PDF Format:

ApprovedPlanningCommissionMeeting.12.5.16.pdfApprovedPlanningCommissionMeeting.12.5.16.pdf

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES
December 5, 2016
7:30 P.M.

PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Commissioner Augie Bogina Planning Director Chaffee
Commissioner Randy Braley Deputy Planning Director Allmon
Commissioner Dennis Busby Planner Mark Zielsdorf
Commissioner Rusty Mudgett Administrative Asst. Angie Lind
Commissioner Kathy Peterson
Commissioner John Smith
Commissioner Alan Willoughby
Commissioner Steven Wise

PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
Commissioner Bruce Bienhoff
Commissioner Les Smith
(Planning Commission Meeting Called to Order at 7:31 p.m.)
A. ROLL CALL
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Good evening and welcome to the December 5, 2016 meeting of the Shawnee Planning Commission. We’ll start with roll call. 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. Commissioner Busby is here. Commissioner Bogina.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Wise.
COMMISSIONER WISE: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Braley.
COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Present.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Les Smith is not here. Commissioner Mudgett.
COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Present.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: If you’ll please join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance)
C. CONSENT ITEMS
1. APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 2016.
2. SUP-11-89-10; REVIEW OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PREVIOUSLY ISSUED TO HERMES NURSERY, TO OPERATE A RETAIL OFFICE FOR WHOLESALE OPERATIONS IN THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 20000 W. 47TH STREET.
3. SUP-08-98-10; REVIEW OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PREVIOUSLY ISSUED TO QUIKTRIP, TO OPERATE A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS PUMPS IN THE COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 10301 W 75TH STREET.
4. SUP-11-87-10; REVIEW OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PREVIOUSLY ISSUED TO QUIKTRIP, TO OPERATE A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS PUMPS IN THE COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 6637 NIEMAN ROAD.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: 1 through 6 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?
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Mr. Chairman, I would like to --
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Go ahead. Commissioner Bogina.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: If we could have a short discussion about Number 5, please.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very fine. Commissioner Wise.
COMMISSIONER WISE: I’d like to move Item 6 off the Consent Agenda as well.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very fine. And for me I’d like to make a notation that in the minutes of the previous meeting on page 11, I’m attributed to a conversation that I think was Commissioner Willoughby’s. And that is, it says, “Doug, that should say Midland instead of Shawnee Mission Parkway.” That series I believe was Commissioner Willoughby and not myself. Very fine. Then we’ll proceed with Item 5, is that correct?
CHAIRMAN BOGINA: Do you want to do the balance of the Consent Agenda?
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Oh, I’m sorry. The rest of the Consent Agenda we should have a motion for that. Commissioner Smith.
COMMISSIONER JOHN SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve Items A, B, C -- 1, 2, 3, 4 of the Consent Agenda.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Okay. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: A motion and second to approve those items in the Consent Agenda, all in favor say aye.
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carried.
(Motion passed 8-0; Les Smith, Bruce Bienhoff absent)
5. SP-32-16-12; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,854 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT TO BE LOCATED AT 10704 SHAWNEE MISSION PARKWAY. THE APPLICATION IS FILED BY PREMIER CIVIL ENGINEERING FOR RAISING CANE'S RESTAURANTS LLC, PROPERTY DEVELOPER.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I believe it’s appropriate to deal with the stuff we just pulled out of the Consent Agenda. Then Item 5, if I’m correct, was the first one pulled out. Commissioner Bogina.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: If I could start with the staff. Doug, I apologize I didn’t get a chance to call you today. You mentioned in the staff report of a future monument sign possibly to serve both the office building and the retail. Has either developer told you where that might be?
MR. ALLMON: I believe that the intention is it would be at the corner of Goddard and Shawnee Mission Parkway. [Inaudible; talking off mic] So, basically you wouldn’t have two, one for Stag’s and one for Shawnee Mission Parkway [inaudible].
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, it’s at the intersection?
MR. ALLMON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, why wouldn’t it have been shown on the plan?
MR. ALLMON: I guess I could ask [Inaudible; talking off mic] -- originally in all the pre-application meetings.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Okay. I had some questions for the applicant anyway, so could we ask them?
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is the applicant present?
MS. STOSZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Would you please come forward and state your name and address please for the record?
MS. STOSZ: Good evening. Debbie Stosz with Premier Civil Engineering, 308 TCW Court, Lake St. Louis, Missouri.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Commissioner Bogina, you have some questions?
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Could you point out --
MS. STOSZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: -- on the plan where the future monument sign might be?
MS. STOSZ: Yeah. I have it. I don’t know how -- do you want me to come over there? Would that be easier?
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Is there a –
MR. ALLMON: I’ve got a miniature plan here.
MS. STOSZ: It’s basically -- it’s kind of -- I admit it is hard to see. It’s at the end of the retaining wall there. And that’s a conceptual location. If we need to move it, it can definitely be moved.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, what’s your thinking on sight distance at the intersection if it’s conceivably eight-foot tall?
MR. ALLMON: It would be seven-foot tall including the base.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And the width would be?
MR. ALLMON: The sign face could be 50 square feet. So, it would depend, the measurement of length times width.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, approximately 7½, or 7-feet wide?
MR. ALLMON: Typically 7 by 7, yes.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, what’s your thought as to what -- are you a civil engineer?
MS. STOSZ: Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Okay. What’s your thought on sight distance if it was 7 foot by 7 foot at the intersection?
MS. STOSZ: We could definitely, I mean, again, what we’re showing is conceptual. The sign vendor will -- we’ll work with the sign vendor as far as working out the actual location of it, and we can definitely do a sight triangle to make sure it is not, you know, in conflict with any -- obstructing any, you know, turning movements or anything for people to see that. We can definitely do that. We can move it wherever the City -- we can work with the City and Doug to figure out where that needs to be.
MR. ALLMON: We would require a permit for that sign.
MS. STOSZ: Right.
MR. ALLMON: And we look at the sight distance issues with that permit.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Okay. And then I don’t know if this was -- would be your wheelhouse or not, but the architectural plans show -- one plan shows it to be neon lighting and the other plan shows it to be LED lighting. Do you know the answer to that?
MS. STOSZ: That would be -- the architect is here with us.
MR. FIELDS: Yes, that would be –
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: If you’d come forward and state your name and address for the record, please.
