OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 25, 2008 The Overland Park Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 1:40 p.m. by Mrs. Kim Sorensen, Chair. The following members were present, constituting a quorum: Mr. Richard Collins, Vice Chair; Mr. Tom Lance; Mr. David Hill; Mrs. Janie Thacker; Mr. Edward Ned Reitzes; Mr. George Lund; Mr. John Brake; Mr. Bob Gadd; Mr. Mike Flanagan and Mr. Steve Troester. Also present were: Mr. Bart Budetti, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Mr. John Rod, Manager of Community Planning and Services; Mrs. Leslie Karr, Manager of Current Planning; Mr. Mark Stuecheli, Senior Transportation Planner; Mr. Kirk Coonley, Principal Engineer; Mr. Doug Johnson, Administrator, GIS/ Zoning Enforcement Services; Mr. David Dalecky, Planner; Mr. Keith Gooch, Senior Planner; Ms. Danielle Zeigler, Planner; Mr. Aaron Dubois, Planning Technician; and Ms. Kathleen Behrens, Recording Secretary. Approximately 30 people were in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 14, 2008. Mr. Mike Flanagan moved to approve the January 14, 2008, Planning Commission meeting minutes. Mr. Edward Ned Reitzes seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 9 to 0 to 2. Mr. George Lund and Mr. David Hill abstained. CONSENT AGENDA (Approved Items A and C; Continued Items B, D, and E; and withdrew Item F) A. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Johnson County Memorial Park 11200 Metcalf. Application made by Will Kasper. B. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Overland Pointe Market Place Vicinity of 132nd Street and Hemlock. Application made by Kelly s Overland Pointe, LP. C. FINAL PLAT NO. 2008-6 Blue Valley School Transportation Facility Vicinity of the northeast corner of 137th Street and Riley. Application made by Blue Valley School District. D. SIGN CRITERIA Oak Park Mall Vicinity of the southeast corner of 95th Street and Quivira. Application made by CBL and Associates. E. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL KFC/LJS Restaurant 8669 West 135th Street. Application made by Royal Construction Company. F. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Sam s Grill 7335 West 119th Street. Application made by Anderson Macadam Architects, Inc.
Page 2 Manager of Current Planning Leslie Karr announced that Consent Agenda Items B, D, and E would be continued to the March 10, 2008, Planning Commission meeting, and that Item F was withdrawn by the applicant. Chair Kim Sorensen asked if there were any items that needed to be removed for separate discussion. With no further comment, Mr. Flanagan moved to approve Consent Agenda Items A and C. Mr. Bob Gadd seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 10 to 0 to 1. Mr. Hill abstained. 2008 MASTER PLAN WORK PROGRAM 8500 Santa Fe Drive. Application made by the City of Overland Park. (Approved) Manager of Community and Planning Services John Rod presented the 2008 Master Plan Work Program and a recommendation to set a cut-off date for accepting landowner initiated changes to the 2008 Master Plan. The Planning Commission Master Plan Committee met previous to this meeting and made recommendations regarding two items. Last week the Board of County Commissioners approve a portion of the requested annexation area, which includes 8.3 square miles of the original 15 square miles that was previously requested by the City. He pointed out Areas 1, 2, and 3 on the map. He noted that the City Council will need to take action on this revised proposal for annexation, which is tentatively scheduled for March 3, 2008. If the annexation is approved, the effective date would be the date of publication, which will be within that week or one week later. Part of the recommendations that were presented to the County Board of Commissioners included a proposal for setting up a similar process for reviewing and developing a new future land use plan and set of land use goals similar to what were done with the 2002 annexation when 4.7 square miles was annexed into the City. A task force would be established that would be made up of various representatives from the community, as well as for special districts within that area of the County to come up with a recommendation. It will take about a year to a year and a half to complete all the steps. A recommendation would not come back as part of the 2008 Master Plan, but likely in 2009. There will be about 16 to 18 members on the task force to discuss a number of different issues to be reviewed. Mr. Rod stated that the land use goals they will develop will come from the Vision Metcalf Plan, if and when that project is approved. In addition, the Council has been working with redevelopment policies, and some land use goals may be developed from those policies, which may occur this year or next year depending on when action is taken. The City Council will be looking to revise their ward redistricting proposal again this year, which would be effective December 31, 2008, for use in next year s local elections. In the past, staff has worked with the County Planning staff in jointly reviewing development applications and making recommendations for an area called the Blue Valley Plan Urban Fringe Area. Most of that area is included in the annexation area; however, there had been joint cooperation in working in areas that border one another. Recommendations may come back from that discussion. A setting of a
Page 3 cut-off date of April 4, 2008, for accepting landowner initiated proposed changes for this year was recommended. Mr. Richard Collins pointed out that the Master Plan was developed according to state statute, and the City of Overland Park is required to update its comprehensive Master Plan on an annual basis. He noted that the Master Plan Committee would likely be reviewing the two major issues previously mentioned regarding the proposed annexation and the Vision Metcalf Plan, but they would still have to review and update the Master Plan as required by statute. Mr. Reitzes asked how far along in the process they were regarding the conversion of the future development plan to a parcel base system. Mr. Rod stated that staff is near completion of that process, but they have had to consider potential additional annexation areas and other issues for clean up, which is an ongoing process. Mr. Collins moved to approve the 2008 Master Plan Work Program and set April 4, 2008, as the cut-off date for landowner initiated proposed changes to the 2008 Master Plan. Mr. Gadd seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 11 to 0. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT To amend Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Sections 18.110.560, 18.410.100, 18.440.080, and 18.440.110 relating to signs. Application made by The City of Overland Park. (Approved) Administrator of GIS/Zoning Enforcement Services Doug Johnson presented the Unified Development Ordinance Amendment, which includes amendments to Sections 18.110.560, 18.410.100, 18.440.080 and 18.440.110 relating to sign regulations. There are four different issues involved with the package staff developed. The first issue relates to commercial monument signs in the City. The second issue involves signs for office buildings that are one-story, similar to a strip retail center where every tenant has their own entry and façade space. The third issue involves definition of a sign and how closely sign elements need to be spaced to one another to be read and treated as a single sign opposed to multiple signs. The fourth issue is an amendment to the section on sign criteria approval that involves wall signs and encourages individual letters. The first issue concerning monument signs became an issue due to an action by the City Council in July of 2007 where they enacted a moratorium on commercial signs, which are project identification signs that include a listing of tenants. The Council s concern was that the quality and creativity that was included in those types of signs was less than what they thought was appropriate. This type of sign included many different types of tenant information that was not well organized and multiple fonts or colors were used. The Council did not feel their current sign regulations were stringent enough to ensure that attractive signs are obtained to match with what they felt were attractive projects in the City, and they needed to strengthen the City s monument sign regulations and the issue of tenant listings. Staff began looking at what other Johnson County communities do in regard to signage. Page 9 of the staff report highlights where the other cities stand on this issue. Mr. Johnson felt there was not a great deal of consistency in what other cities do. Staff has had a number of meetings with the Ordinance Review Committee, the
Page 4 Community Development Committee, the sign companies and developers. The results of those meetings were that they determined it was easier to define what people liked than what they do not like. It has been difficult for staff to build a consensus on this topic. He presented a middle-ground approach considering all the ideas they have heard and the discussions. Mr. Johnson explained that there were five key changes being proposed for monument signs. The first is an organizational issue where they will look at all the regulations that involve monument signs to identify a project and consolidate them into a single section to provide more consistency throughout all the different development types. Monument signs that identify a single commercial business, such as a gas station or a single office building are not covered by what is being presented today. What is being covered are signs that identify an entire project, such as an office park or shopping center, not a single business. Secondly, staff has come up with a sliding scale with respect to project size. The number, size and height of signs vary depending upon the size of the project instead of having one sign size to fit every development. The three size requirements relating to a shopping center are less than 150,000 square feet in floor area, which would be a neighborhood type center; 150,000 to 500,000 square feet of floor area, which would be a community center, such as the Rosanna Square; and more than one-half million square feet of floor area, which would be the regional type shopping center developments, such Oak Park Mall and Corbin Park developments. Sign requirements for the small retail centers will become more restrictive than they currently are, and the sign height and size is smaller than what they would be allowed today. The middle category requirements are about the same as what they are today, and the upper category has a little more flexibility than the current requirements for small retail centers. The third issue involves tenant information. Tenant information would only be allowed for shopping centers, but not allowed in a business park nor an office park. Mr. Johnson pointed out that he was referring to the project identification sign where each individual building in an office park can have a small monument sign in front of the building with tenant information as they currently do. Another issue staff is working on is the enforcement of some consistency in the tenant information that is displayed for a shopping center. Staff is proposing that developers have a choice of either a listing of tenant names or a display of tenant logos, but not both. When staff discussed this issue with the sign companies and developers, they expressed interest in making sure tenant information could be displayed, because that information is key to their leasing arrangements and to the building people are trying to find while driving down the street. They would tend to look for a particular business name, and not as much for the name of a shopping center. Keeping this kind of information organized was the challenge staff spent a lot of time trying to determine. If there is a listing of tenant information, the requirement would be that the letter size would have little variability if there is a single scheme for letter color and font, as defined for major tenants and minor tenants. The other option is to provide logos, and they would have to predefine areas that would contain each logo. The logo would not be allowed to be more than 60 percent of the width or height of that predefined area. Although there would be individualized logos, they would be spaced out in a grid on the sign. The advantage is to obtain some white space that would separate the various logos. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the issue with logos is that
