PDF Format:

ApprovedPlanningCommissionMeeting.6.19.17.pdfApprovedPlanningCommissionMeeting.6.19.17.pdf


CITY OF SHAWNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES
June 19, 2017
7:30 P.M.

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

PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
Commissioner Rusty Mudgett

(Planning Commission Meeting Called to Order at 7:30 p.m.)

A. ROLL CALL

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Good evening and welcome to the June 19, 2017 meeting of the Shawnee Planning Commission. We’ll start with roll call. Commissioner John Smith.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Busby is here. Commissioner Bogina.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Here.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Here.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Les Smith.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Mudgett is absent.

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

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

(Pledge of Allegiance)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you.

C. CONSENT ITEMS

1. APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 5, 2017.
2. FP-10-17-06; FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF WOODSONIA WEST CENTER, EIGHTH PLAT, A COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN THE 5300 BLOCK OF ROBERTS STREET. THE APPLICATION IS FILED BY PHELPS ENGINEERING FOR AUSTIN PROPERTIES, LLC, DEVELOPER.
3. SUP-08-08-05; REVIEW OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PREVIOUSLY ISSUED TO CHURCH'S CHICKEN, (FORMERLY BACKYARD BURGERS) TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE-THRU WINDOW IN THE COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 7404 NIEMAN ROAD.
4. SUP-03-12-06; REVIEW OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE JOHNSON COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DISTRICT TO OPERATE A PRESCHOOL FACILITY FOR UP TO TWENTY-FOUR (24) CHILDREN, AT 6518 VISTA DRIVE.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Consent Agenda. 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 Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Mr. Chairman, I would move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented by staff.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Is there a second?

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Second.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Braley, thank you for the second. All in favor say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carried.

(Motion carried 9-0; Commissioner Mudgett absent)

D. NEW BUSINESS

1. SUP-04-12-06; WITHDRAW A PREVIOUSLY ISSUED SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR TO JESSE (CURRY) SMITH. THE APPLICANT RECEIVED SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO OPERATE AN IN-HOME DAY CARE FOR UP TO TEN (10) CHILDREN, AS A HOME OCCUPATION, AT 7107 GARNETT STREET.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: New Business. SUP-04-12-06; Withdraw a Previously Issued Special Use Permit to Jesse (Curry) Smith. The applicant received Special Use Permit approval to operate an in-home day care for up to ten (10) children, as a Home Occupation, at 7107 Garnett Street. Paul.

MR. CHAFFEE: Paul Chaffee, Planning Director. This request is to withdraw a previously issued special use permit. The applicant received special use permit approval to operate an in-home day care for up to ten (10) children, as a home occupation, at 7107 Garnett Street.

RECOMMENDATION

Planning staff recommends withdrawal of SUP-04-12-06 for a special use permit issued to Jesse (Curry) Smith, to provide in-home daycare, since the owner has moved and the business has closed.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. We are sure the applicant is not here. Does the Commission have any questions for staff? Is not, is there a motion to withdraw? Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I move that we withdraw the Special Use Permit for Jesse (Curry) Smith, SUP-04-12-06.

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

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: I second Commissioner Peterson.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: There’s a motion and a second to withdraw SUP-04-12-06. All in favor say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carried.
(Motion carried 9-0; Commissioner Mudgett absent)

2. SUP-02-00-05; WITHDRAW A PREVIOUSLY ISSUED SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO KINDERCARE. THE APPLICANT RECEIVED SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO OPERATE A CHILDCARE CENTER FOR UP TO 157 CHILDREN AT 5416 MARTINDALE ROAD.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: SUP-02-00-05; Withdraw a Previously Issued Special Use Permit to KinderCare. The applicant received Special Use Permit approval to operate a childcare center for up to 157 children at 5416 Martindale Road. Paul.

MR. CHAFFEE: This request is to withdraw a previously issued special use permit. The applicant received special use permit approval to operate a childcare center for up to 157 children at 5416 Martindale Road.

RECOMMENDATION

Planning staff recommends withdrawal of SUP-02-00-05 for a special use permit issued to KinderCare, a licensed childcare center, since the business has closed.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Any questions for staff? If not, is there a motion? Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Yes. I’d like to make a motion that we withdraw SUP-02-00-05, a previously issued special use permit to KinderCare.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Is there a second?

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Second.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Commissioner Les Smith. A motion and a second for withdrawal of SUP-02-00-05. All in favor say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carried.
(Motion passed 9-0; Commissioner Mudgett absent)

3. PREPLAT-09-17-06; REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR A PORTION OF CROSS POINTE SUBDIVISION, A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN THE 5100 BLOCK OF NOLAND ROAD. THE APPLICATION IS FILED BY SHAFER, KLINE & WARREN, INC. FOR CROSS POINTE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, OWNER.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Next, Preplat-09-17-06; Revised Preliminary Plat for a Portion of Cross Pointe Subdivision, a Single Family Residential Subdivision, Located in the 5100 Block of Noland Road. The application is filed by Shafer, Kline & Warren, Inc. for Cross Pointe Development, LLC, owner. Mark.

MR. ZIELSDORF: Good evening. Mark Zielsdorf, City Planning Staff.

REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW

1. The applicant has submitted a revised preliminary plat for a portion of the Cross Pointe subdivision. The original Cross Pointe preliminary plat was approved in August 2001 containing 117 lots on 85.1 acres. Fifty-seven (57) lots and four tracts were final platted as part of Cross Pointe and Cross Pointe Second Plats in 2003 and 2006, respectively.
The old plat, that was basically this area right in here (referring to map in packet).
That’s this area right here (referring to map in packet).
And this is the area here that’s being revised (referring to map in packet).

2. The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan anticipates low density residential development for this area. The original plat provided a density of 1.37 dwelling units per acre. The revised portion of the preliminary plat provides a density of 1.25 dwelling units per acre. The preliminary plat is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.

All lots will be accessed from public streets. Noland Road, a designated minor residential collector, will continue north and intersect with 51st Street, which is an improved major collector street. Fifty-third (53rd) Street will extend east off of Noland Road and intersect with 52nd Terrace, which will extend north and then east connecting into the existing 52nd Terrace within Greyhawke subdivision. The points of and the proposed street network for this plat are acceptable for circulation and public safety purposes.

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

The estimated excise tax for the revised portion of the preliminary plat is
RECOMMENDATION

As far as staff’s recommendation, staff recommends approval of PrePlat-09-17-06, Revised Preliminary Plat of Cross Pointe subdivision, located in the 5100 Block of Noland Road, subject to the following conditions:

1. 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 shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits;

2. The revised preliminary plat contains 37 lots and seven tracts on 33.09 acres;

3. All bulk regulations of the R-1 zoning district shall be met, including minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet, minimum lot width of 75 feet, and a minimum front setback of 30 feet. The total width of both side yards shall be no less than 20 percent of the total lot width with no side yard less than seven (7) feet. Rear yard setbacks shall be no less than 30 feet.

And I should probably note, I think I skipped over that in my presentation. All the lots do meet the minimum bulk requirements for the R-1 zoning district.

