OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 12, 1997 The meeting of the Overland Park Planning Commission was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Chairman Tom Lance. The following members were present, constituting a quorum: Mrs. Charlene Conrad, Mrs. Anne Debus, Mr. Carl W. Hull, Mrs. Terry Happer Scheier, Mr. John Hermes, Mr. Jack Nichols, Mr. Robert Sanders, Mr. Terry Goodman, Mr. Mark Supica, and Mr. Edward Reitzes. Also present were: Mr. Roger Peterson, Director of Planning and Development Services; Mr. Mark Stuecheli, Senior Transportation Planner; Mr. Bob Lindeblad, Current Planning Administrator; Mr. Scott Koppelman, Planner; Mr. Bart Budetti, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Mrs. Leslie Karr, Planner; Mr. Bryan Bear, Planning Technician; Mr. Tim Bleuher, Assistant Planner; Mr. Jeffery Dysart, Police Captain; Mr. Sandy Queen, Manager, Golf Course Operation; and Ms. Pamela Blaszyk, Senior Recording Secretary. There were approximately 50 persons in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 24, 1997 (Approved) The motion to approve the March 24, 1997, Planning Commission meeting minutes was moved by Mrs. Charlene Conrad, and seconded by Mrs. Anne Debus. The motion carried with a vote of 11-0, including the vote of Chairman Tom Lance, who voted on all of the agenda items. CONSENT AGENDA: (Approved items A, B, C, D, E, F, H, I, J, K, M, N, O, P, Q, S, T, and U, removed item G, withdrew item R, and denied item L) A. PLAT NO. 97-37 - (FINAL) - MORSE VILLAGE ESTATES - 1ST PLAT - Vicinity of 155th and Oakmont. Morse Village Estates, applicant. Phelps Engineering, Inc., engineer. B. PLAT NO. 97-56 - (FINAL) - TOWN AND COUNTRY MANOR - 3RD PLAT - Vicinity of 154th Street and Switzer. American Heritage Homes, applicant. Schlagel and Schmidt, architect. C. PLAT NO. 97-58 - (FINAL) - TOWN AND COUNTRY MANOR - 1ST PLAT - Vicinity of 154th Street and Switzer. American Heritage Homes, applicant. Schlagel and Schmidt, architect.
D. PLAT NO. 97-59 - (FINAL) - TOWN AND COUNTRY MANOR - 2ND PLAT - Vicinity of 154th Street and Switzer. American Heritage Homes, applicant. Schlagel and Schmidt, architect. E. PLAT NO. 97-60 - (FINAL) - HEARTLAND CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP - Vicinity of the southwest corner of 127th Street and Quivira. Heartland Christian Fellowship, applicant. Anderson Survey Company, engineer. F. PLAT NO. 97-61 - (FINAL) - SOUTHCREEK BUSINESS PARK - 9TH PLAT - Vicinity of the southwest corner of 130th Street and Metcalf. MHD Development, Inc., applicant. Phelps Engineering, Inc., engineer. G. PLAT NO. 97-63 - (FINAL) - OLD METCALF CENTER - 2ND PLAT - Vicinity of the southwest corner of 135th Street and Metcalf. Schlagel & Schmidt, applicant/engineer. Mr. Thomas Wallingford, owner. H. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL - DEANNA ROSE FARMSTEAD MOBILE CLASSROOM - 13800 Switzer. City of Overland Park Leisure Services, applicant. I. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL - CELLULAR ANTENNA - VALLEY VIEW SHOPPING CENTER - 8601 West 95th Street. CMT Partners, applicant. Mr. Kirby Deeter, owner. CP-2 zoning granted under Rezoning No. 486. J. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL - CELLULAR ANTENNA - OVERLAND PARK BAPTIST TEMPLE - 11648 Antioch. CMT Partners, applicant. Overland Park Baptist Temple, owner. K. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL - BLUE VALLEY SPORTS COMPLEX TELECOM TOWER - Vicinity of 133rd Street and Switzer Road. APT Kansas City, Inc., applicant. Flour-Daniel, engineer. SUP zoning granted under Special Use Permit No. 96-59. L. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL - VIP TOUCHLESS AUTO WASH CANOPY - 11231 Mastin. Mr. Ron Regier, applicant. Kaster Architects, Inc., architect. CP-3 zoning granted under Rezoning No. 88-16. M. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL - PRAIRIE LIFE CENTER - 10351 Barkley. Mr. Andrew Schlagel, applicant. Life Center South, Inc., owner. SUP zoning granted under Special Use Permit No. 94-4. N. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL - SOUTHCREEK OFFICE PARK - 7311 West 130th Street. Southcreek VII Associates, L.L.P., applicant. Kaster Architects, Inc., architect. CP-0 zoning granted under Rezoning No. 86-32.
