shelter approximately 217 feet from the north property line to house bands that perform. The shelter has since been fitted with removable walls to host events inside the structure. Concerts at the site are held on Fridays and end at 10:00 p.m. Acoustic musicians perform on Saturdays and Sundays. Staff suggested that the concerts end at 9:00 p.m. instead of 10:00 p.m. The applicant stated that 7:00 p.m. start time gives concert goers plenty of time to get home after work and to grab dinner. The later ending time also creates a longer window of activity that is more attractive to the patrons. The applicant also states that a procedure will be implemented to end concerts at 9:45 p.m. 3. Vineyard Events: The special use permit approved in April 2015 permitted the applicant to hold summer concerts on the weekends with amplification permitted on Fridays and acoustic music permitted on Saturdays and Sundays. The stipulations attached to the permit addressing the possibility of loud music disturbing nearby houses remained from the 2012 approval. The applicant had to face speakers to the south or west, away from the houses to the north. The applicant was also required to take decibel readings at the north property line

9 SU PC Minutes - continued April 11, 2016 Page 3 for each concert and provide those readings to staff. The decibel readings at this property line had to be below 55 decibels which is required by the Olathe Municipal Code. The bands perform under the shelter built on the property. The structure has a noise absorbing ceiling and removable side walls have been installed. The applicant has stated that the installation of the walls on the shelter has helped reduce the noise coming from the bands. To show compliance with noise standards, the applicant has provided staff with videos showing the noise decibel readings being taken for each concert with a decibel reader. The decibel readings are required to be taken at the nearest property line, which is the north property line, however, decibel readings at various locations has been provided. The highest recorded decibel reading was 54.6 for the June 26 concert. The videos show that the readings were below the 55 decibel maximum. Decibel readings at times were above 55 due to the wind, other noises or nearby traffic. In addition to having amplification on Friday nights, the applicant is requesting the use of amplification for presenters and for acoustic musicians on Saturdays and Sundays. The amplification would be for speakers to present in front of groups such as the Rotary Club or for guests at weddings to make toasts. The applicant states that the amplified acoustic music is necessary for guests to hear the musician sing at these events. 4. Police Reports/Decibel Readings: The Police Department also monitored the noise levels coming from the winery throughout the concert season, starting with the May 8 concert date. Staff created a spreadsheet based on the data (see attached). There were 27 Friday night concerts and the police officers recorded one instance where the decibel level was above 55db on July 31. There were noise complaints on four of the concert dates including on July 31 with a neighbor reporting decibel readings in excess of 60 dbs. The police reported music after the 10:00 p.m. stop time on four concert dates with the latest recorded time being 10:08 p.m. The last concert to end after 10:00 p.m. was July 3 with the remaining concerts ending before the mandatory stop time. The police reports also state that for many of the concerts it was difficult to get a reading on the music due to traffic and other noises and that in order to get a reading on the music the officer had to be on the winery s property. Staff is stipulating that the applicant purchase a sound reader/data logger to record decibel readings over the entirety of each concert. Such a device will provide additional data over a longer period of time. The applicant shall provide the data recorded from each concert to the Planning Division. 5. Parking/Traffic: The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) does not provide a specific parking requirement for an amusement and recreation establishment. The site has a parking area containing 44 parking spaces with additional parking available on the interior drives and on grassy areas when the weather allows. There have been no complaints or issues with concert traffic or on-site parking. 6. Neighborhood Meeting/Staff Contacts: The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on March 21, Two residents from the Fallbrook subdivision attended the meeting and expressed support for the renewal. The

10 SU PC Minutes - continued April 11, 2016 Page 4 applicant has provided meeting minutes which have been included in the Planning Commission packet. Staff was contacted by one resident with complaints about noise from the concerts. The resident also expressed concern about the City using Police resources on monitoring the winery and the winery putting up prohibited banners in addition to other concerns (see attached). Staff has received 166 s and messages of support for Stone Pillar. The messages of the supporters stated that they enjoy the concerts and activities at the vineyards; that the business contributes to local charities; and the residents living close to the winery state that they cannot hear or can minimally hear the music on concert nights. Staff was able to break out the locations of the supporters. Of the 166 messages, 50 came from the Stone Pillar neighborhood (less than 1 mile from the vineyard), 80 are Olathe residents and 36 are outside Olathe or undetermined (see attached). 7. Fire/Building Codes: The venue had several outstanding Fire and Building Code violations as of the last special use permit renewal. Stipulations were added to last year s approval that the business had to meet current fire and building codes for existing structures. The Fire and Building Codes Departments have visited the site and has determined that all the stipulations have been met. 8. Time Limit: Staff is recommending a one (1) year approval period to expire on May 3, Any violation of the special use permit stipulations shall result in the immediate proceedings to revoke the special use permit. The Planning Commission can recommend shorter or longer time limits based on the circumstances of the renewal application. 9. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of SU with the following stipulations: a. The special use permit shall be approved for a one (1) year period and shall expire on May 3, b. Any violation of the special use permit stipulations shall result in the immediate proceedings to revoke the special use permit. c. The applicant shall purchase a sound reader/data logger to record the decibel levels over the entire duration of each concert and provide the data to the Planning Division. d. Activities and uses of the winery/vineyard shall be limited to those areas designated on the site plan submitted by the petitioner with this Special Use. e. Concerts with speakers shall be limited to Fridays from the hours of 7:00pm to 10:00pm. Acoustic music is permitted Saturdays and Sundays. f. Speakers for any concert must be faced south or west, away from the houses in the residential subdivision to the north. The owners shall take measurements of the decibel level for each concert at the north property line and record the

11 SU PC Minutes - continued April 11, 2016 Page 5 reading to assure noise levels of Olathe Municipal Code Section are met. g. No tents or temporary structures shall be permitted with winery activities. h. No temporary signs or banners shall be permitted with winery activities unless appropriate permits and approvals have been issued by the Planning Staff. All signs shall have valid sign permits. Following staff presentation, Chairman Vakas opened up the meeting to questions from commissioners: Chairman Vakas: This is a good time to come back to the ex parte rule. Commissioner Nelson, did you have something? Comm. Nelson: Yes. I just had someone identify to me on social media, saying they d like support for this effort. It was a simple statement from that person. No other exchange. Chairman Vakas: For the record, I want to mention that I think I have three items that I should call ex parte communications. First, I m on the Stone Pillar customer contact list and receive periodic s from the winery. On the 6 th of April, I did receive a lengthy advertisement, and they referenced the pending expiration of the current special use permit and Stone Pillar s view toward the situation. Fellow commissioners, if you re not on that list, you probably haven t seen that. There s really nothing controversial in there. I ve given a copy to Mr. Clements for the record. Second, I would mention that I was contacted by Laura Lombardi, a resident opposed to the permit, and I subsequently met with her in the Planning Department last Friday, April 8 th. Mr. Clements, Mr. Fernandez and I all met with Ms. Lombardi. She provided us with some updates on her concerns, which I expect she ll also talk about this evening when she steps to the microphone. We had a chance to tell her where the Planning staff was in the review of the application. Finally, this afternoon, I received another from Ms. Lombardi, with a link to the county guidelines surrounding their special event provisions. Again, nothing particularly controversial there, but a copy of that correspondence was provided to Mr. Clements for the record. Now, is the applicant here, or someone to speak on his behalf? Do we have questions? Comm. Rinke: Yes, I do. Chairman Vakas: Go head, please. Comm. Rinke: Mr. Fernandez, on stipulation b., you said that any violation of the special use permit stipulations would result in immediate proceedings to revoke the permit. How strict would we be with that? Say, if they had one instance where they went over 55 decibels, or they exceeded the time limit by five minutes, that would be enough that we would start proceedings? Mr. Fernandez: I think it depends on the situation, on what they violate for the concert end time. That would be pretty easy. I think the police or someone could notify that it went past 10 o clock. That s a pretty easy violation. As far as the decibels reading, we would probably have to

12 SU PC Minutes - continued April 11, 2016 Page 6 take a closer look at that. As I mentioned in the staff report and in my presentation, sometimes there are decibel readings that go above 55 that aren t due to the music. Comm. Rinke: Did we have this stipulation in the past? Mr. Fernandez: No, we did not. Comm. Rinke: This is a new stipulation? Mr. Fernandez: It is. Dave Clements, Planning Manager, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Clements: Mr. Fernandez is correct, but I think if there is a violation, we would initiate the proceedings to revoke the special use permit, and that s when the conversation on analysis would take place in terms of what the impact of the violation was, and was the replication worthy or not. I think the goal here is to have a real tight timeline and procedure so we don t have situations where we get out of our lane. Chairman Vakas: Thank you. Comm. Corcoran: I m just curious as to what the basis is for the one-year versus a multi-year special use permit. Is that just a starting point, or is there some foundation in history for that? Mr. Clements: Last year, it was set up for a one-year renewal. And, as Dan indicated in the summary, there were some instances where there was late noise beyond 10 o clock, some instances where there were sound levels above 55 decibels at the property line. So, it just seemed to us that the best thing to do is to give them one more year to see if we could really get these stipulations driven down to where it really works for the City, really works for the applicant, really works for the neighbors. Comm. Rinke: Just to add, I remember from last year, one of my big concerns was the building code violations. I wanted to make sure that those were taken care of before they got an extended special use permit. Comm. Nelson: You acknowledged I believe 176 correspondences in favor, and we ve heard a couple of correspondences in opposition. I didn t hear you specifically say a number of those opposed, the number of correspondences we had from those opposed. Mr. Fernandez: We received one opposed, who is here at the meeting. We also received another after the staff report went out, and was opposed to the renewal. Comm. Nelson: Thank you. Chairman Vakas: Thank you, Mr. Fernandez. Then, on the applicant side Sir? Mike McVey, Attorney, Trappito Miller Griffin, LLC, 1561 West 87 th Street, Lenexa, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. McVey: I m here on behalf of the Hoff s, to talk to you about a few items in the staff report. I value your time, and I don t think it s necessary to go over all the history of this. I d be happy to answer any questions. Most of you know that the Hoff homestead has been here since nearly post-civil Wars day. I found out the other day that my great-uncle is a former mayor of