4. 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
5. Open space fees in the amount of $400 per residential lot ($14,800 total), or the current open space fee rate in effect at the time a building permit is applied for, shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit, as provided by SMC 12.14;

6. The applicant shall be responsible for preparing and submitting the appropriate amendments to the existing homeowners association documents along with the submittal of the final plat;

7. The public street improvements required for this development shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards of the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and as stated within the staff report;

8. The applicant is responsible for submitting detailed street improvements plans for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to the final plat going to the Governing Body for acceptance;

9. The street lighting system required for this development shall be designed in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and as stated within the staff report;

10. The applicant is responsible for submitting detailed streetlight improvements plans for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to the final plat going to the Governing Body for acceptance;

11. The storm drainage improvements required for this development shall be designed in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and as stated within the staff report;
12. The applicant is responsible for submitting detailed storm drainage improvement plans for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to the final plat going to the Governing Body for acceptance;

13. 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 to restrict the quantity of post-development stormwater runoff;

14. This revised preliminary plat is not 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;

15. All utilities shall be placed underground;

16. Telephone, electric and cable service facilities are to be placed within rear and side yards as required by Policy Statement PS-24;

17. All fire hydrants with compliant fire-flows, and fire lanes as required by the Fire
18. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.20, Land Disturbance Activity, which pertains to on-site grading and erosion control measures. The applicant (landowner) 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. The site grading and erosion control measure plans must be prepared in accordance with SMC, Chapter 15.04, International Building Code, the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, and all other applicable policies statements and administrative rules;

19. All public improvements for this development shall be constructed according to the applicable standards in the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. A public improvement permit will be required for all public street, storm, and streetlight improvements. Building permits will not be released for this development until all public improvements have been completed and accepted by the City;

20. 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); and

21. The applicant is responsible for submitting a computation plat with the recording copies of the final plat.

That concludes staff’s presentation.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Mark. Is the applicant present? If you’d come forward and state your name and address, please.

MR. TAYLOR: Hi. My name is Darryl Taylor. I work for Shafer, Kline & Warren. The address is 11250 Corporate Avenue, Lenexa, Kansas. And the developer has reviewed the staff report and they have no issues with the recommendations or conditions.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: And so you’re in agreement with staff recommendations?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Does the Commission have any questions for staff and/or applicant? Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: In regards to the changes at 53rd, this is more for staff. I apologize.

MR. TAYLOR: Okay.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: 53rd Street and 52nd Terrace.

MR. ZIELSDORF: Yes.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I understand that 52nd Terrace has been realigned to go through. But what was 53rd prior to now?

MR. ZIELSDORF: Mark Zielsdorf, Planning staff. This is the previous Cross Pointe, or the original Cross Pointe preliminary plat. And it showed 52nd Terrace coming up into here to serve this ten acres that was actually part of Cross Pointe subdivision. 53rd Street came over and swung up to the north a little bit before it came back down, and this was a subdivision that was called Hidden Lakes. It was a separate subdivision. Back in 2015-2016 time frame, these three pieces were sold to a different developer, which developed Greyhawke subdivision. And Greyhawke basically included from about this roundabout here, basically it came straight over to the west property boundary, or the east property boundary of what is now Cross Pointe. And from that, that’s where all this had to be reconfigured. And what they did was they terminated 53rd Street into a cul-de-sac with lots around it and then reconfigured -- kind of shortened 52nd Terrace to come up and tie in with what is Greyhawke today.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: And so 53rd was never going to be a thru-street. It was always going to stop within the subdivision?

MR. ZIELSDORF: Well, 53rd Street was going to come -- from Noland, it would come over -- it would swing up –

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Into Hidden, what used to be --

MR. ZIELSDORF: -- into Hidden Lakes --

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Okay.

MR. ZIELSDORF: -- and then tie into the existing street of Philip Highlands coming down.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Okay.

MR. ZIELSDORF: So, it was not going to go -- continue through.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Okay.

MR. ZIELSDORF: That is correct.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Thank you.

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

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I move that we approve PrePlat 90-17-06, Revised Preliminary Plat Cross Pointe per staff recommendations.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Is there a second?

COMMISSIONER WISE: Second.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Commissioner Wise. We have a motion to accept PrePlat 09-17-06, Revised Preliminary Plat, a plat for a portion of Cross Pointe subdivision, a single-family residential subdivision located at 5100 block of Noland Road. All in favor say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carried. Thank you.
(Motion carried 9-0; Commissioner Mudgett absent)

4. SP-17-17-06; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED 8,000 SQUARE FOOT WELD SHOP AT 8117 MONTICELLO TERRACE IN THE MONTICELLO BUSINESS PARK. THE APPLICATION IS FILED BY THOMPSON BUILDERS FOR TK METALS, OWNER.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Next on the agenda, SP-17-17-06; Site Plan Approval for Construction of a Detached 8,000 Square Foot Weld Shop at 8117 Monticello Terrace in the Monticello Business Park. The application is filed by Thompson Builders for TK Metals, Owner. Doug.

MR. ALLMON: Good evening. Doug Allmon, Planning staff.

SITE PLAN REVIEW

The building will be used as a weld shop for the metal business. The building is rectangular in shape, with the shortest profile facing west.

The applicant (landowner) 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.

RECOMMENDATION

In terms of a recommendation, the Planning Commission shall determine if the proposed exterior metal panel system is appropriate for use in this case. If so, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval for SP-17-17-06, site plan for an 8,000 square foot accessory weld shop to be constructed at 8117 Monticello Terrace:

1. The building and site improvements shall be constructed as depicted on the submitted site plan and building elevations. All wall panels shall be a minimum 26 gauge to meet the minimum requirements found in the Industrial Building Design Policy. All overhead doors, mandoors and downspouts shall be colored to match the building;

2. Any utilities ran to the structure shall be placed underground;

3. All required permits shall be obtained prior to construction;

4. 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 (landowner) 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;

5. The storm drainage improvements required for this development shall be designed in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual as detailed in the staff report;

6. This development is subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.08, Stormwater Management, which pertains to the City’s stormwater utility regulations. The applicant is responsible for preparing an impervious area plan in accordance with the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual, Division 2600, Storm Drainage, using coordinates based in the Kansas North State Plane Coordinate System of 1983, North Zone (AND-83);

7. 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;

8. This project is less than one acre in size and therefore is not subject to the provisions of SMC, Chapter 11.16, Stormwater Treatment, which pertains to the implementation of Stormwater Treatment Facilities;

9. 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 of a public improvement permit or building permit;

10. All site improvements for this development shall be constructed according to the applicable standards in the Shawnee Design and Construction Manual. No certificate of occupancy for the building shall be issued prior to the completion, inspection, and acceptance of all required site improvements. A Public Improvement Permit is required for all public street, storm and streetlight improvements;

11. All fire hydrants with compliant fire-flows, and fire lanes as required by the Fire 12. Open space fees in the amount of $1,611.72 shall be paid in conjunction with issuance of a building permit.

That completes our report.

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

MR. SLAMIN: Todd Slamin, Thompson Builders, 4559 Grove Street, Shawnee, Kansas.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Are you in agreement with staff recommendations?

MR. SLAMIN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Does the Commission have any questions for staff and/or applicant?

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Chairman.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: So, looking at the panels that you ordered, the wall panels, and the panels that were used on the office building were to code?

MR. SLAMIN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Yes, they were. So, how is that you used those on the original building, but then when you -- if you’re going to build the weld shop you proposed something different?

