Shawnee Planning Commission
May 17, 1999
MINUTES
The Shawnee Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Bob Mazza, Chairman,
at 7:30 p.m. Present at the meeting were: Commissioners Bedora, Boettcher, Duckworth,
Gentry, Jenkins, Mazza, O'Connor, Sawyer and Sheridan. Absent was: Commissioner
Land. Also present were Paul Chaffee, Director of Planning; and Madeline Chaney,
Associate Planner.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Item No. 1
Consider May 3, 1999, Planning Commission Minutes.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Commissioner Sheridan, seconded by Commissioner Bedora, moved that the May 3,
1999, Planning Commission Minutes be approved as written. Motion was carried 7-0-2,
with Commissioners Boettcher and Duckworth abstaining.
CONSENT ITEM ( # 2 )
Items listed under the Consent Items have been distributed to each member of the
Planning Commission for review and study. The items conform to City requirements
and staff has discussed conditions of approval with the applicant who is in agreement.
These items are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion of the
Commission with no separate discussion. If separate discussion is requested on an item,
from either the Planning Commission or from the public, that item may be removed
from the Consent Items and discussed immediately following the Consent Items.
Chairman Mazza explained the "Consent Item" format as described above, then asked if
there was a request for additional discussion on a consent item. There was no request
from the public or the Commission, so the Chairman asked for a motion.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Noting there were no other comments and no deletions, Commissioner Bedora, seconded
by Commissioner Jenkins, moved that Consent Item 2 be approved subject to staff
recommendations. Motion was carried unanimously 9-0.
Shawnee Planning Commission
-2-
May 17, 1999
Item No. 2
SP-24-99-5: consider request for site plan approval for a manufacturing facility at 8309 Cole
Parkway. Request submitted by George Butler Associates for EVERSEAL GASKET, INC.
EXPLANATION OF ITEM
This was a consent item.
The applicant requests site plan approval for construction of a new manufacturing facility
at 8309 Cole Parkway, in Perimeter Park. The application is filed by George Butler
Associates for Everseal Gasket.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of SP-24-99-5, site plan for Everseal Gasket, at 8309 Cole
Parkway, subject to the following conditions:
1.
The site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plan;
2.
Submittal of a full site plan will be required prior to issuance of a building permit
for the proposed addition;
3.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit two corrected
copies of the site plan to the Planning Department, and copies submitted for a
building permit shall include the following:

Dimensions of the driveways and curb return radii;

Standard Detail 21-10 of the Shawnee Manual of Technical Specifications and
Design Criteria;

Re-labeling the southern driveway to clarify that it is intended to be a
permanent entry;

Building elevations shall be modified to note gray, rather than green tinted
glass, in accordance with information supplied by the applicant;

Typical details of the parking lot, loading area and parking lot curbing,
demonstrating compliance with the Shawnee Manual of Technical
Specifications and Design Criteria; and

The summary parking calculation shall reflect the actual number of spaces, 87,
rather than 86 as shown on submitted plans;
Shawnee Planning Commission
4.
-3-
May 17, 1999
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit two corrected
copies of the landscaping plan to the Planning Department, and copies submitted
for a building permit shall show the following:

Dwarf species shall be specified by height (6– 8 feet at planting) rather than
caliper;

The proposed ground-mounted HVAC units and proposed landscape screening
around them;
5.
Proposed driveway entrances shall be designed and constructed in accordance
with Standard Detail 21-10 of the Shawnee Manual of Technical Specifications
and Design Criteria;
6.
The parking lot, loading area and proposed driveway entrance shall be designed
and built in accordance with the Shawnee Manual of Technical Specifications and
Design Criteria, and shall be constructed prior to issuance of an occupancy
permit;
7.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit four revised sets of
grading and stormwater drainage plans to the Engineering Division showing the
modifications noted in the staff report;
8.
Drainage improvements within a public right-of-way or easement shall conform
with the City's Manual of Technical Specifications and Design Criteria. Prior to
obtaining a building permit or commencing any construction, the applicant shall
obtain a Public Improvement Permit (Form C);
9.
Fire hydrant locations shall be subject to the approval of the Fire Chief, and
installed prior to issuance of a building permit;
10.
All utilities are required to be placed underground;
11.
Erosion control measures, as specified in the staff report, shall be undertaken and
shall be indicated on the grading plans, to be approved by the Engineering
Division. Erosion control measures shall be in place during all construction;
12.
Open space fees in the amount of $ 4,268.93 shall be paid prior to issuance of a
building permit; and
13.
The site plan is subject to City Council review until 5:00 p.m. Thursday, May 20,
1999.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
1.
The applicant requests site plan approval for construction of a 55,000 square foot
manufacturing facility at 8309 Cole Parkway, in Perimeter Park.
Shawnee Planning Commission
-4-
May 17, 1999
2.
The subject property is zoned PI (Planned Industrial), and is adjoined on the
south, east, and west by undeveloped industrial lots in the developing Perimeter
Park industrial park. The subject property is a corner lot, with frontage on both
83rd Street and Cole Parkway; property to the north, across 83rd Street, is also
zoned PI and developed with industrial buildings in the Cole Industrial Park. The
subject tract is a 5.44-acre lot platted as Lot 13, Perimeter Park, Seventh Plat,
which was approved by the Planning Commission on April 5, and accepted by the
City Council on April 26, 1999.
3.
The proposed industrial use is in conformance with the Land Use Guide of the
Comprehensive Plan, which anticipates development of warehouse/light industrial
uses on the subject tract.
4.
All bulk requirements have been satisfied. The proposed building is set back 115
feet from the 83rd Street right-of-way, and over 120 feet from the Cole Parkway
right-of-way, exceeding the 50 foot setback requirement in the PI district. Side
and rear building setbacks also meet code requirements.
A future 15,500 square foot addition is shown on the north side of the building.
The addition is shown to conform with the 50 foot setback requirement on the
north frontage; submittal of a full site plan will be required prior to issuance of a
building permit for the proposed addition.
5.
The proposed building, like the other buildings in Perimeter Park, would have an
exterior finish primarily of precast concrete. The precast panels would be tinted a
“buff” color, and would have a sandblasted finish, which would lightly expose
some of the aggregate in the panels. Openings would be provided at 12 feet
above-grade at various intervals on all sides of the warehouse area, and would
have a treatment of glass block.
