PDF Format:


October 16, 2017
7:30 P.M.

Commissioner Dennis Busby Planning Director Chaffee
Commissioner Rusty Mudgett Planner Mark Zielsdorf
Commissioner Kathy Peterson Planning Staff Doug Allmon
Commissioner John Smith
Commissioner Alan Willoughby
Commissioner Steven Wise

Commissioner Bruce Bienhoff
Commissioner Randy Braley
Commissioner John Montgomery
Commissioner Brian Roth
Commissioner Alan Willoughby

(Planning Commission Meeting Called to Order at 7:33 p.m.)


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Good evening.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Good evening.

COMMISSIONERS: Good evening.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Better. Welcome to the October 16, 2017 meeting of the Shawnee Planning Commission. We’ll start with roll call. Commissioner Montgomery is absent. Commissioner Roth is absent. Commissioner Peterson.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby is absent. Commissioner Bienhoff is absent. Commissioner Busby is here. Commissioner Wise.


COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Commissioner Braley is absent. Commissioner Les Smith.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Mudgett.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner John Smith.




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

(Pledge of Allegiance)



CHAIRMAN BUSBY: The Consent Agenda. The Consent Agenda Items 1 through 6 are listed under the Consent Items Agenda. Unless there is a request to remove one of these items from the Consent Agenda, the items will be approved in one motion. Is there a request to remove any of these items from the Consent Agenda? Commissioner John Smith.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, not to remove an item, but I have a question, a matter of protocol. Probably I should address to --

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: John, go ahead and ask for the item to be removed, and then we’ll vote on the others and come back to it.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: Well, it’s the statement that you read at the beginning. The last sentence, the -- I would like to know if staff informs those who have items on a Consent Agenda that they can come to this meeting and ask that they be removed from the Consent Agenda and discussed, the public.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: If someone that has their item on the agenda as to whether or not they can have it removed it from the agenda? Is that right, John?

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: Your statement says that. That item may be -- that if separate discussion is requested on an item from either the Planning Commission or from the public. And I’d like to know that if the public is informed of that, particularly the ones that have items on the agenda.

MR. CHAFFEE: We send notices to the folks who have items on the agenda that their hearing for their SUP will be at this meeting at this time. So, we let them all -- advise them that they’re up for their review.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: Thank you. Because the 13 months I’ve been on the Planning Commission I’ve never seen a member of the public ask for removal of an item. And I just wanted to be sure that they were aware that it was their privilege. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very fine. Thank you, John. So, is there an item to remove from the Consent Agenda? If not, is there a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Commissioner Wise.

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

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

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: I’ll second the motion.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: There’s a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda Items 1 through 6, subject to staff recommendations. All in favor say aye.

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



CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. New Business. Amendments to the Text and Map in Chapter 5 Land Use Guide of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Doug Allmon, please.

MR. ALLMON: Good evening. Doug Allmon, Planning staff. This is a public hearing item for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, in particular, Chapter 5 of the Land Use Guide Text and Map.

The City’s Comprehensive Plan currently indicates the location of Mixed Use/Destination land uses along the I-435 Corridor between Shawnee Mission Parkway and Johnson Drive. The new owner of the Westbrooke Village site has announced their desire to redevelop the property with a mixture of residential and commercial uses. The current commercial designation does not appear viable as the shopping center has remained vacant for numerous years, and no efforts to redevelop the site in a purely commercial manner have been undertaken. Additionally, the Mixed Use Development Committee formed following the Economic Development Strategic Planning session earlier this year has identified this location, as well as the northeast corner of Shawnee Mission Parkway and K-7 Highway, as potential locations for mixed-use development.

Currently, the definition for Mixed Use/Destination development is found in the I-435 Corridor Study that was completed in 2009. The Comprehensive Plan does not currently have this definition along with the other types of uses shown on the Land Use Guide Map. The proposed text amendment will place a definition for Mixed Use/Destination in Chapter 5. Text amendments are also proposed to the text of the Shawnee Mission Parkway Corridor Study and the K-7 Highway Corridor study to indicate that mixed-use development may be appropriate for the northeast corner of Shawnee Mission Parkway and K-7 Highway.

A final proposed amendment is to change the land use designations on the Land Use Guide Map at the northeast corner of Shawnee Mission Parkway and K-7 Highway and at the northeast corner of 75th and Quivira to Mixed Use/Destination uses.

In order to consider these amendments, the Planning Commission is required to conduct a public hearing.

The following text and map amendments are for the public hearing.


In terms of Chapter 5, we would add a new paragraph called Mixed Use/Destination. And that would essentially say that Mixed Use/Destination designations provide an opportunity to create comprehensive and integrated developments, that is, retail and/or office, and higher density residential land uses under a single plan. A destination development may contain a single use, that by its nature is somewhat unique to the area such as a recreation activity or a large corporate office center that attracts consumers or workers from a wide area.

Mixed Use developments more commonly contain shopping and office spaces at a neighborhood, or community scale, carefully integrated with a high density residential use. The commercial/office components should capitalize on the visibility of those areas from major roadways, or at newly created focal points within a development plan, with the residential use at the periphery in single use buildings, and/or above retail uses to generate significant markets for the commercial area.

Following with that, the mix of uses in these developments can be either horizontally or vertically integrated. Horizontal development occurs with each building, regardless of its height, and contains a single type of use. Vertical Mixed Use includes multiple uses in a single building, with the most common type being retail on the lower level and higher density residential and/or office uses above. Well-integrated open spaces and amenity driven traffic patterns are encouraged to facilitate pedestrian movement within the development.