MR. SLAMIN: I didn’t build the original building. I was called in to help TK Metals build the building. They had already designed the package when I came into it. And it was already packaged together, so I just took over from there.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: So, what’s the difference in cost for -- I figured that it’s almost 55 squares. So, what’s the difference in cost?

MR. SLAMIN: If we were to order the different panels it would be somewhere around $30,000.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: More?

MR. SLAMIN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: For 55 squares?

MR. SLAMIN: I don’t know what the squares are. But the --

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: That’s what it is.

MR. SLAMIN: Okay. The building -- I’m taking that off. The building itself was about 75,000 and the metal panels are about 50 percent of that.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: And so it’s 30,000 more, or it’s --

MR. SLAMIN: It would be more, yes.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Thirty thousand more than what --

MR. SLAMIN: Than what they’ve already spent.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Right. And they can’t, I mean, it’s 16-foot panels basically.

MR. SLAMIN: Right.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: And it’s in a polar white.

MR. SLAMIN: I would propose if acceptable that we can -- I’m not sure what your definition of concealed is, but we can put a row of screws at the bottom, a row of screws at the top and do break metal over it, a color to match that would cover those up. These panels are similar, almost exactly to Westlink on 43rd Street, the three buildings that are --

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Right.

MR. SLAMIN: There’s a third building going up now. It’s identical to those.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Uh-huh.

MR. SLAMIN: And they have exposed fasteners. There’s no difference. They’re colored to match.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: So, question for staff. So, it’s -- we want the hidden fasteners out on 83rd, but in Westlink that’s a different area, so --

MR. ALLMON: It’s adjacent to Bonner and it kind of matched what was going on around Bonner I believe is why that direction was taken.

MR. SLAMIN: My neighborhood actually backs up to those buildings. They don’t seem to bother me at all. I’m in the Crimson Ridge Development. We’re just asking for equal consideration if they were allowed to use those. This building is behind an eight-foot fence. It sits below street level. If you’re walking on Monticello Terrace you can’t see this building.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Uh-huh.

MR. SLAMIN: It’s 200 feet back and it’s adjacent to the 3 and 2 ballpark. There again, the park is lower. There will be a fence up. There is no direct line of sight. And per the pre-Planning Commission’s recommendation we’ve put considerable amount of stone that wasn’t initially considered. So, just asking for consideration.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Thank you.

MR. SLAMIN: May I add one other thing?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Please.

MR. SLAMIN: We’ve been trying to permit this for a year. I know the building owner is very anxious to get it going. If there’s anything that we can do to move forward here I’d be more than flexible. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other questions? I have a question. No other construction has started on this, correct?

MR. SLAMIN: No.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: The other question is for staff is how many years -- how long ago was it when we changed to this type of exterior siding that they were -- needed to be --

MR. ALLMON: You’re testing my memory, but I think it was around, and help me, Paul, if I’m wrong, 2008.

MR. CHAFFEE: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Okay. So, it’s been a little less than ten years ago we switched to this?

MR. ALLMON: That’s correct.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Okay. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Can you please specify what “this” is? What you’re asking them.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Oh, whether the --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The exposed versus non-exposed fasteners.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Okay.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yeah. Exposed fasteners.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Okay. I just wanted to know which one.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: That we changed to where they needed to be exposed fasteners. My apologies.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Okay. No. Just clarification on my part.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: But it still can be by area is what, I mean, because Westlink, we just approved Westlink, so.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yeah.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: And my only thing would be if everybody else in that neighborhood, you know, has used that. The only other thing is like he said it sits behind the other building. It’s way the hell and gone. You know, and the west side of it that anybody is going to see has got the nice stone veneer. And so as far as I’m concerned I would approve it. I would agree with it as it’s written.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Staff or owner or Thompson Builders, other -- I’ve driven down that street several times. And I know that there are lots of different ages of buildings there. This is an improvement to this building in façade, correct? But are there other buildings with exposed metal still? Clarification is all.

MR. CHAFFEE: Paul Chaffee, Planning Director. Down toward the southern end of Monticello Terrace there were buildings that were built previous to the City’s annexation or right after the City’s annexation and they do have the exposed fasteners. Westmor, which is directly to the south and some of the other warehouse buildings that are on the west side of Monticello Terrace that are newer as well as the first building built on TK Manufacturing do not have the exposed and ribbed fasteners.

And just as a clarification again on Westlink, when we considered Westlink, we took a look -- it’s in that little 80-acre piece that’s surrounded by Bonner Springs on both sides. And quite frankly, a newer-looking building would have looked sort of out of place in that area, so we had agreed to use the exposed fasteners in that situation.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Commissioner John Smith.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: Yes, sir. A clarification since I’m probably the new member on the Commission. Is this a one-of-a-kind request then and would be approved only for this building, I guess a question for staff?

MR. ALLMON: I think you’d be looking at the context of this particular development and I don’t think it would set a precedent. We would continue to say that flat metal with concealed fasteners is what we would recommend to anybody that came through the door. But you have to look at the existing condition and the visibility and those kind of things when you decide. But I don’t think it would be precedent setting if that’s what you’re asking.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other questions? Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: A quick question. I believe I read that the fasteners would be -- the fastener heads would be the color of the metal panels, correct? They will match.

MR. SLAMIN: Colored to match.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Okay. Because that will also help with the ribbing. It will probably tend to go away a little bit. I agree flat panel concealed fasteners is a higher end-looking panel. But in this location with the visibility where it is as long as we’re not setting a precedent it’s probably not a huge issue.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: I just want to clarify. My understanding is while we made the change it’s purely an aesthetic consideration, or is there kind of a construction issue, longevity, appearance, maintenance?

MR. ALLMON: I think it was mainly for aesthetic reasons. I think the thought was is that those buildings tend to hold their value a little higher than maybe a rib panel building. But again, I think it was mainly aesthetic. You have a smooth seam. It’s not a rib building. It’s not what people think of as being a butler building that kind of a thing.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bogina.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Thank you. What we did in ‘08 was that we -- this was a -- this and other areas of the City, we wanted to raise the standard of construction and raise the aesthetics in some of the older parks and the newer parks. I think that you can take a certain exception here just like we did at Westlink. But I don’t think that we should use it as any type of precedent for the next guy that comes in and says, well, I want these -- this the same way because somebody had it, just like this gentleman has done with Westlink. That we did -- we had a lot of thought in ‘08 about how we could take areas like this and improve the construction aesthetics of it. And if we’re not going, you know, if we don’t -- sure, maybe we don’t do it on this one, but we haven’t really brought up the area if we’re going to take any building in this area and use a less aesthetic, just to use the same word again, view of it. That I think everybody needs to build at a higher value of construction, both in this industrial park and others. And I think everybody gains from that including areas of the City that see it or don’t have direct viewing as this gentleman does.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Any other questions? I have a question. Would you go into a little more detail on the ribbing you talked about and that that’s --

MR. SLAMIN: And it’s called a PBR panel. I don’t have a picture of it, but it’s an eight-inch on center profile. It’s identical to the Westlink profile. The fastener sits down inside the profile, so when it comes out to give it detail the fastener is in the groove if you will. So, it does tend to hide it.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: So, the only screw and bolt heads that would show would be on the very bottom of it and the very top of it?