The office area, which would be located at the northwest corner of the building
facing the street intersection, would be accentuated with a frontispiece that would
incorporate a curved exterior wall on the west. Flat cantons would project from
the west wall; an angled roofline, and an exterior treatment of maroon (Maroon #2
Velour by Yankee Hill) face brick and darker tan precast panels, would further
accentuate the office exterior. Insulated “solargray” tinted glass windows, in
“champagne” (light) colored aluminum frames, would be provided on the north
and west sides of the office area. (Plan elevations note the color of the windows
as green. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the plan elevations shall be
modified to incorporate the note that the glass will be gray, in accordance with the
information provided by the applicant.) A small smoking area with an exterior
treatment similar to the office will be located at the southwest corner of the
building.
6.
Access to the property would be provided from two drives from Cole Parkway.
One would be located on the north part of the west frontage and would access the
Shawnee Planning Commission
-5-
May 17, 1999
customer parking area, and one would be located near the southwest corner of the
tract, and would provide access to a second parking lot and the loading area.
Parking and circulation areas are set back 20 feet from the Cole Parkway right-ofway, in accordance with parking setback requirements in the PI district.
The driveway approach widths and the curb return radii appear to meet City
requirements, but dimensions are not included on submitted plans. In addition,
the site plan includes a label on the southern entrance which identifies it as a
construction entrance, and is unclear that a permanent entrance will also be
constructed at this location. The proposed driveway entrances shall be designed
and constructed in accordance with Standard Detail 21-10 of the Shawnee Manual
of Technical Specifications and Design Criteria. A typical detail of the
approaches, and dimensions for the approach widths and the curb return radii, are
not shown.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit two corrected
copies to the Planning Department, and copies submitted for a building permit
shall include dimensions of the driveways and curb return radii, Standard Detail
21-10 of the Shawnee Manual of Technical Specifications and Design Criteria,
and re-labeling the southern driveway to clarify that it is intended to be a
permanent entry.
The applicant will need to obtain a Public Improvement Permit (Form C) for work
within the right-of-way prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Plans submitted for a building permit shall also include typical details of the
parking lot, loading area and parking lot curbing, demonstrating compliance with
the Shawnee Manual of Technical Specifications and Design Criteria. Proposed
parking, drives, and loading areas shall be constructed prior to issuance of an
occupancy permit.
7.
Eighty-seven (87) parking stalls, plus four handicapped accessible spaces, are
being provided, slightly exceeding the requirements for the proposed warehousing
and offices. Staff would point out that the parking summary included on the site
plan sheet is incorrect, showing a total of 86, rather than the 87 spaces actually
shown on the plan. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall
submit two corrected copies to the Planning Department, and copies submitted for
a building permit shall reflect the actual number of spaces, 87.
Frontage landscaping has been provided throughout Perimeter Park with Bradford
Pears, which will remain in place. Additional Bradford Pears will be planted
along Cole Parkway to meet the requirement for frontage trees. Additional open
space trees are shown on the landscaping plan in accordance with City
requirements. A combination of Sunset Maples, Autumn Purple Ash, Sweetgum,
and Eastern Redbuds, will be used as open space and parking lot trees. White and
Austrian Pines, and Norway Spruce, will be clustered around the loading area, to
provide screening of the loading area from the street. A variety of foundation
Shawnee Planning Commission
-6-
May 17, 1999
plantings and dwarf species, with River Birch and Clump River Birch, will be
used near the northwest corner of the building to accentuate the office area.
Staff would point out that the landscape plan includes an incorrect notation
regarding the size of proposed dwarf tree species. Rather than 1½- inch caliper,
dwarf species are required to be 6-8 feet in height at planting. Prior to the
issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit two corrected copies to
the Planning Department, and copies submitted for a building permit shall note
dwarf species by height rather than caliper.
Submitted plans indicate that all disturbed areas in required front, side and rear
yard areas will be sodded in accordance with SMC 17.57.035.
8.
The applicant has indicated that there will be no outdoor trash storage. Should a
dumpster be located on the site at some point in the future, the applicant shall
submit a plan for the proposed trash enclosure prior to its construction. The trash
enclosure shall be constructed of materials to match the building, in conformance
with the City’s Design Standards for Industrial Buildings.
9.
Three HVAC units will be roof-mounted and screened by the roof parapet; three
will be ground-mounted and placed on the east side of the building. The groundmounted units are not shown on the site plan or landscape plan. Prior to the
issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit two corrected copies of
the landscaping plan to the Planning Department, and copies submitted for a
building permit shall show the proposed ground-mounted HVAC units and
proposed landscape screening around them. All utilities are required to be placed
underground, as shown on submitted plans.
10.
The site adjoins 83rd Street, which is designated as a Minor Arterial street in the
Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Road improvements for 83rd
Street and within the industrial park were funded through a development
agreement, in which the owner and developer of this property is participating.
Therefore, the provisions of SMC Chapter 12.26 (Street Excise Tax) do not apply
to the subject tract.
As a minor arterial, 83rd Street is required to have sidewalks on both sides of the
street. As noted in the approval of the final plat for the subject property, the
sidewalk on the adjoining (south) frontage of 83rd Street shall be constructed in
conjunction with the proposed building on this lot.
11.
The site plan includes partial information regarding site grading and stormwater
drainage. The conceptual stormwater drainage system proposed for this development is
generally acceptable; however, Engineering staff will work with the applicant to resolve
some minor design issues. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall
submit a revised grading and stormwater drainage plan which includes the following
items:
Shawnee Planning Commission
-7-
May 17, 1999
a.
A preliminary drainage area map;
b.
The improvement plans for this subdivision indicate that existing drainage
point X50 has a drainage area of 10.1 acres, a time of concentration of 15
minutes, a runoff coefficient of 0.8, and an accumulated runoff of 53.3
c.f.s. Given this information, the applicant is responsible for verifying the
drainage area and time of concentration at drainage point 1 assuming full
development of Lot 14 with a runoff coefficient of 0.8. The downstream
drainage calculations will also need to be revised accordingly;
c.
A runoff coefficient of 0.8 or a composite number is needed for drainage
point 3 assuming full development of Lot 7;
d.
The applicant is responsible for verifying the runoff coefficient used for
the site, which appears too low, given the amount of impervious area
created by this project, including the proposed addition. The applicant is
also responsible for verifying the times of concentration used for the site,
which appears too high given the amount of impervious area proposed for
this project;
e.
The proposed building elevations show roof drains only on the east side.
The locations of these drains need to be shown on the site plan.
Engineering staff recommends that the runoff from these drains be
conveyed by a private storm sewer, even if not required by the 8 c.f.s.
Rule. The applicant should consider and address how runoff from the east
and north sides of the building will be handled after the proposed addition
is completed;
f.
