PDF Format:





July 6, 2016

7:30 P.M.

Commissioner Bruce BienhoffPlanning Director Paul Chaffee
Commissioner Augie BoginaDeputy Planning Director Doug Allmon
Commissioner Kathy PetersonPlanner Mark Zielsdorf
Commissioner Les SmithAdministrative Assistant Angie Lind
Commissioner Alan Willoughby
Commissioner Steven Wise
Commissioner Randy Braley
Commissioner Dennis Busby
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Good evening and welcome to the July 6, 2016 meeting of the Shawnee Planning Commission. We’ll start with roll call.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Peterson.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Willoughby.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bienhoff.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Busby is absent.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bogina is here.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Wise.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Braley is absent.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Smith.


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



CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Item 1 is listed under the Consent Items Agenda. Unless there is a request to remove the minutes of the June 20, 2016 meeting, the Consent Agenda will be approved in one motion. Is there a request to remove this item from the Consent Agenda? If not, is there a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: I’ll make a motion to approve the Consent Agenda, per staff’s recommendations.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Specht.

COMMISSIONER SPECHT: I’ll second that motion.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and second to approve Items 1 thru 3 of the Consent Agenda, all in favor?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes, thank you.

(Motion passes 6-0; Braley and Busby absent)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: That takes us to:



DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: The applicant requests special use permit approval for the operation of a group day care with up to ten (10) children, as a home occupation, at 22102 W. 52nd Street. The applicant currently operates a daycare for up to six children in her home, and has done so at this address since 2006. There have been no reported issues or problems in the past related to the operation.

The property is zoned R-1 (Single Family) and is located within the Crystal Park subdivision (sixth plat). The property contains a single family residence. Surrounding properties in all directions are also zoned R-1 and are developed with other single family homes.

The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan indicates low density residential use for the property, thus the principle use of the structure as a residence is in compliance with the Plan.

The applicant is requesting approval to operate a group day care with up to ten (10) children. The hours of operation will not change and are between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The applicant was recently approached by a new neighbor who desired daytime child care. Taking this extra child would create an overlap for parts of the day (some children attend preschool offsite), over the maximum of her current allowance of six children.

The property is served by a two-car driveway that has approximately 45 feet of depth. This provides ample room for off-street drop off and pickup of children.

In accordance with the City’s requirement, the applicant has a fenced play area in the back yard. The back yard is surrounded with a 6-foot tall, solid wood fence on all three sides.

The Fire Department completed an on-site inspection of the residence last year as required. The site inspection indicated all life safety requirements were satisfied. The applicant has provided staff with a copy of her current license issued by Kansas Department of Health and Environment that allows care for up to 10 children. The owner shall also continue to maintain an annual business license from the City Clerk to operate the home occupation.

Granting the special use permit should have little, if any, detrimental effect on surrounding properties. There are numerous special use permits that have been issued for the provision of child care as a home occupation without concerns being raised. Likewise, a home daycare for 6 children has operated at the home for 10 years.

Staff recommends approval of SUP-04-16-07 for the operation of a group day care with up to ten (10) children as a home occupation by Bridget Sanders, located at 22102 W. 52nd Street, subject to the following conditions:

That completes our report.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Is the applicant present?


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

APPLICANT: It’s Bridget Sanders; my address is 22102 W. 52nd St., Shawnee, KS 66226.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Have you read the staff report?

MS. SANDERS: Yes, I have.

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


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

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I’m looking at the Kansas license and I’m noting that it expires in August. With the children that are coming in, will it exceed any of these specified levels that would cause this not to be renewed?

MS. SANDERS: No, it would not. It expires in August but it doesn’t even, I’m not even looking for the overage until, I believe, in January.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Any other questions for the staff or the applicant? Thank you.

MS. SANDERS: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: This is a public hearing and so if there is anyone that wishes to speak on this item, they should come forward now. Hearing none, we would be in Commission discussion. Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it seems to be a pretty straightforward application and providing a need that’s needed in the neighborhood and if there is no other discussion, I’d be prepared to make a motion.


COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Make a motion that we approve SUP-04-16-07; special use permit for Sanders home daycare, as submitted by staff and subject to staff’s conditions.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I second the motion.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and a second to approve SUP-04-16-07; a special use permit for approval for Sanders home daycare at 22102 W. 52nd Street, all in favor?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you.

(Motion passes 6-0; Braley and Busby absent)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Item number 3 is:

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: The applicant requests rezoning from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to CH-O (Commercial Highway-Overlay) on property located in the 6200 Block of Ballentine. The CH-O district allows development of professional office, retail and restaurant uses.

The area of rezoning is made up of three residentially zoned lots that total 1.43 acres in size. These lots are platted and have been purchased as part of a flood control and mitigation project. The City is currently in the process of constructing stormwater improvements that will re-align the existing drainage channel further north of its current location. Existing homes on these lots will be removed as a result of this drainage project.

Property to the north is zoned R-1 and consists of single family homes that front to 62nd Street. These homes will back to the improved drainage channel once construction of the flood mitigation project is completed. Property to the west is zoned CH-O, and contains a self-storage facility. Property to the east and southeast is zoned CH-O and contains a legal non-conforming construction yard, and a vacant pawn shop. Property to the south is zoned CH-O and contains a vacant used car lot, a vacant laundromat and dry cleaning facility, and a vacant drive-in restaurant. These buildings, as well as the vacant pawn shop, are to be demolished and redeveloped into office, retail and restaurant uses.

The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan depicts high density residential uses as being appropriate for the area of rezoning. This designation was based on the concept of assembling several tracts in the area for a residential infill development that would lie to the north of the existing drainage channel. The high density land use designation did not contemplate re-alignment of the existing drainage channel, and after completion of the flood control project, the area would not be large enough to support a high density residential development and will not have direct access to a street. Additionally, with the movement of the channel northward, it is a logical extension of the current commercial development south of the creek. The realigned drainage channel creates a natural break between the homes that will remain along 62nd Street and commercial development along Shawnee Mission Parkway. Recent Corridor Visioning studies have anticipated and encouraged redevelopment of office and commercial uses along this part of the Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor. If the rezoning is approved, staff would recommend changing the land use designation to Commercial during the annual comprehensive plan review.

As part of drainage channel improvements, the southern portion of Ballentine will be vacated by plat in this area. Access to the property will come from the Shawnee Mission Parkway frontage road once drainage improvements are completed.

The character of the area will change somewhat with the redevelopment project. However, most of this change will be related to re-routing of the existing drainage channel to the north. Removal of flood prone homes from the area should enhance the general aesthetics and quality of the surrounding residential neighborhood.

Approval of the rezoning should have little detrimental effect upon surrounding properties. The commercial redevelopment area is separated from adjacent single family homes by a newly configured drainage channel and open space that is approximately 120 feet in width.

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. Likewise, removal of the vacant buildings along this portion of Shawnee Mission Parkway will enhance aesthetics of the corridor.

The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for a commercial subdivision. The preliminary plat contains three lots on 5.43 acres.

The property is located along the north side of the 10700-10900 Blocks of Shawnee Mission Parkway. The property consists of eight parcels and is developed with various commercial buildings including a used car lot, multi-tenant retail building, an old drive in restaurant, and a pawn shop, as well as three lots currently north of the creek zoned R-1 that are vacant. All of these structures will be razed and removed from the property as part of the redevelopment into three commercial lots. Final plat and site plan approval will be required prior to any new development on the site.

As part of the City’s Capital Improvement Plan, the City of Shawnee is working on the final plans for the Nieman South Drainage Improvement Project. This project will reduce the existing flooding concerns along Turkey Creek Tributary D, while also shifting the existing channel to the north providing additional space for commercial development. The City and the developer of this project have filed a joint application with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the necessary permits to construct the channel and commercial improvements. The preliminary plat and associated site plan for this project reflects the final channel alignment and storm drainage improvements that will be constructed as part of the CIP portion of the project that will be administered by City Staff.

The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan anticipates commercial development for this area adjacent to the north side of Shawnee Mission Parkway and south of the creek. The creek will be relocated further north, with the expectation that commercial development would occur north from Shawnee Mission Parkway to the creek. The preliminary plat for this subdivision indicates the creation of three lots for commercial use. The preliminary plat is in general conformance with the Plan.

All bulk requirements of the CH-O zoning district have been satisfied. Lot 1 contains 87,991 square feet (2.02 acres) with approximately 296 feet of frontage along the Shawnee Mission Parkway Frontage Road (Frontage Road). Lot 2 contains 36,590 square feet (0.84 acres) with approximately 128 feet of frontage along the Frontage Road. Lot 3 is a corner lot and contains 45,738 square feet (1.05 acres) with approximately 230 feet of frontage along the Frontage Road and approximately 187 feet of frontage along Goddard Street.

Access to Lots 1 and 2 will be from two commercial drive approaches from Frontage Road, one located towards the west of Lot 1 and one located to the east on Lot 2. Interior access drives will allow for cross access and parking between the two lots. Lot 3 will be served by a single commercial drive approach from Goddard Street at the north side of the lot. No access will be allowed from the Frontage Road for Lot 3. Shawnee Mission Parkway is a designated minor arterial as shown on the Circulation Plan of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The right of controlled-access shall be dedicated to the City along the entire Frontage Road and Goddard Street rights-of-way to restrict direct access from the lots within this subdivision to the designated points as shown on the preliminary plat.

