PDF Format:

ApprovedPlanningCommissionMeeting.8.15.16.pdfApprovedPlanningCommissionMeeting.8.15.16.pdf


CITY OF SHAWNEE

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

MINUTES

August 15, 2016

7:30 P.M.


PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENTSTAFF PRESENT
Commissioner Augie BoginaPlanning Director Paul Chaffee
Commissioner Dennis BusbyDeputy Planning Director Doug Allmon
Commissioner Kathy PetersonPlanner Mark Zielsdorf
Commissioner John SmithAdministrative Assistant Angie Lind
Commissioner Les Smith
Commissioner Alan Willoughby
Commissioner Steven Wise
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
Commissioner Bruce Bienhoff
Commissioner Randy Braley
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Good evening and welcome to the August 15, 2016 meeting of the Shawnee Planning Commission. We’ll start with roll call.

A. ROLL CALL

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner John Smith.

COMMISSIONER JOHN SMITH: Present.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bienhoff is absent.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Busby is here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bogina.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Braley is absent.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Les Smith.

COMMISSIONER LES SMITH: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Please join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

C. CONSENT ITEMS

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Items 1 through 4 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 Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I move to approve the Consent Agenda as stated.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER Wise: I second the motion.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: There’s a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay? Motion carried.


(Motion passes 7-0; Bienhoff and Braley absent)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Moving on to:

D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Doug.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: This item was tabled at the August 1, 2016 Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant more time to come up with an acceptable fencing and wall accent material. Since that time we have met with the applicant and they have provided us with additional information.

Based on feedback from the Planning Commission at the last meeting, the applicant has agreed to remove all corrugated tin from the building and fence. They will install the Berridge architectural metal fencing that was referenced by staff at the last meeting on the perimeter fence where tin has been placed. This is that Berridge Vee Panel “Matte Black” color that’s in the attachment that we put on the staff report.

The applicant also proposes to remove existing corrugated tin from the rear of the building, and then repaint the underlying masonry light-brown to match the remainder of the building. Wall treatments around the windows are proposed to be a smooth architectural metal that will also be in that “Matte Black” color. This smooth metal material will be fastened to existing battens that were installed to hold the original tin application. This will allow a more flush installation to the wall, and will have a similar appearance to the metal walls that were recently approved for the Stag’s Creek building. This is actually the metal material that staff had previously reviewed and was expecting to be proposed at the last Planning Commission meeting.

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, and use of the proposed architectural fencing system. The Planning Commission shall determine if the use of metal accenting on the building’s exterior 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 the conditions listed in the staff report.

That completes our report.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is the applicant present?

APPLICANT: Yes, Matt Mabe here on behalf of the building owner.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Would you approach and give your name and address, please?

MR. MABE: Matt Mabe with Complete, LLC; address 8666 W. 96th Street, Overland Park, KS.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is the applicant in agreement with staff’s recommendations subject to Commission approval?

MR. MABE: Yes, Mr. Smitka, the owner of Scout Financial is and Complete, LLC would be performing the work on his behalf; so, yes.

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

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bogina.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: I just had quick two questions. Are you familiar with a timeline that would be for delivery on the material?

MR. MABE: I have not confirmed with the manufacturer as of yet as to when they would have that available. It should be relatively quick; I guess I would say within a couple of weeks that the material should be made available from the supplier.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, that if there was an added condition that it be installed within 60 days, to think that would meet your timeframe?

MR. MABE: Absolutely. Yep, that would be fine.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Okay. My second question is, the fencing material, is it two-sided? Or, is it just the panel shown to be on one side?

MR. MABE: It’s on one side facing the parking lot; however, on the backside there is already existing fencing that was already there, there was a Scout Financial fencing that was already there, so it actually has wood fencing on the backside of it already.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other questions for the applicant or staff? If not, is there a motion on this item? Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I move that we pass SP-16-16-06; the revised site plan for Scout Financial building at 12304 Johnson Dr. according to the staff recommendations and with the addition of a timeframe of 60 days for completion.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Is there a second? Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I second.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. We have a motion to approve SP-16-16-06; revised site plan for Scout Financial building, 12304 Johnson Dr. façade revision, Complete Construction for Scout Financial Group, building owner, including the 60 days to have it installed. All in favor, say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay? Motion carries, thank you.