MR. FIELDS: Everett Fields, 1101 South Central Expressway in Allen, Texas. To answer your question, it would -- the preference would be neon. However, if it is against I guess you all’s rules, LED is also open, too. So, I guess I’m not understanding the question.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Is neon the same as LED?
MR. FIELDS: No, it’s not.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Okay. Well, one plan shows it to be LED and one plan shows it to be neon.
MR. FIELDS: The preference is to be neon.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And so I didn’t know.
MR. ALLMON: It was my understanding it was going to be a neon accent light that wouldn’t move or blink.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And so they’re allowed to put neon?
MR. ALLMON: Yes. Yes.
MR. FIELDS: Yes.
MR. ALLMON: There is neon banding on other buildings in the city. As long as they don’t blink, flash --
MR. FIELDS: They don’t.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Okay. Good. Thank you.
MR. ALLMON: Okay. You’re welcome.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Does anyone else have any questions for the applicant or staff? If not, then I believe -- would you like to put a motion in order on this?
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: I would move to approve SP-32-16-12, a site plan approval for construction of a 2,854 square foot drive-thru restaurant located at 10704 Shawnee Mission Parkway.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Commissioner Bogina. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER WISE: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Wise, thank you. There’s a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor say aye.
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carried.
(Motion carried 8-0; Les Smith, Bruce Bienhoff absent)
6. SP-33-16-12; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ADDITION ONTO THE ST. JOSEPH CATHOLIC CHURCH LOCATED AT 11311 JOHNSON DRIVE. THE APPLICATION IS FILED BY SFS ARCHITECTS ON BEHALF OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF KANSAS CITY, PROPERTY OWNER.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: CHAIRMAN BUSBY: We’ve also pulled out Item 6 of the Consent Agenda for a question on that. Commissioner Wise.
COMMISSIONER WISE: Chairman, the reason I pulled that off Consent is just since I’m not able to vote on it, rather than abstaining vote on the other items, so I’d just ask somebody else to make a motion on that and I will abstain from voting on Item 6.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very fine. Is everybody understanding Commissioner Wise is abstaining from the vote on this due to a conflict of interest? Very fine.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bogina.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: I would move to approve SP-33-16-12, a site plan approval for construction of a 3,000 square foot building addition on St. Joseph Catholic Church located at 11311 Johnson Drive.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Commissioner Braley.
COMMISSIONER BRALEY: I would like to second that motion.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. There’s a motion and a second for approval of SP-33-16-12, a site plan approval for the construction of a 3,000 square foot building addition onto St. Joseph Catholic Church located at 11311 Johnson Drive. All in favor say aye.
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carried. Thank you.
(Motion carried 7-0-1; Commissioner Wise abstaining. Les Smith, Bruce Bienhoff absent)
D. NEW BUSINESS
1. Z-05-16-12; REZONING FROM AG (AGRICULTURAL) TO PO (PROFESSIONAL OFFICE), PREPLAT-18-16-12; PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND SP-31-16-12; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SMALL HOSPITAL BUILDING IN THE 15000 BLOCK OF W. 67TH STREET. THE APPLICATION IS FILED BY BHC RHODES FOR THE EMBREE GROUP, DEVELOPER.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Next, I believe we now move to New Business. Doug, do you have a presentation?
MR. ALLMON: Good evening. Doug Allmon, Planning staff. The applicant requests rezoning, preliminary plat and site plan approval for construction of a small hospital building in the 15000 Block of West 67th Street. The application is filed by BHC Rhodes for the Embree Group, developer.
The Rezoning Factors are:
• The subject property of the rezoning request is a 3.9-acre tract that is currently unplatted. The applicant requests rezoning from AG (Agricultural) to PO (Professional Office) for construction of a small hospital facility.
• The proposed area of rezoning is located between Shawnee Mission Parkway and 67th Street, on the east side of Lackman Road. Property to the south (across 67th Street) is zoned PUDMR (Planned Unit Development Mixed Residential) and is the location of the Prairie Lake Apartments. Property to the east is zoned AG and contains a single family home and farm-related structures. This land is currently shown as low density residential on the Land Use Guide. Property to the west (across Lackman Road) is zoned COUNCIL (Commercial Neighborhood), and contains a two-story bank. Shawnee Mission Parkway right-of-way is located directly to the north.
• The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan shows the property as being appropriate for development of Office/Commercial and Office/Service uses. Thus, the request for rezoning to Professional Office and development of a hospital facility is in compliance with the Plan.
• The rezoning itself should have little, if any, detrimental effect upon the surrounding properties. The hospital proposes a mix of high quality exterior building materials, and existing improvements to 67th Street to allow adequate capacity to handle traffic generated by the facility. Also, a dense timbered area on the east side of the site will remain preserved by the project to provide a natural buffer for any future development to the east.
• The character of the area will change somewhat with the development project. However, this change was anticipated by the property’s designation for office/service/commercial uses on the Land Use Guide. Likewise, a two-story office building has been previously constructed to the west, and property directly north (across Shawnee Mission Parkway) contains a large electrical substation.
• Denial of the request would not appear to benefit the community as a whole. Increased levels of office and service development and enhancement of Shawnee’s daytime population has been a stated goal of the Planning Commission and City Council. A stated objective of the Comprehensive Plan related to office development in the City aims to provide buildings that “make a statement” at major intersections. This proposal appears to meet that objective.
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW:
• The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval for a commercial subdivision. The preliminary plat contains 4.3 acres (including platted street right-of-way).
• The property is unplatted with no improvements. A 100-foot overhead power line easement runs through the middle of the property bisecting it north to south. The topography of the site slopes slightly from the northwest to the southeast. Most of the property is covered with grassland and pasture scattered with a few native cedar trees, although a dense stand of mostly deciduous trees is located on the eastern portion of the site.
• All bulk requirements of the PO zoning district have been satisfied. Lot 1 contains 169,714 square feet with approximately 644 feet of frontage along Shawnee Mission Parkway, 204 feet of frontage along Lackman Road, and 620 feet of frontage along West 67th Street. This lot exceeds the minimum requirements of the PO zoning district of 10,000 square feet and 100 feet of frontage along a public street. The preliminary plat provides for a 30-foot building line along all street frontages.