The applicant needs to verify that the runoff from the parking lots will
drain to either point 4 or 7, and not drain out the approaches. The
applicant should also consider moving drainage point 8 west to a corner of
the proposed parking lot. This would allow drainage point 7 to be moved
closer to the north approach (similar to point 4); and
g.
Given that the south storm sewer will be a public improvement, the line
should be kept to the south side of the drive. In particular, drainage point
2 should be made a curb inlet on the south side of the drive. Also, HDPE
is not an accepted material for a public storm sewer.
Drainage improvements within a public right-of-way or easement shall conform with
the City's Manual of Technical Specifications and Design Criteria. Prior to obtaining a
building permit or commencing any construction, the applicant will need to obtain a
Public Improvement Permit (Form C).
12.
Prior to issuance of a grading or footing and foundation permit, the applicant will
be required to submit a revised grading plan to the Engineering Division that
addresses the following items:
Shawnee Planning Commission
-8-
May 17, 1999
a.
Portions of the proposed grades along the south property line exceed slopes
of 3:1. A temporary construction easement will be required to allow grading
on Lots 6 and 7;
b.
The proposed grading on the east side of the building is not correct;
c.
Some conflicting proposed spot elevations are also shown in this area; and
d.
Verify that all proposed contour lines have been correctly identified.
13.
The site is subject to the provisions of SMC Chapter 12.24, which pertains to the
maintenance of on-site stormwater detention facilities. Two detention basins,
which are located just west of Cole Parkway, were platted as part of earlier phases
of Perimeter Park. The detention areas currently function as siltation basins. Prior
to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the subject site, the subdivision
developer will be responsible for completing construction of these two basins.
14.
Erosion control measures are required for all land disturbing activities. Therefore,
a rough grading and siltation control plan is required for this project and must be
included with the site development civil plans submitted for a building permit.

The plan must accurately show existing contours at 2-foot intervals, details
of area drainage and terrain, including identification of areas with gradients
greater than 33 percent. The plan also needs to show finished grades at 2foot intervals, plus typical cross-sections for drainage channels, grading
within public rights-of-way, and depth of fill material below or within 15
feet of a proposed building or structure.

The rough grading and siltation control plan must show the proposed type
and placement of erosion control measures, including phasing of installation.
Also, standard details of any special grading activities and all erosion control
measures and devices must be shown on the plans. The applicant is
responsible for installing the erosion control measures prior to commencing
any grading activities or immediately following the completion of final site
grading as outlined in the installation schedule. The applicant shall maintain
such measures throughout construction until vegetation is established over
the disturbed areas.

Engineering staff may require such additional erosion control measures in
the field, including the construction of temporary construction entrances,
diversion channels and siltation basins, at such locations as may be
necessary to retain eroded material on the site. All disturbed areas must be
covered with sod, or seed and mulch, immediately following the completion
of final site grading. Such measures will be removed once vegetation is
established over the disturbed areas, except those siltation basins that may
Shawnee Planning Commission
-9-
May 17, 1999
be reconstructed per approved plans for use as permanent detention
facilities.
15.
The land disturbed for this project will be more than five acres, therefore, the
applicant is required to apply for an Environmental Protection Agency National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (Construction Activity Form 1)
from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. The applicant is
responsible for submitting a copy of the application to Engineering staff prior to
the issuance of a grading permit and a copy of the permit upon approval by the
State.
16.
Open space fees in the amount of $ 4,268.93, based on the rate of 1.8 cents per
square foot for industrial lots, shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit,
as provided by SMC 12.14.
17.
All fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the Fire Chief and installed prior to
issuance of a building permit.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Item No. 2, SP-24-99-5, site plan of EVERSEAL GASKET, INC., was approved as a Consent Agenda item,
on page one.
REPEAT OF CONSENT AGENDA MOTION:
Noting there were no other comments and no deletions, Commissioner Bedora, seconded by Commissioner
Jenkins, moved that Consent Item 2 be approved subject to staff recommendations. Motion was carried
unanimously 9-0.
NEW BUSINESS
Item No. 3
THE FOLLOWING ITEM TO BE TABLED TO JUNE 7, 1999, MEETING:
Z-6-99-5; PrePlat-29-99-5: consider request to rezone from AG (Agricultural) to R-1
(Single Family Residential) and preliminary plat for HIGHLAND RIDGE ESTATES, a
single family residential subdivision at 51st and Old K-7 Highway. Request submitted by
Payne & Brockway for Tim Hoelting, developer.
EXPLANATION OF ITEM
Planning Director Paul Chaffee explained that the applicant requests rezoning from AG
(Agricultural) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) and preliminary plat approval for
Highland Ridge Estates, a 110-lot single family residential subdivision located at 51st
Street and Old K-7 Highway.
Shawnee Planning Commission
-10-
May 17, 1999
The applicant has requested to table consideration of this item to the June 7, 1999,
Planning Commission meeting. A copy of their letter is attached.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends consideration of Z-6-99-5 and PrePlat 29-99-5, rezoning and
preliminary plat for Highland Ridge Estates, be tabled to the June 7, 1999, meeting at the
applicants request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Commissioner Duckworth, seconded by Commissioner Boettcher, moved that Z-6-99-5
and PrePlat-29-99-5 be tabled to the June 7, 1999, meeting. Motion to table was carried
9-0.
Item No. 4
SP-22-99-5: consider request for site plan approval for a temporary modular classroom
at MARANATHA ACADEMY at 6826 Lackman Road. Request submitted by Larry
Daugherty for Maranatha Academy.
EXPLANATION OF ITEM
Associate Planner Madeline Chaney explained that the applicant requests site plan
approval in order to place a modular classroom/storage building on the Maranatha
Academy school site. The application is filed by Dr. Larry Daugherty for Maranatha
Academy.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
1.
The applicant requests site plan approval for placement of a modular band room
on the western part of the Maranatha Academy site.
2.
The proposed modular building would be located on the western part of the
Maranatha Academy. The subject property is a tract of approximately 30 acres
which is zoned AG (Agricultural) and developed with the existing Full Faith
Church of Love and Maranatha Academy private school. It is adjoined on the
north by undeveloped property, which is zoned CN (Commercial Neighborhood).
Property to the west and east is undeveloped and zoned AG. The area immediately
south is zoned AG and developed with an open air storage area for a pavement
contracting business; the area further south, near the Midland Drive intersection,
is zoned PMR (Planned Mixed Residential) and is being developed with an
apartment complex.
3.
The applicant wishes to use the proposed modular building as a room for band
practice and storage area for band equipment. The building would have
Shawnee Planning Commission
-11-
May 17, 1999
dimensions of 30 feet x 70 feet (2100 square feet), and a slightly pitched roof.
