PDF Format:





August 1, 2016

7:30 P.M.

Commissioner Bruce BienhoffPlanning Director Paul Chaffee
Commissioner Augie BoginaDeputy Planning Director Doug Allmon
Commissioner Dennis BusbyPlanner Mark Zielsdorf
Commissioner Kathy PetersonAdministrative Assistant Angie Lind
Commissioner John Smith
Commissioner Les Smith
Commissioner Alan Willoughby
Commissioner Steven Wise
Commissioner Randy Braley
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Good evening and welcome to the August 1, 2016 meeting of the Shawnee Planning Commission. We’ll start with roll call.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner John Smith.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bienhoff.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Busby is here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bogina


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Wise.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Braley is absent.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Les Smith.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: If you’d please join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.



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

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda as read.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is there a second?


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. All in favor, say aye.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay? Motion carried.

(Motion passes 8-0; Braley absent)



DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: As a little background, on June 6, 2016 the applicant requested site plan approval for exterior façade revisions at the Scout Financial Building, located at 12304 Johnson Drive. At that time, the Planning Commission approved repainting of the building exterior, an additional window, and revisions to the front deck. However, the Planning Commission denied use of corrugated tin on the building’s exterior and on the privacy fence that surrounds the property.

Since then, the applicant has been researching other metal types for use on the fence and building walls. In working with the applicant, staff had suggested that a flat metal panel (similar to that found on the Community America bank building) might be acceptable to the Planning Commission.

After much discussion with staff, the applicant has proposed the use of a concealed fastener metal panel system in a black color to match the decking color approved for the front of the structure. This material is not something staff had expressed support for in these discussions. A description of this metal system is found below in the Site Plan Review.

The applicant is now proposing to remove existing corrugated tin from the north (rear) wall, and then repaint the underlying masonry light-brown to match the remainder of the building. The applicant is also proposing to use black “L-panel” metal siding (MPI/Berridge “Charcoal Gray”) for the window accents on the east and west walls, and on the privacy fence face. This wall panel does utilize a concealed fastener system, but is typically used on industrial warehouse and Morton-type building applications.

The applicant has provided photos of examples of metal panel fencing and metal panel wall applications. I’ll put those up now. The photos indicate a smooth face with deep reveals at six inch intervals that give the appearance of vertical pickets. In the photos, metal sections are coped and side capped to provide a finished appearance. However, the metal panel submitted for use is designed with a very minor “pencil rib” indentation within the panel. Because of this, staff is unsure and has concern the material will provide the look demonstrated in the photos, and therefore would not consider this an acceptable material for fencing. Discussions with the contractor indicate the existing tin was applied directly over the stucco and fence face and would not be that difficult to remove. After review and presentation by the applicant, the Planning Commission needs to determine if the submitted “L-type” metal panel is appropriate for the privacy fence or wall accent application on the building.

In terms of a recommendation, Planning staff is supportive of the removal of the tin from the north wall and repainting of the underlying masonry to match the rest of the building. The Planning Commission shall determine if the use of the submitted “L-type” metal on the building’s exterior and privacy fence is acceptable. If so, staff recommends approval of SP-16-16-06, for exterior façade changes at the Scout Financial building, located at 12304 Johnson Drive, subject to condition 1 listed below. If the Planning Commission deems the use of the submitted “L-panel” as inappropriate, the fence and/or wall(s) shall be returned to their original finish. The referenced condition shall read:

That completes our report.

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


APPLICANT: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Jason Smitka, I’m the owner of the Scout Financial building. First of all, I want to give…

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Would you give us your address as well?

MR. SMITKA: I’m sorry?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Would you give us your address as well?

MR. SMITKA: Yes, sorry. 12304 Johnson Drive, Shawnee. First of all, I want to apologize to all of you. I understand that this has taken a great deal of your time and energy and that certainly was not my intention, I can assure you. To be frank, all of this kind of caught me by surprise when I originally hired the contractor to renovate the building, I was actually under the impression that everything had been improved as drafted; so, I owe all of you an apology for the amount of time and consideration you’ve had to put on this. What I would like to express to everybody tonight before Austin shows you some examples of the new material that we are looking at, my intention is simply to that building in that space look as contemporary as possible, as clean and modern as possible, and also to keep it maintenance-free. That’s why I really wanted to steer away from using wood, anything that could rot or gray or go silver. If any of you have been over there to see you’ll notice that I used a lot of stone and a lot of metal; I tore out all of the grass and put down landscaping and rock; I’m just trying to keep it a very clean, a very neat finish and that’s why we went with the original selections that we did; so, I/we simply ask that you maybe give this a little bit of consideration because I know it’s kind of outside the box, but I think with the new selections that we have here it really, really, will make for a cool look and enhance the overall view of the neighborhood. So, thank you for your consideration, very much it’s appreciated.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Does this other gentleman wish to talk?