The proposed points of access and lot layout are acceptable for circulation and public safety purposes.

As part of the final plat, access control will be provided along Frontage Road for the entire length of the project accept for a single point of access for Lot 1 and a single point of access for Lot 2. Access control will be provided along Frontage Road for the entire length of Lot 3. Access for Lot 3 will be provided off of Goddard Road only. As part of the redevelopment of Lot 1 and Lot 2, the existing drives along Frontage Road will be required to be removed and the ROW of Frontage Road shall be restored as necessary with curb, asphalt, and sod. The ROW along Frontage Road adjacent to Lot 3 will be restored as necessary as part of the redevelopment of Lot 3.

This subdivision is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.16, Stormwater Treatment, which pertains to the implementation of Stormwater Treatment Facilities (STF) to preserve and enhance the quality of stormwater runoff.

Lot 1 and Lot 2 are required to meet a minimum Level of Service of 4 based on Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. The applicant is proposing the installation of a proprietary stormwater treatment unit to meet the required Level of Service for both lots. Lot 3 will also be required to meet a minimum Level of Service of a 4 when it is developed at a future date.

Public Works (City Transportation Manager) has reviewed the Traffic Impact Study completed by applicant’s engineer for this project and noted the proposed development plan consists of Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3. The traffic impact study classifies Lot 1 as “General Office Building”. Lot 2 is classified as “Specialty Retail”. Lot 3 is classified as “Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through”.

The conceptual site plan and comments from the developer indicate that Lot 2 has the potential to be developed as a fast-food restaurant with a drive through lane. If this occurs, Lot 2 estimated trip generation on an average weekday would have a significant increase.

The tight spacing between Shawnee Mission Parkway and the Frontage Road creates problems for traffic flow travelling to and from the proposed development. Southbound storage capacity on Goddard Street at Shawnee Mission Parkway is limited to a single vehicle in both the left turn lane and through/right lane.

As a result of this limited spacing, newly generated traffic volumes from the proposed development will regularly queue onto Frontage Road at Goddard Street. This potential increase in traffic will regularly block a proposed access point onto Lot 3 from Frontage Road during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. The access point from Frontage Road onto Lot 2 will also be blocked occasionally during the P.M. peak hour. Due to expected queues from the proposed developments, Lot 3 will only be allowed access off of Goddard Street, with no access off of Frontage Road.

The traffic impact study also indicates once the development of all three lots is complete, the eastbound left turn storage at Shawnee Mission Parkway and Goddard Street will need to be increased by at least 50 feet to accommodate additional traffic queue. Absent this improvement, traffic queues will extend out of the existing turn lane and into the left eastbound through lane on Shawnee Mission Parkway during peak periods. Using the proposed land uses in the traffic impact study, this improvement will not be necessary until all three lots develop. If the proposed land uses change, the traffic impact study will be revised as necessary to reflect new conditions and to determine what, if any, additional roadway improvements will be needed.

The applicant requests site plan approval for construction of a 34,627 square foot professional office and retail building. The project is proposed on Lot 1 of the Stag’s Creek subdivision. The site contains 2.05 acres. The preliminary plat submitted to support the project also depicts two other lots to the east of the first phase. Future development of Lots 2 or 3 shall require site plan approval by the Planning Commission.

All bulk requirements have been met. The building maintains an 80-foot or greater setback from the right-of-way line for the Shawnee Mission Parkway frontage road. The building is located more than 25 feet from the rear (north) property line, and is located more than 10 feet from the east and west (side) property lines. Parking is setback 10 feet from the right-of-way line for the Shawnee Mission Parkway frontage road. This is an increase over the current parking setback for existing buildings that have a zero parking setback from the frontage road. Height of the building is 43 feet from finished grade to the top of the roof.

At one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area, 139 parking stalls, including five (5) ADA accessible spaces, are required by the zoning ordinance for the professional office and retail use. The site plan depicts 126 stalls, including five ADA spaces, for the first phase of construction. This parking total includes 33 spaces that will be constructed under the building footprint. As allowed by zoning code, the applicant has requested to defer construction of 13 spaces (or 9% of the total required). The plan also shows that six spaces will be constructed off-site on Lot 2 during the first phase of construction. Shared use of these spaces drops the deferral to 5% of the total required. The applicant has indicated that once Lot 2 is fully developed, shared parking between Lots 1 and 2 will provide more parking than is required for both lots in combination. The applicant also believes that net building area needs (square footage minus stairwells, storage areas, etc.) will be adequately served by the amount of parking provided. Staff is supportive of the parking deferral as proposed. Reduction of unnecessary impervious area related to any site development plan is a stated intent of the zoning code. If parking shortages at the site becomes an issue in the future, the owner shall immediately construct parking areas depicted on Lot 2 conceptually shown on the site plan. All parking stalls and drive aisles meet the minimum size requirements of the zoning ordinance.

The front of the three-story office building will face south toward Shawnee Mission Parkway. The building utilizes a split-level design so that the western portion the front elevation facing the Parkway will drop down to a two-story appearance. The plan provides a wide sidewalk area in the front of the building to allow for pedestrian access from the parking lot to first floor retail spaces. The rectangular 179 foot by 84 foot footprint is situated so that the longest building profile is parallel with Shawnee Mission Parkway. The building has two sloped roof “eyebrows” to break up the flat roofline.

Submitted elevations of the building indicate all four sides will be constructed of a combination of high-quality smooth architectural metal wall panels and stucco with large fields of glass incorporated into all walls. The front elevation is primarily constructed of glass and includes wall element that pops out from the façade on the second floor. This pop-out provides a natural canopy above the first-floor retail suites. A narrow band of fluted white architectural metal wall panels is located directly below the pop-out (Centria “Select White”). This fluting creates horizontal shadow lines and forms the backdrop for retail signage.

The glass on the pop-out portion of the front elevation will be installed in four different colors and opaqueness to add interest to the façade. Glass window units will be provided by Sunguard (Guardian “Crystal Gray”/Blue Hue, “Silver 20”/Reflective, “Midnight Gray”/Dark, and “White” / Spandrel). The east elevation will be constructed almost entirely of clear glass curtain wall with a light blue hue.

Smooth Architectural panels on the second floor will be dark gray in color with rectangular reveal joints (Dri-Design Select “Pewter”). All stucco will be installed with a three coat system that include a top acrylic color coat. Primary stucco on the first floor of the north (rear) and west (side) elevation will be light gray (Dryvit “Mountain Fog”). To further break up wall areas and add additional color to the facade, the exterior stairwell encasement on the north elevation will be framed in green stucco (Dryvit “Forest Green”). A similar stucco frame is found around the east entry door that is colored gray/blue (Dryvit “Winter Blue”).

The roof eyebrows will be capped with gray metal fascia to match the façade. Soffits will constructed of metal panels that have a wooden appearance (Fundermax “Almond”). All downspouts are interior to the structure. Mechanical units are located within the parking garage and above the north stairwell on the roof. Rooftop units are screened by a raised parapet wall. Any utility meters and conduit attached to the building shall be painted gray to match the adjacent wall.

Overall, staff feels this is a high quality building of durable materials and interesting design features. The building will upgrade the aesthetics of the Shawnee Mission Parkway corridor, and will set a design precedent for future projects that may occur on the corridor.

Frontage and open space trees shown on the landscape plan meet minimum code requirements for the first phase of construction. Based on the lot length along the frontage road, seven (7) street trees are required. The plan depicts 7 trees in a combination of Silk Lilac and Japanese Zelkova trees.

The applicant is providing 16 site trees within parking islands and around the perimeter of the site. Species shown on the plan include Pilar Oak, Frontier Elm, and Magnolia trees.

The landscape plan also provides 52 shrubs around the perimeter of the parking lots and to accent the east building foundation. Species shown include Boxwood and low-gro Sumac. The parking lot islands provided within the parking lot comprise more than six percent to meet code requirements.

The parking lot will be lit with 6 separate light poles. Pole heights are 19 to 24 feet (including the base) to meet City requirements. The fixtures include a flat lens so that the bulb does not extend below the shoebox, and will be mounted at a 90-degree angle with the pole. This will minimize glare onto surrounding properties.

At this time, the developer anticipates the west end of the office building will be occupied by a bank. Because of this, an ATM lane and remote teller lane are provided adjacent to the west property line. The lanes are offset from the main one-way (north to south) drive aisle so they do not interfere with regular traffic flow. Each lane is equipped with a simple canopy to provide weather protection for customers.

The trash enclosure is located to the northwest of the building and will be constructed of gray board-formed concrete to match the color of the building, with gray metal gates that face southeast.

Individual lots within the subdivision are not allowed to have separate monument signs. One monument sign for the entire development is allowed adjacent to Shawnee Mission Parkway frontage, and one monument sign could be placed along Goddard for the development. Unless a variance is granted, monument signs shall not exceed 7 feet in height, and the face shall not exceed 50 square feet.

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

Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit for development sites greater than one acre, the applicant is responsible for submitting separate land disturbance plans for review and acceptance by Code Administration Division. The site grading and erosion control measures depicted on those plans must be prepared in accordance with SMC, Chapter 15.04, International Building Code, the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and all other applicable policies statements and administrative rules.

The applicant is responsible for submitting a site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared in accordance with SMC, Chapter 15.04, International Building Code, the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and in compliance with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) General Permit for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) program for stormwater runoff from construction activities.

