Planning Commission Meeting (April 8, 2002) - City of Overland Park

OVERLAND PARK PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 

April 8, 2002 

The Overland Park Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by 

Mr. Charles Hunter, Chairman. The following members were present, constituting a 

quorum: 

Mr. Tex New; Mr. David White; Mr. Richard Collins; Mr. Bob Sanders, Mr. Tom 

Lance, Mrs. Charlene Conrad, and Mr. Edward Reitzes. Mrs. Nancy Diebel 

arrived at 1:35 p.m. 

Mr. David Hill and Ms. Sharon Holsinger were absent. 

Also present were: Mr. Bart Budetti, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Bob 

Lindeblad, Current Planning Administrator; Mrs. Leslie Karr, Senior Planner; 

Mr. Mark Stuecheli, Senior Transportation Planner; Mr. Keith Gooch, Mr. Bryan Bear, 

and Mr. Dave Dalecky, Planners; Mr. Brad Munford, Planning Technician; Mr. Roger 

Peterson, Director of Planning and Development Services; Mr. Mark Stuecheli, Senior 

Transportation Planner; Ms. Cait Purinton, Kansas City Star; and Ms. Nancee Ellis, 

Recording Secretary. Approximately 35 persons were in the audience. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES – February 25, 2002 and March 11, 2002. 

(Approved) 

Mr. Tom Lance moved for the approval of the February 25th minutes as written. The 

motion was seconded by Mr. Bob Sanders, and passed by a 6 to 0 to 2 vote, including 

the vote of Chairman Charles Hunter, who voted on all agenda items. Chairman 

Hunter and Mrs. Charlene Conrad abstained. 

Mr. David White moved for the approval of the March 11th minutes as written. After a 

second by Mrs. Conrad, the motion passed by an 8 to 0 vote. 

CONSENT AGENDA: 

(Approved consent items A through M) 

Current Planning Administrator Bob Lindeblad advised that Commissioners had been 

copied with an updated landscape plan for item A, prior to the meeting, and everything 

is in order for that item. 

Item E should be removed for separate discussion because the applicant wants to 

discuss an issue with the Commission. 

Mr. Lindeblad said all items have been addressed regarding item F, and it is now ready 

for approval. 

Lastly, there was a change to Staff Comments regarding item G, which was distributed 

to Commissioners prior to the meeting with revisions to the report highlighted.

Overland Park Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 2002 

Page 2 

With regard to item H, Mr. Tex New advised the applicant’s license expired on 

March 31, 2001, which needs to be rectified before the final plat is filed. 

Mr. Lindeblad thanked Mr. New for the information. 

A. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL - TACO BELL – 10107 West 75th Street. 

Application made by McCluggage Van Sickle & Perry. 

B. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL – BOB ALLEN FORD – 9239 Metcalf 

Avenue. Application made by Bob Allen Ford, Inc. 

C. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL – CORPORATE WOODS GENERATOR – 

10851 Mastin Street. Application made by MC Real Estate Services, Inc. 

D. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL – 119TH AND QUIVIRA OFFICE PARK - 

12000 Quivira Road. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. 

E FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL – MIMI’S CAFÉ – Vicinity of the southwest 

corner of 135th and Hemlock Streets. Application made by Formark, LTD. 

F. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL – VILLAGE OF OVERLAND POINTE 

SHOPS – Vicinity of the southwest corner of 135th and Hemlock Streets. 

Application made by Polsinelli, Shalton & Welte. 

G. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL – BAJA FRESH MEXICAN GRILL – 

7301 West 91st Street. Application made by RSA Architecture. 

H. FINAL PLAT NO. 2002-17 – BLUE VALLEY BUSINESS CENTER SIXTH PLAT - 

Vicinity of 160th Terrace and Foster Street. Application made by Midwest Aquatic 

Center, L. L. C. 

I. FINAL PLAT NO. 2002-19 – THE VILLAGE OF OVERLAND POINTE THIRD PLAT – 

Vicinity of the southwest corner of 135th and Hemlock Streets. Application made 

by Polsinelli, Shalton & Welte. 

J. FINAL PLAT NO. 2002-20 – HIGHLAND VILLAGE PATIO HOMES, SEVENTY-FIFTH 

AND SEVENTY SIXTH PLATS – Vicinity of 125th and Noland Streets. Application 

made by Highland Village Developers, L. L. C. 

K. SIGN DEVIATION – BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA – 8695 College Boulevard. Applica- 

tion made by Tracy Chelepis. 

L. SIGN CRITERIA – VILLAGE OF OVERLAND POINTE – Vicinity of the southeast 

Corner of 135th Street and Antioch Road. Application made by Terra Venture, Inc. 

M. FINAL PLAT NO. 2002-5 – BROOKHIGHLAND SECOND PLAT – 14655 Switzer 

Road. Application made by Brookwood Development Company. 

Mr. Ned Reitzes moved for the approval of the preceding consent agenda items, with 

the exception of item E. Mr. David White seconded the motion, which passed by a 7 

to 0 to 1 vote. Mr. Sanders abstained. 

Mrs. Nancy Diebel arrived at 1:35 p.m.


Page 3 

With regard to consent agenda item E, Senior Planner Leslie Karr relayed that the 

applicant for Mini’s Café, vicinity of the southwest corner of 135th and Hemlock 

Streets wants to discuss with the Commission an architectural detail. 

Mrs. Karr advised that the Site Plan Review Committee reviewed the building design 

and materials for this restaurant at the time of preliminary plan approval. At that 

time, the applicant agreed to eliminate the use of multiple awning colors in favor of a 

single, solid color for all building awnings. She said the applicant has indicated they 

would now like to use a black and white striped awning over the entry door only. 

Mrs. Karr stated that the Mimi’s Café at 95th Street and Quivira was approved using a 

single, solid color for all of the awnings. Given that precedent and the presentation 

that was made to the Site Plan Review Committee, she said staff sees no reason to 

allow the striped awning at the entry for this facility. 

Staff did include stipulation f which specifies that only a single, solid color should be 

used for all the awnings. Mrs. Karr said if the Commission is agreeable to the striped 

awning, stipulations f should be removed. 

Mr. White asked if the applicant for Mimi’s at 95th and Quivira had originally 

requested the striped awnings, and Mrs. Karr replied the applicant showed multiple 

colored awnings as well as striped awnings, however, modifications were made to the 

plan. 

Ms. Wendy Hunter, 8235 Douglas Avenue, Dallas, Texas, representing the applicant, 

explained that the plan was originally presented with purple awnings on the building 

along with the striped awning. She said staff did not like the purple awnings, and 

those were eliminated and replaced with burgundy. She stressed that the applicant 

would like to get at least one of the awnings striped since this is an identification for 

Mimi’s and helps customers know where the entrances are located. Ms. Hunter said 

the other Mimi’s site in the City is a free-standing building outside of a mall, and this 

is not an issue there. She said because the applicant has made so many concessions 

on building materials to try to blend in with the rest of the development, they believe it 

is important that the building’s entrance stand out. 

In looking at the elevations, Mr. Lance did not believe there would be a problem in 

locating the entrance to this establishment, especially at night due to lighting over the 

doors. 

Mr. Reitzes believed the structure, including the awning with a solid color and the 

parking arrangement is appropriate. He liked the material mix, adding that it made 

sense. 

Mrs. Conrad stated that this is also a free-standing building; therefore, the entrance 

will be clearly visible. 

Mr. Reitzes moved for the approval of consent agenda item E, Final Development Plans 

for Mimi’s Café, vicinity of the southwest corner of 135th and Hemlock Streets, with 

stipulations a through f as recommended by staff. Mrs. Conrad seconded the motion, 

which passed by a 9 to 0 vote.


Page 4 

UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. ZRR-2343 – Amendments 

to Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Sections 18.110, 18.120, 18.140, 

18.150.010. 18.320, 18.322, 18.324, 18.326, 18.328,18.330, 18.340, 18.430.0730, 

18.440, and 18.450, to create new zoning districts and procedures in Downtown 

Overland Park. 

