OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 25, 2007 The Overland Park Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Mr. David M. Hill, Chair. The following members were present, constituting a quorum: Mrs. Kim Sorensen, Vice Chair; Mr. Richard Collins; Mr. Charles Hunter; Mr. Edward Ned Reitzes; Mr. George Lund; Mr. John Brake; and Mr. Mike Flanagan. Mr. Tom Lance and Mrs. Janie Thacker were absent. Also present were: Mr. Bart Budetti, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Mrs. Leslie Karr, Manager of Current Planning; Mr. Mark Stuecheli, Senior Transportation Planner; Mr. David Dalecky, Planner; Mr. Keith Gooch, Senior Planner; Ms. Danielle Zeigler, Planner; Mr. Aaron Dubois, Planning Technician; and Ms. Pamela Blaszyk, Recording Secretary. Approximately 90 people were in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 14, 2007. (Approved) Mr. John Brake and Mr. Mike Flanagan indicated that they would abstain from voting on the May 14, 2007, Planning Commission Meeting minutes. Mr. Edward Ned Reitzes moved to approve the May 14, 2007, Planning Commission Meeting minutes. After a second by Mr. George Lund, the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 0 to 2 with Commissioners Brake and Flanagan abstaining. CONSENT AGENDA: (Approved items A through D and F through O and continued items E and P) A. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Hooter s 10620 Metcalf. Application made by Hooter s Restaurant. B. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL The Tile Shop 11411 Metcalf. Application made by The Tile Shop. C. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Village Presbyterian Church Outreach Center 9900 Mission. Application made by Gastinger Walker Harden. D. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Blue Valley Recreation Commission Playground 8851 West 137th Street. Application made by Bowman Bowman Novik, Inc. E. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Old Metcalf Center 7131 West 135th Street. Application made by Klover Architects, Inc.
Page 2 F. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Forest Creek Office Complex Building B 14720 Metcalf. Application made by Four D Properties, Inc. G. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Cleveland Chiropractic College Parking Addition 10850 Lowell. Application made by GLPM Architects, Inc. H. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL Prairie Center 12100 West 135th Street. Application made by DLR Group, Inc. I. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Prairie Center 12100 West 135th Street. Application made by DLR Group, Inc. J. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Arizona s Patio 9617 West 87th Street. Application made by RSA Architecture, Inc. K. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Verizon Vicinity of the southeast corner of 135th Street and Metcalf. Application made by Polsinelli Shalton Flanigan Suelthaus PC. L. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Corbin Park Vicinity of the southeast corner of 135th Street and Metcalf. Application made by Klover Architects. M. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Tallgrass Creek Carports 13800 Metcalf. Application made by Hitchcock Design Group. N. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL The Meadows at The Village of St. Andrews 10350 West 135th Street. Application made by Jantsch Architects, Inc. O. FINAL PLAT NO. 2006-93 Mills Farm Seventh Plat Vicinity of the southeast corner of 159th Street and Quivira. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. P. FINAL PLAT NO. 2007-39 Chapel Hill Second Plat Vicinity of the northeast corner of 175th Street and Pflumm. Application made by C.H. Development, L.L.C. Manager of Current Planning Leslie Karr noted that Consent Agenda Items E and P were to be continued to the July 9, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. Chair Hill indicated that he would not vote on the Consent Agenda because of conflicts with items D and O. Mrs. Karr stated that the Consent Agenda was ready for approval with the exception of item J, the Final Development Plan for Arizona s Patio, which the applicant asked to have pulled for discussion. Mr. Flanagan moved to approve the Consent Agenda items with the exception of items E and P, which were continued to the July 9, 2007, Planning Commission meeting and item J, which was removed for further discussion. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reitzes and carried with a vote of 7 to 0 to 1 with Chair Hill abstaining. Regarding Consent Agenda item J, Final Development Plan, Arizona s Patio, 9617 West 87th Street, Planner Danielle Zeigler indicated that the applicant was requesting final
Page 3 development plan approval for a new outdoor seating area in front of an existing restaurant in the Library Shoppes development. As noted in Staff Comments, the patio is proposed to be located on the existing sidewalk in front of the restaurant tenant space facing 87th Street and will be enclosed with a steel fence. Five parking spaces will be removed to allow the sidewalk to be extended five feet into the existing parking area for adequate clearance between the new seating and parking area. At the time the Staff Comments were drafted, the site plan showed that the five parking spaces to be removed would be designated as such with striping. Staff would prefer that a curb be extended to the north end of the parking spaces that are removed to prevent parallel parking in the striped no parking area and to allow additional landscaping. The applicant had issues with the curb stipulation. Mr. Scott Fettchenhauer, applicant, RSA Architecture, 6355 West 110th Street, stated that he wanted to discuss a reasonable solution to the patio issue. Several months ago, they discussed a patio with staff, which did not include an extension into the parking area and the removal of parking spaces. Initially they wanted a small patio underneath the existing canopy at the restaurant. At that point, staff had an issue with the clearance from the railing to the curb because of concerns regarding accessibility around the patio. They had five feet of clearance from the patio to the curb, and they took into account the head-in parking and the overlap in the area, they would still have a three-foot clearance. Mr. Fettchenhauer proceeded to show photos of other patio areas in the City that used the same concept that they used initially. After discussing the plan with staff input, the applicant offered to put in wheel stops, and that idea was not accepted by