Skirting would be placed below the unit to cover utility extensions. The applicant
has indicated a preference to use a metal exterior; however, the Planning
Commission has required T-111 vertical wood siding on other similar structures
(e.g., Bayer). Because the ground slopes to the west, wood ramps/walkways
would be extended to provide access at entries/exits on the east and the west sides
of the building. T-111 vertical wood siding shall be used as the exterior material
for the proposed modular building.
4.
All bulk requirements have been satisfied. The building would be located west of
(behind) the educational wing of the existing building, and several hundred feet
from perimeter property lines. The building would be located on an unpaved area
located between existing parking lot pavement on the west side of the building.
No additional parking would be needed for the proposed building, which would
be ancillary to the existing school use.
5.
Mechanical equipment for the proposed building is not shown. However, it is
anticipated that none would be visible from adjoining properties or rights-of-way.
6.
Modular buildings may be allowed for a period of up to two years, subject to
Planning Commission approval. The applicant has indicated that they desire to
use the proposed building for approximately three (3) years. However, temporary
structures are allowed only for a period of up to two (2) years. At that time, the
applicant would have the option of requesting a renewal from the Planning
Commission, or removing the structure.
7
The site is subject to the provisions of SMC Chapter 12.24, which pertains to the
maintenance of on-site stormwater detention facilities. The applicant will be
required to pay the detention fee of $ 5,000 per acre of impervious surface created
by the project prior to issuance of footings and foundations. The applicant will be
responsible for providing a figure for the amount of impervious area created to the
Engineering Division.
8.
In accordance with SMC 15.56, a moving permit is required for the proposed
structure. The applicant will need to contact the Codes Department regarding the
requirements for the moving permit. In addition, the applicant will be required to
provide a Certificate of Approval from a certifying agency, and provide
certification from a Professional Engineer regarding the supporting structures for
the proposed modular building. As is typical of all new construction, a registered
architect will need to certify ADA compliance.
9.
The proposed addition is minor in scale, therefore, open space fees are not
applicable.
10.
Applicable alarm and fire suppression requirements shall be approved by the Fire
Chief and installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Shawnee Planning Commission
-12-
May 17, 1999
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of SP-22-99-5, site plan for a proposed temporary classroom
at Maranatha Academy, subject to the following conditions:
1.
The proposed structure may remain in place for a period of up to two (2) years,
until May 17, 2001. The applicant would have the option of requesting a renewal
of the temporary permit at that time;
2.
T-111 vertical wood siding shall be used as the exterior material for the proposed
modular building;
3.
The applicant shall obtain a moving permit and all other applicable permits
required by the Building Code;
4.
The applicant shall pay the applicable detention fee, at the rate of $5,000 per
impervious acre created, in accordance with SMC 12.24. The applicant will be
responsible for providing a figure for the amount of impervious area created to the
Engineering Division;
5.
Applicable alarm and fire suppression requirements shall be approved by the Fire
Chief and installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; and
6.
The site plan is subject to City Council review until 5:00 p.m. Thursday, May 20,
1999.
Mrs. Chaney stated that the applicant has agreed to the T-111 siding.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION
Chairman Mazza thought there was already a modular unit there for a short term and
asked the applicant if there were any other modular units on the property. The applicant
responded that there is a small trailer in the back of the building that they use for P.E.
classes.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
Representing the applicant, Larry Daugherty stated that they needed the temporary
space and agreed to staff’s recommendations.
No one spoke in opposition.
Shawnee Planning Commission
-13-
May 17, 1999
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
There being no further discussion, Commissioner Duckworth, seconded by
Commissioner Sawyer, moved for approval of SP-22-99-5, site plan for Maranatha
Academy, subject to staff recommendations. Motion was carried 9-0.
Item No. 5
SP-23-99-5: consider request for site plan approval for film wave graphic murals at
BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO at 5542 Hedge Lane Terrace. Request submitted by Steve
Harper for Oak Valley, LLC.
EXPLANATION OF ITEM
Planning Director Paul Chaffee explained that the applicant requests approval for
installation of a backlit mural to be attached to the wall at the proposed location of
Blockbuster Video in the Oak Valley Shopping Center located at 5542 Hedge Lane
Terrace. The location of the store is at the northern end of the retail building. Under
current City regulations, the provision of such a mural is classified as a sign, not a canopy
or architectural feature. Therefore, the Planning Commission has no authority to grant
approval of this request, nor does the City Council.
Staff is in the process of preparation of revisions to the sign code which will address this
issue, to consider the placement of a mural directly attached to the building, does not
contain any verbiage, and is part of a nationally adopted architectural theme. Further, the
new regulations would not allow such murals to cover architectural features of the
building. Although the plan presented could not be approved without the revision to the
sign code, the applicant is seeking some sort of direction regarding use of the proposed
mural prior to completing lease negotiations which are currently underway.
The mural proposed has a wave pattern providing depth to the mural. It is proposed to be
placed adjacent to the top of the widows which would require removal of the red metal
canopies currently over these windows. Additionally the mural is proposed to be placed
over the window of the north side of the building. The mural is backlit and is in various
shades of blue. There is no verbiage on the mural, and the design pattern contains movie
reels, cameras, lights, and the perforated edges of eight millimeter film.
The mural covers 16 percent of the wall area of the eastern elevation, and six (6%)
percent of the north elevation.
Given that the proposed location is at the north end of the retail building, staff is more
comfortable with the request rather than if the location has been in the middle of the
shopping center.
Shawnee Planning Commission
-14-
May 17, 1999
RECOMMENDATION
Should the Planning Commission determine that the proposed modification to the Oak
Valley Shopping Center retail building would be appropriate, and to give the applicant
some direction regarding the use of this mural, staff recommends the following
conditions:
1.
The mural may not be installed prior to adoption of revisions to the sign code
which would allow its use; and
2.
In the event of closure of the Blockbuster Video location, the owner of the
shopping center shall reinstall red awnings to match those removed as depicted on
the site plan for Oak Valley Shopping Center.
Mr. Chaffee pointed out the samples of what it would look like.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION
Commissioner O’Connor asked staff to address how this doesn’t qualify as an
architectural feature but is a sign.
Mr. Chaffee responded that signs are anything that is designed to attract attention. A
canopy is fairly specific; it hangs over a sidewalk; may be backlit or not, doesn’t have any
verbiage on it. In this situation, it is just a panel that is flat against the building and not
fitting the definition of the canopy. The panels are lit with the goal to attract attention.
They are not integrally built into the building. Canopies are generally solid in color also,
as opposed to an awning.