(Motion passed 7-0; Bienhoff and Braley absent)

E. NEW BUSINESS
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Paul.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: This request is to withdraw the previously issued special use permit issued to Reggie Jones to operate Attention to Detail, an auto dealership with zero inventory, located at 12694 Shawnee Mission Parkway. The applicant no longer has a state automobile dealer’s license, and has forfeited his articles of incorporation with the State of Kansas.

Planning staff recommends withdrawal of SUP-08-15-08 for a special use permit issued to Reggie Jones to operate Attention to Detail, located 12694 Shawnee Mission Parkway, since the business is no longer in operation.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Are there any other questions for staff? We’re in Planning Commission discussion. Is there a motion on this item? Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: I move to approve SUP-08-15-08 withdraw of a special use permit, Attention to Detail, at 12694 Shawnee Mission Parkway, per staff’s recommendation.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Second.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Mr. Bogina, Commissioner Bogina. There’s a motion SUP-08-15-08; consider a withdrawal of a special use permit previously issued to Reggie Jones to allow operation of an auto brokerage with zero-inventory in the Commercial Highway zoning district located at 12694 Shawnee Mission Parkway. All in favor, say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay? Motion carried, thank you.


(Motion passed 7-0; Bienhoff and Braley absent)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: We move to:

F. OTHER BUSINESS


PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: The Planning Commission began a discussion at the July 18, 2016 meeting regarding potential text amendments related to density requirements for senior living opportunities. At that meeting staff reviewed the current regulations, noting that there is no difference, except for parking ratios for the maximum density permitted for traditional apartment complexes and senior living opportunities.

During a review of zoning regulations and land use definitions used in the Comprehensive Plans of peer cities, staff found that there was little difference whether the multi-family structure was for a traditional apartment complex, or for a senior living opportunity. Including Shawnee, all the cities recognize the need to provide a variety of senior living opportunities. Also, in some cases consideration is given regarding parking requirements for senior living facilities. Through the discussion, an outcome may be amending the current density definitions for all types of multi-family developments, or amending definitions that specifically speak to non-aged restricted housing and age restricted housing.

Staff has outlined various development requirements used by the City of Shawnee as well as our peer communities. To guide the discussion, staff has prepared a series of charts that outline density definitions found in Comprehensive Plans, zoning districts that are appropriate for multi-family housing, and parking requirements for multi-family housing developments.

As noted previously, and used for the most part by AARP and other senior advocacy organizations, senior housing opportunities are generally for those 55 years of age and older. Similarly, the age of 62 is used in some developments that tend to be more single family oriented. It should be noted that the City’s current Planned Single Family Residential zoning district definition uses 55 years of age as well as 62 years of age in the definition.

The discussion to be undertaken is in regard to those facilities that tend not to be medical in nature such as skilled nursing and intermediate care facilities, but those that are centered more on senior living options for residents that do not necessarily require medical care. To assist in our discussion, the following definitions are generic in nature and are commonly used to describe various type of senior based housing:

Independent Senior Housing-is a housing choice for seniors that do not require assistance with daily activities or 24/7 skilled nursing but benefit from convenient services, senior friendly surroundings, and increased social activities. Such facilities generally offer dining services, basic housekeeping and laundry services, transportation for errands and activities and other features for active seniors. They do not provide health care or assistance with activities of daily living such as medication, eating, dressing, etc.

Assisted Senior Living- is a housing choice that provides a group housing environment for persons with disabilities or seniors who cannot or will not chose to live on their own. Who by choice or functional impairment may need personal care to compensate for the activities of daily living limitations and in which the facility includes apartments for residents and provides or coordinates a range of services including personal care or supervised nursing care available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for the support of resident independence.

Senior Continuing Care (Aging in Place) - is a housing choice that offers a full continuum of care so residents can move from one housing choice to another as their needs change. Usually a campus style complex with residents living in their own private apartments, within assisted living buildings. Often, a skilled nursing home or a portion of a building for those suffering severe memory loss is also on site.

Skilled Nursing Facility- is a facility that meets long term health care needs for individuals who have the potential to function independently after a limited period of care.

Intermediate Care Facility- is a health care facility designed to provide custodial care for individuals unable to care for themselves because of mental or physical infirmities. A registered nurse is required to be the director, and a licensed nurse is on duty at least 8 hours per day. These facilities provide less intensive care as that offered in a hospital or skilled nursing facility.