Page 3 O. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL - BLUE VALLEY NORTH HIGH SCHOOL STORAGE BUILDING - 12200 Lamar. Blue Valley School District, applicant. Dressler Engineers, engineer. P. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL - HEARTLAND CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP - Vicinity of the southwest corner of 127th Street and Quivira. Heartland Christian Fellowship, applicant. Q. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL - CAFE GAROZZO - 9950 College. Mr. Mike Garozzo, applicant. Knickerbocker Properties, Inc., owner. CP-1 zoning granted under Rezoning No. 73-31. R. SIGN APPROVAL POLICY - CHEROKEE NORTH SHOPPING CENTER - 8800 West 95th Street. Price Properties, L.P., applicant. S. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL - EQUIPMENT CABINET - SWB CELL SITE - 8004 West 159th Street. American Portable Telecom, applicant. Southwestern Bell Wireless, Inc., owner. SUP zoning granted under Special Use Permit No. 92-7. T. PLAT NO. 97-57 - (FINAL) - THE WILDERNESS - 1ST PLAT - Vicinity of the southeast corner of 159th Street and Nall. Woodstone, Inc., applicant. U. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL - PIER 1 IMPORTS - 7076 West 105th Street. Oakview Construction, applicant. Pier 1 Imports, owner. CP-2 zoning granted under Rezoning No. 73-18. Administrator, Current Planning Bob Lindeblad announced that item R of the Consent Agenda had been withdrawn. In addition, item G should be removed to be considered after item No. 21 has been addressed. Item L also needed to be removed for discussion. Mr. Jack Nichols moved for the approval of the Consent Agenda items, with the exception of items G, L, and R. The motion was seconded by Mr. Edward Reitzes, and passed by a vote of 11 to 0. Assistant Planner Tim Bleuher indicated that Consent Agenda item L regards the Final Development Plan Approval for VIP Touchless Auto Wash Canopy, 11231 Mastin, Jeb Stuart Office Park. The property is currently zoned CP-3, Planned Commercial District. The applicant is requesting final development plan approval to erect a canopy structure for approximately five months during the year for auto detailing. The 450-square-foot
Page 4 canopy is proposed to be located along the north facade of the main building and immediately east of the car wash exit. The canopy would be roofed with a red and white striped vinyl coated fabric. In the Staff Comments the 1993 BOCA National Building Code indicates the separation requirements for tents. The applicant informed staff that he would be willing to address this issue by constructing a canopy design which would be attached to the front facade and supported by two steel poles at the front of the structure. While this resolves one aspect of staff's concern, there is still the issue of the design. Staff believes that the proposed material is not consistent with the character of the main building. The existing canopies of the main building are solid red and the fabric is heavier and more permanent in appearance, whereas the material for the proposed canopy is to be comprised of a red and white striped vinyl coated fabric. Furthermore, it is staff's opinion that the proposed structure should be more permanent in appearance and materials should be used that are more consistent with the existing building's design. Based on these facts, staff recommends denial of this application. Chairman Lance clarified that the material used for the existing canopies at the VIP Touchless Auto Wash facility are different than the material that is proposed for the new canopy. Mr. Bleuher replied that the existing canopies are red and are made of a heavier quality of material. Mr. Robert Sanders asked what constitutes a temporary versus a permanent canopy. Mr. Bleuher explained that the proposed canopy would be a seasonal or temporary canopy which would be used for detailing after cars pull out of the car wash from May through September. Mr. Roger Kaster, Kaster Architects, as the representative of the applicant indicated that the owner of the facility agreed to move the canopy and attach it to the existing building. In addition, the owner decided to change the fabric color from a red and white stripe to a solid beige color, as the existing stucco on the building is beige. The four or five manufacturers that were contacted did not have the material in a solid red color. Mr. Kaster displayed a number of pictures of detached canopies that are used throughout the country. He noted that the applicant agreed to attach the canopy to the existing building. Chairman Lance asked if the complete structure or just the fabric would be taken down each year. Mr. Kaster replied that the entire structure would be taken down after the summer prime time.
Page 5 Mr. Sanders asked why a temporary canopy was chosen rather than a permanent structure. Mr. Ron Regier, applicant, explained that the canopy could be left up year-round. He was thinking that it would be easier to plow the drive for snow removal without the canopy. The posts go into a sleeve or footing that would be easy to remove. The canopy is designed for snow load, up to 120 mile per hour winds, and it is designed to be a permanent structure. He noted that in the winter it is too cold for the detailing to be done outside. Therefore, the canopy would not be needed during the colder seasons. Mr. Sanders asked if there have been similar car wash facilities with temporary roof structures in the City. Mr. Bleuher replied he could not recall any similar situations. Mr. Regier explained that his business provides a new service that takes approximately 15 to 30 minutes for more extensive cleaning of the vehicle. The intent of the service is to complete the job within 30 minutes as opposed to leaving the car in a detail shop for one-half of a day. Mr. Goodman asked why is a tent needed. Mr. Regier explained a vehicle cannot be waxed in the direct sunlight. It needs to be covered. Mr. Goodman asked if there are two or three garage bays that can be used for detail. Mr. Regier replied that the bays are used for full detail. The service for which he wants the canopy is an express service which would take 15 to 30 minutes to provide. Many people use their cars as offices and they cannot give them up for a long period of time. Mrs. Debus asked staff if there