OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. November 10, 2008

Transcription

1 OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 10, 2008 The Overland Park Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Mrs. Kim Sorensen, Chair. The following members were present, constituting a quorum: Mr. Richard Collins, Vice Chair; Mrs. Janie Thacker; Mr. Edward Ned Reitzes; Mr. George Lund; Mr. John Brake; Mr. Bob Gadd; Mr. David M. Hill; and Mr. Mike Flanagan. Mr. Steve Troester arrived at 3 p.m. Mr. Tom Lance was absent. Also present were: Mr. Bart Budetti, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Mrs. Leslie Karr, Current Planning Manager; Mr. Mark Stuecheli, Senior Transportation Planner; Mr. David Dalecky, Planner; Mr. Keith Gooch, Senior Planner; Ms. Danielle Zeigler, Planner; Mr. Aaron Dubois, Planning Technician; Ms. Pam Fortun, Civil Engineer II; Ms. Alysen Abel, Civil Engineer II; Mr. Jason Beske, Senior Planner; Mr. Tony Meyers, Supervisory Civil Engineer; Mr. Lloyd Nichols, Senior Help Desk Support Specialist; and Ms. Nancee Ellis, Recording Secretary. Approximately 25 people were in the audience. SELECTION OF NOMINATING COMMITTEE Chair Kim Sorensen relayed that the first item on today s agenda is a housekeeping issue. Because this is the first meeting in the month of November it is necessary to appoint a nominating committee to select a slate of officers for next year. She said she has asked Commissioners Mike Flanagan, George Lund, and Bob Gadd to serve on the nominating committee. Chair Sorensen advised that the nominating committee will come back to the Planning Commission as a whole at the first meeting in December to present the slate of officers for next year. Mrs. Janie Thacker moved for approval of the Planning Commission members chosen by Chair Sorensen to serve on the nominating committee. Mr. Dave Hill seconded the motion, which passed by a 9 to 0 vote, including the vote of Chair Sorensen who voted on all agenda items. Mr. Steve Troester had not yet arrived. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 8 and September 22, Mr. Gadd moved for approval of the September 8th Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented. Mr. Flanagan seconded the motion, which carried by a 9 to 0 vote. Mr. Flanagan moved for approval of the September 22nd Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented. Mrs. Thacker seconded the motion, which carried by a 9 to 0 vote.

2 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA (Approved items A, B, C, D, E, and G; Continued items F and I to the Planning Commission meeting of November 24, 2008; and item H to the Planning Commission meeting of December 8, 2008.) A. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Rosana Square Boardwalk Vicinity of the northwest corner of 119th Street and Metcalf. Application made by Andrew Schlagel. B. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Kentucky Fried Chicken 7006 West 75th Street. Application made by LEH Consultants. C. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL CORBIN CROSSING Vicinity of the southwest corner of 138th Street and Lamar. Application made by Polsinelli Shalton Flanigan Suelthaus, PC. D. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Building D Corbin Park Vicinity of the southeast corner of 135th Street and Metcalf. Application made by Polsinelli Shalton Flanigan Suelthaus, PC. E. FINAL PLAT NO Ranch Villas at Nall Hills Condominium Tract C Vicinity of the southeast corner of 102nd Street and Horton. Application made by Nall Hills Development, L.L.C. F. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Corbin Park Vicinity of the southeast corner of 135th Street and Metcalf. Application made by Polsinellli Shalton Flanigan Suelthaus, PC. G. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL T-Mobile Wireless Installation at St. Thomas Aquinas Pflumm. Application made by T-Mobile Central, L.L.C. H. FINAL PLAT NO Coffee Creek Crossing Fourth Plat Vicinity of the southwest corner of 167th Street and Switzer. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. I. SIGN CRITERIA Oak Park Mall Vicinity of the southeast corner of 95th Street and Quivira. Application made by CBL and Associates. Mrs. Thacker requested that item B be removed from the Consent Agenda. Mr. Flanagan moved for approval of Consent Agenda items A, C, D, E, and G. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lund, which passed by a 9 to 0 vote. With regard to item B, Mrs. Thacker asked for opinions from fellow Planning Commissioners concerning the elevations for this building. She had some concerns with the look and size of the panels on the south and east elevations in addition to three other panels on this building.