13 SU PC Minutes - continued April 11, 2016 Page 7 Olathe. That s a pretty cool thing to find out. Then, I start working on this Hoff project and realize that they started homesteading 100 years before he was mayor. So, boy, it just goes back a long time, and obviously they were way out in the country back then, and the city is coming to the Hoff homestead. Items I wanted to address include, to me, it s something to celebrate. You ve talked already about the building I call it the shelter, we can call it whatever we want. But it s completed, the walls are up, all the permits and code stuff is all done, and honestly, I think all of this noise problem is going to be history, because most of that occurred before the walls were up. And honestly, there have not been any sound complaints since the walls have been up. So, that affects the way you look at this, I guess from my point of view, and you don t need to look at it going forward like it s the same thing it was for the last five years. Really, starting late summer, things changed. The building was enclosed, and it was all taken care of. I think that is going to solve the sound problem going forward. So, we aren t too sensitive about violations in that regard because I think they re resolved. We looked at this more like a land use problem. The data logger that was mentioned as a new staff requirement would be putting a fixed thing, presumably at the north property line, to record a consistent stream of information. If you know how a decibel meter works, you realize that a fixed stream of information without someone subjectively observing the reader isn t very worthwhile. So, think of this. The 17-year locust we had last year? No decibel meter recorded anything except locust. And it really concerns me that if we have this data logger sitting out there in the field, logging time and sounds, and we have this drop-dead violation rule that the staff has now suggested, and one of those Army helicopters flies over and shows it s got a 100 decibel reading on it, we lose our special use permit and have to cancel a whole concert season. And I don t know if we re going to be able to explain the 100 decibels. I mean, we may not remember the helicopter. They may not remember the helicopter. Now, we re fighting over why something that seems drastically high, happened. I don t know that anyone is really going to know. So, I don t know that that s a workable solution, to have an unmanned data logger out there without the subjective interpretation of a person. So, that s the thoughts on that. I have some concern over having a City person on our property all the time, not because I think they re going to find a bunch of violations, but, I mean, how many properties does the City have the right to just enter regularly? Not very many. It just seems kind of intrusive. But, since I don t care about the outcome as long as it s accurate, I don t care too much about that. Just something to mention. The one-year renewal, as the commissioner mentioned, is a struggle for any business. At this level, you guys see that we appear, and we have a hearing. But, the way this goes in this business is that we start in December with preparing to get a renewal application in in January; we have our public meeting in February; we re here in March; and we have a month until we have a City Council meeting in May. Then, we have to log and turn in all our monthly decibel reports to the City staff every month, in May, June, July, August, September and October. Then, we get November off to make wine, and then it s December, and we re starting the next year to renew our special use permit. So, think about the burden that we re putting on this business for a land use approval that we spend all year sort of doing. It just doesn t seem like an appropriate burden to put on this business.

14 SU PC Minutes - continued April 11, 2016 Page 8 In addition to the time that s spent doing annual renewals, we have an entertainment schedule, a concert schedule. We have to book those bands throughout the summer and January, so now we ve got bands booked from January 2016 through the summer. Theoretically, we could not have a special use permit in May, and now, we re going to have to take the consequences of cancelling that event series because this annual renewal comes around mid-concert year. So, those are hardships I would like you to take into consideration when you think about the term limit of the renewal. So, I would ask that you renew the special use permit for five years, which is the standard use for a special use permit, rather than one year. And, I would like you to reject the staff s suggestion of putting the data logger onto the property. We ve also asked and the staff didn t address we ve asked that the facility be allowed, on Saturday and Sunday, to have sort of a minimal amplified sound capability. That would obviously be in the facility, and what we have the opportunity to have for business in our facility is special events like rotary club events, charity events, wedding receptions, etc. And if we get somewhere around 99 people in that building, and the father of the bride wants to make a toast, and he doesn t have a speaker to talk in, he isn t going to be able to do much. And it really prohibits us from having what we consider to be not noise events, but just events where there s adequate sound for the event to occur. I don t quite know how to quantify that. Really, what we re asking for is that on Saturdays and Sundays, to essentially have what you would have, like, a one-speaker amplifier set up. Like an acoustic musician or a person speaking would speak through. So, we would ask that that permission also be added to what is pending. I have six pages of signed petitions in support of the application, which I would like to leave with Dan or the commissioners. [Handed off to Mr. Fernandez.] Thank you for your time. Chairman Vakas: Thank you. Appreciate your comments. Questions? Comm. Freeman: In regards to the decibel reading, how is that number reached? Is that something that the applicant suggested? Mr. McVey: That s in a regular sound ordinance, so it applies to everybody, including this facility. That s how 55 got set. Comm. Freeman: And that s something that you all agree with, and makes sense. Mr. McVey: We re willing to live by the same standard the rest of the city lives by. Comm. Rinke: On the Friday night concerts, are the walls typically up for those, or down? Mr. McVey: Always up. Comm. Rinke: So it s completely enclosed. Mr. McVey: Yes. With doors. Exit doors, exist signs, etc. Honestly, if you look at the building, you would not know that the walls are removable. They re not like canvas or something. They re fixed. If they re removable, I don t exactly know how you would do that. Maybe George could tell you, but I can t tell you. They look fixed. Comm. Fry: Is the building air conditioned? Mr. McVey: Yes. It s heated and cooled.

15 SU PC Minutes - continued April 11, 2016 Page 9 Chairman Vakas: Thank you. I see we have six folks signed up to speak in favor of this special use permit. Let me ask those of you who have signed up, have you all provided comments to the City already? [No audible response.] And I only ask that because we have the record of those comments, all 166 comments are in our staff packets. Don t feel obligated to come and speak again if we already have your information, in the interest of time. So, having said that, is there someone who would like to step to the microphone at this time and speak in favor? Holly Ray, West 110th, Olathe, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Ms. Ray: My husband Steve Ray is here also. We live very close to the vineyard, West 110th, so we are just right across the street and very, very close. We've lived there for about 11 years. Twenty-two-year residents of Olathe. I am a mom of three. I am a grandmother of three. Our babies have been at our house, never disturbed. My only complaint is, I would like the music louder and longer. We enjoy the vineyard. It is an asset to the City of Olathe. The vineyard is in many of the publications that we see talking about amenities of Olathe. The vineyards also help support local musicians. I love music. I've loved music all my life. The Hoffs are good, honest people. Our son worked there one summer to plant the vineyard. He learned the appreciation of farm agriculture. We talked about, they promote ag tourism. He loved that year that he worked at the vineyard. It was hot, but that's the way it goes. Other concerns in that area that I've talked to City of Olathe about and not really gotten a lot of response many broken promises in Fallbrook. We have one way in, one way out. I appreciate that the train sound, the horns have been done away with. I wake up every night and still hear trains. I am really appalled that a neighbor of mine would have a decibel reader, standing outside, judging the music. I can't even hear it, and again, I live very, very close. Also disappointing that taxpayers' money is going for law enforcement to sit there and monitor people that are having a great time. I wish they would be there at the commuter time in the morning and at 5:00, trying to get in and out of Fallbrook. It is hell. Please extend the permit for the vineyard. Five years would be my preference. Thank you for your time. Allen Robertson, Bradshaw, Overland Park, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Robertson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I sent a letter in for support, but it was sent in after the packets were prepared, so I'd like to read my statement, if I may. I'm a longtime resident of Overland Park, over 45 years, but I live in the Olathe boundary. My children have all attended and graduated from Olathe schools. We're longtime customers of Olathe businesses, including Stone Pillar. My wife and I, Cindy, who's with me tonight along with my grandson Daniel, have been attending various afternoon and evening events at Stone Pillar for the past two years. We've been members of their wine club. We've participated in the grape harvest. It's a great opportunity, by the way. We've attended conferences with Stone Pillar. We're members now of the Kansas Grape Growers and Winemakers Association. Stone Pillar, like many of the other wineries and vineyards in the state of Kansas, they've been very supportive of the industry. They've been

16 SU PC Minutes - continued April 11, 2016 Page 10 very supportive of our community. They have inspired my wife and I to start our own vineyard, which we will be planting this May in Coffey County, Kansas, to increase the industry overall in the state. As a business owner, the pre-established family is so we're talking a Century Farm. My wife and I are also part of a Century Farm family, so we know what that means. We know what the significance of that is, especially here in the state of Kansas. We feel they should be afforded every right to conduct business in a very responsible manner; provide programs and activities that promote community; promote family entertainment; most importantly, promote the Kansas farm winery industry. The state of Kansas, and thus the city of Olathe, would be counterproductive to promote an industry that creates jobs and revenues for the state but by handicapping at the same time one of the early pioneers of the revitalization of that industry here in the state of Kansas. At one time, there were over 5,000 acres of vineyards in the state of Kansas. Now there are less than 500. Lastly, I'd like to say that my wife and I live next door to St. Thomas Aquinas and Johnson County Community College, a place that puts on lots of sporting events on Friday nights and on weekends. Instead of being opposed to the noise generated from those events, we look at that as a sign of progress, of activity in our community, and of community involvement for those organizations. We feel that Stone Pillar should be seen in the same way. We would like to recommend, as well, that the time period be extended from one year to five years. Thank you. Kirk Heer, S. Barker Rd., Olathe, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Heer: I had sent an , and I won't repeat everything, but I have some new thoughts tonight. I live right across the street, but it's just off the map there, in Fallbrook. I had written about coming from small-town Iowa, memories of my summer evenings in small-town Iowa. You could go out and hear the municipal band. When I moved to what I thought would be the vast suburbia of Johnson County, I thought I'd miss that flavor, but every place in Olathe, I've heard that. I previously lived near Indian Creek Park, Frontier Park. I love those concerts. I dare say, I think they're above 55 decibels at the property line of that park. I could hear them nicely from a half-mile away. My only complaint and this is my new information about last summer is that I can no longer hear the music. I can't even identify a song. I can identify songs from the high school football night a mile away. I wish I could hear the music here more clearly. If there's any breeze, any wind, any traffic noise, I can't hear the music, and I just go back inside and watch TV. I appreciate the flavor that they're bringing to the community, and I would even encourage Olathe to not be too strict with them. We appreciate them as neighbors. Thank you. Robert Eckdahl, W. 125th Terrace, Olathe, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Eckdahl: I live about two miles from the vineyard. I was actually going to mention, I lived across Indian Creek from Frontier Park for about nine years. Those concerts are fantastic. The crowd noise alone, I guarantee, is higher than that 55-decibel limit.

