PDF Format:




August 17, 2015

7:30 P.M.

Commissioner Augie BoginaPlanning Director Paul Chaffee
Commissioner Bruce Bienhoff Deputy Planning Director Doug Allmon
Commissioner Randy BraleyPlanner Mark Zielsdorf
Commissioner Dennis BusbyAdministrative Assistant Angie Lind
Commissioner Doug Hill
Commissioner Kathy Peterson
Commissioner Les Smith
Commissioner Henry Specht
Commissioner Alan Willoughby
Commissioner Steven Wise
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Good evening and welcome to the August 17, 2015 meeting of the Shawnee Planning Commission. We’ll start with roll call.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Peterson.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And welcome to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Willoughby.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bienhoff.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Busby.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bogina is here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Wise.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Braley.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Specht.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Smith.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And welcome to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hill.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you and welcome to the Planning Commission. If you’d please rise and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.




CHAIRMAN BOGINA: We have a small change in the Agenda; so Items 1, we’re gonna vote separately on; Item 2, 3, 4, and 6 are on the Consent Agenda; Item number 5 is on the New Business. So, do I have a motion to approve, I’m sorry let me start this…Items 2, 3, 4, and 6 are listed under the Consent Agenda. Is there a request to remove any other item from the Consent Agenda? If not, is there a motion to approve those items? Commissioner Busby.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, hearing no requests than I move for approval of the Consent Agenda.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: I second the motion.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and second to approve Items 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the Consent Agenda, all in favor?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes.

(Motion passes 10-0 to approve Items 2, 3, 4, and 6)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: I think what we’ll do is we will approve: CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there a motion? Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: I’ll make a motion to approve the minutes from the previous Planning Commission meeting.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Bienhoff.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Motion and a second to approve Item number 1, which is the meeting minutes of the August 3, 2015 Planning Commission, all in favor?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes.

(Motion passes 7-3-0 to approve Item 1; Peterson, Smith, and Hill abstain)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Paul, would you like to do New Business or Unfinished Business?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: We’ll go on to Unfinished Business.



CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Unfinished Business which it:



DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: For those of you who weren’t here last time, this item was actually tabled at the August 3rd meeting. The applicant is requesting a variance to exceed the overall height allowed of seven (7) feet above the average grade. The sign code allows the Planning Commission to grant a sign variance regarding the height or size of a monument sign, not to exceed 25 percent of what is regularly allowed. The proposed monument sign is 7.5 feet tall, exceeding the maximum sign height by six (6) inches. The additional height is within the allowable variance amount of 25 percent.

Since the last meeting, staff reexamined the drawings related to the request. From the drawings, from the drawings it does appear that a gap exists between the ground and the bottom of the sign panel. The gap is intended to allow lawn maintenance beneath the sign. The sign code requires that the base supports of any monument sign be enclosed and located within a landscape bed. This prevents the need for a lawn maintenance area beneath the sign. Since the last meeting, staff suggested the applicant simply lower the sign face to enclose the base as the gap is not needed (or allowed). The applicant indicated this was not his desire, and that he wanted to proceed with the request as originally proposed.

In terms of a recommendation, the Planning Commission shall determine if the monument sign variance for Martindale Properties, located at 6922-6948 Martindale Road, is warranted. If so, planning staff recommends the variance be subject to the following conditions:

2. Height of the monument sign shall not exceed 7’6” from finished grade; and That completes our presentation.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you, Doug. Is the applicant present?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Could you give us your name and address, please?

APPLICANT: Grant Hilburn.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And your address, please?

MR. HILBURN: (Address omitted from record)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Have you read staff’s report?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And are you in agreement with Items 1, 2, and 3 of the recommendations should it be approved?

MR. HILBURN: I couldn’t quite hear that, but the variance at the top part would be all right.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: I’m sorry, could you, would, are you in agreement with the three recommendations of the staff should the application be approved?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: All right, thank you. Are there any questions for the staff or the applicant? Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yes, question for the applicant. I assume the City went over the requirements of the sign in that the base should be enclosed and not have an opening underneath the sign; could you help us understand why you would prefer not to do that?

MR. HILBURN: Well, it had nothing to do with the monument sign on her other buildings, it’s just a maintenance problem so it’ll be easier for the mower to get underneath this thing; I can fill the thing in with wood and they can just trim around it and be satisfied, I mean…

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: So, to clarify, you would be okay with if the request were to be approved, we require the bottom of the sign to be enclosed?

MR. HILBURN: Enclosed by the method I told you about?

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: I don’t really want to get into the materials, I’ll let the staff go over…

MR. HILBURN: I’ll enclose it.



CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Could you clarify that, please?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: He’ll have to amend the drawings submitted for permit showing at least 50% of the sign base is enclosed and it will, in some cases we will allow a small gap, we do understand that sometimes you don’t want water to wick-up into the material, but for all intents and purposes the sign overall will look like it’s enclosed.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is that...Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Question for the applicant, as far as the signage, with the signage also increased; the lettering; or just the height sign?

MR. HILBURN: Well, this is to buildings; each one has about six tenants; some of them occupy one space, some twice; each tenant has 40” x 10” to put his sign; if he has two spaces he’s got this much to put the sign in so the letters could vary with the amount of space he has.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Typically when someone wishes for us to exceed the limits of the ordinance, they would give us good reasoning why and usually those reasons are the width of the right away; the speed of the road; a divided highway; a setback that the sign needs; and I don’t, do you have any of those comments that you think are worthy of…

MR. HILBURN: Because I was…


MR. HILBURN: The property would not be mine for another three weeks; so I’m doing this ahead of time; so I think it’s a good sign too. The building sitting not flat-wise, but length-wise it’s hard to tell what the tenants are, so I wanted to say go down to the Martindale Project, I’m in there, so I can reduce the Martindale Project, but it doesn’t mean where you are; so, it’s hard to get the address associated with this besides Martindale Complex; then I got 6932 on this side, and those will be different colors, maybe different letters; this side here will be blue, they can tell them it’s either the right building or the left building; I’d like to have the Martindale Project, otherwise I could fit in a little.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Well, do you have any site distance problems that you know of, for it to be able to see the signage?

MR. HILBURN: It’s gonna be pretty close to the street, as close as I can get it, far enough back to read the letters.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And the speed limit is 35?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And it’s not a divided highway; it’s 22 feet back to back? So, my question is, if you could, if you have no particular reason as to why you wish to exceed the ordinance, why should we approve your application; besides the fact you want a bigger sign, but everybody wants a bigger sign?

MR. HILBURN: Well, I want to associate with the Martindale Project; if I take that out of there, it’s just names on a board; if I take that out of there, I (Inaudible) your limits cause I have 10” there, 12 I think, 12” up there.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Yes, so if you changed each banner 1”, you would meet the ordinance, is that true?

MR. HILBURN: I’d have to do the whole Martindale Project so that’d come down 6”, but it’d be like this and I wanna get a bit bigger cause that’s like where you located, come on down to Martindale Project I’m this address. That’s a busy…you go down that street you can’t tell what the addresses are because all the buildings are set so far back. It’s an industrial area there.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Does the Commission have any other questions for the staff or the applicant? Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Question for the staff just to clarify, the height of the sign, I guess what’s proposed, is that to basically to increase the square foot area of the sign or is it just to raise it up so the sign stays exactly the same size.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I think I can answer that. The sign face itself is 40 sq. ft.; the maximum size of 50 sq. ft.; this is a height variance to go a little above 7 feet. That is what the variance is requesting; it’s above what’s allowed.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: So it’s still within the requirements…

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Size requirements. It’s within literally 6” taller than what the ordinance…

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: And, in your experience is the height required to have visibility to the sign?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I, it’s pretty flat. I think he wants the height to make the sign face bigger. I can’t speak for him, but that’s what it appears to be.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: So just putting…thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: My question is for staff. So the, between the road and the building, it’s not elevated?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: There’s not much change in grade to the road. It’s, the signs gonna set back, I think, 10’ away from the right-of-way line.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: So the bottom of the numbering, if you enclose that open area for that, number 46 and number 42, that would basically be 10” off the ground?



CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Yes, I have a question for the applicant. So, can you give me some rationale as to on your design when you’re specifying 10” height for each individual…


COMMISSIONER BRALEY: …space, was that arbitrary or did a sign company say to get the lettering that we need from a readability, from a distance of so many feet or yards it needs to be X number of size?

MR. HILBURN: I have an existing building now and I have that same method of signage from the City of Merriam; I drive around and take a look at those signs, I’m trying to get so many letters in so much space; if they’ve got more letters, there letters are gonna have to be smaller to get across or two lines or something like that; 10” by 40” is not very much to put something, something, something for 30 characters cause I gotta put the address 46, that’s the address, so that’s gonna take up 3” or 4”, so you’ve got 3’ there to write his name on.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: So, in your opinion then 1” off of each row is to a detriment that you, the lettering height would not be readable?