To adequately accommodate a Mixed Use concept and cohesive development patterns, as either a redevelopment opportunity or green-field, the development should be over 10 acres in size, unless undertaken in the downtown area.

Mill Creek to K-7 Highway (portion)

In terms of specific striking and adding in the text, I won’t read all of these. But under the Mill Creek to K-7 Highway portion of the Shawnee Mission Corridor Study, we’re going to change it to say, “Significant commercial and office development is expected to occur west of Monticello Road on both sides of Shawnee Mission Parkway to K-7 Highway,” with the added sentence, “With the potential for Mixed Use development at the northeast corner of Shawnee Mission Parkway and K-7 Highway.”

Clear Creek Parkway to Shawnee Mission Parkway (portion)

And then in the Clear Creek Parkway to Shawnee Mission Parkway portion of the K-7 Highway Corridor Study, we simply add a couple of words where we say, “It is expected that some office, retail or mixed use development will also be provided along K-7 Highway adjacent to the frontage road as it turns north from Shawnee Mission Parkway.”

So, that’s the text amendments.


And then just very quickly I’ll put up the map changes that are being proposed.

[Sisters of Charity site map slide]
This is the Sisters of Charity site. You can currently see that it’s designated as a portion of office and straight commercial, about a half and half split. And what the proposal is, is that both sides of Silverheel where it links into the new library site, changing that to the Mixed Use/Destination type color on the map.

[Westbrooke Village site map slide]
The other map amendment is the Westbrooke Village site is currently all shown in red to reflect the existing, now predominately vacant shopping center. And the thought is to turn that to that same Mixed Use/Destination that is shown by that green color on the map.

And so that completes our report.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Doug. Does the Commission have any questions for staff? Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: I’ve got a quick question on the Westbrooke Village. So, changing to Mixed Use/Designation, obviously that’s just a recommendation. That wouldn’t impact the outlying buildings that are already there, the bank and the few restaurants that are there, correct?

MR. ALLMON: That is correct. The buildings that would stay would still fit within a Mixed Use concept because they’re retail or office in nature.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other question for staff? If not, this is a public hearing item. If anyone from the audience would care to participate, please come forward and state your name and address. The other thing you should know is this is not about taxation. So, if it’s about taxation, we have nothing to do with that, so that won’t work. Also if it’s a rezoning, we’re not rezoning anything. So, if it’s anything to do with that, it will fall on deaf ears. Now, would anyone like to come forward and discuss this? State your name and address, please. Thank you.

Public Comments:

MR. PEZZA: My name is Mike Pezza (Address Omitted), Shawnee, Kansas. Could I ask Doug a question at this point?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Why don’t you present it to the Commission. If the Commission can’t answer it, then we might ask staff to, please.

MR. PEZZA: Does the Commission have a definition of Mixed Use/Destination?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I’m sorry. Do we have a --

MR. PEZZA: Do you have a definition of Mixed Use?

MR. ALLMON: If I could, that’s what I just went over in the comp plan. We’re going to add that definition. We have it currently just in our corridor study that was completed by GBA in 2009. The thought is to go ahead and put that in the Land Use Guide in Chapter 5 with all the other definitions that we have for industrial, for commercial, for residential, the various types of residential.

MR. PEZZA: Okay. Thanks.


MR. PEZZA: With that being said, then I think that there is an opportunity here for this Commission to, certainly we want a public hearing, but I would say postpone the public hearing and go back to the Planning Department to come up with a more robust definition of Mixed Use. If you look at cities around us like Lenexa, Overland Park, et cetera, and you look at their definition of Mixed Use, they have a much more detailed, robust definition. They have things like occupancy per acre definitions and guidelines, specific percentages of greenspace versus sizes of the project. They have height restrictions and guidelines of residential buildings in the Mixed Use. They have setback requirements. I think you get my idea. They have a lot more detail. I think that would be a lot more beneficial to, most importantly, the citizens of Shawnee, but also developers when they come in. Right now our definition is so broad that almost anything could be proposed. And again, I am into public hearings, however, I think, again, the benefit to the citizens and developers, there should be more meat around this definition before it goes to public hearing. So, I would ask this committee to push back to the Planning Department, I guess that’s who would do it, to come up with a better definition than what we have now.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: My understanding is we have a lot of definition on this. But, Paul, would you address this, please?

MR. PEZZA: Can I come back up when you’re done?


MR. PEZZA: Okay.

MR. ALLMON: Maybe.

MR. CHAFFEE: Maybe if Dennis will let you.