APPLICANT: Yes, please.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: And he’s part of the presentation?

APPLICANT: Yes, sir. Austin Chamberlin with an address of 8666 W. 96th St., Overland Park, KS. What we have put together for you to take a look at today is, like staff talked about, this L- panel, and it is a very high-end paneling that is used all across Kansas City for different accents and commercial architectural looks that they use. We did hear feedback from the Planning Commission last time about what looks good and will accent with the metal; and Community America building was brought up in so we kind of wanted to show that and show how to use is and it’s even interesting how it’s around the brick façade as well and that’s very similar to what we are similar doing to the, to this building. We’re taking that urban core building and accenting it with some really pleasing architecture in something other than kind of an old stucco look but bringing it up into something that’s being used all across the city and in Shawnee and some other new buildings that are coming through as well. So, these are a couple of examples of that. This is the smooth panel that you can kind of see here that the ridges are like staff talked about they are less subtle and so on a façade we think that’s also pleasing as well. It’s not a sign of one being more higher-end or less-end, it’s just one look versus another need to have one with more gaps or less gaps and we’d be open to that; we just prefer the more smoother panel look for the little amount of space that this would be on. So, here’s the building here; we were even able to kind of show the reason we chose this to keep within the coordination of the colors and accents with the rest of the building. So, you’ll notice the frame there, the doorway, the frame way, the storefront is that bronze material, this is as well bronze, it’s not really a black material, it’s more of a bronze; the decking as well is kind of a more gray, a black bronze as well, and then it kind of has those of vertical lines as well that we were using as part of the motif for the façade. And so, this is that west elevation, sorry it just doesn’t look great on this projector, but you can kind of see that with the window accent in the doorway that that would be our goal there to try and give that a little bit more urban look in a little bit cleaner and fresher. So, that was really what we were intending to do and would just kind of like your input and like to hear what you would have, but that’s what we would propose is a nice higher-end metal accent around those windows and fencing.

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

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I first have a question for staff, and that is, the accents around the windows, I know that there’s a certain percentage, does this fall within the percentage of architectural…signs can’t be over a certain percentage of a façade, accents can’t be over…




DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Percentage for accenting in particular. Obviously it would be something that wouldn’t dominate the wall, but there’s no…


COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Okay. Now, a question for the applicant, please.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Go ahead Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Thank you. The sample that is down, is that the black/bronze, gray/bronze you are talking about? And, is that what is used beneath the steps as well?

MR. CHAMBERLIN: So the steps is a composite decking material.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Even the slats underneath?

MR. CHAMBERLIN: Even the slats, correct.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: For Doug. Doug, when you said in the presentation that you weren’t particularly fond of this material but you would rather have that material, right? In the handout?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I think that that handout is an example of metal architectural sensing that has reveals and pickets. I think the concern of staff is the fence well groove in that color, probably would not look like a fence.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: I think what our concern is this is what you see on industrial buildings, older industrial buildings (inaudible), commercial buildings, and so this is (inaudible) architectural panels used on Community America that was used as the example are very high quality and they’re not material that you’re going up on an industrial type of building. Staff was led to believe that the submittal was to be more of a flat panel that was dropped off for us (inaudible) and tapered on the edges, so we felt pretty good about that but when the application the material was dropped in on Friday we got the industrial building siding back again. So, we were a little surprised.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Okay. So, where does this material, is this, and the groups in this are just more pronounced, are they wider, deeper?

MR. CHAMBERLIN: I believe they are probably, just probably deeper.


MR. CHAMBERLIN: Yep. But it’s a metal product as well and so we were trying to find the closest we could to match that.


MR. CHAMBERLIN: To match what staff had talked about and recommended, yeah.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I mean, I like this a lot better than I like that.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: I think staff agrees and that’s what was indicated to us a couple of weeks ago that was gonna come in and as a proposed fence material and then all we got was this.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: So, was this more expensive?

MR. CHAMBERLIN: We just went with as many metal suppliers as we could find and said let us know what’s available for us to get and so I, that’s not one that’s specifically, I believe, that was different or the same as this one. I think we’re just trying to find the metal, a metal product that would, again as you talked about, would last a long time, not be a wood product, that was still pleasing to staff and to you as well, the Commission as well.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: The reason we put that up there that is actually pictured, that was supplied.


DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: And that’s a Berridge product, which is the same manufacturer as the panel that they are proposing but it’s not a wall panel, it’s a fence panel and there’s a difference in the application and width as well.


MR. CHAMBERLIN: Maybe if we make that picture specifically the requirement, I’m not sure if, I would assume it’s all about, I mean again, were not really, not necessarily discussed hey one is more expensive than the other is just finding the right look in the right texture. So, we are open to that.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: One suggestion, and first of all I do think the actual privacy fence would look better concerned about what this panel will look like in a fence application. The other thing that I would recommend and it’s basically the same product but what Paul was and I think Doug had been looking at was a flat-panel without the pencil groups and it, concealed fastener, and I think those…are they 16 or 24 inch panels in terms of width?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Those are 12 inch, I think.




COMMISSIONER WISE: But see if you can get a wider one.


COMMISSIONER WISE: Is it 24? But get a wider one, so you were going to have seems, obviously no matter what you do, but go to a flat look. It might take a little heavier gauge so you don’t oil can, but that’s what I would recommend on the building.


COMMISSIONER WISE: And then on the fence, I think going to the true privacy fence look that we have here.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is there any other questions for the applicant or staff?

MR. CHAMBERLIN: If I may, it might be a smaller interlocking panel that comes in may be 6 inches or 8 inches so we could research that out to see if the goal is to get a more defined groove, then we’ll research that out.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: There’s some, just on the brochure that I pulled off the web, there’s several examples of width and I think the idea though was to have it be an architectural (inaudible).


DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Corrugated paneling, so those examples on that even on print out are corrugated, but…

MR. CHAMBERLIN: Okay, I think that’s good…

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Something called a (inaudible) that is flush seen or thin line, either one of those.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bogina.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And I’m sorry, I forgot your function, are you the contractor or the architect?

MR. CHAMBERLIN: Yes, the contractor. (Inaudible)

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, why do you want to propose metal siding for the fence in the first place? Why not propose a fence material for the fence?

MR. CHAMBERLIN: Maintenance. There is metal fencing all across America that they do so, and as an example and that picture and so, there’s metal fencing, there’s composite fencing, there is wood fencing, there’s PVC fencing, so we wanted to do a metal that lasts longer, looks better, doesn’t fade, doesn’t take weather like even the decking would…

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, this particular fence, which is metal, which you have not proposed, it has a 20 year life to it, do you recall what the specifications were at the paint for that?

MR. CHAMBERLIN: For the siding? I’m not sure but I believe 20 - 25 years, probably about that.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, it would be the same maintenance as a real fence material versus to try and jabber rig a piece of siding onto a fence.

MR. CHAMBERLIN: I would agree. I would not want to use a siding material for a fence. That was part of the goal, trying, in the timeline allocated, trying to find the right metal fence material in hand that we could all look at, so that’s what we wanted to (inaudible).

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, you want to come back another time and propose a metal fence, for the material for the fence, is that true?

MR. CHAMBERLIN: I, yes. I think, or allow the staff as well to be able to say hey this is a true metal fencing, because that’s what we wanted to do.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And, were you aware of what the Commission’s standards were for metal siding on commercial buildings?

MR. CHAMBERLIN: We were not. We seem metal in the past and we thought that was okay.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, if the City gave you the criteria then would you follow the criteria that the City set out, that we set out…



COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And Doug, could you make sure that he gets a copy of the commercial material criteria? And in that, is there a… How do we speak to metal on commercial buildings?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: We speak generally that it can be used as an accent but we specifically talk about flat architectural panels, if I recall.


DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Industrial warehouse paneling is a bit different. It’s more of the pencil groove, weave and require concealed fasteners on everything industrial now though, but there is some, a little bit more flexibility in those buildings, but Community America is the example that we always use because it’s a Luca bond panel, even the installation I think his pop on.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, in the criteria that we set out in probably what 08?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: At least 08, maybe longer.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: It does specify what type of commercial, what type of metal panels can be used…

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: There’s standards obviously, we can’t specify every…

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And if he had a copy of that then obviously you are going to follow it and present something that fits our criteria.

MR. CHAMBERLIN: Yeah. We thought we had. We presented just a sheet metal material to say hey this is what we anticipate. We didn’t have the exact dimension of it, because I know that looks right so we said okay, fine, we assumed that that would be similar to but it was just in a different to where it is different in a way and were willing to work with that.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Does anybody else have any questions? Then is there a motion on this item?