3 Page 3 Planner Danielle Ziegler explained that Mrs. Thacker was referring to the east and south elevations that served as signs for this restaurant. She stated that staff does not regulate sign content. Mrs. Thacker asked if the panels shown were lit. Ms. Zeigler replied that there is one light over each of the panels. Mrs. Thacker recalled there have been past applications that were denied where artwork has been requested on the side of buildings that were directly related to the services provided. She asked how these are being allowed. Ms. Zeigler replied that staff interpreted these panels as purely artwork or graphic panels. There are no words in them so they are not interpreted as signage. Staff liked the graphic panels because they offered relief on a wall from the two-tone brick. Mrs. Thacker stated that this is outdoor graphics which have been known to fade and not weather well. Mr. John Brake said he believed there were four signs shown, which would fall under the definition of wall signs, and he suggested the ordinance be reviewed to provide more clarity. Mr. Hill stated that there was a fine line in regulating content. He pointed out that the picture shown on the overhead has two different shades of red in it. He said one shade was unsightly, and he asked for assurance that shade would not be used. Ms. Zeigler concurred, adding that staff met with the applicant and informed them that color would not be a possibility. She said two colors of brick are being proposed to clad the outside of this existing building. The brick colors are intended to be the same as the neighboring Price Chopper. Mr. Flanagan clarified that there was no reason this application should have been sent to the Site Plan Review Committee. Ms. Zeigler concurred. Mr. Flanagan said he would be interested in hearing opinions from members of the Site Plan Review Committee from the standpoint he believed approval of this application would set a precedent. Mr. Gadd pointed out that in one of the panels he saw part of the word Kentucky, which represents a sign. He asked what material was used in the panels and how durable it would be over time. Mr. Leland Hix, owner and representative for this application, apologized that most of the questions raised could be better answered by the architect who was not present. Mr. Hix said the panels are fabric with a wear-proof warranty with regard to fading from the weather. He said the issue with part of the word Kentucky can be removed because these are customized graphics. Mrs. Thacker still had concerns about the panels not looking new over time, and asked if the applicant might consider a pseudo-type window for them. Mr. Hix replied that would be an option, and he knew it had been done at another store. Mr. Hill said if the applicant is willing to do that, combined with removing the partial word Kentucky from one of the panels, it would be a good compromise. He asked the applicant if he understood these types of encased panels would be set in flush with the brick, and Mr. Hix concurred.

4 Page 4 Mr. Brake read the definition of the sign ordinance as follows: Signs mean any service or object which is used to display which is fabricated to create words, numerals, figures, devices, designs, trademarks or logos. He said he failed to see how this situation does not fall under that definition. Current Planning Manager Leslie Karr commented that this is a fine line, adding that throughout the City there are businesses with logos or symbols that represent their business, and they use them in ways that are more architectural in nature, which staff does not regulate. Mrs. Karr understood Mr. Brake s point, but said staff believed in this instance that the panels were artistic in nature and provided good relief to the building. Mr. Brake understood how the panels add to the building; however, he believed they would require a deviation. Mr. Hill was comfortable with the applicant s concurrence that the wording shown in the graphics will be removed. Mr. Gadd wondered if the other symbols shown were universal and would be used in all of the company s other restaurants and asked if they would change periodically. Mr. Hix said the graphics are customized, adding that when spending $300,000 to $400,000 to upgrade the exterior of the building, the applicant does not intend to put anything offensive or unattractive on it. Mr. Hix clarified that the panels will not be a corporate identity but something that is uniquely different on every store. Mr. Flanagan considered the panels as an abstract piece of work since they are customized. He preferred that the applicant enclose the panels in a pseudo type window, similar to how the Target Store has done at 97th Street and Quivira. Mr. Ed Reitzes agreed with staff that this constitutes artwork rather than signage, and he did not believe the panels were meant to identify Kentucky Fried Chicken. As a member of the Site Plan Review Committee, Mr. Lund stated that the panels are on the east side and tend to break up the long building. He did not mind the graphics after being modified as discussed. Mr. Hill moved for approval if Final Development Plan Approval for Kentucky Fried Chicken, 7006 West 75th Street, with stipulations a and b and with the requirement that the panels be set into the wall similar to the Target Store near the Oak Park Mall and that any wording be removed from the graphics as discussed. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Thacker. Mr. Richard Collins appreciated the effort the applicant has made in trying to offer a plan that is appealing to the eye and to break up a long facade. He said this issue has been confronted in the past. Some examples were The Bank of Medicine Lodge at 135th Street and Riley where the façade showed an Indian chief built into the wall and the Gordon Biersch Brewery at Corbin Park that used an embedded treatment on their façade as well. The elements used in these instances are embedded into the walls and become part of the architectural feature of the buildings. In this case, he said the panels are similar to a sign that can be changed out, which concerns him. Mr. Collins said he could not support the motion.