MR. SLAMIN: Typically there is a row in the center.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Okay.

MR. SLAMIN: If I’m willing to cover up the top and the bottom with some trim, some break metal trim that would hide those, I’m flexible.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: But you’re willing to do that part of it, to basically cover it up as best you can --

MR. SLAMIN: Best I can.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: -- with trim and this other deal?

MR. SLAMIN: Yes. Not to mention it’ll have an eight-foot fence around it.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I was out there today and, you know, it’s -- you look at things like this and I always feel like, you know, the one thing we don’t want to do is punish our businesses in Shawnee. But likewise, if we have these design standards and we don’t adhere to them, then what are we doing for the other businesses out in the area either, that we can’t -- if you’re willing to do that, I think if we go into Commission discussion we can decide whether that’s something we want to add into it that it be covered up that way.

MR. SLAMIN: The top will have a gutter across it, sir.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Okay.

MR. SLAMIN: So, that will cover it, so I could do break metal on the bottom and cover that row.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: And I’m assuming that would be aesthetically pleasing?

MR. SLAMIN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Any other questions for staff or applicant? Commissioner Peterson?

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: When you say break metal would that be the same color as the panel, or would -- because I notice there’s a blue trim or what are you looking --

MR. SLAMIN: It’s close enough to the trim. I would make it part of the trim --

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Okay.

MR. SLAMIN: -- so it blends, yeah.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other questions for staff or applicant?

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I’ve got a question.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: For Mr. Bogina. Augie, so how do you feel about this building being way tucked away behind the other building and not hardly visible? I mean I agree with you that’s why we did this was to improve the aesthetics of this whole development.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: At the time in ‘08, Doug said it was ‘08, so I believe him. You know, I thought that this was like the minimum we could ask for was concealed fasteners.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Uh-huh.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: But, you know, I understand it’s out of the way and all that, but I think that when we make these exceptions, and we’ve talked about all this before, then the next guy that comes in here, is he going to say, well, you know, I want it like Westlink and TK Metals and say that he’s not being treated fairly.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: But I mean if he was right up on the street --

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: I think that once you create a standard though, as a minimum standard, I mean, we said we encourage. But by encourage we really meant that that’s what we want. It was pretty clear that’s what we want is concealed fasteners.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Right.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: We want a -- if it’s going to be a metal building, which there’s not that many cities in Johnson County that allow metal building in the first place. But if there’s a metal building we want it to be at least at this level. Here we’re taking -- here we’re saying, well, it’s out of the way and, you know, nobody will see it. But somebody is going to see it and they’re going to say I want what he got and my building isn’t that exposed and, duh, duh, duh, dah. So, I’m not nuts about it. I know that, you know, I don’t know how you buy a building before you get a building permit and then run into this confusion that you have a different building than what we allowed. And so I understand it may be different, but I don’t think we should use it as any type of standard. And the next guy that comes in here we should say, hey, that was a special exception, should we pass it. And it’s not something that we’re going to -- only under a special circumstance again should we consider this type of structure. You know, it’s an 8,000 square foot building and I think you said it was 75,000. Eight bucks a foot for a building plus, you know, you’ve got plumbing, you’ve got the slab and everything. But that’s an inexpensive building obviously. And that’s what we were trying to get away from when we created the industrial standards is these bottom, no offense intended to the, but these bottom of -- these bottom line, bottom of the barrel, whatever type of these low-end buildings.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Right.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: That they’re functional, and they provide shelter and all those things, but we don’t discuss those types of structures in other zoning areas. And I don’t know why we need to allow them here. It’s a long answer. I’m sorry.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: So, what if we just require that he put it on the west elevation where the stone veneer is since that’s -- you’re going to see that more than anything.

MR. SLAMIN: Can I?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yes, sir. Go ahead, please.

MR. SLAMIN: To address the Commissioner’s statement there, the construction of this building is not much different than the library that’s going in at K-7 and Shawnee Mission Parkway. It’s a red iron pre-engineered steel building. Very similar to that. It does have different components to it, but it’s not built or constructed any different. You can change configurations and --

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: I was not trying to offend you, but --

MR. SLAMIN: No, not at all. I just wanted to clarify that this isn’t the bottom of the barrel. This is pretty standard.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Correct. Except for the exterior.

MR. SLAMIN: There are different façades. You can do --

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Except for the exterior is considerably different.

MR. SLAMIN: -- stone, stucco, glass. Yeah.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bienhoff, did you have something?

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: I was curious if we’re in discussion or still questions.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I’m sorry?

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: I was curious if we’re in discussion period or still question.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Do you have a question? If not, we should be --

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: I do not.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: We should be in Commission discussion then. I think we kind of were already. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: I have a comment then. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yes.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: I agree with Commission Bogina’s comments. And, you know, we design standards and we have expectations of buildings. And we’ve had more than one occasion where people have either put up signs and not realized that their sign was out of compliance because they didn’t check, or they bought materials and they didn’t realize we had standards, or they actually applied materials that were not in compliance to a building and we’ve actually had those removed. And I agree that, you know, we have a standard and we need to comply with the standard and that’s -- I’m sorry how I feel about it.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. We’re in Commission discussion. Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I agree with the standards [inaudible; talking off mic]. Like I said to [inaudible].

MR. SLAMIN: That would help.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: [Inaudible; talking off mic].

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yeah. Just to follow-up on my previous comments and as Commissioner Bogina alluded to. Whatever we do here will be, you know, if we approve it with the materials as presented, I do firmly believe that we will have others in here saying I want one just like that, you made an exception for that building, you should make one for me, and you made one for the building over here. And we’ve seen that time and again as well.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other Commission discussion? It seems we didn’t -- it is the way he determined he could put the pieces on on the sides and that to cover up basically the exterior attachments. Is that something the Commission is interested in? Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: That’s just for the bottom and the top though.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Right.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: That’s not for all the ones in between, correct?

MR. SLAMIN: Correct.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: So, that isn’t really hiding anything.

[Inaudible; talking off mic.]

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I’m sorry?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It conceals the fastener? That’s what the trim does.
(Commissioners talking amongst themselves)

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And that 16-foot height, right?

MR. SLAMIN: You assume correctly.
(Commissioners talking amongst themselves)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Then I guess at this point in time what we’re looking at is either a motion to approve or a motion -- a motion to approve and then the vote will determine it. And, Mr. Secretary, if you’ll keep track of the vote. And if there is more comments or more discussion, please.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yes, Commissioner Les Smith.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: I’m not proposed to make a motion, but I would suggest that whoever makes the motion includes the very best that we can get, which would be including, you know, perhaps the flat panels on the west side and the other changes that we’ve talked about, so that the very best of what they’re offering is out there for us to vote on.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: So, I was curious if perhaps the applicant would like some more time to consider alternate materials and work with staff to perhaps consider tabling it as opposed to an up or down.

MR. SLAMIN: What was the last half of your -- consider cabling it?

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Consider tabling.

MR. SLAMIN: Tabling. Okay.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Not making a decision tonight to allow additional time to work with staff to come up with a more agreeable solution that staff might be supportive of.