staff. In an attempt to address staff s concerns, they developed the current plan. Staff suggested that they remove some parking spaces to allow the walk to continue the pedestrian circulation. In going through these changes, his client has lost time and money because of the additional construction that was required to extend the patio and a loss in potential business. He referred to photographs of similar situations where a patio and parking lot meet. Mr. Fettchenhauer noted that they initially had a simple project and patio, and there were no code violations. However, they adjusted the plan to cooperate with staff. Another use that was proposed for the striped no parking area was a motorcycle parking area. He said that this concept is also used in the City in different areas, and it would be a reasonable solution. He showed photographs of motorcycle parking areas in the City. Another possible solution would be to designate the striped area as a no parking space. Mr. Fettchenhauer added they meet all parking requirements, restroom facility requirements, travel distance requirements, and the pedestrian circulation requirements. He asked the Commission to approve the site plan as it was submitted. Mr. Richard Collins noted that he did not see any handicapped parking stalls on the site plan. Mr. Mark Vandlerberg, Arizona s Neighborhood Grill and Bar, stated that there are designated handicapped spaces throughout the shopping center along the front sidewalks. There are different levels, and at each level there is handicapped parking. Mr. Charles Hunter clarified that the remaining issue was if they should add a curb. He understood that rather than landscaping the area in front of the bump, the applicant wanted to use that space for motorcycle parking.
Page 4 Ms. Zeigler added that staff was not supportive of the striped no parking area. In most cases, if an applicant presents a request to update site plans, they try to remove the striped areas and add parking islands where that is possible. The motorcycle parking could be an option. In terms of the examples that were shown, she was not sure when those patios went through the approval process. Staff tries to achieve a five-foot clearance around outdoor seating areas for Americans with Disabilities requirements and for general pedestrian circulation. Mr. Collins clarified that the City is proposing a curb around the extension from the existing sidewalk. Ms. Zeigler replied that they wanted the curb to be located at the ends of the parking spaces that are being removed to prevent parallel parking in that area. Mr. Collins asked if they do not put the curb all the way out to where the normal parking stalls would normally end, would staff be satisfied with putting a curb at the end of the patio area. He noted that the site plan indicated that the patio area goes out about half way to where a car would normally be parked. Ms. Zeigler replied that the applicant was already showing a sidewalk and a curb out to that point. The remainder of the parking spaces to be removed would be just painted with stripes to indicate no parking. The staff preference would be to extend the curb out to the end of those parking spaces to prevent parallel parking in that area. Mr. Collins clarified that the applicant did not want to have the curb in that location so that they could provide a place for motorcycle parking. He added that regardless of where the patio is going to be, there is going to be a curb to keep vehicles from intruding into the patio area. Senior Transportation Planner Mark Stuecheli stated that the City does not have any standards for motorcycle parking. He referred to two pictures that were shown by the applicant of motorcycle parking. One picture was of the motorcycle parking area at City Hall. He explained that at City Hall they eliminated two parking spaces and created a large area where motorcycles could park. It is the same depth as a normal parking space. The other picture was of a motorcycle parking area at Rosanna Square. Mr. Stuecheli did not recall ever reviewing that situation. In this case, he was not sure that a motorcycle parking area that is only one half as deep as a normal parking area would work well. Chair Hill asked if the Traffic Manual indicated an acceptable parking space for a motorcycle. Mr. Stuecheli replied that he was not aware of any standards for motorcycle parking spaces in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). He was not sure that a space with a depth of 9 feet would provide adequate parking with a buffer on either side. Mr. Fettchenhauer explained that the parking stalls at the Arizona s Sports Bar and Grille are 20 feet in length. Parking spaces are typically 18 feet in length. They are taking up less than one half of the parking stall for the patio area. A motorcycle is typically 8.5 feet long, and there would be a more than adequate parking space for motorcycles as proposed in the plan. There are no guidelines for motorcycle parking, and they are going by what they see. Mr. Collins noted that motorcycles could park along the existing curb. He asked why the applicant was opposed to staff s opinion. Mr. Fettchenhauer replied that they addressed the City s concerns with their revised plans by showing the curb and extending the patio. His client spent a lot of time and effort in trying to get this patio installed. It would cost twice as much to put the curb in the area as recommended by staff over what was proposed on their plan. It is a matter of time and money. They
Page 5 have seen this type of configuration in other areas of Overland Park. Mr. Collins assumed that if the City allowed them to extend the patio, that would increase the area where they could generate some revenue to help pay for the additional concrete they would need. Mr. Fettchenhauer replied that in this case, they are already showing the maximum square footage that would be allowed in the patio because of the restroom fixtures in the restaurant. Mr. Collins asked if it was the applicant s opinion that if they stripe the area as a no parking space, they will lose revenue from not having the motorcycle area. Mr. Fettchenhauer replied that they are fine with the solution of striping the no parking area. Mr. Vandlerberg added that they feel they could benefit the center by providing motorcycle parking. Then the motorcycles would not have to use a full parking stall that could be used for full-sized vehicles. Mr. Collins asked if parking is an issue in that area. Mr. Vandlerberg replied that it is busy on the weekends. Mr. Collins asked if it would negatively