was any conversation about building a permanent structure. Mr. Bleuher replied that is something that staff had relayed to the applicant. The applicant indicated that he preferred a seasonal canopy. Chairman Lance asked if this material is rated for a fire hazard. Mr. Kaster replied that the material meets the fire requirements for the City. Mr. Hermes said he could not support this request because of the temporary aspect of the structure. Mr. Sanders asked if there was a reason why Mr. Regier could not build a more permanent structure. Mr. Regier replied that there is not enough room for a permanent structure. The walls would not allow as much maneuverability. A permanent canopy would have to be larger than the proposed structure of 18 by 25 feet so there would be room to open the doors to work on the cars. Mr. Sanders suggested that a permanent roof structure without walls would allow the room that is desired by the applicant. He could support that proposal. Chairman Lance noted that if the
Page 6 structure is moved next to the building, part of the space would be lost because of the sidewalk. He asked if the structure would need to be larger. The applicant agreed. Mrs. Debus asked if this item should be continued. The applicant replied that he hoped to be able to provide this service this summer. He preferred the canopy over a permanent structure. Mrs. Debus moved for the denial of the Final Development Plan for the VIP Touchless Auto Wash Canopy, 11231 Mastin. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sanders and passed by a unanimous vote. REZONING NO. 97-5 - Vicinity of 133rd Street and Kessler. Thomas French Builders, applicant, is requesting RP-4, Planned Cluster Dwelling District, to construct a townhome development. This property is currently zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District. (Denied) Mr. Goodman announced that he had ex parte communications with Mr. French. He also received phone calls from two residents in the vicinity of this proposal. He relayed those conversations to Senior Assistant City Attorney Bart Budetti to determine if he could hear this item. Mr. Budetti had indicated that he could. Mrs. Debus also received a call from one of the residents in the vicinity. She explained that this is a quasi judicial body and she preferred not to discuss the issue. Mr. Sanders disclosed that he had a discussion with Mr. French regarding the changes that were proposed with this application and the comments made by the Councilmembers on this issue. Planner Leslie Karr noted that the applicant is requesting a rezoning from R-1, Single-Family Residential District to RP-4, Planned Cluster Dwelling District to allow a 62-unit town home development on a 9.64-acre property at 133rd Street and Kessler. When the Planning Commission first considered this item on March 24, 1997, five persons spoke at the hearing. The Commission voted 5-4-1 to recommend denial of the application. On April 14, the City Council voted to return this item back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. The applicant has revised the request from a 66-unit, 16 building development with a density of 6.8 units per acre to a 62-unit, 16 building development with a density of 6.43 units per acre. Four units have been removed from the buildings along the northern and the eastern property lines. The town homes will consist of three to five units per building. Additionally, the landscaping plan has been revised to provide a solid screen of evergreen, ornamental and shade trees around the perimeter of the site. No other changes have been proposed to the plan.
Page 7 The buildings are proposed to be constructed of stucco with wood shake shingles. Kessler Street is proposed to be extended through the property to 133rd Street and the development would be served by two private streets off Kessler. The applicant has submitted revisions to address concerns of the Fire Department regarding access and the two culs-de-sac. One additional revision will be the requirement of dropping the median out of the eastern cul-de-sac. No access is indicated to the three-acre tract adjacent to the west, which raises concerns about the ultimate development of the remaining tract. A 25-foot greenway linkage is required along the north side of 133rd Street. The final design of the berm can be addressed at the time of the final development plans. Mrs. Karr explained that a portion of the berm is within the greenway and could potentially cause problems with the development of a trail within that greenway linkage. This site drains to the north and to the east onto adjacent single-family lots. Therefore, special attention needs to be paid to the localized drainage that will impact each individual lot. Along the 135th Street corridor, detached single-family residences are consistently located on the north side of 133rd Street, while commercial, office, and medium-density residential uses are located between 135th Street and the reverse frontage road. This existing zoning pattern is consistent with the recommendation of the Future Development Plan which identifies the applicant's property for low-density residential uses. This designation on the applicant's property was after a study area recommendation in 1995, which was approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Although town homes may be developed within the low-density category, they present a different development pattern and a different scale than the existing single-family residences to the north and to the east. Staff is of the opinion that this property is best suited for detached, single-family development and is not aware of any compelling reasons why the existing development pattern north of 133rd Street cannot be continued on the applicant's property. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the application for the following reasons: 1) The application area is well suited for detached, single-family development; 2) The applicant's request is inconsistent with the established zoning and development pattern of the area; 3) The proposed development is not in conformance with the Future Development Plan and is contrary to the recommendations of Study Area No. 95-8. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the applicant's request, staff recommended stipulations a through e.