Commissioner Duckworth wondered if we would be setting a precedent and what we
would end up with if we allowed red, yellow, orange next to this one.
Mr. Chaffee responded that it depends on if they are murals or signs. In the case of a
mural, we would look at defining it differently than a canopy. There is no verbiage on the
mural; it is just sort of a picture situation. We will look at an amendment that states that
it is for a nationally adopted architectural scheme so some items would be built into the
ordinance that would prohibit what Commissioner Duckworth was concerned about. Mr.
Chaffee stated that in this situation, staff feels a little more comfortable as it is on the end
of a building. He thought that if it were right in the middle of the building, perhaps there
would be more concern.
Mr. Chaffee clarified that the Planning Commission wouldn’t be approving the mural, but
would only be providing direction as to whether or not to proceed. He added that there
still needed to be some changes to the sign code before it would even be allowed to be
installed.
Shawnee Planning Commission
-15-
May 17, 1999
Commissioner O’Connor asked how long would it take to get the revisions in the sign
code, if everything went according to plan. Mr. Chaffee responded it would be around
the first or middle of July, given publication.
Commissioner Boettcher noted that the affect is very little difference, to which Mr.
Chaffee agreed. He added that you can’t paint pictures or signage on a building; you can
paint a stripe that is part of the overall theme of the building itself. He said if they were
to paint this blue, staff would probably be looking at whether or not they should do
something where that theme would be carried throughout the whole center. He said
Blockbuster is looking for some direction. He didn’t think that it was really that
obtrusive.
Commissioner Sheridan asked if the Blockbuster on Quivira had the red canopy. Mr.
Chaffee responded no, they have more of the traditional design where they have the blue
canopy. He noted that the red canopies are existing at this center. He said Blockbuster is
proposing to take those down. He said the Planning Commission may prefer to leave
them there to give that feature and suggest the wave be placed above the canopies
Commissioner Sheridan asked if they were basically switching to the blue. Mr. Chaffee
added that it would be blue with the design icon with the wave feature.
Commissioner Bedora noted that the red was the shopping center canopies and the blue
relates to Blockbuster. Mr. Chaffee responded that was correct.
Commissioner O’Connor asked if the proposed sign code revision is just being
undertaken to meet this particular plan. Mr. Chaffee responded no, that staff had about
six or seven clean-up articles that need to be taken care of. It is an appropriate time and
we were already starting to do some of those changes, so this would be one of the items
that will be considered. It does not necessarily mean that it will be approved when the
review is done, but it will be one of the items that need to be addressed. He said staff
would probably see more signs in this manner than what we have seen before.
Commissioner Sheridan asked Mr. Chaffee if he had actually seen a picture of this. Mr.
Chaffee responded he had not seen one up, adding that this is Blockbuster’s new
program. He said that he believed that after the first of June, Blockbuster would be
requiring everyone to go to this scheme. Associate Planner Madeline Chaney stated that
she had seen one of these in Austin last week. She said it looks pretty much like the
picture, but there is a lot less contrast than the picture shows. She thought that it just
looked blue.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
Planning Director Paul Chaffee explained that the applicant was not present since they
were just seeking guidance from the Planning Commission.
No one spoke in opposition.
Shawnee Planning Commission
-16-
May 17, 1999
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Boettcher commented that as someone who continually regrets the
continuous homogenization of our commercial buildings, he would vote for almost
anything with color, within reason.
Commissioner Bedora commented that he thought it adds to the building. He didn’t think
that it is detrimental to the area. He didn’t think that the backlighting is going to affect
anybody out in the neighborhood or be offensive. He thought it adds a soft-lit touch that
is needed. He thought it is a positive.
Chairman Mazza commented that he agreed, especially since it is the end of the shopping
center, so it is almost like a freestand. He felt that it adds to the credibility of the request.
Commissioner Sheridan noted that staff was seeking direction. Mr. Chaffee responded
that he felt that staff had the direction from the Planning Commission, unless there were
additional comments, adding that there is no motion necessary.
Commissioner Jenkins commented that he was not really crazy about this. He was not
against this particular one, but he was concerned about the overall backlighting,
envisioning a strip in Las Vegas. He felt we would be going beyond signage, beyond
awnings, with backlighting, making it flashy. He thought that though it may be attractive,
it would be a departure from where we have been. He had reservations, not wanting to go
“whole hog.” He wanted to consider each request on their own individual merits and the
placement within the shopping center itself.
Mr. Chaffee responded that the Planning Commission would get to see site plans come
in. Commissioner Jenkins understood that, but he didn’t want to say carte blanche that
the Planning Commission liked that kind of stuff.
Commissioner Sheridan asked if it served any purpose as an awning or was it purely
decorative. Mr. Chaffee responded that it is purely decorative, adding that is why it is a
sign. He stated that the fact that it is as large as it is, the current sign code allows up to
5% of the wall area to be signed. So if we desire that the sign code change, so that a
mural-type affect could be handled the same way as a canopy, then we could look at it.
That is one of the other issues.
Commissioner Jenkins commented that he believed that when we draft up any kind of a
change to the sign ordinance, that it should take into consideration individuality of the
particular site plan, instead of doing away with that kind of review, thereby giving the
opportunity to the Planning Commission to determine if it is tasteful, or appropriate for
the neighborhood. He didn’t think that would make it arbitrary or capricious.
Mr. Chaffee noted that at the next meeting, proposed amendments and verbiage would be
reviewed and then the public hearing would be on June 21st.
Shawnee Planning Commission
-17-
May 17, 1999
Commissioner Sawyer commented that he would question how the Planning Commission
could be consistent about it, though. As far as the businesses are concerned, do you let
one business do this, but then the next business you don’t let them, you will be seen as
being inconsistent if the verbiage isn’t spelled out for the criteria that they have to meet.
He didn’t think that the Planning Commission wanted to be inconsistent. That it is on a
case-by-case basis on how the Planning Commission happens to feel that night. That
would be his concerns. He is not against it, thought he is not really for it, either. It looks
OK. Blockbuster is Blockbuster, but he could understand if their national program is to
go that way, they want all of their stores to look consistent; and he would think they
would be back at the City if they approved that one of wanting to do something similar to
the one on Quivira Road.
Commissioner Boettcher thought that most shopping center owners have some control.
Mr. Chaffee responded that was correct, adding that the shopping center owner also is
supposed to enforce the sign standards which he had adopted. One of the conditions to
granting a sign variance, which is seen with more frequency all the time, is that the
developer has to send a letter saying that he doesn’t mind that the sign scheme be altered
and not followed. He commented that he has yet to see a case where the developer really
cares if the sign scheme is followed.