• The applicant will be required to dedicate right-of-way along Lackman Road and 67th Street as indicated on the preliminary plat. Additionally, the City has agreed to vacate excess right-of-way along 67th Street. The right-of-way will be vacated with the approval and recording of the final plat.
• The lots in this development are served by a public sewer system.
• Access to this lot will be from a single commercial drive approach from W. 67th Street. No access will be allowed from either Shawnee Mission Parkway or Lackman Road. Both Shawnee Mission Parkway and Lackman Road are designated as minor arterials on the Circulation Plan of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, while 67th Street is designated as a major collector. The right of controlled-access shall be dedicated to the City along the entire length of all three rights-of-way to restrict direct access from this lot to the designated access point as shown on the preliminary plat. The proposed points of access and lot layout are acceptable for circulation and public safety purposes.
• This development is subject to the provisions of Shawnee Municipal Code (SMC) Chapter 12.26, which pertains to the City’s excise tax on new subdivision plats.
• The estimated excise tax for this plat, including the above-listed credits or deductions is $36,488.51 based on a taxable area of 169,714 square feet at the current rate of $0.215 per square foot.
• The developer may enter into an Excise Tax Abatement Agreement with the City that would allow for the suspension, partial or in full, for the excise tax due, provided the final plat is approved and recorded prior to the expiration of the suspension of the City’s excise tax as set by the City.
• This subdivision is subject to the provisions of SMC 12.14, Park and Recreational Land Use Fund. The open space fee for this lot is estimated to be $6,788.56, based on the lot area of 169,714 square feet at the current rate of $0.04 per square foot. The open space fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
• The applicant also requests site plan approval for construction of a 16,800 square foot hospital building at the northeast corner of Lackman Road and 67th Street. The site contains 3.9 acres, of which approximately the eastern one-third of the property will remain undisturbed at this time.
• All bulk requirements have been met. At the closest point, the building sets back 30 feet or more from the right-of-way lines for Lackman Road, 67th Street and the Shawnee Mission Parkway eastbound ramp. All parking areas maintain more than a 30-foot separation from all street frontages.
• The building is tee-shaped and is oriented on the site at the western side of the property. This allows the front entrance to face east toward the main field of parking. Overall length of the building from east to west will be 158 feet, while the north to south width of the building will be 133 feet. Although one-story in design, the building has wall and roof elements that emulate the look of a two-story building. Average roof height is approximately 22 feet, rising up to 30 feet at the building’s east entrance. Because of existing grading for Shawnee Mission Parkway and Lackman Road, a segmental keystone retaining wall will be necessary along the north, east and south sides of the building. The height of the wall will range from approximately 2 feet to 6 feet.
• Primary parking areas are located to the east of the building, with additional ADA parking adjacent to the south building wall. Access to the building is provided by a wide sidewalk that will be constructed around the south and east sides of the building. Submitted plans show the provision of 32 parking stalls. This exceeds the requirement for the hospital use, which requires one space per 2 employees and one space per doctor. Three spaces have been marked as ADA accessible, meeting the minimum ordinance requirement. Parking lots with less than 40 spaces are exempt from or parking maximum requirements.
• Five parking lot light poles are proposed to light the site. The submitted information indicates the poles will be 20 feet in height (including the base), and the shoebox will be mounted at a ninety degree angle with the pole. Fixtures will have a flat lens for full glare cutoff.
• Submitted building elevations indicate the majority of all walls will be constructed of brick and stacked stone, with off-white precast accent stone at the building base. Brick will be installed in a dark red color and in a gray color. The precast base will be smooth-faced. The earth tone blend stacked stone (Canyon Stone “Texas Cream”) will provide additional accent color and texture around the east main building entrance and around taller window elements found within the south building wall. Large amounts of gray Spandrel glass is provided on the east and south elevations to accent the front building entrance. A covered drop-off canopy is provided on the east wall that is constructed of dark red brick columns that support a smooth-faced metal canopy that is champagne in color. Mechanical equipment will be mounted on the roof and will be screened by the parapet wall. Overall, this is a high quality building of lasting materials.
• The trash and generator enclosures are shown at the northeast corner of the building to minimize their view. Elevations indicate these two enclosures will be constructed of red brick to match the building, with steel gates colored to match the brick.
• The landscape plan shows a total of 15 street trees adjacent to 67th Street and 6 street trees adjacent to Lackman Road. Based on frontage lengths, 21 trees are required. The applicant has also provided 4 new trees along Shawnee Mission Parkway to supplement the 13 trees that will be preserved to meet the zoning ordinance requirement. Species of street trees include Armstrong Maple, Perkins Yellowwood, Golden Rain and Black Gum. Additional ornamentals and evergreens have been located within the open space areas of the site. Thirteen site trees have been provided to supplement the 50 existing open space trees that will be left undisturbed at the east end of the property. The landscape plan also shows various shrub plantings to accent the building and parking lot islands. Deciduous and evergreen shrubs planned for the site include Glossy Abelia, Green Beauty Boxwood, and Korean Boxwood.
• The applicant has submitted a preliminary storm drainage study showing the 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.
• 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 on-site detention is not required, the applicant is responsible for paying the stormwater fee. The fee is required to be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
• The applicant or landowner is also responsible for obtaining a land disturbance permit as required by Codes Administration prior to undertaking any land disturbance or construction activities on the development site.
• 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 7 based on the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. The applicant is proposing the installation of a bio-retention cell and native vegetation to meet the required Level of Service.
• The applicant shall replace the existing KDOT-standard fence along the south side of Shawnee Mission Parkway with a new 5-foot tall black ornamental steel fence. The fence shall match the existing fence located adjacent to Home Depot. The fence shall be placed along the right-of-way line.
• The applicant is also responsible for preparing an impervious area plan in accordance to the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, Division 2600, Storm Drainage, using coordinates based in the Kansas North State Plane Coordinate System of 1983, North Zone.