For development sites greater than one acre, the applicant is responsible for submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) for Storm Water Runoff from Construction Activities and obtaining such permits as required by KDHE prior to undertaking any land disturbance or construction activities on the development site. The applicant must submit to the City a copy of the NOI prior to the issuance by the City of a Land Disturbance Permit for the development site.

The applicant is responsible for obtaining such permits as may be required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for grading activities covered by Section 401 (Water Quality Certification), Section 402 (Wetlands), and Section 404 (Waters of the United States) of the Clean Water Act.

The storm drainage improvements required for this development shall be designed in accordance with Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, Division 2300 Storm Drainage.

The enclosed and open components of the commercial drainage system must be designed to convey the stormwater runoff from a 4 percent chance (25-year return period) storm.

All overflow components must be designed to convey the runoff from a 1 percent annual chance (100-year return period) storm.

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 following design issues were noted:

A complete hydrologic and hydraulic drainage table will need to be prepared according to the standards of the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual for the site civil plans.

A plan and profile of the proposed public and private storm sewers must be included as part of the final storm drainage plans prepared for the site civil plans.

The applicant is responsible for providing public drainage easements for any portion of the public storm system that is located outside of a public street right-of-way. The drainage easements will be recorded as part of the final plat for this development.

The applicant is responsible for submitting storm drainage plans to Development Services for review and acceptance prior to preparing the signature copies of the final plat. Any design issues discovered during the review of the storm plans must be resolved prior to the issuance of a Public Improvement Permit.

This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.08, Stormwater Management, which pertains to the City’s stormwater utility regulations.

The applicant is responsible for preparing an impervious area plan in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, Division 2300, Storm Drainage, using coordinates based in the Kansas North State Plane Coordinate System of 1983, North Zone (NAD-83). The plan must accurately depict the limits of all parcels that comprise the development site and indicate the applicable Johnson County parcel identification numbers. Use crosshatching for existing impervious areas and halftone shading for proposed impervious areas. All existing and proposed impervious areas must be summarized in a table by parcel number including the proposed total impervious area per each parcel.

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. Once the plan is accepted, the applicant is responsible for submitting a separate printed copy and an electronic copy in AutoCADİ format prior to the issuance of a building permit.

This development is not subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.24, Stormwater Detention, which pertains to the construction and maintenance of on-site stormwater detention facilities. The applicant submitted a stormwater management letter stating that there are no known downstream flooding concerns as defined by the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. Since detention is not required, the applicant is responsible for paying the stormwater detention fee. The fee is required to be paid to the City prior to the issuance of the Public Improvement Permit.

Portions of this development lie within and adjacent to the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) for Turkey Creek Tributary F, which is designated as a Zone AE. The City is currently undertaking a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) to construct an engineered channel roughly 200 feet north of the existing creek. In addition, portions of Turkey Creek Tributary FB, a designated Zone X (future), will be improved with a RCB, realigned to connect near the northeast corner of the development site with the new engineered channel. The new drainage improvements are designed to convey the runoff from a 1% annual chance (100-year) storm primarily within the drainage facilities.

The City and the landowner are responsible for obtaining separate Floodplain Development Permits (FDP) prior to commencing any work, including grading, within the current SFHA until such time as DHS-FEMA issues a LOMR. Because of the extensive regulatory Floodway, no FDP can be issued until DHS-FEMA issues a CLOMR. All work undertaken prior to the issuance of a LOMR is considered at risk and no (building) Certificate of Occupancy or (floodplain) Certificate of Completion will be issued prior to a LOMR being obtained.

No building larger than 120 square feet shall be constructed closer than 30 feet of the limits of the modified 1% annual chance flood based on ultimate (future) development conditions for the watershed.

The Minimum Low Openings of all buildings located adjacent to the modified SFHA must be a minimum of 2 feet higher than the modified Base Flood Elevations (BFE) at their upstream-most corners based on ultimate (future) development conditions for the watershed.

A subterranean parking garage is proposed for Building 1. Because the building will be constructed on fill material, if the floor of the parking garage is lower than the modified BFE based on existing (1998) development conditions, then the landowner is responsible for demonstrating that the proposed structure will be “reasonably safety from flooding” as established in FEMA Technical Bulletin 10-01 (Reasonably Safe from Flooding).

All landowners of lots adjacent to the SFHA are responsible for submitting DHS-FEMA Elevation Certificates demonstrating compliance with the above requirements prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

The stream corridor associated with Turkey Creek Tributary F has a required setback of 100 feet measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) as established in the field. However, once this tributary is improved as an engineered channel, it will no longer be a “natural” stream requiring a setback.

The applicant is required to provide construction phasing plans for the development. Additionally, the applicant is required to provide traffic control and signage during construction. Detailed traffic control plans are required to be prepared. The plans need to ensure that access is provided to all businesses and residences impacted during the construction of this development. Additionally, the plans need to ensure that emergency personal can access all existing businesses and residences at all times.

This rezoning will provide a consistent zoning classification on the south side of the relocated drainage channel. Staff recommends approval of Z-02-16-07, rezoning from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to CH-O (Commercial Highway-Overlay) for a 1.43 acre parcel located in the 6200 block of Ballentine, subject to condition number 1. Staff recommends approval of Preplat-13-16-07, Preliminary Plat of Stag’s Creek and SP-18-16-07, Site Plan for construction of a 34,627 square foot professional office building on Lot 1 of the subdivision, subject to conditions 2 through 30. The referenced conditions are as follows:

That completes our staff report.

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

APPLICANT: Hi. Kevin Tubbesing (Address omitted from record) for Stag’s Creek, LLC.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Have you read the staff report?


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

MR. TUBBESING: Generally speaking, yes.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. So, if you don’t agree with all of the recommendations, could you describe which ones you do not?

MR. TUBBESING: Really only access regarding lot three. I’m not really willing to fight that fight now because we are really not going here tonight for site plan approval, it’s really more of a plat issue. I don’t think that the restriction for access on to Frontage Road is something that we should determine now. I understand that staff for two so that is fine I’ll accept that recommendation for tonight. I think there are complications with Frontage Road access to lot three, which is the pond shop site by the way at the hard corner, I think there are complications but I think anytime that this City or any other requests and receive some degree of density then you are going to occasionally have congestion around that density. Which, if you know your downtown or in many parts of any city your occasionally get hit areas of congestion where, you know, you can have a difficult time pulling out here or there or what not, you know, during busier times. I think it’s easy in a more suburban environment when you have, you know, tons of available land and egress and ingress points to work around that but when you come into these higher density areas that are asking to be higher density, such as here in Shawnee, I think egress and ingress points like that need to be considered differently.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Well, I think it is relevant because we are approving the plat tonight and I think that that’s what’s relevant and I, if you want to discuss that first, I think that you’ve received right-of-way from the City and I think that your plat does not depict right-of-way that you’re dedicating in order to change Goddard to where it could be more accessible and have such stacking and so I think it’s relevant and I’m not gonna address, I’m not going to give you my opinion right now but I’m just gonna tell you that it’s relevant, then you should address it in your presentation.

MR. TUBBESING: Again, I believe that the point that I was just mentioning was the Goddard frontage specifically, I’m sorry, Frontage Road ingress egress which staff, we did a traffic report and says hey that’d really be a, you know, a tough place to get out sometimes, so I get it. So the Frontage Road access is the main issue, now whether the agreement that I had with staff during our run up to today’s meeting is recording Goddard and the right-of-way setbacks on that is again, currently I think that’s fine, we can accept that within the plat, the recording of the plat. When we actually get a site plan, which we’re close to but were not quite there yet for Lot 3, staff has agreed to work with us if for whatever reason we might need to move that right-of-way line that point in time.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay, and I know that you’ve submitted the preliminary plat versus a final so it’s something that you can address in your final plat as to whether or not the right-of-way should move towards the north, you know, to allow more stacking on to Goddard. But, is that the only stipulation…


MR. TUBBESING: …staff report, I just…

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: …the other 30, the other 29…



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

COMMISSIONER WISE: Question on the elevations, and I realize that this is preliminary site plan, but I don’t see reflection of or any mention of the overhead door to the garage and I believe the retaining wall was indicated as a concrete wall to the basement that’ll be hidden on the backside, but I believe the retaining wall mentioned in the staff report, that’s a site retaining wall, that’s not the garage retaining wall so I assume the concrete that would be acceptable, just making sure that the overhead door, even though it’s not visible from Shawnee Mission Parkway, that it is complementary to the building façades.

MR. TUBBESING: The garage door is currently a discussion about whether we do it or not, quite frankly. We are kinda going back and forth regarding the mechanical requirements of the building, whether the garage should be closed up and heated, for example, or whether it should be left open and the wind left open. I mean, there are code requires significant, I think it’s 40% of the wall space, I think, that actually has to be opened and aired, so I think we’re kind of going through those iterations right now. The garage door itself would only actually be down in the evening.


MR. TUBBESING: So, it’d be open during all operating hours. So, I’ll be honest, the ones that I’ve seen, you know, that we’d probably be using would be as complementary a color as we could find with a finish so it doesn’t cause a maintenance issue. There’s a group out of Lawrence here that makes garage doors and probably would use the best complementary color from them.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Okay. I understand the complications with exhaust, it takes quite a bit to keep air moving in that area, and so I appreciate that. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: It shows the top of the wall to be 958.6 along the creek. How high is that above the top of the creek?