17 SU PC Minutes - continued April 11, 2016 Page 11 I don't want to keep reiterating everything everybody said about how special Stone Pillar is, but one of the things that hasn't been brought up is how family-friendly these activities are. My wife and I, we've taken my kids to yoga, to some other activities, obviously not as loud as the concerts, but I've also taken my kids to the concerts themselves. They're very tasteful music. We're not listening to a whole lot of heavy metal or things that you can't really understand the words to. They're very family-friendly-oriented activities. My youngest son, he wants to be a chef. He loves the food truck they bring in. Some of the small businesses that bring in food for these events: just great, great food. And they love that. They love sitting back and listening to some music. It's just an entirely awesome experience to sit up on that hillside and to just relax and feel the breeze. Now, that said, I think the hillside's probably a little bit of their curse, because we also did the grape stomp this past year, and standing outside, listening to instruction for the rules of this competition was very difficult, and it wasn't even really that windy of a day. You take a day like today, and I probably wouldn't be able to hear you talking to me up there. So to say that there shouldn't be any amplification, I think, is just absurd in that manner. Furthermore, and kind of my last point, is that I work over in Kansas City, MO. It takes me a while to get home from work. It takes a while for my wife to get home from work. Friday evenings, to try to restrict the time limit to 9:00, I think, is really difficult for families to be able to families who may not be able to bring their little ones to the concert. Perhaps they need to wait for their daycare provider or somebody to come and help them. I think 10:00 is still a very reasonable time frame for this community. We have a lot of my-aged citizens of this community. They like to go out and have a good time, relax, as I mentioned, and enjoy what we have. Stone Pillar is a really great asset to this community, and there is no reason why the city should not support this business. Thank you. Laura Lombardi, College Blvd., Olathe, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Ms. Lombardi: On the map, you can see I m one of three houses there in Reuber Acres. I've been in my house for almost 20 years and participated with the City in developing the Woodland Corridor Plan and contributing to this process since A year ago when I stood before you, I asked that the winery's SUP be limited because in prior years, they had had a lot of noise complaints, we'd had some traffic issues, and things like that. The traffic has gotten better, but I will tell you that, as you can tell from the police reports, they have violated their SUP a number of times in the last year, from noise violations to going past the 10:00 p.m. deadlines for when they're supposed to stop playing, as well as, they did have amplification on Sundays when they weren't supposed to. So they have been called to task by the City for putting signage up that's not supposed to be there, and they'll take it down the day they're told to take it down, and then it's back up the next week. The police will show up or be parked at the entrance of Fallbrook, monitoring the sound, along with sometimes the fire department was sitting there, and as long as the police was there, the

18 SU PC Minutes - continued April 11, 2016 Page 12 sound was turned down to the appropriate decibel levels. When the police would leave, we could always tell, because the sound goes way up. We'd call the police, because that's what, as residents, we were supposed to do if we were hearing it, which I mean, I'm past the 500-feet notification, so there's no way I should be hearing anything, and I have a passive solar house, which is underground, and even with the house underground and the windows up, I'm hearing it, if I'm calling. So again, people commented on the police being there. I find it horrendous that that's how we use our police force, when I'm sure that they don't have to sit at Austin's or sit at Johnny's and monitor those businesses to make sure they're compliant with the regulations. So I am grateful that you guys have come up with a process for handling the next time that the SUP is violated, because I can tell you, historically, it probably will not take long. My point of being here again is to just kind of verify what we're seeing as neighbors. I have neighbors to the east of me that have young children that are trying to get their kids in bed. I have other neighbors to the other side of me that hear it, and it's quite loud. I appreciate the fact that the monitoring system will be done, because I do think that if it's monitored throughout the duration of the concert, you're going to have a much better sense of how loud it actually really is. As part of preparing for this meeting, I did do some research, because it just astounds me that being in the city limits means that the rules are different. I mean, if you look at the special events covered in the Johnson County regulations, there's greater protection if we were outside the city limits. The counties of Miami County, Riley County, Douglas County all have special provisions attached to agritourism because this is a problem that is occurring in a lot of places. If it was a quiet winery, which is what the state intended, where people go and taste wine, then it is a quiet activity, and it doesn't bother the residents. But what we're seeing is that it's a party location, concert location, and so the noise levels are disturbing when you're trying to do that in a residential neighborhood. Again, I appreciate the fact that they think it's a burden to maintain the regulations on their SUP, and if they would just do it, I think everybody would be at ease with the whole situation. But in the seven, eight years, whatever it's been now, that just has never occurred since it's been open, so thank you. Chairman Vakas: Sir, question? Commissioner Fry: I have a couple questions. I appreciate you being here. I know you've been here multiple years, and I know it takes time away from your daily activities to come and talk with us, and we appreciate it. I wanted to kind of go through some of the asks that the applicant had, and just get your take on a couple of things. I was interested in the idea of the Saturday/Sunday single microphone within the building, for a speech or something along those lines. Do you think that that's something that, as a resident, that's just, in general, kind of against what's going on with the concerts, would that be something that you would be willing to allow? Ms. Lombardi: Well, here's what happened. They weren't supposed to do that last year, and they did. And, you know, probably if it was inside the building, and if it was a single speaker, we

19 SU PC Minutes - continued April 11, 2016 Page 13 might not hear it, but that's not what they do. They have the people outside with their microphones and their speakers between the two buildings, and for some reason, it funnels straight into our neighborhood. I know where they said they were going to monitor on the north side is the nearest, but that isn't the direction that the sound goes. The sound goes to the east. Commissioner Fry: Was this something that a report was generated from, where there was a complaint, where this was done inaccurately a Saturday or Sunday? Ms. Lombardi: Yeah. There was an incident where, I mean, I could hear what's supposed to be no-amplified sound, acoustic, from my house on a Sunday afternoon, so I called the police, and the police were unaware of what you categorize as "amplification. I mean, I think most people know that means microphone and speakers, but they hadn't officially been told what to look for, so I don't know if it made it into their official report or not, but you could see it from the street. Commissioner Fry: So if there is a stipulation that allows for this inside their building, for a single speaker, would that be something you would be in favor of? Ms. Lombardi: I was surprised, actually. Mr. McVey had called me, and I was surprised to hear what he said today about with it being totally enclosed, that we shouldn't hear anything, because it's been totally enclosed for a long time, and it hasn't prevented us from hearing it in the prior months. So unless they changed something after July 1st or July 3rd or whatever, then it's the same building it's been, and, you know... Commissioner Fry: Let me ask another question. On the one-year renewal versus the five years, I know that that's a big push for the applicant. I understand the perspective. If the rules are in place that, as a body and as a city council, that are agreed to as far as what happens if they break the special use permit, would you be okay with allowing them a five-year renewal period as opposed to a one-year, if the rules are set? Ms. Lombardi: I think it depends on what the process of revocation is, because, you know, again, I was in this same place last year because they had all the rules before, they broke the rules, nothing happened. The police park there, they submit their reports that say that the decimal [sic] levels are over and they're after and the police, even though they submit their reports, nothing happens to the vineyard when it occurs. So last year, I had asked, "Okay, if they break the rules, what happens now? Because as neighbors, it's ridiculous. We should not be the people that have to monitor this situation, and certainly our police shouldn't have to sit at their driveway every day. Commissioner Fry: I'm just trying to find kind of a win for everyone. It sounds like that there's nothing that could Ms. Lombardi: Well, I mean, I think you have to give them the shortened time to see again, if in the last year, they couldn't meet the SUP, I'm quite honestly surprised that they get a renewal, because I would have thought from the City Council, that last year was their last year, you know? And if they were going to break the rules last year, then they wouldn't have another SUP.