Page 5 they are very recognizable, but are highly unique. The same kind of uniformity cannot be forced with logos as with a listing of tenant names. These are the two options staff provided for tenant information. If the goal is to maximize the amount of tenants listed, the text listing of the names would likely be preferred, but the logo option may be desirable from a business recognition point of view. Mr. Johnson referred to the fourth issue, which is project identification signs that would require Planning Commission review as part of the sign criteria that is somewhat implied in the current ordinance, but not made explicit that if a monument sign is desired, it must be part of their sign criteria package and reviewed by the Planning Commission. In addition to the regulatory portion of the ordinance, staff is trying to create an incentive for developers to apply for what is called an expanded sign identification package. To qualify for this package, the applicant would have to show they have gone above and beyond the minimums and provided something more exceptional in nature. Staff will try to define, to some degree, what that criteria would include, but it is difficult to define exceptional. This requirement will relate to the way the sign package ties in with the overall development, the architecture of the center, landscaping, and the creative use of materials and other amenities on the site. If the developer is willing to provide this criteria, then there are some additional incentives in terms of the number of signs, which will allow one monument sign per entry that are smaller than what would otherwise be allowed, but more of them are allowed. Some flexibility is allowed in terms of the way the sign size is calculated. Currently the sign size is calculated upon the single rectangle size containing all the sign elements. Some more creative sign shapes might be submitted. They are also allowing the logo or some identifying graphic to be repeated as a design element throughout a center. The logo concept has been used successfully in a number of other developments around the metropolitan area, and this is a way for a developer to create an image or brand for their center and to repeat that logo as a design element throughout the project. Mr. Johnson explained that the second issue involves office signs. He noted that the office market has begun to construct more one-story buildings with each office tenant having their own space. The current sign regulations address signs per building, not signs per tenant in an office setting. This regulation has been modified to allow one sign per tenant in an office building where there is an exterior entry for each tenant space. The third issue involves the way staff defines signs. The current ordinance allows a separation of up to one-third of the sign width, depth or height, in order for all the sign type of elements to be considered a single sign. If there is a large sign on a large façade, that sign could end up yielding large amounts of separation between the sign elements and to a point where staff thinks it would lose its effectiveness. An actual distance is being defined that states if there are multiple elements that are all desired to be included as a single sign, the spacing cannot be more than five feet apart so there are no large separations between sign elements. This definition applies to horizontal and vertical separation. The other modification involves signs that will have a primary message and a secondary message. Staff has created some distinctions dealing with the size of the secondary element to ensure it remains in scale with the primary message of the sign.
Page 6 The fourth issue deals with sign criteria. Staff is recommending the sign criteria section be modified to encourage developers and owners to produce individual letters opposed to cabinet type signs. An option will be allowed for the Planning Commission to approve some alternate options to individual letters, but the default will be individual letters for wall signs, which is the current norm. Mr. Johnson stated that staff did not predetermine how the modifications should proceed. He felt public comment should be gathered at this time so they can decide if this is an issue they are ready to move forward to the City Council, or if the Planning Commission wants to offer specific ideas or guidance to incorporate into any revisions of the ordinances before they move forward. Mr. Flanagan asked if the existing signage would be grandfathered. Mr. Johnson agreed and stated that the modifications of the ordinances would only apply to new signs that are erected in the future. Existing signs would remain until they are replaced. Mr. Hill referred to the signs that have been approved in the past for commercial developments, and noted that there was a great amount of debate on a QuikTrip sign that included a red awning in the front. One of the concerns debated was the field or the backdrop on which the sign was applied, which can also read as a sign if it is carefully and strategically placed. The red awning in the QuikTrip case really functioned as a corporate identity opposed to the very small Q and T lettering silkscreened onto the awning. Mr. Johnson stated that there were a number of businesses that fall into that category, such as BlockBuster where they have a very distinctive awning shape that they typically run along the entire frontage of their building. The distinction line of what is a design element of the building and what is a sign element tends to fade. This issue has not changed the way the City identified that issue. There is a more clear-cut definition of a monument sign, because the only two pieces that exist are a base that is not counted and the remainder of the sign that has the elements placed on it. If there is a backlit canopy where light is able to be transmitted through the canopy, then the entire surface area is counted as a sign. If there is a limited area where the entire canopy is not backlit or is not lit at night, then the sign elements alone are counted. He encouraged signs and final plans to be considered more closely together instead of as two separate topics. Mr. Hill referred to corporate architecture stating some of that signage clearly stands out, such as the red roof on Pizza Hut, or the big wedge on Best Buy stores. He felt one of the issues they deal with on the Site Plan Review Committee is trying to tone down those examples of corporate architecture. If the architecture of the building goes beyond its function and begins to become an attention-getting device, he felt they had crossed the line. Mr. Collins referred to office signs and noted that an application came before the Planning Commission that was located on the northwest corner of 151st Street and Antioch. He stated that the primary facility was divided into quadrants representing four tenants and all of the tenants are listed on all four sides of the building. He asked what the proposed ordinance would do for that type of facility. Mr. Johnson recalled that project and explained that staff decided to pull the multiple signs together so that they were side by side, and the three listings become defined as a single sign on one façade. The proposed ordinance would allow that signage to be split apart so that each sign would be directly above the actual tenant space in that