MR. TUBBESING: Yeah, the question I believe goes to whether I’m creating a swimming pool. So, we’ve put extensive effort into the review of the creek, the height of the wall, the potential for flooding and basically are we creating an issue within the parking garage…so, two ways of looking at this. Number one, it is a parking garage so it’s not finished floor, it’s not finished office, it’s not occupied retail space, so from that I feel very comfortable but I’m also assured by my civil engineer, hi Dan raise your hand, that this ground, that this property will not flood and so we do have the appropriate distance that we need from the parking lot on top of the wall of the creek to the parking garage. You know, we’ve also put, you know, there’s an elevation did so there is your kind of doing and up before going down into it; the bottom of the floor actually drains, I mean there’s floor drains in the bottom of the parking garage that will actually drain out to, you know, down…gravity, it’s wonderful, to actually get rid of any water that comes into the garage. Is that kind of where you’re heading?



COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: What I was looking at really was, what’s the wall, the height of the wall that the people on 62nd St. are going to see above the top of the vertical wall channel?

MR. TUBBESING: You’re, if you are asking me what the City’s doing with the creek, I can’t answer that question. I’m not here to get approval to change the creek, so I don’t know if staff has that information, but I don’t.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: The wall is between 15 and 18 feet high but you can have wall since it’s a vertical channel that we’re creating, there’s a wall on both the north side and south side so…

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: It’ll be at ground level?


COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: And then the wall for this development will be above that?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Yeah, correct. Well, it’ll be part of…

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: It’ll be part of it. It’s what they are going to see when it, but it’s not 40 or 50 feet?



CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Doug, if I can ask you first, should you have to lift or take 13 spaces from the adjoining future development and add them to this, does that mean that that 2800 ft.² structure is may be only a 2400 ft.² structure in the future?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: It could depending on the use but the way they aligned parking and conceptually showed what would be parked on that, it’s technically slightly over parked. So, if it develops as conceptually shown, it would be fine. But, if it comes in as for instance a dentist office or something like that that requires one per 150 rather than one per to 250 the office size might be limited, but we would certainly look at that when we brought that site plan to you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: I just had two questions, if you’re familiar, but I’m a little bit familiar with these metal panels and how they fit so and all that but those that I’ve been exposed to, especially in the silver line has been very reflective and would quite possibly be a hazard on Shawnee Mission Parkway. Have you or your architect thought about that or have you read that, what you’re proposing?

MR. TUBBESING: Yeah, Terry and Doug kind of went in a roundabout a number of times on the panels. They are not a reflective panel, they are a muted matted color. Quite frankly, you’re going to get more reflection off of the mirrored glass that we have on some of the panels than you’re going to get off of the metal panels that are going to be on the façade.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, these are matte finish versus those that I had that were very reflective, but they were not a matte finish and so you are saying that you think that these are going to be less reflective?

MR. TUBBESING: It’s my understanding they are matte finish. Yes, they are matte finished.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay, and do you think that the southern exposure with the number of materials youth proposed is busy or do you like it?

MR. TUBBESING: Yes, and I like it.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay, tell me why you like it. (Inaudible) with five different color combinations in materials.

MR. TUBBESING: I mean, for the most part, again, I would say that sounds more complex than I believe it is and were using a, you know, brushed aluminum look, if you will from, I know (inaudible) but I know it’s basically a brushed aluminum look for the storefront and it’ll go across all the metal of the front of the building; and then will we get to the glass we are very intentionally, partially for southern exposure, partially for looks kind of flipping from a dark tint to more of a clear just UV and then to a mirror as we go across the glass in order to create some character to the building; but when you actually just look at the front of the building really what you’re going to find is, you know, the brushed aluminum metal look across the storefront and what we call the picture box, the picture window of the second floor; but then you really don’t, the color spectrum, if you will, of the blue entrance to the professional office in the second and third floors on the east side of the building, that’s really the only pop of color until you go around to the north side of the building where, you know, we have the green north entrance and we did that very intentionally so that when people are told to come to the building they can be told to go into the blue entrance or the green entrance depending on where the preference of the tenant is and I think that that pop of color, if you will, actually brings character to the building in what is otherwise kind of a shades of gray type of property.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay, and one less thing. I thought that I could be impressed by the landscape plan but I think all you’ve done is the minimum and I’m surprised that for such a gateway-type of project that you didn’t do more.

MR. TUBBESING: Well, I guess the best way I can address the landscape plan is that you have to put landscape in dirt and this is a very dense property. This is, we don’t have the ability to move outside of our boundaries on the west and north because we are hitting a landscape wall being installed by the City for the creek so we can’t do very intricate landscaping on the west or the north side of the property, frankly even the east because of getting into the landscape of that, so the front part of the building there’s only so much green area that we have and those of you that have seen my properties, I’m not a big fan of mulch, I believe mulch just spreads out with the rain and so every one of my properties is I use much more expensive river rock to actually otherwise in the mulching areas, so I like to use a lot of river rock; I think that there is a, I don’t know, I think landscaping is one of those things that needs to complement building as much as you can but we were certainly restricted on three sides of the building because of the landscaping of the creek.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: But, you agree with me, that you haven’t exceeded the landscape minimums at all.

MR. TUBBESING: Honestly, I can’t say that I, I mean, I reviewed the landscaping plan and it seemed reasonable to me and I can’t say that I’ve looked at it in that way.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: As this is an infill development, it should, in my opinion, it should work and it should match and I know that there, that you put in the minimum street trees, you put in some small bushes in front of some of the parking spaces but, but I think you could have in lieu of two ATMs, if you had cared to, use more of some type of landscape feature in that area rather than to pave most of the site.

MR. TUBBESING: And, I disagree with that only from the perspective of I have to perform of the ability to pay for the building first and then look at excess landscaping later and the inclusion of the ATM spaces on the west allow us to bring in the most expensive…


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: I’m sorry, go ahead.

MR. TUBBESING: …allow us to bring in the most high-paying tenant, would you be a financial institution, which would utilize the west space; it’s actually the highest priced per square foot of all of the rented space within the building and so, I mean, it was a very significant part of the (inaudible) to do.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: The landscaping is not that expensive and it’s a feature and I don’t want to dwell on this point but I thought that there would be a better landscape plan than…

MR. TUBBESING: I’ll talk to them and see if we can enhance it a little.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: All right, thank you. Is there any other questions for the staff or the applicant? Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: My question is also about landscaping but a little different. I did some research on the trees, the street trees versus the ornamentals and specifically on lot one, building one, I know where you’re about to put your sign because there’s only one for the whatever, that is, I don’t know the word that I’m looking for, it’s flanked by two ornamentals, the shrubs in front and the ornamentals are either the ivory silk or lilac or magnolia, what type of obstruction are they going to create for your sign which I know organized discuss later?

MR. TUBBESING: Yeah, so the, I honestly have no idea what either of those plants look like so, I don’t know. But, what I can tell you is that, you know, this sign restrictions, which I think are reasonable within the City, can’t have a very tall sign, so you can’t get above vegetation very much so you have to kinda, a lot of those yet to keep the shrubbery, if you will, low; and then there’s only, that’s the only area that we could put the sign to not have sideline issues or ingress egress of the property; so, we just had a very difficult time actually fitting it in at all and so I think we, I think they just put a landscaping in that they could around the sign to make it attractive; again, all of this, I have, I’m probably the worst person when it comes to, I’m pretty good at visualizing buildings but I’m horrible at visualizing landscaping. You know, when we get this thing up and running, if it doesn’t look nice, get a change it and make it look nice. It’s the same thing that I did at Stag’s Grove. Everybody remembers the Dunkin’ Donuts building, we built that building and we flipped the turn of the building, we faced at the other direction to move the building closer to the Parkway. I didn’t like the way the back of the building looked and so I spent $4000 to add additional landscaping, to the back of the Shawnee Mission Parkway side of the building. So, I will do that here as well.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there… Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: It’s kind of a follow-up. No offense, is there somebody here that’s with you that may be is a little more learned about…the reason I ask is because I know that the building has a lot of architectural and color elements to it, the large ornamentation trees that are very…

MR. TUBBESING: Well again, the City restricted what we, I don’t know, engineering is here because, the City engineering staff, we were heavily restricted on what we could use on the west, north, and east side of the building because we could not use a tree that would go down and penetrate the landscape of the creek.

APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE: So, would you mind restating specifically what your question was?

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

APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE: Yeah, Dan Foster with Schlagel & Associates, 14920 W. 107th Street.


COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Specifically my question is, I know that the building has a lot of elements to it that personally I like, but I wondered if that had any impact on the type of landscaping that was selected? Mr. Tubbesing did say that they were restricted on certain things due to depth of root systems, etc. but…

MR. FOSTER: Yeah, we always look at, you know, the building architecture and design and try to utilize, you know, priority number one is plants that are going live here and so we got a pretty good idea of, you know, what plans are relatively drought tolerant that can survive on days like today and yesterday, so that’s one of the things; we always look at, you know, where their places on the building where there are blank walls for example and will put a larger ornamental tree or shrub there, if there along the entryway, the glass goes all the way to the ground so will put like lower boxwoods in that type of thing just so you get some green there but we don’t want to completely block the entrance and obviously there at the entrance where limited between sidewalk in the building as to what we can fit; and then, in the front, you know, you’re referring to the two ivory silk Lilac’s, those are what I call a small to medium size tree, they don’t get extremely large, one of the challenges along Frontage is not only, it’s not only the sign but it’s also the signage on the building and so we’ve got a make sure that we allow those view corridors into the building so people can see the marquee signs that they’re putting on the building as well as get, you know, angled views of the sign from Frontage Road and Shawnee Mission Parkway; you know, by the code we are required to put the trees at a certain spacing and that’s how they ended up there, so…

MR. TUBBESING: And I’m just gonna reiterate that I do know a little bit about the trees, they are green, and if you’ll see there is actually a very small amount, if you look at the parking spaces that are here along Shawnee Mission Parkway, the Frontage Road of course, if you just look at the distance of that and parking your car in the much smaller distance of that green area, there’s not very many trees that go in there that you’re just not constantly whacking every single year, you know, against the natural growth of that tree and so there’s only so many options in an extremely contained site.

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

MR. TUBBESING: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Would there be anybody from, but there be anyone from the public that wishes to speak on this item? Yes, sir.


PUBLIC COMMENT: Matthew Parker, I live at (Address omitted from record.) First, I’d like, I just want to say I think this development would be a significant improvement over what we have their today, so I want to thank you for your investment in the community, I look forward to seeing that. Had two questions really, related to the plat, first one being, we’ve got the QT store City Council approved back in March and I was looking through the traffic impact study and noticed that neither of those traffic impact studies referenced each other and both of them indicated that there would be some movements that would have poor levels of service and I just wanted to make sure that along Goddard, specifically southbound at Shawnee Mission Parkway, that there is some consideration given to the combined impacts of the traffic due to both developments and that we don’t preclude ourselves from making improvements down the road if they are needed, like white in the roadway if we need to extend the cueing for the southbound turn lane? I wasn’t able to review the plat beforehand, the preliminary one, so it’s possible that that has been considered but before it’s finalized I propose that that be considered.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: We can have, we can relay that on to our traffic engineer and when the final plat comes through before this plat will have our traffic engineer take a look at that. I believe you’ve been in contact with him.

MR. PARKER: I have.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: With Kevin, so we’ll reiterate your comments.

MR. PARKER: I just wanted to publicly state that.


MR. PARKER: Thank you. The second plate was related to sidewalks. Right now we’ve got a hodgepodge of sidewalks in the area that don’t necessarily connect to each other. QuikTrip is placing some sidewalk along, I think the Frontage Road and 64th St. and Goddard. Currently along the Parkway there’s a piece of sidewalk to the east of Goddard, at some point from a pedestrian standpoint, I think it would be nice to connect those and I don’t expect that the City require the developer to do that, but I want to make sure that the ability for the City to do that is not precluded with the platting, just want to make sure that either easement is dedicated, right-of-way is dedicated to make that possible. So…

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: All right, thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to speak on this item? The sidewalk? Sure, go ahead.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Paul, could you speak to the sidewalk concern and what might be possible or what we…

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: The sidewalk is on the south side of Shawnee Mission Parkway. QuikTrip are putting some in and then as you get on the other side of Goddard there’s an area where there isn’t sidewalk as you head more toward the park and the Nigro’s building, so I think the concern is as you do any improvements to Goddard on the south side of Shawnee Mission Parkway they’re not precluding the opportunity to (inaudible).


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So is there anyone...you have a question for the staff or the applicant? Okay, Commissioner Willoughby

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: So Paul or Doug or Kevin, how do you, how are you going to make the southbound Goddard left turn onto eastbound Shawnee Mission Parkway, how do you make that queue longer without disrupting the traffic that’s coming westbound on the Frontage Road east of Goddard? I mean, to make them turn right where they can’t go across Goddard and continue on westbound Frontage Road?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I think that the answer to that is, is we will have to look at it further when Lot 3 comes in for development. We’re not even sure what’s going to develop there, there might be the ability to do some geometric street widening that would allow some enhanced stacking and that’s, I think, what the traffic engineer for the City is stating. Right now were okay, but cumulatively we need to be looking at these potential improvements as each lot comes in and so it’s something I really don’t have a great answer of how we would do it, but we would look at that design and any geometric changes based on the new trip generations that might come in with a user on those other two lots.


MR. TUBBESING: I would say, you know, there’s no, frontage roads are not the most ideal, you know, traffic scenario when it comes situations like this and they’re going to be times that there’s going to be congestion and I guess, you know, the question we have to ask ourselves as citizens of the City and developers in the City and Planning Commissions and City Councils is when we do densify parts of our City, are we willing to occasionally deal with congestion and those of you who go home on Shawnee Mission Parkway at 5 o’clock at night, you know, would you basically enter Merriam heading west, I don’t know about you but it’s pretty darn hard to get through, you know, Goddard and Neiman, you know, and even Quivira before you kind of free up a little bit and there’s a lot of backup. In some ways that’s good, you know, it brings business, you know, pass those businesses that are on the Parkway and, you know, it’s just one of those things I think we’re gonna have to deal with as parts of the City infill and densify. You can have more and more people in smaller areas.


COMMISSIONER SMITH: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I’ll just agree with that but let’s not lose sight of the fact that we have two issues: one is inconvenience; and one is safety. We always need to be looking out for the safety issue. Congestion is great, I guess, I don’t subscribe to that theory but inconvenience and safety are two different subjects.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Is there any other questions for the staff or the applicant? Thank you. We’d be in Commission Discussion. Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yes, I would just like to say that it’s a welcome change to the site. I think it’s a significant upgrade that will be a huge benefit to the City.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Smith, we did go through a long discussion about QuikTrip across the street and we did express those concerns about how we clog up that frontage road and make things worse and I think, I think this is the time to address that now, that the applicant may disagree but even in that case, and we had a cooperative developer in QuikTrip, that was neither here nor there, we could not find a solution. It’s a traffic problem that probably needs more than the expertise that we might have, but I’m sure that the discussion will deal with trying to move the intersection to the north and try to get away from all the stacking, but they haven’t proposed any right-of-way dedication to the City for that now, but it is a preliminary plat and the other lot will return to us so, on the east and will know a little bit more about how much traffic that’s going to generate, but…is there…Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: I would make a motion.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Sure, go ahead.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: The motion for approval for Z-02-16-07, rezoning from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to CH-O (Commercial Highway-Overlay); Preplat-13-16-07, Preliminary Plat; SP-18-16-07, Site Plan for Stag’s Creek at 10700 to 10900 Blocks of Shawnee Mission Parkway as submitted by staff and subject to all conditions of approval by staff.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: I’ll second that motion.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and second to approve Z-02-16-07, Preplat-13-16-07, and SP-18-16-07, a rezoning from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to CH-O (Commercial Highway-Overlay) located in the 6200 Block of Ballentine and a Preliminary Plat approval for a three lot subdivision and site plan approval for construction of a 34,627 ft.² professional office building and retail building located in the 10700 to 10900 Blocks of Shawnee Mission Parkway, all in favor?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes, thank you.

(Motion passes 6-0; Braley and Busby absent)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Item number 4 is:

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Just very briefly. The sign ordinance allows for one (1) detached monument sign on each street frontage in all office, commercial and industrial zoning districts. The proposed monument sign is to be located on Lot 1 along the Shawnee Mission Parkway frontage road setback approximately 14 feet from the southern property line.

The overall proposed sign area of the monument sign is approximately 62.4 square feet. The sign code permits the sign face of monument signs to be up 50 square feet per face. The proposed monument sign is 8.75 feet tall, exceeding the maximum overall height allowed of 7 feet above the average grade.

The applicant is requesting a variance to exceed the overall sign height and the maximum sign area allowed. The sign code allows the Planning Commission to grant a sign variance regarding the height and size of a monument sign, not to exceed 25 percent of what is regularly allowed. The additional height and sign area of the proposed monument sign for Stag’s Creek is within the allowable variance amount of up 25 percent.

The applicant has stated they believe the sign variance is warranted because without the larger signage the project is less economically viable, and that the larger size does not have a detrimental effect to the public or other properties. The applicant has indicated the larger sign is necessary to provide enough space for all the tenants who will occupy the subdivision.

In terms of a recommendation, the Planning Commission shall determine if the monument sign variance for Stag’s Creek, located at 10816-10900 Shawnee Mission Parkway, is warranted. If so, Planning staff recommends the variance be subject to the following conditions:

That completes our report.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Is the applicant present?

APPLICANT: Yes, Kevin Tubbesing (Address omitted from record).

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Have you read the staff report?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Would you agree with the staff’s recommendations?


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

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Is there any particular reason why the base of the sign, I completely understand the allowable sign size of lettering for the distance it’s gonna be from Shawnee Mission Parkway, you’re not, you’re not even driving by this as the Frontage Road, you’re on the frontage road you’re going there, it’s a destination, so I understand that part of it but can you explain to me why the bottom base that is noted to be (inaudible) is that height? I’m not asking that be, is that to support the sign? Is that why it is, or is it just aesthetics?