20 SU PC Minutes - continued April 11, 2016 Page 14 Commissioner Fry: Can you also address whether or not you think it would be fair if there was a constant monitoring of the decibel level, and there was a large truck that went by, or a helicopter that went because I could see that happening. I mean, just Ms. Lombardi: You're going to know. I mean, when these rock-and-roll bands that are the ones that are problematic are playing, it's loud for a long time. I mean, it easily takes the police 15 minutes to get there, and it's still loud when they get there. Commissioner Fry: So would you be in favor of allowing for a longer period of time that they have to be over that decibel level before it would be a revocation of the special use permit? Ms. Lombardi: Honestly, I understand why you would want to be more flexible on that, but I have three years prior of dealing with the noise when they didn't even have a special use permit. So myself and my neighbors that have the greatest issues with this are not going to it's not going to do well to give them additional chances to make it louder over a longer period of time, because that is the problem. Probably if you took the amplification away from that facility, everything would be great for everyone, you know? But increasing that amplification is where the problems occur, because it is very noisy. Commissioner Fry: Okay. I'm good. Thanks. Chairman Vakas: Commissioners, do I have a motion to close the public hearing? Motion by Commissioner Freeman, seconded by Commissioner Corcoran, to close the public hearing. Motion was approved unanimously. Chairman Vakas: The public hearing is closed. Commissioners, your thoughts? Comm. Rinke: I have a question for staff. I guess I m hearing some conflicting testimony here on, is the amplification being set up outside, or inside? Have we exceeded the decibel limit because we ve had stuff outside, or was it inside? I need more clarification on how good the walls are. Mr. Clements: I don t think we really know exactly how everything is set up. I think there s a sense that the speakers are inside, and they have to be facing west or south. Chairman Vakas: I d offer a little clarification. The temporary walls that we re talking about are not sound-proof walls, to be clear. So, speakers inside the enclosure aren t necessarily muffled by those walls. Mr. Clements: And the window s open in those walls. Depending on the weather, they could be open, which could be a factor in increased noise. Chairman Vakas: Several folks in the audience talked about the Olathe summer concert series, which is a very notable event. But, I want to put it in perspective. The Olathe summer concert series at Frontier Park has been held for about 16 years. This is a free public concert series that has proven to be accepted by the neighborhood. Many neighbors host driveway and backyard parties to enjoy the music. There are generally four concerts each summer, and in all cases, each concert is a community-wide fundraiser or free event for a local charity, providing an

21 SU PC Minutes - continued April 11, 2016 Page 15 important link to community need and resources. So, that concert series is not comparable to what we have going on at the winery. Just a point of clarification. Comm. Nelson: If I may add to that. Part of my tension with this is, we re taking the approach of getting a special use permit, as opposed to getting zoning that approves this. Those are two different process. What s a use for this property? That s the question that we re partially wrestling with. So, we ve got dozens and dozens of neighbors that are showing strong support. We have one neighbor tonight and one via that are showing disapproval of it. So, we re wrestling with how this fits into a neighborhood. There s a couple ways to deal with this issue. One is event by event, get something similar to a block party request. That s going to be way more taxing and way more work for the Hoff family. The other would be rezoning it so it can be used for this purpose, which would require different entities being involved in this, and the structure itself, etc. And then, the option we re choosing to explore today is a special use permit. And the special use permit is saying, is this something that fits into this neighborhood, and can it be done in this neighborhood without imposing on the neighbors? I think the thing that is striking me as difficult is the dynamic that we re not just talking about four or six occasions a year. We re talking about 24-plus occasions. So, how do we say yes, this is a reasonable request, because it s not just a special use on an ongoing basis, like people have special use for having businesses in a residential area, or something like that. This is a specific thing that s beyond just the operation of business. However, the flipside of that, this is a property that was here long before these residents were here, and it s a business that s trying to thrive, and we want to support small business in this community. So, there is great tension in me for this. And where I m wrestling with this at this moment is, there is the UDO. What does our Unified Development Ordinance give us the authority to do? And then, there s the politics. And we are not the political entity. We are the commission that s made up of volunteers, doing the best we can to enforce the opportunity we have to make a recommendation to the City Council. So, I would say all of that to say to our guests here this evening, and our residents who we value and appreciate the decision we make, whether it s approval of not approving, is simply our recommendation to the City Council. The City Council can then say, Do we want to move forward with this, beyond the scope of what the Planning Commission has made? Now, they have to have a different vote count in that scenario, but I think it s really important for us to understand, and for our residents to understand, our authority is only as in-depth as the UDO gives us authority. It s the City Council that has authority beyond that UDO. So, we re dealing with a subjective dynamic here on how to enforce the UDO. And that s really where my tension is. This is great for their business, and I want this business to thrive. It is unique to the city of Olathe. It is a wonderful draw to other people. I m just wrestling with the volume of events taking place. Is it reasonable with the surrounding residents. That s really what I m wrestling through tonight. Chairman Vakas: I think you make a great point. It s the recurring, every Friday night, month after month. It adds up in terms of tolerance. I d offer a couple things. We are a recommending body; City Council is the approving body. But, based on that, we have a lot of latitude here. First of all, from a UDO standpoint, this is R-1. The winery is right in the middle of R-1. So, the criteria is clear. Part of the rub here and Ms. Lombardi, you all have seen year after year there have

22 SU PC Minutes - continued April 11, 2016 Page 16 been continual issues with the winery not wanting to adhere to City ordinance. This last year, where we have this one-year special use permit that s about to expire in May, I understand there have been a lot of issues with, here are the criteria for the special use permit, here s the expectation of performance from Stone Pillar Winery, and yet there were repeated violations. And it s a matter of public record that at one point, the City Manager had to meet with Stone Pillar management to discuss the whole issue because violations and continued refusals to follow the rules were so numerous and the City wasn t sure which way they were going to go, quite frankly. So, I don t think that there s any question that the City as a body, and for the majority of us here as residents, we want the winery to be wildly successful, but they have to be able to comply with what we think are reasonable expectations. Comm. Fry: I have some thoughts. For me, personally, this has been the most ongoing single issue that I ve dealt with on this committee. I think this is at least the third time this has come up. The first time I remember hearing this, I believe we had denied amplified music, and we made only non-amplified music allowed. And then, it was decided at the City Council level to not have that. I think at that singular meeting, we had as many people against the winery as we have for it this evening. And there were sign issues. As I look at the history of this, it s amazing to me how it s changed, but I think it s gotten better through this process. There are fewer people against it, more people for it, which I think means that something is going well. I look over the asks for the applicant, and as a business owner, I understand what it would be like to have to renew something every year. Although I think the process has made it better by doing it, at least over the last several years. And I think if we re still in question as to whether the rules are being followed, a decent compromise should be found. And I think a decent compromise would be maybe not as heavy-handed as the stipulation reads as far as one false move and the special use permit is gone; but maybe take a year with the data logger and see what that might look like. Be strict, but maybe not be heavy-handed on it. I think that could be potentially revised in what we re voting on this evening. But, the burden is on the business owner to ensure that the rules are being followed. I suspect that it probably happens on occasion where things get a little louder. I think it probably happens. But, the neighbors don t need to keep dealing with that if it s a continual issue. So, I think we should potentially have the data logger, but maybe have it monitored for another year, and have another year-long renewal. I think the idea of having a single microphone inside a building for some kind of a speech is a very reasonable ask. To me, that s not something that should bother the neighbors. That s just me, personally. I think we should add something in there to allow their ask of having a single microphone inside the building. That seems very fair to me. The City person being on property, whether that s fair or not, I think is a good question. The question was asked whether that s something that should be done, and I tend to side with the applicant; that s pretty rare. However, I think the burden is still on the applicant to make sure the rules are being followed. So, I m in favor of approving this. I think that there s always going to be a little bit of a tug-ofwar here. I think for the city of Olathe, this is a wonderful thing for us to have. I think that s shown by the people that are here, and potentially the lack of people that aren t here speaking against it. That s where I sit right now. I don t want to necessarily rewrite the stipulations, but I

23 SU PC Minutes - continued April 11, 2016 Page 17 think we should at least revisit rewriting those a little bit, to make them not quite so heavyhanded. Comm. Rinke: With regard to the, like if there s a single [inaudible], I guess I heard you, Mr. Clements, to say that that wouldn t immediately shut it down. Staff would take a look at that and try to address the situation. So, should the stipulation say it may result, or is there a way to finesse that? Make it clear that that is a possible action if they don t comply? The way it currently reads, it sounds like one false move and we re going to yank the permit. Mr. Clements: The stipulation says to start proceedings, and the proceedings are ultimately going to be coming back to the Comm. Rinke: Yeah, I read it I see. Mr. Clements: -- another public hearing. The Planning Commission would then serve as a hearing body to revoke the extent and significance of that violation, to see if it merits --. Comm. Rinke: I see your point. I think it s fine the way it s written. Comm. Nelson: One of the concerns I have, we re not professionals in the acoustic field, so I don t fully understand. I do have concerns over the other factors that could influence what the decibel reader is recording. For all we know, someone could take an air horn next to it and blow it. Is it just reading data, or is it recording audio to say what the data is telling it? Do we know about the nature of those devices? Mr. Fernandez: It just records data. We wouldn t be able to tell what made that sound. Comm. Nelson: That s trying to make something very black and white that is very subjective. It s applying science to something that s perhaps more of an art. I think that s a difficult tool to use for total enforcement, but again, I m not a professional in this field, although I ve done a lot with sound engineering and stuff like that in the past. But, this is a different dynamic than that because a storm can make it go over those numbers. Who s going to go back and check all the weather on that date, check all the traffic patterns? I mean, I don t know how capable we are of using that tool to determine this. Chairman Vakas: I d offer, this is a scientific method to capture data. It is scientific. It s a great alternative to having a City person on property with a hand-held device. And obviously, if a helicopter flies over from the reserve helicopter unit, that s a memorable event. If there s lightening from a thunderstorm, that s a memorable event. So, if on occasion, the audiometer should go over 55 decibels and there s something significant to cause that to happen, I think there are enough people paying attention to the situation that we wouldn t try to unduly penalize Stone Pillar because of that. Mr. Clements: And if, going forward, the walls provide better sound insulation, it would be a greater body of information over a longer period of time that would demonstrate that. Chairman Vakas: This is tracking management data, for what it s worth, and it should be worth a lot in the process, I think. Again, I think this is a year to verify that the winery can operate within those parameters that the City is laying out. I think they are reasonable parameters. The idea of having to apply for an event permit for each event is onerous. There s no doubt about that. But, having a one-year special use permit extension as a test quite frankly, the final test