The following definition is provided in the City’s zoning regulations for development of a solely single family residential community that is age restricted:

The entire development shall be restricted to those persons 55 and older and a spouse of any age, or all residents over the age of 62; or restricted to at least 80 percent of the occupied units are occupied by at least one person who is aged 55 years of age or older. The last portion of the definition is provided for developments which may receive some form of incentive where the number of restricted units is a requirement of the financing.

The following chart represents the definitions used by peer communities in their Comprehensive Plan to identify designations on their future land use guide for residential developments.
Comprehensive Plan
Definitions
ShawneeLenexaOlatheOverland Park
Rural ResidentialOne unit or less
per acre
Very Low DensityOne unit or less
per acre
Low Density5 or less units per
acre
One or less unit
per acre
One to 5 units
per acre
Suburban Density3.5 units or less
per acre
Medium Density5.01-10 units per
gross acre
8 units or less
per acre
5 to 12.5 units
per acre
Medium High Density12.5 to 16.5
units per acre
High Density10.01 or more per
gross acre
16 units or less
per acre
16.5 to 43.6
units per acre
Urban DensityAt least 16 units
per acre
Further, the City’s discussion of residential density in the Comprehensive Plan includes the following guidance:

Projects which are near or exceed the midpoint (or with a Planned Mixed Residential development which is near a 14.5 unit per acre density) should provide exceptional design and use of high quality building materials which exceed those standards set forth in the Duplex and Multi-Family Design Guidelines Policy. Further, these projects should be in areas adjacent to designated arterial streets, or have natural constraints beyond the control of the property owner. In addition to a high standard of development, natural buffers should be utilized when possible, and in other cases intense landscaping and fencing shall be provided.

Rural and low density areas would range from rural type uses to typical suburban subdivisions. Medium density could include duplex and townhome developments, small multi-family uses, and planned unit developments that provide a variety of housing types. High density uses would generally be apartment or condominium developments. Certain locations of the areas designated for low density development may be permitted a higher density where unusual development problems can be shown to exist.

Assisted living, congregate care and other residential facilities designed for the elderly population, except those in single family residential structures, may exceed the midpoint of the land use designation, provided it can be shown that the traffic generated from such a facility is compatible with the surrounding uses and the design and materials of the facility blend with the surrounding neighborhood.

Potential text amendments that may be considered include a modification of the suggested density requirements for the current listing for low density, medium density and high density, or an indication that given the anticipated traffic generation from senior living facilities that they may be appropriate for designated medium density areas provided the other comments are satisfied.

The following chart represents the minimum square footage of lot area required for multi-family residential developments in the zoning regulations for the City and our peer cities. As part of the previous discussion staff had recommended that the Planning Commission consider a text amendment regarding age restricted senior living developments. It was noted that generally speaking senior living facilities have reduced minimum requirements for parking areas, and often amenities found in these types of developments are more internal to the facilities as opposed to outdoor amenities such as swimming pools and tennis courts. A “clubhouse” type facility is often indoor, and patio areas and walking paths are the most common exterior amenities.

It is noted in the chart, that the City of Shawnee uses the Planned Mixed Residential district for all multi-family developments, and embeds the density requirements within the text, rather than having several separate districts for multi-family uses.
Zoning Districts
Minimum sq. ft.
per unit
ShawneeLenexaOlatheOverland Park
PSF-AR5,000 sq. ft. per
unit
R-3 (PUDMR)2,800 sq. ft.
15.5 units per acre
2,250 sq. ft.
19.4 units per acre
w/in ¼ mile of
TSQ boundaries
2,000 sq. ft.
21.7 units per acre
senior housing
3,680 sq. ft. and
12 units per acre
2,562-3,630 sq. ft.
12-17 units per acre
3,500 sq. ft.
12.4 units per acre
R-42,723 sq. ft. and
16 units per acre
1,989-2,420 sq. ft.
18-21.9 units per acre
(3 story)
1,502-1,980 sq. ft.
22-29 units per
acre
Cluster
R-51,210 sq. ft. and
36 units per acre
(4 story+)
968-1,452 sq. ft.
30-45 units per acre
2,650 sq. ft.
16.4 units per acre
RHR800 sq. ft.
54.4 units per acre
(4 story+)
R-61,000 sq. ft.
43.6 units per acre
(4 story +)
The following chart represents parking requirements for multi-family uses. It is noted that Lenexa and Overland Park use a formula based on the number of bedrooms provided, while Olathe and Shawnee use a per unit calculation.
Parking Stalls
Required
ShawneeLenexaOlatheOverland Park
Efficiency/Studio1 space per unit1.33 per unit
One bedroom1.5 spaces per unit1.5 spaces per unit
Two-bedroom1.75 spaces per unit1.8 spaces per unit
Three+ bedroom2 spaces per unit,
plus 0.25 space for each unit without dedicated garage space
2.0 spaces per unit
Multi-family2 spaces per unit1.5 stalls per unit
Elderly facilities1.3 spaces per unit1 space per unit
Community Living1 space per 400
square feet
Staff had proposed consideration of the following text amendment to the zoning regulations regarding the minimum sq. ft. of lot area to be provided for age restricted senior living developments.