impact the business to take away four parking stalls. Mr. Vandlerberg replied that while it would not impact the business, they would rather use the 12-foot long stalls if possible. Mr. Reitzes understood that the issue was funding. The applicant was attempting to avoid staff s recommendation to extend the curb in order to save dollars. The staff s recommendation was the best alternative. Motorcycle parking is not a serious issue, and the patrons who drive motorcycles could use the typical parking stalls. Mr. Reitzes moved to approve Consent Agenda item J, the Final Development Plan for Arizona s Patio, as recommended by staff with stipulations a, b and c. Mr. Flanagan seconded the motion. Mr. Hunter said that he would vote in favor of the motion. He was hesitant about approving the motorcycle parking arrangement as proposed by the applicant. There seemed to be enough parking without those spaces. The motion carried with a vote of 8 to 0. REZONING NO. 2007-2 7501 Metcalf. Rezoning requested from C-3, General Business District, to CP-2, Planned General Business District, to allow for redevelopment of a commercial center. Application made by Warman Design Group Architects. (Continued) As noted in Staff Comments, this item was being continued to the July 9, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Reitzes moved to continue Rezoning No. 2007-2 to the July 9, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. After a second by Mr. Flanagan, the motion carried with a vote of 8 to 0.
Page 6 REZONING NO. 2007-5 Vicinity of the southwest corner of 95th Street and Antioch. Rezoning requested from C-2, General Business District, to CP-2, Planned General Business District, to allow a remodel of an existing commercial development. Application made by Tri-Land Properties, Inc. (Approved) Planner Dave Dalecky indicated that the applicant was requesting a rezoning to CP-2, Planned General Business District, to allow a remodel of the Cherokee South shopping center, which was developed in the 1960s. The 11.6-acre site is at the westerly end of a mixed corridor that extends from Metcalf to Antioch with interspersings of nonresidential and residential development along the 95th Street corridor. At the 95th Street and Antioch intersection, the Valley View shopping center is located at the southwest corner. The Cherokee North shopping center, which is located to the north of the subject site, has had some renovations in the past five years. The proposed development for the Cherokee South shopping center would include 120,328 square feet of floor area and 535 parking stalls. The overall project includes the demolition of the former grocery store, which was located in the corner building of the larger main multi-tenant building. Three new buildings are proposed as a part of this development. A new building is to be constructed where the grocery store was located. It is set back somewhat and it will be built slightly further to the south to make room for a new drug store that will be located as close as possible to the corner of 95th Street and Antioch. A new coffee shop drive-through building is planned for the western part of the property. The parking lot is currently an expanse of asphalt with a couple of islands to the south. There are no throats for ingress/egress areas off the public streets and into the shopping center. There are two access points that are close to the intersection of 95th Street and Antioch. The applicant is going to remove those access points to promote better circulation in and out of the shopping center. The plan would also include parking lots. New parking lot islands will be constructed to better define parking aisles. There will be a new sidewalk system throughout the development. There is also a feature at the corner near the intersection. The redevelopment of the shopping center is subject to the Infill and Redevelopment Design Guidelines. The guidelines require the buildings to be brought up to the street edge. In lieu of doing so, an applicant can install a low decorative wall, a hedge, a fence, or a combination of those elements. The applicant is not able to bring the Walgreen s Drug Store building up to the street edge. Mr. Dalecky referred to a plan of the Walgreen s site and noted that there was a dashed line that represented an underground box culvert or drainage easement, which restricts what can happen at the corner of the development. He noted that staff would have preferred to move the Walgreen s building closer to the street edge. However, based on the circumstances, the building is set back from the street and surrounded with lanes of double loaded parking to provide for vehicular circulation. The applicant has identified and shown a solid hedge that would be constructed along the street frontage of the center. There would be masonry columns and decorative fencing at drive entrances into the site. The applicant meets the guidelines with these amenities. The plan shows the location of the corner feature, which includes a tower element, which doubles as the site s monument signage. There are also patterns of alternate decorative paving material to show greater pedestrian movement from the public sidewalk into the shopping center. The elevations of the tower feature at the
Page 7 corner shows opportunities for signage for the various tenants in the development, and it has an emblem of the shopping center indicating CS. There is also an elevation plan for the hedge along the street and the masonry columns. Mr. Dalecky referred to another map, which showed the location where the grocery store is to be demolished and a new building is to be constructed. A new drive aisle is to be constructed off Antioch to replace a drive aisle that is being removed. A new turn lane is being constructed on Antioch for traffic to move out of the through lanes and turn into the center. There are several sidewalks connecting the buildings and various uses through the site. There are also sidewalk connections from one side of the drive aisle to the opposite side. In terms of the overall site, the applicant is proposing to construct several new parking lot islands to better define the drive aisles. There are areas where the entrance into the mall component of the shopping center has decorative paving material in front of the doors, and there will be areas where the traffic will slow down for pedestrian movement. The plans also show the intensification of landscaping in the overall development and a hedge along the public streets. They will be cleaning up the spaces to the rear of the center. New curbs