PDF Format:

ApprovedPlanningCommissionMeeting.2.1.16.pdfApprovedPlanningCommissionMeeting.2.1.16.pdf


CITY OF SHAWNEE

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

MINUTES

February 1, 2016

7:30 P.M.

PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENTSTAFF PRESENT
Commissioner Bruce BienhoffPlanning Director Paul Chaffee
Commissioner Augie BoginaDeputy 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 Sara Somsky
Commissioner Henry Specht
Commissioner Steven Wise
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
Commissioner Alan Willoughby

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Welcome to the February 1, 2016 meeting of the Shawnee Planning Commission. We’ll start with roll call.

A. ROLL CALL

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Somsky.

COMMISSIONER SOMSKY: Present.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Willoughby is absent.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Busby.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bogina is here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Specht.

COMMISSIONER SPECHT: Here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Smith.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Hill.

COMMISSIONER HILL: Here.

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

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you.

C. CONSENT ITEMS:

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Items 1 and 2 are listed under the Consent Items Agenda. Unless there is a request to remove an item from the Consent Agenda, the items will be approved in one motion. Is there a request to remove an item from the Consent Agenda? If not, is there a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would move for approval of the Consent Agenda items as submitted by staff.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: I’ll second that motion.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and a second to approve items 1 and 2 of the Consent Agenda, all in favor?

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes.


(Motion passes 10-0; Willoughby absent)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: That takes us to Item D, which is:

D. NEW BUSINESS

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Doug.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: The applicant requests rezoning approval from AG (Agricultural) to PO (Professional Office) for an 18.69 acre parcel located at 7725 Renner Road. The PO zoning district allows development of professional office uses on the site.

The subject tract is unplatted and is currently the location of a single family home that was constructed in 1996 (1966). If the rezoning request is approved, the existing home and related improvements will be removed from the site.

Shawnee Mission Park is located to the west of the site across Renner Road, while vacant ground zoned PUDOC (Planned Unit Development Office Commercial) is located to the north of the site. This zoning was approved for the Park Plaza Hotel and an office building that were never constructed. I-435 is located to the east of the site, while the south property line of the parcel is bounded by 79th Street. Single family homes located in the City of Lenexa sit to the south of 79th Street.

The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan depicts office/service uses as being appropriate for the entire 18.69 acre site. The I-435 Corridor Plan identified this site as a prime area for office construction and the City has anticipated development of office buildings on the property for many years. Thus, the request for Professional Office zoning on the subject property is in compliance with the Plan.

Because the property sits on a corner, access to the site can be provided from both Renner Road and 79th Street for the entire development site. Access for the initial northern phase of development will be from two private drive approaches to Renner, which is classified as a minor arterial on the City’s circulation plan. Any subsequent development on the south end of the site would have shared access to Renner (with phase one), with potential for a secondary access point onto 79th Street.

The character of the area will change somewhat with the redevelopment of the existing single family home into an office site. However, previous development of the Park Plaza bowling alley and approval of office / commercial zoning to the north support additional development of similar uses in the area. The subject property abuts a major interstate highway, and a large public park. Development of professional office in this context is appropriate.

Approval of the rezoning should have little, if any, detrimental effect upon surrounding properties. The property is accessed by a minor arterial and a major collector street. These streets are designated to handle traffic levels generated by office development. Also, the developer intends to preserve a significant portion of the existing stand of trees that is located on the site.

Denial of the request would not appear to benefit the community as a whole. Increased levels of office development and enhancement of Shawnee’s daytime population has been a stated goal of the Planning Commission and City Council.

The applicant also requests preliminary plat approval for a professional office subdivision. The plat contains two lots on 18.69 acres.

All bulk requirements of the PO zoning district have been satisfied. Lot 1 contains 351,058 square feet or 8.06 acres with approximately 463 feet of frontage. Lot 2 contains 376,255 square feet in 8.64 acres with approximately 533 feet of frontage.

The lots in this development are served by a public sewer system.

The total area within Lots 1 and 2 are subject to the excise tax. The total estimated excise tax for this development is $156,372.50 calculated on an area of roughly 16.70 acres.