MR. SLAMIN: Staff being pre-planning?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Correct.
(Commissioners talking amongst themselves)

MR. SLAMIN: If we do do that, is there a way to move forward with working the ground and getting concrete going and get this building underway? I mean this is one of the last pieces and parts to this building. And with all due consideration that, you know, this thing has taken a year. I’d like to really be able to get this underway and we could circle back around when it comes to that.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yeah. Paul, do you have a comment on this?

MR. CHAFFEE: Yeah. Planning Director Paul Chaffee. You know, staff would be glad to work with the developer. It’s a little misleading that we’ve been working on it for a year. We have, but it’s been off and on during that period of time. It hasn’t been 12 months in discussion. The one thing that I do want to add is, is that if you want to make an exception as part of the motion, if it were very specific as to why, that way I think it would alleviate folks coming on down the road where it’s a building right up on front along a street or something like that. If there were, you know, some stipulations. It’s a building behind the existing building and behind a fence and it’s 300 feet from the road. And, you know, some of those types of things. You may want to consider those types of options too. But, you know, staff is always open to work with the developer to see if there is something else, after they’ve heard some discussion from the Planning Commission that they may want to take a look at doing, or take a look at doing again.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Paul.
MR. SLAMIN: So, I would be happy to address the west front elevation with stone and flat panel concealed fasteners if the Planning Commission could consider the alternative there with the eight-foot fence concealing the rest of it.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: So, you know, I hear what Bruce is saying, what Augie is saying. And if we tie this thing down enough, I mean, so we make an exception. But I don’t think we’re, you know, I don’t think we’re selling it short by doing that in this case and saying, hey, this building is stuck way back in there. It’s not out on the street. It’s behind another building. There’s fence all around it, and all of those things. And then when somebody else comes up and says, well, you did it there. Well, I’m sorry, you know, we did it for a very specific reason, for very specific reasons, and that’s why. And so, I’d like a little --

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: You know –

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I mean, it --

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Mr. Willoughby, thank you. And you know what, and I somewhat agree because I was out there. I looked. I mean there will be people that will never know that building is out there. But just the same as Westlink, I had forgotten we did this for Westlink and it sure came up the first time something else like that came up. And that’s the problem is, oh, hold it. We did it for Westlink. Well, I had forgotten that and I was in on that vote. So, it’s like if we do it -- seemingly every time we do an exception we get -- it comes up later that, hold it, you gave them an exception and I want the same, or I’d like the same.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: We do have two --

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: I’m looking at the aerial of the area. I mean there are two adjacent pieces of property to the east of there that no doubt are going to get developed sometime [inaudible; talking off mic]. I guarantee you those two developers are going to say I can see that building right there [inaudible]. I’m personally kind of on the fence on this because one, I can certain [inaudible] compartmentalize it and say basically [inaudible] part of it does sit off the road. You know, it really doesn’t have any frontage to the public. But however, I don’t really like that it’s still undeveloped out there and there [inaudible] potential. And this [inaudible] opportunity to kind of draw the line and say, you know, any new development can here and we have a standard and that’s what the standard is. And I appreciate you kind of coming back with solutions on that, or [inaudible] giving [inaudible] encouragement and maybe go back and not have to respond at this moment [inaudible] go back to your team and come back with something based on everything you’ve heard here to just kind of to get where you need [inaudible].

MR. SLAMIN: I understand.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: [Inaudible] about it. [Inaudible; talking off mic].

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Commissioner Braley. Yes, sir. No, Commissioner Peterson, please.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Well, one of my questions as I understand [inaudible; talking off mic]. How could we [inaudible]. I echo all of those [inaudible]. I don’t want to set a bad precedent [inaudible].

MR. SLAMIN: I understand.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: And so there is that issue. Again I also don’t want to slow this down. So, if there’s a way that [inaudible] and maybe tabling of an item [inaudible] going on our next meeting in two weeks and it’ll be an up or down [inaudible] because they’re losing time [inaudible].

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson, their July 3rd meeting has already been called off. So, it would be a month from now before we met again.

MR. CHAFFEE: Paul Chaffee, Planning Director. They can proceed with any land disturbance activities without site plan approval. They can do that at any point in time. We can’t pour a foundation on a building that you don’t know, [inaudible; talking off mic] they’re going to be able to build. So, I’d kind of walk that past. And I don’t know how far along the storm -- with Johnson County Wastewater you are.

MR. SLAMIN: We’re there.

MR. CHAFFEE: If you have your approval sometimes they get some kind of a [inaudible]. But they can certainly do land disturbance activities.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Where are you in that process? Are you like just waiting to pour the pad? Have you got the land disturbed at all?

MR. SLAMIN: We’ve done the applications. We’ve submitted everything requested by WaterOne and for Johnson County Wastewater. We’re sitting on go. We’re ready to break ground and get concrete piering going.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner John Smith. Les Smith, I’m sorry.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: [Inaudible] be him, but thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I’m sorry. I’m sorry.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Just a point of clarification. Can they get permitted for pouring the pad site if they choose to take that risk knowing what our minimum standards are?

MR. ALLMON: No.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: No, they cannot.

MR. ALLMON: We won’t grant them a permit for foundation or for full construction without site plan approval.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Okay. Thank you.

MR. ALLMON: They can disturb the land and I would say they are grading at risk if the building is not approved.

MR. SLAMIN: So, clarification. If we go to vote here, is it majority? Is it one person?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Simple majority.

MR. SLAMIN: Simple majority. And if -- are we any further behind if we go ahead and go to a vote and denied, then do we go to a month later and re-propose or how does that work?

MR. CHAFFEE: If it goes to a vote tonight and is denied, then this application is over and done and you have to start over from the beginning. And you’re probably going to be later than if you would agree to table to the next Planning Commission meeting, which would be the 17th of July. They’re not meeting on the 3rd. And if you table it till the 17th and, you know, wanted to propose any -- sit down and propose any changes and redraw, you don’t have to resubmit an application. You just -- this one stays alive. And then on the 17th of July, if you’re ready to, you know, make the vote one way or another you’re probably losing an extra month, six weeks.

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: [Inaudible; talking off mic.]

MR. CHAFFEE: If you take the vote and then have to make a re-application. And it’s not unusual for the Planning Commission, in situations where they may have some mixed feelings on a project, to give an applicant the opportunity to table and just take that time to think some things over.

MR. SLAMIN: Okay.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: In other words what he’s saying is we really like to approve things. We don’t like to hold stuff up.

MR. SLAMIN: Right.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: But we also want you the benefit of not having to start over. Because I have no idea how the vote will go.

MR. SLAMIN: Yeah. I’m getting mixed feelings myself.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I don’t know.

MR. SLAMIN: Yeah. I wish -- man, it’s hard for me to say because it’s not really my call. I wish the owner was here because he’s got jobs that are kind of scheduled for this. I’m going to have to reach out to Doug and Paul and ask for a recommendation here. I don’t know what direction to go here. From the bottom of my heart I want to move forward so bad here.

MR. ALLMON: I think it probably depends on if you think you can come up with an alternative that works for you. If you’re pretty sure that you’re not going to be able to propose a flat metal panel and this is what you want to do.

MR. SLAMIN: I mean either we go with the R-panel or we scrap it and go with a flat panel.

MR. ALLMON: I think that’s basically it.

MR. SLAMIN: I mean, I don’t see any, I mean because covering it with trim would look like a board and batten. I don’t think that’s going to be something you want.