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Mr. Chairman, I would move to table this item until the applicant, and allow the applicant to come back with the proper material.


COMMISSIONER BOGINA: To the August 15, 2016 Planning Commission meeting.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Which would you go a little further with that Augie which means that also the paneling on the side of the walls as well as the fence paneling? Is that correct?

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Yes, I think that both the criteria, without examining my motion too much, I think it has to meet our criteria and what’s being proposed does not meet our criteria and I would propose that the applicant return for a third time.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is there a second on the item? Commissioner Bruce (Bienhoff).


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very fine. Anybody have any questions on the motion? All in favor, say aye.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay? Motion carried. The item is tabled until the next meeting.

(Motion to Table to the August 15, 2016 meeting passed 8-0; Braley absent)

MR. CHAMBERLIN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Next item on the agenda is:



DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: The applicant requests rezoning from RE (Residential Estates) to CH (Commercial Highway), and site plan approval for construction of a 10,360 square foot construction office and attached shop. The application is filed by CFS Engineers for Neighbors Construction Inc., developer.

The applicant requests this rezoning on property located at 15520 Midland Drive. The request is to allow development of a construction office with no outside storage of equipment or materials.

The area of rezoning is made up of one residentially zoned lot that is 2.93 acres in size. The lot is platted and formerly contained one single family home that was removed from the property approximately three years ago.

Property to the north is zoned AG (Agricultural) and consists of forested vacant ground that is shown as medium density residential on the Future Land Use Guide. Property to the west is zoned RE, and contains a single-family home on two parcels that contain approximately 3 acres total. Property to the east is zoned CH and contains the Rieke and McAnany construction yards. Property to the south, across Midland Drive, is zoned RS (Residential Suburban) and contains one single family home and a vacant lot owned by a church. So the area that were talking about is really right here.

The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan depicts medium density residential uses as being appropriate for the area of rezoning. This designation is based on the possibility of combining this parcel and other vacant property in the area for a cohesive multi-family development, as well as potential redevelopment of the construction yards to the east. The circulation plan also indicates extension of a street along the east side of the parcel. This street extension was intended to serve any multi-family development that might occur on the site. If the rezoning request is approved for a single use on the property, the need for this road extension would be eliminated.

Approximately 9.75 acres directly to the east are zoned CH (Commercial Highway), so extension of the CH zoning designation approximately 220 feet to the west would not result in a “spot” zoning. Development of this site in the proposed manner is most likely the highest and best use of the property. Because of topography constraints and recent residential development that has occurred to the west, this parcel would likely be the last to develop commercially along this portion of Midland Drive. Recent site plan approval for office improvements at the Rieke construction facility indicates the company intends to keep their operation on that property for the foreseeable future. In light of this, it is difficult to contemplate residential development on this small parcel in the near future adjacent to a large, open material and equipment storage yard.

Access to the property will come from a single commercial driveway approach that connects the development to Midland Drive.

The character of the area will change somewhat with the rezoning and development of an office on the site. The applicant has attempted to mitigate this change by creating a plan that includes an office design with residential design characteristics, and that includes no outdoor storage of equipment or materials.

Approval of the rezoning should have little detrimental effect upon surrounding properties. The development is separated from adjacent single family home to the west by a dense grove of existing deciduous and evergreen trees. The developer has taken additional measures to preserve this tree area at the request of the adjacent neighbor. This includes provision of a low retaining wall on the west side of the site to reduce grading into this tree preservation area. The developer has also agreed to landbank / defer construction of four parking spaces at the southwest corner of the site. Construction of these spaces would result in the removal of additional trees from the site. In all, the office building will sit approximately 250 feet away from the residence located to the west, and the main parking lot will sit approximately 200 feet away from the same residence.

Denial of the request would not appear to benefit the community as a whole. The subject property is one that will be difficult to develop given the current and foreseeable uses of adjacent properties to the east. Without being integrated or combined with those properties, it is unlikely to be developed on its own for medium density residential uses.

The applicant requests site plan approval for construction of a 10,360 square foot construction office and attached shop. A small, 200 (2,000) square foot accessory storage building is also shown on the site plan. The project is proposed on Lot 4 of the Hall Gardens subdivision. The site contains 2.93 acres. The office is proposed to comprise 7,000 square feet of the building's total floor area.