24 SU PC Minutes - continued April 11, 2016 Page 18 I think sets the ground rules for a five-year application this time next year. I d love to see it come out that way. That would be great. Mr. Clements: I think that s a great observation, Mr. Vakas. We think there have been improvements in the last year to the facility, but there have been noise violations, there have been duration violations, and we have had complaints. I think it s our goal, representing everybody in terms of the property owners and the applicant, understanding everybody s concerns, our goal is to make sure that this works within the parameters that we have, and ratchet them up just a little bit as a way to really get folks attention, and make sure we have the results that everybody is after. Adding the microphone to the interior of the building on a Saturday and Sunday I understand Mr. Fry s comments, but that presents one more opportunity for more noise and more complaints. Let s see if we can get this dialed in to where it works within the confines we originally have, and then, maybe next year look at adding elements to it. Chairman Vakas: And this past year, again, with the understanding that there was no microphone to be used on those dates, nonetheless, that was going on. So, to authorize it now seems like the wrong direction for this year, at least. I would just say that there s no doubt in my mind that Stone Pillar Winery is a fantastic operation. It s very much valued by the community and by people who like wine, and people who like family-friendly events. People that like someplace neat to go on a Friday evening. What a wonderful place to do that, I think. And we certainly recognize the seniority of the family who owns that land and their commitment to Olathe for 150 years. That s tremendous. But becoming a senior citizen, so to speak, doesn t just have rights; it has obligations. And it s obligations to be able to live with your fellow citizens who are your neighbors in a respectful manner. I think that s what we re trying to do with this one-year extension. Comm. Freeman: I understand the thoughts on the one year, but I would not agree with that. I don t necessarily agree with the five-year, either. I d like to see, as Dr. Fry noted, a compromise. I would propose three years, for the reason that, if there are issues that come up, that they would come back to the Planning Commission as was stated in the meeting, and we would be looking at those. I d rather be looking at an issue, if we had to look at something, than looking at a special use permit in another 12 months. I d rather not look at anything at all and it would go swimmingly. But, if we do another year, I feel that is too short of a time period on the business, and it s a bit onerous. I would propose three years. A second point I would make. My understanding in research of 55 decibels, as was stated is the in the City ordnance for noise level, it s my understanding that it s not very loud at all. In research that I ve seen, it s quieter than an outdoor air conditioner, which would be approximately 60 decibels. So, if that s accurate, I see 55 decibels as being very reasonable. I don t see it as a great noise issue, and I think that s evidenced by the amount of support for the winery. So, if motions are entertained, I would definitely in support of three years. I don t know that I would support a one year. Comm. Corcoran: I ve been giving this a lot of thought. I m new to the Commission and don t have a history with this issue. So, I thought it would be better to listen than speak. I own a small business and deal with government on a very regular basis. It is a very onerous process to have

25 SU PC Minutes - continued April 11, 2016 Page 19 to make an application and go through this process on an annual basis. So, for that reason, along with the fact that I think there s controls in place through these stipulations, I would be in favor of a longer period as well for the special use permit. I also noted in staff s comments that they were talking about a decibel meter being in place only when the concerts were going on, and the report issued when the concerts were going on. So, I think the chance for an error coming up other than when a concert is happening is fairly minimal and can be ascertained if, in fact, there is a spike of some sort. Again, I feel like the controls are there. And I m not advocating that they violate the terms of the permit, but I look at what the violations were, and to me, they don t seem extreme. Again, I m not advocating that there be any violations, but to me, it appears that they are trying pretty hard to comply, and also be a good business and a good neighbor. So, I tend to support the longer application. I also think that there are ways that the acoustical enhancements during special events on weekends could be managed within the limits prescribed. Chairman Vakas: I would offer as information the I received from Stone Pillar, which I mentioned to you all. In that communique, Stone Pillar management indicates they have done no wrong. So, I mean, publicly, quite frankly, they seem to be in denial that they ever violated the terms of the special use permit this past year. So, I m troubled by that, because again, based on staff recommendation, unfortunately and we understand it s a learning process on both sides, I think. But this past year, there have been numerous infractions when the rules were in place. So, I m not sure that I follow the logic to give a three-year extension when the one-year extension was so violated this past year. So, to me, the staff recommendation for a one-year renewal seems right on target, quite frankly. And let s see how it goes for the year, and then come back and move forward to the long-term permit, which makes sense. That s what I think at this stage. Comm. Rinke: I would concur with that, Chairman Vakas. I just recall last year that they had numerous building code violations, and I think they put the walls up without seeking proper permits, etc. So, I think a one year is appropriate to see if they can comply. I d be happy to entertain a longer time period next year when they come before us. Mr. Clements: I think that s a great way to frame it. I don t think the City wants to be punitive to the applicant or their operation, but we want to make sure we get it right before additional time is added, before additional elements for additional noise are added. I think it s important enough to all the people I ve talked with, the neighbors I ve talked with. I think it deserves another year of close monitoring. Comm. Rinke: Mr. Chairman, I d be willing to make a motion. Comm. Fry: Before we do that, I want to get one more piece of clarification. I just want to make sure that we re all in agreement that if this decibel reader, during the concert, at one point in time goes for one second above 55, that we re going to say that we need to initiate some sort of a hearing to revoke this. To me, that seems very punitive, and I just want to make sure that that s Chairman Vakas: I don t think that s what we re saying.

26 SU PC Minutes - continued April 11, 2016 Page 20 Comm. Fry: Okay. So, can somebody describe exactly what would allow them to fulfill their obligation to the special use permit and not get penalized? Chairman Vakas: Specifically in terms of noise, noise monitoring. Mr. Clements or Mr. Fernandez, a few thoughts? Comm. Freeman: May I make a suggestion? Could we set a certain time period that it would exceed that decibel on a percentage basis? Like 50 percent of the time over 30 minutes exceeds 55 decibels, that that would be considered an infraction? Or something of that metric. Mr. Clements: I think that s a great suggestion, but one that might be hard to manage anyway. What we re looking at is going to be difficult to interpret and manage. Chairman Vakas: I think at this stage what we re doing is we re gathering information. And again, these are multiple Friday nights that we re going to be tracking information. As the information comes in and we tick off Friday after Friday, we ll get a sense for what the data looks like. Quite frankly, depending on the level of interest and there is a level of interest you may map noise levels to the band and consider the type of music. Those kinds of examinations will occur. And I think over time, if we see this ongoing pattern of excessive noise for a period of time every time, I think that s what triggers the conversation. Comm. Fry: Again, I just want to make sure we walk this all the way through. So, we have a meter that s owned by the business owner Chairman Vakas: By the City. By the City. This would be installed by the City. Comm. Fry: But they have to purchase it. Chairman Vakas: No, no, the City is buying it. Comm. Fry: The City is buying it? Mr. Fernandez: The City is buying a sound recorder and data logger. Comm. Fry: And we re going to put it on their property, and we re going to have somebody that goes over there after every concert and reads it, and then gives a report to you all, to planning staff. So, every week, you guys are going to be monitoring this data. And if there s ever any violations above the stated decibel level, what happens? First concert, something, for one second, goes above this 55 decibels, what happens? Mr. Clements: I think that s a worse-case. We re rational people, and the neighbors are rational people. If it s over 55 decibels for one minute, I don t think anybody is going to have too many problems with that. But, if there are sustained noise spikes over a longer period of time, over consecutive Fridays, then we know we ve got a problem. But, let s be rational. Comm. Fry: Well, I would like to be rational. I think that s definitely important. But I also think it doesn t read quite that broadly. It reads very specifically. Again, if I was the business owner and the applicant, I would be a little nervous about that. I think we just need to be clear, if it s a minute or -. I don t know that we need to micromanage this. I don t know. But I think we re putting some pretty big stipulations in here that we better make sure we fully understand, and we know how we re directing Planning staff to handle this.

27 SU PC Minutes - continued April 11, 2016 Page 21 Chairman Vakas: Again, without being in a position to think that we can set a time here, I think this is not a game of I gotcha. This is a game of recording data. And reasoned minds will make some preliminary conclusions when they see how the data is coming in. If there is a sense that there is an ongoing violation of that decibel limit, it s going to trigger a conversation. That doesn t necessarily trigger revocation proceedings. It triggers a conversation, and we see where it goes from there. I think that s the logical way that this would unfold. Comm. Corcoran: In essence, are we saying it s at the discretion of the planning director to bring it forward as a revocation case? Chairman Vakas: I think based on the recommendation of staff, yes. Comm. Corcoran: Can that be written -? Mr. Clements: And based on the data provided. Chairman Vakas: Absolutely, yes. Comm. Corcoran: Maybe that gives us some breadth that we might be looking for. Chairman Vakas: So, we have staff s recommendation as provided in the report, as modified by Mr. Fernandez, item 9. c., and that was that the City purchases the sound equipment. I think that s very important. I d like to offer one more change to the recommendations, and that has to do with the funneling of the sound. I think the staff s recommendation on 9. f. says the speakers have to be faced to the west or south. I think it makes most sense that it only be to the west. Not south or west, but only to the west. That s the best channelization for the sound projection, I think. Mr. Fernandez, Mr. Clements, does that make sense? Mr. Clements: We have that noted. Comm. Nelson: I might also inquire, you mentioned that the windows are sometimes open and that everything is -. That s part of the value of being in the space, is the natural aspect of it. But obviously, that s part of the challenge of containing sound, as well. Is there anything for the sake of the business that we can do to help encourage that, or just leave that at their discretion at this point? Chairman Vakas: Their discretion. Pointing the speakers to the west will help, but again, clearly, this is how they run the business. There may be occasions where they want to take those temporary partitions down, and there should be nothing that precludes them from being able to do that, again, with the view to the noise control. A quieter band, take the partitions down if it s a nice night. A louder band, put the partitions up. So, that s a matter of winery/vineyard discussion, I think, and for them to decide. Comm. Nelson: The other thing I d like to say, I m very impressed with the amount of work that they ve done in the past year to bring this into compliance. I really thought after last year, that would be the downfall, because it really looked like there was a lot that needed to be done to bring it up to code. So, I m thrilled with the work that the Hoff family has done to cooperate in advance. I think if that hadn t been done by this point, I don t think there would be any conversation about moving forward with another special use permit. But, they ve shown that each year, they re taking steps the right direction, and for that reason, I d be inclined to lean towards a one year.