MR. HILBURN: From the distance from the street, everything is going to be visible. It could be smaller but I just looked at the other signs of what I had and, right now at the other building, the bigger letters their spaces are like this by this and the tenant writes his own signature in that area by his logo or whatever that happens to be.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there any other questions for the staff or the applicant? Thank you, sir. We would be in Commission discussion. Pardon me? Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this item? We would be in Commission discussion. Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it, from what I can tell from the application it seems to me that, you know, occasionally we will approve variances because of the grade of the ground and different things but it seems to me it would be a bad precedent to start to increasing the height of the sign just because the applicant felt that, the applicant would prefer a larger sign or taller sign, I just think that will be a bad precedent to set.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Busby.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with Commissioner Bienhoff that we are just, there’s no way for me for the next person that comes in and if I okay this for the next person comes in and says I want to bigger sign because you gave one to him, so that leaves me with a quandary that I really don’t think I can vote for that and the other thing is if he keeps the sign the same size, I still believe with our ordinance as it states we should ask him to go ahead and fill in to the bottom that would meet what our Planning staff has decided would be, would fit back within the code, in other words it brings it all to code for the City.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. And I too agree that we spend a lot of time in creating the ordinances and discussing how everyone should be on equal footing and we have made exceptions when we had 55 mile an hour roadways or divided highways or terrain problems but it does not seem that this, the request that we have granted in the past and we haven’t granted that many, three or four but we spent a lot of time creating this ordinance and we expect them to be fair to businesses and myself, I just don’t know if this meets the criteria of an exception; but, if there is no discussion, is there a motion on this item?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: I move that we approve the variance for the Martindale Project, subject to the staff’s conditions and specifically intended at the bottom of the sign be enclosed to meet current ordinances.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Is there a second?

COMMISSIONER WISE: I’ll second that with, but modifying the height to meet code which is 7’, rather than 7’6”.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Let me clarify. The base will be enclosed when a permit is issued, that’s not even an issue that you are looking. The base of the sign will be enclosed to meet City code before a permit is issued. This is simply looking at the height. Commissioner Bienhoff. We have a motion and a second on the floor, but I’m gonna let you ask a question.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Clarification just for my own understanding. If the request is denied, does that essentially mean that everything has to be according to Code; which means the base must be enclosed and they can’t be over whatever the…

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: That’s a great point of clarification, yes, if the variance is denied, and he still wants a monument sign, on the application the base will be at least 50% enclosed in the sign will be no more than 7’ average height; it will comply with code or a permit will not be issued.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, we have a motion to approve, we have a second with... Could you restate your second?

COMMISSIONER WISE: The second was that the height of the sign would meet code which is 7’.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Can that be part of a second?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: That’s actually to deny…

COMMISSIONER WISE: The easiest thing would be just to strike the second, deny it, and what’s the best way to do that Paul?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Just withdraw the second.


COMMISSIONER WISE: Okay, I’ll withdraw the second.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there a second on the motion to approve?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Peterson. There’s a motion and a second to approve S-124-15-07, consideration of a sign variance request for Martindale Complex, for a sign size, located at 6922-6948 Martindale, excuse me a second. And your motion was to have it conform to city code?

COMMISSIONER SMITH: No, sir, it was, the motion is to approve the sign request with the variance which means if we vote yes, the variance will be granted; if we vote now, and defeat the motion then it’s going to revert back to the all included code of 7’ and…

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Can I clarify one more thing, I apologize? It would be subject to the staff recommendations in the staff report which is: enclosed base, no greater than 50 ft.², it will meet every other portion of the sign code including in landscaped area around it, that would be taken care of as a matter of condition of approval. Just to clarify.


COMMISSIONER SMITH: Sure, because we’re gonna default to the ordinance if it’s defeated. Right?

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: All in favor of the motion?




CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Motion passed (denied), the application fails.

(Motion denied 9-1)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: That would take us to which is:



DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: The applicant requests site plan approval for the construction a 3,000 square foot office building at 15400 Midland Drive. The new office building will replace the modular unit that presently serves as the company’s construction office. The modular unit will be removed from the site once the new office is completed. And just so that you’re familiar, that is the building that would be removed in conjunction with the property.

The subject property is zoned Commercial Highway (CH). Property to the east is also zoned CH and contains the McAnany Construction company. The parcel to the west is zoned CH and contains the Rieke refueling center, while the parcel to the north is zoned AG and contains additional storage for Rieke Construction. Right-of-way for Midland Drive is located to the south.

The site is accessed by a driveway approach that connects to Midland Drive. No street or driveway approach improvements are proposed or required for the project. The new structure is proposed to be located north of the existing modular office unit, and 20 feet to the south of a large maintenance building that was constructed in 1969. This places the office to the east of an asphalt parking lot that serves the business. The existing maintenance building is approximately 145 feet in length and is constructed of light gray, ribbed metal panels with exposed fasteners. Here’s for reference that’s the existing building that sits behind.

Submitted building elevations indicate the proposed structure will be single-story in design and will be approximately 21’3” in height from grade to the highest point of the pitched roof. The building is 60 feet wide by 50 feet deep (3,000 square feet) and is positioned so the longest wall is parallel with Midland Drive. This places the footprint approximately 185 feet north of Midland Drive.