RECOMMENDATION
In terms of a recommendation, Staff recommends approval of Z-05-16-12, rezoning from AG (Agricultural) to PO (Professional Office) for a 3.9 acre parcel located in the 15000 Block of W. 67th Street, subject to Condition Number 1, that being:
1. Approval of the rezoning by the Governing Body and publication of the rezoning ordinance. Staff also recommends approval of Preplat-18-16-12, Preliminary Plat of Shawnee Hospital and SP-31-16-12, Site Plan for construction of a 16,800 square foot small hospital subject to Conditions 2 through 29. Those conditions are referenced are as follows:
2. The preliminary plat and site plan are also subject to approval of the rezoning approval by the Governing Body. This subdivision shall be subject to all bulk and use requirements of the PO zoning district;
3. Acceptance of the dedications on the final plat by the Shawnee Governing Body and recording of the final plat with the Johnson County Register of Deeds, along with site plan approval by the Shawnee Planning Commission shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits;
4. The preliminary plat contains one lot on 4.3 acres;
5. The lots within the subdivision shall be subject to all bulk and use requirements of the PO (Professional Office) zoning district;
6. The right of controlled access shall be dedicated to the City along Shawnee Mission Parkway, Lackman Road, and W. 67th Street rights-of-way to restrict direct access from this lot to the designated access point on W. 67th Street as indicated on the plat;
7. The provisions of the excise tax shall be satisfied prior to the Mayor signing the recording copies of the final plat. The developer may enter into an Excise Tax Abatement Agreement with the City that would allow for the suspension, partial or in full, of the excise tax provided the final plat is approved and recorded prior to expiration of the suspension of the excise tax as set by the City. This agreement between the property owner and the City shall be created, agreed upon, and executed prior to obtaining the Mayor’s signature on the recording copy of the final plat;
8. Open space fees in the amount of $6,788.56, based on a lot area of 169,714 square feet at the current rate of $0.04 per square foot, shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit, as provided by Shawnee Municipal Code (SMC) 12.14;
9. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all such permits as may be required by all Federal, State, and Local agencies, including but not limited to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), Kansas Division of Water Resources (DWR), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE);
10. All utilities shall be placed underground. When an easement is needed specifically for either a sanitary or stormwater sewer, the easement must specify the intended use;
11. The applicant is responsible for submitting a computation plat with the recording copies of the final plat;
12. The building shall be constructed as depicted on the submitted site plan and building elevations. Any metal doors, utility meters and conduit attached to the building shall be painted to match the adjacent wall;
13. Mechanical units shall be fully screened by the parapet wall;
14. All landscaping as depicted on the landscape plan shall be planted prior to issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy, and all disturbed areas around the building and parking lot shall be sodded as depicted on the plan;
15. The parking lot shall be constructed and striped, including ADA dedicated spaces, prior to issuance of an occupancy permit;
16. Parking lot lighting shall be 20 feet in height (including the base). The shoebox shall have a flat lens and shall be mounted at a 90-degree angle with the pole;
17. The trash and generator enclosures shall be constructed of brick to match the building with metal gates;
18. All signage shall meet requirements of Shawnee Municipal Code 5.64. Sign permits shall be obtained prior to installation. Monument sign bases shall be constructed of brick or stone to match the building;
19. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.20, Land Disturbance Activity, which pertains to site grading and erosion control measures. The applicant is responsible for obtaining a land disturbance permit as required by Codes Administration prior to undertaking any land disturbance or construction activities on the development site;
20. The storm drainage improvements required for this development shall be designed in accordance with Shawnee Design and Construction Manual as detailed in the staff report;
21. 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;
22. 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 as detailed in the staff report. And to clarify that, on- site detention will not be constructed, but they’ll be paying the fee in lieu.
23. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.16, Stormwater Treatment, which pertains to the implementation of Stormwater Treatment Facilities. Treatment shall be accomplished as detailed in the staff report;
24. The City’s stream corridor regulations do not apply to the project;
25. The design and construction of all retaining walls shall comply with the SMC, Chapter 15.04, International Building Code. Private retaining walls shall be of stacked segmental (keystone) design, earth tone in color;
26. The applicant shall replace the existing KDOT-standard fence along the south side of Shawnee Mission Parkway with a new 5-foot tall black ornamental steel fence. The fence shall match the existing fence located adjacent to Home Depot. The fence shall be placed along the right-of-way line. The fence is considered public and will be maintained by the City in the future. Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy the fence is required to be constructed and accepted by the City;
27. All private and public improvements for this development shall be constructed according to all applicable standards in the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. A public improvement permit will be required for all public street, storm, and streetlight improvements;
28. The applicant is responsible for scheduling a pre-design meeting with the Development Engineer prior to preparing the site civil plans, which must show all proposed site improvements. The final site civil plans for this development must be submitted for review and acceptance by the City prior to issuance a public improvement permit or building permit; and
29. All fire hydrants with compliant fire-flows, and fire lanes as required by the Fire Department, shall approved prior to issuance of a building permit. Minimum fire-flow and flow duration shall be as specified in Table B105.1 of the International Fire Code. Fireflow is measured at a 20 psi residual pressure.
That completes our report.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Doug. Is the applicant present? If you’d come forward and state your name and address, please.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Good evening. Steven Kirkpatrick with Embree Asset Group. And our address is 4747 Williams Drive, Georgetown, Texas 78633. I’ll be happy to answer any questions that you may have after the staff report.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Are you in agreement with staff recommendations?
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very good. Does the Commission have any questions for staff or applicant? Commissioner Braley.
COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Yes. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Doug, I have a question for you to start with. Is there a reason why on the site plan there wouldn’t be a sidewalk that would lead up along 67th Street to the intersection of Lackman?
MR. ALLMON: Sidewalk improvements weren’t discussed or required by our engineering division. I am not sure that I know the answer why a sidewalk was not required.
COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Okay. For the applicant then, would this be something you would be opposed to including in your site plan, running a sidewalk up along 67th Street to Lackman?
MR. KIRKPATRICK: We actually did discuss that with the engineering department and there is a sidewalk along the south side of 67th Street currently feeding that intersection. And I believe that was the reason that they did not require that as a part of this submittal.
COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Okay. I mean, I understand that. I know that that sidewalk exists. But my -- when you look at it, and this where I’m trying to make sense of when we have sidewalks and when we do not. But, you know, thinking into the future if we have people that are employed and working in this facility and want to gain access and maybe they want to walk up to Chili’s and get lunch for the afternoon or somebody that lives in the neighborhood across the street, that’s great that you have a sidewalk on the other side of 67th Street. But that doesn’t allow you safe passage to get across the street. Do you see what I’m saying?
MR. ALLMON: Yeah. I understand what you’re saying.