28 SU PC Minutes - continued April 11, 2016 Page 22 Chairman Vakas: To have an opportunity to see the business grow and evolve is something I think we re all looking forward to. Comm. Freeman: I have a question that I feel is important in my decision. Have any fines been recorded, or any sort of penalties been recorded against a noise ordinance violation of any sort in the past year? Mr. Clements: No citations were issued. Comm. Freeman: Okay. So, where my head s at is, rather than putting someone back through the process to say, hey, we need to evaluate whether you re able to conduct business in this fashion or not in a year, I would recommend that it s not the Planning Commission s responsibility to enforce those restrictions, and frankly, my opinion is that we re making quite a few special recommendations to help appease this issue. That s new to me. The noise recorder that we re purchasing, we re spending City dollars for. The time that it takes for staff to spend time out there All those things seem a bit excessive to me. In my opinion, the real question is, are you able to conduct this type of business at this location? I feel that based on the stipulations, it is a good fit for the business to have the special use permit. Again, I think one year is much too short for a business, having been involved in businesses for much of my life. And I think that it s the responsibility of enforcement outside of the Planning Commission, whether that s the police or someone else, to write those violations and produce those fines for violations. Again, where I stand is three years. And, I question whether the noise monitoring is something for Planning to be involved in at all. I think it s more of an enforcement issue. Chairman Vakas: Thank you. I appreciate your comments. On the noise issue, the Planning Commission isn t trying to regulate this or control this. This is City responsibility. It s a UDO responsibility. And there are City inspectors involved in this. I would suggest to everybody that as the City continues to grow, and we backfill with more density, noise becomes more of an issue. Now, the City has not had, quite frankly, a professional monitoring apparatus. There are a lot of different applications. You could get an application for your iphone and hold it up and get some sense of what the decibel rating is. But, the City is due to buy a professional device. The cost is inconsequential, quite frankly. It isn t something that s only going to be used specific to the winery. It may be tied there for the next year, but it has utility throughout the City, a lot of different events where we have noise. So, I think it s a good investment. Comm. Freeman: Thank you for that clarification. Chairman Vakas: Thank you. Gentlemen, do we have a motion? Motion by Commissioner Rinke, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to recommend approval of SU , with the following stipulations to be included in the ordinance, as amended: a. The special use permit shall be approved for a one (1) year period and shall expire on May 3, b. Any violation of the special use permit stipulations shall result in the immediate proceedings to revoke the special use permit.

29 SU PC Minutes - continued April 11, 2016 Page 23 c. The applicant City shall purchase a sound reader/data logger to record the decibel levels over the entire duration of each concert and provide the data to the Planning Division, and the applicant shall provide access to the City staff. The applicant shall permit City staff onto the subject property to record decibel readings at the nearest property line throughout the entirety of all Friday night concerts. d. Activities and uses of the winery/vineyard shall be limited to those areas designated on the site plan submitted by the petitioner with this Special Use. e. Concerts with speakers shall be limited to Fridays from the hours of 7:00pm to 10:00pm. Acoustic music is permitted Saturdays and Sundays. f. Speakers for any concert must be faced south or west, away from the houses in the residential subdivision to the north. The owners shall take measurements of the decibel level for each concert at the north property line and record the reading to assure noise levels of Olathe Municipal Code Section are met. g. No tents or temporary structures shall be permitted with winery activities. h. No temporary signs or banners shall be permitted with winery activities unless appropriate permits and approvals have been issued by the Planning Staff. All signs shall have valid sign permits. The roll being called, the result was as follows: Aye: Fry, Nelson, Rinke, Vakas (4) No: Freeman and Corcoran (2) Motion carried 4-2.

30 Other matters for April 11, 2016 Chairman Vakas: Our next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for April 25 th at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Clements, I understand this is your last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Clements: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I ll be signing off now. Thank you very much. Chairman Vakas: Well, Mr. Clements, on behalf of all of us here on the Planning Commission this evening, and on behalf of Commissioners Davis, Horner and Almeida, I want to publicly acknowledge your service, and thank you for your over eight years of dedication and professional support. We wish you all the very best, and look forward to hearing good news about you in the future. Thank you, Mr. Clements. Mr. Clements: It s been an honor. Thank you, sir. Chairman Vakas: Any other announcements? [None.] Very good. Meeting is adjourned. Meeting adjourned.

31 STAFF REPORT Planning Commission Meeting: April 25, 2016 City of Olathe City Planning Division Application: Location: Owner: Applicant: Staff Contact: PR : Revised Site Development Plan for Saddlewood Storage South Mahaffie Street Don Plowman/P9 Investments, L.L.C. Schlagle & Associates, Jeffrey T. Skidmore Dan Fernandez Site Area: 3.81± acres Proposed Use: Mini-storage Building Area: 4,550 square feet Platted: Yes, Saddlewood Storage, Lot1 Plan Olathe Land Use Category Existing Use Current Zoning Site Design Category Building Design Category Site Mixed Density Residential Mini-storage CP-3 N/A N/A North Mixed Density Residential Vacant M-2 South Mixed Density Residential Vacant MP-2 East Mixed Density Residential Apartments RP-3 West Industrial Industrial M-2 1. Comments: The proposal is for a 4,550 square foot addition to Building E for Saddlewood Storage located at Mahaffie Street. The development is currently under construction. A rezoning and preliminary development plan (RZ-10-03) for self-storage was approved in May The original plan showed 52,937 square feet of building area with RV Parking along the western boundary. A plan review application (PR ) was approved last year for 55,250 square feet of building area and no spaces for RV parking. The 2015 plan

32 PR April 25, 2016 Page 2 approval had a 4% increase in building area from the original approval in Since the increase in building area was less than 5% and the layout followed the approved plan, the plan review application was approved by staff. The 4,550 square foot addition requested with this application increases the total additional building square footage by more than 10% from what was originally approved in Due to this overall increase, Planning Commission approval is required. Staff supports the request since the impervious surface for the entire project has only increased 7 square feet from the 2003 approved plan. 2. Site Design Standards: a. Parking - The parking requirement for mini-storage is three (3) spaces. The development has 4 total parking spaces with one of the spaces being handicap accessible. b. Access/Streets The site has one access drive onto Mahaffie Street. c. Landscaping/Open Space A landscaping plan was submitted an approved with the previous plan review application. Landscaping is provided on all four property lines, along the parking areas and at the foundation of the building fronting Mahaffie Street. The development provides 28% open space which is above the requirement. d. Stormwater The subject site is served by a regional stormwater detention system. There are no changes proposed for the existing drainage and detention. 3. Building Design/Materials: The addition, which is located towards the rear of the property, will match the existing building in design and materials. The siding and doors will be metal and the roof is to be constructed of standing seam metal. 4. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of PR with the following stipulations: a. Per UDO requirements, all exterior ground or building mounted equipment, including but not limited to mechanical equipment, utility meter banks and coolers, shall be screened from public view with landscaping or an architectural treatment compatible with the building architecture. b. All on-site wiring and cables shall be placed underground.

33 KEELER ST PR MAHAFFIE ST 153RD TER BRENTWOOD ST 153RD CT De Soto?Ä Lenexa?Á?Á?Ä Lenexa!"`$ %&e( Overland Park Feet Gardner!"`$ Io Overland Park Spring User: gradyrm Date: 04/20/2016 SADDLEWOOD STORAGE PR

34 4 User: gradyrm Date: 04/20/2016 SADDLEWOOD STORAGE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAHAFFIE ST PR SITE PLAN

35 4 User: gradyrm Date: 04/20/2016 SADDLEWOOD STORAGE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAHAFFIE ST PR LANDSCAPE PLAN

36 4 User: gradyrm Date: 04/20/2016 SADDLEWOOD STORAGE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAHAFFIE ST PR ELEVATIONS

37 City of Olathe City Planning Division STAFF REPORT Planning Commission Meeting: April 25, 2016 Application: P : Final Plat for Woodland Manor Third Plat Location: Owner/ Applicant: Engineer: Staff Contact: 108 th Street, 1/3 mile west of Woodland Road Riverstone Realty, Inc. / Greg Prieb Phelps Engineering, Inc. / Tim Tucker, P.E. Amy Kynard, AICP Senior Planner Site Area: ± acres Proposed Use: Single-Family Residential Zoning: R-1 (Ord ) Lots: 26 Tracts: 1 Right-of-way: 107 th Terrace Race Street 108 th Street Proposed: 50 (total) 50 (total) 50 (total) Required: 50 (total) 50 (total) 50 (total) 1. Comments: The following is a request for a final plat, Woodland Manor Third Plat, containing 26 single-family lots on ± acres. The most recent amendment to the RP-1 zoning for this property was in 2009 (RZ ). The proposed plat is consistent with the preliminary development plan associated with the zoning amendment. Staff requested that the applicant provide additional information about the housing proposed for this subdivision, including proposed price point, but the applicant did not provide a response to that comment. 2. Final Plat Review: a. Lots/Tracts The proposed subdivision includes a total of 26 single-family lots and 1 tract. Tract I is intended to be used for landscaping, monuments, trails and private open space. This tract shall be owned and maintained by the Woodland Manor Homes Association. As noted on the plat, no structures, including accessory structures, are allowed within the transmission line easement. The proposed lots range from 8,750 square feet to more than 18,000 square feet, with all lots meeting the minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. The applicant reports the average lot width as 75 feet, and all exceed the minimum lot widths of 60 feet for