Paul Chaffee, Planning Director. The definition is just the portion that’s in the Comprehensive Plan. As you all are aware in our zoning regulations, we have the Planned Mixed Residential Mixed Use definition and category that describes percentage of ground for if it’s a retail, office development, what the height restrictions, what building setbacks are. The items that Mr. Pezza mentioned you would find already currently exist in our zoning regulations today. So, that’s where that portion of it is as opposed to just the definitions that are in the Comprehensive Plan, which is more of a general document.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Paul. Any other comments from the audience? If not, this would end the public hearing and we’d be in Commission discussion. Well, I have a comment, and that is in both these areas they have sat. Basically the old shopping center needs to be changed for development. It sits idle. It’s creating an issue. And from the perspective of developers that have talked to the City of Shawnee and the Planning Commission staff, and for myself, I think it’s a very good change on that as well as the one out west. It makes sense in today’s age. And the type of demands we have now for land that makes sense on both of those.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: I would agree, Commissioner.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Mudgett.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: I would certainly -- I think it’s reflective of the current market and it’s going to be more attractive to build.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Mine is a little bit more a question. And that is, the reason why we’re adding this to the Comprehensive Plan is because we’ve never really had a Mixed Use development. And we’re using that as a go-between so that we can develop our own concept, and we’ve borrowed from others such as if it’s primarily retail and office, we’re going to borrow from those guidelines on density and development and setbacks, et cetera, as well as -- but we never had a Mixed Use guideline, is that correct?

MR. ALLMON: In the comp plan that’s correct that we did not have a full definition. We simply had I think some references to the corridor study for I-435 that was done in late 2009. The idea that this is more just a guide, that’s what the comp plan does is to essentially guide future development. And so this is not certainly a zoning or something like where it’s etched in stone.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other questions? Any other comments for the Planning Commission? If not, I’ll entertain a motion.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Les Smith.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: I move that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing on amending the text and map in Chapter 5 Land Use Guide as presented by the staff report dated October 16, 2017.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Which means we’re amending the two Land Use Guide Map. Is that clear enough?

MR. ALLMON: Land Use Guide and text.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Text and map. Okay. There’s a motion. Is there a second on the motion? Commissioner John Smith.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: I’ll second the motion.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: There’s a motion and a second to change some text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Guide. All in favor say aye.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carried. Thank you. And I believe we will sign this. Do you want this signed after the meeting?


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very good. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Next on the agenda is Review of the Six-Year Capital Improvement Plan from 2018 to 2023.

MR. CHAFFEE: State statutes require that the Planning Commission annually review and approve the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Comments and suggestions made by the Planning Commission are forwarded to the Governing Body prior to their adoption of the Plan.

The draft Plan indicates projects that have recently been completed, but are not bonded, as well as projects that are under construction or have been continued from the 2017 Plan. The Plan also includes the current year projects, as well as the six-year proposed projects.

A number of factors affect the positioning of projects over the next six years. While development patterns play a large role, the ability of the City to finance the projects is a controlling factor. During the past year, staff and the Governing Body have continued to review the list of projects to be included in the CIP. Additionally, the Governing Body has begun a prioritization process to assist in determining the desires for a project to be undertaken over an extended period of time. The projects listed are those that will be able to be bonded with funds collected through the mill levy to accommodate bond and interest payments, or use special funds directed for specific types of improvements.

So, some of the other types of funds that we have available for some of the projects is we have the CARS program, which is the program through the county that assists in major street improvements. We have the SIP funding, which is the City’s 3/8 cent sales tax that was approved the voters. And that is for the ditch section streets to change them into curbed and guttered streets. There was a lengthy process of evaluating the streets and we sort of have come up with a priority list that you’ll see a couple streets show up. We have the Parks and Pipes sales tax which we use for park improvements and stormwater improvements. And then we have the Land Use Recreation Fund, which comes from the issuance of building permits that we also use to improve parks.

Real briefly, in your staff report, we have a listing of the projects to be undertaken in the years that they are. Some of the significant modifications is that Midland Drive between Lackman to Elmridge has been bumped a little further out than before. Monticello Road will be undertaken in two phases in ‘20 and ‘21. And that’s due to some funding that we’re going to receive. We can receive funding in both years, so it’s a two-year type of project.
We list the CDBG projects under the stormwater and street improvements. Those are Community Development Block Grant funds that the City gets from Department of Housing and Urban Development. We’re an entitlement city, so we know that we’ll get funding each year. The locations of those projects are limited to the ten census tracts that have the most low and moderate income persons in the city. Most of them are south of 55th Street between Quivira and Nieman Road to 75th.

So, the projects that we’ve been undertaking, after this year we return to the area just southwest of City Hall where we’ve done some improvements already to 60th Street and 59th Street in that area.

Other traffic-related activities is the 55th Street Quiet Zone, alternative access, 67th and Caenen, traffic signal improvement, which is undergoing right now. We had some old traffic signals that we’re replacing. And then the Clear Creek Parkway improvements. If you haven’t been out there recently take a drive. The street is in now out in that area.

Then we have the Nieman Now! projects. They total about $30 million between all of them. The Nieman Road Corridor South, which is 2016-2017. We’re pretty much finished with that one. That’s the one that goes behind where the old Ethio Market was and where Stag’s Creek is being constructed and Andy’s Frozen Custard and Raising Cane’s.

Then we have the Nieman Road 6200 block, Nieman Road Middle, which is the area there by Pizza Shoppe and comes up to where the current channel is being replaced. And then we have the Nieman Corridor North, which is basically north of Johnson Drive up to 55th Street.

Some other park projects of note is the renovation of the gym floor up at the Civic Centre and the pump room at the Aquatics Center. Shawnee 1929, the Chevy dealership and Murphy service station, Dr. Sullivan’s house. Then in 2020, we have 55th and Bellmont development. And then of course new this year is the construction of Fire Station 74 in 2018. And along with that will be the street improvements to 53rd Street from Woodsonia to Roberts, which will wrap around the northern end of the new fire station site.