Page 8 Mr. Larry Winn III, attorney for the applicant, 7500 College Boulevard, indicated that this matter was returned to the Planning Commission as the result of a remand from the City Council. He noted that the applicant was unable to attend the meeting as he is in an out-of-town hospital. When the Council addressed this item, they mentioned a number of concerns that should be considered. The Council asked that there be a joint meeting of area residences including those in favor of the project and those that are opposed. That meeting occurred on May 5, 1997. Another suggestion was for modifications to ensure that the buildings on the north side of the project were more in scale with the singlefamily homes on the south side of the subdivision. As staff indicated, a number of the buildings are planned to be smaller in scale and in scope to address the massing issue. The Council had also suggested more detailed landscaping on the north side. The new site plan addresses the landscape issues. Staff asked that the discussions with the Barnds Brothers be completed to determine if the 2.5-acre remnant of land behind the Barnds Brothers building could be added to this subdivision. Those discussions were initiated and a contract was offered. The applicant was unsuccessful in the attempt to blend that piece of land with the proposed development. If a blend with the tract was possible, it would be necessary to take the dead end stub street and continue it into the Barnds Brothers piece of land. Mr. Winn mentioned to the Council that if they felt that this 9-acre parcel was appropriate for some type of a small 30-home subdivision and that type of development was likely to occur in that area, he would withdraw the proposal. Even the town home project is not as profitable as other types of developments. There were some discussions about building 30 single-family homes on the tract. Mr. French had discussed with Mr. Winn the economics of the development. The cost for the proposed development with the land purchase was likely to be $1,189,000. If the land were given away by the owner, it would decrease the development cost by $139,000. The land purchase price has no major significance with the major economical aspect of the project. It would still be necessary to build $250,000 single-family homes. However, it was questionable if it would be possible to market them in an area that will not support housing in that price bracket. Single-family homes are not likely to be developed on this tract in a manner that would be satisfactory to the existing neighborhood. The Council did not suggest that the project be discarded because another party was planning on crafting a pleasing 9-acre subdivision. He questioned how there could be an amenity package in a 9-acre subdivision. There would not be room for a pool in that size of an area.
Page 9 Mr. Winn noted that at the last hearing regarding this issue, individual letters were presented that were signed by 31 of the residents in Stonegate who supported the project. In addition, a letter was presented from the president of the homes association indicating that after consideration, the board had voted to support the project. Mr. Winn proceeded to read a letter dated May 12, 1997, from the Wyndham Park Home Owners Association. The letter explained that on two occasions, the board of the Wyndham Park Home Owners Association voted unanimously in favor of the proposed development as being the best option that is available to the community currently or in the foreseeable future. The letter also expressed appreciation for the efforts of the development team and their willingness to cooperate and communicate with the Wyndham Park residents and their adjacent Stonegate neighbors. Mr. Winn repeated the comments made by Mr. French in their telephone conversation earlier in the day. Mr. French believed this proposal to be an appropriate piece of land for a small transitional project. Mr. Winn suggested that if it was determined that the City would wait for a developer to plan a smalllot, 9-acre subdivision on that tract, it could be a long wait. He was not sure that people would like the finished project. Chairman Lance opened the public hearing. Mr. Todd Vingers, 9115 West 132nd Street, proceeded with the following review of the Golden Criteria as it applies to this application. First, regarding the character of the neighborhood, the subject property is surrounded on three sides by detached, single-family homes, each on roughly one-third of an acre. The density of the proposed Stoneybrook Place, on a per unit basis, will be over double that of the surrounding neighborhood. In some cases, residents of Bridgestone or Stonegate would face a structure three to five units wide by two stories high. Mr. Vingers pointed out the difference in mass between the existing surrounding neighborhoods and the proposed Stoneybrook Place. Secondly, in reference to the zoning and uses of property nearby, on three sides of the proposed high-density housing project are detached single-family homes. Third, regarding the suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted, Mr. Vingers asserted that this area is highly suitable for what it is currently zoned in light of surrounding uses, the Master Plan, the physical characteristics of the land, and the size of the parcel of land. Mr. Vingers noted that Mr. French had indicated that he could only build 22 single-family homes on this property. Mr. Vingers
Page 10 asserted it would be possible to develop at least 30 lots on this tract. Regarding the land cost, Mr. Vingers claimed that the price Mr. French is paying is in excess of the fair market value. According to Mr. Vingers, by building 31 homes on this parcel and by paying a fair market value for the land, it would be economically viable to develop a single-family development with home prices in the range of $180,000. With the use of a graph, Mr. Vingers proceeded to explain the calculations which he used to arrive at this conclusion. At the cost of $41,494 per acre, the cost per lot for 22 homes would be $54,707 (as indicated by Mr. French). However, if there were 32 lots, the cost per lot would be $36,924. Mr. Vingers emphasized that $41,494 per acre is too high of a cost for the land. If the land cost $25,000 per acre, with 32 homes, the cost per lot would be $32,830. Referring to another graph, Mr. Vingers estimated that with land sold at $25,000 per acre and with 32 homes, the homes could be sold for $176,029. He explained that in the real estate industry, an estimated cost of a home is determined by multi-plying the price of the lot by four or five times. He used a 4.5 multiple and arrived at the price of the home. According to Mr. Vingers, that amount is similar to the price of homes in the surrounding neighborhoods. For example, homes in Stonegate cost approximately $175,000 to $200,000. The fourth Golden criteria regards the extent to which the removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property. Mr. Vingers felt that the proposed development would detrimentally impact the property values in the area. In addition, the change in the character of the neighborhood is a major concern. The fifth criteria relates to the length of time the subject property has remained vacant as zoned. Mr. Vingers noted that the current zoning has been in place for two years. A portion of the surrounding area is still being developed. The sixth point regards the relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare by the destruction of the value of the plaintiff's property as compared to the hardship imposed upon the individual landowner. According to Mr. Vingers, there is no reasonable destruction of the value of the plaintiff's property should this request be denied. The seventh criteria regards the recommendations of staff. The Planning & Development Services staff has recommended that this request be denied. The last point relating to the Golden Criteria regards the conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Master Plan being used by the City. The Master Plan of the City calls for single-family homes in the area immediately north of