17.54.230 AREA REQUIREMENTS.

Additionally, the Planning Commission may desire to consider further amendments to the above mentioned section of the zoning regulations, as well as any modification to the Comprehensive Plan regarding density related to the type of residential use indicated on the Land Use Guide, or to provide revised text to indicate that a more dense age restricted development would be appropriate in specific areas.

Based on comments from the Planning Commission, staff will prepare revised text to be considered at the September 7, 2016 Planning Commission meeting for review and approval for scheduling a public hearing in October.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Paul. Are there questions from the Commission? Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Paul, on page 41 the last paragraph it says the discussion to be undertaken is in regard to those facilities that tend to not be medically related which the only one of the five or six is independent senior housing, correct?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Which paragraph are you in, Commissioner?

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: The last paragraph.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Okay.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Not to be medical in nature…

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Right.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Okay, so everything is medical in nature except for independent senior living…

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Right, how it works…what we’re trying to say is that the skilled nursing facilities and the intermediate care facilities are the two that we are not necessarily taking a look at. That we handle them differently. Before a community senior care/ assisted living or independent living, those of the items that we are taking a look at being truly a senior living options. Those…

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: The first three then?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: The first three, yeah.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Okay, so what, if we are talking about, I mean, were talking about in the R3/PUDMR for senior living going to 2000 ft.²…

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: At 21.7 units per acre, I mean, so why would we say medium-density of only 15? I mean…