Over the past four years the Planning Commission has recommended the Governing Body consider placement of Gleason Road from the south city limits to 71st Street and 71st Street between Gleason and Clare be placed on the CIP due to the development of Erfurt Park.

Overall, the total cost of all projects in the plan is $152,111,878. The total of projects in 2018-2023 is $121,404,787. And of that total of the 152, the City project costs is $123,712,082.

Upon review of the 2018-2023 Capital Improvement Plan, the Planning Commission shall forward any recommendations to the Governing Body and approve the plan as presented.

That concludes staff’s present.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Paul. Does the Commission have any questions for staff or comments? Commissioner Les Smith.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Paul, mainly because I keep forgetting to ask this, what is in Kansas the threshold for CDBG grants?

MR. CHAFFEE: To become an entitlement community it’s 50,000.


MR. CHAFFEE: So, we’ve been an entitlement community since 2004.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner John Smith.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would recommend that the Planning Commission continue recommending to the Governing Body considering the placing of Gleason Road from the south city limits to 71st Street, and 71st Street between Gleason and Clare be placed on the CIP due to the development, that new park out there, Erfurt Park.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I do not have a question. It’s on page 64 where it’s below the Johnson Drive, Lackman, 75th Street group of streets before the Nieman Road project, there’s a typographical error. Before it goes into any official notes can that be changed from “couth” city limits to south city limits, please?

MR. CHAFFEE: We can.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Dually noted. Thank you, Commissioner Peterson. Any other comments? I have one comment that’s kind of interesting is I happened to partake here about two weeks ago in a county-wide program that we’re running for tornado emergency preparedness drill. And one of the interesting things was is most of the department heads were there. They were connected with the county. All the cities were connected together and they were using the Internet. And first is struck me as that’s a hell of a way to do this. I mean they could go down at any time. But that’s the result of the planning by the City to have everything on fiber optic cable, so that is how the cities all connect with each other. And I thought, well, I remember years ago they talked about that and I thought that’s a dumb way to spend money. So, I again get lessons in finding out that the City has been very good about being very forward-looking and the requirements for the City in this modern day age.

So, okay. Somebody want to make a recommendation here? Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I move that we accept the review of the Capital Improvement Plan as presented by staff and that it’s forwarded to the Council at its next available meeting.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: With the notes John Smith had added on, 71st Street.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Can you add that recommendation?




CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very fine. Is there a second? Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: I’ll second the motion.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: There’s a motion and a second to forward to the Governing Body the recommendations of the Capital Improvement Plan that we’ve just reviewed including, as per staff recommendations and as per the information we have, plus adding another request for improvements at 71st Street. All in favor say aye.


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

[Therefore, the motion was made by Commissioner Peterson and seconded by Commissioner Wise to recommend the Governing Body approve the 2018-2023 Capital Improvement Plan as presented and also consider placement of Gleason Road from the south city limits to 71st Street, and 71st Street between Gleason and Clare on the CIP due to the development of Erfurt Park. The motion carried 6-0.]



CHAIRMAN BUSBY: And here we’re into Other Business. Paul.

MR. CHAFFEE: Staff has prepared a group of amendments to the Subdivision and the zoning regulations. And a lot of this has come out of some work that staff has been doing since last summer. And then at the Joint Planning Commission meeting, the Governing Body meeting on September 19th, we talked about some other issues. So, rather than coming to you with one topic each month to amend the regulations, we thought we’d just lump them all together and try and do them all at one time. But I do want to let you know that here in the near future you’ll be having another set of recommendations from the Downtown Partnership regarding some more residential development downtown. We have one proposal that we’re vetting out with some developers to make sure that we’re not suggesting something or doing something that’s just not going to happen and that can kill some projects. And that topic basically is whether or not there’s a requirement along Nieman Road if you have a multi-family building that you also have some sort of office and retail component on the front level. So, the partnership is a little concerned that just along Nieman Road we don’t want a bunch of apartment buildings and it sort of loses its retail and commercial nature. So, we’ll be doing some checking around. So, you’ll probably see that one here in about a month or so as soon as we finish with that.

But there are a number of items that are listed in the proposals. And I wanted to go through them with you real quick. I know it seems like a lot, but a lot of it is some strike-outs that we’re going to need to do. But I want you all to feel comfortable with what the amendments are. Because at the end, I’m going to ask you to schedule a public hearing for November 20th on them.

So, basically with the preliminary plat we’re trying to work with developers where they understand to be more prepared when they come and visit with us the first time, so we don’t end up having to have a series of six or seven meetings with a developer. Hopefully we just can meet with them once or two times. So, we’ve changed our verbiage a little bit to let the subdivider know what we’re going to expect at the first meeting, and that a lot of the information, instead of listing it all out, if they go to the preliminary plat guide and the preliminary plat checklist, if they come in and they’re clean and they’re ready to go, and if not, we can visit with them a little bit longer. And a lot of this is sort of pre-staging our desire to be maybe more development friendly. I think we already are development friendly, but to speed up the process a little bit.

Then on final plats, we talked about the pre-application review, which is the same type of thing. And then we have a strike-out of all the listing of everything that’s in the checklist anyway. So, rather than when EPA comes down the line and they have a new requirement, having to come back in the zoning regulations and add theirs in, we’re just referring back to the final plat guide and checklist, and then we can just change the checklist as we need to as conditions may change.

And then a little bit of change on the stormwater design standards just to say that the rate of stormwater coming off a site is in accordance with the approved subdivision stormwater manager plan in accordance with the provisions of the Shawnee Mission Municipal Code, which is a design document that the engineering department has.