MR. ALLMON: And they can approve your project and they can condition that you use a flat panel with concealed fasteners too in a polar white color if that’s the direction. But I --
(Off Record Talking)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Well, ask away.

MR. SLAMIN: The other alterative that Paul just suggested is if we went with stone all the way up the front elevation to give it a more decorative look and then R-panels on the three sides, again, behind an eight-foot fence.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I don’t know how anyone else feels, but to me it’s just -- it’s really not solving the problem of --

MR. SLAMIN: No, it’s either do you guys want flat panels or you don’t.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yeah. And the stone on there doesn’t solve the problem for me.

MR. SLAMIN: The other three sides, no. Unless we, you know, got an exception to do screws at the bottom, screws at the top and the field we could, I mean, is the bylaw for a flat concealed panel, or is it just to hide the fasteners? I mean if we came up with a cover for the fasteners would that be something that the Commission would entertain?

MR. ALLMON: The policy really is for a flat panel system --

MR. SLAMIN: Flat panel.

MR. ALLMON: -- with concealed fasteners, so that you just have the seam joints. Just like what’s on the front building.

MR. SLAMIN: Right. Right.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: [Inaudible; talking off mic.]

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Okay, Commissioners, more discussion?

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: [Inaudible; talking off mic] the building and [inaudible] it’s 16.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Sixteen with twenty in the center.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Right. But [inaudible] it has a fence, eight-foot fence halfway up.

MR. SLAMIN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: If [inaudible; talking off mic].

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Then at some point in time we have to, you know, if -- I’ll give you a chance to decide and we can go to a vote on it and see what happens. I mean it -- I’m not --
MR. SLAMIN: I’d like to go on with the vote.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very fine. Very fine. Would someone care to make a motion on this? Commissioner Peterson?

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I move to approve SP-17-17-06, Site Plan Approval for construction of a detached 8,000 square foot weld shop located at 8117 Monticello Terrace per staff conditions to include flat panel versus ribbed or the R-panel on the west front elevation above the stone. And we make this exception based on the fact that the facility is surrounded by eight-foot privacy fence and it’s set back from the road, which is in excess of 200 feet. I think that’s it.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. And I’m going to assume, and I’m going to ask this theoretical question, Paul. Is if this motion happens to fail, someone could bring up another motion that had even more in it, correct?

MR. CHAFFEE: That’s correct.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Correct? Okay. All right.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: Is there a second to the motion?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner John Smith has a second to the motion and I ask the --

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: No. I asked if there was a second.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: No, there is not.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: Okay.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I’m sorry. I thought you were making a second. No. All right. Is there a second to the motion?

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I’ll second the motion.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby seconds the motion. And it’s for recommendation of approval of SP-17-17-06, site plan for 8,000 square foot accessory weld shop to be constructed at 8117 Monticello Terrace with -- subject to staff conditions and adding flat panel on the west side of the building and no other changes in that. All in favor say aye.

3 COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay.

6 COMMISSIONERS: Nay.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: We’ll have to do hands.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: We’ll need a show of hands. So, all in favor that say aye signify by raising your hand.

(Aye votes raise hand)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: All opposed by saying nay raise your hand.

(Nay votes raise hands)

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Three for and the rest against.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: What is it?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Three for and six against.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: That motion failed. Yes, sir. Would you like to --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So, can we --

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yes. You would like to address us again?

MR. SLAMIN: I’d like to table it with pre-planning.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I think -- would someone like to -- let’s see. We’ve already made the motion and passed it. So, now we’re asking to withdraw the motion first? Is that technically how we should?

MR. CHAFFEE: The motion to approve --

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: The motion failed.

MR. CHAFFEE: -- didn’t pass, so --

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Motion failed.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Now, you just make another motion.

MR. CHAFFEE: [Inaudible; talking off mic]. The applicant now has asked if you would consider tabling until the next Planning Commission meeting.

MR. SLAMIN: I see that we’re going back to flat panels, so I’ve got to go get an exception from the owner, you know, get a PO from him or we’re going to can the whole thing. It’s one or the other. So, unfortunately not good news for him. But I’ll go ask him for the 35,000 to replace the R-panel with a flat panel.
(Off Record Whispering)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yes, Commissioner Bogina.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: I would move for approval of SP-17-17-06, a site plan approval for construction of a 8,000 square foot weld shop with the staff’s recommendations and with the recommendation of -- that concealed fasteners be used throughout the exterior skin of the building. In this way, Mr. Chairman, should he go back to the owner and tell him what was approved and they can move forward rather than come back after a tabling?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Did you understand what he’s doing?

MR. SLAMIN: I did.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Okay. All right. There’s a motion to approve.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: There’s not a second.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I’m sorry?

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: There’s not a second.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Oh, a second.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Quick question.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yes. Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Sorry. If the owner chooses not to do that, can they come back and request a modification to what has been approved at a later date?

MR. ALLMON: It would have to be an agenda item.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Okay. Thank you.

MR. ALLMON: They could come back.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Can I get a point of clarification before I second your motion? Does that include the stone feature on the west elevation or not have it?

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: You know, our minimum standard was the concealed fasteners. The stone is a nice little thing, but I don’t think that we would require it if it wasn’t there in the first place.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: I just wanted to --

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And so I’d leave that up to [inaudible].

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: I just wanted to clarify if that was part of your motion before I -- before we had a second. So, you’re saying it’s not part of your motion?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I think with what Augie’s motion was is only going to flat panel with concealed. So, the stone part of it has nothing to do with it is how I determine that. Is that correct, Augie?

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: I hadn’t thought that through, but that’s above our minimum standard.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Okay.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: I could go -- I could be convinced either way. But I guess that for the sake of our discussion I would say that to meet our minimum standards it would be without the stone and with the concealed fasteners.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I’ll go ahead and second that motion.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. There’s a motion and a second for approval of SP-17-17-06, site plan for 8,000 square foot accessory weld shop to be constructed at 8117 Monticello Terrace, according to staff recommendations plus that it will be made of -- help me out here. I got lost in my own --

COMMISSIONERS: Flat panels.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Flat panel, concealed fasteners.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: With no stone.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I’m sorry?
COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: With no stone.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: We’re not going to talk about stone.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: We don’t care.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: He just did. That’s what Augie’s motion said.

[Inaudible; talking over one another.]

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Well, actually what it was is, if they want to put stone in, fine. We’re not requiring them to do that now.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Okay.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Okay. Is that all? Everyone understand the motion and second? Commissioner John Smith.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: I’ll ask the maker of the motion does -- in your understanding does this meet the standard that you approved how many years ago in your motion?

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Doug, does that --

MR. ALLMON: As this is an accessory building it would, and it’s not right up on the street, we would not require stone. Westmor has an accessory building that’s all metal.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Oh, was he a -- I’m sorry, I didn’t know what he was asking.

MR. ALLMON: But it is flat panel.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: So, there’s a motion and a second. All in favor say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carried. Thank you, sir.

MR. SLAMIN: Thank you.
(Motion carried 9-0; Commissioner Mudgett absent)

E. OTHER BUSINESS

1. DISCUSSION ITEM - REVIEW POTENTIAL TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; CHAPTER 5 - LAND USE GUIDE.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Now, this moves us into Other Business. First item of discussion is Review Potential Text Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; Chapter 5 - Land Use Guide. Hey, Doug, you want to handle this one?