5 Page 5 Mr. Hill said Mr. Collins makes a good point. He explained that his motion was made with the understanding that the graphics approved by staff would be the graphics to be used. He clarified from staff that Target has the flexibility to change the content inside the glass as long as the content consists of products Target sells. Mrs. Karr did not recall there were any limitations on Target or on any signage a retailer displays on the inside of glass because the City does not regulate that as signage. The motion passed by a 6 to 3 vote. Opposed to the motion was Mr. Brake, Mr. Gadd and Mr. Collins. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO Vicinity of the southwest corner of 144th Street and Antioch. Special use permit requested for a ten-year period of time to allow a communication tower. This property is currently zoned A-J, Agricultural District, Johnson County. Application made by Selective Site Consultants, Inc. Ms. Zeigler relayed that T-Mobile is requesting approval to locate a cell tower at the existing Kansas City Power and Light (KCP&L) Oxford Substation. She said the Planning Commission considered this item on September 22, 2008, at which time one concern of public hearing speakers related to the height of the tower. Ms. Zeigler said the applicant originally proposed a 120-foot tower; however, the Planning Commission voted 11 to 0 to recommend approval of a 100-foot tower for a five-year period of time. The City Council considered this application on October 20, 2008, voting 7 to 2 to approve the Commission s recommendation along with an added stipulation requiring a landscape plan showing landscaping around the equipment enclosure. She said for the City Council to add that stipulation would have required nine affirmative votes; however, there were only seven. Therefore, this item was remanded back to the Planning Commission to consider the addition of that stipulation. Ms. Zeigler advised that staff has provided that addition as stipulation e to read: As part of a final development plan application, a landscape plan providing landscaping around the equipment enclosure shall be submitted. Ms. Zeigler stated that since the City Council meeting the applicant has provided a concept landscape plan. She understood that the applicant and the neighbors met recently and additional trees and berms were discussed. Those additional landscape features could be shown on the landscape plan submitted as part of the required final development plans for this application. Staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit No , for a five-year period of time, subject to stipulations a through e. Ms. Zeigler advised that prior to the City Council meeting, staff added stipulation d that limits the tower height to 100 feet, which is consistent with previous Planning Commission discussion. Mr. Flanagan asked if the Planning Commission s recommendation would be for the entire special use permit for a 100-foot tower or for only the addition of stipulation e with regard to the landscape plan. Senior Assistant City Attorney Bart Budetti replied that the Planning Commission will be considering the entire special use permit, including stipulation e.