Page 11 133rd Street for the width of the City. A planning study that was conducted six years ago indicated that single-family housing is appropriate north of 133rd Street from State Line Road through Olathe. Two years ago, a developer requested that this parcel be rezoned for an apartment complex. The request was denied. Mr. Don Darish, 9203 West 132nd Street, emphasized that the board of directors of Wyndham Park Homes Association is not a governing body, it has no voting or veto power, and it cannot speak for all of the home owners in the subdivision. According to Mr. Darish, there were no meetings held with the individual home owners regarding this application, especially with those that are impacted the most by this proposal. He did not have a chance to review the plans. Mr. Darish said that during a meeting on May 5, 1997, Mr. French admitted he had not done a proper job of contacting the people that would be the most impacted by his proposal. Mr. Darish said that the Wyndham Park Homes Association letter that was referenced by Mr. Winn has no merit. Referring to a previous letter written by the Wyndham Park Homes Association on February 3, Mr. Darish said that a paragraph indicates that the board, by unanimous vote, will support the proposed rezoning and intended development only if the unplatted parcel to the west of the plan development is included in the overall development plan. Mr. Darish emphasized that the board has no right to speak for the home owners and if they did, the ground rules for approval have not been met by this proposal. Mr. Darish noted that 37 percent of the landowners signed a petition which rejects this proposal. However, 35 of 41 of the individuals who received the registered letter and who live within 200 feet of this development in both developments, signed a petition against this project. Mr. Darish noted that a total of 85 percent of the home owners that are impacted by the proposal signed a petition against this project. Mr. Darish suggested that the mass of the proposed development would be dramatically different from the surrounding areas. Mr. Justin Duke, indicated that he has met with a group seven times to consider this issue and he has discussed this application with real estate appraisers, agents, and developers. When considering this item on April 14, the City Council advised that Mr. French meet with the home owners that are impacted by this application. Mr. French submitted his plans to the City three days before he met with the home owners. Mr. Duke did not believe that Mr. French had produced any compelling reasons to rezone this parcel from R-1 to RP-4. Mr. Duke emphasized that Mr. French did not show any evidence to allow the rezoning in light of the Golden Criteria. Mr. Duke believed that the best use of this property would be R-1. This proposal is close to the density there would be with apartments on the subject tract. He
Page 12 asked that the Commission vote against this application. Ms. Diane Davis, realtor, Prudential Summerson-Burrows Realtors, indicated that she was a resident for three years in Stoneybrook. She now resides in Willowbrook, another Tom French development. Ms. Davis noted that there is a need in Overland Park for areas where dwellings and the common grounds are maintained. While Ms. Davis lived in Stoneybrook, she felt that ambience of the area, the landscaping, and the buffers that Mr. French added were more than adequate. She noted that there is a demand for the properties in Stoneybrook and there are no more properties available in that subdivision. The property values of $160,000 to $180,000 that are suggested for the proposed development would probably increase to $190,000 and $200,000. The price of the units would be comparable in price with the single-family homes in the area. The units would be totally buffered and the landscaping would be attractive. She suggested that the stucco buildings, the upkeep, and the appearance would be superior to the single-family dwellings to the north. Some home owners care for the property and some do not. Wood siding deteriorates in time while stucco does not. Ms. Sandy Kiekel, 6437 West 125th Street, Nottingham Downs, said her subdivision is adjacent to Stoneybrook. Ms. Kiekel said she would be in charge of the marketing for Stoneybrook Place. She has extensive experience in residential real estate and she does not believe that the proposed development would adversely impact the surrounding neighborhoods. She has sold all types of real estate including high rise and more expensive and less expensive condominiums. Ms. Kiekel emphasized that it is easier to sell a home when it is adjacent to a developed property rather than selling property next to an empty adjacent field. She suggested that people would welcome the opportunity to have a maintenance provided structure such as the proposed facilities. The target market would be for individuals who want the maintenance provided such as a single lady, empty nesters, or people who want a second home in the area. During the homes association meeting, the topic of rentals came up. Ms. Kiekel noted that there cannot be a guarantee that no one would rent their property. However, a renter for this type of property would be upper bracket with rental for approximately $2,000 or more per month. This may not be the last chance for the development of this property, however, Ms. Kiekel felt the proposal would be the highest and best use of the land. Regarding the comment that it is easier to sell property next to a developed parcel, Mr. Goodman agreed with that statement. However, he was not sure that it addressed the concern of the residents that the value of their homes would be diminished. He asked if single-family homes backing up to four and five-unit