Commissioner Boettcher commented that the owner tends to let anything happen. Mr.
Chaffee responded that was correct, if it means that they are going to be able to rent a
space. He added that he was not quite sure that the people, whom the developer says will
walk if they don’t get the sign scheme, would really walk.
Commissioner Sawyer commented that he can understand if you have a national program
on how you want your business to look. If somebody doesn’t want it to look that way,
they move on to some place that will allow them to have their look.
Commissioner Jenkins commented that maybe that’s OK, too, sometimes.
Commissioner Sheridan commented that she thought it would look great and she would
love to have a Blockbuster in western Shawnee. She asked if this would be a light that
was on for 24 hours. Mr. Chaffee responded he would have to find out from Blockbuster,
but he thought it would probably only stay on during business hours.
Commissioner O’Connor asked why this couldn’t be approved under the current
ordinance. Mr. Chaffee responded that it exceeds the standards of the percentage of wall
area that is covered, if it is a sign; and it is a sign, and until it is covered under the code
somehow, we have to wait. He said that Blockbuster understands that.
Commissioner Gentry asked if we would be seeing a lot more of these. Mr. Chaffee
responded that is the intent of Blockbuster. Commissioner Sheridan asked if this was
national as far as this being a new trend. Commissioner Gentry asked if this was specific
to Blockbuster, to which Mr. Chaffee responded yes. He added that he believed in
Blockbuster’s contracts for their new stores, they are going to have this written in and get
Shawnee Planning Commission
-18-
May 17, 1999
it as often as they can. He stated that there would probably be some conversions to other
stores if it is well-received. Commissioner Gentry commented that it is very dramatic.
Item No. 6
SP-25-99-5: consider request for site plan approval for the construction of an open
air contractors storage yard at 22005 West 83rd Street. Request submitted by
Polsinelli, White, Vardeman and Shalton for BASKA FOUNDATION.
EXPLANATION OF ITEM
Planning Director Paul Chaffee explained that the applicant requests site plan
approval for construction of an open air contractors storage yard at 22005 West 83rd
Street. The application is filed by Curtis Holland of Polsinelli, White, Vardeman and
Shalton, for Baska Foundation Company.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
1.
The applicant requests site plan approval for construction of an open-air
contractors storage yard.
2.
The site is zoned PI (Planned Industrial) with PI zoning to the north, east, and
west of the site, and agricultural zoning in the City of Lenexa to the south.
Surrounding development includes Terra Cotta Cast Stone to the east, NCS to the
north, and undeveloped directly west. To the northwest is the rear portions of
industrial properties that front onto Monticello Road. To the south, in the City of
Lenexa, is the Kansas City Gun and Rifle Club range. The Land Use Guide of the
Comprehensive Plan indicates light industrial/warehouse uses of the property on
the site; at full development, the proposal would be in conformance with the plan.
3.
The developer proposes to develop the 2.53-acre site in three phases. The first
phase is proposed to be an open-air contractor’s storage yard, with no buildings on
the site. Phase II, which the applicant proposes to develop in two years, contains a
4,000 square foot storage and office building and additional storage yard area.
Phase III would contain an additional extension of the open air storage yard. No
plans have been filed for construction of the building. If approved by the
Planning Commission, all future phases must receive site plan approval prior to
their construction.
The proposed development schedule of the plan is different than has been seen in
the past. Usually, a building is also constructed on a site in association with other
improvements. The applicant desires to store foundation footing equipment and
trucks on the site. Employees will report to the site to pick up necessary
equipment for the day. Should the Planning Commission approve the site plan for
the open air storage facility, staff suggests that the site plan be reviewed in two
Shawnee Planning Commission
-19-
May 17, 1999
years in the event a site plan has not been submitted and construction underway on
the office/storage building to determine the appropriateness of an open air facility.
Mr. Chaffee added that the applicant has indicated there is a concern with review
of the site plan in two years. The Zoning Ordinance does not specifically state
contractors yards in the Planned Industrial district; however, similar uses are
allowed and this would be the proper zoning district. Consistently in the zoning
regulations, outdoor storage is discussed as an accessory use, inferring that there is
some other use like an office on the site. The applicant has indicated future
development on the site, and the review would provide a means for the Planning
Commission discuss future development on the site if it has not been undertaken.
Review of the application was based on future phasing of the project. Provisions
are provided in the zoning regulations to allow for outdoor storage on a site for a
two-year period provided it is fully enclosed.
4.
The site is accessed from a private drive running south from 83rd Street. The
same private drive serves Terra Cotta Cast Stone. No improvements will be
required to the private drive due to its not being a City street, and the limited
amount of traffic which will be generated at this site. The property is not required
to be platted since the tract was in existence at the time the property was annexed
into the City of Shawnee in 1986.
5.
The applicant proposes to pave an eighty-foot by eighty-four foot (80’ X 84’) area
with a two-inch asphalt surface with a five-inch crushed rock base. Tip back
curbs will be used to direct water into the drainage improvements which will be
constructed on the site. Additionally, the applicant proposes to place a six-foot
(6’) solid wood fence around the phase one and phase two areas. Staff is of the
opinion that at this time the fencing should be placed around the Phase One area
only to discourage the potential for storage to occur within the fenced area but on
unimproved surfaces.
6.
The driveway entrance shall be constructed to commercial driveway standards.
Private stormwater drainage improvements will be required with this project.
Information regarding standards are as follows:
(a)
Stormwater runoff not exceeding eight cubic feet per second during a 10year storm may be conveyed by a drainage swale. Runoff exceeding eight
cubic feet per second must be conveyed by a storm sewer. An open
channel is allowed only when the channelized flow exceeds the capacity of
a 72-inch concrete storm sewer.
(b)
The drainage system for this development must be designed to convey the
stormwater runoff from a 25-year storm, except the overflow swales.
Overflow swales are required over all storm sewers or such locations as
needed to convey the excess runoff from the 100-year storm. The
minimum low opening of any structure next to an overflow swale is
Shawnee Planning Commission
-20-
May 17, 1999
required to be at least two feet higher than the flood elevation of a 100year storm.
7.
(c)
Energy dissipating devices, such as staked sod, geotextiles, riprap, etc.,
must be provided according to APWA criteria. All habitable structures
must be built a minimum of 60 feet form the bank top (boundary for a 25year design storm) of any open (natural or improved) channel having a
design capacity of 8 c.f.s or more
(d)
If stormwater runoff from adjoining properties is conveyed across the
subject site, then that portion of the drainage system must be designed and
built as a public improvement. The discharge point for an enclosed system
must extend to the defined open channel (whether natural or improved).