(Approved) 

Planner Bryan Bear advised that this item was considered at the Planning Commission 

meeting on February 25, 2002. This item was continued at that meeting and 

remanded to the Ordinance Amendment Committee (OAC) to review several items. He 

said there were four speakers at the Planning Commission meeting, and the discussion 

centered primarily around the Main Street I District where office uses were 

proposed to be prohibited on the ground floor level of all buildings. Mr. Bear said 

there was also discussion about grandfathering of existing uses and the use of the 

current 180-day rule for non-conforming situations. The final item of discussion had 

to do with the maximum height of structures within the Santa Fe District. 

Mr. Bear said the OAC considered all of the information that was presented at the 

Planning Commission meeting and has recommended two changes to the ordinance 

from the previous version considered by the Planning Commission. The first change 

limits the height in the Santa Fe District to three stories. The previous version had no 

height limitation. Mr. Bear said the second change allows offices on the ground floor 

level of the Main Street District, subject to several limitations. He said the OAC will 

explain their recommendation in further detail at today’s meeting. 

The remainder of Staff Comments has not changed from the previous version 

considered on February 25, 2002, and Mr. Bear said he would not repeat them. 

Since the last meeting, the Law Department has requested that the Planning Commission 

authorize several house-cleaning measures for the sections that will be amended. 

Mr. Bear said staff recommends approval of the text amendments with that authorization. 

Mr. Bear relayed that the changes being proposed today, if approved by the Planning 

Commission and the City Council, will result in the addition of five new zoning 

districts in Overland Park. He stated that there is no property, anywhere in the City, 

that is zoned in these districts. Therefore, the decision the Commission makes today 

will not directly impact anyone’s property in that no one is zoned into these districts. 

Another step envisioned in this process is that this application will be followed with a 

subsequent application, which would be a rezoning application. Mr. Bear explained 

that it would be a one time City sponsored rezoning to try to get the property in the 

downtown zoned into these districts. Therefore, any discussion regarding whether or 

not a property would be in one of these zoning districts or where the boundaries of 

these zoning districts might be, should be postponed until that application is filed and 

considered at a later date. Today, the issue is about the text that is in these amendments. 

Mr. Sanders asked when staff contemplated the rezoning action. Mr. Bear replied 

when this item gets to the City Council, the intent is that if the Council is comfortable 

with the amendments as written, on the same day the Council adopts the text amend-


Page 5 

ments, they would also authorize staff to publish in the newspaper for a rezoning 

application. He said a rezoning application would likely follow within two months of 

the date of adoption of these text amendments. Mr. Bear relayed that there would be 

a series of public hearings for public input into that process. 

Speaking on behalf of the OAC, Mr. Reitzes said the Committee has made the utmost 

effort to ensure the development of new zoning districts and guidelines for downtown 

Overland Park is done as well as possible while considering the needs of the downtown 

merchants, property owners and anyone else who has an interest in downtown. He 

said the OAC met on April 2, 2002, to discuss and draw some conclusions with regard 

to the rezoning districts, specifically with the Main Street I District. Mr. Reitzes said 

the OAC wanted to re-evaluate this zoning district with regard to comments that were 

made by merchants and others with interests in the downtown area. 

The ordinance was reviewed with one change being made to the Main Street 1 District, 

which would limit any tenant space with street frontage on Santa Fe Drive or 80th 

Street to retail uses. It was felt that this was in keeping with the pattern of use and 

the tradition in the Main Street 1 area. Mr. Reitzes said the OAC wanted specifically 

to appeal to and attract pedestrian and walk-in traffic by maintaining a retail use for 

frontage on those two major thoroughfares. However, Mr. Reitzes stated that the OAC 

did make some exceptions to it which indicated that new office uses would only be 

prohibited in tenant spaces that face Santa Fe Drive or 80th Street. Building owners 

could still lease the rear buildings to office tenants provided that the tenant space had 

no frontage on 80th Street or Santa Fe Drive. He said this pertains to the rear of those 

buildings, and the entrance to the tenant space must be from the side or the rear of 

the building and cannot face either Santa Fe Drive or 80th Street. Office tenants on 

the ground floor can occupy no more than 50 percent of the ground floor level in a 

building. 

Another issue the OAC reviewed, in addition to retail use, was grandfathering the 180day 

rule, which has been the subject of much discussion. Mr. Reitzes thought there 

was a lot of confusion concerning these issues. After review of this issue and after due 

consideration by staff and the Law Department, the OAC decided not to propose any 

changes whatsoever in grandfathering the 180-day rule for the following reasons: 

Mr. Reitzes stated that the grandfathering of the 180-day rule provisions are part of 

the existing non-conforming chapter of the Unified Development Ordinance that are 

currently used Citywide; consequently, there does not appear to be a compelling 

reason to create a special rule regarding this to be directed specifically to downtown. 

If the Planning Commission feels that the non-conforming chapter is in need of some 

revision, then the OAC believes that discussion should be part of a separate application 

which will be considered at a later date. The current non-conforming chapter of 

the UDO has the following implications for buildings, but only if the buildings are 

rezoning to the Main Street 1 District: (1) Existing office tenants may remain in place 

indefinitely. An existing office tenant may sell their business to anyone, who may 

continue to operate the business. If an office tenant has vacated a tenant space, the 

building owner may lease the space to any other office tenant if the space is leased 

within 180 days. If the space is not leased within 180 days, then the owner may 

request a non-conforming situation permit to extend the time. Mr. Reitzes stated that 

once the space is occupied by a retail tenant, it can no longer be used again for office 

space. He advised that under any circumstances, the building owner may request 

approval of a temporary special use permit, up to two years per approval to allow an 

office tenant.


Page 6 

Mr. Reitzes said the OAC believes that the proposed ordinance will effectively preserve 

the character within the Main Street District, which is a critical step in implementing 

the Downtown Master Plan. He the OAC’s objective is to maintain the character of 

downtown Overland Park and create an identity and accessibility for downtown, which 

it might not have had in recent years. The intent is to create a diversity of destinations 

as well, for a variety of uses that are important to maintain and preserve 

downtown. 

As a member of the OAC, Mrs. Conrad agreed they did spend a lot of time and 

consideration in developing this UDO for the downtown district. She supported 

keeping it as close to retail as possible because in looking at other areas that did not 

attempt to do this, they are faltering. When the entire downtown area is devoted to 

office uses, it does not create a pedestrian atmosphere. Mrs. Conrad said the OAC 

believes they have done their best to maintain a pedestrian atmosphere in downtown 

Overland Park with the changes being recommended. 

Mr. New asked how these changes would effect, for example, a business that is 

grandfathered in and is destroyed by a natural catastrophe or a fire. Mr. Bear said 

that is covered under the non-conforming chapter, and in that instance, a building 

can be rebuilt. 

Mr. White asked who monitors the 180-day time period and who monitors office uses 

moving out and another tenant moving in. Mr. Bear replied this will be monitored 

through the building permit process. Anytime someone is making changes to convert 

a space into an office, it would require a form of a building permit known as an 

interior tenant finish. He said when an application is filed for one of those, staff 

reviews those applications to make sure that the use is conforming in that zoning 

district. Mr. Bear said the Business Improvement District keeps records of tenants for 

billing purposes. 

Chairman Hunter opened the public hearing. 

Mr. Jim Shetlar, attorney at 8000 Foster, said he has owned the Santa Fe Law Building 

at this address since 1979 with his partner Judge Will Cleaver. He asked what he 

should expect if he sells the building sometime in the future. Mr. Bear replied that if 

either the business or the building is sold, what is grandfathered in is the use. It 

makes no difference who owns the building or the business, it can be sold as many 

times as necessary because it is the use that is relative. If an office use exists in this 

space now, there can be an office use in that space indefinitely as long as there is no 

retail in the interim. As soon as the space converts to a retail space, then it stays a 

retail tenant space and cannot return to office use without special approval. 

Mr. Shetlar asked how Mr. Bear defined retail, and Mr. Bear said retail uses are 

specifically outlined in the zoning district regulations, which is the general sale of 

merchandise. Offices are defined as something for the administrative and 

management functions of a business. He said there are certain services that are 

included specifically in the district regulations for each one of the districts, and there 

are certain services that are not included in the uses which would be prohibited. 