Page 13 dwellings would have a decrease in value. Ms. Kiekel reiterated that she lives in Nottingham Downs. The prices of the singlefamily homes that abut Stoneybrook at 127th have appreciated. The area next to Stoneybrook was the most expensive phase of Nottingham Downs. Ms. Davis added that the value of a maintenance provided community lies in the appearance, the layout, and the upkeep of the area. She said that the areas developed by Mr. French have been very well buffered from the neighbors. Willowbrook backs up to Nottingham Forest South, which has homes in the $300,000 range. The lots which back to Willowbrook are not impacted. She suggested that attached properties are more in demand than singlefamily dwellings in the same price range because they are hard to find. Mr. Goodman asked about the type of dwellings in Willowbrook. Ms. Davis explained that Willowbrook has singlefamily homes, however, they are located very close and the dwellings are 40 feet wide. They are reasonably alike and they are not in character with the Nottingham Forest South homes. However, the values of each division stand alone. Mr. Steve Aulgur, 13210 Benson, indicated that he resides in Stonegate on the Park. He has lived in the City for 42 years and he used to live in Stoneybrook. He enjoyed the time he lived in Stoneybrook and he appreciated the quality of a home built by Tom French. When his family grew and he needed a bigger home, he purchased the first house in Stonegate. He understood that the Master Plan was adjusted to allow Stonegate to be developed by Mr. Rodrock. Mr. Aulgur expressed concern about the subject tract. He has waited for four years for this piece of ground to be developed. He asked Mr. Rodrock why he did not purchase the piece of land. Mr. Rodrock explained that he tried to purchase the tract but he could not work out an agreement. Mr. Aulgur noted that small pockets of land can be difficult to develop and they can sit empty for years. In Mr. Aulgur's opinion, the greenway linkage, the sidewalks, and the streets in the area need to be completed. The best laid plans by the Commission and the Council are worthless unless a developer is found who is willing to invest millions of dollars for a quality development. One of the finest builders in the City is willing to develop a high-quality subdivision on a piece of property that may be difficult to develop in the future. The Master Plan was recently adjusted to accommodate the Hy-Vee Store. Although the issue was controversial, the area continues to grow. He asked that the Commission look at this proposal in light of the entire area. Mr. Aulgur has seen bad developers create low-quality projects. He suggested that in light of the quality of developments that are built by Mr. French, this application needs consideration.
Page 14 He questioned the assertion that it would be worse to view the proposed development than it is to view the back of a 50-foot single-family home with additional homes in a row that are separated by 14 feet. Mr. Aulgur reiterated that Mr. French is a capable builder and he was willing to develop a piece of property that may be difficult to develop in the future. As a home owner, Mr. Aulgur wanted to be able to enjoy the development amenities of the sidewalks and the greenway linkage. Mr. Kent Monter, 13205 Benson, Stonegate, said he was a former member of the Stonegate board of directors for the Stonegate Homes Association. Mr. Monter wanted to correct some comments which he heard during the public hearing. He noted that the assertion is incorrect which alleged that Mr. Tom French has not communicated with the home owners in the area. Mr. French has been in constant communication with the board of directors and that is why home associations are in existence. That gives developers a contact group with which to communicate. In turn, the board communicates with the residents. That is the procedure which was followed. In addition, the board meetings have been opened up to everyone within the homes association so that all residents have an opportunity to attend the meetings. Referring to the assertion that 85 percent of the residents signed the protest petition, Mr. Monter clarified that may have been true previously. However, since the public forum was conducted, that statistic has changed. The night of the public forum, people signed letters to indicate that since they understood the proposed development, they have changed their minds and no longer oppose the application. Mr. Monter said he is in favor of the proposal. Chairman Lance closed the public hearing. Mr. Winn commented that to refer to the proposed development as an extremely high-density project or to call the project massive and overbearing was an exaggeration. Regarding the pricing issue, the French units would go on the market for between $160,000 to $180,000. The opponents themselves indicate that the homes on this side of the subdivision are worth approximately $170,000. Therefore, there is no disparity in the pricing of the units. Mr. Winn said there have been several studies of developments after they are constructed such as shopping centers, hospitals, or office parks to determine if the project diminished the values of the surrounding properties. For instance, Menorah Hospital was highly controversial. There were dozens of night meetings to discuss the pros and cons of the development. Since that time, there has been a survey of the homes in Nottingham Downs that are immediately adjacent to Menorah. Their values are
Page 15 thriving. The same assertions regarding the decrease in value of adjoining properties were made prior to the construction of Humana. The fears that were expressed were not realized. When the developer develops a high-quality project, the diminution of adjoining property values has historically not occurred. Referring to materials that were distributed, Mr. Winn noted that pictures of single-family homes in the area were included. He suggested that the sides and the backs of the homes would provide a stark view to those who live in the proposed development. When the home owners in Wyndham Park and Stonegate view the proposed development, they would be viewing a fully finished stucco unit that is not the back of a building. Because the backs of the homes are facing the proposed land, it may be a challenge to devise an appropriate buffering scheme. Mr. Winn realized that there is always another chance for development of a parcel of vacant land. However, this is the last time Mr. French will consider building a town home development on this tract. The people in opposition of this proposal may not like the proposals that follow. It is possible that 40 duplexes could be built on this tract. There is a protest petition filed and approval of this project would require a super majority vote of the City Council. He urged the Commission to forward this application to the Council with a favorable vote. Mr. Sanders asked for further information about the screening on the north side of this project between Wyndham and Stonegate. He asked what were the Council's comments about the kind of landscaping that is planned. Mr. Winn replied the previous landscaping plan was conceptual in nature, which is typical at the time of the preliminary plan. There was also an issue about an old hedge line that separates this property. It seemed that a lot of the hedge row would be have to be replaced. Therefore, it was necessary to enhance the new landscaping to replace the landscaping that would be lost if some of the hedge trees died during the construction process. It seemed that the request was for a more precise plan to ensure a screening of the units and to show the tree sizes and the species. Mr. Sanders asked if there is appropriate screening between the proposed development and the surrounding single-family neighborhood. Mr. Winn replied the intent is to have a dense landscape screen across the common border. If a temporary construction easement could be obtained, it would be possible to have a berm on Mr. French's property and then the berm could be tapered over the north property line to maximize the height of the berm, even if the developer must pay for the replacement of some fences. With the agreement of the neighbors to the north, there may be an opportunity to double plant and to berm to a greater height.