Otherwise, an off-site drainage easement must be provided between the
property line of the subject site and the nearest point of a natural open
channel or existing improved open channel. The receiving open channel
must have the capacity to convey the runoff from a 26 year storm without
negatively impacting structures next to the channel. If the receiving
channel does not have sufficient capacity, then it must be either enclosed
or improved.
(e)
Shallow channelized or sheet flows collected form impervious surfaces are
nit allowed to drain into adjoining properties or public street right-of-ways.
(f)
All drainage easements provided shall meet City requirements and
drainage easements must be separate from utility easements.
The development is subject to the provisions of SMC Chapter 12.24, which
pertains to the construction and maintenance of on-site stormwater detention
facilities. The following standards will apply:
(a)
The proposed non-residential development is smaller than five acres,
therefore; the applicant may comply with these regulations using one of
the following methods:
(1)
The applicant may submit a report and calculations, prepared by a
registered engineer, showing that no drainage inadequacies exist
within 1,000 feet downstream of the development and pay a
detention fee calculated based on $5,000 per impervious acre
created by the development;
(2)
The applicant may correct the drainage inadequacies identified in
the report, and pay the prescribed detention fee; or
(3)
The applicant may provide on-site stormwater detention.
Shawnee Planning Commission
(b)
-21-
May 17, 1999
If an on-site stormwater detention facility is required for this development
that it will be designed according to the provisions of SMC 12.24 and the
minimum design criteria as set forth in the Shawnee Manual of
Specifications and Design Criteria, as provided to the applicant.
8.
A rough grading and siltation control plan is required for this project and must be
included with the site development plans submitted for a building permit.
9.
The applicant is responsible for installing the erosion control measures shown on
the plans prior to commencing and grading activities or immediately following the
completion of rough grading as outlined in the installation schedule. The
applicant is also responsible for maintaining such measures throughout
construction until vegetation is established over the disturbed areas except those
siltation basins that may be reconstructed per approved plans for use as permanent
detention facilities.
10.
The land disturbed for this project will be less than five acres, therefore, the
applicant is not required to obtain an Environmental Protection Agency National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits (Construction Activity Form 1)
form the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.
11.
Any utilities brought to the site and on-site shall be underground and the
placement of any junction boxes shall be in the rear or site yard area.
12.
The site is heavily wood to the east, south and west. Existing trees will provide
additional screening n addition to the fencing. The applicant shall provide a
landscape plan with Phase Two to provide additional plantings in areas where
grading has occurred. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan for the front
yard area along the private drive indicating the placement of five Acer Maples.
The number of street trees provided meets code requirements, however the
applicant shall submit a revised plan indicating that the trees will be of a two-inch
caliper when planted, prior to issuance of any permits.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff sends this item to the Planning Commission with no recommendation. As discussed
with the applicant, we have not provided approval in the past for a storage area or storage
yard without some type of building improvement. If the Planning Commission is
comfortable in approving this request with the conditions provided, this would be an
appropriate location given that it is not visible from any major streets and is accessed
from a private road in a location with an adjacent use which does provide a great deal of
outdoor storage. The facility itself will be a low traffic generator. Staff recommends the
following conditions to be considered by the Planning Commission in the event the
Commission feels the use is appropriate for the site:
1.
The site plan for Phase I shall be valid for a two year period. The applicant shall
submit a site plan for Phase II of the project including the office/storage building
Shawnee Planning Commission
-22-
May 17, 1999
for Planning Commission approval and obtain a building permit for its
construction prior to July 1, 2001. Failure to do so will result in the Planning
Commission review of the project and potential expiration of the site plan, and
removal of asphalt, equipment and vehicles from the site;
2.
The fencing shall be allowed only around the improved asphalt area on Phase I of
the project at this time;
3.
The applicant shall provide a revised landscape plan indicating the size of the
trees to be planted prior to issuance of any permits. Required landscaping shall be
planted prior to use of the site for storage of equipment or vehicles;
4.
The driveway and approach shall be constructed to City Commercial Driveway
Standards;
5.
Final plans for all private stormwater drainage improvements, as outlined in the
staff report, shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for review and
approval prior to their construction;
6.
Provision of SMC Chapter 12.24 shall apply regarding the construction and
maintenance of on-site stormwater detention facilities. All preliminary and final
plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for approval, prior to
issuance of a grading permit;
7.
A rough grading and siltation control plan shall be submitted for approval with the
site development plans submitted for a grading permit;
8.
The applicant is responsible for installing the erosion control measures shown on
the plan prior to commencing grading activities, or immediately following rough
grading as outlined in the installation schedule submitted to the Engineering
Division. The applicant is responsible for maintaining such measures throughout
construction until vegetation is established over the disturbed areas;
9.
All utilities brought onto the site shall be underground, and all utility junction
boxes shall be placed in the rear or side yard areas; and
10.
Site plan subject to City Council review until 5:00 p.m. Thursday, May 20, 1999.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION
Commissioner O’Connor asked why staff was reluctant to approve the site plan for a
storage area without a building and what was the difference if it is otherwise
acceptable. Mr. Chaffee responded none, but staff had just never done that before and
wanted to leave it open to the Planning Commission to determine whether or not that
was appropriate. He said that probably given this location, and with stipulations, if
there was any place this was going to happen, this would probably be among the
better locations for that to occur. He said he had no reason to believe that the
Shawnee Planning Commission
-23-
May 17, 1999
contractor is not going to have a building up on the site within the two years, and we
could approve temporary storage areas for a 2-year period, as long as they are fenced.
Commissioner Bedora asked if we knew where the builder is currently officed. Mr.
Chaffee responded that it is at 87th and Lackman, in Lenexa, on a piece of ground that
a new subdivision is being constructed behind the Walgreen’s store and that was their
family’s property.
Commissioner Bedora asked about #9 about the utilities, if it was practical, in this
situation, for utilities to be coming through the back of this lot with the treed area and
the topographical. Mr. Chaffee responded that it was his guess since there is really no
development on the south side, that the utilities will be coming from the north and
from the west and there are some utilities already in the area for Terra Cotta. Staff
just wanted to make it understood that they don’t put up overhead connecting lines
and have overhead lines come into a storage yard.
Commissioner Bedora noted the topographical area, with all the valleys and dips. Mr.
Chaffee responded that it unlikely that it will come up. He pointed out Monticello
Road’s right-of-way.
Chairman Mazza questioned where was the back of this lot. Mr. Chaffee responded
by pointing it out on the map.