MR. TUBBESING: Those of us who have the pleasure of driving around in SUVs see things at a different angle; those of us who drive around in Honda Accords the things that are very different perspective. When you already have to overlook a concrete Jersey barrier to Frontage Road over the sign, a normal sedan needs to have that elevation in order to actually be able to see the sign and it gets above the landscaping.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: I know a lot of things go back and forth staff meetings, but you really say that your $5 million project is not viable unless you got 12 more square feet a signage?

MR. TUBBESING: The, what we’re dealing with as you can imagine, if you’re going to be a tenant whose spent a couple hundred thousand dollars, you know, to come in here, move in tenant space in the first year to, I mean, the reality is were trying to give them some visibility on the Parkway and for the reasons I, you know, just mentioned we’re, first of all we’re trying, we are following the allowable structure of the City which is to go for this extra 25%, if you will; and, I do believe because of the tenant mix we’ll have in the building, and the fact that this is one of the few multitenant office buildings in Shawnee, it’ll be the first building that is been built with structured parking, commercially within the city of Shawnee; we have a very tight site and what we’re trying to do is offer some degree of visibility so the Stag’s Creek logo and emblem is going to be one of those things that people will be able to see more prominently. If you really take a look at that tenant space, I don’t know, sometime when you get a chance, tonight when you drive home, you know, go by the Stag’s Grove building and tell me if you could really make out the logos on that monument. They are so small for those four tenants that they, you can barely even see them; so, learning that lesson from two years ago I’m trying to be able to provide those tenants, I mean, I can’t even provide them logo signage because I’ve learned that logo signage, it just doesn’t work, it’s too small because of the shapes and sizes of everybody’s logos are different. I’m trying to provide them lettering signage, which you see here as displayed and try to make it so that it is visible as a marker for folks to find and then, you know, demonstrate their location folks in the City.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: How many tenants do you project will have signage on the building?

MR. TUBBESING: The projection on the building is five and then we have the four on the monument.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And, you know we do grant these under special circumstances. Seems to me like, I didn’t stop obviously in traffic, but it seems to me that New Jersey barriers that are long Shawnee Mission Parkway are approximately 30 inches tall, is that your guess?

MR. TUBBESING: I have no idea.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: But I thought that your point was that he had to see over the New Jersey barrier?

MR. TUBBESING: They’re taller than 30 inches, I mean, they’re taller than (inaudible).

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Are they taller than 3’7”?

MR. TUBBESING: What’s that?

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Are they taller than 3’7”, which is your base?

MR. TUBBESING: I wouldn’t know. I don’t want to comment on the exact height of the barrier, but they are taller than desk height.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, I mean, are you proposing this because you think that people cannot see over the New Jersey barrier in order to see your sign?

MR. TUBBESING: That’s it. Well, the first question I was asked which is why did we make the height of it before lettering, and that is to get above landscaping. Again, if you look at most of the landscaping of the monuments in the area that are actually at grade, so which is, if you go to the south side of Shawnee Mission Parkway, grade drops for the most part from Shawnee Mission Parkway and so similar again Stag’s Grove, that’s actually I believe closer to an eight feet monument sign but the reality is that 4 feet or so, Paul I can’t really remember, are below grade, okay, so we had to get it up in order for it to get 4 feet or so above Shawnee Mission Parkway grade. While this is, everything here is at grade to Shawnee Mission Parkway, so in order to actually landscape around it and actually have an attractive base we needed to be able to put, you know, bushes that were more than 12 inches tall alongside it and that allowed us to put that in so we have to raise the lettering in order for us all to see it.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Doug, could you put up the landscape plan by chance? So, you think that you need an increased height of the sign to get over the landscaping?

MR. TUBBESING: Part of it, but it’s also visibility. I mean, I’m not gonna, for all the reasons that I’ve stated on, the ability to actually landscape around the monument sign, the ability to, you know raise this to a height so that you can, it’s more visible to the Parkway without violating City standards.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: But you only have one tree anywhere close to the monument sign, don’t you?

MR. TUBBESING: So, you’re referring to here, I assume, here around the monument?

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Yeah. You’ve got small bushes that are probably gonna start out at 2 feet or so, maybe less…


MR. TUBBESING: Start out. They’ll normally come up to about 30-40 inch.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: …and I don’t know the scale because he’s blown it up here but I would assume that those trees are at 60 feet on center? 50 feet on center?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: 40 foot on center?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Those aren’t, those are more.


MR. TUBBESING: In order to get the count up. But again, were talking about the shrubbery and that is also aligning the entire Parkway.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And I don’t want to go back and forth on it, but you know from experience that we have granted exceptions to the sign code, but they’ve stated reasons and that’s because that the building structure sets back off the road, if it’s low in some point, if it’s…and so I think you need to give us some reasons as to why we would do so.

MR. TUBBESING: Well, again I think what we’re looking at here is we have very few multitenant office buildings in the city of Shawnee; we have even fewer three-story multitenant office buildings in Shawnee and so I’m trying to, the tenants that are on the second and third floor are blind to signage so I’m trying to provide signage on this particular structure and I do believe that the Jersey barriers that line Shawnee Mission Parkway separating Frontage Road are reason for raising the sign to be able to see more and I’m trying to landscape things so that they do look as nice as possible. If we can fit it, which again it depends on how the island works out and the reality is that there’s probably going to be landscaping that you don’t see that’s going to actually, you know, run alongside the monument as well, if we can fit it in but you have to be get out of the car next to their without running into bushes and so there’s a practical to it you actually go and build these things and you can see the function of how the site works better understand where to put shrubbery, where to put a tree, or where to do other things that are not just perceptible on these 2D images that we try to make approvals on.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And I know that you are proud of your development but is it your name of the development almost as big as the tenants?

MR. TUBBESING: I think it’s an important part of this particular property…

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: But you could reduce your own name and the tenants would have enough room under the code to, without an exception.

MR. TUBBESING: Where did we…again, so to that point, what we had to look at was just spatially how we wanted to make, how we wanted to demonstrate the sign; so, we can demonstrate, we can shrink down the logo of the Stag’s Creek logo but I don’t really know that that expands horizontally the signage of the tenant side, the tenant names. We played with, I don’t know, Tara we generated about 20 of these and, I mean, the reality is that we just didn’t think that it expands…

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And again, it makes it easy target. But, I mean, your sign with your name is 5 feet, the sign with the tenants is 6’11” so you could reduce your name and not have to ask for an exception to the sign.

MR. TUBBESING: I’m trying to be very clear that we are trying to identify this building, which is an extremely prominent product, you know, in Shawnee; we are trying to identify the sign as being the Stag’s Creek building, there’s no doubt about that.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: I understand. Does the Commission have any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. With this be public comment, Paul?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: No, okay. So we’d be in Commission Discussion.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Yes, Commissioner Smith.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: My welcoming role to this Planning Commission, my very first boat ever, I was outvoted 9-1 on somebody with a 6 inch height variance on their sign so I’m going to follow the leader here. But, I think it makes a valid point and I kind of feel like I don’t want you to think were beat up on you too bad because yes this is a great development, you should be proud of it, we’re proud of it, it’s a great addition to the City and in a great place and its badly needed but just want to be sure that you really need the size to do what you’re doing. I’d almost go with you if you’d admit the Chairman’s initial question of your $5 million project really can’t be viable without the variance. I feel a little better about your arguments, probably.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I had the same question for you Kevin. As far as why does Stag’s Creek have to be so big and, I mean, you went through that with Stag’s Grove, you know, the fact that, you know, it’s a significant portion of the total square footage and so that really limits how much you can, you know, identify the tenants. And, it just seems, it just seems like you’re, what’s more important here? Well, I got identify the tenants, well but it’s…

MR. TUBBESING: You’re asking me to answer? The answer is, that the height of the lettering…let’s say I eliminate Stag’s Creek completely, if you look at the sign I cannot make the lettering of the tenants taller.


MR. TUBBESING: That’s all. I mean, it’s so, therefore we wanted to try to identify the building because of those blind tenants, you know, that are inside, you know, and back in hallways. We’re trying to give people the ability to try and identify the building so the building had identification as well. So, that’s actually very small lettering that’s not easy to see, so you know, the Stag’s Creek is what you’re going to see from Shawnee Mission Parkway, when you get off the frontage road to find the Stag’s Creek building then you might actually drive by the sign and see the tenants sign, but were talking about a couple, a few inches. I don’t know, what are we talking about, 3-4 inches of lettering for each of the tenants? And, if I eliminate Stag’s Creek and I make that white space longer, those letters don’t get taller. Not even a little bit.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: I guess I would just want to state that I’m not a huge fan of the sign variances. I think that we have too many of them and, you know, some of them have been approved and I know, at least I have, in some cases been a little remiss that we remove them because clearly they were necessary for visibility and I know each side is a little bit different, I would submit that if you took out the Stag’s Creek you could put two names side-by-side and get a lot of height out of there. So, as opposed to just making each one longer. But at any rate, I just, I don’t know that the increase signage sizes is warranted.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Sign variances are always hard because you’re always, you have a rule and you have an exception to the rule and then you have to justify it. My biggest question was the depth of the base and in order to hold up the sign, or not just to hold it up, but to have it visually be able to direct people as well as honor the tenants as well as not be a distraction to drivers etc. etc. I think you’ve done a really fairly good job of doing and that I, unlike some of my colleagues, get the Stag’s Creek. If you say the Darth Vader building in Overland Park, everyone knows what you’re talking about. We fight this thing in Shawnee of wanting to be very grounded and progressive at the same time and sometimes we have to loosen our roots a little; we are still within the 25%; you’re not asking for 50% increase but yet we’re still very hesitant to open that door because every time we open that door it just gets wider and wider. So, my point is, it’s a very difficult thing, but I understand why the Stag’s Creek, it’s an identifier, it’s a direction, it’s you’re going down the road south and you see the red barn; so, my thing is, is I think we, this complements the building, it goes with the gateway presence that we are trying to move towards and sometimes we’re gonna have to…they call them growing pains for reason.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Kevin, I don’t like to when we are in Commission Discussion, but I just have one question and it just came up, so I’ll just ask it and if you could give me a yes or no. Is Stag’s Creek towards, is the name Stag’s Creek is it towards Shawnee Mission Parkway or is the tenants’ names toward Shawnee Mission Parkway?