COMMISSIONER BRALEY: So, that’s kind of where I’m coming from. I mean, that’s great that it’s on 67th Street. Paul, you’re kind of shaking your head. I don’t know.
MR. CHAFFEE: On major collector streets we provide the sidewalk only on one side of the street. And some of it deals with --
MR. ALLMON: Because of the terrain.
MR. CHAFFEE: -- the amount of maintenance [inaudible] City’s willing to accept over periods of time. The Governing Body decides if they want to require sidewalks on both sides of the street. I think that’s their purview. But every time we start requiring sidewalks on sides of streets that we don’t require it, I’m not sure that financially we can absorb maintenance and repair of additional sidewalks where they’re not necessarily required. Or then are we in a position that we’re going to have to require the sidewalk on the north side of 67th back all the way down to Lackman Road.
MR. ALLMON: I think an issue too, being the sidewalk is on the south side, it connects into the sidewalk on the west side of the road. And I’m not sure that they’re -- because of terrain there’s a large retaining wall adjacent to the bank. There will actually be a large retaining wall along Lackman on this property. I don’t know. Even if you had a sidewalk you would still have to get south to get across the street to Chili’s. And so I think that’s the thinking as well. There’s some terrain issues that we’re dealing with.
MR. CHAFFEE: Yeah. I certainly think that’s probably a policy issue that you can have discussions with the Governing Body on.
COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Okay. So, would that start here as our group and then you --
MR. CHAFFEE: We’d maybe talk about it under Other Business.
COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Okay.
MR. CHAFFEE: And we can say it was brought up at that time.
COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Okay. Great. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Any other questions for staff or applicant? If not, then this is a public hearing on the matter. Does anyone from the public wish to be heard on this matter? Seeing none, then we’re in Commission discussion. Hearing no discussion, would someone like to make a motion, please? And I’m assuming we should make the motion for all three segments of it in the same motion?
MR. ALLMON: You could do that, yes.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: We could do that. Is that what’s preferred?

MR. ALLMON: That’s fine. That’s how the conditions are set out.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very fine. Commissioner Wise.
COMMISSIONER WISE: I want to make a motion to approve Z-05-16-12; Rezoning from AG (Agricultural) to PO (Professional Office), Preplat-18-16-12; Preliminary Plat, and SP-31-16-12; Site Plan for the Shawnee Hospital located at 15000 Block of W. 67th Street per staff’s report and recommendations.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Is there a second on the item? John Smith.
COMMISSIONER JOHN SMITH: I’d second the motion.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. There’s a motion and a second to approve Z-05-16-12; Rezoning from AG to Professional Office, Preplat 18-16-12; Preliminary Plat, and SP-31-16-12; Site Plan Approval of construction of a small hospital building in the 15000 block of West 67th Street. All in favor say aye.
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carried. Thank you.
(Motion carried 8-0; Les Smith, Bruce Bienhoff absent)
2. S-204-16-11; SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM SIGN AREA ALLOWED BY THE SIGN CODE. THE APPLICATION WAS FILED BY DAVID VAVAK OF VIEW SIGN AND LIGHT, THE SIGN CONTRACTOR FOR HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: The next item on the agenda is Special Use Permit S-204-16-11. Doug.
MR. ALLMON: Actually there are two sign variances on the agenda tonight. They’re both by the same applicant in the same building. If it’s okay I’d like to present them at the same time. We would need two motions on each case though. I think it would save time and maybe kind of clarify things if that’s okay.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I don’t think there’s any objection to hearing both motions at the same time. So be it then, please. Thank you, Doug.
MR. ALLMON: Both Harbor Freight Tools and Dental Innovations are located in the Parkway Shopping Center, which is we kind of refer to it as the Harbor Freight area with JoAnn’s. And the sign ordinance allows for one wall sign on each street frontage in all office, commercial and industrial zoning districts. Parkway Shopping Center is currently undergoing a façade remodel, which includes new wall signs for several tenants. The applicant has submitted an application for both of these requesters for a wall sign on the north side of the building facing Shawnee Mission Parkway.
The applicant is requesting a size variance to exceed the overall wall sign area allowed in SMC 5.64.050. The Sign Code allows wall signs to be up to seven percent of the signable area. The signable area of a wall is the overall height and width of the façade leased or owned by the business. In terms of the Harbor Freight sign, the Sign Code allows the Planning Commission to grant a sign variance regarding the size of a wall sign not to exceed 25 percent of what is regularly allowed. That’s above the seven percent. The Harbor Freight sign is proposed at 212 square feet, exceeding the maximum sign area of 170 square feet.
The Dental Innovations sign is also requesting that 25 percent increase. That proposed wall sign is 87.5 square feet in size, exceeding the sign area of 70 square feet that would be allowed by code.
In both cases the applicant believes the sign variance is warranted because the business is setback a significant distance (approximately 400 feet) from Shawnee Mission Parkway, and is not easily seen from the street. Additionally, several out parcels along Shawnee Mission Parkway, including the new Centra Care building, block the view of the businesses set farther back in the shopping center.
And so with that, and I can put up elevations of those in just a moment. The Planning Commission shall consider approval S-204-16-11; and S-205-16-11; wall size variances for both Harbor Freight Tools and Dental Innovations located in the vicinity of 11219 Shawnee Mission Parkway. If the Planning Commission chooses to approve the variances, Planning staff would recommend the variance be subject to the following condition.
All requirements of SMC 5.64 shall be met. A sign permit shall be obtained from the Planning Department prior to installation of the sign.
And I’ll go ahead and put up these two elevation views. That’s the Harbor Freight sign in context. This is the Dental Innovations sign. You guys have these in your packet too, but that kind of gives you an idea.
That completes our report.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Doug. Is the applicant present?
MR. VAVAK: Yes, sir. I’m Dave Vavak with View Sign and Light, 12603 Hemlock.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Does the Commission have any questions for the applicant or staff? Commissioner Wise.
COMMISSIONER WISE: Question. Are both of the signs lit? It appears Dental Innovations is.
MR. VAVAK: Yes. They are both illuminated, LED illumination.
COMMISSIONER WISE: Okay. And those comply with the Sign Code the, the lighting requirements?
MR. VAVAK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bogina.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Doug, if you know, JoAnn’s, which is next door to Harbor Freight, I think their sign is brand new. But it was in compliance without a -- is that true?