Then our next one is DU (Duplex), which is page 79. It talks about some building elevations. This one sort of comes out of the Grey Oaks discussion a little bit. This would allow the Planning Commission to also as part of a recommendation of rezoning to approve specific building elevations to be used. You really didn’t have that authority before, so this gives you the opportunity to do so if you so desire to do that.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Paul, just real quick. There’s a spelling here on building in the heading.

MR. CHAFFEE: Okay. We’ll get it.

Then on page 80 we have the Table of General Uses. We sort of went over that a little bit. What’s in red are the proposed changes. The Partnership has proposed some amendments to go on, especially with a bed and breakfast. Then it used to be called massage parlors, so we’ve changed it to the more modern of massage therapy establishments, having them be a permitted use.

And then secondhand merchandise retail. Right now it’s a permitted use in Townsquare, but we’re looking at if a secondhand merchandise business is accepting donations rather than maybe just an antique store or consignment shop, but something like, let’s say Savers where someone can come and drop off their things that tend to collect outside either in front or in back, then those would require a special use permit just so we can get a handle on what’s going to be expected of how those donations are handled.

Then as we moved into the Planned Unit --

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Wise has something.

COMMISSIONER WISE: A quick question. Sorry. Under, I just want to make sure this is clear, so automobile leasing, the “P” is actually struck out and that’s an asterisk, correct? Okay.


COMMISSIONER WISE: I just wanted to make sure that was.
MR. CHAFFEE: Yeah. So, it pulls some of those auto retail type thing -- or auto service things out of the downtown area. And one of the reasons that they’re taking a look at it is that a lot of times those businesses take a lot of space and have a lot of front field parking. And we have some businesses that are great businesses downtown that have been here for a long time and this doesn’t affect them at all. They’re still ready to operate.

Thank you, Commissioner Wise for pointing that one out for me.

Then we have a set of proposed changes on our Planned Unit Development. Some of this comes from our discussions that we’ve had about density. And so from the Planned Mixed Residential zoning districts, the amendment would allow the Planning Commission to reduce the 2,800 square foot requirement to 2,250 square foot per dwelling unit, when it can be anticipated that the increased density won’t create a significant effect on adjacent uses, or if the property is located along an arterial street. It just seems like in those cases an increase in density would be appropriate. And that is going to be getting us up to about 19.5 dwelling units per acre. Right now we’re at 15.55.

Also in the Townsquare zoning district, looking at changing it from the 2,250 to the 2,000. That gets us up to about 21 dwelling units per acre. Also we have the RHR zoning district, which is the Residential High-Rise. That’s for the use of buildings that -- high-rise buildings that are four stories or taller. And if you all remember the slide we do real well in that respect. We allow the density with about 54 dwelling units an acre in an RHR type of development.

So, some of those types of things you may see in combination with a mixed use where you may have an office-retail component and then you may have a RHR just to be able to increase the density and get what you need at that location.

Then we also are allowing the Planning Commission to take a look at the peripheral boundary. We have that that goes all -- right now in all our districts it’s a peripheral boundary around the edge of the zoning district and it’s always 30 feet. While it seems, and some of the reason of that is to pull back more intense development from some development that may be less dense. But if you’re adjacent to the street it really doesn’t matter because you already have that street width. And in the zoning district if it were an internal street rather than being on the periphery, you could have a 20-foot building setback. So, what this does is it just allows a 20-foot building setback when it’s adjacent to a street on the periphery of it also.

And then we have the requirement on driveway lengths and how far they should be from the edge of the curb to near the front of the building, or if the driveway is not -- is back behind the front of the building, what the depth should be. Quite frankly, it’s caused us headaches over the years. So, rather than just doing away with that regulation, the change would allow the Planning Commission to approve a shorter length. So, what we can do is take more of a look of the product. I mean are they already providing a two car driveway and a two car garage, or is it just a one car driveway with a one car garage and let’s us sort of massage the plan to make it work a little bit better. And I think what you’ll find is then we’re not forcing developers to push the garage back behind the front line of the building that you may see some different building design.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Hey, Paul. Out of curiosity how did you come up with 36˝ feet?

MR. CHAFFEE: Well, that was the suggestion of a Planning Commissioner probably about 15 years ago.


MR. CHAFFEE: And so that’s how we came up with that, that amount.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: It wasn’t like two car lengths or something like that?

MR. CHAFFEE: No, it wasn’t.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Unless I have a big Ford pickup truck or an SUV --

MR. CHAFFEE: And, you know, I mean this has been -- yeah.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: -- and then it wouldn’t work anyway.

MR. CHAFFEE: Yeah. It’s a lot like the density issue, it’s just been batted around for years. And this just seems like a decent way to take a look at really what type of building are being built.

Also on townhomes, maximum density currently not exceed ten units an acre. The proposal would allow the Planning Commission to take a look at potentially for a higher density at that point in time. And the same with building length, townhouses not exceed 200 feet in length. The Planning Commission can recommend approval of a building that’s longer than 200 feet in length. And I think, you know, you’ll see staff when we do our evaluations, and certainly yourself that perhaps not every project is worthy or deserves, you know, those deviations. But it provides an opportunity for a really high quality project to be able to do something that otherwise you wouldn’t even be able to see them to do.

Bulk regulations. It’s also talking about the peripheral boundary area.