6 Page 6 Mr. Curtis Holland, Polsinelli Shalton Flanigan Suelthaus, PC, said the applicant is proposing to construct an eight-foot masonry wall on two sides of the tower to help screen the equipment at the base of it, as well as provide some additional trees and shrubs in the field. Mr. Holland said the applicant has met with neighbors several times and with KCP&L in regard to providing additional screening and perhaps a berm. Mr. Holland was unsure he agreed with Mr. Budetti with regard to what the Planning Commission is voting on today. He said the City Council remanded this matter back to the Planning Commission to consider the addition of stipulation e. He recalled that previously the Planning Commission did not believe a landscaping plan was necessary. He did not want to see a recommendation for denial because the Commission was voting against the landscaping portion, when in fact the Commission voted favorably for the facility previously. He stated that the applicant had no problem with including the landscaping as requested by the City Council, and he asked that this item be re-recommended for approval with stipulation e included. Mr. Flanagan stated that when this item was previously considered, he did not see the need for the applicant to spend money landscaping around the entire facility, because he did not believe anyone could see it. He noted that the KCP&L facility is not screened, which he saw as more offensive than the proposed tower. Mr. Collins asked if it was Mr. Holland s understanding that the landscaping is to be only around the eight-foot high wall surrounding this pole or is it supposed to be all the way around the chain-link fence. Mr. Holland understood the landscaping was to be used only around the base and not around the fence. Mr. Collins asked if Mr. Holland recalled how the remand by the City Council was worded with regard to stipulation e. Mr. Holland said much discussion took place about the proposal itself, and the majority of the Council agreed it would be appropriate to approve the special use permit. Towards the end of the discussion, he said a Councilmember suggested that perhaps some landscaping should be added to help screen the base and break up the wall. Staff s response was that as relayed in Planning Commission Staff Comments, if the Commission felt that was needed, it could be added in the final plan application. He said the addition of stipulation e by the Council required nine affirmative votes, but with a vote of 7 to 2, the item had to be remanded back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Gadd asked if any trees were anticipated to be removed with the construction of this pole. Mr. Holland did not believe there is a need to do that. Should a tree need to be removed Mr. Gadd asked if it would be replaced with a like tree. Mr. Holland concurred. Chair Sorensen opened the public hearing for comments regarding the issue of landscaping as a new item. Ms. Suzanne Timmons, Benson, stated that she can look directly into the KCP&L station. She said a lot of the trees shown on the old aerial view are Pines that are diseased and will be dying. This will result in a direct view of the brick wall and its base from not only her house but from the entire row of homes that exist along that substation.

7 Page 7 Ms. Timmons said she would appreciate seeing as many trees and shrubs as possible to shield that view. Ms. Sally Lahasky, Antioch, said the tower is in view during this time of year and in the winter when all the leaves have dropped. She asked that a requirement be included for the replacement of like trees that are damaged or destroyed in the tower installation process. While the applicant has indicated that no trees should be impacted, Ms. Lahasky said when the equipment is brought in to install this tower, she was fearful many of the mature trees will be at the very least damaged. She said those trees do help screen her view of that tower. Mr. Gadd questioned whether Ms. Lahasky could see the tower or the base of the tower, and she replied her view was of the tower, not its base. With no one further to comment on this item, the public hearing was closed. Chair Sorensen asked Mr. Holland to respond to comments made by the public. Mr. Holland reiterated that if any trees were damaged during the installation process, the applicant would be happy to work with staff and replace them. Mr. Hill moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council approval of Special Use Permit No , vicinity of the southwest corner of 144th Street and Antioch, for a five-year period of time, with stipulations a through e. Any trees removed or damaged due to the installation of the tower will be replaced by the applicant, as approved by staff. Mr. Ed Reitzes seconded the motion, requesting that to the extent possible, all trees be preserved. Chair Sorensen stated that the Planning Commission will be reviewing a landscape plan at the time of Final Development Plan review, and she requested that the landscape plan be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The motion passed by a 9 to 0 vote. REZONING NO Vicinity of the northeast corner of 95th Terrace and Mission Road. Rezoning requested from C-O, Office Building District, to CP-2, Planned General Business District, to allow a new retail building. Application made by Klover Architects, Inc. Ms. Zeigler relayed that the Planning Commission considered this item on October 27, 2008, at which time the applicant proposed a loading door on the south façade of the building. The pavement access to that required a deviation for the setback. She said the Planning Commission voted to continue the application to this meeting to allow the applicant time to pursue the possibility of relocating the access into the lower level of the building. Ms. Zeigler said the applicant has made alterations to the site plan by moving the door that was previously proposed at the east corner of the south elevation to the south corner of the east elevation. Ms. Zeigler said the landscape plan has been modified to show the new drive configuration.