and trash enclosures will be constructed. There will also be newly designated parking stalls. The building architecture is also subject to the Infill and Redevelopment Design Guidelines. New parapets will be constructed, and they will have new awnings with different colors and treatments to help identify the different tenants of the multitenant building. There will also be a new cornice treatment, new arch details and medallions will be added to the facades of the building. Although the new building D will actually be a one-story building, it will simulate a two-story building with a facade. It will have glass windows on the level above the first floor. In some areas there will be an arcade over the sidewalk. The applicant is proposing to use six towers as an iconic feature at this center. There will be four tower elements on the main building, a tower at the corner at the intersection and another more modest tower at the Walgreen s pad site. As noted in Staff Comments, much of the existing multi-tenant buildings will remain, but the exteriors of these buildings will be renovated. Mr. Dalecky indicated that the applicant is going to attempt to preserve as much of the brick of the existing buildings as possible. The low mansards will be removed to allow for a new parapet to be constructed around the top of the buildings. The new parapet would consist predominantly of EIFS. The applicant will know how much brick can be salvaged under layers of EIFS when the renovations of the buildings begin. These details will be resolved with the final plan. Mr. Dalecky referred to proposed elevations of the new restaurant/coffee shop and the Walgreen s store. The buildings will have similar architectural details with stone or masonry elements at the base with brick material or additional masonry material upward along the facade breaking the areas of glazing. Flat metal awnings would be projected out from the building. Regarding the traffic impacts from this development, the removal of the two drives that are the closest to the intersection of 95th Street and Antioch were imperative to the improvement of the circulation of the site and the operation of the intersection. There
Page 8 is a new turn lane on Antioch for traffic to enter the shopping center. Additional throat lengths will be provided on the easternmost full-turning movement driveway off 95th Street and on the relocated right-turn-only driveway on Antioch. In terms of environmental impacts, the site has a 100-year storm overland flow entering the site from 95th Street where the drive to be removed is located. The 100- year storm overland flow has to be routed around the new Walgreen s Drug Store building. Currently the runoff flows in a parallel direction to the existing storm sewer box culvert underground and enters the drainage system further to the south where the culvert is open. The applicant is required to provide a Revised Storm Water Management Study with the final plan to further indicate how the storm water will be collected in various locations and directed into the storm sewer system. The Storm Water Management plan that was submitted and approved by engineering staff is a dramatic improvement over the current conditions with the 100-year storm overland flow. The Site Plan Review Committee met several times with the applicant to discuss the building facades and the tower elements. The applicant provided details of both the building elevations and the tower elements that were acceptable to staff and the Site Plan Review Committee, and they were ultimately approved. The tower heights were in question, and they were lowered significantly. Also various detail features were incorporated as suggested by the Committee. Staff was recommending the approval of Rezoning No. 2007-5 with stipulations a through m. Referring to a diagram of the south side of the Walgreen s Drug Store, Mr. Brake asked if the drug store will have a drive-through lane in that area. Mr. Dalecky replied that there is a drive-through lane on the west side of the building. The loading dock is on the south side. Mr. Brake clarified that staff was satisfied with the traffic flow around this building. Mr. Glen Johnson, director of design, architecture and engineering, Tri-Land Properties, Inc., One Westbrook Corporate Center, Suite 520, Westchester, Illinois, said that he was representing the owners of the shopping center. He noted that Cherokee South is an old shopping center that needs some refreshing. The proposed plan will make this center something special for the community. They have been following the Infill and Redevelopment Design Guidelines and working with staff to resolve some of the conflicts that this center has experienced with the adjacent thoroughfares and the storm sewers, and they have developed some acceptable solutions. Mr. Johnson presented a simulated three-dimensional rendering of the proposed shopping center. The rendering indicates how the Infill and Redevelopment Design Guidelines are applied to the shopping center. The coffee shop at the west end of the site is oriented towards the street. The colored pavements and the crosswalk treatments bring pedestrians into the center. It is an exciting solution to open up the center and present the area in a favorable light. Mr. Collins referred to the site plan and asked if there are flagpoles in the northeast corner. Mr. Johnson replied that rendering is several months old, and they would be refreshing the rendering with some of the elevation treatments and other elements around the site. He was using the rendering to provide an idea of the spatial connection between the Walgreen s Drug Store and main retail building. Mr. Johnson