Mr. Shetlar said many people sell their time for a living, and asked if that was 

considered merchandise. Mr. Bear said that would be an office use, adding that he 

could provide Mr. Shetlar with a list of permitted uses in this zoning district. 

Mr. Shetlar commented that there have been times when it has taken a year to replace 

an empty tenant space in his office. If within six months, he was unable to find an


Page 7 

office tenant for his empty space, Mr. Shetlar asked what implication that would have. 

Mr. Bear explained that the way the current ordinance reads is that if an office tenant 

in a building moves out and the space remains vacant for 180 days or more, then the 

space must become retail space. There is a way to ask for an extension of time 

through a non-conforming situation permit. Chairman Hunter clarified that 

Mr. Shetlar would only be impacted in that way if the office space that he could not rerent 

was located on the first floor in the front of the building. Mr. Bear concurred, 

adding that the text amendments, as proposed, only affect a tenant space that directly 

fronts on Santa Fe Drive or on 80th Street as it pertains to office space. 

Mr. White stated that Mr. Shelter’s building fronts onto Foster, with a Foster 

address—not Santa Fe, and he asked if the proposed ordinance applies to businesses 

that visually front onto Santa Fe or businesses that have a Santa Fe address. 

Mr. Bear said the intent is to affect buildings with tenant spaces that directly front to 

Santa Fe Drive or on 80th Street. Mr. White stated that Mr. Shelter’s building is at 

8000 Foster, and there is no building between him and Santa Fe, but there is a traffic 

island and parking. Mr. Reitzes believed the intent here was that there be frontage on 

Santa Fe and 80th Street, and Mr. Shelter’s offices apparently have frontage on Foster, 

which would exclude his building from that requirement. 

Mr. Shetlar stated that he has enjoyed the improvements he has seen over the last 20 

years in downtown Overland Park. He said many of those improvements have been 

done by the building owners, which enhances their value plus the overall atmosphere 

of the area. 

Whether to get a cup of coffee or just to take a walk, Mr. Shetlar said he gets out every 

morning and afternoon, as does many of the other office people. Therefore, he thought 

offices do contribute to businesses downtown, unlike office buildings that are in 

Executive Hills or Corporate Woods, where there are no other businesses. 

Lastly, Mr. Shetlar was troubled by the constitutionality of these restrictions because 

it appears to be a taking of a property owner’s rights. 

Mr. Kelly Hrabe, 430 East 70th Street, Kansas City, Missouri, was present on behalf of 

the Downtown Overland Park Partnership Board. He said he was also the Chair of the 

Master Plan Sub-Committee of the Downtown Overland Park Partnership, and he 

wanted to relay their support for the zoning definitions as proposed. As a Board, 

Mr. Hrabe said they felt that retail is very important for the existing and future 

viability of downtown Overland Park. Over the last ten years, the advice from Hyatt 

Palma, Vision 2010, Community Futures, public forums and surveys has been that 

downtown Overland Park should develop into more retail as a focus of business 

recruitment and retention. The Board believes this would provide the downtown 

district the opportunity to offer a unique shopping, entertainment, cultural experience, 

in addition to the current mix of businesses. Mr. Hrabe said developing a strong 

specialty niche, with unique shops, restaurants, arts/crafts and entertainment will 

continue to set this area apart from typical strip centers in suburban-style shopping 

centers. By supporting these zoning amendments, Mr. Hrabe believed there would be 

a stronger, more prosperous downtown in the future. 

Mr. Gordon Grohmann stated that he owns two buildings in the downtown area at 

7221 West 79th Street and 7830 Floyd, and he lives at 7824 Floyd. He said he was on 

the Board of Directors of the Downtown Overland Park Partnership and served as the


Page 8 

Treasurer. He supported the proposed changes to the text for all the reasons stated by 

Mr. Hrabe. As a business owner, Mr. Grohmann said one of the selling points he uses 

to get new tenants into his buildings is that there are restaurants and retail within 

walking distance. 

Mr. Mark Hillman, 7923 Santa Fe, said he owned a business, with his partner, behind 

Mildred’s Coffee Shop, and they owned the buildings that front Santa Fe at 8025 

Santa Fe that includes the thrift shop, the barber shop, the cleaners that moved out 

and the vacant lot next to it. With regard to the empty cleaners tenant space, 

Mr. Hillman said there have been approximately 20 to 30 people inquire about renting 

that space, noting that about half of them was for office use. His concern about 

putting a retail user there is that there is no parking area, and he asked if staff could 

respond. Mr. Bear stated that if there is limited parking availability for a retail use, 

the same would be true for an office use. He said the City is going through a different 

procedure, separate from this, to look at some changes to Santa Fe Drive. He stressed 

that this Main Street 1 District is intended for properties that front along Santa Fe and 

front on 80th Street. 

Mr. Bob Meyers, said he had a retail business at 7947 Santa Fe, noting that he was a 

building owner with five store fronts on Santa Fe, from the clock tower south to the 

corner, which is his bookstore. He said this is the photography studio, with an office, 

ands he used to have The Floor Store. He said he has a wonderful retail tenant coming 

in that will be an asset to this area. Mr. Meyers said he could stay with office now 

and be grandfathered in; however, in the spirit of the City’s intent, he chose the best 

tenant which is retail. 

Mr. Meyers said he was asked to read a letter from Camp David, David Wilson, who is 

a resident of Overland Park and the owner of Branded Emblem and Camp David 

which have been located in downtown Overland Park since 1969. The letter relayed 

that Mr. Wilson owned D&H Properties and Wilson Properties, both of which include: 

7920, 7912, 7908 and 7900 Foster; 7909, 7911, 7913, 7915 and 7917 Santa Fe; 

7327, 7331, 7333 and 7335 West 80th Street for an approximate total of 58,000 

square feet. The letter relayed Mr. Wilson’s opposition to the restriction that is being 

proposed on property owners. Mr. Wilson is on the Downtown Overland Park Partnership 

Board and his letter relayed that he did not feel this is the proper measure to take 

to ensure the success of this area. He did not feel that storeowners had the same 

investment as property owners because they can relocate their business, sometimes 

for a nominal amount. While many businesses have come and gone in the last ten 

years on Santa Fe and 80th Street, Mr. Wilson’s letter relayed that all of the buildings 

are still standing with many of them improved. The letter continued that Mr. Wilson 

believed these restrictions would be unfair to property owners because it restricts their 

ability to lease to potentially outstanding tenants that might have the same or greater 

draw for pedestrians as a retailer. He indicated that restricting him to whom he can 

sell his buildings to in the future would decrease his property value, which would 

discourage him from putting any more investment into his properties. The letter 

continued that Mr. Wilson appreciated the Farmer Market because it has created a 

wonderful draw for people and in turn, the properties and tenant mix has been 

improving. Instead of the City restricting property owners and trying to bring about 

change in this manner, Mr. Wilson relayed in his letter that the City should consider 

improving the infrastructure of the downtown which would provide more draw. He 

relayed that if property owners see that the City is committed to improving the 

downtown, they would follow suit and improve their tenant mix and physical


Page 9 

properties. Mr. Wilson’s letter concluded by asking that this proposal not be 

approved. 

As a property owner himself, Mr. Meyers said he has made a large investment in this 

area, and he hoped to see the area prosper in the years to come. He said the City is 

organic, noting that someone may move in next a business and may or may not take 

some or all of the available parking. When that business moves out, another business 

moves in, and he said it is this living organism of the City that works. To have 

restrictions painted with a broad brush like what is proposed is a bad idea. 

Mr. Meyers said if there is a downturn in the economy and retail suffers and vacancies 

occur, it will be difficult for property owners to lease or sell their buildings with the 

retail-only restriction. To be healthy, any community needs a broad base of 

businesses. Parking is a concern because Mr. Meyers stated that on game days, 

customers going to The Pub take up every parking space nearby, making it difficult for 

others to visit any store and park in front or even near their destination. He has had 

complaints from his tenants about the lack of packing. Mr. Meyers said a mix of 

offices would alleviate this problem versus clumping retail together which would result 

in some of it suffering due to limited parking. He said 92 percent of the property 

owners in his block of businesses are against these proposed restrictions. He said 

what needs to be promoted in downtown Overland Park is quality—be it retail or office. 