The south, east and west walls of the building exterior will be constructed of a combination of brown/gray native stone with light gray ribbed metal panels above. The panels are proposed be constructed of semi-concealed fasteners that are installed in the ribbed recess of each panel. Each exposed fastener screw head is colored to match the metal panel color.

To further accent the front of the office structure, stone is carried around the new glass entry door and projects slightly above the eave line. An angled canopy to be constructed of darker gray metal is located above the entry door.

A series of larger rectangular windows will be installed on the south, east and west elevations to allow daylight into the office. These windows will have clear anodized aluminum frames. A flat, metal roofed breezeway that is supported by gray metal poles will be constructed on the west side of the structure. This roof will connect the new office to the existing maintenance shop, and will also be dark gray in color.

The north wall of the office faces directly toward the maintenance shop located to the north. This wall is not visible from the street, and is proposed to be constructed entirely of light gray ribbed metal panels.

The use of ribbed metal wall panels with non-concealed fasteners would not be acceptable in other developing industrial areas of the City. However, as mentioned earlier, the largest building on the site presently consists of ribbed light gray metal panels with exposed fasteners. The architect is attempting to provide a design that is complimentary and blends with the surrounding environment. The proposal does contain a significant amount of stone on three sides, and there is no question the proposed new office building will be an aesthetic upgrade as compared to the existing modular office unit.

In conjunction with the project, two new redbud trees, 1.5 inches or greater in caliper, will be planted to accent the southwest corner of the office building.

As far as staff’s recommendation, use of ribbed metal wall panels with non-concealed fasteners would not be acceptable in other developing industrial areas of the City. However, the proposed building is somewhat complimentary to other buildings that have previously been constructed on the site, and includes significant amounts of stone on elevations that are visible to the street. If this proposal was not located on a site with older buildings that were constructed prior to establishment of the Industrial Design Standards, staff would recommend denial of the request. The applicant has provided an upgrade as compared to the existing office space, while making the new building somewhat blend with the existing maintenance building.

The Planning Commission shall determine if the materials presented for approval are appropriate in this case. If the Planning Commission deems the submitted materials are acceptable, then staff would recommend approval of SP-25-15-09, site plan approval for the Rieke Brothers Construction office, located at 15400 Midland Drive, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.

That completes staff’s report.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you, Doug. Is the applicant present?

APPLICANT: My name is David Kaster of Kaster Architects, 7304 W. 130th Street, Overland Park.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Have you read the staff report?

MR. KASTER: We have.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Are you in agreement with the staff’s recommendations?

MR. KASTER: Yes, we are.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Are there any questions for the staff or the applicant? Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Question for the staff. Doug, if you could help, I drive by there frequently and I don’t ever really recall seeing that building; is this, these buildings currently easily visible from Midland Drive or any other street?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: The existing office building is readily visible from Midland Drive. It is just off the street; I wish I had an aerial to use.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: The brick building I know with the…

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: That’s actually the McAnany facility to the east.



MR. KASTER: We’re way back from there.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: You can see the outline of that demo building and that’s the building I showed in the first…


DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: …and it’s in front of the trees and everything see you can see it from the street.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Hill.

COMMISSIONER HILL: This question’s for staff. Can you give me a little bit more detail about the connection between the building and the maintenance building?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I would defer that to David; I know that they had, at my suggestion, a long conversation with the Fire Marshal because when you begin connecting new space to open space it sometimes makes the old space have to come up to current code and there was a section that was referenced in the building code about a non, basically a fire retardant material as long as it’s open breezeway, if I understand and it can connect; if it were to be walled or a hallway then potential ramifications hold structures. I don’t know if that answers your question but…

MR. KASTER: I can point here, the existing structure has a canopy that’s across the front to hear; the new building is 20 feet out from the front of that; we have continued the same canopy out onto the existing building for the back entrance to that; now canopy is completely open breezeway it’s built of noncombustible materials so the Fire Marshal is okay with that.



MR. KASTER: This drawing shows a view from the west; so the existing building come down here and it’s canopy comes from there to here and returns back so then the distance between canopy coming across on to the west side of our new building; then from that building to that building.

COMMISSIONER HILL: Is there any particular reason why you wouldn’t bring that canopy back into the building and hide it from view of the street; why you chose to bring the canopy to the side of the building?

MR. KASTER: I think we just basically started on from where the existing canopy ends and brought it up in this way; we could probably extend existing canopy and then bring in, will probably be acceptable also.

COMMISSIONER HILL: Okay, no more questions.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I think the materials that you selected are very complementary, you know, to what the existing building is and I’m very familiar with it and so I would recommend approval of the material.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Did you bring us something to show us?