Page 7 building where that business is located. He felt this design would make the relationship between the sign and the business location much more direct. He also noted that a couple of sign deviations were granted to allow people to do what the proposed ordinances are proposing. It allows signs to be directly located in front of or directly attached to the business façade of the business it is advertising. Mr. Collins asked if the building is divided into four quadrants so that each tenant has two facades whether the ordinance would allow those tenants to have two signs with one sign on each façade directly adjacent to their office. Mr. Johnson stated that the ordinance would limit that type of tenant to a single sign. In the retail district, one sign per business facade is allowed, and someone having a corner location could receive two signs. In the referenced office district, they are allowed one sign related directly to their business. Building identification signs are still allowed in addition to that one allowed sign. The additional sign for each tenant is a single sign, and the business can choose the side of the building they want their sign to be located. Mr. Tom Lance referred to the sign staff displayed and asked how that size could be determined. Mr. Johnson stated that sign is a single rectangle sign containing all of the sign elements. Chair Sorensen opened the public hearing. Mr. Jerry Kleveter, 1255 North Winchester, Olathe, stated that when they are working with major tenants they would be very critical about changing the letter style. He suggested allowing a business to keep their letter style, because it is sacred to that business owner. Ms. Cindy Green, Kansas City Regional Association of Realtors, 11150 Overbrook, Leawood, stated that they have been working on this issue since last fall and she favored many of the components proposed. However, she expressed concern regarding the fact that they will not allow business owners to use their logo or their letter style that they have spent a lot of money on, because that is what contributes to helping someone find and locate their business. She agreed with the office building signage allowance that will allow one sign per tenant, as well as the elements for the commercial development area. Upon receiving no further comment, Chair Sorensen closed the public hearing. Mr. Reitzes, one of the Ordinance Review Committee members, stated that in some respects working with signage is a very difficult issue to determine, because there are many complexities and technicalities involved. He felt staff had done a good job of dealing with the various signage issues based upon the material staff developed. He noted that there were very many issues the Ordinance Review Committee considered. He felt there was a give and take between having a framework and requirements and at the same time building sufficient flexibility into the process so that the public needs are met. They are dealing with changing times, and the process needs to allow for some adaptation to changes. He felt staff effectively put together the required elements with respect to monument signs, office signs, sign elements and sign criteria that will create a very solid ordinance with respect to signage.
Page 8 Mr. Lance agreed with Mr. Reitzes comments and felt staff had done a good job in dealing with the signage issue. He asked staff to respond to the comments made by Mr. Kleveter. Mr. Johnson stated that the comments made by Mr. Kleveter had also been expressed by others in the sign community. He felt it was very difficult to strike a balance between the Council s preference of not wanting signage clutter where each tenant adds their own details to the sign and the developer and sign companies who have to deal with the tenants. Each of the tenants feels they need to have their unique sign and font or colors in order for their business to be recognized. Staff has had to work with this balance of the two interests that are not very compatible. A number of different options were reviewed, such as not allowing any tenant information, limiting the number of tenants to a fixed number, not allowing any logos, and a combination of some of these components. He felt staff developed a good compromise, but not all tenants will be happy with that decision. Mr. Hill felt the proposed compromise staff and the Ordinance Review Committee developed provides a good compromise. He understood that a company has a corporate identity only by using text of a certain font that they have patented. He felt staff s proposal gives retailers and shopping center owners the ability to respond to those individual tenants if it is important to them to maintain a specific font style or particular color in a word, then they may go to a tenant logo option. However, they would forego the opportunity to list more tenants on a more uniform sign on the tenant listing. Mrs. Janie Thacker understood the signage issue was very complex. She referred to logos and asked if there is a factor to be considered when the major tenant is the developer and their name becomes a component of the sign and if the remaining tenants would be relegated to using text or logos, which give the advantage to the major developer. Another issue involved corporate logos that incorporate the actual business name, such as Best Buy or McDonalds. She asked how those types of issues would be addressed with some of the tenants and whether there was an equal way to deal with this issue. She referred to signs on office buildings and asked how the placement of the individual occupant s signs would be regulated relative to the building signage. Mr. Johnson referred to the office building that would qualify for individual tenant signs stating each tenant would have its own exterior tenant façade meaning the space has to extend to the exterior wall, and the sign would have to be placed on that exterior wall surface associated with that specific tenant space. This is the same way retail signs are handled currently. Mr. Johnson referred to the logo issue and explained that there were some businesses that have a unique way of writing out the name of their business, which staff is not restricting in the logo option. Staff is only requiring the logo to be a registered trademark of that business, whether it is text or a graphic. He felt it would be possible for a developer to name a center after one of the major tenants, and they would receive the top space on the monument sign outlining the largest space. That option is not being prohibited, and he noted that it was nearly impossible to regulate what a developer will name their center.