Mr. Richard Collins commented that he was not sure that opposition to this proposed 

ordinance would enhance the parking situation. Mr. Meyers said parking will be a 

problem is there is mostly successful retailers, which is why there has to be a mix of 

uses. He stressed that if successful stores are wanted in this district, they will have to 

have enough parking spaces or they will soon be closed. He stated that office uses 

alleviate parking pressures. 

Dr. Steven Quade said he has had a business since 1998, at 7905 Santa Fe Drive, 

next to Papa Keno’s, although he did not own the building. He said it is exciting and 

fun to be a part of such a vibrant and unique area, similar to that of being in a small 

town. Dr. Quade said he has had his office located in strip centers, and never knew 

any of the other business people in those centers. In the downtown area, he said 

there is a great atmosphere, adding that he knew many of the business owners. 

Dr. Quade said he leased the space at 7905 Santa Fe Drive and has an option to 

purchase the building at some point. There are seven years left on the lease, and he 

assumed he would be grandfathered into the new ordinance. Mr. Bear concurred. 

Dr. Quade said there was presently a nice mix of service, retail, and office, adding 

that there were approximately 35 to 40 people coming to his office daily, and many of 

them visit area stores after leaving his office. 

Mr. Bruce Mayfield, 7944 Santa Fe, said he owned the historic Boyd Building with two 

other partners. He asked how Dr. Quade’s space would be considered under the new 

guidelines. Mr. Bear replied that this is a chiropractor’s office which is not one of the 

uses specifically noted as a permitted use in that district. Mr. Mayfield understood 

one of the goals of this proposal was to increase pedestrian traffic, but he was concerned 

and found it hard to believe that some of the excellent services and providers 

who would not necessarily fit into the retail niche would in anyway diminish the 

pedestrian traffic. Mr. Mayfield said his parent’s house, where he grew up, was visible 

from the corner of his business, and they still live there; therefore, he said he has a 

vested interest in the long-standing history of Overland Park. With regard to parking, 

he said generally office workers stay at work longer than two hours, noting that many


Page 10 

of the office occupants in the area park in the long-term parking area in Farmer’s 

Market or next to the post office to ensure the retailers have parking availability. On a 

slow day, Mr. Mayfield said there are over 100 people visiting his building, either with 

one of the various attorneys, dropping off paperwork or trying to get information. To 

indicate his building or the Ford building is an office use, for instance similar to that 

of an insurance company where employees might come in for a short time to do 

paperwork and leave, is a not the same. If an interior space becomes vacant, 

Mr. Mayfield clarified that it would not change the usage for the whole building. 

Mr. Bear said if someone moves out of one of the offices, it may not be possible to get a 

retail tenant in that space, and this was not the intent for those situations to try and 

splice in a small retail tenant. The idea is for the entire building frontage, in the event 

of an office vacancy, to be retail space in the future and not office space. Mr. Mayfield 

asked if there were any restrictions regarding growth and expansion for restaurants 

and bars. Mr. Bear said those are permitted uses in this district. If the intent was to 

create more pedestrian traffic in the downtown area, Mr. Mayfield asked why the City 

is not requiring the entire downtown area to be retail. Mr. Bear explained that the 

intent of these zoning districts is to create and preserve a core retail district in the 

downtown area along the key street frontages on 80th Street and Santa Fe. 

Mr. Mayfield said he was opposed to the change, believing that things worked fine the 

way they were. 

Mr. Emanuel Greenberg said he owned property at 7932-7930 Floyd and 7912-7920 

Floyd. He said he was frightened of the words “intent to,” which he has heard 

repeatedly. He said property owners do not want to be limited to how their property 

can be used. Mr. Greenberg said he will benefit from the proposed change because his 

property is in the Downtown II district, noting that all the people who can not have 

offices on Santa Fe and 80th Street will come to his properties hopefully. He said he 

has had vacancies for a year and a half, and he would like either retail or office uses. 

He said he has turned down churches, tattoo parlors, and adult video stores. He 

believed property owners were astute as to what to do to help this area grow. 

Mr. Greenberg said he has owned property since 1960 in the downtown area, and he 

has heard promises from many Planning Commission meetings about how they were 

going to make the downtown area great, better and terrific. He was thankful that 

Farmers Market was built; however, many of the other items mentioned never 

occurred because all the money went somewhere else. He asked why an office 

building or an office park was not pedestrian friendly or does not promote traffic. 

Mr. Greenberg hoped Commissioners would listen to the property owners today who 

have voiced their concerns and reconsider the wording with regard to the restriction of 

office versus retail. 

With no one further to comment on this item, Chairman Hunter closed the public 

hearing. 

Mr. Lance asked Mr. Bear if he had heard anything in today’s public hearing that 

would change his viewpoint on this proposal, and Mr. Bear said no, adding that this 

process began several years ago through the Downtown Master Plan process and was 

reaffirmed repeatedly as the process moved forward. 

Regarding the impact on parking, Chairman Hunter asked if staff has considered what 

happens if all of Santa Fe becomes retail. Mr. Bear relayed that parking is an issue, 

noting that there are communities, such as Lawrence, that limit storefronts, on key


Page 11 

frontages, to retail uses only. Staff does not believe that the proposed restrictions will 

create parking problems that are not already present in the downtown area. 

Mr. Reitzes said the OAC believes that this is the right kind of balance between office 

uses and retail uses, noting there is a place for both; however, they wanted to maintain 

the character of downtown, particularly the Main Street 1 core district and 

improve downtown’s viability over the long term. 

Mr. White stated that he respects everything the OAC has done and he would vote to 

support the amendments; however, his concerns are that there are now two 

delineations--retail and office. Overland Park thrives on the provision of services as 

part of the retail environment, with doctors, lawyers, and insurance offices that people 

come in and out of every day. He said this is an important part of the community and 

an important part of downtown. 

Mr. Sanders said before the public hearing, he was ready to support, and still is 

conceptually, the new districts. However, he is very persuaded by the property owners 

who have provided testimony today because those people own the property and deal 

with leasing, maintenance, and parking issues. He honestly believed that limiting to 

retail uses in Santa Fe and 80th Street is the best answer long term. After listening to 

the property owners today, Mr. Sanders believed that this provision is probably not 

something that should be implemented at this time. 

Mr. Collins understood that the Commission had to consider the long-term effect and 

not just the immediate property owners; however, he agreed with Mr. Sanders that 

these are the individuals who have undertaken a very responsible effort to keep the 

small-town atmosphere of the downtown area alive. His concern related to what 

happens when these individual move on, adding that perhaps then, further consideration 

could be given to this issue. He opposed the passage of the ordinance at this 

time. 

Mr. Reitzes moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council 

approval of Unified Development Ordinance Amendment No. ZRR-2343, Amendments 

to Unified Development Ordinance Sections 18.110, 18.230, 18.1140, 18.150.010, 

18.320, 18.322, 18.324, 18.326, 18.328, 18.330, 18.340, 18.430.070, 18.440 and 

18.450 to create new zoning districts and procedures in Downtown Overland Park, as 

recommended by staff and by the OAC. Mrs. Diebel seconded the motion. 

Chairman Hunter supported the motion because he believed in the long run, it is in 

downtown Overland Park’s best interest for these identified areas to be predominantly 

retail in nature. 

The motion passed by a 7 to 2 vote. Mr. Collins and Mr. Sanders opposed. 

REZONING NO. 2002-6 – 10424 West 87th Street. Rezoning requested from R-1, 

Single-Family Residential District to R-1A, Small-Lot Single-Family Residential 

District, to allow for the construction of two new homes. Application made by 

Mr. Mitch Ashlock. 

(Approved)


Page 12 

Mrs. Karr relayed that the applicant is requesting a rezoning from R-1, Single-Family 

Residential to R-1A, Small-Lot, Single-Family Residential District, to allow additional 

residential development. She said the applicant intends to develop two single-family 

homes on the existing lot. 

The applicant’s lot is 100 feet wide by 145 feet deep, and the R-1A district allows a 

minimum lot width of 50 feet with an average lot depth of 100 feet. Mrs. Karr said the 

R-1 District requires a minimum lot width of 70 feet and an average lot depth of 115 

feet. The applicant has indicated that they intend to split the lot lengthways for two 

development parcels. 