38 P Staff Report continued April 25, 2016 Page 2 typical lots and 70 feet for corner lots. In accordance with UDO requirements, 30 foot front yard setback and 20 foot corner side yard setbacks are provided. Lots are also subject to interior side yard setbacks and rear yard setbacks as required by the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO); however, these types of setbacks are not typically indicated on plats. b. Public Utilities The property is located within the Johnson County Wastewater and WaterOne service areas, and utility easements are provided on the plat. c. Streets This plat follows the street layout approved with the preliminary plat. This phase will take access from Woodland Road via 107 th Terrace. Blocks and cul-desacs are less than or equal to the maximum length permitted. No lots front onto collector or arterial streets, and adequate right-of-way is provided for all streets in accordance with UDO requirements. d. Landscaping / Street Trees A street tree plan shall be submitted prior to recording the final plat. The plan shall include details for typical street tree size, type and locations per Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requirements. 3. Excise Taxes: The plat area is not located within any benefit districts, and is therefore subject to street excise tax, which is $0.215 per square foot of land area. In accordance with Ordinance No , final plats for single family zoning are subject to a traffic signal excise tax of $ per square foot of land area. Based on the plat area, 406, square feet, the required street excise tax is $87, and the required traffic signal tax is $1, The required excise taxes shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to recording the final plat. 4. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of P with the following stipulations: a. Prior to recording the plat, a digital file of the final plat (pdf format) shall be submitted to the City Planning Division. b. The required street excise tax of $87, shall be submitted to the City Planning Division Prior to recording the plat. c. The required traffic signal excise tax of $1, shall be submitted to the City Planning Division Prior to recording the plat. d. Prior to recording the plat, an affidavit shall be provided identifying the organization that will be the legal entity having permanent responsibility and authority for the installation, maintenance and repair of private greenways or common tracts as indicated on the final plat, as well as for the payment of all expenses, including taxes and special assessments. The document shall be recorded with Johnson County Records and Tax Administration at the time of recording the final plat. e. Prior to recording the plat, a street tree and landscape plan shall be submitted in accordance with UDO requirements.

39 P Staff Report continued April 25, 2016 Page 3 f. All neighborhood amenities (i.e. trails and sidewalks) shall be completed with the respective phase of development. Bonds or letters of credit shall be submitted to ensure completion and maintenance of these amenities in accordance with UDO requirements. g. Prior to issuance of building permits, performance and maintenance bonds or a letter of credit in an amount of the cost of the improvement shall be submitted in accordance with UDO C. to ensure that public improvements, certain easements and related improvements will be installed, approved, and maintained after completion of development. h. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a performance and maintenance bond or letter of credit in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer, shall be submitted in accordance with the UDO E. to ensure that all erosion control measures and water quality features are installed and maintained and that all of the development s streets and sidewalks remain free of debris during all phases of construction. i. All above ground electrical and/or telephone cabinets shall be placed within the interior side or rear building setback yards. However, such utility cabinets may be permitted within front or corner side yards adjacent to street right-of-way if cabinets are screened with landscape materials.

40 RACE ST 108TH ST 107TH PL 107TH TER 107TH PL BELFORD BELFORD ST ST PALISADE ST 108TH ST REDBUD LN P TH ST 108TH TER De Soto?Ä Lenexa?Á?Á?Ä Lenexa!"`$ %&e( Overland Park Feet Gardner!"`$ Io Overland Park Spring User: gradyrm Date: 04/20/2016 WOODLAND MANOR 3RD PLAT P

41 4 User: gradyrm Date: 04/20/2016 WOODLAND MANOR 3RD PLAT FINAL PLAT 106TH ST & WOODLAND RD P FINAL PLAT

42 City of Olathe City Planning Division STAFF REPORT Planning Commission Meeting: April 25, 2016 Application: P : Final Plat for Woodland Manor, Fourth Plat Location: Owner/ Applicant: Engineer: Staff Contact: 107 th Place, 1/3 mile west of Woodland Road Riverstone Realty, Inc. / Greg Prieb Phelps Engineering, Inc. / Tim Tucker, P.E. Amy Kynard, AICP Senior Planner Site Area: ± acres Proposed Use: Single-Family Residential Zoning: R-1 (Ord ) Lots: 26 Tracts: 1 Right-of-way: 107 th Place Race Street Proposed: 50 (total) 50 (total) Required: 50 (total) 50 (total) 1. Comments: The following is a request for a final plat, Woodland Manor Fourth Plat, containing 26 single-family lots on ± acres. The most recent amendment to the RP-1 zoning for this property was in 2009 (RZ ). The proposed plat is consistent with the preliminary development plan associated with the zoning amendment. Staff requested that the applicant provide additional information about the housing proposed for this subdivision, including proposed price point, but the applicant did not provide a response to that comment. The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) does not require a neighborhood meeting for final plat applications, but at staff s request, the applicant agreed to send a courtesy notification letter to the HOA and eight nearby property owners within the adjacent Mill Creek Farms subdivision. 2. Final Plat Review: a. Lots/Tracts The proposed subdivision includes a total of 26 single-family lots and 1 tract. Tract J is intended to be used for landscaping, monuments, trails, private open space, and a public trail. This tract shall be owned and maintained by the Woodland Manor Homes Association, with exception of the future public trail, which will be

43 P Staff Report continued April 25, 2016 Page 2 maintained by the City. As noted on the plat, no structures, including accessory structures, are allowed within the power line easements. The proposed lots range in size from 8,414 square feet to more than 18,000 square feet, with all lots meeting the minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. The applicant reports the average lot width as 75 feet, and all exceed the minimum lot widths of 60 feet for typical lots and 70 feet for corner lots. In accordance with UDO requirements, 30 foot front yard setback and 20 foot corner side yard setbacks are provided. Lots are also subject to interior side yard setbacks and rear yard setbacks as required by the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO); however, these types of setbacks are not typically indicated on plats. b. Public Utilities The property is located within the Johnson County Wastewater and WaterOne service areas, and utility easements are provided on the plat. c. Streets This plat follows the street layout approved with the preliminary plat. Access to Woodland Road is provided via 107 th Terrace and 107 th Place. Blocks and cul-desacs are less than or equal to the maximum length permitted. No lots front onto collector or arterial streets, and adequate right-of-way is provided for all streets in accordance with UDO requirements. d. Trails A permanent recreation easement is provided within Tract J for a future public trail. A future private trail connection from the public trail to 107 th Place will be provided on the west side of Lot 136. This private trail shall be constructed by the developer with the public improvements. e. Landscaping / Street Trees The berms and landscaping along the north property line were a topic of significant discussion during consideration of the preliminary development plan. The subdivision to the north (Mill Creek Farms) agreed to a reduction in the size of transitional lots provided that the berms and landscaping would be installed in accordance with the associated landscape plan. The applicant is aware of the requirements for this landscape buffer and does not propose any changes. The landscaping will be located outside of the Kansas City Power & Light transmission line easement. A landscape and street tree plan shall be prepared by a registered landscape architect, and submitted prior to consideration of this plat by the City Council. The landscape plan shall include details for typical tree size, type and locations per Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requirements. 3. Excise Taxes: The plat area is not located within any benefit districts, and is therefore subject to street excise tax, which is $0.215 per square foot of land area. In accordance with Ordinance No , final plats for single family zoning are subject to a traffic signal excise tax of $ per square foot of land area. Based on the plat area, 556, square feet, the required street excise tax is $119, and the required traffic signal tax is $2, The required excise taxes shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to recording the final plat. 4. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of P with the following stipulations:

44 P Staff Report continued April 25, 2016 Page 3 a. Prior to recording the plat, a digital file of the final plat (pdf format) shall be submitted to the City Planning Division. b. The required street excise tax of $119, shall be submitted to the City Planning Division Prior to recording the plat. c. The required traffic signal excise tax of $2, shall be submitted to the City Planning Division Prior to recording the plat. d. Prior to recording the plat, an affidavit shall be provided identifying the organization that will be the legal entity having permanent responsibility and authority for the installation, maintenance and repair of private greenways or common tracts as indicated on the final plat, as well as for the payment of all expenses, including taxes and special assessments. The document shall be recorded with Johnson County Records and Tax Administration at the time of recording the final plat. e. A landscape and street tree plan shall be prepared by a registered landscape architect, and submitted prior to consideration of this plat by the City Council. The landscape plan shall include details for typical tree size, type and locations per Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requirements. f. All neighborhood amenities (i.e. trails and sidewalks) shall be completed with the respective phase of development. Bonds or letters of credit shall be submitted to ensure completion and maintenance of these amenities in accordance with UDO requirements. g. Prior to issuance of building permits, performance and maintenance bonds or a letter of credit in an amount of the cost of the improvement shall be submitted in accordance with UDO C. to ensure that public improvements, certain easements and related improvements will be installed, approved, and maintained after completion of development. h. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a performance and maintenance bond or letter of credit in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer, shall be submitted in accordance with the UDO E. to ensure that all erosion control measures and water quality features are installed and maintained and that all of the development s streets and sidewalks remain free of debris during all phases of construction. i. All above ground electrical and/or telephone cabinets shall be placed within the interior side or rear building setback yards. However, such utility cabinets may be permitted within front or corner side yards adjacent to street right-of-way if cabinets are screened with landscape materials.