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Well, I still think that you know, you may want to make a differentiation as to how dense senior living, an opportunity may be different for a portion of the community if you think you want to break them out, that’s fine, if you want to say all senior living medium density residential regardless of its density. I mean, that’s an option that’s fine too. And that was just a comment that I made as we were going through, if we wanted to make a change we could do it that way or, I mean, we don’t necessarily need to go down that path too if we want to say the most you’re going to get where we expect medium density residential is something like Vantage or not Vantage I’m sorry, Village Co-Op then, you know, that’s fine too.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: One of my questions has to do with what brought this on. We are, as a committee, has been proposed exceptions to the rule before so why are we making changes to the verbiage and appoint be to that same question is, why just senior living? What if it, say commuter/ young group apartments that they don’t have dogs, they already have a gym membership so they don’t need…so, I’m curious why we’re opening up this specific door.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: The reason we brought it up is that we’ve had numerous discussions over the past year, year and a half regarding senior living and right now with the regulations that we have in place, they’re capped at 15.5 dwelling units per acre, so we have a complex that say is going to be 90 units, you’re looking at 6 acres basically for someone to purchase to make development on 90 acres (units) of living. In the same vein, if I had a traditional apartment complex, I can get up to 15.5 units an acre provided I’m under the three stories in height, once you get over four stories, I mean, it’s a whole game changer. So as we sit with the developers, you know, they’re saying okay I have to provide the same, I have to purchase the same amount of property as someone who has a traditional apartment complex, but parking wise I don’t need to provide two spaces per unit, I only have to provide 1.3 units per acre (parking stalls per unit); amenity wise the folks that we are to cater to they don’t want an outdoor swimming pool, they don’t want to have to necessarily leave the building or a complex of buildings to get to a clubhouse type of facility, they most likely aren’t going to provide a tennis court but what I’m going to provide inside is I’m gonna provide a library, to provide an area that has pool tables, I’m going to provide a kitchen that’ll serve meals to the residents, I’m going to provide a beauty shop, I’m going to provide some limited type of healthcare where somebody may be able to pop in and pop out, they may have a nutritionist on staff if it’s available, and really the only thing that I’m looking at having outside is perhaps a walking trail in the gazebo and may be a patio area. So, unlike a true apartment complex I may have 25-30% of ground that I don’t need except for the sole reason to meet your zoning regulations. So, that’s why it got brought up. I think the broader discussion and, you know, maybe something we want to tackle at the same time or at a different time if we want to make changes to senior living and take a look at some others, you know, what about those situations where it’s just a regular apartment complex and do we want to change, you know, our square footage required for each one and then in the same thing do we want to change what, so what is medium density or what is high density, is there a different bar today then there was 20 years ago when the apartments are being built were “garden apartments” where they were three stories tall and that was it, you really didn’t have a lot of the more denser high-rise type of development; and before the recession, I think you saw a lot more younger folks; a traditional complex was fine with them because two years later they were going to move into a house; today, I think that’s a little different, a lot of them saw what their parents or grandparents went through during, you know, the recession, what it did to property values and, you know, I think you see more younger folks wanting to live in an apartment and that’s quite fine, you know, with them and they don’t mind a dense living opportunity; you know, some may not need a garage or may not need a space in under a carport because they don’t have a car or there may be shared living where there’s only one car; and I think as we expand our transportation network in Johnson County and we have more transit service available to different parts of the community that we may even see less and less of the younger folks and probably even older folks to needing to have cars; I think we’re still very car oriented out in this part of town as opposed to Midtown around Union Station or downtown or something like that. So, that’s the motivation with the senior living, not that we are necessarily missing a boat, but I can’t let you know when Village Co-Op came in and we took a look at a number of units that would fit on the piece of ground that they were able to obtain, we said yeah, you know, that seems like a reasonable location for what you are looking at doing but this is the number of units that are gonna fit with the ordinances that we have in place. And I think that one turned out really nicely, not to say that if you build a four story building, but the wings maybe then could’ve been a little longer; they have some big setbacks.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other questions?

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Paul, have you done a typical layout as to how a building of three stories or less at 21 units would layout?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: I have not.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: It seems like that unless there is underground parking with that much density, that it doesn’t, and you could cut back on the requirements of parking it seems like it still is kind of edgy as to whether or not you can get 21 units an acre on, without underground parking even with a, but maybe you are proposing to have less green area. Are you proposing we have less green area?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: There would be less green that the same time to get the 21.7, the Planning Commission’s going to need to buy off on it. We’re not saying that everybody can have 21 and may be to do that they do have the, some of the added amenities that, you know, were talking about, that they do have to have the garages to meet that type of requirement or the amount that is open space is right at the minimum requirement rather than exceeding the requirement which most of them have to do just to make the requirements to provide the amenities that are required to be provided on the site.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And I don’t have a problem with, I just don’t know if it fits. I know that, I’m sure that Overland Park and Olathe with their 40 units per acre that they are intending it to be underground parking or off-site parking…

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Yeah, as an example, the Sunrise, and I don’t know if it’s assisted living or just independent living down at 87th St. and Lackman, that’s about 26 units per acre on that corner, its south of the Henhouse and east of Panzon’s down there, it’s a three-story stone building, they don’t have any underground parking, there’s is all surfaced parking, so…you know, at least that specific design (inaudible) I think they are three (inaudible) I believe they are three.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: I just wondered.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Yeah.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: To see if we were going to propose this if it really fit. You think that somebody, there’s a CAD person somewhere that could just do a typical…

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Sure, someone could do it or they may be able to fit in 18 unit but right now they couldn’t even, you know, bring us in 18 unit. I think, you know, I think we want to encourage some good design and some innovation and that type of thing to go on also. I think you’ve got some developments down and Olathe that are three-story that are around 19 to 20 units per acre down along 135th St./133rd St. down in that area.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Paul, how will this…this is all mixed residential so how will the changes to the senior requirements equate or pass over/pass through to the mixed use?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Well, the mixed use we have its own category on its own, it’s its own type of PUDMR…