Mrs. Karr advised that the Future Development Plan identified this property for 

medium-density residential uses. The Master Plan also identifies R-1A zoning as an 

appropriate designation in that medium-density residential category; therefore, the 

applicant’s request is in conformance with the Master Plan. 

Staff Comments relayed that the application area was part of a study area in 1994. At 

that time, the Planning Commission and the City Council affirmed the mediumdensity 

designation. Mrs. Karr said in addition, there were criteria from the Master 

Plan identified as an important consideration for any development within the study 

area. She said that policy is outlined in Staff Comments and relates to compatibility 

with infill development. The study area also recommended requiring that all mediumdensity 

residential development comply with principles related to being in scale with 

the neighborhood, similar building orientations and compatible architectural design. 

After reviewing the applicant’s request, Mrs. Karr said staff recommends approval of 

this rezoning request with stipulation a shown in Staff Comments. 

Mr. Sanders noted that the application has an address on 87th Street, and the new 

houses, if approved, will be on Melrose. He asked if the address would be changed to 

show a Melrose address. Mrs. Karr believed that was correct. 

Mr. Mitch Ashlock, 100 East Park Street, Olathe, Kansas, explained that the address 

used on the application was taken off a former house that used to be here years ago. 

He agreed that it should be changed to Melrose, and agreed with stipulation a. 

Chairman Hunter opened the public hearing, but with no one wanting to comment on 

this item, the public hearing was closed. 

Mrs. Conrad stated that this is a wonderful infill project. She was delighted to see the 

applicant build two patio-type homes in this location. 

Mrs. Conrad then moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City 

Council approval of Rezoning No. 2002-6 at 10424 West 87th Street, with stipulation 

a. After a second by Mr. Sanders, the motion carried by a 9 to 0 vote. 

REZONING NO. 2002-7 – 8800 West 95th Street. Rezoning requested from C-2, 

General Business District to CP-2, Planned General Business District, to allow for 

commercial development. Application made by Klover Architects, Inc. 

(Approved)


Page 13 

Planner Keith Gooch stated that the applicant is requesting a rezoning from C-2, 

General Business District to CP-2, Planned General Business District, to allow for 

commercial development. This property is located at the northwest corner of 95th and 

Antioch. 

The applicant is requesting this rezoning to reduce the parking requirement of the 

UDO from five spaces per 1,000 square feet of development, as required in the C-2 

district, to four spaces per 1,000 square feet of development in the CP-2 district. Mr. 

Gooch said this reduction in the parking requirement would allow for the construction 

of a 5,200 square-foot building located at the northeast corner of the shopping center. 

Cherokee North Shopping Center currently has a total of 41,470 square feet of retail 

development, and with this proposed rezoning, there would be a total of 46,670 square 

feet of commercial development. Mr. Gooch stated that the UDO requires 191 parking 

spaces with this total square footage, which is being provided on site. He relayed that 

the Osco Drug Store on the east side of the strip center was approved at staff level 

since this project was zoned C-2 and did not require Planning Commission approval. 

Mr. Gooch advised that a revised landscape concept has been submitted; therefore, 

stipulation f, shown in Staff Comments requiring additional trees, can be removed. 

The Site Plan Review Committee did review the exterior elevations of the proposed 

5,200 square-foot building. The Committee recommended a different material than 

the proposed asphalt shingles over the canopy and to raise the portions of the parapet 

to provide differential from the rest of the cornice. Mr. Gooch advised that the applicant 

has changed the roofing materials to concrete tile; however, they do not want to 

raise portions of the roof as requested by the Site Plan Review Committee. He said 

staff has added a stipulation requiring that the roof be raised to provide a difference in 

height. 

The Future Development Plan Map identifies this area as commercial property, which 

is compatible with this request. 

Mr. Gooch said staff recommends approval of this rezoning, subject to stipulations a 

through e, with the removal of stipulation f. 

Mr. Russ Ehnen, Klover Architects, Inc., agreed with all stipulations. 


Mr. Tim Gomerdinger, 9413 Antioch, said the way the parking lot has been 

redesigned, a major portion of the traffic into it will spill out in front of his home. He 

said this shopping center has been a good neighbor, however, the new parking 

encroaches all the way to his property. Mr. Gomerdinger said the normal cleaning of 

this parking lot takes place after midnight, noting that the machine used is definitely 

outside of what the noise limits are for Overland Park at this hour. If this request is 

approved, he asked that the parking lot be cleaned at a decent hour, especially since 

the lot abuts residential property. 

With no one further to comment, Chairman Hunter closed the public hearing.


Page 14 

Mrs. Conrad clarified from staff that there are restrictions regarding when parking lots 

can be cleaned, asking who Mr. Gomerdinger could call in this regard. Senior 

Assistant City Attorney replied that there were no special hours for cleaning of parking 

lots. He said there were decibel limits at property lines, noting that if a piece of equipment 

is used regularly, it could be tested for sound levels to determine if it is in compliance. 

Mr. Budetti said the Police Department would have to partner with Neighborhood 

Enforcement and the Planning Department in terms of enforcing the noise 

ordinance in off hours. 

Mr. Ehnen said the applicant would be happy to talk to the shopping center owner to 

see if the hours could be modified so the cleaning would not be a nuisance. 

Mr. White was pleased about this project because the dirt and vacant lot has been 

eyesore for many years. Even though it is directly across from a residential area, he 

thought it would improve the overall appearance of the shopping center as well as the 

neighborhood. 

Mr. White then moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council 

approval of Rezoning No. 2002-7, 8800 West 95th Street, with stipulations a through 

e. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reitzes and carried by a 9 to 0 vote. 

SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-3 – 9036 Metcalf Avenue. Special use permit 

requested for a five-year period of time, to allow a drinking establishment. This 

property is currently zoned CP-1, Planned Restricted Business District. Application 

made by Gurdev Choong. 

(Approved) 

Mr. Gooch stated that this item was continued from the March 25, Planning Commission 

meeting due to concerns about landscaping, trash pickup and lighting. He said 

staff visited the site and did find some deficient landscaping on the north side of the 

center and trash bins not located in trash enclosures. Mr. Gooch said staff is working 

with the property owner to address these issues, noting this can be worked out 

separate from this special use permit. 

Staff recommends approval of the special use permit for a five-year period of time. 

Mrs. Conrad asked if there was a Police Department report, and Mr. Gooch said there 

was no negative activity to report. 

Although the applicant was not present, Mr. Gooch said the Commission could take 

action. 

Chairman Hunter opened the public hearing, but with no one to comment, the public 

hearing was closed. 

Mr. White moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council approval of 

Special Use Permit No. 2002-3 at 9036 Metcalf, for a five-year period of time. The 

motion was seconded by Mrs. Conrad and carried by a 9 to 0 vote. 

SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-5 – 5500 College Boulevard. Special use permit 

requested for a three-month period of time, to allow a temporary facility. This property


Page 15 

is currently zoned CP-0, Planned Office Building District. Application made by 

Diagnostic Imaging Centers. 

(Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 22, 2002.) 

Mr. Sanders moved for the continuance as indicated. After a second by Mr. Lance, the 

motion carried unanimously. 

SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-6 – 11851 West 95th Street. Special use permit 

requested for a five-year period to time to allow a drinking establishment. This 

property is currently zoned CP-2, Planned General Business District. Application 

made by TGI Friday’s. 

(Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 13, 2001.) 

Mrs. Conrad moved to continue this item as indicated. After a second by Mr. Reitzes, 

the motion carried by a 9 to 0 vote. 

REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL – MAPLECREST APARTMENTS – Vicinity of 

the northeast corner of 159th Street and U. S. 69 Highway. Application made by 

Polsinelli Shalton & Welte. 