MR. TUBBESING: The sign runs north to south, so the tenants side…


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Shawnee Mission Parkway?

MR. TUBBESING: The way it’s designed I’m guessing that the Stag’s Creek is on the south side.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay, thank you.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. So, we are really advertising the development and not really the tenants if are going to put that part towards Shawnee Mission Parkway and so I think he can, myself, I think he can conform to the sign as it’s written. We’ve done these exceptions based on distance, speed on different 435, on different interstates and such to where there were real problems with someone not being able to be visible but we haven’t done it just because they want a bigger sign for their company name and I think that that is setting a bad precedent. So…

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Mr. Chairman, can I just get one more thing answered by staff? What is the, as this scales out now, the size, the height of the letters, the tenant letters?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I left my drawing up there. It appears may be 6 inches in height or 4 inches in height. Something like that.

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: They are 4 inches on a (inaudible)

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Each panel is 6 inches wide, it looks like.

(Inaudible; multiple speakers)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: It says the bottom part is 6 inches underneath “This and That” is 6 inches, so the height of the letters have got to be 9 inches, you know, just based on the relative height of the letters versus that space below it. You see that?

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, do we have a motion on this item? Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Sure, I would make a motion to deny the S-092-16-06 sign variance height & area for Stag’s Creek, located 10816-10900; being that due to the existing sign code and what appeared to be the space and size and relative position of the various items on the sign that I think could be laid out sufficient for visibility.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Is there a second? Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: I’ll second that motion.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s a motion and second for denial of S-092-16-06, a sign variance request for overall height and monument sign and allowable signage area for Stag’s Creek located in the 10700 to 10900 Blocks of Shawnee Mission Parkway, all in favor?




CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Motion passes, thank you.

(Motion passes 4-2; Braley and Busby absent)

Chairman Bogina requested Item 1 be heard after Other Business.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: There’s not an item to read on this, it’s a discussion.


DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I’ve got a brief overview I’ll just go over very quickly.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay. Thank you.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: This is again just revisiting an item that was approved late last year. On December 7, 2015 the applicant received site plan approval for a new 73,722 ft.² elementary school that will replace the existing Benninghoven building. As part of the approval of the Planning Commission added a condition that required fencing along both 67th St. and Caenen to be decorative in design. That night the applicant agreed to the condition at the meeting without estimating the cost of the decorative sense. The decorative fence was added to bids that were put together for construction of the new school. When bids for the project were received, the decorative fence exceeded expected cost by many tens of thousands of dollars. Addition of the decorative fence to the project increased the fencing portion of the bid by approximately $123,000. Because of the added cost, the school district asked the applicant to re-address the fence type with the Planning Commission. They have proposed an alternative fence material that saves money for the project and at the same time allows all fencing on the site to be replaced and upgraded. The district feels the savings would be better used in classroom enhancements and other programs. The original site plan approval kept the existing chain-link fence along the south and west property line in place; in lieu of the decorative steel fence the district has proposed a 6 foot black vinyl coated chain-link fence to replace all silver chain link fence currently found on the property, this is the same fence material the district has used on other elementary school projects including Shawanoe on 75th St. As part of this discussion, if the Planning Commission agrees with this alternative fence material as proposed, the decorative fence requirement would be removed from the conditions of approval for the original SP-33-15-12, the condition would be revised to read all existing chain-link fence will be removed and replaced with a 6 foot tall vinyl coated chain-link fence as shown on the submitted site plan. And I got that out for you and I believe the representative from the architect and school district are here tonight.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. And, could they come forward?

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: The school district is not here tonight.


APPLICANT: My name is Dwayne Cash, (address omitted from record), representing ACI Boland Architect, representing the school district.

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

COMMISSIONER WISE: One question. As an architect, I have unfortunately run through this several times, but you put in estimate in and then the contractor comes back and instead of honoring what they said was a bid price, you’re hit with a huge change order. To me, the black coated, the black vinyl coated chain-link fence actually works well, I don’t have a big issue with that; I’m just concerned that that cost is being passed on directly rather than some negotiations with the contractor.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: So, when we approved this originally, we were concerned about what this school, how the school would look, you know, in the city of Shawnee and so to say that while Shawanoe did the same thing…tell me what, tell me what you’ve done in Prairie Village or Leawood or South Overland Park. I don’t think, I don’t suppose that they approve this, you know, black vinyl coated chain-link fence.

MR. CASH: The school district has 53 buildings all through 13 different municipalities, I believe, and there is, every one of them as either silver chain-link fence or black chain-link fence. It has not been required at the school district anywhere else.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Just a second. But I would disagree with you. I can, just yesterday, I was at a meeting at 3800 W. 143rd St., which housed the Prairie Star Elementary in the Prairie Star grade school. The city of Leawood does not allow chain-link fence in the front of the property, even for institutional uses and I don’t know why then that the school district would propose that Shawnee. I think that you, and maybe you’re not the one to respond, but you did a very excellent design of a building and to look at it, for people to look at it through a galvanized chain-link fence, even a black vinyl chain-link fence, I think depreciates what you’ve done and so I don’t know why it’s necessary to have a policy that we have chain-link fence in the front yard at the school at Benninghoven and it’s not necessary to have a chain-link fence in a school in Leawood; and, I went to a site in Overland Park and I believe that that was not allowed in the city of Overland Park either. If its function only that you need a fence in the front yard then they should describe the policy. If its aesthetics that a chain-link fence in a galvanized form or a black vinyl is not very appealing in my opinion and you wouldn’t have it in your front yard, at your house.

MR. CASH: Well…

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And I don’t know why the people across the street have to look at it or the school has to, or you have to view the school through a chain-link fence of any kind.

MR. CASH: The 143rd St. is Leawood, you are correct. The school district is not building any buildings in Leawood for the last few years; they do owns the property in Leawood, we have not ran across that issue yet; they are building a brand-new school in Overland Park presently and that does have black chain-link fence on a brand-new project.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And where was that at?

MR. CASH: That’s Trailridge. Nope, that’s not my firm.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: I didn’t mean to interrupt you, go ahead.

MR. CASH: No, (inaudible), Trailwood. I knew it was Trail-something.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: And where’s that at?

MR. CASH: That is, there is one at 95th and Mission…(inaudible) Nall. It’s not my project, not our firm.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Because I went down, went past the school on Roe, I didn’t go down Nall in South Overland Park and it did not have a fence in front. It had fences around it to separate cars in parking and outdoor activities but it did not have a fence in front. So, could you tell us why we need a fence in front?

MR. CASH: This building doesn’t have a fence in front of it either. The fence, if you look at the property, or the site map, the fence goes along Caenen, north of the building and at the north drive lane, it turns along the drive lane and then ties into the building on the north edge of the property, or the north edge corner of the building. Then, a picks up again on the south edge of the building, follows the exit drive lane, goes back to Caenen by the sidewalk and down to the southern corner of the property. So, the building is not blocked by the chain-link; the building is not behind a chain-link fence. (Inaudible) Sure.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Commissioner Bogina, I want to point out too that the schools that you are talking about at 143rd in southern Overland Park are in the Blue Valley school district and not in Shawnee Mission.


PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: But another thing that’s unique with Benninghoven is as they tear the school down and they are building the school, basically in some of the play fields that they currently have, the play fields move from the south end of the site to the north end of the site and I think the chain-link also assists in keeping baseballs and smaller types of balls inside the property rather than going out into the street onto Caenen and on to 67th St. So, currently at Benninghoven they have the chain-link from the corner of 67th St. along Caenen and to the north driveway and then from what is, I guess, the parking lot driveway down to the south end of the school district property and then all along 67th St. is currently the galvanized chain-link along that area.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. And so the fence proposed is basically where it is right now?

MR. CASH: Right. It’s the same location, we are just changing the type and extending where the original plan was along Caenen and 67th St. and we are now going to replace the fence on the west side of the property, all the way down the west side of the property and along the south side of the property.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I have several questions. The first being, it’s noted in here that the addition of the decorative fence to the project added approximately $123,000 to the total project.

MR. CASH: Yes, correct.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I’m pretty sure that this wasn’t the only add in all of them, so it’s one of multiple ones, but it’s cited here that you can save hundreds of or tens of thousands of dollars by doing this. Is that a deductive change order and the school is actually going to get the money back to put into curriculum and teachers and books and stuff or…


Wait, I’m not finished. And so, I want to know is the savings truly going back to the district or is it going into another hole in the building?