The developer may enter into an Excise Tax Abatement Agreement with the City that would allow for the suspension, partial or in full, for the excise tax due, provided the final plat is approved and recorded prior to expiration of the suspension of the excise tax as set by the City. This agreement between the property owner and the City shall be created, agreed upon, and executed prior to obtaining the Mayor’s signature on the recording copy of the final plat.

Open space fees are estimated to be $14,042.33 for Lot 1 and $15,050.23 for Lot 2.

This plat is intended for conveyance purposes only. All street, storm, and streetlight public improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the standards of the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual and as required within the report and conditions of approval associated with the Site Plan (SP-02-16-02).

I’ll move on to the site plan.

The applicant also requests site plan approval for construction of a 36,690 square foot professional office building. The project is proposed on lot 1 of the Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange subdivision. The site contains 8.06 acres.

Again, all bulk requirements have been met. The building and parking lot maintain a 30-foot or greater setback from the right-of-way line for Renner Road. The building is located more than 35 feet from the rear (east) property line, and is located more than 20 feet from the north and south (side) property lines. Building setbacks provided by the plan include a 120 foot setback from the Renner Road right-of-way line, a 210 foot setback from the north property line, a 65 foot setback from the south property line, and a 510 foot setback from the east property line.

At one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area, 147 parking stalls, including five (5) ADA accessible spaces, are required by the zoning ordinance for the professional office use. The site plan depicts 118 stalls, including four (4) ADA spaces, for the first phase of construction. As allowed by zoning code, the applicant has requested to defer construction of 29 spaces or 20% of the total required. The number of visitors to the site is extremely limited, and the applicant has indicated their usage by employees is fixed at a number much less than City parking code requires. The site plan does depict areas where additional parking will be constructed if parking problems arise in the future. Staff is supportive of the parking deferral as proposed.

Let’s see if we can see that.

The front of the two-story office building will face west toward Renner Road. Because of grades on the site, the office utilizes a split-level design so that the front elevation facing Renner will have a one-story appearance with over-story windows. The plan provides a sidewalk area in the front of the building to allow for pedestrian access from the parking lot. The rectangular 178’ by 103’ footprint is situated so that the longest building profile is parallel with Renner and I-435. The building has two sloped roof sections of differing heights to break up the roofline.

Submitted elevations of the building indicate all four sides will be constructed of a combination of rough and smooth limestone veneer, with large fields of glass incorporated into all walls. The rough-faced limestone will be beige, while the smooth limestone will be lighter beige. All glass window units will be gray-tint with silver anodized aluminum frames.

To break up smooth limestone sections of the building, cut limestone trim will be installed to form square and rectangular limestone sections in all walls. The rough-face limestone is used primarily at the base of building walls and to create tall pilasters that break up sections of smooth limestone and glass windows. The rough-faced limestone material will be installed in a varied, stacked pattern.

The shorter angled roof section slopes from east to west toward Renner, while the taller roof section slopes from west to east toward I-435. All roof sections will be covered in gray standing seam metal. Exterior downspouts are shown to be colored beige to match adjacent limestone. Mechanical units are located on the ground to the south of the building and are fully screened by a limestone wing wall extension. All utility meters and conduit attached to the building shall be painted beige to match the adjacent wall.

Overall, staff feels this is a high quality building of durable materials and interesting design features. The building will set a good precedent for future office construction within the I-435 Corridor.

Frontage and open space trees shown on the landscape plan exceed minimum code requirements. Based on the frontage length along Renner Road, twelve (12) street trees are required. The plan depicts 15 trees along Renner in a combination of Red Oak, Eastern Redbud, White Oak, and White Pine. Existing trees along I-435 that will be preserved satisfy street tree requirements along the highway.

In addition to the street trees, based on areas of usable open space, 57 open space trees are required for the first phase of development. The applicant is providing 42 site trees within parking islands and around the foundation of the building. Also, several dozen mature trees will be preserved on the site along the north property line and along I-435 to satisfy open space tree requirements.