(Approved) 

Mrs. Karr advised that the applicant is requesting a revised preliminary plan to allow a 

212-unit town home development. The proposed density for this project is 9.95 dwelling 

units per acre. She said this property is currently zoned RP-3, Planned Garden 

Apartment District for 296-unit garden apartment complex. Mrs. Karr said the site 

plan indicates an urban type development with rear entry garages for each unit, onstreet 

parking and a central green. She said the central green is 1.3 acres in size and 

is primarily an open space area but will also accommodate the clubhouse and pool 

area. The central green is connected to the town homes through a series of pedestrian 

walkways which also connect to the greenway linkage on the west side of the property 

and the bike/hike trail on the south and east. 

Staff Comments indicated that the previous plan required a 50-foot setback with a 

minimum of 65 evergreen and 25 deciduous trees along the northern property line 

from the adjacent single-family development. The proposed plan reduces the setback 

to a minimum of 30 feet and provides a variety of landscaping materials in excess of 

the total number required by the previous stipulation. Mrs. Karr said staff is comfortable 

with this change to the site plan. 

The proposed buildings are a combination of four, five and six-unit buildings and will 

be constructed of a mix of brick and siding, and stone and siding. Mrs. Karr said the 

end units of most buildings are longer than the middle units, thereby limiting visibility 

from the main circulation drive to the rear. She said some of the garages for the end 

units are side entries. 

Mrs. Karr said the town homes are 2.5 stories tall on the front and 3 stories tall on the 

rear, with an average building height of 28 feet. On land having a natural slope of 7 

percent, the Planning Commission may approve 3 stories on the downhill portion of 

the development. She said the RP-3 district limits apartment buildings to a


Page 16 

maximum of 2 stories and 30 feet in height. In order to allow the front of the 

buildings to be 2.5 stories tall, a deviation is required. 

The Planning Commission or City Council may grant a deviation if they find that all 

the criteria outlined in Staff Comments can be met. Mrs. Karr said it is staff’s opinion, 

because of the height of the buildings is within the height limitation of the ordinance, 

the spirit and intent of the ordinance has been met. She said the developer is proposing 

a different overall development concept than has been typical in the City. Staff 

sees no adverse impacts to adjacent property owners and recommends that the 

deviation be approved. 

Mrs. Karr advised that the applicant, City staff and the Fire Department have worked 

together, through numerous site plan alternatives, to arrive at the current development 

plan. Due to the unusual nature of this project design, substantial research was 

conducted, including a field analysis of the fire equipment operation on different street 

widths, which was done because of the on-street parking proposed by this development. 

She relayed that all of the parties involved in the preparation and review of the 

plans are supportive of the current preliminary design. There may be a few minor 

revisions to be made when a more detailed review of the specific drive and parking 

area geometrics take place at the final development plan stage. 

Improvements required with this project are interim improvements to159th street as 

well as an eastbound left-turn lane on 159th Street at Foster. 

Mrs. Karr stated that the applicant met with the Site Plan Review Committee on 

several occasions. The Committee expressed some concern regarding the use of one 

central green space instead of breaking the green space up throughout the develop- 

ment. She relayed that the Committee suggested several revisions to the plan, 

including modifying the building layout to provide some variety to the building 

orientations, refining the on-street parking to address concerns raised by the Fire 

Department and Transportation staff and modifications to the building elevations. 

The Committee voted 2 to 0 to approve a density bonus based on open space and 

attached garages. 

Mrs. Karr said the Future Development Plan Map identifies this property for medium 

density residential uses; therefore, the applicant’s request is in conformance with the 

Future Development Plan. 

After reviewing the plan for compliance with the Multi-Family Design Guidelines and 

the goals and policies of the Future Development Plan, staff believes the proposed 

development meets the required design objectives. 

Mrs. Karr said staff recommends approval of these Revised Preliminary Plans for 

Maplecrest Apartments, subject to stipulations a through i shown in Staff Comments. 

Mr. Paul Robben, Robben Development Company, 16012 Metcalf, Stilwell, Kansas, 

agreed with all stipulations. He emphasized that these will be for-sale town homes, 

and the average size ranges from 1,200 to 1,800 square feet, with optional finish space 

on the lower level, which would result in 2,200 square feet if the user so desires.


Page 17 

Mr. Lance stated that people who live in the units on the left and right-hand side of 

that large green area in the center would benefit from it, however, the rest of the 

residents in the complex would not. 

Mr. Lance questioned whether one clubhouse and one pool was enough for the 

number of people who would be using them. 

With regard to the green area, Mr. Robben replied that under traditional neighborhood 

design, the rational for the green area proposed here is that rather than having 

unusable green space dispersed throughout the community, there seems to be more 

desire and use on the part of all community residents to enjoy a larger green space 

they can gather in for events. The applicant viewed this as a great tool to promote the 

community. He relayed that this is in line with a study that the Johnson County 

Visioning Committee did which indicated that people preferred open usable space to 

small areas of space around individual buildings. 

Referring to the pool size, Mr. Robben said there is plenty of space to adjust the pool 

size. The applicant will rely on resident ratios to determine the pool size. 

Mr. Sanders asked the applicant how trash disposal would be handled here. 

Mr. Robben said the trash collector has not been contacted yet, and he did not have 

more details about this issue. His preference would be to have the trash contractor 

pull into the rear of the units and collect the trash at the end of the driveways. 

With Wal-Mart being next door, Mr. Sanders asked if there was an intent to connect a 

pedestrian access to the retail. Mr. Robben said the design is set up on a grid system, 

and there is connectivity built into it; however, there are some setback constraints. 

Mr. Sanders understood there were some retaining walls on the west of Wal-Mart, and 

he wondered how that connection might be made. Mr. Robben said he would have to 

look at that situation. 

Chairman Hunter opened the public hearing, but with no one wanting to comment, 

the public hearing was closed. 

Mr. White stated that this layout is a great improvement over the original plan. In this 

plan, the green space is consolidated which gives a community feel to the project and 

a draw for the residents. 

Mr. Reitzes also liked the central green space rather than a dispersed green space. 

Mr. Sanders stated that this was a refreshing design in that it is not the typical garden 

apartment project. He liked the fact that this project goes from a rental project to a for 

sale project. 

With no further discussion, Mr. New moved for the approval of Revised Preliminary 

Plans for Maplecrest Apartments, with stipulations a through i. After a second by 

Mr. Sanders, the motion passed by a 9 to 0 vote. 

REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL – SOUTHGLEN SHOPPING CENTER – 

12075 Metcalf Avenue. Application made by Klover Architects, Inc. 

(Denied)


Page 18 

Mr. Gooch said the applicant is requesting revised preliminary plan approval to allow 

construction of a retail building. The property is currently zoned CP-2, Planned 

General Business District. 

The applicant is requesting this revised preliminary plan to the Southglen Shopping 

Center to allow the construction of a retail building on Lot 6b just east of the 24 Hour 

Fitness Building, which was the old Southglen Theaters. Mr. Gooch said this property 

was originally rezoned in 1989 and allowed a total of 254,000 square feet. There is a 

total of 189,084 square feet of retail currently constructed on site. He said the applicant 

is now requesting to construct an additional 21,750 square-foot retail building on 

Lot 6b for a total of 210,834 square feet. 

The preliminary plan submitted by the applicant proposes the total square footage to 

be constructed on site as 230,834. This includes a 20,000 square foot retail building 

on Lot 6c, which is shown as a parking lot on these plans, located east of Lot 6b, 

which is another rezoning (Rezoning No. 1992-6). Mr. Gooch stated that the 1992 

rezoning only permitted this lot to be used as a parking lot. This 20,000 square-foot 

building is part of a separate application to be heard on April 22, 2002, wherein the 

applicant will be asking to remove the parking lot limitation and to construct a 20,000 

square-foot retail building to be constructed on Lot 6c. Mr. Gooch said the reduction 

of square footage for Rezoning No. 1989-15, which is tied to Lot 6 b and the remainder 

of the Southglen Shopping Center has been included in the stipulations, which would 

be 234,000 square feet. 

Staff Comments relayed that the preliminary plan identifies over 1,700 parking spaces 

on site, which meets the UDO parking requirements. Mr. Gooch said there are handicap 

spaces located on the north side of the proposed retail building so no one would 

have to cross a drive in order to reach the front of the building. 

Mr. Gooch said the applicant has revised the preliminary plans, which were 

distributed to Commissioners today. The revisions to the plan provides for the 

required setbacks from the office zoning to the east of six foot for the drive behind this 

building, as well as the six-foot wide parking lot island. 