8 Page 8 Staff recommends approval of this rezoning request with stipulations a through g. Ms. Zeigler stated that she forwarded an to Planning Commissioners from a neighbor who put his questions and concerns in writing because he could not be in attendance today. She said the neighbor questioned whether the loud speakers would still be used from the hardware store to the garden center area. Concerns were also noted about the proposed landscaping, and he wondered whether Red Oak could be used instead of Red Maple, and which of the existing mature trees would be saved. Ms. Zeigler said the neighbor also asked whether the sidewalk along Mission Road could be moved off the curb. In talking with Senior Transportation Planner Mark Stuecheli, she learned that curb will be relocated as part of the work done on this corner. Mr. Otto Westerfeld, Dearborn, Stilwell, Kansas, said he had heard concerns about possible noise from the fork truck when it is going in reverse. He said the fork truck is not equipped with that back-up apparatus. With regard to concerns about the loud speaker that is employed in the hardware store, he also found it annoying and said that it will no longer be used. Mr. Westerfeld understood there were neighbors with concerns about the general retail traffic. He advised that the homes located to the south of the shopping center were originally constructed as a buffer between the shopping center and the neighborhood to the south of 95th Terrace. He stated that he owned those three houses and duplexes, adding that his tenants lease those properties. In ten years, Mr. Westerfeld said he has never received a complaint from those tenants with regard to the operation of the shopping center with the exception of some vandals in the parking garage. His intent is to get the shopping center up to par similar to what it was 30 years ago, while also keeping it palatable for the neighbors in the interim. Mrs. Thacker commented that she believed it was a requirement that service vehicles be equipped with a warning system when backing up for safety reasons. He said he was unsure; however, he would find out and get one installed if necessary. He commented that he did not believe that noise would be a problem because it would occur so infrequently. Mr. Steve Troester arrived at 3 p.m. Mrs. Thacker asked if it is possible to preserve the mature trees on this site. Mr. Westerfeld understood that the root structure of the trees will be damaged from the construction of the proposed building and that those trees will most likely not survive. He believed there were one or two trees that could be saved. Mrs. Thacker suggested there be a tree preservation plan in place before too much damage is done. Mr. Westerfeld said he was willing to look at doing that and also favored saving any trees possible. Mr. Collins referred to the staff received from a neighbor asking if Red Oak could be planted rather than Red Maple and asked if consideration could be given to that request. Mr. Westerfeld stated for the record he would put Red Oak there instead of Red Maple. Chair Soreonsen clarified that Mr. Westerfeld agreed with stipulations a through g, and he concurred.

9 Page 9 Chair Sorensen opened and closed the public hearing with no one wanting to comment on this item. Mr. Flanagan moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council approval of Rezoning No , vicinity of the northeast corner of 95th Terrace and Mission Road, with stipulations a through g. Mr. Gadd seconded the motion, which passed by a 9 to 0 to 1 vote. Mr. Troester abstained due to his late arrival. Mrs. Thacker asked that staff, and if necessary the City Forester, work with the applicant on preparing a tree preservation plan. Ms. Zeigler concurred. Mr. Reitzes commented that this project is a welcome upgrade to Ranchmart South, which would be a major asset to the community. REZONING NO Vicinity of the southwest corner of 175th Street and Pflumm. Rezoning requested from RURJ, Rural District, Johnson County, to CP-2, Planned General Business District, and RP-4, Planned Cluster Dwelling District, and RP-5, Planned Apartment House District, to allow a commercial development and multi-family residential development. Application made by Pflumm175th Investors, L.L.C. (Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 24, 2008.) Mr. Hill moved for the referenced continuance as noted. After a second by Mr. Flanagan, the motion passed by a 10 to 0 vote. REZONING NO Quivira. Rezoning requested from RP-OS Planned Open Space Single-Family Residential, to RP-4, Planned Cluster Dwelling District, and RP-5, Planned Apartment House District, to allow a multi-family residential development. Application made by T. Percival, L.L.C. (Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 24, 2008.) Mr. Hill moved for approval of the referenced continuance as noted. After a second by Mr. Gadd, the motion carried by a 10 to 0 vote. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL Heritage United Methodist Church Quivira. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. (Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 24, 2008) Mr. Hill moved for the continuance as noted. Mr. Reitzes seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. REZONING NO Vicinity of the southeast corner of I-435 and U.S. 69 Highway. Rezoning requested from CP-O, Planned Office Building District, to MXD, Mixed Use District, to allow a mixed use project. Application made by Stoltz Management Company. (Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 12, 2009.) Mr. Reitzes moved to continue the referenced item as noted. After a second by