And then with the total area devoted to open spaces we’re adding outdoor seating areas as being counted in that calculation.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Paul, is that in reference to the thoughts in some of these areas where they’ll add the outdoor seating for bars and restaurants, more of a café, outdoor café type deal?

MR. CHAFFEE: And that is an open space --

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: That’s what that encompasses?



MR. CHAFFEE: That’s an open space and that’s an amenity and I think we want to encourage that. Twenty years ago in Kansas City you didn’t see that happening. And today it’s more the norm rather than the exception.

Then we also have some other abilities for the Planning Commission to reduce a peripheral boundary adjacent to low density residential development if the buffering is good and landscaping is good, there may not need to be an extra 25 feet.

And then right now the individual buildings maintain a separation of 20 feet. That’s not necessarily required in the Fire Code or the Building Code any longer, so this would allow the Planning Commission to reduce that size. And we’ve been doing it for a long time really anyway. So, this just sort of firms up what we’ve been doing.

Then we have the residential density of the projects where we’re talking about the area that’s contained and sort of striking out that the density shall not exceed 14.42 in the Planned Mixed Residential and goes back into the definitions that we have before.

I mean the Business Park portion and making a change to allow the Planning Commission to allow a sales and floor area exceeding 25 percent of the gross floor area, or 7,500 square feet for the following. So, if you have a 100,000 square foot building right now the way it reads is you can’t have 25,000 square feet for your sales and display because that would exceed 7,500 square feet. So, in this case the Planning Commission can make that deviation.

Then we have the information on Applications. We just talked again about the pre-application meeting. I see a typo that we’ll get in the second part. But we’ll advise -- we’ll do our review, then we advise the applicant of the revisions that need to be made. And as long as those revisions are made, then they’re going to be ready to go. And I think the thing that you see sometimes, we do have some developers and engineers and architects who take it to heart. And the next time we them it’s we wish everyone was this way. But there are some that we sort of have to hold hands and walk through the project that you may give them a list of 12 things that need to be taken care of to meet the requirements of the checklist and they bring in six or something like that, so. So, this just encourages folks to get it writing to let them know that if you do it, you’re going to get through the process faster.

Then on the Identification Proposed Land Use, you’re doing anyway with your preliminary development plan. You’re showing us what it is, so we just struck all those -- the rest of those regulations. They’re already in the checklist.

And then action of the Governing Body. We talk about preliminary development plan rather than the development plan because it’s going to be a two-step process. They go through their rezoning with a preliminary development plan, then they’ll be following through with some final, what we’re calling final site plans along the way. So, that includes those portions. Then in the site plan this is one of the big changes. Currently we just have the site plan. Some cities have preliminary site plans and final site plans. This gives a developer an opportunity if he’s rezoning to a traditional zoning district or wants to present a site plan and just do a preliminary, which won’t be as detailed as what we all are used to seeing, it may be some of the items that we discussed.

Landscaping, they’ll just show us the location of the trees and the number. We don’t need to know with a preliminary if they’re going to be maples or ash or things like that. Or the building elevations may come in and they’ll let us know that they’re going to be beige in color, but they’re not going to be required, at least with a preliminary to say that they’re Sherwin-Williams Mountain Ash Light Gray. That that’ll happen at the final. So, they still can come in with a normal site plan and do everything on the checklist like they’ve always done and that’s fine. But this provides an opportunity for someone if they wanted to do a preliminary and get preliminary approval, but then they’re going to have to come back to the Planning Commission to get a final site plan approval. So, it’s the old, you know, which do you want, to save time or money. And it’s going to be up to the developer to let them know. I think probably what you’ll see is where a rezoning is not involved you’ll just see someone go through the site plan process. They’re going to have to do it all anyway and they can still accomplish it at one time.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: So, just a clarification. We’re not reducing any requirements, we’re just kind of changing what -- how much money they have to have in the game and the preparation at one stage. They can still go ahead and provide us all that information early.


COMMISSIONER PETERSON: But they don’t have to be all in at that preliminary.


COMMISSIONER PETERSON: But they do need to be able to be enough all in --

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: -- so that they can answer whatever questions we have, correct?

MR. CHAFFEE: Correct. And so we’ve revised our checklist. You know, what are we going to require preliminary, what are we going to require at a final if you choose to go that route. Or you can just to do, like we’ve done forever. The PUDs, they always have the preliminary development plan. But a lot of times, you know, they’re real specific already with their building elevations and all the rest. So, we may see more PUDs that don’t come in with any specific building to be final. They will just be more of an overview of the whole project. And then each one of the buildings will come in on their own. So, I guess it’s just basically giving a developer an option, a route that they would like to take.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Paul, isn’t this part of what they were talking about on streamlining the process?


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Streamlining the process and saying essentially the developer doesn’t have to. And I remember because I was in one of these meetings that it was like, well, it costs $100,000 to come -- they’re going to spend that much. And with the reduction in some of this stuff that, quite frankly, I don’t know which amount and ash tree and some of this other stuff is --


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: -- that it might only be a cost to the developer up front of 25, 30 or $40,000. And the time saved --


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: -- became a big issue with the developer, so that’s what they kind of asked for.

MR. CHAFFEE: Yeah. And I think you’ll see it more on the civil engineering end. We won’t have the detailed street profiles up front. We won’t have detailed stormwater plans or water quality plans. But you’re going to know enough, and they’re still going to have to supply enough information to Development Services that they can say in their staff report that, you know, with the measures that they’re proposing for the stormwater drainage it’s not going to flood out the guy next door to him. It’s just that all detailed drawings would come in at a later date.