Page 9 Mr. John Brake agreed with Mr. Reitzes comments that there were many difficult issues to address. He felt the balance created by staff was a compromise between benefiting the tenant and business involved, which is one of the reasons the sign review was done. He felt they took a compromised position by allowing logos and staying with uniformity on the tenant listing signs. He felt staff made good decisions in their development of the ordinance. He expressed concern with the issue of how many tenants can be recognized on a sign. Basing the size of the sign on the size of the facility, he felt was the best way to address the issue. He felt the signs for the tenants listing not only serve as a benefit to the tenant, but to a member of the community who is trying to find the business. The issue also becomes a safety issue if a person trying to find a business might cause traffic problems while driving down the street. Mr. Collins referred to Page 12E of staff s report where it refers to letter height for a tenant list shall be a minimum of 6 inches, and he felt the distinction may be made between major and minor tenants if such a distinction is defined in the sign criteria for a shopping center. He referred to Macy s and JC Penney s that are located at the Oak Park Mall and asked if the Planning Commission would have to vote on the design criteria for that mall. Mr. Johnson agreed. Mr. Collins asked if the Planning Commission could approve such design criteria that would allow Macy s to have their distinctive name and JC Penney s with their distinctive font. Mr. Johnson stated that the current wording of the ordinance would allow only for Macy s and JC Penney s to use larger letters, but the font and color would have to be consistent for all of the tenants on the sign. The ordinance would not allow distinctive letter styles to be used based on major and minor tenants, but that option could be a possibility if the Planning Commission wanted to allow that option. Major tenants could be allowed flexibility on size and style of the sign. Mr. Gadd referred to the font size used in a sign and suggested the wording for font size be limited to the same font type family, and not the same font. Mr. Reitzes moved to recommend approval to the Council of Unified Development Ordinance Amendment to amend Unified Development Ordinance Sections 18.110.560, 18.410.100, 18.440.080, and 18.440.110 relating to signs. Mr. Brake seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 11 to 0. REZONING NO. 2007-25 Vicinity of the southeast corner of 159th Street and Antioch. Rezoning requested from RUR-J, Rural District, Johnson County, to CP-2, Planned General Business District, CP-O, Planned Office Building District, RP-6, Planned High-Rise Apartment District, and PRN, Planned Residential Neighborhood District, to allow an office and commercial development and mixed density residential neighborhoods. Application made by Price Brothers Development. (Continued) Chair Sorensen announced that Rezoning No. 2007-25 and Special Use Permit No. 2007-33 were related and would be heard concurrently. Senior Planner Keith Gooch presented Rezoning No. 2007-25 and the related Special Use Permit No. 2007-33 located on the southeast corner of 159th Street and Antioch. The rezoning is requested for CP-2, Planned General Business District, CP-O, Planned Office Building District, RP-6, Planned High-Rise Apartment District, and PRN,
Page 10 Planned Residential Neighborhood District to allow an office and commercial development and mixed density residential neighborhoods. The current zoning is RURJ, Rural District Johnson County. Special Use Permit No. 2007-33 is a request to allow a hospital and related medical facilities. Mr. Gooch presented a vicinity map for Rezoning No. 2007-25, which outlines the breakdown of the different zoning districts. The surrounding land use includes U.S. 69 Highway on the east side; a utility on the north side; cluster housing north of 159th Street; and a church located at the northeast corner of 159th Street and Antioch. There is a single-family residential development located at the northwest corner of 159th Street and Antioch that is currently under construction. There are some single-family homes located at the southwest corner of 159th Street and Antioch located on large lots, Blue Valley West High School and Blue Valley Middle School, and single-family zoning south of 165th Street that is proposed for the future. There is existing single-family development on the southwest corner of 167th Street and Antioch, as well as to the south of 167th Street on larger lots. Mr. Gooch presented the special use permit location for the hospital, which is located in the middle of the rezoning application. He presented Master Plan Study 2004-2 that includes 45 acres of mixed use with a combination of office, retail and residential uses. The remainder of the site was shown as low density residential and medium density residential along U.S. 69 Highway. There are collector streets shown through the development, which will be changed as part of the proposed application. The proposed application will apply to four zoning districts and a special use permit. The CP-2 portion of the site totals 1,130,121 square feet with an office portion totaling 417,300 square feet. The RP-6 zoning is for 600 units in four buildings, and the PRN, Planned Residential Neighborhood District is for 303 units. The special use permit for the hospital will have 400 beds and 940,000 square feet. Mr. Gooch presented the overall site plan that was submitted by the applicant. He pointed out the CP-2 zoning boundaries, which will be an outdoor walking mall. Total parking spaces on the site are 4,667 spaces. There are three little pad sites located at the corner of 159th Street and Antioch, but more of these details will be discussed at the final development plan stage. There is a central courtyard that will be provided. Some of the concerns of the CP-2 portion involve the appearance of 159th Street, as well as along Antioch. He referred to the Commercial Design Guidelines noting it relates to having buildings located along the street edge. The only buildings in the proposal are located at the corner along 159th Street and Antioch. The applicant is proposing a 3-foot hedge/wall along 159th Street to focus on their street setback. There is a 100-foot setback along Antioch, and a stream corridor that will be enclosed, but the 100-foot setback that exists from the Antioch right-of-way will have landscaping and berms. The CP-O zoning totals 417,330 square feet, which includes six different pad sites that are labeled Pod B through Pod G. Pod B is located at the northeast corner of the second drive south of 159th Street along Antioch. Pod C is located at the southeast corner of the second drive south of 159th Street along Antioch. Pod D is located at the northeast corner of the southern drive along Antioch. Pod E is located at the southeast portion of the site. Pod F is located to the east of the multi-family buildings and to the north of the proposed hospital. Pod G is located more centrally to the site