Page 9 noted that there are only three flagpoles in the courtyard. They are not allowed to have flagpoles at the corner of 95th Street and Antioch because of City ordinances. Mr. Collins asked if only mature trees would be used for the landscaping. Mr. Johnson replied that they would have a mix of trees at different levels of maturity. The landscaping that is depicted in the rendering will be realized over time. Mr. Brake agreed that the shopping center needs to be redeveloped, and the proposed plan was attractive. He was still concerned about the traffic patterns. He assumed that the traffic would be coming off Antioch towards the Walgreens where trucks will be unloading, and there would be cars going through the drive-through lane at the same time. The trucks would be going in a direction that is opposite of the drivethrough traffic. He was also concerned that the pedestrian walk was in the middle. Mr. Johnson replied that Mr. Stuecheli recognized that issue as well. The two driveways that are the closest to the intersection along 95th Street and Antioch were moved further away from the intersection. The driveway on 95th Street was closed and the Antioch driveway was moved further away from the intersection and improved with a right-turn lane going into the center. In bringing the traffic together in this type of environment, the goal was to direct the primary customers into the parking areas. The trucks in the loading area would be screened by a wall on the east side of the Walgreen s building. Trucks typically maneuver around on shopping center sites, and they have done their best to find a location where the trucks could circulate. Chair Hill asked Mr. Stuecheli to comment on the traffic circulation. Mr. Stuecheli replied that they are working with a difficult existing site, and they have to keep in mind that this is the redevelopment of an existing shopping center. They are gaining some actual throat lengths at some of the driveways, which will allow two or three cars to stack as they exit the site without impeding the traffic flow. The pedestrian movements are somewhat of an issue in shopping centers. They are not anticipating extremely heavy movements up to the drug store. However, that building is located at a good spot where it well serves the main center. It has some separation from Antioch, which results in a safer location for the pedestrians. There is going to be some interaction with truck traffic, although they think the number of trucks serving this site will be relatively low. There are often attempts by the truckers to make their deliveries when it is not a peak traffic hour. Several of the design features of the current shopping center are undesirable. There are no landscaped islands in the parking lot to help define traffic aisles and improve the appearance of the center. Currently, the center is a linear shape that is parallel to 95th Street. With the proposed design, the long straight center is being modified, which will help to reduce some of the traffic speeds. When the center was fully operating, there seemed to be a lot of cars that would come off Antioch and drive quickly across the center. The proposed design tends to break up the expanse and make the parking lot a safer area for both pedestrians and automobiles. Chair Hill asked Mr. Johnson to discuss the operation of the deliveries in the remodeled center. Mr. Johnson replied that he spoke with a developer of the Walgreen s. He understood that they have one semi-truck delivery per week, and various box type trucks make small deliveries throughout the day. Mr. Collins asked about the two structures that are located at the far west edge of the development. Mr. Johnson replied that the building on the left is the existing Kings Auto. The other building is Blimpie s. Mr. Collins clarified that these two buildings would stay in place. He asked if their elevations would be changed to coincide with
Page 10 the rest of the development. Mr. Johnson replied that they expected to incorporate some of the new architectural features at the Kings Auto facility. He assumed that the Blimpie s building would be redeveloped in the future. Mr. Lund asked if there is a median break on Antioch for both of the new drives from the east. Mr. Stuecheli replied that on Antioch the first access point to the south of 95th Street will be a right-in and right-out access point. The access point that is further to the south on 95th Street will be a median break. Chair Hill opened the public hearing regarding this item. Mr. David Waters, 10851 Mastin, stated that he represents the Sampler Stores, which operate the Kansas Sampler in the Cherokee South development. He stated that his client opposed this rezoning and the Planning Commission should reject this application. This developer has applied for Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Everything that is being proposed depends on the TIF being approved. He proceeded to read from the February 5, 2007, Committee-of-the-Whole meeting, which indicated that Councilmember Dave Janson asked Mr. Robinson of Tri-Land Properties what happens to the project if TIF is not obtained. Mr. Robinson believed that Walgreens would still be built; however, the balance of the center, as he envisioned in Plan A, would be in question. Plan B would result in a scaled-back version of the redevelopment that is envisioned because the tenants who would be interested would not be of the same nature and would not be in a position to pay the kinds of rent needed to support a redevelopment of this kind. Mr. Waters stated that by the applicant s own admission, if TIF is not approved, then the proposed plan would not be what is developed. Mr. Waters was of the opinion that if this plan is approved before the TIF, then the applicant could tell the City that they should not refuse to provide the TIF money for this plan to be realized. Mr. Waters felt that they should be concentrating on getting the TIF approved first before they present the plan. He stated that the Commission should reject this kind of a backwards approach to this project. If the TIF is not approved, they could be back before the Planning Commission once again to discuss a different, lower grade development. If the applicant indicates that TIF is not needed to do this project, then he would expect the TIF application to be withdrawn. Mr. Waters concluded that this rezoning application is premature because the developer does not have the funds to go forward with this project, and the City s approval of this rezoning should not be used to influence the outcome of the TIF application. Mr. Collins stated that this is an application for a planned district. Even if the TIF application does not get approved and they approve this request, this is all that they can develop in that location. Mr. Waters agreed and added that there was a public comment that if the TIF is not available for this plan, they would not be going forward with the kind of development that was presented today. They would be back again with another rezoning application for a lower-scale development. Mr. Collins asked why it would be detrimental for the Commission to consider another rezoning application for the site. Mr. Waters replied that his client is opposed to the TIF. He feared that the approval of this plan at this time is an attempt to fix the outcome of the TIF application. If this request is approved, it will indicate that this is the plan that the City wants to have developed on the site.