Same thing with the site plan contents. We’ve just stricken all of them since we’ve talked about the checklist. And then once we get to the section on the conceptual site plan, that would be if someone came in with a PUD and they wanted to final one building, but not the rest, they could just do a concept for us on the others.

And then approve site plan modification extension, approve site plan expiration, approve site plan -- we talk about site plan, or if they’ve gone the final site plat, final site plan.

Real quick, moving on to home occupations. We had some discussion at the last -- at the joint meeting on that. So, we’ve stricken, (c),which is the entrance to the space devoted to a home occupation shall be from within the dwelling. So, if you want to have someone come in a side door or a garage door they can do that. We talked about the commercial exchange of tangible or other items. It used to be that no sales to customers on the premises. This way if I invite you to come and pick up your article, you can come to my house and pick it up. I don’t have to take what I have to your house to do it.

We also modified the hours to sort of match some of our peer cities. Instead of eight to seven, we’re looking at seven to nine. We also talked a little bit about the signs. So, we sort of took the regulations that other cities have and you can have one sign no greater than one square foot inside a window or door.

And then we had the discussion on the beauty salons that I had mentioned. In years past they had been allowed with a special use permit, and then we just did away with them where they weren’t permitted anymore. And so now we’re taking a look at perhaps bringing them back. Some of the issue before was with wastewater regarding what was being washed down the sink into the sewer system. And today’s solutions that are used are more organic in nature and are less harsh. So, we’re recommending again that one chair be allowed with approval of a special use permit, and that they be required into an agreement with the Wastewater District regarding compliance with the commercial service requirements. That way the Wastewater District knows what’s being placed down the sink.

And then last but not least is solar energy. This request came from the Board of Zoning Appeals who has heard a couple cases for folks who are looking at doing solar panel arrays on large acreages, three acres, five acres. And right now we have a small footprint that an array can be on, basically 144 square feet, or 12 by 12. What this modification would allow is for those folks who are on larger lot coverages, if they wanted to have a larger array they can. And generally, they won’t impact the neighbors like if I put one in my backyard and it covered my whole backyard, I’m sure my neighbors would complain.

So, that concludes staff’s presentation. If you have any questions, I’ll be glad to answer them. If not, the only action tonight would just be to authorize us to publish for a public hearing on November the 20th.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I have just a clarification question regarding high-rise. And I know that that’s primarily downtown. And I know that the magic number or whatever is five stories. Is that based on actual five stories, or is that on a specific height from a grade?

MR. CHAFFEE: It’s based on the number of stories as opposed to the height. So, and actually it goes from four stories up. But if you had a four-story structure and they all had high ceilings and they were at 48 feet that’s okay. You know, it’s just the four-story in height.


MR. CHAFFEE: The other thing that you see once you start getting above four stories is that there are different construction methods that you have to undertake once you get a little taller. So, that’s one reason that there is the difference for the RHR as opposed to your general Planned Mixed Residential that you see for apartment structures.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Okay. All right. Thank you for that clarification. The other thing too is I just wanted to take a second and say thank you. That’s a lot of years of discussion prior to even me being here and creating these language changes, which seem to allow us and the City as well as the City Council eventually to take a look at the whole picture, but yet still with maintain our standards.

MR. CHAFFEE: Yeah. And what we --

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: As well as the increased efficiency of what it’s capable of helping you do your job. So, that was a lot of work. Thank you.

MR. CHAFFEE: And I do want to mention the density numbers that we came up with, we did look at Lenexa, Olathe and Overland Park and where did we stand when we wanted to pump the density requirements, so we can be a little more competitive, sort of that middle end. You know, at the lower end we were good and we were really great. But at the top and in that middle we were just kind of a little soft. And then we had, you know, if you were within a quarter mile of Townsquare you could do this, and if you were a senior you could do this, and if you were out on your own you could only do this. So, I think that’ll make us more competitive in that respect. And also, you know, with density it can make us more efficient when you are doing snowplowing and when you’re providing all those city services. Maybe not necessarily police, I mean sometimes. But that just come with density regardless of what type it is. You have more people in a smaller area the potential is there for more police calls regardless of if you’re a Planned Single Family as opposed Residential Estates, you know, that’s going to happen to. So, I think just the provision of services, and certainly not only for the City, but also for Wastewater and Johnson County Water District. You know, you can just service more folks running less line. And overall there’s those efficiencies that are built in also.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Do you have a question? Commissioner Les Smith.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Paul, just very quickly I’m going to go back on you a little bit to page 79, which is submittal of building elevations in a DU zone. Are we, based on the last proposal we had, assuming that that means four-sided, or should we specify four-sided since that tends to be a hotter topic of rezoning?

MR. CHAFFEE: If you want to say four-side it can. Our feeling is when we say your building elevations that means --

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Yeah. I agree with you.

MR. CHAFFEE: -- everything all the way around.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: I’ll leave that up to you.


COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: But cover that gray area. It might not be a bad thing. And I apologize if this is in there elsewhere. Do we ever address roof pitch in different zonings, or in classifications I mean?

MR. CHAFFEE: We do not. We take a look at it with the building as a whole and this site plan, is it appropriate, is it not, does it seem to work.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Okay. All right. Thanks. I have a couple little things, I’ll just give them to you afterwards.

