OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. December 10, 2012

Transcription

1 OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 10, 2012 The Overland Park Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Mr. Mike Flanagan, Vice Chair. The following members were present, constituting a quorum: Mr. Tom Lance; Mr. Edward Ned Reitzes; Mr. George Lund; Mr. John Brake; Mr. Bob Gadd; Mr. Steve Troester; Mr. David M. Hill; and Mrs. Kim Sorensen. Mrs. Janie Thacker and Mr. Thomas A. Robinett were absent. Also present were: Mr. Jack Messer, Director of Planning and Development Services; Mrs. Leslie Karr, Manager of Current Planning; Mr. Tony Meyers, Manager of Engineering Services; Mr. Mark Stuecheli, Senior Transportation Planner; Mr. Keith Gooch, Senior Planner; Ms. Danielle Zeigler, Senior Planner; Mr. Aaron Dubois, Assistant Planner; Mr. Steve Horner, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Ms. Pam Fortun, Senior Storm Water Treatment Engineer; Ms. Alysen Abel, Civil Engineer II; and Ms. Kathleen Behrens, Recording Secretary. Approximately 25 people were in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 8, 2012 and November 12, Vice Chair Mike Flanagan presented the October 8, 2012, Planning Commission meeting minutes for approval. Mr. Dave Hill moved to approve the October 8, 2012, Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented. Mr. Steve Troester seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 9 to 0. Vice Chair Flanagan presented the November 12, 2012, Planning Commission meeting minutes for approval. Mr. Bob Gadd moved to approve the November 12, 2012, Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented. Mr. Troester seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 9 to 0. CONSENT AGENDA (Approved Items A through J, and L; continued Items K and M) A. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL CLO Academy 7725 West 87th Street. Application made by CLO. B. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Quivira 95 Shops Buildings B and C Vicinity of the northeast corner of 95th Street and Quivira. Application made by Klover Architects, Inc.

2 Page 2 C. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Quivira 95 Shops Ross Vicinity of the northeast corner of 95th Street and Quivira. Application made by Klover Architects, Inc. D. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Prairiefire Wetlands Vicinity of the southwest corner of 135th Street and Nall. Application made by Merrill Company, L.L.C. E. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Prairiefire Design Guidelines Vicinity of the southwest corner of 135th Street and Nall. Application made by Merrill Company, L.L.C. F. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Kelly Reserve Apartments Vicinity of the northwest corner of 129th Street and Quivira. Application made by Pat Kelly. G. FINAL PLAT NO Prairiefire Fourth Plat Vicinity of the southwest corner of 135th Street and Nall. Application made by Merrill Companies, L.L.C. H. FINAL PLAT NO Corbin Park Nineteenth Plat Vicinity of the southeast corner of 135th Street and Metcalf. Application made by GMRI, Inc. I. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL Bluestem Subdivision Vicinity of the southeast corner of 151st Street and Quivira. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. J. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Freebirds Restaurant Patio and Walk 7552 West 119th Street. Application made by Dale Meyer. K. FINAL PLAT NO Corbin Park Condominium 6901 West 135th Street. Application made by Green Engineering Services, Inc. L. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Heritage United Methodist Church Quivira. Application made by Wallace Engineering. M. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL West Park Center Vicinity of the northeast corner of 87th Street and Farley. Application made by Hollis and Miller Architects. Manager of Current Planning Leslie Karr explained that all Consent Agenda Items were ready for approval with the exception of Item I, Revised Preliminary Plan Approval for Bluestem. She noted that Item I should be removed to add a stipulation. Mrs. Kim Sorensen recused herself from voting on the Consent Agenda, because her firm is involved with Item D of the Consent Agenda. Mr. Troester moved to recommend approval to the Council of Planning Commission Consent Agenda Items A through H, J and L as stipulated, and continued Items K and M to the January 14, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hill seconded the