Page 11 south of the hospital. Those six pods have the exact amount of required parking for each pod required by the UDO for the CP-O districts totaling 3.8 parking spaces per 1,000 feet. The RP-6 zoning is shown in the middle of the site to the south of the CP-2 zoning. There are a total of four buildings in the RP-6 zoned area, and each building lines an internal parking garage. There are streets that divide the buildings between each parking garage with some parking provided on those streets. There is also an internal courtyard between two buildings, as well as a courtyard internal to Building C. This area has a total of 600 units. On the 15.9 acres, the applicant will receive a density bonus of 29.4 percent on the RP-6 zoning, which was recommended by the Site Plan Review Committee. The remainder of the site has a planned residential neighborhood district on the southwest corner of the stream corridor. There are a total of 303 units in this area on 72 acres, which is a total density of 4.2 units per acre. As required by the PRN district, the applicant is providing three different housing styles, which consist of Cottage homes that will be located on the north side of the PRN district on the southern entrance off Antioch. Then at the southeast corner of the PRN district, there are a total of 73 units out of the 303 units. There are 109 Carriage homes, which are located off the Boulevard entrance into the PRN zoning off 167th Street. There are no homes that front this street, but there are frontage roads that the Carriage homes will be facing. There are 20-foot wide asphalt alleys between the Cottage homes, as well as the Carriage homes. There will be 50 feet between the Carriage homes, which allows for some parking behind the garage doors, since there is a minimal amount of visitor parking. There are a total of 121 villa lots with some small pocket parks, which are similar to existing single-family homes seen in southern Overland Park. There is a pool clubhouse located on the perimeter adjacent to the stream corridor, which totals 2,800 square feet. Mr. Gooch referred to the overall hospital plan noting it was a 940,000-square-foot, 400-bed hospital that includes a parking garage at the northwest corner of the hospital. There are a total of 2,395 parking spaces of which 1,200 are in the parking garage. The only access to the hospital will be from the north through the commercial area. All the streets in the PRN district are public, except for the alleys, which are private. The public streets are located along the stream corridor on the west side that go over to Antioch. Everything in the CP-2 zoning and the hospital have private drives that will be maintained by the owners association. Mr. Gooch displayed a picture of the stream corridor that runs through the site stating the applicant plans to maintain that corridor. There is usually a 100-foot wide strip that runs along U.S. 69 Highway for the hike/bike trail, and the Parks and Recreation Department has agreed for that trail to be located along the north side of 159th Street. The hike/bike trail would go through the stream corridor down to the 167th Street and U.S. 69 Highway interchange. Senior Traffic Engineer Mark Stuecheli referred to Page 22 of the staff report noting a table that shows trip generation estimates from the proposed site compared to what is shown on the Master Plan. Most of the comparisons made are from an existing base of 300,000 square feet of retail, 200,000 square feet of office, and over 1,000 multifamily units and 418 single-family units. He referred to the table noting there was a major increase over the already existing substantial base in terms of the number of
Page 12 trips on a daily basis. Those same numbers are also very significant in the p.m. peak hour. Staff had asked the applicant to review the normal situation of what exists and what would happen when their project was built with today s traffic. He referred to Table No. 2, Page 24, stating that if the signalized intersections that were studied were taken into consideration, there was no major concern. He pointed out that the area is not heavily developed, and the areas that are developed to the west and north are predominantly very low density or low density residential. This is not an area that has a lot of existing intensity or planned development to the west, which would have a big impact on the results that staff reviewed. Another major consideration is that the projected numbers assume that the 159th Street and U.S. 69 Highway interchange is in place by the time the proposed project is substantially developed. At this time, the City is working on detailed construction plans for that interchange, but the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) only includes the construction of 159th Street from Antioch to Metcalf, but does not include the interchange project at 159th Street and U.S. 69 Highway. The interchange by itself is a $30 million project. He pointed out that staff did not develop an analysis without the interchange project at 159th Street and U. S. 69 Highway, because the numbers would not work out. However, the applicant had indicated that their project will not happen unless that interchange is built to provide the necessary access to serve the development. Some areas of minor concern on the existing development include the unsignalized intersections, four-way stops or other potential improvements that will allow those to work adequately even with the project being developed. The issue staff had with the site is focused on the information shown on Table No. 3, which shows two different scenarios in a twenty- to thirty-year projection. Staff is seeing some intersections with delays in the service level of E or F range. The City typically accepts or considers a service level of D to be a desirable scenario. Table No. 3 shows a couple of locations including what is already master planned and future growth that staff anticipates would have a service level of E. Those same intersections would be worsened in the future to a certain extent by the proposed project. Most of those intersections are located further away from the site, and there is no tremendous impact by the proposed project. The areas that are most significantly impacted would be three intersections, including 159th Street and Switzer, 159th Street and Antioch, and 167th Street and Lowell, which show very significant increases comparing the proposed project to the current Master Plan situation. Based on this information, staff does not support the proposed project. Mr. Stuecheli pointed out all of the significant improvements to be made or soon to be made in the proposed site where Antioch is assumed to be six lanes, as well as Metcalf, 159th Street, 167th Street and U.S. 69 interchange plus the construction of the 159th Street interchange. These significant improvements resulting from the proposed project would mostly impact the land that comes in from the west, because that land use is lower intensity and would not develop a lot of traffic trips. The traffic study is showing that there are delays they consider to be longer than desirable, but it is nothing like what would happen if they try to insert the proposed project on 119th Street or 135th Street, which already has a large amount of existing traffic. He offered to answer questions. Principal Engineer Kirk Coonley presented the environmental impacts stating the site had seven stream corridors that comprise about 17 percent of the land area.