Tree sizes are 3” caliper for large trees, 2.5” caliper for ornamentals, and 8 feet for evergreens, which exceeds minimum size requirements of the landscape ordinance. All disturbed areas around the building and parking lot, other than BMP facilities and off-site grading are shown to be sodded.

The trash enclosure is located to the southeast of the building and will be constructed of beige rough-hewn limestone with gray metal gates that face west. The trash enclosure has also been screened with an additional grouping of Serbian spruce trees.

One monument sign for the entire development is allowed adjacent to Renner frontage, and one monument sign could be placed along 79th Street for the development. As provided by code, wall signage is allowed on the north, east and west building walls.

The applicant is responsible for obtaining a land disturbance permit as required by Codes Administration prior to undertaking any land disturbance or construction activities on the development site.

Renner Road is classified as a minor arterial; however, it will be constructed as a modified minor arterial with two travel lanes and a center turn lane. Staff supports a three lane street section for Renner Road. As such, the applicant is responsible for improving the east “half” of Renner Road. Ultimately, with the improvements made in the future, Renner Road will have a dimension of 52 feet from back of curb to back of curb. This includes two 12 foot travel lanes, one 16 foot center turn lane, and two 4 foot bike lanes on each side.

There are two proposed drive approaches as part of this site plan located on Renner Road. The conceptual design for the proposed driveway approaches appears to be in substantial compliance with City standards.

The applicant has submitted a preliminary storm drainage study showing a conceptual grading plan, a drainage system, a drainage area map, and a drainage table summarizing the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for the site. The study is substantially complete and adequate for the purposes of reviewing the site plan.

The applicant is responsible for submitting the impervious area plan as an integral part of the site civil plans for review and acceptance by the Development Engineer.

The applicant has submitted a preliminary stormwater detention study showing a conceptual layout of the detention facility, a drainage area map, and estimated storage volumes and allowable release rates. The preliminary study is substantially complete and adequate for reviewing the development.

This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.16, Stormwater Treatment, which pertains to the implementation of Stormwater Treatment Facilities. The applicant is proposing the use of a bio retention cell to meet the Level of Service of a 5 for this project.

Two short, stacked retaining walls are shown at the northwest corner of the building. The walls will be constructed of beige rough-face keystone blocks. The design and construction of all retaining walls shall comply with the SMC, Chapter 15.04, International Building Code.

In terms of a recommendation, staff recommends approval of Z-01-16-02, rezoning from AG (Agricultural) to PO (Professional Office) for an 18.69 acre parcel located at 7725 Renner Road, subject to condition number 1. Staff recommends approval of Preplat-01-16-02, Preliminary Plat of Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange and SP-02-16-02, Site Plan for construction of a 36,690 square foot professional office building on Lot 1 of the subdivision, subject to conditions 2 through 31. The referenced conditions are as follows:


That completes our report.

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

APPLICANT: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Pete Heaven; my address is 10851 Mastin in Overland Park and I’m delighted to be here tonight representing Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange. As you probably know, this company is currently located in Lenexa and wishes to relocate into the City of Shawnee and we believe we have a very good project for the city. With me tonight is Phil Erwin who is our CEO as well as Bill Burkeness and our development team of Harold Phelps, Jim Roth and Josh Bender and we’ll all be available to answer any questions you might have. I want to thank the staff for their help in going through this process, has been creative and collaborative which has been a hallmark of Shawnee. We agree with all the staff recommendations and the conditions and stipulations stated in the staff report and rather than take any more of your time, we’ll stand for any questions.

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

COMMISSIONER WISE: On the, I believe, well I’ll start out the west elevation, I believe the placement of the building is correct, the east and west but just taking into account if it’s been considered the solar exposure on the west elevation just given how much glass you have that, there may be, you may want to explore some options such as louvers or fins to help control that solar exposure on that. Just a suggestion. The other one, on your, on the limestone panels that I see in here, it looks like it’s almost in a frame system but I’m assuming those are joints, I realize it’s probably a little detailed but it can make a difference on how the fašade appears if you end up with a lot of components versus just joints in that limestone; I’m not sure if you have an answer to that.