3 Page 3 motion, which carried by a vote of 8 to 0. Mrs. Sorensen recused herself from voting on this item. Mrs. Sorensen returned to the meeting. Senior Planner Keith Gooch noted that the only change to Consent Agenda Item I is the addition of the last stipulation, stipulation s, which involves the verification of filing of the Affidavit of Interest recommended by the Johnson County Airport Commission. He noted that the applicant has received the new stipulation. Mr. Tom Lance moved to approve Consent Agenda Item I as amended by adding new stipulation s. Mrs. Sorensen seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 9 to 0. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO Lowell. Special use permit requested for a one-year period of time to allow chickens. This property is currently zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District. Application made by Lisa R. Provence. Assistant Planner Aaron Dubois presented Special Use Permit No , located at 7725 Lowell, for a one-year period of time to allow chickens on a single-family residential property. Ms. Lisa Provence is the applicant for the request. He presented a vicinity map, which shows the property located northwest of Downtown Overland Park and zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District. The surrounding properties are generally residential in nature; however, to the east is the Downtown Form District zoning. The aerial photograph shows the current neighborhood. The Future Development Plan identifies this property as appropriate for residential uses, and a special use permit is required to keep chickens on this property. The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) considers chickens to be farm animals, and a special use permit is required for the keeping of such animals on a lot or tract that is less than three acres in size. The request is to keep four chickens on.24 acres, with no roosters to be kept on the property. The application comes as a result of a neighbor complaint. Community Services has visited the property in question and informed the property owner that in order to keep the chickens on the property, they would have to obtain a special use permit. Since 2004, one special use permit application for chickens has been approved by the City Council, and three applications have been denied. In 2004, the Planning Commission voted 7 to 4 to recommend approval of six chickens for educational purposes for children in two different families. The City Council approved this application by a vote of 11 to 0; however, a renewal was never filed for this location. In 2005, the Planning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 6 to 2 to allow three chickens for educational purposes. The City Council denied this application by a vote of 7 to 5. In 2009, the Planning Commission voted 7 to 4 to recommend approval of four chickens that were requested for the benefits of home grown food. The City Council denied this application by a vote of 12 to 0. Recently in 2011, a request for four hens was denied unanimously by the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff has considered these requests to be a neighborhood issue. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of Special Use Permit No , staff recommends adding stipulation a.

4 Page 4 Ms. Lisa Provence, 7725 Lowell, distributed some information she obtained from articles, letters from realtors and a study from a university regarding her request. She noted the primary concerns of neighbors in regard to keeping chickens on residential property in the City involved waste and odor issues. In comparison to an averaged sized dog, which yields about 12 ounces of waste per day; a chicken yields about 1.5 ounces per day, totaling 6 ounces per day for four chickens. The chicken waste can be used as compost, opposed to dog or cat waste that cannot be used for this purpose. Ms. Provence referred to the odor issue, stating most smells associated with chickens are ammonia which comes more from the larger concentrated animal feed operations, more associated with commercial sites, which also pollute ground and surface water. She referred to the noise issue, stating chickens will verbalize after laying an egg, which last about one to two minutes. Their noise is not audible past 25 feet and no louder than conversation between two people. Other concerns she had heard about chickens involved predators, pests and rodents. She has lived in her home for 32 years, and they have predators in the urban and suburban neighborhoods, such as hawks, owls, foxes, raccoons, possums, rodents, rabbits, chipmunks, mice and squirrels. She felt the most important thing to consider is how animals are kept, such as keeping their food in pest-free containers, and in predator proof housing. Other concerns involve salmonella, but are no worse than someone who owns a reptile as a pet. Avian Flu is caused by migratory wild birds, but they are not in the U.S. Ms. Provence referred to the property value concern, stating she works with a lot of realtors and provided their feedback on this issue. The information on the study shows the most affluent neighborhoods allowing chickens to varying degrees. The St. Paul University Study shows that the top ten housing markets are cities that allow chickens. This information shows there is no cause and effect of cities that have allowed limited or varying degrees of chicken permits impacting property values. She explained that her own personal gain from this request is to keep the chickens as pets. She has a two-year old granddaughter that enjoys the chickens. She also pointed out that 29 of her neighbors have signed off on this issue. The surrounding neighbors, except for the homeowners who live immediate to the location of her property, that have neither seen them or talked to them, were unaware she had chickens on her property. Only two neighbors had asked about whether she owned a rooster. She explained the benefits of keeping chickens include entertainment, education, and supporting the liberal food movement with sustainability and providing organic food and processing kitchen waste. She explained that their neighborhood had a severe mosquito and tick problem with having many large trees in the neighborhood. There were no ticks this year, because chickens help reduce the mosquito and tick problem. Vice Chair Flanagan asked if the applicant agreed with stipulation a. Mrs. Provence agreed. Vice Chair Flanagan asked what the rational was for keeping the chickens. Ms. Provence stated that she has always had different kinds of birds, such as doves for 15 years and ducks for 8 years. When her last dove died a year and a half ago, she began researching new birds. Given the tick issue and chiggers, she was trying to find a pet that would be conducive to that problem that would co-exist with her current pets and family. She felt the breeds of chickens she chose were heat and cold tolerant and very docile. She felt most people who have come to view the chickens have seen how docile they are. Vice Chair Flanagan asked if the applicant had any children living in her home. Ms. Provence stated her children were grown and live nearby in