All bulk requirements of the CH (Commercial Highway) zoning district have been met. The building maintains a 41 foot setback from the right-of-way line for Midland Drive. 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 30 feet from the right-of-way line for Midland Drive and 30 foot or greater from the adjacent residentially zoned property located to the west. Height of the building is 30 feet to the finished grade to the top of the roof peak, which is less than the 45-foot maximum allowed.

At one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area for office, and one space per 1000 square feet of shop area, 32 parking spaces (including 2 ADA accessible spaces) are required by the zoning ordinance. The site plan depicts 28 stalls, including two ADA spaces, to be constructed at this time. Although there is room on the site to construct all 32 spaces, the owner has requested to defer construction of four spaces at the southwest corner of the site to preserve existing trees in this area. Based on the number of employees and past experience at their current office, the owner is confident that 28 spaces will be more than adequate to serve the businesses’ needs. Staff is supportive of the parking deferral as proposed. Reduction of unnecessary impervious area and preservation of trees related to any site development plan is a stated intent of the zoning code.

The front of the single-story office building will face west. The rectangular 66’ by 180’ footprint is situated so that the shortest building profile is parallel with Midland Drive. The plan provides a sidewalk area in the front of the building to allow for pedestrian access from the parking lot.

The building is designed with a decorative cupola that includes a hipped gable roof at the southwest entrance. The cupola includes over-story glass to enhance the design of the structure. The building incorporates four sided design and the exterior will be constructed primarily of a combination of two different materials- stone veneer for approximately one-third of all walls with red brick above to the roofline. The stone is comprised of gray/beige earth-tone blends (Centurion “Bucks County”). Brick will be of a light red blend (Carolina Ceramics “Red Flash Velour). The mixture of these two materials allows for a greater variety in the color and texture on all facades. Brick and stone portions of the building are separated by a decorative cast stone sill.

The west (front) elevation is comprised of a double glass entry door at the southwest corner (under the cupola), with regimented square window openings for the entire office portion of the building. This will allow ample daylight into the structure, and provides additional interest up to the roofline.

Because no outside storage of equipment or material is permitted at the site, a separate 2,000 square foot accessory building is proposed to be built approximately 75 feet north of the attached shop. The front (west) and side (south) elevations of this structure includes both limestone veneer (“Bucks County”) and tan metal wall panels on the exterior. The east and north elevations of the storage structure will be constructed entirely of metal wall panels. All tan wall panels are of flat design and utilize a concealed fastener system. The roof will be brown metal to match the color of the office roofing. In the context of the adjacent Rieke construction yard, staff is supportive of the exterior design of the storage building.

Frontage and open space trees shown on the landscape plan exceed minimum code requirements. Based on the lot frontage along Midland Drive, six (6) street trees are required. The plan depicts 6 trees in a combination of columnar crabapple and wireless Zelkova trees. The owner has also worked with the sewer district to preserve two very large oak trees that are presently located along Midland Drive.

More than fifty percent of the site will remain open space after construction is complete. Based on this large area of usable open space area, 35 open space trees are required. As discussed in the rezoning review, the applicant is preserving a significant forested area, as well as existing trees along the west and north property lines. Prior to any grading on the site, trees that are shown to be preserved on the landscape plan shall be protected with construction fencing. Limits of construction are shown at five feet back of the western retaining wall. If more trees are lost than is depicted on the landscape as a result of constructing the protective retaining wall, the owner shall replant additional evergreen trees (8 feet in height) to supplement the tree buffer.

The landscape plan also provides shrubs to accent the west building foundation. Species shown include flowering weigela and low-gro Sumac. The parking lot islands provided within the parking lot comprise more than six percent to meet code requirements.

Air units are ground-mounted along the east wall of the building. This location, in combination with shrub plantings, screens their view.

One monument sign is allowed and is shown adjacent to Midland Drive. The monument sign shall not exceed 7 feet in height, and the face shall not exceed 50 square feet. This sign shall be located outside of the required sight triangle, and behind the adjacent right-of-way line. One wall sign is shown facing the parking lot on the west elevation.

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 the Codes 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.

There are no public street improvements required as part of this project. However, the commercial driveway approach for this development shall be designed in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. A 1:10 blow-up of the commercial driveway approach shall be included in the site civil plans that meets the requirements of Standard Detail 3227-1. The blow-up shall include flow arrows indicating direction of flow, dimensions, elevations, and other pertinent information.

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:

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 Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, Division 2600, 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 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 on-site 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 Building Permit.

This project 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.

The lot is 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 pervious pavement to meet the required Level of Service.