APPLICANT: Joshua Bender, architect, I’ll address them in order. The first one, the west elevation, we have looked at the solar for that, the plan is to use solar shades to block any sunlight from the lower windows; the clerestory windows from the overhang design is going to cut off any direct light and only let in ambient light. On the stone panels, the parts that you thought looked like a frame system, they are actually larger pieces of panel, it’s a honeycomb limestone panel so those joints are the only joints that are going to be in the panels, so it is a larger format. It’ll be broken up and look more segmented than that.

COMMISSIONER WISE: So, that’s the thinner limestone with the honeycomb back?

MR. BENDER: Correct.

(Inaudible)

MR. BENDER: It’s kind of the infill of rough stone pilasters.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Yeah, thank you Mr. Chairman. I have a question for staff. Regarding the variance in the parking stalls, so if we project into the future if a different ownership comes in to take over that and the parking isn’t sufficient, then who is then responsible for the additional parking?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: The owner of the building will be responsible. I’m assuming that they will create some sort of covenant letting future purchasers know that those spots are deferred so that it is disclosed and any future owner that that is a requirement of site plan approval.

MR. HEAVEN: Yes, that is no problem. We would be responsible for it.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Okay, and then there is a statement there that if it is determined that there is insufficient parking available, who makes that determination? Is that the city or the owner?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: That would be complaint based system; where if we get complaints essentially that people are parking on the grass or parking on Renner, and not containing the amount of vehicles that are being stored on that site on hard surface dedicated spaces, then we would contact them by phone first and say, you have a problem and that if they are not willing to construct those spaces, we would contact them by letter go through a procedure to make sure that the spaces were installed. I don’t think that they are in opposition to doing this if we do find a problem; they are very specific on the amount of employees that they have, the amount of visitors that they have and had the code not limited to deferral to only 20% of the total, I believe they would have liked to have constructed less spaces than what is actually showing but to comply with the code, they took it to just that 80% threshold of total required.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Right, thank you, Doug.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Another question on the site landscape plan, I noticed it did appear to have screening around the transformer pad and the generator pad…

MR. BENDER: We actually do plan on screening that area, I think that just to make it because of a latest edition…

COMMISSIONER WISE: And is that required to be a masonry wall or is that landscaping?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: It can be either, or as long as the plant material is evergreen like upright junipers or holly, we would accept that. It does not have to be hard scape or a wing wall essentially…

MR. BENDER: The plan is to have a hard-scaped wall though. More for durability screening purposes…

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I would put that as a condition of approval if you are comfortable with that, that way will pick it up for permitting to make sure that that unit is screened with a solid wall.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Yep, that would be fine. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: …I couldn’t tell from the plane itself, the trees that would be saved along the property line that has a grade change there’s a number of dots with lines, would that be a fence or would that be some type of concrete wall that would hold back the soil?

(Inaudible)

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: He may be talking about the tree preservation fence over on the north property line possibly but I’ll bring the site plan over.

(Inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, it would be the north side.

APPLICANT: I will tell you in just a second. By the way, Jim Roth with Cole & Associates. We’re the civil engineers on the project. If you’d give me just a moment to pull up the landscape plan where I can actually read it…

(Inaudible)

MR. ROTH: It is, that actually is. That’s a line indicating that we will preserve the trees beyond that line.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: With the amount of grade change going on there, how would you hold back the soil?

MR. ROTH: We actually are tying into existing grade there so we’re not, there’s no retaining wall required or anything like that in that area. So, we’re sloping down from that area into the site. I don’t know if you can see on your landscape plan, but you can see the contour lines that kind of stop short of the tree preservation line…that’s an indication of us tying into the existing grade area.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, do you think it’s sodded?

(Inaudible)

MR. ROTH: That area is not sodded, no.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, it’s seeded?