Page 13 Approximately two-thirds of the stream corridors will be preserved and one-third of them are proposed to be eliminated. Due to that elimination, deviations are required. Detention is proposed on the site above and below ground. At this point, staff only has the gross findings required, and not any further details on the detention have been obtained. The Corps of Engineers permit is also required on the site, which the applicant has applied for, and the public comment period for that permit process is being closed. Staff felt there would be no major changes to the site plan due to the Corps of Engineers requirements. Mr. Coonley stated that the major stream corridor to be preserved is Tributary 40, which is the main corridor that starts from Antioch and goes to the southeast corner near 167th Street and U.S. 69 Highway. This is almost a mile long, but the applicant proposes to preserve almost that entire corridor. The main corridor will also be used for mitigation of impacts to meet the Corps of Engineers permit requirements. The applicant also proposes to provide further enhancement of the corridor over its existing condition; however, staff had not received any specific details about that enhancement at this time. Mr. Coonley stated that the stream corridors that are proposed to be eliminated are Tributary A, which is in the northwest corner of the site adjacent to Antioch and is a little more than one quarter of a mile long. This is a corridor that staff has consistently requested be preserved since the very beginning of this project and also during the project that was previously proposed for this site. Staff feels it could be an effective buffer to Antioch and the development on the west side. Staff also feels the main reason this corridor is being eliminated is due to the density of the project and that there are other ways to address and preserve that corridor. Tributary B is located in the north central portion of the site, which is the heart of the retail area proposed by the applicant. Since the applicant is attempting to make a pedestrian friendly environment, it would be very difficult to maintain that stream corridor and still provide the massing that is the main focus of this development. The third corridor being eliminated is located on the southwest side of Tributary 40, which is the smallest corridor being eliminated. The area could probably be compensated by making small additions to the Tributary 40 corridor. The last corridor being eliminated is on the southeast corner at about 167th Street, and, as with Tributary A, would also serve as a buffer to 167th Street and development to the south. This corridor also appears to be eliminated mainly to accommodate a denser development. This buffer could be preserved with less than an acre of additional land devoted to the stream corridor. Staff recommends denial of a request for a deviation on Tributary A, and that the Planning Commission consider not granting deviations for the remaining three stream corridors, particularly Tributary F. Mr. Coonley stated that the Planning Commission should understand that if any of the stream corridor deviations are denied, a revision to the plan would be required. He noted that 2.7 million cubic feet of detention was proposed on the site in a combination of above and underground detention. He felt there was another alternative that staff has brought to the attention of the developer, which is to make an alternative improvement down stream that would eliminate the need for detention on the site, but the developer has not responded at this point. If this option is pursued, it would free up a lot more space on site for alternative uses.