10 Page 10 Mr. Flanagan, the motion carried by a 10 to 0 vote. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL - Corporate Woods Vicinity of the northwest corner of College Boulevard and Antioch. Application made by Stoltz Management Company. (Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 12, 2009.) Mrs. Thacker moved for the continuance of the referenced item as noted. Mr. Lund seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO West 151st Street. Special use permit requested for a five-year period of time to allow an increase in height for an existing communications tower. This property is currently zoned RR-J, Rural Residential District. Application made by SBA Towers, Inc. (Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 24, 2008.) Mr. Gadd moved to continue Special Use Permit No , West 151st Street, to the November 24, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Flanagan seconded the motion, which passed by a 10 to 0 vote. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO West 161st Street. Special use permit requested for a two-year period of time to allow a teaching facility as a temporary commercial use. This property is currently zoned PEC3-J, Planned Research Development and Light Industrial District, Johnson County. Application made by Music House. Planner Dave Dalecky stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a special use permit to allow a music education business in the Blue Valley Business Center in a multi-tenant building. He advised that a special use permit is required for a commercial business to operate in an industrial park to ensure that uses and parking demands are compatible with the context of the site. The parking demand for a music education business is anticipated to be minimal and to function well with the other uses in the building. Mr. Dalecky said staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit No , for a two-year period of time with no stipulations. Mr. Ian Sizemore, 7530 Reinhardt Drive, Prairie Village, Kansas, agreed with the two-year time period. Mr. Collins asked if the applicant would be conducting music lessons, and Mr. Sizemore replied he would. Mr. Collins asked if the applicant had taken any precautionary measures to insulate his facility so not to intrude on other tenants. Mr. Sizemore replied he had spent a lot of time doing that. Chair Sorensen opened and closed the public hearing with no one wanting to comment on this item.

11 Page 11 Mr. Hill moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council approval of Special Use Permit No , 7465 West 161st Street, for a two-year period of time. Mr. Gadd seconded the motion, which passed by a 10 to 0 vote. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO Metcalf. Special use permit requested for a three-year period of time to allow a drinking establishment. This property is currently zoned CP-2, Planned General Business District. Application made by Blazin Wings, Inc. Mr. Dalecky stated that the subject property is an out-parcel restaurant in the Corbin Park lifestyle center. A special use permit is required because the walls of the drinking establishment are within 200 feet of the Erickson retirement community on the west side of Metcalf, which is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District. Staff recommends approval of this special use permit for a period of three years, with no stipulations. Mr. Treavor Smith, 4020 South Jackson Drive, Independence, Missouri, agreed to the three-year time period. Mr. Troester asked what percentage of Mr. Smith s business was in alcohol sales versus food sales, and Mr. Smith replied 25 percent. Chair Sorensen opened and closed the public hearing with no one wanting to comment on this item. Mr. Flanagan moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council approval of Special Use Permit No , for a three-year period of time to allow a drinking establishment. Mr. Troester seconded the motion, which passed by a 10 to 0 vote. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL Rosanna Square Vicinity of the northwest corner of 119th Street and Metcalf. Application made by Andrew Schlagel. Mr. Dalecky stated that the subject property is currently zoned BP, Business Park District. The applicant is requesting revised preliminary plan approval to construct an addition to an existing building in the Rosana Square development. He said the one-story building was most recently occupied by the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. Dalecky relayed that the revision to the plan is an increase of 1,100 square feet of building floor area for a new tenant to construct a foyer entry onto the existing building. The new tenant is an office use that will renovate the tenant space and add some mezzanine office space. He said the total increase in floor area will be 1,100 square feet. Mr. Dalecky said the new total building floor area will be 231,882 square feet.