MR. ROTH: That area would be seeded; sodding is limited to just beyond the parking lot therefore about 4 feet and the rest of that be seeded.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And you’re confident then that there isn’t a need for something that would retain…

(Inaudible)

MR. ROTH: Our intention, with the swift plan, or erosion control plan is that there will be some protection on that slope to hold the seed in place; were using the highest level of erosion protection that, at least the highest level that we feel from fabric standpoint that will be laid across that slope to maintain the integrity of the soil and hope the soil in place and allow the seed to take place; it’s a product we’ve used numerous times and it’s been successful, plus we are keeping all of our slopes to no more than 4-1; you’ll see a lot of grading designs that go 3-1 max and we’re bringing it back to 4-1 just to try to limit the erosion problems.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay, thank you.

MR. ROTH: You’re welcome.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And Doug, I was unfamiliar with, I guess, the bio retention cell, is that the sand based?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Bio retention cell is the BMP method that they are going to install. The engineer could probably get a better description of it than me but the idea is that the site water will be filtered through basically a small holding area to a two-year storm or less it will pond and then will slowly meter out through a cleansing system that includes natural native plantings and a soil mix.

MR. ROTH: That’s a fairly good overview of the system, I mean, without getting into the engineering part, but it is a sectional soil, you basically dig out a hole and put a specialized soil and sand mixture in a plant mixture on top that helps, not only the plants help cleanse the water with a filtering process but there’s also absorption that occurs, there some water loss which means you’re not sending hundred percent of the water into it, it’s the detention basin, also at the same time you’re cleansing the water as it goes through the natural process of what you would expect mother nature to do and the earth to do and that whatever is left over that doesn’t get absorbed is then discharged into the detention basin. So, it is sort of a sand, it’s not a sand filter there is more than that just to it. So it’s more of a soil and plant approach.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you.

MR. ROTH: There’s some really technical things into it but…

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: I think we’ve seen one or two prior but it’s not a common thing that we see.

MR. ROTH: Yeah, what you see on the surface will look like a landscaped area, like you could almost picture sometimes a flower bed, sometimes it’ll look like native plantings, it just depends on the mixture of materials that we use, but it’ll look like a landscaped bed, you won’t see the surface of the…as I said, to be clear, in the beginning, if you will, until the plants grow you’ll see a surface of the bio retention basins as far as it will look like dirt but as the plants grow it becomes more like a landscape bed and that’s what you’ll see.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Our system, we have a two-year maintenance to make sure plants get established and we have claw-back, if you will, if they don’t take.

MR. ROTH: Right.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: And so there’s actually money that we have available from the applicant to take care of any issues with those types of systems; they’re becoming more and more prevalent, especially on larger sites; what you guys have seen on most of the site plan’s that we’ve reviewed recently are of an acre of size, two acre variety so you have the contact of vortex system that’s an underground filer, essentially; this is a little different in in context of a very large site; a native way of keeping the groundwater clean.

MR. ROTH: Yeah, it mimics a natural process; that’s what it’s supposed to do and that’s the idea; rather than make mechanical devices that will clean the water to some level, they don’t reduce the water at all, water runoff; what the intent of a bio retention basin is to not only get the cleansing effect, you also get a runoff reduction and benefit from it as well cause it does naturally go through the process of filtering through the soil and with the plant material mixed in there you lose some of the moisture going into it so then not all of it goes out of it. It’s actually, most places prefer to see this rather than the mechanical devices so you’ll probably be seeing more and more of this as time goes on, for sure.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you.

MR. ROTH: You’re welcome.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And, were you with the landscape company or the architect?

MR. ROTH: Civil engineering firm, also landscape architect as well.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Mr. Heaven, could I speak toward the architectural?

MR. HEAVEN: Sure. Josh…

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: With the finished elevation of 1004, do you know how that correlates with the elevation of 435 and how much of the roof area would be exposed?

(Inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: 178 feet.

MR. BENDER: So, the farthest east elevation that we have on 435 put it more along the lines of 960.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay.

MR. BENDER: So it, we are about 40-50 feet above 435, but also from 435 it’s bermed up quite a bit and there’s also a rock bluff that both work really well to block the east side of it; so, we don’t see that you’re gonna see the east side of the building, at all from 435; there’s a short section, probably about 100 feet or so that there’d be a chance you’d see it, but it’d be very brief; it’d really be more visible if you’d, turning around if you go past it. So, we don’t think you’d see much of it from 435 at all.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: By much of it, you mean?