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: But it can have senior living so…

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Mixed use…

(Inaudible)

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: To make it for mixed residential and not do something, wouldn’t you want to do something for in the mixed use also?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: I think we already have that part covered on the mixed use.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Oh, okay.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: And mixed use, will be call mixed use is true mixed-use where you have commercial/office or some use on the bottom however many floors and then as you go up you have the residential on higher as opposed to, you know, you read the Metcalf south plan and that it’s a mixed use development because it has office and commercial retail together and all that. I think it’s a stretch calling that mixed use, I think. I think mixed-use and Shawnee and how we talk about in the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Regulations is a true mixture of residential uses with commercial/office type of uses.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Paul, I have a couple of questions or couple of comments anyway. In the height of the buildings, do I remember right that we had trouble with the hotel out here and that four stories was as high as we could go in the city? Does that…not the case with…

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: We used to that concern with how high the ladder trucks could rise and in today’s world with building codes with requiring sprinkler systems and our fire suppression system, we’re able to handle taller buildings that we use to be able to be able to handle.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I think one another thing is, roughly 4 or 5 years ago we changed that if we were going to allow businesses to not have as much retail parking spaces we said they had to enhance the landscape by a larger caliber trees and enhanced landscaping and I think that to me would follow suit that you are really gonna have to put out something nicer for landscape, bigger caliber trees for me to say yeah, I get what we are trying to do.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: And I think over time as we have those discussions, that’s what we can relay-on to the developer himself. I mean, right now the reduction is there, 1.3 is all that is required, were not proposing that it necessarily be any lower than that but I think with design and to get density, you may see less surfaced parking anyway because you’re going, I think you may be more likely to see some garages incorporated into the design of the building than you have before. What comes to mind quickly that was a Shawnee case was out at Shawnee Hills. When they built their building, given the number of units that they had, and I can’t remember they have 120 units or how many units they ended up with, to me the Zoning Regs they were then required to if they had 120 units then they were required to have 12 acres of ground; there building is built on the western portion of the property, but basically because of the zoning and density requirements, they have about 5 or 6 acres that are sitting to the west of them that’s just, or to the east of them, that’s just there that they are not good to be able to develop because they needed to have that property for, to be able to build their building where if there was an increased density there’d be an opportunity where they could come back and build a second building or they wouldn’t have needed to purchase the 12 acres to begin with from the get go.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: And one more question or thought. And that is, I understand they don’t want to build tennis courts, nobody will use them, I don’t want to see the old people out in a swimming pool so the that’s fine with me. But at what point in time on this age restricted housing do we not have the ability to go in and say fine, the exterior amenities that we would normally require we should be going into interior amenities that they are going to build and say that we expect enhanced versions of that if we’re going to allow you to build on a more dense property?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Yeah, we could do…

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is there a precedence for that from other cities?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Olathe does require enhanced architectural features, not that so much enhanced amenities but certainly as we go through this process, you know, if you would like for us to bring us the multifamily design guidelines and then we can drop in, you know, some verbiage that we think would be appropriate there and then we also have the multifamily amenity policy and we can drop something in there for senior living also. So, I mean, we can handle all of those things all at one time if you’d like to do that, we can prepare something and bring those to you also at the next meeting or whenever you would like to…

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: So, we can’t have some control over interior amenities as well?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: You can and you know, it’s a PUD so they bring it to you, so if you decide you want the senior living facility to have…

(Inaudible)

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: 3 or 4 things from a bigger list of interior because you’re not in lieu of the exterior types of amenities that we would expect in a traditional apartment complex we can certainly come up with something like that, along that line. I mean, they can pick and choose what they want, it seems like each senior living developer has their own little niche or little, you know, that they like to do to not be so close to say, okay here’s your 12 choices, you have to pick six of them and when they’re doing something really cool that we never thought anyone would provide in their complex.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: And, one more thing. One thing that does concern me is if we take the independent senior housing, those are basically apartments with amenities, but what, if we decrease the parking required for that, and in some point in time somebody comes back and says well we’re no longer going to be age restricted, then if we’ve allowed that to get on such a small area, in other words a density so high, how do we work in all these extra parking spaces that we currently require?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: They would be required, if they are going to make a change, though be bringing you a site plan to show you where the additional parking is gonna be.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Okay, thank you. Any further questions for staff? Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: It’s really not a specific question…it seems like in today’s world everybody is wanting less; the seniors want to live in apartments instead of houses with big yards and its maintenance; but, our young people are in the same boat, so I just want…if we open this up to seniors, I think we should be looking very seriously at opening it up to other age groups as well because they are doing with less. Take a look at your TV channels. (Inaudible) we talked about the cottage developments, those types of things; young people want indoor amenities too, not everybody wants to go out and swim in the pool or do whatever. So, I’m just gonna voice again, I think this is a good idea and I think were on the right track, I really do think we should raise it past the 15.5, the 21 makes me a little nervous because I’m not sure how it will work but I just don’t believe it should be age restricted, maybe it’s just because I’m way too close to that number, the lower one. But I really would like to urge us to not just do it in this one area.