MR. KASTER: I was gonna point out the difference in the metal panel how that actually looks.


MR. KASTER: The existing building would have a rib that comes up, this is the color of the new panel by the way, but the existing building would have the ribs that stick out and is asked again periodically on the high point of the rib you can see, when you see the panel at an angle you still see all those fasteners on the building; or having the manufacture put it on backwards so the color is on the side sticks out put on so the fasteners currently on the rib, when you’re out at an angle you don’t see the fasteners going down the building; you would only see them straight on as you’re driving down the street at the first part or after looking back; so it’s just a nicer building; a little bit more money but were thinking it’s worth; that little extra money.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Busby.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you tell me the approximate age of the old existing metal building?

MR. KASTER: Forty-five (45) years, I think.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: The tax records say… (Inaudible)


COMMISSIONER BUSBY: You know, I, somehow I envisioned we okay it with the same type of metal and then you decide to reconstruct the old building that’s 45 years old, which doesn’t mean it needs to be, but then were stuck with will it match the one that we just okayed and I’m not sure that might be a little convoluted thinking but still I’m still a little concerned that we are using materials that our standards have said we really shouldn’t be using.


DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I don’t know that I can answer that sort of question. I’ve made my…(Inaudible) my understanding is that they’re planning on being in that maintenance building for the time being, but I can’t say that…(Inaudible).


MR. KASTER: They’re an old-time family business in Shawnee and have been here for a long time and I think that as Leon Rieke hands it off to the next generation, they’re looking at this for the next generation of the three kids are now, you know, wanting the new building and we’re obviously pushing them to get rid of the old trailer, which meets their needs right now, but you know, we think this would be a great improvement to the area, you know, get rid of that old one, you know, upgrading; it has the new materials, you know, the stone, the contemporary colors, you know, more traditional for what we’re seeing built today; we think it’ll be a nice-looking building in the end; I don’t want to sell it as, you know, a cheap building like the building behind it was built.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Do you think they would make any commitment as far as what they would do in the future should those buildings be removed or be changed?

MR. KASTER: I don’t know that they would even have that in the 30 to 40 year plan to do any changes.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Question, in terms of budget, did you explore concealed fastener panels?

MR. KASTER: Actually, I know in the construction was even kind of a push to get them to consider a new building; initially we had started the project and were just looking at expanding the office a little bit, you know, in their existing facility we got into, you know, telling them that you have to upgrade bathrooms and do some different things, maybe we should look at a new building, so this is now snowballed to this point to where we are here today and so I don’t know what else I can say to that.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Yes, I have a question for staff. Doug, can you maybe elaborate a little bit more on when you made the statement that the use of rib metal wall panels with non-concealed fasteners would not be acceptable in other developing industrial areas of the City? What is the issue with that in other areas, as in what has been the alternative that is kind of with the that?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: If this were an undeveloped lot, in the context of the buildings around and industrial design policy that passed in the early 2000’s (Inaudible) metal buildings where metal subdivisions is allowed, concealed fasteners for instance as Stephen was talking about…


DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: … Is what is recommended as a metal material.


DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: There is some precedent for this in down on Martindale we actually have that last sign variance was years ago building expansion that had rib panels, we brought that to the commission and they determined that not having the concealed and conceal on the same building was not a good idea so they approve that; the Westlink property, if you’re familiar with buildings in Bonner that had been built around that, the acreage, the small amount of metal on those buildings the Planning Commission was comfortable in the context of the development that’s occurred since the 50s and 60s and 70s out in Bonner to allow that type of material; but, if this were a new building on an undeveloped lot, staff would be saying that these are concealed fasteners, virtually just connected at the seams, that’s the difference. That’s probably more answer than you wanted.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: No, that was very good, that’s what I was looking for, thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you, sir. We would be in Commission discussion. Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: I do think that what he has, Mr. Kaster has proposed is a step in the right direction, reversing the panel, putting something in the shadow line, it will be difficult to see the screws; I understand they may not be thrilled about the new building but this is definitely a step in the right direction without having the modular trailer, going to some stone on the façade is a good move, I mean it’s a simple building but they have made some good steps and I do realize that there is a definite budget constraint when you start going to a concealed panel, they are just more expensive them so, but I feel like they’ve really tried to take some steps with the limited budget they have to make it look at least a little better.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Yeah, I think I would be in agreement with what Steven had just stated, especially given the attention that they gave to some other architectural gestures with the cantilever awning, the stone work, and as Steve mentioned concealing those as best as they could and it is definitely a step forward to sort of the frontage of, of the street so yeah, I’m liking what I see.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Is there a motion on this item? Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I move for approval of SP-25-15-09, site plan approval for the Rieke Brothers Construction new office building at 15400 Midland Drive, subject to staff recommendations.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Busby.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: I’ll second the motion.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and second to approve SP-25-15-09, site plan approval for the construction of a 3,000 sq. ft. building at Rieke Construction located at 15400 Midland Drive, all in favor?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes, thank you.