MR. BENDER: We don’t anticipate being able to see it really.

(Inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: All right, thank you. Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Yes, my question is landscape and the retention pond, etcetera, or the detention pond, excuse me. There’s an existing pond/water collection point that appears to be at the southeast corner of the building and I see those gradations and understand the environmental cleansing process that you’re going through…do you think the gradations are sufficient to handle, to what rain level, like and still be able to not to overflow that system or tear up the rooting system of existing plants as well as…

MR. ROTH: Right, there’s a chain effect here. One thing we haven’t talked about is the forebay, which is a pretreatment section just before the bio retention basin and what this does is it helps drop out some of the heavier (inaudible) and it also helps retard some of the smaller more intense flows before they go into the bio retention basin and slow those down, but it is not designed to handle larger storms, so some of those storms will overflow that system and flow into the bio retention basin; again, the bio retention basin is designed to hold a certain amount event based on the City’s own design guidelines, but once that is exceeded, then yes it would overflow and we have a designed overflow system into the detention basin; now, the detention basin is designed for a 100-year event so it will detain, you know, your typical largest event, which is a 100-year and if it does fail there still is an overflow system in place for that as well through the pipe system through the top, but again at that point it becomes catastrophic; we don’t anticipate that to happen, I’ll tell you as a civil engineer for 20 years now I’ve never seen a basin reach the top of it, you know, most of the time they’re over designed, our owners love to hear that, but that’s what typically happens so I think we have enough reassurances in place and checks that shouldn’t occur.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Another question on the grading plan, just to make sure I understand. So, I understand the north lot’s being developed, but the south lot I noticed there’s quite a bit of grading but the fence line that’s down the middle is being left in place…is that an intent to leave that, or would it be better to take that out and just rough grade…I assume it’s a rough grade on lot 2 knowing that there will be a future building there.

MR. ROTH: We wouldn’t be opposed to that. We were just really more concerned with removing the tree line. It wasn’t the fence, it’s just preserving the tree line; again, so we would not be objectionable, we wouldn’t object to removing that if you consider that an improvement; we’re just trying to preserve the tree line.

COMMISSIONER WISE: All right, I’d prefer to keep the trees, I just wasn’t sure when I looked at it if that’s…

MR. ROTH: It was intentional for that reason. But yeah, you’re right, what that lot 2 is an area just to off-set the dirt that we need for lot 1. But again, it will be restored to a seeded, you know, we’ll put seed over there and protect the slopes just like we would anywhere else on the site.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you.

MR. ROTH: You’re welcome.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Mr. Heaven, does that complete your presentation?

MR. HEAVEN: It does, sir. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak on this item? If not, we would be in Commission discussion. Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: I’d just like to say I do agree with the design being a quality design materials; it looks like it’s a good application, a good fit for this area; the fact that they broke up the roof line, clear story windows, I think it will make a really nice facility for the employees; it’s a good use of that land too that’s near Shawnee Mission Park.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there any other…Commissioner Specht.

COMMISSIONER SPECHT: Yeah, I would second that. I think that it is a well-designed building and it seems to fit well within that corridor; the overall project and the land space just for the land that it will fit well.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. If there is no other discussion, is there a motion on this item? Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Quick question, do we need to make three motions or just one motion for all three items?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I would make three motions, to be honest with you, to keep them separate since the site plan does not go on and the final (preliminary) plat does not go onto Council; I’d make three motions and then if you’re comfortable with adding a site plan an additional condition for that electrical unit being screened with a mechanical wall we’ll add that to the…

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, you’re asking him to make a motion just for the rezoning? (Inaudible) Okay, thank you. Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: I’ll make a motion to approve Z-01-06-02; rezoning AG to PO at 7725 Renner Road, as presented by staff’s recommendations.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I second the motion.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion to approve Z-01-16-02; a rezoning from AG to PO, all in favor?

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes.


(Motion passes 10-0; Willoughby absent)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Busby.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that we pass the Pre-plat-01-16-02 for 7725 Renner Road.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Do we have a second? Commissioner Specht.