COMMISSIONER LES SMITH: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Smith.

COMMISSIONER LES SMITH: Just a couple of comments and perhaps suggestions. Paul, I think you are spot on with your concept, your theory if you will, I’ve spent a lot of time lately having to look at different facilities for a parent and for example there is one up at 70th? and Pflumm, south of 75th St. on Pflumm, closer to 87th Street, I’ve been in that place seven times and never seen a car come out of there, they built a sister project that my mother is moving into up in Gladstone, as a matter of fact, and I’ve sat on her deck for over 2 ½ hours over the weekend and saw one car go in and out, so I think you’re absolutely right and what they have outdoors for amenities is exactly what you’re talking about, they have sidewalks connecting each building and they have a couple-three patios with rocking chairs on them, everything else is focused on the interior of the complex. And secondly, just kind of, on your last page you talk about amenities substantial in Planning Commission’s opinion in an environment for seniors, going back to the days of (inaudible) they’re focusing a lot on aging in place and they are focusing a lot on a sense of place so I might suggest in your language that you include a memorable sense of place, because that does a lot of things and a memorable sense of place for seniors is not only a nice complex, it’s not only convenient but it has a place that they actually truly call home, that’s going to include a lot of outdoor stuff like landscaping and different features and architectural features and whatnot; I’d like for you to consider that perhaps that is a good way of putting what you’re really looking for. That’s all.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Smith, I think I’d like to disagree with you on one thing. And that is, the car’s not moving…my mother-in-law is 94 years old and lives in Bonner Springs and she’s put 500 miles on her car since November 26, 2014. Now one day a year or so ago she decided we were going to take her car away from her, so she explained it this way, I’ve seen it before…I stand at the window and watch them take my car…I cry and then I die. Taking that car away, even though it’s not moved, having a parking place for that car is still extremely important to her and that would be my only point.

COMMISSIONER LES SMITH: Sure and I don’t disagree. My mother is 93 years old and still drives like a maniac and bowls twice a week, so I’m on the other end of that spectrum, I see her come and go but…you’re right, I don’t disagree with you at all. My experience in watching the two projects and again they have underground parking, that’s another thing, there’s just not a lot of movement. But, your point’s well taken.

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: And I think what both of you sort of show is that, you know, there’s no boiler plate for, you know, senior housing facilities that each one is geared toward the need that they want to provide with the feeling that they are going to be able to fill their complex and certainly be something successful so I think that’s one reason why even senior housing is a lot more difficult to stand and discuss the single family housing or even an apartment complex which has, you know, the whole mixture of people it’s just that different developers sort of target different needs and so I think we need to be open and two, you know, both density wise/amenity wise to take a look at each one as they come in.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner John Smith.