MR. ALLMON: I believe that’s correct.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Do you know, as I know you’ve been here for a few years, do you know if PowerPlay or Target or any of those others that also sat back 300-400 feet off of Shawnee Mission Parkway had the need --
MR. ALLMON: [Inaudible] my memory, but I don’t recall a sign variance for PowerPlay. They have an extremely large façade because it was a former Venture building and then another retailer. And so their façade area is quite large. So, their seven percent would allow for a very large sign.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Okay. Thank you. If I may. It wouldn’t -- it would seem like it wouldn’t take much for you to be in compliance rather than ask for a variance. So, could you go through, as we have other properties that are also 300 feet off of Shawnee Mission Parkway, could you go through why in particular this -- these two signs need to be out of conformance to what’s written?
MR. VAVAK: As a group between owner, manager, property management, sign company, and the tenants visibility is key from there. And with all the distance away from the street and the other buildings going up in the area, they just feel that the maximum amount they would like to try for it. And everybody on those three areas are in agreement with that, that that would best help them succeed in their businesses. Reviewing it with the permitting staff here, we felt that it was a good idea to at least, you know, try and see if we could give them what they would like.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And unless I’m mistaken, this same developer proposed a building to be built that’s right in of these, did he not? Is that the same developer?
MR. VAVAK: I do not know the answer to that question.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, besides the fact that you would like to see this, I mean, do you have any particular studies or anything that would show why you would -- could not trim it just a little bit and still be in compliance rather than ask for a variance.
MR. VAVAK: Adding a very small amount to the height of a letter on a sign definitely increases visibility. Like going from a 12-inch to an 18-inch letter can add another hundred feet of visibility to it. So, anytime you can add any height to a letter it definitely improves visibility. So, that would be our reasoning behind asking for it.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: But you have taken 32 feet of the Harbor Freight of the 55 foot available. So, it seems like you’ve maximized it across as far as you -- almost as far as you can.
MR. VAVAK: Right. And this --
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And it would seem to be -- I’m sorry. It would be seem to be fairly dramatic as -- if it was even at code to be close to 32-foot wide. You know, 32-foot wide. You know, I assume that that’s the width of this. It’s wider than this building, than this room. And so why would you -- why do you feel that that would not be -- and it’s lit, which is allowable. So, why would you feel a sign wider than this building would be necessary?
MR. VAVAK: Just to maximize the visibility.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Okay. All right. Thank you.
MR. VAVAK: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And so if we can talk about Dental Innovations then. So, you, and I apologize. I don’t have the dimensions of that, do I?
MR. VAVAK: Thirty-six feet I believe.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, it takes up 36 of 50 feet available?
MR. VAVAK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And I’m sorry, my eyes are bad. So, how tall would it be?
MR. VAVAK: 2' 4¾".
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And so you’ve only asked for approximately a ten percent variance, is that right?
MR. ALLMON: I think it goes from 7 percent to 8.75 percent.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Pardon me?
MR. ALLMON: Yeah. It would be -- the 25 percent would be 8.75.
MR. VAVAK: 8.75 percent.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, they’ve asked for ow much of a variance percentage?
MR. ALLMON: He’s asking for the maximum, 25 percent over what would be allowed.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And so that sign is -- so, that sign is also -- you said it was 36?
MR. VAVAK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, it’s also -- what you’re asking for is a sign that’s wider than this structure here and 2-point something total?
MR. ALLMON: Yeah. 2⅓ tall.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Okay. And is there -- and I think one is a little bit more in front of the --
MR. ALLMON: Because it has a lower profile.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: -- hospital style building. But do you have anything different you would say about this that would make it more -- that you would -- as you would state your case besides that it’s a little bit more in front of the --
MR. VAVAK: It is also lower. I mean, if we’re comparing it to Harbor Freight and JoAnn’s and then the 24 Hour Fitness that’s also on the lower sign band, so it’s even, you know, lower than the other ones. So, that again hurts the visibility of it. So, by having a slightly taller letter and stretching it out a little bit, unless people are looking for that business it’s easily located.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other questions for the applicant or staff? Commissioner Wise.
COMMISSIONER WISE: Question for staff. Doug, on the JoAnn’s side, now according to the sketch, and I realize it’s probably not to scale. It appears to be fairly large. Would that be based on the entire building area for JoAnn’s? And that’s probably why it is larger overall than these other ones.
MR. ALLMON: Their measurable façade area is larger, has a slightly larger parapet width and so you’re exactly right.
COMMISSIONER WISE: So, I think then if we look at these two signs they would not then be bigger than JoAnn’s?
MR. ALLMON: No, they would not be.
COMMISSIONER WISE: In other words, you’re going to be balanced.
MR. ALLMON: If anything, they would be probably in proportion with JoAnn’s.
COMMISSIONER WISE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.
COMMISSIONER PETERSON: That’s what I was headed towards is looking at this on the long view as it looks into the entire frontage. I understand that the percentage of square foot for façade that each business rents. But as a complete center, I think that the 25 percent is actually warranted so that it looks balanced and equal as well as the fact that -- I’m not certain that they’re overpowering. I think the biggest part of Harbor Freight that jumps out is simply their logo colors. And so they pop out into -- but you can’t ask a company to change their logo colors. So, that would be my only thing. And I think this -- if this is to scale --
MR. VAVAK: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER PETERSON: -- then this presents a unified structure versus, and since it is within the allowable variance, I think you did a nice job of balancing it out.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other questions for applicant or staff? If not, then we’re in Commission discussion. Thank you. Commissioner John Smith.
COMMISSIONER JOHN SMITH: I have a question for staff. If we grant this variance, are we establishing any precedent or is this just a variance?
MR. ALLMON: It’s a variance that’s specific to this site. Obviously when you talk about the nature of a variance you’re looking at something that’s unique to approve it. The applicant is arguing the unique factor is that it sets several hundred feet off of Shawnee Mission Parkway. Then, for instance, the McAlister’s Deli that was recently built that is right up on the parkway and probably more visible. So, in that term it’s specific to this site.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Commissioner Peterson.
COMMISSIONER PETERSON: My question is regarding Sign 2. Is that also under the same vote?
MR. ALLMON: Sign 2 is -- no. Sign 2 is a separate.
COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Okay.