The applicant is responsible for meeting with the Development Engineer to discuss any applicable issues prior to preparing a Final Stormwater Treatment Facility Report, which must be submitted for review and acceptance prior to the issuance of a public improvement permit or a building permit.

All STFs required for this project shall be designed in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. The applicant’s consulting engineer is responsible for certifying that both the design and construction of such facilities complies with all applicable regulations. Additionally, at the discretion of the City Engineer, a Third Party inspector might be required to inspect the construction of the STFs. The applicant would be responsible for the cost of any third party inspections that might be required.

The applicant is required to execute and record with the Johnson County Register of Deeds the City’s standard form entitled “Declaration of Stormwater Treatment Facility Maintenance Restrictions and Covenants” prior to the building permit and/or public improvement permit being issued. This project is required to have its own covenant recorded at the County.

The applicant’s consulting engineer is responsible for preparing an as-built certification of each STF, which requires City acceptance prior to a CO for the building.

No regulated streams (based on watershed acreage) are impacted as part of this development; therefore, the City’s stream corridor requirements do not apply for this project;

In terms of a recommendations, the rezoning request is not consistent with the current land use designation found on the City’s Future Land Use Guide. However, as noted in the staff report, the site does have residential development limitations because of the size of the parcel and adjacent on-going commercial uses. In the context of these factors, the Planning Commission shall decide if the commercial rezoning request is appropriate in this case. If so, staff would recommend the approval of Z-03-16-08, rezoning from RE (Residential Estates) to CH(Commercial Highway) for a 2.93 acre parcel located at 15520 Midland Drive, be subject to condition number 1 listed below. Staff would also recommend SP-21-16-08, Site Plan for construction of a 10,360 square foot construction office/shop and adjacent accessory building, be subject to conditions 2 through 24. The referenced conditions are as follows:

That completes our report.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Doug. Is the applicant present? Would you come forward and state your name and address?

APPLICANT: Good evening. I’m Katherine Steinbacher with CFS Engineers.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Are you in agreement with staff recommendations?

MS. STEINBACHER: We are in agreement with staff recommendations.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Does the commission have any questions for staff or the applicant? If not, this is a public meeting (hearing), does anybody from the public wish to speak on this matter? The zoning part of that is correct?


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Seeing none, then the public discussion is discontinued/finished.

STAFF: Closed.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Complete. Yeah, all kinds of things. Then we’re in Planning Commission discussion. Is there a motion on this item? Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would just observe that it seems to be a nice looking building and a nice transition from the construction lot over to the residential. I think that adds nicely.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Question for Doug. So, since this is going to be Commercial Highway, and were sitting right next to McAnany and Rieke’s, so we can say that nothing can be parked outside even if they put it way back in the back and put a fence around it? Is that?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Correct. In this zoning district, it’s not Planned Industrial, it’s a Commercial Highway zone to be consistent with what is to the east today and a special use permit is required in today’s zoning terms to have outdoor storage and the applicant has agreed that they are not pursuing a special use permit, they are going to build their 2000 ft.² accessory storage building and keep their equipment inside. And I will say that does not include pickup trucks, obviously, that their employees drive.


DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: But, skid loaders, things like that will be inside.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Smith.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Yes, since I’m new at this…I drove by this today and saw what was to the east of that and it’s…was that grandfathered? Staff? To the east?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: That has been in existence probably before I was born, would be my guess. So, yes, it would be grandfathered.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other questions? Then is…Commissioner Smith.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: It was mention made of a property across the street that was owned by a church. Is there any plans for a church or do we know anything about that?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: All that we know is that it’s under ownership. I’m not aware, we haven’t had discussions with them, anyone in a long time about the property, but it’s in holding. My guess is since they do own it, that someday they intend to build a church on that property, but we haven’t had any discussions of anything eminently coming in.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is there a motion on this item? Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: I’ll make a motion to approve Z-03-16-08; rezoning from RE to CH and SP-21-16-08; site plan for Neighbor’s Construction Office, located at 15520 Midland Drive, per staff recommendations.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Is there a second?


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any further discussions? We have a motion to approve Z-03-16-08; and SP-21-16-08; rezoning from RE to CH and site plan for construction of a 10360 ft.² construction office and attached shop located at 15520 Midland Drive, all in favor say aye.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay? Motion carried.

(Motion passes 8-0; Braley absent)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: This completes our business. Is there any business from staff or committee members?


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Then with someone like to make a motion to adjourn? Commissioner Les Smith.


COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn this evenings meeting.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is there a second.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: All in favor say aye.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay? Motion carried.

(Motion passes 8-0; Braley absent)