Page 11 Mrs. Karr clarified that the action today is to make a recommendation to the Governing Body. The Governing Body will make the final decision as to whether the rezoning is approved. The Governing Body has specifically asked that the rezoning and consideration of the TIF application be heard together to address the issue of which comes first. They will be considered at the same time, and presumably at that meeting if the TIF is not approved, then the applicant could make the decision to either proceed with the rezoning as proposed or come back to the Commission with modifications that would be appropriate in light of their financial considerations. It is appropriate to proceed with the rezoning at this time, and there will be future actions that might impact the design and result in the rezoning being presented once again in an alternate form. Chair Hill understood that their review and potential approval of this rezoning is advisory in nature. Mr. Eric Booze, 9004 West 95th Terrace, said that his home borders the far west corner of the shopping center. While Mr. Booze was happy with the action that was being taken to redevelop the center, he had a couple of concerns with the proposed plan. One of those concerns was that he had not noticed any plans to improve the back part of the site. The plan indicates that the existing fence is to be repaired or replaced as necessary. Mr. Booze presented a picture of the view of the shopping center from his backyard. He noted that the fence was old and it was restaked in some places to keep it from falling over. He pointed out several tires that were stacked behind Kings Auto. He questioned if they could improve the view of the back side of the center for the adjacent residents with some landscaping and a replaced, higher fence. He understood that some of the trees on the site plan would not be mature. He asked how long it would take for the trees to provide screening for the residents. Mr. Tim Liebert, 5406 West 99th Street, stated that he was one of the owners of the Sampler Stores. They use approximately 5 percent of the square footage of the Cherokee South center. Mr. Liebert noted that they have a new 12-foot covered archway of stone and brick. The archway provides protection for the customers and has reduced some of the solar gain on their glass frontage. He did not know if the archway would be removed so that the solar gain would be greatly increased. There have been some drawings showing the archway intact, and other drawings have shown the archway as being replaced by an awning. The removal of the archway would do nothing to reduce the solar gain and the heating and air conditioning costs of that side of the center. Although the covered walkways on the remaining part of the center are not new nor attractive, they do provide a significant environmental benefit, since they greatly reduce solar heat gain in the tenant spaces throughout the center. He did not recommend retaining the covered walkways with the new development; however, he was recommending that the Planning Commission look at requiring that type of feature with the TIF project. He hoped that they would obtain clarification with the presenters of the plan that the archway in front of the Kansas Sampler, Hallmark and Digital Watch would remain in place, since it provides excellent environmental protection. Mr. Liebert was concerned with the overall environmental impact from this project. They have seen elevations and pictures, but they have not seen any information pertaining to the heating and air conditioning systems. For this project to be a success, there needs to be a high occupancy rate. The project will have to attract tenants. Tenants will be looking for energy efficiency in commercial buildings. They
Page 12 will not be looking at how pretty the parapets are and whether there is a plaque indicating Cherokee South. They will be looking at the occupancy costs and how this shopping center is going to prepare for future energy costs. He did not see that component in this plan. He feared that they were taking a potential step backwards into the 19th Century by putting money into a second-story facade rather than investing in efficient heating and air conditioning systems. He asked if the glass frontage will be spectrally selective by passing through visible light while keeping out the infrared and heat gain part of the spectrum. He asked what is the R-Value of the insulation for the rooftops and if the roofs will have an R-38 or R0-50 type of insulation. The tenants want to know how they can reduce their heating and electric bills and their carbon footprint. Mr. Liebert was of the opinion that it is premature to recommend the approval of this plan, since it does not indicate anything about energy conservation. Mr. Reitzes asked if the applicant has met with the tenants to discuss energy efficient aspects of the project. Mr. Liebert replied that he has not had any communication from the landlord regarding this project. They were told when they signed their lease that there would be a $2 million renovation, and that is in their lease. He was finding out about the elements of the plan by coming to these meetings. The developers have not asked him what the tenants would like to see with this project. Mr. Reitzes replied that there should be some dialogue with the tenants. Since no one else wished to speak, Chair Hill closed the public hearing. In response to the public hearing comments, Mr. Johnson stated that Kings Auto has an area where they are supposed to keep their tires. The storage problem should be easily resolved by making sure they do not have their tires stacked in a manner that is unsightly to the neighbors. They would speak to Kings Auto to address that issue. Regarding the comments about the facade of the building at the Kansas Sampler, they agree that there is a nice canopy, and it will be preserved across the frontage of their building. They are maintaining the canopy in a form that is consistent with what is seen on the plan in terms of shielding the pedestrians in the area of building A along Antioch, and along the east side of Building B, which has the Hallmark, Kansas Sampler and Digital Watch stores. Those are the only locations on the site where the existing canopies are being preserved. The rest of the canopies are being removed and replaced with a more contemporary look on the north elevations of Building C, the new Building D, and the west end of Building C. Energy efficiencies are required by code. Over time they look at these buildings and consider how they should be making changes as they are installing windows. Some of the facades that are currently masonry would be constructed with the modern materials of insulated glass and frames. As they replace roofs, they comply with the energy codes, and they do that on a regular basis. Regarding the comment about not conferring with tenants, Mr. Johnson noted that they have gone to some lengths to have meetings with the neighbors. Mr. Hugh Robinson, vice president, Tri-Land Properties, One Westbrook Corporate Center, Suite 520, Westchester, Illinois, stated that on March 20, 2007, they had a community meeting at the shopping center. There were approximately 150 people in attendance. They explained the proposed redevelopment of the shopping center. Mr. Robinson indicated that Mr. Liebert attended that meeting. They have