5 Page 5 the neighborhood. Vice Chair Flanagan asked if the chickens were egg-laying hens. Ms. Provence stated the four chickens would lay about three to four eggs per day. Vice Chair Flanagan asked what length of time the applicant has had the chickens at her home. Ms. Provence stated that she has had the chickens since March of Vice Chair Flanagan asked what the applicant s plans were once the hens get past the egg-laying stage. Since the chickens are pets, Ms. Provence stated that they would not be disposed of and would act as weed and bug eaters at that point. Mr. Edward Ned Reitzes asked about the distance a hen would be able to be heard. Ms. Provence stated that according to the research she conducted, it would be about 25 feet. She pointed out that her chickens tend to lay eggs between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., and she has only heard them a couple of different times when she had her windows open, which only lasted for about one to two minutes. She pointed out that the chickens were not as loud as her neighbor s dog that barks indoors. She noted that it would be about 63 decibels or the equivalent of the conversation between two people. She also pointed out that the neighbors living behind her did not know she owned the hens. Mr. Lance felt different cities have held different opinions on this issue. He noted one city that allowed chickens was in Denver, Colorado, which required a $50 application fee, $100 license fee and a $70 annual fee to renew the application. There was also a requirement of two signs to notify neighbors they had one month to object to the chickens. Ms. Provence felt that was a similar process that she had been through in the City. Mr. Lance asked what other reasons Ms. Provence feels the City should permit the chickens. Ms. Provence stated she was concerned that a non-neighbor had complained about her chickens, because she felt the surrounding neighbors seemed to be in agreement with them. She researched and found 65 cities that allow chickens in residential neighborhoods. She also pointed out that Merriam, Lenexa, Roeland Park, Olathe, Topeka, Lawrence, Wichita in Kansas and Kansas City, St. Louis and some suburbs outside of St. Louis in Missouri also allow chickens. She referred to the letters from realtors, stating one said the only thing she had run up against was people wanting to relocate from other cities that did not look at Overland Park because of the chicken ordinance. Mr. Lance asked if Ms. Provence was raising chickens to sell eggs. Ms. Provence disagreed and stated that it was only for her personal gain. Vice Chair Flanagan asked where the chickens roost. Ms. Provence stated that a hen house was provided for them, which is similar to a rabbit hutch structure. This structure provides an area that allows the chickens to get onto the ground, nesting boxes, roosting, and is adequate for up to six chickens. Vice Chair Flanagan asked if Ms. Provence belonged to a homes association, because his understanding was that many homes associations would not allow this activity. Ms. Provence disagreed. Vice Chair Flanagan opened the public hearing. Upon receiving no comments, he closed the hearing. Mr. Troester asked if there was a time limit on the request. Mr. Dubois stated there was a one-year time limit. Mr. Troester favored approving the request to stay consistent with what they have done in the past. Mr. George Lund did not feel any real objections had been presented against the request and the fact that keeping four chickens was not a high number. He did not oppose the request as long as it does not increase to more than four chickens.

6 Page 6 Mr. Hill concurred with the commissioners who expressed support for the request. He also agreed with Mr. Lance s research regarding what other cities have been doing on this issue He also agreed with staff s report that includes a recommendation that this is a neighborhood issue and felt the absence of people present to speak against the application was not strong disagreement in the neighborhood. Mr. John Brake was concerned with this type of request for all residents in the City. He would not like to live next door to this type of activity, and could not support action that would open the way for this happen next door to any home in the City. He felt residents who bought their homes in the City bought them for the setting it provided, and they might not expect to see chickens possibly living nearby. He also felt this issue may affect those who are buying a home in the City, who might not want to be near chicken raising activity. He felt they should try to maintain the integrity of their neighborhoods and manage and protect the compatibility of the usages in the neighborhoods. He did not favor the request. Mr. Reitzes supported the request. He understood this type of request may affect potential homebuyers. However, he also felt the view of someone wanting to pursue this particular action for their benefit as part of their personal goals should be promoted. If the opposition from the neighborhood does not appear to be vocal or strong enough for people to object to such activity, he felt that would favor the applicant. Mr. Gadd agreed with Mr. Brake and also felt if this application is approved, every home within the City would be allowed the same right. He felt an approval of this application would make it difficult to determine where to draw the line with requests for other farm animals. He felt this type of request could eventually turn their city into a farm community. Mr. Hill pointed out that the request was only for a one-year period of time. If other requests come in for other farm animals, the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to further define what is allowed. Vice Chair Flanagan felt the UDO was very clear how the City will not consider hens to be pets, because they are farm animals. He stated he was raised around a lot of chickens and never viewed them as pets. Chickens are used for eggs, and also pointed out a precedent could be set by allowing this request, which could cause more similar types of requests to come through. They would also run the risk of determining what animals are pets and what animals are farm animals. He did not support the request. If the request was to take place on acreage on the edge of town, he could support it. However, he was also concerned about the lack of opposition. Mr. Hill moved to recommend approval to the Council of Special Use Permit No , located at 7725 Lowell, for a one-year period of time, including stipulation a. Mr. Troester seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5 to 4. Those voting in opposition were Vice Chair Flanagan, Mr. Brake, Mr. Gadd and Mr. Lance.