45 Meadowlane Greenway 108TH ST 107TH PL P TH TER REDBUD LN 108TH TER 107TH PL BELFORD ST PALISADE ST Feet De Soto 108TH ST Gardner?Ä!"`$ BELFORD ST Lenexa?Á?Á Io Spring?Ä Lenexa!"`$ 108TH TER %&e( Overland Park Overland Park User: gradyrm Date: 04/20/2016 WOODLAND MANOR 4TH PLAT P

46 4 User: gradyrm Date: 04/20/2016 WOODLAND MANOR 4TH PLAT FINAL PLAT 106TH ST & WOODLAND RD P FINAL PLAT

47 STAFF REPORT Planning Commission Meeting: April 25, 2016 City of Olathe City Planning Division Application: P Grayson Place Villas, 1 st Plat Location: Owner/Applicant: Engineer: Staff Contact: In the vicinity of 119 th Street and S. Valley Road Prairie Haven Partners, Tom Langhofer Payne and Brockway, Todd Allenbrand Dan Fernandez Acres: 8.07± acres Proposed Use: Single-family Current Zoning: RP-1 Lots: Tracts: Comments: This is a request for approval of a final plat for Grayson Place Villas, 1 st Plat on 8.07± acres, located in the vicinity of 119 th Street and S. Valley Road. A rezoning and preliminary development plan (RZ-49-98) for the Estates of Prairie Haven was approved in The RP-1 zoning allows reductions for lot area and building setbacks. 2. Final Plat Review a. Lots/Tracts The plat includes 25 lots and 1 tract on 8.07 acres. The lots meet all area and setback requirements for RP-1 Districts and the layout of the streets and lots is consistent with the preliminary plat. Homes built on RP-1 lots are subject to higher design requirements and the design of the homes shall meet the stipulations approved with the rezoning. Typical building elevations for the homes are attached. The final plat includes one common tract. Tract A is to be used for landscaping, fencing and homeowner amenities and will be owned and maintained by the Grayson Place Homes Association. b. Setbacks Reduced setbacks are allowed with design requirements. A note shall be added to the plat stating that the front yard setback shall be 25 feet for the lots with a sidewalk. c. Utilities/Municipal Services The property is located in the Water District #1 and Olathe sewer service areas. Public sewer mains will be required to serve this

48 P April 25, 2016 Page 2 proposed development. The applicant will need to coordinate with the respective utility providers for required water and sewer connections. d. Streets The lots will have access to 119 th Terrace which will be constructed as part of this plat. The street meets the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requirements for public right-of-way. e. Street and Signal Excise Taxes No street excise fees are due with this plat since the area is located within the 119 th Street, K-7 to Lone Elm Benefit District. The final plat is subject to a traffic signal excise tax of $ per square foot of land area. Based on the plat area the required traffic signal fee is $1, The required excise fee shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to recording the final plat. f. Landscaping/Street Trees A street tree and master landscape plan shall be submitted prior to recording the final plat. The plan shall include details for typical street tree size, type and locations per UDO requirements. 3. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of P with the following stipulations: a. Prior to recording the plat, a digital file of the final plat (pdf format) shall be submitted to the City Planning Division. b. Prior to recording the final plat, the required traffic signal excise fee of $1, shall be submitted to the City Planning Division. c. The design of the homes shall meet the stipulations approved with the rezoning (RZ-49-98). d. All above ground electrical and/or telephone cabinets shall be placed within the interior side or rear building setback yards. However, such utility cabinets may be permitted within front or corner side yards adjacent to street right-of-way if cabinets are screened with landscape materials. e. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a performance and maintenance bond or letter of credit in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer, shall be submitted in accordance with UDO C to ensure that all erosion control measures and water quality features are installed and maintained and that all of the development s streets and sidewalks remain free of debris during all phases of construction. f. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a performance and maintenance bond or letter of credit in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer, shall be submitted in accordance with the UDO E. to ensure that all erosion control measures and water quality features are installed and maintained and that all of the development s streets and sidewalks remain free of debris during all phases of construction. g. Prior to recording the plat, an affidavit shall be provided identifying the organization that will be the legal entity having permanent responsibility and authority for the installation, maintenance and repair of the landscape or screening tracts, private

49 P April 25, 2016 Page 3 greenways, parks or common open space areas as indicated on the final plat, as well as for the payment of all expenses, including taxes and special assessments. The document shall be recorded with the Johnson County Records and Tax Administration office concurrently with recording of the final plat. h. A street tree and master landscape plan shall be submitted prior to recording the final plat. The plan shall include details for typical street tree size, type and locations per UDO requirements. i. A note shall be added to the plat stating that the front yard setback shall be 25 feet for the lots with a sidewalk.

50 SUNNYBROOK BLVD 119TH ST 119TH TER 119TH TER PROVENCE ST 120TH P ST Feet 121ST TER 121ST ST De Soto Gardner VALLEY RD?Ä!"`$ Lenexa?Á?Á Io 121ST TER?Ä Lenexa!"`$ %&e( Overland Park Overland Park Spring User: gradyrm Date: 04/20/2016 GRAYSON PLACE VILLAS 1ST PLAT P

51 4 User: gradyrm Date: 04/20/2016 GRAYSON PLACE VILLAS 1ST PLAT FINAL PLAT 119TH TER & 120TH ST P FINAL PLAT

52 4 User: gradyrm Date: 04/20/2016 GRAYSON PLACE VILLAS 1ST PLAT FINAL PLAT 119TH TER & 120TH ST P VILLA EXAMPLE

53 STAFF REPORT Planning Commission Meeting: April 25, 2016 City of Olathe City Planning Division Application: P Grayson Place Villas, 2 nd Plat Location: Owner/Applicant: Engineer: Staff Contact: In the vicinity of 119 th Street and S. Valley Road Prairie Haven Partners, Tom Langhofer Payne and Brockway, Todd Allenbrand Dan Fernandez Acres: 4.34± acres Proposed Use: Single-family Current Zoning: RP-1 Lots: Tracts: Comments: This is a request for approval of a final plat for Grayson Place Villas, 2 nd Plat on 4.34± acres, located in the vicinity of 119 th Street and S. Valley Road. A rezoning and preliminary development plan (RZ-49-98) for the Estates of Prairie Haven was approved in The RP-1 zoning allows reductions for lot area and building setbacks. 2. Final Plat Review a. Lots/Tracts The plat includes 24 lots 4.34 acres. The lots meet all area and setback requirements for RP-1 Districts and the layout of the streets and lots is consistent with the preliminary plat. Homes built on RP-1 lots are subject to higher design requirements and the design of the homes shall meet the stipulations approved with the rezoning. b. Setbacks Reduced setbacks are allowed with design requirements. A note shall be added to the plat stating that the front yard setback shall be 25 feet for the lots with a sidewalk. c. Utilities/Municipal Services The property is located in the Water District #1 and Olathe sewer service areas. Public sewer mains will be required to serve this proposed development. The applicant will need to coordinate with the respective utility providers for required water and sewer connections.

54 P April 25, 2016 Page 2 d. Streets The lots will have access to 120 th Terrace which will be constructed as part of this plat. The street meets the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requirements for public right-of-way. e. Street and Signal Excise Taxes No street excise fees are due with this plat since the area is located within the 119 th Street, K-7 to Lone Elm Benefit District. The final plat is subject to a traffic signal excise tax of $ per square foot of land area. Based on the plat area the required traffic signal fee is $ The required excise fee shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to recording the final plat. 3. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of P with the following stipulations: a. Prior to recording the plat, a digital file of the final plat (pdf format) shall be submitted to the City Planning Division. b. Prior to recording the final plat, the required traffic signal excise fee of $ shall be submitted to the City Planning Division. c. The design of the homes shall meet the stipulations approved with the rezoning (RZ-49-98). d. All above ground electrical and/or telephone cabinets shall be placed within the interior side or rear building setback yards. However, such utility cabinets may be permitted within front or corner side yards adjacent to street right-of-way if cabinets are screened with landscape materials. e. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a performance and maintenance bond or letter of credit in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer, shall be submitted in accordance with UDO C to ensure that all erosion control measures and water quality features are installed and maintained and that all of the development s streets and sidewalks remain free of debris during all phases of construction. f. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a performance and maintenance bond or letter of credit in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer, shall be submitted in accordance with the UDO E. to ensure that all erosion control measures and water quality features are installed and maintained and that all of the development s streets and sidewalks remain free of debris during all phases of construction. g. Prior to recording the plat, an affidavit shall be provided identifying the organization that will be the legal entity having permanent responsibility and authority for the installation, maintenance and repair of the landscape or screening tracts, private greenways, parks or common open space areas as indicated on the final plat, as well as for the payment of all expenses, including taxes and special assessments. The document shall be recorded with the Johnson County Records and Tax Administration office concurrently with recording of the final plat. h. A street tree plan shall be submitted prior to recording the final plat. The plan shall include details for typical street tree size, type and locations per UDO requirements.

55 P April 25, 2016 Page 3 i. A note shall be added to the plat stating that the front yard setback shall be 25 feet for the lots with a sidewalk.

56 119TH ST 119TH TER 119TH TER PROVENCE ST 119TH TER 120TH ST P VALLEY RD Feet ROUNDTREE ST 121ST 121ST TER ST De Soto Gardner?Ä!"`$ Lenexa?Á?Á Io 121ST CT?Ä Lenexa!"`$ %&e( PRAIRIE CREEK PKWY Overland Park Overland Park Spring User: gradyrm Date: 04/20/2016 GRAYSON PLACE VILLAS 2ND PLAT P

57 4 User: gradyrm Date: 04/20/2016 GRAYSON PLACE VILLAS 2ND PLAT FINAL PLAT 119TH TER & 120TH ST P FINAL PLAT

58 4 User: gradyrm Date: 04/20/2016 GRAYSON PLACE VILLAS 2ND PLAT FINAL PLAT 119TH TER & 120TH ST P VILLA EXAMPLE