12 Page 12 As relayed in Staff Comments, the façade of the building will be renovated with the building addition for the new vestibule and entry. The façade renovation will use a metal panel system along the length of the office tenant. The colors and application of the materials will be complimentary to the existing building architecture. Mr. Dalecky advised that the building addition is proposed to extend into the existing parking area which will reduce the total number of parking stalls. However, the resulting number of parking stalls remains greater than the minimum number required by the BP zoning district. Staff recommended approval of Revised Preliminary Plan Approval for Rosana Square, vicinity of the northwest corner of 119th Street and Metcalf, subject to stipulations a through e. Mr. Andy Schlagel, planning consultant, agreed with all stipulations. Chair Sorensen opened the public hearing. With no one wanting to address the Commission regarding this item, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Flanagan moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council approval of Revised Preliminary Plan Approval for Rosana Square, vicinity of the northwest corner of 119th Street and Metcalf, with stipulations a through e. The motion passed unanimously after a second by Mr. Brake. PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL Apache Elementary School, 8910 Goddard. Application made by Shawnee Mission School District. Ms. Zeigler stated that the applicant is requesting preliminary plan approval to allow expansion of the existing parking lot in the northeast corner of the Apache Elementary School campus. She said the property is currently zoned R-1, Single- Family Residential District. The applicant has indicated that the number of current parking spaces no longer meet the needs of teachers and visitors to the site. Ms. Zeigler said there are currently 47 parking spaces with one Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) designated parking space. The expansion would provide a total of 64 parking spaces, including three ADA spaces, an increase of 17 spaces. She said two new landscape islands are proposed to be constructed in the parking lot. Ms. Zeigler relayed that to accommodate the addition of parking a variance is required to be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for a parking setback of less than 30 feet along 88th Terrace and Goddard. She advised that final development plans cannot be approved prior to the issuance of the variance. Ms. Zeigler said staff recommends approval of this application with stipulations a through f. Mr. Gary Spehar, LHE, P.A., representing Shawnee Mission School District, thanked staff for their time and attention to this project. He agreed with all stipulations.

13 Page 13 Chair Sorensen opened the public hearing. Mr. George Smith, said he represented Irene Smith of West 88th Terrace, adding that they own the three duplexes on 88th Terrace near the school property. Because 88th Terrace is a dead-end street, Mr. Smith asked that a No-left turn, Dead-End Road sign be added on both sides of the fence so that drivers are not ultimately turning around in the driveways of the duplex units. Chair Sorensen asked if Mr. Spehar had any objection to complying with Mr. Smith s request for signs on the fence. Mr. Spehar said he had no problem with it, adding that it is within the public right-of-way. Chair Sorensen asked for Mr. Stueheli s comments on the requested signage. Mr. Stuecheli suggested this be discussed with the City Traffic Engineer. He pointed out that typical users of this parking lot are repeat users who are aware of the situation. Mrs. Thacker questioned the proposed trees that were referred to as street trees. She thought street trees were supposed to be located on the street edge. Ms. Zeigler replied that street trees are considered to be those between the public right-of-way line and the setback line. In this case, there is a 30-foot setback so the trees do not have to be right along the street. She said if this is something Mrs. Thacker would like the applicant to look at, that could be reviewed at final development plan time, adding that their placement may relate to overhead power lines. With no further questions, Mr. Hill moved for the approval of Preliminary Plan Approval for Apache Elementary School, 8910 Goddard, with stipulations a through f. After a second by Mr. Reitzes, the motion passed by a 10 to 0 vote. PRELIMINARY PLAT NO Terrybrook Farms Vicinity of the northwest corner of 175th Street and Switzer. Application made by Schlagel and Associates, P.A. (Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 24, 2008.) Mr. Hill moved for the referenced continuance as noted. Mr. Flanagan seconded the motion, which passed by a 10 to 0 vote. Mr. Hill stated that he would abstain from voting on the next agenda item. PRELIMINARY PLAT NO Blue Valley District Office Campus No. 2 Vicinity of the northwest corner of 151st Street and Metcalf. Application made by Affinis Corporation. (Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 24, 2008.) Mr. Reitzes moved to continue Preliminary Plan No as noted. After a second by Mr. Flanagan, the motion passed by a 9 to 0 to 1 vote. Mr. Hill abstained.