7 Page 7 SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO West 117th Terrace. Special use permit requested for a one-year period of time to allow chickens. This property is currently zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District. Application made by Natalie Nitz. (Withdrawn) Vice Chair Flanagan announced that the applicant had withdrawn Special Use Permit No SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO Bond. Special use permit requested for a ten-year period of time to allow renewal of a driver s education school. This property is currently zoned M-1, Industrial Park District. Application made by Twin City Driver Education. Mr. Dubois presented Special Use Permit No , located at 9290 Bond. This is a request for a ten-year period of time to allow the renewal of a driver s education school. The property is currently zoned M-1, Industrial Park District. The property is part of the Congleton Industrial Park located at the northwest corner of Bond and 93rd Street. The applicant is Twin City Driver Education, who rents a tenant space in a two-story building. They conduct inside activities during the regular business days and hours and hold driving classes on Sunday mornings and weekday evenings. They have eight leased parking spaces for fleet vehicles for behind-the-wheel training. The applicant has indicated that they currently have four vehicles in the fleet. This is the fourth renewal of a special use permit at this location. The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) limits the duration of commercial uses in industrial districts to two years. The applicant is seeking a timeframe of ten years due to a financial hardship of renewing the permit every two years. The Planning Commission and City Council may grant a time longer than what the ordinance allows if they feel a hardship has been met by the applicant. The applicant has provided a written response to that requirement. Staff reviewed the response, but does not see a financial hardship as a compelling argument to recommend a timeframe longer than what the ordinance allows. Staff recommended approval of Special Use Permit No for a period of two years with no stipulations. Mr. Jack West, Twin City Driver Education, 9290 Bond, appeared as the applicant, stating this was the fifth time they have come before the Planning Commission for renewal of their special use permit. He noted that they are a small business, and the cost of the renewal process is about $500, which also requires several days to carry out the activities that are required to meet the signage, postal mailings and that kind of thing. He questioned whether there were any specific reasons or concerns of the Planning Commission to not support a ten-year duration for the special use permit. Vice Chair Flanagan stated that the time period set for this type of special use permit is set by City ordinance and regulations. He had discussed with staff the possibility of providing a longer time period, since other special use permits seemed to have longer renewal time periods. He explained that staff will be looking into this issue, but it will not have any effect on today s renewal. He agreed with the longer renewal time period, but the UDO is specific on the types of activities that require a special use permit and the accompanying time periods.

8 Page 8 Senior Assistant City Attorney Steve Horner clarified that the way the UDO applies to this particular issue is that it cannot exceed two years even when a renewal is involved. If the Planning Commission would like to revisit this idea, that is a consideration they can make for the future and it could go before the Ordinance Review Committee to be revised. However, two years is the maximum time period that can be approved for this type of special use permit. Vice Chair Flanagan agreed with Mr. Horner s comments, and recommended the Ordinance Review Committee review this particular item to come up with a way to extend the renewal period of time. He felt there were instances where a two-year renewal time period is needed. However, he felt this was a proven case and that there was no reason why a longer time period should not be given to this renewal. He also felt there were other similar instances the Ordinance Review Committee could review at the same time. His hope for the applicant is that when he comes back for renewal in two years, that he may receive a longer renewal time period after this issue has been discussed and reviewed. Mr. West agreed with the renewal process to be reviewed. He noted that his original concern was that staff might have had a misunderstanding as to what they did on their site. Vice Chair Flanagan understood what was involved with the applicant s business, and that it was only a matter of following the UDO for this type of business. The City is bound to follow those regulations set out at this time. Mr. Lance understood the applicant s situation and encouraged the Ordinance Review Committee to review this particular situation and possibly grant a three to four-year renewal to an applicant who has satisfactory components of their project they have proven through the first renewal. He felt they could possibly grant a longer renewal if the applicant maintains everything correctly. He felt this process should be made to be more progressive, but that the City would always have control of the situation. He felt this type of change would create a benefit for this proposed business. He had driven by this business and did not see any negative impacts to the City, neighborhood or traffic. Ms. Terri West, co-owner of Twin City Driver Education, 9290 Bond, applicant, noted that they offer driver education classes on Saturday mornings and Monday evenings unless they are working through the summer time where additional classes are offered. She also noted that in 2012, they will have used their space 76 times for students to come to their building. Vice Chair Flanagan opened the public hearing. With no comments being made, he closed the hearing. Mr. Hill pointed out that this was the fourth renewal for this particular company, and suggested that the Ordinance Review Committee possibly add some criteria that would make this situation unique or exceptional when they review this issue. After a certain number of times, the renewal is granted on a two-year approval. They could possibly create eligibility for a longer renewal time period opposed to some unintended consequences of doing some other action by opening this opportunity up to anybody. Vice Chair Flanagan asked if the Ordinance Review Committee members had received sufficient direction to follow up on this issue. The Ordinance Review Committee, Mr. Steve Horner, Mrs. Leslie Karr and Mr. Edward Reitzes agreed.