Mr. Gooch stated that staff recommends approval of this preliminary plan, subject to 

stipulations a through h. 

Mr. White asked if there was any connectivity to the existing adjacent retail development. 

Mr. Gooch said there is crosswalk access between the entire Southglen 

Shopping Center, including Lot 6c, which will the 20,000 square foot retail building if 

approved at a future meeting. Mr. White relayed that one of the criticisms he has of 

this entire development is access. For example on Lot 6b, he asked if someone could 

go east out of there into the other adjacent lot. Mr. Gooch said that Lot 6c could be 

reached; however, Lot 6c will not connect to the north, the vacant office development 

nor to Glenwood. He said the reasoning for this is that Glenwood is a private street 

owned by Blue Valley School District who has indicated they would oppose any con- 

nection from the Southglen Shopping Center, including Lot 6c to their private street. 

Mr. White asked if there was a connection from this site to the La Paloma Shopping 

Center, and Mr. Gooch said there is not. Mr. White said that was his criticism 

because if people pull into La Paloma, they would not be able to access Lots 6b and 

6c.


Page 19 

Mr. Mark Deaton, Klover Architects, Inc., 109550 Lowell, agreed with all stipulations 

and offered to answer questions. 

Referring to the east elevation of the building, which is the service side, Mr. Lance 

asked if there would be any screening along the property line to help screen it from 

adjacent property owners. Mr. Gooch said that property is zoned for office and is 

undeveloped. He said there is no required solid screening. Mr. Lance was concerned 

that there was nothing to screen the back of the building from future office tenants. 

Mr. Gooch said staff could work that out with the applicant between now and final 

development plan approval. 

Mr. Lance asked about the proposed building materials, and Mr. Deaton said the 

applicant envisioned something similar to what now exists in the shopping center. 

Mr. Lance asked what was proposed for the building lighting. Mr. Deaton referred to 

the towers and blocks shown, which are recessed areas that will be internally lit, 

which will result in a soft glow. Lighting for the store fronts and parking lots would be 

typical. Mr. Lance asked about lighting proposed for the back of the building, and 

Mr. Deaton replied that would be according to what is required by the City’s code. He 

said those could be shielded. 

Mr. Lance asked what material was proposed for the arched roofs, and Mr. Deaton 

replied those were envisioned to be a curved, sheet metal roof that mimic some of the 

curves that occur on the shopping center on the north. 

Mr. Sanders asked how someone would get from Metcalf to these shops. Mr. Deaton 

said with the development of the 24-Hour Fitness, it would be either by driving in front 

of the fitness center or by using the connection from the retail to the north at the back 

of the lot. Mr. Sanders said this center is approximately 800 feet back from Metcalf, 

which makes it difficult to see. He was concerned about the viability of the small 

shops surviving. There is poor visibility and poor circulation and no anchor store. 

Mr. Deaton said the developers had done some extensive research on what they 

considered to be a similar project known as The Fountains. The developers believed 

that if this project was similar to that one, it would be marketable. Mr. Sanders said 

The Fountains is located directly on119th Street and is highly visible. Parking is in 

the front of the buildings, and the circulation pattern is much different. 

Chairman Hunter asked Senior Transportation Planner Mark Stuecheli if he could 

comment regarding the traffic circulation. Mr. Stuecheli said the situation is not ideal, 

however, he did not believe the applicant could do much more to improve it with the 

shopping center’s current layout. 

Chairman Hunter opened and closed the public hearing with no one wanting to 

comment on this item. 

Mr. White commented that while he realized the original zoning allowed up to 254,000 

square feet, he felt that this layout and these specific buildings merely aggravates a 

prior mistake. Traffic would have to go in front of and around buildings to reach the 

shops which he did not like. He thought it would be a problem keeping tenants here, 

adding that he could not support this project.


Page 20 

Mr. Reitzes said there is too much pavement here all strung together, and he definitely 

thought some greenery needed to added in the form of landscaping, trees, and 

shrubbery. He also did not believe Lots 6b or 6c would be economically viable. 

Mr. Sanders was very opposed to this project. While he understood that it technically 

meets all of the requirements, and the architect has tried to produce a building that 

meets his client’s expectations, Mr. Sanders said this is a poor solution. He said the 

project is buried, noting that he believed it would always have difficulties if built. He 

also pointed out that parking is so critical in front of this building that the handicap 

parking has to be placed on the north side. 

With no further discussion, Mr. Reitzes moved for the denial of Revised Preliminary 

Plans for Southglen Shopping Center, 12075 Metcalf, for the reasons outlined. The 

motion was seconded by Mr. White and carried by a 9 to 0 vote. 

REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL – SOUTHGLEN SHOPPING CENTER – 

12075 Metcalf Avenue. Application made by Klover Architects, Inc. 


Mr. Sanders moved for the referenced continuance as requested by the applicant. The 

motion was seconded by Mr. New and carried unanimously. 

PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL – SUNSET RIDGE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 

TEMPORARY CLASSROOMS – 14901 England Street. Application made by Blue 

Valley School District. 


Mr. Sanders moved for the referenced continuance as noted. After a second by 

Mrs. Conrad, the motion carried by a 9 to 0 vote. 

FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL – SUNSET RIDGE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 

TEMPORARY CLASSROOM – 14901 England Street. Application made by Blue Valley 

School District. 


No motion was necessary to continue this item. 

PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL – ESTATES OF GLENEAGLES SUBDIVISION POOL – 

10809 West 142nd Street. Application made by HNTB Corporation. 

(Approved) 

Planner Dave Dalecky stated that the property is currently zoned R-1, Single-Family 

Residential District. 

Mr. Dalecky said the applicant is requesting preliminary development plan approval to 

allow a subdivision pool and cabana for the Estates of Gleneagles Subdivision. He 

said the cabana is designed as three separate structures attached by a wood arbor to 

appear as one integrated structure. He said the structures are to be constructed of


Page 21 

stone, stucco and wood with a pitched roof, finished in tile or shingles. Mr. Dalecky 

said the center structure is an open-air structure supported with stone columns and 

will be the gate to the pool deck area. He advised that the two structures flanking the 

gate will be entirely enclosed for a total of 392 square feet of building floor area. A 

parking lot providing seven parking stalls is accessed from 142nd Street. He said a 

six-foot wrought iron fence will enclose the pool area. Grading adjacent to the 143rd 

Street right-of-way must match the proposed future grading for that street. All 

setback and landscape requirements have been provided. 

Mr. Dalecky relayed that staff recommends approval of the preliminary development 

plans for Estates of Gleneagles Subdivision Pool, subject to stipulations a and b. 

Mr. Brick Owens, HNTB, agreed with all stipulations and offered to answer questions. 

Chairman Hunter opened and closed the public hearing with no one wanting to 

comment on this item. 

Mr. Reitzes moved for the approval of Preliminary Plans for Estates of Gleneagles 

Subdivision Pool, 10809 West 142nd Street, with stipulations a and b. The motion 

was seconded by Mrs. Conrad and passed by a 9 to 0 vote. 

FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL – ESTATES OF GLENEAGLES SUBDIVISION 

POOL – 10809 West 142nd Street. Application made by HNTB Corporation. 

(Approved) 

Mr. Dalecky said this the companion item to the agenda item just approved, and all of 

the architectural and site plan elements still apply. 

Staff recommends approval of this application with stipulations a and b. 

Mr. Lance asked if consideration had been given to having a sidewalk where the cars 

park heading into the curb so people can exit their cars and use the sidewalk rather 

than going through drives. Mr. Dalecky said that was pointed out to the applicant; 

however, they intended to proceed without a sidewalk on that side of the parking lot 

with the belief that the majority of the pedestrian movement would be through the 

parking lot drive to get to the front door of the cabana. 

Mr. Brick Owens, HNTB, requested approval of this application in order to begin 

construction of the pool for an opening in Spring 2003. With regards to the pedestrian 

movement, the applicant felt that as they began moving the project further back to 

comply with the setback requirements that less paving is better. He said the opening 

of the doors and the handicap stalls allowed good movement of people to the front 

door. 