Page 13 communicated with the interested parties. The City Council has expressed a desire to go forward with both the planning process and the TIF process. They are simultaneously moving both applications forward at their request. Regarding the photograph of the rear view of Kings Auto, Mr. Collins asked if there was a driveway at the back of Kings Auto. Mr. Johnson replied that there is not a driveway behind Kings Auto, and there will not be a driveway in that location in the future. Mr. Collins agreed with Mr. Johnson s intent to make sure that the tires are removed and that whatever is stored in that area does not exceed the height of the fence. He asked if there is an ordinance that restricts the height of waste storage. Mrs. Karr replied that there might be some ordinances regarding where and how things can be stored. Mr. Collins noted that Mr. Booze could call Neighborhood Services if there are future issues with the view of Kings Auto. Mr. Johnson added that they will be preserving the existing large trees at the back of the Kings Auto site. They will do everything they can to preserve the mature, highquality trees on the property as they move forward. Mr. Hunter asked what would be done to the back of the shopping center with this project. Mr. Johnson replied that at the back of the center they will be adding more parking, masonry trash enclosures, and rooftop screening at the upper part of the wall to screen the rooftop mechanical equipment. Generally, the back of the center is clean. However, he would check into the condition behind Kings Auto. Mr. Hunter asked if the back of the building would be painted. Mr. Johnson replied that the back of the building is masonry and that will remain. They will screen the rooftop mechanical equipment. Mr. Hunter asked about the condition of the fence. Mr. Johnson replied that the fence is in different stages, and some of the fence is not on their property. They plan to make sure that the fence is in good condition by replacing slats and painting the fence. Chair Hill observed that the note on the drawing indicates that they will replace or repair the fence as necessary. He asked who would determine what is necessary. Mr. Dalecky replied that the City could make that judgment. The residents could also contact Community Services if they feel that something is out of place. This is the Master Plan for the project. As components of the center are redeveloped in phases, staff will be reviewing each final plan in its incremental phases as it progresses through the system. At that time, there will be a detailed determination of the condition of the fences and what needs to be replaced, rebuilt or repaired. Staff will send an inspector to look behind Kings Auto and determine what does not comply with the City code. Chair Hill clarified that Mr. Johnson was comfortable with the City making a determination on the condition of the fence. Mr. Collins commended the applicant for trying to do something in an infill area that needs to be brought up to modern standards. He wanted staff to hold the developer responsible for making sure that the actual development would closely resemble the three dimensional rendering that was presented by the applicant. He was also sensitive to the issues with the back of the center so the neighbors to the south are not looking at stacks of tires. He was in favor of the rezoning application. They were not discussing the TIF financing, since that would be addressed by the Council.
Page 14 Mr. Collins moved to recommend to the Council the approval of Rezoning No. 2007-5 with stipulations a through m. He wanted staff to make sure that the developer provides a viable and attractive project. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lund. Mr. Reitzes stated that this project was a major improvement of the center. He approved of the architectural features such as the tower elements and some of the other features such as the planters. His main concern would be with the traffic circulation throughout the site. It has been easy for traffic to take short cuts through the center. The parking lot islands will greatly reduce the possibility of that occurring. He was in favor of the motion. Mr. Flanagan agreed that this was an excellent plan. The TIF proposal will be considered at a later date. The center is an eyesore, and he was in favor of the motion to improve the site. Mr. Brake expressed his approval of the plan, and he was in favor of the improvements. He hoped that staff would pay particular attention to any potential traffic conflicts by looking at the parking areas, the driveway and the geometrics of the project. As a member of the Site Plan Review Committee, Chair Hill noted that they worked several times with the applicant over the last several months. They primarily addressed the elevations, materials and the design proportions. He approved of the elevations and the massing as proposed. They did not spend a lot of time discussing the traffic circulation, because they were comfortable with Mr. Stuecheli s analysis of that issue. The additional landscaping features, islands, and throat lengths would result in workable traffic patterns in the center. He would vote in favor of the motion. The motion carried with a vote of 8 to 0. REZONING NO. 2007-12 Vicinity of the southwest corner of 151st Street and Quivira. Rezoning requested from RRJ, Rural Residential District, Johnson County, to CP-O, Planned Office Building District, to allow a three-building office development. Application made by Merrill Companies, L.L.C. (Continued) As noted in Staff Comments, this item was being continued to the July 23, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Reitzes moved to continue Rezoning No. 2007-12 to the July 23, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. After a second by Mr. Flanagan, the motion carried with a vote of 8 to 0. Chair Hill stated that he would take the Chair s prerogative of taking the following two agenda items out of order so that Rezoning No. 2007-13 could be addressed simultaneously with the Revised Preliminary Plan for the Brookridge Golf and Country Club.