9 Page 9 Mr. Troester moved to recommend to the Council approval of Special Use Permit No , located at 9290 Bond, for a two-year period of time. Mrs. Sorensen seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 9 to 0. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO West 175th Street. Special use permit requested for a five-year period of time to allow a dog kennel. This property is currently zoned RLD-J, Residential Low-Density District, Johnson County. Application made by Ken and Lisa Baechtold. Mr. Dubois presented Special Use Permit No , located at West 175th Street. He explained that this was a request for a five-year period of time to allow a dog kennel and training facility. The property is currently zoned RLD-J, Residential Low Density District Johnson County. Mr. Ken and Lisa Baechtold are the applicants for this request. The property is located west of Pflumm on 175th Street, and the property across from 175th Street is unincorporated Johnson County zoned RURJ, Rural District Johnson County. The property to the east is undeveloped and zoned for CP-2, Planned General Business District, and property to the west is owned by Church of the Harvest and zoned for RUR-J development as well. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for future commercial development. The property around the applicant s property is mostly vacant, with a church located northwest of the site approximately 1,000 feet. The nearest single-family home is also approximately 1,000 feet away to the northeast. The accompanied plan does not specifically discuss the appropriate location for dog kennels and training facilities; however, the UDO requires the applicant to acquire a special use permit for this use. The request is for five years, and the applicants are proposing to reside inside the home and conduct their training and kenneling operation in the home. The applicant would like to keep no more than 24 dogs in the home at any given time. The dogs are dropped off by the owners and stay for approximately three weeks as they complete the necessary training. The applicant has submitted a business model showing the internal and external usages of the home. The dogs will be kept in the basement of home and will be monitored via video cameras when they are in the kennel. Additionally, there will be training and play areas located throughout the home. The site plan that has been submitted shows how the applicants plan to use the outdoor areas, which include play areas for off-leash training and exercise areas. Additionally, there is an outbuilding located to the west of their home, which they would like to possibly use in the future as a group training space for dogs and their owners. The applicant has indicated that their kennel will follow all state regulations for waste cleanup and disposal. In addition, the kennel will be inspected by national and local kennel clubs. The applicant has been in touch with the City s Health Department and Animal Control to ensure everything is in order by their requirements. No signage is to be located on the site. When staff reviewed this request, two concerns were raised in regard to barking noise and waste cleanup and disposal. The applicant has submitted responses to these concerns and included them in staff s report. Staff is comfortable with the applicant s proposal for those issues. Mr. Dubois presented pictures of the internal portions of the house, the external backyard where some of the training will occur, the basement where the kennel is

10 Page 10 located, and some other areas of the property. Staff recommended approval of Special Use Permit No for a five-year period of time, subject to stipulations a through k. Staff is also requesting an addition to stipulation h, which refers to a section that talks about the kennel being operated in compliance with the State of Kansas, and adding the City of Overland Park between Kansas and Laws. This will show that they will follow all state and local laws. Mr. Ken Baechtold, 9218 Metcalf, No. 302, appeared as the applicant noting his property for the kennel was unique, with 4.2 acres that will provide plenty of room for a good number of dogs. All the adjacent property is currently vacant and zoned for a church and for commercial use in the Master Plan in the future. He explained that their plan is to train service dogs for the handicapped, therapy dogs, basic mannered dogs and behavior modification. When the dogs come to their property, they will be coming in for training. He pointed out that the facility would not be used for a doggy day care and they will not be dropped off frequently in the morning and evenings. The dogs will come to them to receive manners, become a good member of society and contribute to the community. Vice Chair Flanagan asked if the applicant was in agreement with the five-year period of time and stipulations including the revision added concerning the compliance with the state of Kansas and the City. Mr. Baechtold agreed. Mr. Gadd asked if 24 dogs would be at the facility at one time. Mr. Baechtold stated a maximum of 24 dogs could be at the facility at one time. He pointed out that since they train service dogs for the handicapped, they may train six dogs in a group for a three-week period, and then select six more dogs for the next three weeks. Little groups of six dogs are generally what is done, and would not generally include 24 dogs at one time, but could go up to that number. Mr. Gadd questioned the handling of that number of dogs at once. Mr. Baechtold stated that dogs are good social pack animals. If they are provided with a good structure and leadership, it is easy to control that number of dogs. Vice Chair Flanagan opened the public hearing. Ms. Thelma Dreyer, 4601 West 83rd Street, Prairie Village, stated she had bought their dog as a puppy at two months old and took her to the Baechtolds where she stayed for two months. She noted that her dog is now so well behaved that she can take her anywhere with anyone, and her dog does not jump on them or beg for food, nor bother anything she is not supposed to. She highly recommended using the Baechtolds for dog training and felt they were very responsible, reliable, kind, caring and loving people. She also noted that the Baechtolds would come to someone s home to help with the dog, as well as, with the ability to bring the animal back to them any time. She felt the Baechtold s business was a wonderful addition to the community. Mr. Gene Dreyer, 4601 West 83rd Street, stated when he had contacted the Baechtolds for advice in selecting a dog, and the Baechtolds recommended a Labradoodle, which was delivered to the Baechtolds who then trained the dog. He noted that he had become friends, as well as business friends as they have fulfilled everything they promised. He felt the Baechtold s business would make a great addition to the community.