Page 16 Mr. Sanders asked if the removal of the four units was in response to the Council's request to change the scale of the project. Mr. Winn replied yes and explained that two 5-unit buildings were changed to 4 units. Also, two 4-unit buildings were changed to 3 units. The revised buildings are on the north with one of the buildings being also slightly on the east side to take away from a linear appearance. Mr. Sanders asked for information regarding the Barnds Brothers piece of land to the west. Mr. Winn explained that a contract was offered to the Barnds Brothers. The Barnds Brothers apparently have a higher density residential use in mind for that tract of land and a sales price that matches the expectations. Mr. Sanders noted that the first letter from the Wyndham Homes Association had indicated that their favor of this project was contingent upon the inclusion of the Barnds Brothers piece of land. Mr. Winn explained that comment was included in the first letter. The board was advised during the May 5, 1997, meeting that the acquisition of the Barnds land was not possible at this time. That condition is omitted from the second letter. Mrs. Debus noted that Staff Comments indicate that the Fire Department had concerns about the ability for the fire trucks being able to maneuver in the cul-de-sac to the west of the property. She assumed that the cul-de-sac plans had been revised to answer the Fire Department concerns. Staff has the concern that there is not access on that property to the west. Mr. Winn overheard a conversation between Mr. Stuecheli and Mr. Ubben indicating that the primary concern of the City is the cul-de-sac in the southeast corner. The Fire Department objects to the island in the southeast cul-de-sac because of the radii that is needed for the fire truck. Mrs. Karr noted that the applicant revised the plans to address the concerns that have been expressed by the Fire Department about the western cul-de-sac. The Fire Department is satisfied that with the revised plans there would be an adequate access and staging area for their fire trucks. Regarding the cul-de-sac on the east side, the Fire Department requested that the median be removed and the applicant has agreed to that request. Mr. Hermes indicated that the application has positive aspects. However, he felt that the approval of this application would change the character of the area. Mr. Hermes was opposed to the application. Mr. Goodman said that he questioned the likelihood of singlefamily development at this site because of infrastructure cost, because it is only a 9-acre site, and because the type of amenity package that most people desire could not be provided at this
Page 17 location with the single-family homes that would be built in the price range that this development would require. This proposal would bring closure to the question of what will be developed on this tract. He felt that a transitional use of this property is appropriate at the right density. The character of the neighborhood may change, however, he did not believe that the character would be destroyed. He is familiar with many single-family homes that abut some type of multi-family development, and values have not been destroyed. However, Mr. Goodman was concerned about massing on the north border. When this project was originally presented to the Commission, he indicated those concerns. He preferred to see a multi-family project of less intensity. Mr. Goodman suggested that this property has not been dormant for a long enough period of time. The last time this project was presented to the Planning Commission, he asked every speaker if they would oppose any kind of multi-family development at this site, and every speaker replied in the negative. He indicated that Willowbrook is comprised of detached homes on zero lot lines. He could see a development similar to Willowbrook working on this tract. He could also see a potential for a development of two-units per building working on this tract. It was possible that the ability to put in a project with two-unit buildings and/or Willowbrook type attached homes would allow the developer enough density to absorb the additional infrastructure cost that would result with developing this tract. Mr. Goodman concluded that he considered the project too dense for the site and he would support the motion for denial. Mr. Carl W. Hull indicated that he walked the north property line of the subject tract. In Mr. Hull's opinion, this plan does not allow enough of an opportunity for the people facing this property to have a view of green space. He added that the proposed development would result in a case of spot zoning. Therefore, he was against the application. Mr. Sanders mentioned that he was not present for the initial hearing regarding this application. He was interested in the feedback from the Council. He was looking at the development map west of Antioch to Quivira, which is a three mile distance. This plat was almost the next to the last site that is undeveloped on the north side of 133rd Street. The next available site is located at Quivira and 133rd Street, which is indicated to be R1-A. It is a much larger site and more readily available for a single-family residential development. Mr. Sanders noted that another very small tract to the north of the Barnds Brothers property is probably undevelopable. The tract is so small it cannot support any type of residential development. Because it is on the north side of 133rd Street, any other type of development is also unlikely. That leaves the subject site.