MR. ALLMON: That’s just a separate application. It requires a permit.
COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Thank you.
MR. ALLMON: There’s no variance request for that.
COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Okay. Thanks.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bogina.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Ms. Peterson, I would hate to disagree with you. But I think this would be the biggest, most overpowering sign I think we’ve ever seen in the city. And I think it would be very visible from Shawnee Mission Parkway. I do agree with that. But I think it would be overpowering to have a sign that wide and that tall to where it’ll be something that everyone else would want in the future if we allow something that exceeds our discussion and what we’ve agreed on by 25 percent, which is allowable. I understand that. But it’s typically been allowable for cases that were extraordinary. And I don’t think that this is that extraordinary where a sign that was to code would be still visible, it would be compliant, it wouldn’t set a precedent. And it would not be something that just overtook. I think that this is a -- I don’t think that we have a sign, again, this big in the city. And that’s what I think would be wrong about it is that it’ll be something to where everyone will have -- will want to do the same thing. But I respect your opinion completely.
COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Can I disagree with him?
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson, you can disagree with him, yes. Do you have another comment?
COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I do.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Please, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER PETERSON: And I would disagree. But the other thing, too, is I also believe that with the obstruction that the developer is putting, whether it’s the same developer or a different developer, there is going to be an obstruction there. There’s already a partial obstruction with the other buildings that are along frontage road whether that be the Payless Shoe store or whatever. And I think that it may be the biggest sign, but that is also a very large, opulent precipice or whatever you want to call that thing that it actually sits -- I think if you make it too small, it’s going to look as if they didn’t do it right. I think it would look inadequate as in chintzy or cheap-out. And I would rather see a statement done within the variance on a very special circumstance, which it makes the entire strip mall look built together instead of piece by piece as well as there is 400 feet. So, that’s the way I look at it.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yes, Commissioner Bogina.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And see, I don’t disagree with you on the Dental Innovations. I think that they built that building in front of -- more in front of them to where they would have a need for that. But I think as you drive down Shawnee Mission Parkway that there is a gap right between the medical building and whatever the next one is, whether it’s Payless Shoes or whatever. There is that gap and they don’t have the same need as what Dental Innovations does. And I think it will be something that is too much. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not saying that if there’s a code, then it’s a code. But I think that this is too much. It’s just there’s that gap in there to where you’re going to be able to see it so clearly.
COMMISSIONER PETERSON: You trust Shawnee drivers better than I do.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER PETERSON: You trust drivers in Shawnee better than I do.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Well, but it’s not obstructed is what I’m getting at. And so they’re asking -- they’re asking for, you know, it’s not obstructed at Target. It’s not obstructed at PowerPlay and all these others. And you can see clearly those, you know, JoAnn Fabrics next to it, it’s obstructed. And so I’m surprised that they didn’t ask for something about it. But Dental -- but basically there’s a gap in there to where you can see this -- you can see this building clearly. And I think that they’re just asking too much for Harbor Freight. But thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Commissioner Busby.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yes, Commissioner Mudgett.
COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: I have a question for staff. The existing Harbor Freight sign, is that within the, I guess acceptable parameters? That initial sign that’s up there on that parapet now.
MR. ALLMON: Yes. That was on the --
COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: The existing one.
MR. ALLMON: -- the existing parapet. Yes, it was in compliance.
COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: That was as much as they could get initially?
MR. ALLMON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Okay.
MR. CHAFFEE: I don’t know if it’s as much as they can get.
MR. ALLMON: Yeah. I just know that it doesn’t --
MR. CHAFFEE: It was seven percent or less.
MR. ALLMON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: And is seven percent an industry standard for a retail strip mall like that?
MR. ALLMON: I would say it’s consistent. Usually between five and seven percent is what most jurisdictions use. I think we’ve reviewed peer cities and we’re kind of in line with what other cities use.
COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Okay. And one last question. This request will maximize our allowable variance?
MR. ALLMON: It does.
COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: 212 square feet for Harbor Freight.
MR. ALLMON: Yeah. That’s up to the full 25 percent over.
COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Commissioner Busby, I’ve got to agree with Commissioner Peterson. That size of square footage there demands a larger sign to look correct and appropriate.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very fine. Thank you. And I agree with Commissioner Bogina that quite frankly the reason they want a bigger sign is they want a bigger sign. They still have the monument sign out front. This is not a small sign to begin with, neither one of them are. And just adding a variance because somebody wants a bigger sign, and yet the developer built the building out front says to be that it’s like I’m not compelled to agree with that and say, you know what, they’re very big signs to begin with. So, just adding more size to it is I don’t think the answer to what we’re trying to do here. Commissioner Wise.
COMMISSIONER WISE: I would suggest we vote on these separately. I’m in agree with you and Augie that I think that Harbor Freight is oversized, but Dental Innovations is appropriate scaled for the situation.
MR. ALLMON: We would need a separate motion anyway on both. There’s two separate case items. I just presented them together.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: So, we’re going to need a separate motion regardless.
MR. ALLMON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Okay. Very fine.
MR. ALLMON: To either approve, deny, or do one one way and one the other.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very fine, Doug. Thank you. Any further discussion on these two separate items if I can put it that way? If not, then do I hear a motion? Commissioner Willoughby.
COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I move that we reject S-204-16-11, sign variance request to exceed the maximum sign area allowed by the Sign Code for the Harbor Freight Tool building.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I’ll make a suggestion here. How about if you make the motion just as it’s written? Then if there’s more no votes, then what we’ll -- it’ll be more clear cut. And if there is more no votes, then it won’t pass. Does that make sense?
COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: So, just make the motion. Or if you’re going to vote no, then someone else will have to make the motion.
MR. ALLMON: If you vote no, it’ll just die. If it receives --
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Correct.
MR. ALLMON: -- the majority of no votes it would be disapproved. How about a motion to deny?
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is that correct, Paul?
MR. ALLMON: Yeah.
MR. CHAFFEE: A motion to deny is fine because then you’re going to have yes votes to deny and no votes not to.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: All right. Very fine. I stand corrected, Mr. Willoughby.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: There’s a --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Are you taking comments?
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I’m sorry?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is anybody from the public going to speak on it?
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: No. No. No.