(Motion passes 10-0)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: That takes us to Item E. which is New Business: CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Paul.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Periodically staff will bring the Planning Commission proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations; currently we have in force, were significantly overhauled in 2010 with some amendments made in January 2013.

As part of our goals that we recently approved in the Comprehensive Plan, ways to increase efficiency, better delivery of services, how to better use property, and therefore we’ve recommended some amendments to the Zoning Regulations that have helped us achieve those goals as well as take a look at updating the Table of General Uses.

So, what I thought I’d do is go through each of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations and if you have any questions or want to stop me along the way, that would be fine to do so.

Ultimately, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations; we reviewed them at the July 6th Planning Commission meeting and then you authorized us to publish for a public hearing this evening.

So, the first set of amendments talk, relate to the increased density of multifamily developments and that is for the Planned Mixed Residential developments which are generally garden apartments and taking a look at increasing some of those densities; currently the maximum density permitted would be 13.06 units per acre; the amendments would allow density of 15.55 units per acre and then the Planning Commission then could look at increasing densities in the Downtown area or even a little bit higher than that; how we do that is we say how many square feet per unit is necessary to achieve that goal.

Then, the second amendment would be the Planned Unit Development Mixed Use in those are true mixed-use not when you read in the newspaper that in some places they’re going to have mixed use development where they have, still have a retail building and they still have an apartment building and they still have an office building, were talking true mixed-use where you’d have offices in retail mixed with some residential type of development; so what we’re looking at doing is allowing for an increase in the density in those types of developments also at some of them could go to 27.16 units in acre, obviously we be looking at some parking garage type of uses as those would come in.

And then we have the RHR which is the Residential High-Rise in for more of a clarification talk about the maximum height being unrestricted but it needs to be at least four stories in height and the reason were modifying is that’s the difference between a high-rise and a regular garden apartment, Planned Mixed Residential which is generally three stories in height or less.

The second major proposal is the R-1 (overlay) district. The Nieman Road Community Connections study and some of the other studies we’ve been doing a need is recognized to increase the density downtown area and how do we go about doing that without introducing apartment buildings and duplex units into areas that are primarily single family residential in nature. It’s called a, an overlay and it’s a little different than the Commercial Highway Overlay in that Commercial Highway Overlay district we actually rezoned those properties from Commercial Highway to Commercial Highway Overlay; this would be an overlay district on the R-1 where the lot, the property is still zoned for single-family residential uses however on individual pieces when folks come in for a rezoning we would apply the overlay district on, into that zoning district. The area is limited from 55th St. on the north to Shawnee Mission Parkway on the south, Quivira Road on the west and the east city limits on the east side and the purpose is to provide an opportunity to divide existing lots with potential infill development that would otherwise not meet the R-1 zoning district; and sort of where this came from is we have vacant property or we have larger properties that were developed with homes that are 70 to 80 years old today and perhaps the lot width is 120 feet and the house is located on one side of the lot and then there’s a lot of vacant space on the other, given the R-1 zoning regulations in order to even split that lot you’d have to have 150 feet or 75 feet of frontage on both sides, so what the overlay district would allow is those properties could be divided where the minimum lot width would be 45 feet, it could be 50, it could be 60, it could be 70 but the minimum could go down to the 45 feet in size; the front yard requirement would be 15 feet however no less than the average along the block and if you drive through some of the older subdivisions they were platted back in the days before we even had front building setback lines so the homes are closer than the 30 or 35 feet that you would see if the ground was platted today so if the houses all lineup with an average of a 20 foot setback than the minimum setback could go to 20 feet and in some cases it could go down to 15; side yard is 5 feet, it would be whiter if there is an existing utility easement and on corner lots the front setback of both streets would be 15 feet. Minimum house size, when a rezoning comes in for the R-1 overlay, you’ll not only be approving a plat and a zoning for the properties, but you’re also gonna be approving the house that’s going to be built on the site and in the R-1(O) district, the house size could be reduced to 900 sq. ft. and it can be shown that existing homes in the vicinity are less than the 1100 sq. ft. required today. A lot of the older homes are actually constructed less than 1100 sq. ft., especially in the Downtown area.