11 Page 11 Mrs. Dreyer added that when they went to visit their dog at the Baechtold s kennel, their property and home appeared to be very clean. When they drove up in front of the property, the dogs already located on the facility did not produce any audible sound. Ms. Nancy Campbell, 1634 West 51st Street, Kansas City, Missouri, president of Missouri German Shepherd Rescue, stated over the years she has worked with a number of training groups and individual trainers. Their organization is always searching for individuals they think are extremely competent and able to assist in making dogs into great pets, as well as service and assistance dogs. She noted her organization was very experienced with German Shepherds, and she had learned a tremendous amount from the Baechtolds. They have gotten to the point where they are their preferred provider or trainer of choice. Whenever their organization adopts out a dog, they go through a very extensive matching process and very strongly recommend the Baechtold s to all of their adopters to understand the leadership issues, responsibility of owning a German Shepherd, being great K-9 citizens and leaders, and to make sure their dog is what they call the best behaved dog on the block. She felt the Baechtolds were exceptionally talented in their work with having over 50 years experience and an incredible background with animals. She felt their operation was the most professional she has seen. They are extremely respectful of their neighbors, the groups and people they work with, and always aware of the impact of anything they do and how it may affect the community. Ms. Kathryn Chapman, Kansas City, Missouri, stated that she had a service dog the Baechtolds selected and trained for her. She explained that her husband of ten years passed away last year, who was a paraplegic for the last 25 years and had a stroke in 2005, which contributed to his health deterioration. She felt her situation had gotten to a point where she did not want to leave her husband alone in the house if he was in his wheelchair, because when he tried to pick up items on his own, it would cause him to fall out of his chair. She had tried to find a service dog. Although there are many wonderful organizations to help find service dogs, it can take up to three years for a service dog to be assigned and a tedious process is involved. They did not have that kind of time to wait and needed immediate help. She also noted that her husband enjoyed and grew up with German Shepherds. She pointed out that there was no one other than the Baechtolds who would take on the challenge of finding a dog with the right temperament and intelligence to act as a service dog for them. She introduced her service dog, Dakota. Ms. Chapman further explained that she was losing her hearing, which allows her to use Dakota as her service dog. If she drops something in a crowed area, she may not be aware of that and her service dog is there to pick the item up for her. Her service dog is very intelligent and well behaved. She also noted that her service dog came from a German Shepherd rescue, because he had been abandoned. She felt the Baechtolds turned her dog into the most polite, wonderful addition to her family. With no further comment, Vice Chair Flanagan closed the public hearing. Mr. Troester moved to recommend to the Council approval of Special Use Permit No , West 175th Street, including stipulations a through k, with a revised stipulation h. Mr. Hill seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 9 to 0.

12 Page 12 SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO Antioch. Special use permit requested for a five-year period of time to allow renewal of a drinking establishment at Ruchi Indian Cuisine restaurant. This property is currently zoned CP-1, Planned Restricted Business District. Application made by Niranjan Reddy Seelam. Mr. Dubois presented Special Use Permit No , located at Antioch. This is a request for a five-year period of time to allow a drinking establishment for Ruchi Indian Cuisine restaurant. The property is currently zoned CP-1, Planned Restricted Business District. The tenant space is located in the Shannon Valley Shopping Center at the southwest corner of College and Antioch. He noted this was the sixth request for a special use permit at this location. The restaurant has been at this location since The Overland Park Police Department provided a letter to staff indicating their support of a special use permit at this location. The Shannon Valley Residential District is located to the west within 200 feet; therefore, triggering the need for a special use permit. Staff recommended approval of Special Use Permit No for a five-year period of time with no stipulations. Mr. Niranjan Reddy Seelam, Antioch, appeared as the applicant for the special use permit request. Vice Chair Flanagan asked if the applicant was aware the special use permit renewal was for a five-year period of time. Mr. Seelam agreed. Vice Chair Flanagan opened the public hearing. Upon receiving no comments, he closed the hearing. Mr. Reitzes moved to recommend approval to the Council of Special Use Permit No , located at Antioch for a five-year period of time. Mr. Lund seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 9 to 0. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL Starbucks West 75th Street. Application made by Davidson Architecture and Engineering, L.L.C. (Continued) Mrs. Sorensen moved to continue the revised preliminary plan approval for Starbucks, located at West 75th Street, to the January 14, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Lund seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 9 to 0. PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL Summerwood Estates Vicinity of the southwest corner of 159th Street and Quivira. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. Mr. Gooch presented the preliminary plan approval for Summerwood Estates, located at the southwest corner of 159th Street and Quivira. The applicant is requesting this revised preliminary plan to allow for a revised subdivision layout. The property is zoned RP-OS, Planned Open Space Residential District. He presented a vicinity map that shows the entire Summerwood Estates property. In 2010, a preliminary plan was approved for Summerwood Estates to allow for 201 lots on 152 acres for a density of