(Off Record Talking)
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: There’s a motion on the floor to deny Z-05-16-12. I’m sorry. S-204-16-11, Sign variance for Harbor Freight Tools. So, there’s a motion to deny and a second. All in favor say aye.
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: And that’s to deny. And aye is to deny, correct? Okay. Opposed nay.
COMMISSIONERS PETERSON, MUDGETT: Nay.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Then the denial carries.
(Motion carries 6-2; Les Smith, Bruce Bienhoff absent)
3. S-205-16-11; SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM SIGN AREA ALLOWED BY THE SIGN CODE. THE APPLICATION WAS FILED BY DAVID VAVAK OF VIEW SIGN AND LIGHT, THE SIGN CONTRACTOR FOR DENTAL INNOVATIONS.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: That leads us to the next, which is S-205-16--11. Commissioner Wise.
COMMISSIONER WISE: I’ll make a motion to approve S-205-16-11, Sign Variance for Dental Innovations at 11221 Shawnee Mission Parkway, per staff recommendations.
COMMISSIONER JOHN SMITH: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. There’s a second by Mr. John Smith. A motion and a second to approve S-205-16-11, Sign Variance request for Dental Innovations. All in favor say aye.
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carried. Thank you.
(Motion carried 8-0; Les Smith, Bruce Bienhoff absent)
E. OTHER BUSINESS
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I’ll take a moment to say I believe we have some students from Shawnee Mission Northwest here for your final civics part of the -- your high school education, is that correct?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And North.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: And Shawnee Mission North. Welcome. I hope you’ve learned something from this and I hope you enjoyed it. If you have questions for us, we’ll be around afterwards to answer them. Is there any other business from either the Commission or the staff? Commissioner Braley.
COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Yes. Whether we put it on future agenda, Paul, I’d like to just have a general discussion, maybe have a clearer understanding from Planning and from the City’s point of view where we land regarding sidewalks presently. And then I’d like to have a discussion about looking into the future as we’re trying to accommodate people’s desires, both millennials and boomers, to have a more walkable community. Is that policy being responsive to that future need with our developments? So, does that make sense to have that as a future item?
MR. CHAFFEE: We’ll have that as Other Business. We’ll [inaudible] Development Services staff also [inaudible] have that discussion.
COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Okay.
MR. CHAFFEE: Maybe just as a discussion item in a work session type [inaudible].
COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Okay. Yeah. I’d like to hear other people’s thoughts on what they think about that for sure.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Does the staff have anything else for the Commission?
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bogina.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Doug, I was going to bring this up as some of my follow-up questions on the Raising Cane deal. So, they get a monument sign there after -- and we were talking about the Tubbesing office project monument sign that was over there.
MR. CHAFFEE: The subdivision as a whole. Yes. [Inaudible]. They can have one on Shawnee Mission Parkway and they can have one on the Goddard side. The monument sign for Raising Cane’s will not be a monument sign for Raising Cane’s only. It’s a subdivision sign for Stag’s Creek and will have -- and has to have multiple faces. Raising Cane’s doesn’t get to have their very own monument sign. And that’s why it’s veered over onto the Goddard side rather than up on Shawnee Mission Parkway.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Yeah. But it was really, I mean, I think she was pointing it out more, a little more on Shawnee Mission Parkway than she was on -- but it’ll be pushed over possibly onto Goddard versus --
MR. CHAFFEE: Shawnee Mission Parkway. If they decide to move it more front and centered on Shawnee Mission Parkway, they’ll have to request a variance to move the Goddard sign onto the Shawnee Mission Parkway.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, just because of the seller of the ground, then they get to have a second monument sign for Raising --
MR. CHAFFEE: The subdivision as a whole plat. Stag’s Creek, Lots 1, 2 and 3 have frontage on Shawnee Mission Parkway and also has frontage on Goddard.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Okay.
MR. CHAFFEE: So, they can have two monument signs.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Okay.
MR. CHAFFEE: Now, one monument, the subdivision monument sign on Goddard and a subdivision monument sign on Shawnee Mission Parkway. And on the subdivision monument sign somewhere it says Stag’s Creek. And then they can have [inaudible].
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, we had heard that item once for that particular sign, but we didn’t hear his request. Do you remember the time he was here for his request?

MR. ALLMON: We heard a request for size on the one in front of his office building.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And so conceivably we would have a request for size on Goddard, too?
MR. ALLMON: They could request it, but I think the rule -- the message is loud and clear that --
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And I know we’ve had a lot of discussion about signs recently, or over the past five years. Do you think that sometime here in the winter we can have an agenda item that discusses signs?
MR. CHAFFEE: Sure. But remember that we’re not the ones who do the ordinance on signs, it’s [inaudible] by others, so.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: No. But I think there are things --
MR. CHAFFEE: I think there are [inaudible] that we want to --
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: I think there are things. Like I’m surprised that we would have neon lighting allowed. And maybe you say that’s the Council’s prerogative to allow neon. But unless I was in Las Vegas, I’m not preferable to look at neon signs on buildings. And maybe this was a particular one, but we have neon signs that flash. We have things that I think somebody should begin to look at as to whether or not, you know, I don’t need the Colonel myself. I don’t need the Colonel to tell me where to enter and exit. The sign should just say enter and exit. But I know that we’ve got these openings in the sign code that surprise us many times as to what’s allowable. And even if it was informational only, I think maybe it would have not so many questions about signage if we just had a little discussion item that dealt with it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Anything else? I have one thing to add and that is unless you weren’t aware of it, the City has passed the age -- the City Council passed the age restriction, restricted housing as - that we put together. My understanding is staff had an excellent presentation with the City Council. Thank you, Paul. And I think everyone here did an excellent job of taking the time for over three meetings to come to some sort of an agreement that said that we thought that was best for the City and new development. So, I thank City staff and I commend the Commissioners for doing that. And I want to take a moment to thank City staff for what you do to prepare us for these meetings and all the work you do. We appreciate it very much. I’m done.
F. ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Anybody want to make a motion to adjourn here?
COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: I would do so. I move to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: It’s a motion -- how about a second?
COMMISSIONER JOHN SMITH: Second.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Smith, thank you. Motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye.
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carried. We’re done.
(Motion carried 8-0; Les Smith, Bruce Bienhoff absent)
(Shawnee Planning Commission Meeting Adjourned at 8:37 p.m.)