MR. CASH: No. What actually happened was we sent this to our construction manager, J. E. Dunn, for estimating and they came back with an estimated price that was more than we anticipated it to be at that time but we decided to go ahead and go to bid anyway. The bids came in at this $123,000 premium and the school district has not awarded that bid to the contractor. It’s our intentions to rebid this fencing project once this is approved by you and then the money for that fence would just go back into their bond issue/campaign/their funds to be used…

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: It’s not a bond issue that this is being paid for out of.

MR. CASH: This is a bond issue.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: It was appropriated money that they have done whatever, there was not a public vote for a bond issue. There was a letter campaign.

MR. CASH: Tax dollars funded and will go back into that fund to be put into other projects.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: A deductive change order.

MR. CASH: Well, it’s not a deductive change order because it has not, it has not been contracted…

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: It hasn’t been awarded yet.

MR. CASH: It hasn’t been awarded, correct.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: So, since it hasn’t actually been bid yet, we don’t know actually how much it’s saving.

MR. CASH: It was bid, we just have not awarded the bid. The construction manager at risk process the owner has the ability to select bids from different trades and award those at, in one lump sum, which guarantees maximum price or to decide to go back with the market, the rebid or to change the scope and re-bid. And that’s the stuff that we’ve done on this project.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: First of all, you’ve answered that question. Second question would be, so instead of just keeping the decorative fence or adding it to the front and whatever we’re going to rip out all of the fencing, what, the neighbors that are now off of Caenen, the houses that back up to what is now going to be the, by the driveway and I know that they, currently there is it a 4 foot chain-link fence? That building used to be 150-100 feet and is now roughly going to be 25 feet away from them and they’re not going to have decorative fence, they are going to have a driveway and black chain-link fence. Is that welcome to the neighborhood? Is that the…it’s a beautiful building, I don’t understand why you want to lessen it by offending the neighbors that backup to your school.

MR. CASH: I’m confused about which part you are talking about.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: The driveway on the south side.

MR. CASH: Okay.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: There’s neighbors that abut that. They currently use to look at open grass/fields/trees were there, now they are going to have a building in the driveway and you are can you say well we’re gonna put up this black chain-link fence…that’s nothing aesthetic to them.

(Inaudible-secondary conversation)

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I don’t disagree with that but they’ve got to look across fields and grass and things instead of looking at the back of a building that is now within 50 feet of their houses.


COMMISSIONER PETERSON: My suggestion is, you think that a black chain-link fence is the answer to being that whereas before it was going to be…is that, is the black chain-link fence and upgrade to that section, is…or were you leaving…


COMMISSIONER PETERSON: …gonna remain, thank you. That’s what I wanted to make sure of.


COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Great, thank you. That…I’m sorry it was a confusing question and I wasn’t handling very well.



CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Not exactly sure how to do this but I’d like to propose a recommendation where we in effect mix the two. For example, along Caenen Avenue down to the building we would recommend that the decorative metal, in other words what’s truly visible hits the building and then all of your back of house you go to the black chain-link, the vinyl coated chain-link, it’s, there’s going to be some cost impact to do that; I’m wondering if it would help, does that make sense?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: So, you are saying, essentially…


DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: And along 67th St. it was upgraded from chain-link to the decorative steel. So all of the visible portions are already approved as decorative steel…


DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: So that, what you are proposing, I think is what was already approved. If I’m not mistaken.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Okay, all right.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Sir, could you give us approximate square footage?



DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I don’t have that plan in front of me.


MR. CASH: I don’t have it off the top of my head either at this moment.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: It seems like it’s 150 feet or so on the north side +40 feet or so…

MR. CASH: It’s quite a bit bigger than that. I think it was almost 1000 linear feet, if I remember correctly. But, I don’t want to say that for sure because I would be wrong.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Could you, could you improve that plan?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Yeah, just to show you, originally this, the way you conditioned it through approval was to be the decorative fence, frankly I don’t have the dimensions of that (inaudible).

(Inaudible-secondary conversation)

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Mr. Chairman, I have a question.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Bienhoff, yes.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: So, if I understand this correctly, instead of, in lieu of decorative fence along 67th and Caenen and the rest remaining, the proposal back, the request now is, black vinyl fence there where we said ornamental or decorative but also they’re offering a plan to replace all of the fence which was originally not in the plan. So, I’m curious what the cost differential is between those two options. So, it was 100 some thousand for the decorative but what is the cost now with all black vinyl?


MR. CASH: That’s our estimated difference, the $127,000 difference; the actual bid was $200,000. We think it’s good to be around $60,000 for all of the chain-link.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Did you look at different options for the ornamental?

MR. CASH: We did. We looked at aluminum and, you know, different styles, some lesser pickets, but the lesser durability became an issue at that point. These are fifty-year buildings, they are better, hopefully they are longer than that, so were looking for something that’s a durable product and a lot of the cheaper decorative metal fencing just don’t have that durability, they bend very easily, they are very lightweight gauge, more for the residential type applications.


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, as you were replacing the fence anyway, the $123,000 is the difference in cost, material cost between an aluminum fence and the fence you are specified?

MR. CASH: No. It’s a difference between a steel decorative fence, a metal, like a picket fence to a chain-link fence.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, it doesn’t include the labor profit?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: The overhead.

MR. CASH: No, it’s installed. Total price.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: But, you don’t recall the quantity? The linear foot.





CHAIRMAN BOGINA: 700 and what?


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: 86. So the difference, so perhaps as I understand, the material cost installed some times of a galvanized chain-link fence is about $60-$65 a foot and so they are projecting that the material cost difference is almost $200 a linear foot difference between material of a galvanized fence and a fence you would expect that would be black ornamental?

MR. CASH: Yeah, approximately. I can’t do the math in my head. But, those are the numbers that we got back from bidders; so, and then the numbers that we’re proposing our vetted by J. E. Dunn’s estimating department. We haven’t gone back to bid on chain-link to know exactly what those costs will come in at.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, is the…last question. Is it typical that a black fence of some, that you would expect would wind up to be $265 a linear foot installed?

MR. CASH: I can’t say it’s typical because I, to be honest with you I haven’t had actually a lot of these kind of fences on projects; so, I can’t really answer that; north of $200, I wouldn’t, yeah that’s pretty typical; and that’s what we saw on bid day.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Thank you. Commissioner Smith.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: I don’t know what you’re looking for, but I’ll just tell you where I’m coming from. The original proposal all along Caenen to the building and from the building to the south corner with the decorative fence and also on the back of the building around, what is that, play area or what not that was the original proposal of decorative fence and I can live with black vinyl on the rest of it.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay. Commissioner Peterson, do you have a comment? No?

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I understand. I appreciate (inaudible).


COMMISSIONER SMITH: Commissioner, part of my trade-off, Commissioner Peterson is that you have, I think a very long stretch of it, replacing dilapidated galvanized chain-link fence with new black vinyl chain-link fence, and there’s gotta be a trade-off somewhere to the cost of matter who it is, that’s the trade-off I come up with.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. Commissioner Smith, do you have a motion?

COMMISSIONER SMITH: My recommendation is that we retain the ornamental fence along Caenen to the building, from the building to the south corner and along the play area in the backside of the building and the rest to be black vinyl chain-link surrounding the rest of the entire property.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Thank you. And, with this be in the form of a motion or not?


DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: If I could clarify. I think what they are asking for is no ornamental fence on the site, black vinyl chain-link fence along 67th St. and along Caenen in lieu of the ornamental fence that was proposed.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: I think that we did get that from the presentation.




CHAIRMAN BOGINA: In between our motion and second you wish to ask a question?

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I just want to make sure (inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: You should address your question to Commissioner Smith.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Commissioner Peterson, my motion did not include ornamental on 67th St. only along Caenen and the area behind the building. And to be clear, not just fronting Caenen, but all of the way to the building as in the original, where the orange lines on the proposal.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there a second to…Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: I’ll second that motion.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Motion and a second to, and if you could help me here Commissioner Smith…to construct ornamental iron fence along Caenen Street from the property corner to the structure…


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: …and then the balance of the site would be made up of…

COMMISSIONER SMITH: The ornamental fence would be as you stated and then also on the south side it would be from the structure to the south corner and then also around the area on the back of the building. Those three areas, if you will, would be ornamental the rest would be black vinyl.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Okay. So, rather than restate his, does everyone understand the motion and the second? No?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Let’s do this so staff is clear. We’re looking at the ornamental fence here at 67th and Caenen and we are looking at the ornamental, doing this and this goes to the black chain-link?





PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: And this? Okay, so we’ll have the chain-link here in the chain-link adjacent to Northwest and then chain-link along the backside.


PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Back behind the chain-link? Okay.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: So, do we understand the motion and a second? Good. All…

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: No, you are asking for this because you will be doing the ornamental on 67th St.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: All in favor?




CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Motion passes.

(Motion passes 4-2; Braley and Busby absent)


Augie Bogina nominated Dennis Busby for Chairman and Augie Bogina for Vice Chairman.

Steven Wise nominated Bruce Bienhoff for Secretary.

(Mover: Wise; Second: Smith; Motion passes 6-0; Braley and Busby absent)

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Is there a motion to adjourn? Commissioner Peterson, would you like to do so?


COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Absolutely. I move that we adjourn this meeting of the Planning Commission on July 6, 2016.

CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Commissioner Willoughby.


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


CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Opposed? Motion passes, thank you.

(Motion passes 6-0; Braley and Busby absent)