13 Page units per gross acre. The applicant is now proposing to increase the number of lots to 214 units for a density of 1.41 units per gross acre. The street layout is similar to the 2010 plan, and all the connections to 159th Street and to Quivira are similar. He presented the 2010 approved plan and the original submittal. The grey shaded lots represent the new lots. The southwest corner of Summerwood Estates has changed based on conversations between the applicant and the Polo Fields developer. The next drawing showed the same four lots that have been moved about 30 feet to the north, so there is a buffer between the existing lots and Polo Fields, and four new lots. Additional trails will be provided in Summerwood Estates once the four new lots are connected. They have agreed to additional things to be installed between the developments, which is a private matter between those two developers. About 40 percent of the total gross land area will remain open. Staff recommended approval of the revised preliminary plan for Summerwood Estates including stipulations a through t, and revised stipulation r. Engineering Services staff agreed to the changes in stipulation r, and stipulation t was added, which concerned the Affidavit of Interest recommended by the Johnson County Airport Commission on plans that are close to the County airport. Mr. Lance asked if the four new lots will be part of the homes association of the balance of the development. Mr. Gooch stated those lots are part of Summerwood Estates. Mr. Hill asked if they were going from 201 to 214 units, causing an increase of 13 units per acre. Mr. Gooch stated there was an increase of 13 lots. Mr. Harold Phelps, Phelps Engineering, 1270 North Winchester, appeared on behalf of the property owners and 159th Street Associates. The property began developing prior to the meltdown of the housing market in 2007/2008, and this will be the third property ownership. He noted that they had developed an additional phase and started a significant number of houses. This is one of the top builders in the Kansas City area. They have had success not only in Summerwood Estates, but in Wilshire Farms, Wingate and a strong commitment was made to the 159th Street Corridor. This development has contributed to a big reason why that area has continued to develop as it has and to its success. He noted there were 13 lots in development, and they have attempted to work with the adjacent property owners, specifically on the cul-de-sac to the south. Those lots were originally on the property line, but they have been moved north 30 feet to create a buffer of a hedge row. In addition, they enlarged those lots to be more compatible with Polo Fields to the south. The lots are all in excess of 20,000 square feet of lot area. All regulations have been met as set forth in the RP-OS Planned Open Space Residential District subdivision. He offered to answer questions about the project. Vice Chair Flanagan asked if the applicant was in agreement with stipulations a through t, including revised stipulation r and additional stipulation t. Mr. Phelps agreed. Vice Chair Flanagan opened the public hearing. Mr. Bryan Black, West 164th Street, stated he moved to Overland Park four years ago from Arizona and chose the City for numerous reasons. He understood what was going into the site had changed several times, but he was concerned since this was the third revision. His primary concern was with the density. He understood

14 Page 14 the City was a first class city, and part of that includes the availability of open space, home values, schools and everything else that goes along with that. He asked if there would be any compromise on the 13 lots that would be developed. Vice Chair Flanagan asked Mr. Black to point his property out on the vicinity map. Mr. Black indicated his lot was Lot No. 28 in Polo Fields. If the addition gets added, the traffic would cause him great concern. Mr. Rex Martin, West 164th Street, stated his property backs up directly to the development in Summerwood. He opposed the development, including all the revisions. When he purchased his home, he based that decision on one house per acre, but now it is 1.4 units per acre, which can cause too much traffic through the area. He did not feel it was fair to buy property and later find out many different revisions were being made to the nearby development. Vice Chair Flanagan asked if Mr. Martin lived in close proximity to Mr. Black in Polo Fields. Mr. Martin agreed. Ms. Rosie Dearmore, South Earnshaw, Polo Fields, indicated her home on the map, which was near where the three homes are being proposed. She noted the three homes being added behind her home is something she did not want to see happen. She pointed out that the design of the cul-de-sac was unusually set up, which will be assumed to be a part of Polo Fields, causing more people to use the Polo Fields entrance into the neighborhood. These homes are not adjoined to Summerwood Estates. If those were lower priced houses, she felt it would hurt the value of the homes in Polo Fields. Staff felt the four houses in the proposed cul-de-sac were troublesome. With no further comments, Vice Chair Flanagan closed the hearing. Vice Chair Flanagan referred to the four new lots and asked if those lots were bigger than the remaining lots in Summerwood Estates. Mr. Phelps stated those lots are bigger than some of the lots immediately to the south, but not as large as the lots immediately to the south on the west side. The new lots are actually larger than most of Polo Fields lots. They have made provisions to meet architectural standards of the Polo Fields development, which includes public access through Polo Fields. However, there will be pedestrian access that will go up into Summerwood Estates. For the most part, when they get inside the subdivisions, they do not know when they leave one subdivision and enter another. They would only know that information when they are on arterial streets, because there are entry monuments. The four new lots will be compatible with Polo Fields, and they are in complete compliance with all regulations and requirements of the RP-OS zoning district. Mr. Lance asked what the approximate size of the four new lots would be opposed to a normal size lot located in the back portion of the development. Mr. Phelps stated that the size of the new homes will be 3,500 to 4,000 square feet, and the lots are more in the 3,500 square foot range. Mr. Troester asked about the average acreage for lot sizes in Polo Fields versus Summerwood Estates. Mr. Phelps stated he did not have an average lot size; however, when they were trying to address some of the issues of the neighbors, they specifically looked at those four lots. The lots that back up in this area were in the 16,000 to