Page 15 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL Mission 159 - Vicinity of the southwest corner of 159th Street and Mission. Application made by Mission 159, L.L.C. (Approved) Senior Planner Keith Gooch indicated that the applicant was requesting the approval of the Revised Preliminary Plan to allow an increase in the square footage for the commercial portion of the Mission 159 development. This project was originally approved for a total of 41,900 square feet and 328 dwelling units. The plan has not changed. However, due to an error in the tabulation, the total square footage that was shown on the plan was actually 48,811 square feet. Staff was not opposed to the 7,000 square-foot increase. Staff was recommending the approval of the Revised Preliminary Plan for Mission 159 with stipulations a through u. Mr. James R. Schurman, applicant, 10225 Bond, said that he was representing Mission 159. The square footage of the buildings was miscalculated by their first architect. When they began to consider a final plat for the commercial portion of the project, they discovered the error in the calculations. Chair Hill opened the public hearing regarding this item. No one came forward to speak, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Flanagan moved to recommend to the Council the approval of the Revised Preliminary Plan for Mission 159 with stipulations a through u. After a second by Mrs. Kim Sorensen, the motion carried with a vote of 8 to 0. Mrs. Karr stated that staff wanted to present the next two items concurrently, since the applications are related. REZONING NO. 2007-13 8223 West 103rd Street. Rezoning requested from R-1, Single-Family Residential District, to RP-6, Planned High-Rise Apartment District, to allow a condominium development. Application made by Alsation Land Company. (Continued) REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL Brookridge Golf and Country Club 8223 West 103rd Street and Mission. Application made by Alsation Land Company. (Continued) Mr. Dalecky indicated that the applicant was requesting a rezoning to allow the construction of two condominium buildings in two phases. The first phase would include a 96-unit building and a new clubhouse for the Brookridge Golf and Country Club. The second phase would include a 40-unit building. Mr. Dalecky wanted to make a change in the Staff Comments. The size of the tract was actually 5.4 acres rather than 5.3 acres. The total density of the development would be 25.2 units per acre. The entire country club area was bounded by 103rd Street to the north, Antioch to the west, two apartment buildings to the east, and I-435 to the south. There was a small apartment development that was taken out of the Brookridge property some time ago.
Page 16 There were also some residential homes that fronted on Antioch at the northwest corner of the development. Those residences were not developed as a cohesive subdivision. The location of the condominium buildings would be in the vicinity of the existing clubhouse and pool area that is immediately to the south of an existing parking lot. The applicant was proposing to retain as much as possible of the parking lot. It is relatively new and it serves the purpose of providing parking for the members of the country club. The new condominium buildings will include structured parking on the first and second levels of the buildings for the residents of the condominiums. The parking is provided at a ratio of 1.9 stalls per unit. The site would also include new sidewalks through the parking lot, and some parking stalls would be removed for that purpose. There would also be a new drop-off location. The condominium building would be situated with 103rd Street to the north. The first phase would include the larger building on the site plan and the second phase would include the 40-unit building that would be located immediately to the east. There would be a drive connection to get to the lower level of the structured parking. There would also be a drive connection to get to the second level of structured parking. The second level would only be in the 96-unit building. The redevelopment includes a new clubhouse facility, a new pool and deck area. The clubhouse would be to the far left of the phase one building. The clubhouse would occupy the two floor levels of the westerly one-third of the building. The clubhouse would have a patio facing the golf course. The grades allow for a split-level building with five and six stories. The five-story side would face 103rd Street and the six-story side would face south towards the golf course. The lower level would either be a portion of the country club or parking for the residents of the condominium building. The parking lot would basically remain in the same location. New parking lot islands would be constructed and some new sidewalks would be installed. The proposed condominium buildings are primarily maintaining the same footprint, although it is extending somewhat to the west. The applicant was also proposing a new solid hedge that would go across the front of the parking lot. Masonry columns that will match the existing columns will be installed at regular intervals along the public street frontage, and a low wrought iron fence will be included in the landscape hedge. This hedge is in response to the commercial design guideline requirement that buildings be located along the street front or if there is parking or drive aisles in place of a building, then a low-screen wall or a hedge is required. Additional landscaping would be provided in the parking lot islands. Mr. Dalecky referred to a drawing of the phase one buildings. The front facade of the 96-unit building faces 103rd Street. The drawing of the south elevation also depicted the pool deck area, the patio and the clubhouse. He noted that the elevation drawings indicate what the building would look like for people who are several hundred feet away from the facility. The clubhouse component of the condominium building was requested by the Brookridge Golf and Country Club design committee to be a prominent, defined component of the front facade of the building. This is accomplished by a feature that projects out from the facade of the building. The design also includes a porte cochere that would provide for a covered drop-off for people who are entering and exiting the condominiums and the clubhouse for the