Commissioner Bedora asked if they would have to come into the back. Mr. Chaffee
responded no, they would have to come to the front, noting that 83rd is about ¼ mile
north of the site, then they would have to come down the private drive, which makes a
turn into Terra Cotta. He pointed out the Gun Club and Monticello Road which
continues in Lenexa.
Commissioner Bedora asked where the utilities come in. Mr. Chaffee responded by
pointing out where the utilities come in for Terra Cotta, pointing out the boxes as
opposed to being placed in front of the fence.
Commissioner Bedora wondered whether or it was practical, particularly how the land
flows, making it difficult. Mr. Chaffee responded that there is some development up
in there also.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
Representing the applicant, Baska Foundation, was Curtis Holland. He said that Mr.
Chaffee had set forth what they are doing. He said this is really a very small
contractor’s operation. Mr. Baska has a basement foundation company. He thought
that Mr. Baska had two trucks, one a panel and one a boom, most of the basement
foundation panels are stored on the ground. The area will be all paved so they won’t
have any storage off the pavement area. There might be a couple of trailers, but it is a
very small operation. Most of his workers meet him at the job site. He does
residential foundations so there is going to be little activity on the property itself once
Shawnee Planning Commission
-24-
May 17, 1999
it is constructed. He set up an aerial, pointing out the site and surrounding area. He
noted it is very rugged terrain.
Mr. Holland stated that they agree to all the stipulations. He said there might be some
reason to talk about the utilities. This property is heavily wooded and he didn’t know
exactly where the utilities are, but they are willing to look at that. It is not a deal
breaker for them. None of the conditions are deal breakers for them. It is fully their
intention to construct an office structure on the property. He didn’t have a big issue
about the timing because he thought that the applicant’s timing was that within the
next year or two years, that will be constructed, so he is not having a big issue with
that.
Mr. Holland said that if he had an issue, it would be with respect to #2, and he and
Paul Chaffee had talked about that. He pointed out where they had outlined the
locations of Phase 2 and Phase 1. He said they would like to build a fence ultimately
to where it will be probably in the end where their facility will sit. He said that Phase
3 will likely never be anything but ground; because given that this is a very small
operation, they don’t need that much space anyway, and it costs a lot of money to
pave all the way out there. So they are not likely to do that. He said their fence will
probably end right where Phase 2 line is and his only issue with this particular
stipulation is that they don’t want to move the fence again after they build it; and
under Mr. Chaffee’s scenario, they would build the fence and then have to pick it up
and move it a couple of hundred feet in two short years. He was trying to avoid, for
his client, that financial burden and give him the stipulations as they are, the location
of where this property is, he thought there was enough control with the stipulation that
they are not going to be having an issue that is perceived to be a possibility there. So,
he is hoping that they can at least with respect with #2, let the fence be constructed
where ultimately it is going to end up being in any event, and they just don’t want to
have to move the fence twice. It doesn’t make sense to them. He said that other than
that, they are in agreement with the stipulations.
No one spoke in opposition.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner O’Connor asked if the applicant had brought up the fence issue with
staff and what was staff’s concern. Mr. Chaffee responded yes, the applicant had
brought that up, and staff’s concern was that we pave a small area and then in a period
of 12 months, the operation gets to be a little larger and we start to have foundation
forms or trailers or trucks in the unimproved properties just tucked back down in the
woods. If the fence were placed at the edge of what improvements we were going to
be looking at doing with Phase 1, then there is some sort of assurance that those items
are going to actually be placed on a paved surface which is a requirement of the
zoning regulations that all equipment be placed on a paved surface. Not that Mr.
Baska would do it, but it seems like an opportunity may exist that it grows a little
faster and then we start seeing equipment not on the paved area, but down into the
wooded area.
Shawnee Planning Commission
-25-
May 17, 1999
Commissioner Bedora commented that it is human nature to use the space available to
us and we seem to fill it up regardless of what we have need for, so we can spread
pretty easily on that.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Commissioner Jenkins, seconded by Commissioner Bedora, moved for approval of SP25-99-5, subject to staff recommendations. Motion was carried 9-0.
Item No. 7
Discussion: Recodification of Sign Regulations and Amendments.
EXPLANATION OF ITEM
Planning Director Paul Chaffee explained that the City Council at their May 10, 1999,
meeting, voted to consider recodification of the sign regulations from the Zoning
Regulations to another section of the Municipal Code. This change would ease the
administration of the ordinance without compromising the regulations. It is anticipated
that the regulations would be moved to Chapter 5 of the Municipal Code which deals
with business and occupational licenses, various uses which require permits from the
City, and other related items.
Additionally, staff will present several items which provide further clarification and
include provisions for newer types of signage we are beginning to see such as murals and
the use of fabric rather than plastic and vinyl materials.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission authorize publication of a notice to set a
public hearing to review the changes, as well as to approve movement of the regulations to
a different section of the Municipal Code, for the June 21, 1999, Planning Commission
meeting. Staff will prepare the revisions for review by the Commission at the June 7,
1999, meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Commissioner O’Connor, seconded by Commissioner Bedora, moved to set the public
hearing for the Recodification of the Sign Regulations and Amendments for the June 21,
1999, meeting. Motion was carried 9-0.
Item No. 8 - OTHER BUSINESS
(1)
Planning Director Paul Chaffee reminded the Planning Commission that May is a
5-Monday month so the next meeting will be in three weeks, on June 7th.
Shawnee Planning Commission
-26-
May 17, 1999
(2)
Paul Chaffee advised that a joint meeting with the City Council will be scheduled,
perhaps in Mid-June.
(3)
Commissioner Bedora noted that other communities in the area are looking more
at the use of wood shingle roofs as opposed to using something else. He thought
that the Planning Commission should start looking at that also to the extend of
whether or not the Planning Commission could start doing some
recommendations of other types of roofing materials that would be safer and more
acceptable. Chairman Mazza commented that is not a City requirement or
request; it is usually up to the subdivision and the builder as to what he wants in it
and they have to go by those guidelines. Mr. Chaffee added that some of it may
just be education for the builder. Commissioner Bedora thought that perhaps the
Planning Commission could start throwing out the concept that they would like to
see something else, and through suggestion and recommendation, perhaps it starts
to open up a little bit instead of continuing to use the wood shingle roofs. Mr.
Chaffee commented that he was sure that Overland Park had a 3-foot high pile of
data. He said that staff could show developers samples of roofing materials that
we don’t want. He said staff could get some information together on that.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Commission, Commissioner Jenkins,
seconded by Commissioner Sheridan, moved for adjournment. The motion was carried
unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Pat Sullivan
Recording Secretary