MR. ALLMON: Sorry about that.
(Off Record Whispering)

MR. ALLMON: Good evening. Doug Allmon, Planning Staff again. Fire Station 74 is on the City’s 5-year CIP and the Governing Body has budgeted for its construction. The intent is to improve emergency response times by placing the new station somewhere in the northwest part of the City. The City is in the process of acquiring approximately 1.7 acres of vacant land on the west side of Woodsonia Drive at the intersection of W. 53rd Street.

State Statute requires that public facilities be reviewed as a part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The land is zoned PUDMR (Planned Unit Development Mixed Residential) and is currently shown on the Land Use Guide as being appropriate for development of a medium density residential housing use. This is based on a preliminary development plan for attached townhome units that was approved several years ago, but has not been constructed.

Because the new Fire Station will be a public facility owned and maintained by the City, the Future Land Use guide will need to be changed from the current designation of Medium Density Residential to Public/Quasi-public.

RECOMMENDATION

In terms of a recommendation, staff recommends the Planning Commission authorize publication for a Public Hearing on amending the Future Land Use Guide, on the west side of Woodsonia Drive near the 5300 Block, from Medium Density Residential to Public/Quasi-public for the construction of Fire Station 74. The Public Hearing for this amendment would be held on July 17, 2017 meeting and we can have more discussion at that time.

That completes our presentation.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Doug. Any comments on it? If not, does someone want to prepare a motion for authorization of a public hearing?
COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner John Smith.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: I move that the Planning Commission authorize publication for a Public Hearing on amending the Future Land Use Guide on the west side of Woodsonia Drive near the 5300 block from medium density residential to public/quasi-public for the construction of Fire Station 74. The Public Hearing for this amendment would be held on July 17, 2017.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Is there a second?

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I’ll second.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Commissioner Willoughby. There’s a motion and a second for publication of a Public Hearing. All in favor say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carried. Thank you.
(Motion carried 9-0; Commissioner Mudgett absent)

2. DISCUSSION ITEM - REVIEW BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS REGARDING THE USE OF EIFS FOR COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Next, we have a Discussion Item - Review Building Design Standards Regarding the Use of EIFS for Commercial and Residential Construction.

MR. ALLMON: Good evening. Doug Allmon again.

Shawnee’s adopted Building Design Standards limit the use of EIFS to molded accents (such as cornices) and trim. Cementitious stucco is required in lieu of EIFS on large wall applications. These standards were implemented by the Planning Commission several years ago and were based on EIFS failures and problems that had been experienced in the past.

At the June 5, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, staff provided background information regarding EIFS, and the changes in standards and technology that have occurred in the industry over the past decade. Staff also met with industry representatives to become more informed on EIFS and learn about industry strides that have been made to improve EIFS performance and durability. Many other cities in the metro area now allow EIFS for commercial and residential construction.
Just a few of the highlights of the changes include:

• Training and certification of EIFS installers by adopted industry-wide standards,
• Improvements in water penetration mitigation and related EIFS failures,
• Changes to adopted building codes regarding EIFS use and installation,
• Provision for on-site special inspections during the EIFS installation process, The purpose of this discussion is for educational purposes and to gauge interest by the Planning Commission to potentially amend adopted design policies regarding EIFS.

RECOMMENDATION

No action is recommended at this time. If the Planning Commission determines that some amendments to the building design standards are warranted, staff will bring these changes forward at a later meeting.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Doug. Commission have any comments on this or questions for staff? Commissioner Wise?

COMMISSIONER WISE: I agree that I think the materials have improved, but there are still ongoing challenges. I know it was as a practice our office commercially will not specify EIFS except in very specific applications. And a lot of it, as I mentioned before, really comes down to installers. And we have no way to guarantee who is installing this. I do think residentially it has its place. I’m a little concerned about just applying what appears to be a masonry veneer over rigid insulation, freeze-thaw. I don’t know and I don’t know how long this has been on the market. But, you know, it’s a really new material. I’m just concerned again with the durability of this. It can look decent. But again, you have to deal with expansion joints and detailing. And, you know, if it comes down to the base, then you’ve got issues with, you know, damage from mowers and things like that and it can look like junk, you know, fairly quickly. So, residentially I’d be more willing to I think consider it as an option commercially. I’m hesitant to really start allowing this material. That’s my thought.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Doug.

MR. ALLMON: We’ve just kind of discussed this earlier. And actually l think we agree that taking it to the ground is not a good idea and that replacing masonry with this in all examples is probably not a good idea. But I think residentially there probably are some applications where it could be used. Maybe in some higher parapet work, even on commercial, but I would certainly respect your opinion more than mine on that for sure. So, I appreciate your comments.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Doug, out of curiosity, do we have builders or developers come in and say, hey, we’d really like to use this? I mean, it’s --

MR. ALLMON: We do. We’re approached very often. Part of it I think is, is that there are, and I don’t want to pretend to be a building code official, but the energy standards have changed. I think you used to have to have something like a 50 percent energy rating. And some of the buildings now I think have to be at 90 percent. And this is a way to really, really increase your insulation factor without having to go to enormous amounts of expense. And so we do get probably weekly in some cases requests for large fields of cementitious stucco to be EIFS. We’ve always said no. But I will say we were approached and actually sat through a presentation by some industry representatives. And they weren’t here just to represent their product. They were here to represent the product industry-wide. I honestly was very impressed with their level of concern, the fact that they have certification training now for installation. I think basically they admitted in their industry they had a problem and they’ve gone a long way to try to address that problem with especially the vapor barrier and the water wicking methods that they have now. The old method didn’t have that and so water got trapped behind and in that free stall cycle it would actually pop in some cases. They were very thorough in their description. So, I came away impressed. I know our business liaison came away impressed, too. But again, I wouldn’t say I would be ready to recommend one way or the other.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Do we have any other materials where we require them to be licensed, certified and everything else? And do we have that in any other materials we use?

MR. ALLMON: We had a discussion. Actually our plans, our chief plan examiner who is a P.E., sat in the meeting with us. And he basically said the new IBC has been amended to allow EIFS. But it’s not just allowed, it’s more regulated. The City I think can require special inspections to make sure that those installers are doing it correctly. And what we had talked about is if this is a road that we want to maybe go down and try kind of like we did with the stained tilt-up several years ago for Hans Rudolf. We allowed them to do an experiment basically and went back and checked that building in two years and it hadn’t failed. And so now it’s kind of standard practice for tilt-up that we allow concrete stain in various places. But in this case if that’s a direction we want to go, we probably want to make our conditions of approval very, very rigid in saying that they have to give us some sort of certification that they’re going to use trained certified installers on site. And I don’t know how far we want to go, but you could even require special inspections as part of any request for EIFS.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Would the City have to have somebody trained to inspect this for proper installation then?