So then, a little different than other traditional zoning districts is the Planning Commission will approve the exterior design of the single family home and the elevation must be approved by the Planning Commission; that’s what we expect to be built; so, if the developer decides to, wants to build a different house, he’s gonna come back and rezone his property again so you can take a look; and the reason for that is to have the infill development look like it belongs there, even though it’s 80 years newer, it does have some of the same design elements that you generally would see. So, we’re looking for a covered front porch, at least 5 foot in width; each residence and porch has varied roof lines and peaks, reminiscent of bungalow, Cape Cod, and cottage style homes; fencing in the front yard limited to wrought iron or similar spaced picket fence no taller than 4 ft. in height; a tree preservation plan is required as part of the request to rezone the property, and actually this was added by the Shawnee Downtown Partnership to assure that we’re not just having folks coming in and clear cutting their lots and the lots on both sides and behind them are still well treed, that some trees may be removed but at least we’ll know which trees are going to remain, especially front yard and side yard; and then consideration will be given for subdivisions of 10 lots or more to provide some kind of open space with an amenity; and then consideration will also be given for barrier free or accessible type of homes. The Downtown Partnership reviewed the guidelines and they recommend that they be approved. I think it’s a nice way to be able to provide some infill development in these older neighborhoods that are still single family in nature and still applies an architectural feature; something that we would expect; just kind of give you a feel for when we talk about cottage style homes, and we won’t refer to them that way in the zoning ordinance, but this is sort of what we see currently in the downtown area and what we’re taking a look at, the house is on a corner and actually has an angled front door. So, what we’re looking at proposing isn’t different design wise from what you currently see in the general area of the downtown. Here are some infill that’s happened in some other communities.

The next item is a new regulation regarding solar energy collection systems. We anticipate they’ll be more popular especially folks that intend to generate energy and then sell back some of it to the energy providers; but our regulations are just intended to preserve the neighborhood character and mitigate potential impacts. The regulations don’t give a neighbor an opportunity to say, or don’t give a property owner who has a solar system an opportunity to tell his neighbor, well now you’re trees are too tall and you’re blocking, you know, my ability to collect sunlight so you need to cut your trees down, we’re not headed in that direction at all, we’re just headed in the direction of how to install them on a building; that they also need to comply with the City’s adopted codes; if you have panels mounted on the backside of a sloped roof tile design but not more than 48 inches above the roof plane and in no case shall the units extend above the roof peak; they can be installed on a flat roof with commercial; and industrial designs they could mount it on a side or the back wall; and one of the features that we talked about at last meeting is there are awnings today that are constructed that have solar energy panels embedded into the awning system so that’s another opportunity that we would have to supply solar energy systems; and also that if there’s a ground-mounted panel in a rear yard, it be no more than 6 feet in height and 144 sq. ft., so that would be 12 by 12 basically and that keeps it low enough so the neighbor doesn’t have to look at a solar panel 20 feet high.

Our next set of amendments relates to the front yard setbacks in the Commercial Highway Overlay [CH (O)] district. CH (O) is generally along Shawnee Mission Parkway from the east City Limits to Flint which is roughly where the Arrow Rents building is today. Part of our goal is long term, is to make Shawnee Mission Parkway have more of an urban feel that we have reduced the number of parking lots up along the street that you see in some of the buildings, or have an opportunity to move some buildings closer to the street as property is redeveloped; so in conjunction with our traffic engineer and Development Services staff we work with, roads and the improvements that may occur along the frontage road recommendation is in the CH (O) district front yard setback reads to 12 foot behind the curb along the Shawnee Mission Parkway frontage and 15 feet on bisecting streets which would be like Melrose, Goddard, Nieman along the way. Also, to provide some clarification for our Codes Administration staff, you know, when we start getting questions from our Codes folks are coming up and telling us this is what we think the code says, is this what, how you guys interpret the code also; well, we figure if our own Codes folks are having to sit down and talk about it again, then the general public isn’t really going to be able to comprehend the regulations so we have a couple areas with accessory buildings and structures where we talk about exceptions in talking about the top of the deck surface, not more than 18 inches above ground, just to provide some clarification, hoping that we make it more clear; and then also to clarify the intent that if you have a small Rubbermaid storage structure in your back yard and it’s no bigger than 50 sq. ft. in size and it’s not anchored to the ground, that we don’t consider that as being an accessory structure so we’re not saying well, you can have your little Rubbermaid storage structure here but then you can’t have a gazebo or you can’t have another larger storage structure or you can’t have a detached garage in your back yard, that these sort of temporary structures and they’re movable and if it’s under 50 sq. ft. you can have it and we’re not real concerned.

And then the last part of the text is a clarification regarding the driveways and parking areas, and this just clarifies the fact that since 2001 all new driveways have to be paved with asphalt, paver brick, or concrete and actually the requirement is there prior to the, some existing were grandfathered-in in 2001; this just clarifies that if you expand a legal non-forming gravel driveway or parking area, the expansion has to be built with permanent materials, that you just can’t keep making gravel driveway or gravel parking lot bigger and bigger and bigger along the way.