COMMISSIONER JOHN SMITH: Yeah parking, I think is an issue, I agree because my birth mother lived till 96 and probably drove until age 93 and in a more rural setting, but I think a setting like we have here, our public transportation hasn’t evolved that far and I think that if we don’t provide the parking it discourages family and others from visiting, too. It’s like we institutionalize them almost, so I think we want to be careful about not including sufficient parking whether they have vehicles or people who come with vehicles. Even in the community where we live in, the parking is an issue; we have people who violate our covenants because they have too many vehicles and they park in the streets. So, we’re not there yet, so I think we might be moving in that direction but we don’t have public transportation nor have we accepted, typically the older people, public transportation. You remove their ability to move about and that’s, I think someone said just let me die. That’s the concern I have, so as you write your verbiage I think we need to be cognizant of that.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other questions or comments for staff? If not, tell me how we proceed from here Paul. Did we give you enough information?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: I think what staff was looking for was some direction from the Planning Commission, if you think it’s an item we continued to pursue, for staff to prepare some verbiage, for all of you to consider it at your next meeting and then we can tweak the verbiage still, we can do whatever and then schedule a public hearing to make amendments to the Zoning Regulations; if we want to make any, we may bring something back for you to consider in the Comprehensive Plan and we can go that way, or we don’t have to go that way; that certainly would be a recommendation that would go on to the Governing Body; and then we’ll take a look at the multifamily amenity policy and multifamily design standards and try and come up with some verbiage to include in those; and those are your decision to make so, you know, however you want the verbiage to be for those types of, for that type of use, you’ll be the ones to set those; and then that, you know, it does help staff to sort of set the standards to let a developer know when they come in that we’re not just looking at some nice trees, that you are also expected to have these things; any combination, you know, sometimes in the multifamily amenity policy we say, you know, depending on the size of the complex you have to have two of these or three of these and then we just have the whole list choice, you know, for them and we may expand the list a little for senior type uses and but a little asterisk that says these may be alternate selections for a senior living, you know, environment and then still have, you know, you need so many for whatever size you are, or something like that.

(Inaudible)

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: Nodding heads or just a motion out of you or whatever you would like is fine with me.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is there a motion for the staff to proceed with trying to come up with some verbiage on the changes that we’re talking about this evening?

COMMISSIONER LES SMITH: Mr. Chairman, so moved.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Smith.

COMMISSIONER LES SMITH: Sorry, so moved.

COMMISSIONER JOHN SMITH: I would move that the staff proceed with development of verbiage for senior living developments considering the discussion that you heard in our two meetings.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is there a second Mr. John Smith?

COMMISSIONER LES SMITH: I’ll second.

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

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay? Motion carried.


(Motion passed 7-0; Bienhoff and Braley absent)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Does staff have any other business for the Commission?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: One item to remind you that August has five Mondays so our next meeting will be in three weeks but will actually be in three and half weeks because we have Labor Day on our normal date so it will go to the Wednesday which I believe is September 7; then secondly, for the next meeting will probably ask all of you to come in a little early, I think some of you know that Planning, we, Codes Administration Division was merged into Planning early last fall been kind of operating on opposite sides of the building on different levels so after your next meeting, we’ll be moved downstairs so Codes and Planning will all be together in one place and I think that will bode well for the department and the interaction that goes on between both of us but we’ll have you go downstairs and hopefully by then we’ll figure out where were going to move your mailboxes and where we would all like to meet to come into the meeting, we have a couple of choices, we may end up coming in off of the other side and where we come today or if we all just still want to meet in the Planning office, we can all meet in there, and one of the other reasons is they are going to be doing some construction work and reconfiguring the area where we all are now; all Public Works people that are in 3 or 4 different places in the building are all gonna get to move together and so they’ll have our facility, so we just want you to be aware that if you come in, your mailboxes can be in, on any file cabinets along the hallway anymore, so just wanted to lead you through it.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I have one thing and that is, roughly in February or March I asked for review of the sign code and the business lighting code. When will we get to that?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: We can get to it shortly. To be really honest with you we lost that off of our radar. So, and it’s in response to some of the lighting that we saw around Christmas time this last year, I believe. Is that correct?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Terrific. Thank you, the other thing is, it is so nice to see the Chamber of Commerce here, we are very thankful you are here for this delightful, entertaining meeting and you know you are always welcome to come to this.

(Inaudible)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yes, sir.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Do you know what the status of the Vantage litigation is?

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: They are, our attorney is still getting/gathering information from staff and some of the City Council. They’ve asked for…

(Inaudible)

PLANNING DIRECTOR CHAFFEE: They haven’t started depositions. I imagine they will shortly, but they were still gathering some email and some phone records and items along the way.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Anything else? Surely a motion for adjournment could come from some place at any time. Commissioner Peterson.

G. ADJOURNMENT

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I move we adjourn this evenings meeting.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is there a second.

COMISSIONER WISE: Second.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Wise, thank you. All in favor say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay? Motion carried.


(Motion passed 7-0; Bienhoff and Braley absent)