14 Page 14 FINAL PLAT NO Blue Valley District Office Campus No. 2 - Vicinity of the northwest corner of 151st Street and Metcalf. Application made by Affinis Corporation. (Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 24, 2008.) No action was necessary. PRELIMINARY PLAT NO Village of Overland Park Vicinity of 159th Street to 167th Street, east of Antioch. Application made by Price Development Group, L.L.C. (Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 24, 2008.) Mr. Flanagan moved for the referenced continuance as noted. Mr. Reitzes seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. PRELIMINARY PLAT NO rd Street Oxford Substation Vicinity of the southwest corner of 144th Street and Antioch. Application made by Selective Site Consultants, Inc. (Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of December 8, 2008.) Mr. Flanagan moved to continue Preliminary Plat No as indicated. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reitzes, which passed by a 10 to 0 vote. FINAL PLAT NO rd Street Oxford Substation Vicinity of the southwest corner of 144th Street and Antioch. Application made by Selective Site Consultants, Inc. (Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of December 8, 2008.) No motion was necessary. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY STAFF Mrs. Karr advised that some Councilmembers have expressed interest in finding out what other cities are doing with regard to cell towers. At the Committee-of-the- Whole meeting next Monday evening, the Council will hear from The Center for Municipal Solutions. This is a third party company that reviews cell tower applications and does analysis of information cell tower companies provide to cities to show why a particular tower is needed, including height. She said the Council has also expressed an interest in looking at the cell tower ordinance as a whole due to recent debates about this issue and because it is 12 years old. Mrs. Karr invited Planning Commissioners who are interested to attend the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting at 6:15 p.m. on November 17, 2008, in Conference Room No.1. Mrs. Karr said staff would like to meet with the Planning Commissioners over the lunch hour on November 24, 2008, with regard to the update of design guidelines, interim guidelines for the Metcalf Corridor, and guidelines for the mixed-use

15 Page 15 district. Commissioners are encouraged to give their input and ideas about design guideline problems they have seen. Lunch will be at 11:30 and discussion will be from 12 to 1:15 p.m. on November 24, Mrs. Karr relayed there is one Planning Commission meeting in December, which is scheduled for December 8, She said the holiday luncheon will be that day at the Myron Scafe building with time to be determined. Mrs. Karr said she met with Chair Sorensen, Vice Chair Collins and past Chair Dave Hill to discuss the bylaws and the issue of continuances and trying to offer some better strategies for dealing with them. Due to those discussions, consideration will be given to offering an ordinance amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Staff will be requesting at the next Planning Commission meeting authorization to publish for ordinance amendments to the UDO. She said Mr. Budetti believed it would be best to update the UDO before the bylaws are updated. Mrs. Karr stated that in January, a focus group discussion will be held with the Planning Commission to obtain its feedback on how staff performs. Management Services Administrator Florence Erickson will lead that discussion, and Mrs. Karr said staff would appreciate the Commission s honest, thoughtful feedback on how they perform and what they could do to improve. With regard to some questions she has received about Customer Service Representative Patty Glynn, Mrs. Karr said Ms. Glynn has been promoted to Senior Customer Service Representative. This is the role that Planners used to serve as Planner of the Day, and Ms. Glynn is answering some of the routine phone calls that come to that desk, which allows the planners more time for their planning work. Lastly, Mrs. Karr stated that at the volunteer reception Tom Lance was recognized for 25 years of service on the Planning Commission. At 3:45 p.m., Chair Sorensen adjourned the meeting. Minutes transcribed by Nancee Ellis. Kim Sorensen, Chair