MR. CHAFFEE: Sounds good.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Paul, the question I have is some of these -- we’re giving a little more leeway in density that the Planning Commission can decide, and I realize the Planning Commission decides it and then the elected officials have to decide whether we’re right.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: But are we going to treat that as a variance, or are we going to treat that as it makes -- it makes sense? Because with a variance my memory says a variance in some of these is we have to specifically state why we’re allowing the variance. So, which way are we going to treat that?

MR. CHAFFEE: These are not -- these are not variances. These are recommendations that the Planning Commission can make on a case by case basis. So, we’re not -- by giving you the ability to reduce it, we’re not saying that it has to be like 2,800 square feet and you give someone a variance to whatever that you just have the ability -- someone comes in and they’re at 2,300 square feet of lot area per unit, something you can certainly approve. And, you know, of course, staff will visit with applicants when they come in. And just because it says that the Planning Commission can reduce it to such and such a number doesn’t mean that you’re going to get that number. You assume you come in with a higher number and you ask for something less. And if you’ve got great amenities and great architecture and great traffic design, I think those are the things that we’ll be addressing as we see those as we make recommendations to you on the area that comes in.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: So, my only guess, I’ll hope there’s enough difference in some projects that saying no to one person -- saying yes to one person and the next person asking the same thing with not an identical project says we’re not going to have to argue about you did it for Sam, why can’t you do it for me.

MR. CHAFFEE: Yeah. I think you are all very articulate in making those --


MR. CHAFFEE: -- those decisions.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: And by the way, I like that the building elevations for duplexes and stuff are added in there. I mean you shudder up here sometimes when somebody says duplexes. And then when we see what they’re talking about, I mean, they’re still called duplexes even though they’re much more than that, that we’ve tied them in to this is what we expect them to look like. So, I really like that being tied in all the way through. Any other questions or comments? John Smith.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: I believe I think I understand what you’re doing here. But for instance on page 75, you’ve changed from Planning staff to City staff. Is that -- have you always included City staff, or is this a change?

MR. CHAFFEE: No. City staff has always been included and we just wanted to make sure that developers understood that Planning staff doesn’t call the shots necessarily for stormwater and street improvements, that it’s all of us that get together to review the plans.
COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: Another, and just I’ll follow on on that, that you appear to be cutting back on the requirements.

MR. CHAFFEE: Uh-huh.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: You know, as an example, I think what your engineering department because I got a letter on a couple of drainage basins that we had. I didn’t know it was there because they pre-date me. But I had to go to the engineering department and they had the drawings and everything. Is that -- will they still have that type of information or not?

MR. CHAFFEE: Yeah. Ultimately they’ll probably have some preliminary drawings where they do the calculations at first and show is it going to be retention, detention. And so we’ll know that and know that the area that they’ve set aside is appropriate. Then with the final plans it’ll be a little more detailed. Then their intent is just to hold plats until they get all the final drawings in. So, it’s going to be kind of a three-tiered process. But at the end of the game the plans said anyone could come in to take a look at, you know, how was this retention basis to be constructed are going to be the same. So, we’re not reducing any level of service or anything along that line.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Paul.

MR. CHAFFEE: You’re welcome.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Does anybody from the Commission have any of these subject, and there’s quite a few of them and some of them are quite interesting, does anybody have any qualms about going forward with the recommendation? Then at this point in time I think we should have a recommendation to send it on. Commissioner Les Smith.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the Planning Commission authorize publication for a public hearing amending the subdivision and zoning regulations presented in this staff report dated this date, with the public hearing to be held on November 20, 2017.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is there a second? Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Second the motion.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: There’s a motion and a second to have a public hearing on November 20th on Subdivision Regulations and Changes in the staff report. All in favor say aye.


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

[Therefore, the motion was made by Commissioner L. Smith and seconded by Commissioner Wise that the Planning Commission authorizes publication for a public hearing amending the subdivision and zoning regulations presented in this staff report dated this date, with the public hearing to be held on November 20, 2017. The motion carried 8-0.]

MR. CHAFFEE: And I have one other item of Other Business for you. Just a reminder that October has five Mondays, so our next meeting is in three weeks.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very good. Does the Planning Commission have anything for staff? Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: This is not for staff. I just wanted to make a quick comment that in the last week or so we’ve gotten some news as a City that our City Manager Carol Gonzalez is moving on. And although I know we’re all happy for her, I would just like to make mention that her contributions over the last 12 years were significant and she will be missed. And good luck to you people that are going to look for her replacement. But I’d like to thank her for her years of service.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Commissioner Peterson, and I would agree with that. I thank Carol Gonzalez for her service to our community for such a long period of time.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Anything else?


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Mudgett.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: I’d like to make a motion to adjourn.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: And that second would be from Commissioner Les Smith coming back in this world. Motion to adjourn, all in favor say aye.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. We’re done. Thank you.
[Therefore, the motion was made by Commissioner Mudgett and seconded by Commissioner L. Smith to adjourn. The motion carried 8-0.]

MR. CHAFFEE: Real quick before you go, I just want to remind you all we do have a rezoning coming up out of Westbrooke Village. And you may be receiving some calls from residents. So, I just want to go over again how you handle those is up to you. I know some Planning Commissioners will visit with residents and some will just advise --
(End of Recording)
(Shawnee Planning Commission Adjourned at 8:37 p.m.)