Page 14 That alternative would involve making improvements at the 167th Street and Antioch interchange. Mr. Coonley stated that staff, the applicant, and the Corps of Engineers met on January 11, 2008, at which time they learned there were four issues that had been raised in the public comment period. The first issue involved ground water threatening plant life, culture resources, and stream impacts. After discussion with the applicant and the Corps of Engineers, staff believes that the resolution of all four of those issues will not result in any major change to the site plan. Staff will require by stipulation that a copy of the Corps of Engineers permit be furnished to staff prior to final development plans so they know what conditions the Corps will place on the development. Currently the proposed site is exempt from storm water treatment; however, if substantial changes occur after June 1, 2009, staff will have to require compliance of the storm water requirements. He offered to answer questions. Mr. Gooch referred to the elevations submitted by the applicant noting they are some of the commercial main street elevations the applicant provided to staff. He referred to the office buildings noting the applicant is proposing one, two, and three-story office buildings. He provided the hospital aerial view and some of the office development attached to the hospital. The PRN home styles were also presented. The appearance of 159th Street looking back toward the southwest at one of the entrances off 159th Street has a wall/berm that runs along the frontage of 159th Street. The Site Plan Review Committee met to discuss this application several times and requested numerous changes to the plan including the CP-2, CP-O and PRN zonings. The majority of those requested changes have been made, but there are still some more revisions that the Site Plan Review Committee has agreed to wait until the final development plan to review. However, the Site Plan Review Committee voted on and agreed to a density bonus of 29.4 percent that the applicant would need to achieve to allow the 600 units. The applicant requested 6.1 percent for usable common open space; 20 percent for attached garages; 2 percent for transom on front doors; and 2 percent for chimneys with masonry totaling a 30.1 percent density bonus. The apartments surround internal garages that have a three-story parking lot/garage and are attached to the apartments. Mr. Gooch referred to the concerns staff has on the application and presented the Master Plan Study 2004-2, which includes 45 acres of mixed use and the remaining is medium density and low density residential uses. There is a total of about 500,000 square feet of mixed use, with 300,000 square feet of retail, and 200,000 square feet of office that was provided in that review in 2004 with a total of 1,093 multi-family units and 418 single-family residential units. There was a decrease of about 493 multifamily units and about 115 single-family units, but the non-residential uses shown were 500,000 square feet. There is over 1.5 million square feet of non-residential uses on the plan as proposed, which is a substantial increase and is one of the issues staff is concerned about with this application. Other concerns involve the appearance of the commercial plan along 159th Street and Antioch. Staff asked the applicant numerous times to investigate the possibility of parking garages and to potentially pull the buildings out close to 159th Street or at Antioch, as well as provide some angle parking. Parallel parking currently exists along the internal drives, and the applicant prefers not to change that parking. Another issue is parking lots. The Commercial Design Guidelines request that parking lots be broken up into parking spaces of no more than 40. Staff is trying to minimize that number, but feels this issue will be
Page 15 more appropriately worked out at the final development stage when they have more users. This plan could be changed numerous times if it is approved depending upon the tenants that will go into the site. The amount of commercial square footage that is approved or proposed in the area includes the Wal-Mart at the northwest corner of 159th Street and Metcalf, and at the northeast corner of 159th Street and Metcalf there is 178,390 square feet approved with only a bank and a day-care facility constructed on the site. At the southeast corner of 159th Street and Metcalf there is a total of 417,997 square feet proposed, which was turned down and recommended for denial in January that will go before the Council on March 3, 2008. There is approximately 150,000 square feet of Master Planned commercial at the southwest corner of 159th Street and Metcalf. Staff recommended denial of Rezoning No. 2007-25 based on the land use issue, as well as the environmental transportation concerns. Staff provided stipulations a through ll, and revised stipulations m, n, o, and ll, if the Planning Commission finds the project acceptable. Staff does not oppose a hospital being located at the proposed site; however, it is tied to Rezoning No. 2007-25. If the rezoning is turned down, it would be difficult to approve a hospital at the site when the major issues with that would be access. Staff recommended the Planning Commission consider the same action for Rezoning No. 2007-25 and Special Use Permit No. 2007-33. Stipulations a through t accompany Special Use Permit No. 2007-33. He offered to answer questions. Mr. Flanagan asked how this project would compare to other regional shopping centers, such as Corbin Park, Oak Park Mall and Town Center Plaza. Mr. Gooch noted that most of those regional projects are about one million square feet. Mr. Flanagan referred to the traffic studies, stating the analyses showed there would be no problems from a traffic standpoint. However, staff later noted that due to the density of the entire project, the Transportation Department was not recommending approval of the project. He only saw one area with a service level of F on the study at 159th Street and Metcalf. Mr. Stuecheli stated that staff was concerned about the existing development conditions, as well as what would occur 20 to 30 years in the future. He explained that the level of service goes from A through F, and E is similar to F. He noted that the extra category E includes more of a gradual transition of traffic delays, and F is generally considered a situation where capacity is totally exceeded and includes major delays. A service level E situation is where they are approaching traffic capacity, and there are delays that are considered to be longer than desired. He noted that staff has not supported projects in the past that have an E service level, because it can lead to major capacity problems. Staff considers this project to be beyond the normal levels of delay they would like to see. Mr. Flanagan asked about the six-lane increase on Antioch and on Metcalf. Mr. Stuecheli stated that there would be three lanes in each direction. The reason for the lane increase was based upon their projections of growth anticipated in the long term. What happens is the north/south streets will start picking up the load of traffic, and the parallel routes will start carrying traffic that would normally be on U.S. 69 Highway. The east/west traffic at the interchange areas is also very substantial, and staff shows there would be a need for three lanes of through traffic in each direction on those streets. Staff feels things are working well now, but the added substantial component of more intense development will start to cause some undesirable delays. Mr. Flanagan referred to Attachment A, which includes the tributaries and asked if the City was recommending they not eliminate tributary A, but keep Tributary 40. He felt