COMMISSIONER SPECHT: Second that motion.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and second to approve the preliminary plat for Federated Rural Electric Insurance at 7725 Renner Road, all in favor?

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes.


(Motion passes 10-0; Willoughby absent)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there a motion on the site plan approval? Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: I’ll make a motion to approve SP-02-16-02; the site plan for Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange, located at 7725 Renner Road, per staff recommendations and with the change to provide screening around the transformer pad and generator pad.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Somsky.

COMMISSIONER SOMSKY: I second the motion.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and second to approve SP-02-16-02; a site plan approval for Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange at 7725 Renner Road, all in favor?

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes, thank you.


(Motion passes 10-0; Willoughby absent)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: That takes us to Item 2 which is:

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Mark.

PLANNER ZIELSDORF: This final plat would typically be placed on the consent agenda as we normally do, however, this evening we needed to have approval of the rezoning and preliminary plat first before consideration of the final plat; and with that, having been completed with the necessary approvals, the applicant requests final plat. This final plat included both lots on the full 18.69 acres as it appears in the prior presentations.

This plat is intended for conveyance purposes only. All public and private improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the conditions of approval associated with Site Plan (SP-02-16-02) from earlier this evening.

With that, staff recommends approval of FP-02-16-02, Final Plat of Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange, a professional office subdivision, located at 7725 Renner Road, subject to the 12 conditions of approval listed in the staff report.

That concludes staff’s presentation.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Is the applicant present?

APPLICANT: Mr. Chairman, my name is Pete Heaven, my address is 10851 Mastin Boulevard in Overland Park; we agree with all of staff’s recommendations and stipulations on the final plat.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Does the Commission have any questions for the staff or the applicant? If not, is there a motion on this item? I’m sorry, is there any discussion between the Commission? Hearing none, is there a motion on this item? Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to recommend approval of FP-02-16-02; final plat for Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange, a professional office subdivision located at 7725 Renner Road, as presented in the staff report and subject to the conditions.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Smith.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Second.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and second to approve FP-02-16-02; a final plat approval for Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange, located at 7725 Renner Road, all in favor?

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes, thank you.


(Motion passes 10-0; Willoughby absent)


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: That takes us to Item 3:
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Paul.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: The applicant has requested this item be tabled to the March 7, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. A copy of the request has been included in your packet.

Staff recommends consideration of SUP-01-16-02 and SP-01-16-02, be tabled to the March 7, 2016 Planning Commission meeting.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Are there any questions for the staff? Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Paul, does the closure or vacating, I’m not sure what street that is that crosses the railroad track, does that impact this in any way as far as access?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: No, that property is, that street that’s being vacated is located further north…

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Okay.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: …than this property.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Okay, thanks.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Are there any other questions for the staff? Do we have a motion on this item?

Commissioner Hill moved to approve to table this item to the March 7, 2016 meeting.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Busby.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Second the motion.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and second to approve the tabling to March 7, 2016 of SUP-01-16-02 and SP-01-16-02 a special use permit and site plan approval for Tree Liquidators, all in favor?

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes.


(Motion passes 10-0; Willoughby absent)


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: That takes us to:

E. OTHER BUSINESS

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Paul do you have any other business.

Planning Director Chaffee reminded the Commission that the second meeting in February will be on a Wednesday due to the President’s Day Holiday; February is a 5 Monday month; Vantage Apartment development – at the last Governing Body meeting there was a motion to approve the recommendation of the Planning Commission which did not get seven votes which was required due to the protest petition, there was no motion to deny and no further motions, so in effect the Governing Body chose the third option they had which was to take no action, which means this application goes away and if the applicant wants to pursue it further there will be a new application that’s filed or any other action they deem necessary due to the Governing Body’s vote.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Does the Commission have any questions or business for the staff?

F. ADJOURNMENT

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: If not, Commissioner Peterson do you have a motion to adjourn?

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Yes Commissioner, I move that we adjourn.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: I second.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Motion and second to adjourn, all in favor.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes.


(Motion passes 10-0; Willoughby absent)