Then the last part is the Table of General Uses. One of the things when cash advance services came through we treated them as if they were banking services which they generally are but to make it easier for the public to understand payday loans/cash advance services, we’ve listed them out separately because there are some requirements that regard those in particular as opposed to banks being one, one of the most noticeable being that they cannot be located in, within one-mile of, from another structure. We also, a few months ago, started seeing a lot of exercise/fitness centers and currently gyms and fitness centers are, require a special use permit in some of the zoning districts and we’re seeing very small fitness centers, maybe 1800 sq. ft. and to staff that sort of seemed a little contrary to wanting to encourage businesses to locate in the City or they were obviously very different than the 24 Hour Fitness Center that has, can have 150 or 200 members inside at one time where the smaller ones have maybe 5 or 6 members in at one time; so, we broke it up with the exercise and fitness centers whether it is less than 3,000 sq. ft. or greater than 3,000 sq. ft. Firearms retail we just make the notation that K.S.A. 20-14, in supplement, we just make note to that since we can’t regulate the location of firearms and ammunition sales by zoning regulation by state statute now. We have home improvement centers; those less than 20,000 sq. ft. or those more than 20,000 sq. ft. there’s a little difference between Hartman’s Hardware and Home Depot so we wanted to make that clarification for you. We have the indoor shooting ranges that is being permitted in the industrial zoning districts. We had discussions a little over a year ago about tattoo studios and where they are appropriate and with the other uses that generally seem to be objectionable, we’ve put them in, or formally put them in the commercial zoning district. With that, that completes staff’s presentation. This is a public hearing so any comments from the public and be ready to answer any more questions that you may have.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. So, you wish to have the public hearing prior to questions from the Commission? This is a public hearing, is there any one from the audience who wishes to speak on this item? Hearing none, does the Commission have any questions from the staff? Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Yeah, I have one question on the statement regarding the tree preservation plan. Is that something that’s better spelled out for an applicant when they’re coming to you for rezoning as to what that exactly means and then we’ll have some guidelines to understand whether it’s appropriate for them to remove this tree or not?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Correct. What we’ll do is with the rezoning application we’ll have them identify trees of significant size and generally what we do in other tree preservation plans, if it’s 12 inches diameter or greater, they would indicate that on a site plan or on a plan to get a building permit, whether they’re going to remove it or keep it and so we’ll probably do that that in the same vein. That will probably be part of your packet that you’ll have so you’ll know that the site’s not being denuded and that’s basically the main reason to have that tree preservation plan is so in the middle of a block all of a sudden all the trees are gone but you’re only building a small house with a small footprint on the lot, you know, and you hope in the process to be able to educate the developer that, you know, trees can be good, yeah they fall or limbs break but, you know, you can significantly reduce your heating and cooling bills; it makes it a little nicer, more attractive lot along the way so…hopefully…that’s a good question.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there any other questions for the staff? If not, is there a motion on this item?

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Do we have to close the public hearing first?


COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Do we have to close the public hearing first?

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: We don’t typically. But, if you wish to make a motion to close the public hearing…


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Typically we don’t have a motion to open or close them, but if you think it’s appropriate, then…

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: No, I was just asking a question.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Willoughby, do you have a motion on this item?

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I do have a motion to approve the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Regulations as presented by staff.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Sorry? Is there a second?

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Sorry, yes sir, second.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay. There’s a motion and second to approve the amendments to the Zoning Regulations as presented by staff, all in favor?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes.

(Motion passes 10-0)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: That takes us to: CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Does staff have any business for the Commission?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Just a reminder that August has 5 Monday’s, so our next meeting will be in 3 weeks and on top of that, it will be on a Wednesday rather than a Monday, so there’s a long time between this meeting and the next one.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Busby.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Thank you, question for you. They’re gonna start redoing this room, what are we gonna do then? Can we meet in the library?


COMMISSIONER BUSBY: What’s the proposal?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Our plans are that the Planning Commission will have our meetings out at the training room out at the Police Department, probably beginning with the second meeting in September; we have a meeting with the design group and construction team this Wednesday, so I’ll know a little bit more then and I’ve let them know that we need lead time because we have to publish our notices for meetings so we need to be…and that time period they think will be about 2 or 3 months and we’ll be moving back to some new quarters with some good audio/visual, a new dais and conference room behind you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Great. Commissioner Busby.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Yeah, in addition, I presume we’ll be compensated for the extra mileage just as we’ve been in the past?



PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: You will, for some of you it may be closer than you’re currently driving to come to the meetings; so, it’s a trade off on the other way.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there any other questions or comments for the staff? Commissioner Peterson would you like to make a motion to adjourn?



CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Hill.

COMMISSIONER HILL: Second the motion.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and a second to adjourn all in favor?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes.

(Motion passes 10-0)