15 Page 15 18,000 square foot range. They wanted to ensure all of their lots exceed 20,000 square feet in that cul-de-sac. Mr. Troester asked if the Summerwood Estates average lot size was 20,000 square feet or above. Mr. Phelps stated the Summerwood Estates average lot size is in the 14,000 to 16,000 square foot range. Mr. Gadd asked if the four new lots would be part of Polo Fields, but still part of Summerwood Estates homes association. Mr. Phelps agreed. Mr. Gadd asked if that might cause some conflicts of some sort. Mr. Phelps did not feel any conflicts would occur and noted the connection off the arterial road is through Polo Fields. There is a connection to the north within Summerwood Estates, and the streets are all connected inside. From the standpoint of paying homes association dues, he felt there was an amenity package to be used. That information would be known, and no conflict would exist between homes associations. Mr. Troester understood the open space would remain 40 percent open, which is in compliance with the zoning, and the architectural standards will be upheld. He agreed with staff s recommendation to approve this request. Mrs. Sorensen also agreed with staff s recommendation for the proposal. Mrs. Sorensen moved to recommend approval to the Council of the preliminary plan approval for Summerwood Estates, including stipulations a through t, revised stipulation r and additional stipulation t. Mr. Reitzes seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 9 to 0. Vice Chair Flanagan announced that the next four items would be presented as one item, but each plan voted on separately. Mrs. Sorensen recused herself from consideration of Item 9 through Item 12, as her firm is involved in the Prairiefire Museum and Wetland development. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Buildings 21 and 22 at Prairiefire Vicinity of the southwest corner of 135th Street and Nall. Application made by Merrill Companies., L.L.C. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Building 23 at Prairiefire Vicinity of the southwest corner of 135th Street and Nall. Application made by Merrill Companies, L.L.C. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Building 3 at Prairiefire Vicinity of the southwest corner of 135th Street and Lamar. Application made by Merrill Companies, L.L.C.

16 Page 16 FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Building 26 at Prairiefire Vicinity of the southwest corner of 135th Street and Nall. Application made by Merrill Companies, L.L.C. Ms. Zeigler presented four final development plans for four new buildings in the Prairiefire mixed use development located at the southwest corner of 135th Street and Nall. Typically, final development plans are listed on the Planning Commission Consent Agenda; however, all four of these plans require deviations from the design standards for the amount of glazing and masonry that are on the buildings. Ms. Zeigler referred to the site plan, stating Buildings 21, 22, 23, and 26 are located in what is being called the Cultural District at the southwest corner of 135th Street and Nall. On the edge of the site plan is the museum, and to the south is the Hearthview at Prairiefire Apartments at Nall and 135th Street. Building 21 and 22 have two numbers because they have merged into what was considered two buildings on their overall plan into one building. Building 23 is a two-story building at this location, and Building 26 is the combination parking structure and retail building, with a six level parking structure. The shaded area is one level of retail. Since the revised preliminary plan was approved by the City Council in April, square footage has been reallocated throughout the development, and an updated table was provided in the staff report. In regard to the site plan, staff has a few stipulations to include with the final development plans, one being that the sidewalk be added on the east side of the driveway. The revised preliminary plan had shown sidewalks on the both sides of this drive, and the sidewalk connection needed to be added. Staff has also stipulated that the minimum sidewalk clearance along the private drive through the Cultural District have a minimum six-foot sidewalk clearance. There are some planter areas in the sidewalk where trees are located. At a couple of locations there are some offsets in the building, there must be a minimum six-foot clearance. The Planning Commission previously approved the REI and Fresh Market final development plans that are located at 135th Street and Lamar. Due to existing gas line easements along 135th Street and Nall, the applicant is not able to provide all the required street trees in those locations. So they have provided a street tree plan that provides the overall number of street trees throughout the development even though they are not along 135th Street and Nall frontages. Additional trees have been provided along Lamar. Nearly double the number of required trees have been provided along 137th Street, and some of the street trees have been grouped at the north and south ends of the wetlands. Ms. Zeigler referred to the architecture for Buildings 21 and 22, stating this has been designed to house three tenants that are potentially all restaurants. There is a mix of limestone, brick, metal, and fabric awnings used. The top elevation is the south facing elevation, which is facing toward the parking garage and the private drive through the Cultural District. She also provided a picture of the elevation that can be seen along 135th Street. The elevation on the east faces Building 23, and there is a narrow service corridor, but visibility of this side of the building. The west end of the building faces the private drive into the development and provides the patio for that restaurant. She provided a closer view of the south elevation, which shows the patio located on the end of the building, services areas, and other patios for the other restaurants that