MR. ALLMON: They would meet our building code and then it would be a third-party inspection. It would be at the owner’s expense. There is some cost savings I guess because of the -- I think cementitious to EIFS is almost exchangeable in terms of costs. But I think there’s cost savings in terms of R-value and those kind of things that they see an advantage in. And so it would be up to them in my opinion to pay for any third-party special inspection.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson, please.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Being from an industry that uses public funds, making -- having certified installers is not unusual. We have to provide those. You can make your specifications as tight as you would like and those aren’t hard to get. And if they are, if it is hard to get a certified installer or a factory-trained installer that would to me would be a really good reason to kick this back to the curb that it’s a lot of blow and go instead of follow-up. So, that being said, I mean, we have to provide those all the time and the standard bearers and warranty issues and --

MR. ALLMON: Well, if it’s something that you -- as I said we weren’t recommending any action tonight. If it’s something that you would like more information on we could certainly get some clarification from the industry. They’re very willing to help us because they want to be able to sell their product in our city. But I don’t think that they want to help us just because of that. I think they want to get the word out that this is not a bad material anymore. And so we’d be glad to do that. I know our liaison has their contact information.

COMMISSIONER WISE: You know, and I do agree that one of the challenges we’ve got, and this is building code, is from the energy standard. You’re now dealing not with just a continuous air and vapor barrier, but also with continuous rigid, or not rigid insulation, but a continuous insulation barrier, and it does make construction harder and more expensive. And so if you don’t put it on the outside, then you have to in effect bury it in a wall. And so that has created unique challenges. And, you know, my thinking is if we’re going to test that we test it on homes. It’s a whole lot cheaper to deal with than commercial. But that might an idea to consider.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Braley.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Well, I mean, with that said, Steve, I’m wondering, you know, you talk about certified installers, do you see, I’m curious for anybody, that a home builder would go to the expense of seeking out a certified installer to put it, I mean, are the people that are coming to you and asking for this, is it residential or is it commercial?
MR. ALLMON: I deal mostly with commercial. But I’m talking residential in terms of tri-plex, four-plex applications where stucco is used. Senior housing possibly where stucco is used in lieu of lap siding.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Okay.

MR. ALLMON: We do get those requests from residential builders. I would clarify that single family, especially in R-1, I don’t know that we apply any standard. They just have to meet the building code for a single-family home in a R-1 zoning district. So, it would be -- if we go residential, it would be multi-family and apartment construction. And it may be something we want to try out on just duplexes and tri-plexes those sort of things rather than, you know, something that’s in a planned unit development rather than a full senior building.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: But just to clarify, you’re saying that that wouldn’t be on staff to go inspect. You’re putting the onus on the builder to hire their own inspector to make sure it’s being installed correctly.

MR. ALLMON: I think that’s how we envisioned it, that we would not be doing EIFS inspections. I think probably one of our staff members would be there, but it would be up to someone else to certify it especially if it was on a commercial application. It’s just like a best management practice or something like that that gets certified and inspected by an engineer. They seal it. They say it’s up to standard and we put that emphasis and basically make them responsible for it.

COMMISSIONER BRALEY: Okay.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Yeah. Testing. I mean, you’ve got everything from obviously concrete and steel. It’s not to that level, but also roofing. It’s not always recommended. But like you said, Kathy, the key is to write the specs. The challenge is when you’re dealing with duplexes, tri-plexes, they don’t quite go to that same level. But again, if we start making that an expectation, at least in the beginning make sure we’re getting something close to the quality we’re expecting that might be a good starting point.

MR. ALLMON: And we can get more information from the industry because they were very educational. I learned about windows are the biggest -- some of the biggest problems to EIFS is making sure that the windows are installed properly and that EIFS tie-in is good because that’s a real good spot where water gets in. And they were very specific in having standards on window installation even though it’s not an EIFS application where it ties in to one another having specific standards that they enforce through their certification program.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: That goes back to all the environmental elements of 90 percent now.
MR. ALLMON: Oh, absolutely.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner John Smith.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: My question may not even be appropriate. But, you know, the recent London fire, and I understand in the Middle East, similar situations with the things that they’re requiring or allowing in commercial buildings, does this connect at all with that, what you’re saying here? I know you’re talking about single family and so forth, but is this fireproof?

MR. ALLMON: We’re talking about more of the aesthetic and function. They would have to meet fire and building code. If the material did not meet fire and building code it would not be allowed on the structure. And that’s all spelled out by the fire code and the IBC version that we use.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [Inaudible; talking off mic.]

MR. ALLMON: Yeah. I didn’t want to try to quote the specific ones, but I know that they --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [Inaudible; talking off mic.]

MR. ALLMON: Yes. Than cement.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [Inaudible; talking off mic.]

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: I just want to follow-up on the statement on windows. You know, I live in a development that’s probably about 20-25 years ago. We’ve replaced I think every window in our house and there’s windows that’s been replaced or that I know that didn’t have any flashing above them and they’re just a sloppy way the builders are building them.

MR. ALLMON: The higher level of scrutiny might actually make our installation and level of quality better just because we would be looking at them or having a third-party inspector look at them more closely.

COMMISSIONER WISE: One thing I’d even be willing to do is if they had an installation that was approved, for example, I mean, I’d be willing to go on a job site and watch them with an inspector.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Unless anybody else has any comments, and myself I defer to Commissioner Wise on his recommendation that we look at it for multi-family housing or residential, not commercial, and entertain the thoughts that way. Any other questions or comments on EIFS? I learned a new acronym tonight. Thank you. Always happy to have another acronym. And I lost where the heck -- and that takes care of that.

Now, we’re down to other business.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Now, we’re done.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Huh?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner John Smith.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: Well, this Save the Date. This looks like a huge agenda for 3½ hour meeting. Can you give us any more information on how the format or something that might be -- maybe it’s too early.

MR. CHAFFEE: Paul Chaffee, Planning Director. Actually under our Other Business, just to give you the date on September 19th, 6:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., site to be determined. It’ll either be here in the Council Chambers or out at the Justice Center if we can get their training room out there. Yeah. And the list of topics is just our initial go-through and maybe wean down or combine in one shape, form, or another. But just give you a feel for a variety of topics that may be discussed at that meeting.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Does the Commission have any questions for staff?

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I do.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any comments? Commissioner Peterson, yes. Glad to see you’re here.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Speaking of building code updates, are we seeing anything that we need to be putting on our agenda to pay attention to? I mean I knew that the increased regulations with environmental and 50 percent and things along those lines. But I know it didn’t affect an industry that I’m particularly familiar with that much. But are there concerns that we need to perhaps start educating ourselves on?

MR. CHAFFEE: I think right now staff is at the point that we’re --

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Digesting.

MR. CHAFFEE: -- giving the new administration about six months to figure out what they’re really going to do environmental-wise as far as --

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Well, I’m talking about the new code.

MR. CHAFFEE: -- you know, erosion control or that kind of thing. We’re not looking at adopting the new building code right now. We’re looking at staying with the 2012.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Are you?

MR. CHAFFEE: Yeah.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: That’s what I needed to know.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Does the staff have anything for the Commission?

MR. CHAFFEE: Just about the meeting on the 19th. And then just a reminder that the July 3rd meeting has been cancelled, so our next Planning Commission meeting will be on July 17th.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Augie, are you going to be here for that one? That’s what we all want to know.

F. ADJOURNMENT

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, would you like a motion for adjournment?

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Yes.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: You betcha.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Okay. So, Mr. Chairman, I would move for adjournment.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Second.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: A motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carried. We’re done.
(Shawnee Planning Commission Adjourned)