Page 18 Mr. Sanders was concerned that this site would be passed over and remain undeveloped. He has previously noted that a small leftover tract may be developed at some point in time, however, the development does not ultimately match what is currently in the neighborhood. While the project is a different density and character from the surrounding neighborhoods, Mr. Sanders did not feel that the proposed development would take away from the quality of the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, he supported this project. Mr. Reitzes was impressed with the presentation that was made by the neighborhood residents. However, he noted that there are many positive aspects to the application. Mr. French had given a lot of consideration to this project. Mr. Reitzes believed that there would actually be little or no impact on the value of the neighboring properties as a result of the proposed development. Berming and screening along the northern edge of the subject tract would further decrease the possibility of any diminution of property values. Mr. Reitzes is concerned about the density problem, however, the proposed use would provide a good transitional use for the tract. Mr. Reitzes expressed support for the project. Mr. Nichols moved for the denial of Rezoning No. 97-5, vicinity of 133rd Street and Kessler. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hermes. Mrs. Debus commented that she supported the denial of the proposal. This is a developing area and it may be premature to relegate this tract to a transitional use. Mr. Goodman said he is not in opposition to an attached dwelling development on this tract. He supported some type of a multifamily project in this location. However, there may be a compromise between a single-family area or a dense development. He suggested that there may be a preferable use for this tract. The motion to deny the application passed by a vote of 7-4, with Mr. Sanders, Mr. Reitzes, Mr. Mark Supica, and Mrs. Terry Happer Scheier voting nay. REZONING NO. 97-2 - Vicinity of the southwest corner of 131st Street and Metcalf. BP Associates, L.L.C., applicant, is requesting CP-0, Planned Office Building District; and CP-1, Planned Restricted Business District, to allow the development of an office and retail center. This property is currently zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District. (Continued)
Page 19 Chairman Lance announced that this item is to be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 9, 1997. Mrs. Conrad so moved. After a second by Mr. Sanders, the motion carried with a unanimous vote. REZONING NO. 97-12 - Vicinity of the southeast corner of U.S. 169 Highway and 135th Street. Mr. John Petersen, applicant, is requesting CP-2, Planned General Business District, to develop an auto mall. This property is currently zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District. (Withdrawn) Chairman Lance noted that this item has been withdrawn. REZONING NO. 97-13 - 6845 West 91st Street. Bud Brown Chrysler/Plymouth Inc., applicant, is requesting CP-3, Planned Commercial District, to allow the expansion of an automobile dealership. This property is currently zoned CP-3, Planned Commercial District. (Approved) Mr. Lindeblad said that the applicant is requesting a rezoning to CP-3, Planned Commercial District, to expand an existing building to be used as an auto body shop for the Bud Brown Chrysler/Plymouth dealership. The property was formerly the location of a Putt Putt Golf and Games facility which has gone out of business. The applicant is proposing to add 4,472 square feet onto the existing building, which would increase the total floor area to 10,281 square feet. Additional paving would be constructed on the subject site for the cars of both the auto shop customers and for the dealership employees. The property is surrounded by commercial zoning and development. To the north is a small retail strip center. Automobile dealers located to the west and south are zoned C-3 and CP-2. The Hy-Vee food store under construction to the east is zoned CP-2. Some questions expressed by staff regarding this application concern the building elevations of the addition which is proposed for the body shop. Staff's concerns centered around the design of the roof of the new building, which is a slightly pitched metal roof with gutters and downspouts at the edge. Staff believes there may be some other design solutions to better blend the new roof with the existing roof. After reviewing the concerns with the applicant, the applicant submitted some revised drawings, which were presented to the Commissioners. The building elevations were changed on both the northwest and the southeast sides. A parapet has been extended above the building line
Page 20 so the gutter system and the slope metal roof is hidden. However, on the southeast portion of the site, the roof would slope towards the southeast and the gutter would be on the top of that elevation. The applicant felt that the southeast portion is not as visible as it is the back of the building and it would not be important to have the parapet around all three sides of the building. Staff's other concern regards the additional paving of the site. This site requires storm water detention. The applicant needs to have a study conducted to resolve the amount of the additional impervious area, if any, on the site. If it is determined that there is additional impervious area on the site, there maybe a need for the detention basin to be upgraded or modified, which currently is not in compliance with the City ordinances and is not functional. A new ramp connection is proposed to the new parking lot to the existing Bud Brown dealership. Concern about a 100-year flood has been expressed. It is likely that a retaining wall or a significant swale will be required along the west property line. These details will need to be worked out by the applicant's engineer and by the City's Engineering Services Division prior to any final development plan approval. This request is in compliance with the Master Plan and staff's only concern regards the storm water detention, and the proposed design of the building and the roof. Mr. Lindeblad explained that there are revised drawings. Staff is satisfied with the revisions to two sides of the building. However, staff would prefer that all sides be equally finished. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning with stipulations a through e, assuming there is a resolution to the design of the roof and the building. Mr. Hermes asked if this is the same property that was included with some retention basin redevelopment in the past. Mr. Lindeblad replied that there were some problems with the detention basin in the past that are unrelated to the current property. Regarding the existing building, the former Putt Putt Golf structure, Mr. Sanders asked if that building was finished on all four sides. Mr. Lindeblad replied yes. The building is currently built of brick, which is painted a cream color. There is also a dark green parapet finish and a portion of the roof is sloped with shingles. Mr. Lindeblad understood that when the addition is completed, the existing building and the addition would be painted a gray to match the Bud Brown building on Metcalf.