Mr. Lance believed that if there was a walkway, it would encourage people to use the 

walk, which he thought it would be safer. 

Mr. Sanders moved for the approval of Final Development Plans for Estates of 

Gleneagles Subdivision Pool, 10809 West 142nd Street, with stipulations a and b. 

After a second by Mrs. Conrad, the motion passed by a 9 to 0 vote.


Page 22 

PRELIMINARY PLAT NO. 2002-14 – 119TH STREET AND QUIVIRA OFFICE PARK 

SECOND PLAT – 12000 Quivira Road. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. 

(Approved) 

Mr. Gooch advised that the applicant is requesting approval of a three-lot preliminary 

plat for an office park. He said Lots 3 and 4 have been rezoned to CP-0, Planned 

Office Building District, and will be developed with office buildings. Tract B is 

proposed to be dedicated to the City for parkland, which is agreeable with the City’s 

Parks Department. 

Mr. Gooch said staff reviewed this application and determined that all ordinance 

requirements have been met. 

Staff recommends approval of this application with stipulations a and b. 

Mr. Roger Cassity, Phelps Engineering, 1270 North Winchester, Olathe, Kansas, 

agreed with both stipulations. 

Chairman Hunter opened the public hearing, but with no one wanting to address the 

Commission, the public hearing was closed. 

Mrs. Conrad moved for the approval of Preliminary Plat No. 2002-14, 12000 Quivira 

Road, with stipulations a and b. The motion passed by an 8 to 0 vote, after a second 

by Mr. Sanders. Mr. Reitzes was out of the room. 

FINAL PLAT NO. 2002-18 0 119TH AND QUIVIRA OFFICE PARK SECOND PLAT – 

12000 Quivira Road. Application made by Phelps Engineering, Inc. 

(Approved) 

Mr. Reitzes returned to the meeting. 

Mr. Gooch advised that this is the companion item to the preceding item and is 

identical to the preliminary plat just approved by the Commission. 

Mr. Gooch relayed that staff recommends approval subject to stipulations a through c 

shown in Staff Comments. 

Mr. White left the room. 

Mr. Roger Cassity, Phelps Engineering, 1270 North Winchester, Olathe, Kansas, 

agreed with all stipulations. 

Mr. Lance moved for approval of Final Plat No. 2002-18 for 119th and Quivira Office 

Park Second Plat at 12000 Quivira Road, with stipulations a through c. After a second 

by Mr. Reitzes, the motion passed by an 8 to 0 vote. 

PRELIMINARY PLAT NO. 2002-15 – WINCREST – 8700 West 151st Street. Application 

made by Schlagel & Associates, P.A. 

(Approved)


Page 23 

Mr. Bear said the applicant is requesting approval of a 7-lot preliminary plat for an 

office park. The plat also contains rights-of-way for the Benson Street cul-de-sac 

required for this project as stipulated by the rezoning. The plat contains 7 lots, each 

containing a future office building. Tract A is a landscape tract that is intended to be 

dedicated to the Wellington Park Homes Association. Mr. Bear said the tract will be 

dedicated after the landscaping and grass seed is in place and sprinklers are installed. 

The homes association will be responsible for maintenance of the property. He said 

staff is not opposed to the homes association owning and maintaining the landscape 

tract, however, staff has not yet received a letter from the homes association expressing 

their intent to own and maintain the property. Mr. Bear relayed that staff 

recommends there be an end resolution as to the ownership of this tract before 

proceeding with this plat. 

As relayed in Staff Comments, Tracts, B, C, and D are access drives that are intended 

to owned and maintained by the Wincrest Development Association. Mr. Bear advised 

that in the past, staff has recommended that access drives not be in separate tracts. 

Rather, where possible they should be incorporated into the adjoining lots and 

separate access easements be dedicated for the driveways. He explained that the 

purpose is for maintenance and ownership of those driveways. For a small office 

development such as this one, there is a possibility that the business association will 

not materialize or may disband after a few years. Mr. Bear relayed that if that 

happens it becomes very difficult for the City to enforce property maintenance require- 

ments on a business association that may not exist. Furthermore, small access tracts 

such as these can easily be sold and sometimes end up under the ownership of a third 

party, especially if taxes are not paid on the tracts. Mr. Bear indicated that the ownership 

pattern can result in future access problems for the owners of the office lots. For 

those reasons, staff recommends that the access driveways be platted as a part of the 

adjacent office lots and dedicated as separate easements instead. 

Mr. Bear stated that staff recommends this item be continued, and the applicant be 

directed to revise the plat as he just mentioned. Staff further recommends that an end 

resolution of the tract for the homes association, with a letter of intent from the homes 

association to accept the tract, be obtained before preceding with this item. 

Staff has included stipulations a and b, shown in Staff Comments, should the 

Planning Commission find the proposed layout acceptable. 

Mr. John Petersen, applicant, said both stipulations are acceptable. 

With regard to this property being deeded to the homes association, Mr. Petersen 

advised that there was a member of the homes association present. For the record, he 

stated emphatically that it is the applicant’s intent to deed this property to the homes 

association as agreed between the parties. From a legal standpoint, Mr. Petersen said 

the City has no authority to require the applicant to give the property to the neighbor- 

hood. Therefore, to wait for a letter from the neighbors is so far a field of the statutory 

requirements of a plat, it should be disregarded. He said the applicant wants to give it 

to the homes association, who may or may not want it. If the homes association does 

not want it, Mr. Petersen said it will remain a common, landscaped, irrigated common 

area of the office project and will be maintained by the office park association.


Page 24 

Referring to the business park association, Mr. Petersen said there are three separate 

tracts with a common drive into the site. The applicant wants those to be separate 

tracts which will be owned by the business park association with cross access agree- 

ments issued to each singular property owner that owns a lot in the office park. He 

stated that the owner of the property is going to be sure before he sells any lot that he 

has a cross access agreement in place, running with the land. Mr. Petersen said even 

if the property goes to foreclosure, the cross access easement is there forever. 

As the property owner’s attorney, Mr. Petersen said he would ensure there is an 

association formed, that is a matter of record and runs with the land, so that every- 

one has equal control for access and for maintenance. Mr. Petersen asked who would 

be in control, with a separate ownership, if the homes association disbands. He 

pointed out that the protection for the developer is to have the association, with the 

agreements as a matter of record, running with the land. This is the more logical, 

legally enforceable ultimate flexibility approach to take. Mr. Petersen said he did agree 

to a stipulation, with Mr. Budetti, that prior to getting a building permit, the association 

would be formed so that Mr. Budetti could review the documents to see that they 

are in recordable form, so that mechanism will be in place prior to starting 

construction. 

With that, Mr. Petersen asked the Commission to approve the plats as depicted with 

the two stipulations. 

Mr. Sanders asked why the tracts have separate access for almost all of the lots. 

Mr. Petersen replied that during the zoning process, the applicant dedicated a road 

that cut through the western part of the project. He said staff’s recommendation was 

to use the ultimate access through the parking lot. Each individual building owner 

will be responsible for their particular parking lot, but in terms of the common access 

drive, to circulate through the site, the association, of which each lot owner will be a 

member, will have responsibility for that maintenance. 

Chairman Hunter clarified that the association will have the ability to assess all of the 

property owners for expenses associated with maintaining the property. If one 

property owner elects not to pay, there are mechanisms to deal with that. 

Mr. Petersen concurred. 

On the preliminary plat, Mr. New pointed out the wording indicates that Tract A shall 

be owned and maintained by Wellington Park. He asked what happens if Wellington 

Park does not want that, as mentioned earlier by Mr. Petersen. Mr. Petersen thanked 

Mr. New for reminding him about that because he intended to ask for a stipulation 

that this wording be stricken and that the word “may” replace the word “shall.” He 

said the applicant cannot force someone to accept property. 


Mr. Chet Stumpf, 14937 Benson, said he was no longer on the Board of the Wellington 

Park Home’s Association, however, when he was on the Board last October, the Board 

did discuss this and everyone agreed that this project would be good for the homes 

association. He said he could assure the Commission that the homes association 

wants this land. Mr. Stumpf relayed that when this issue was discussed in October, 

the Board indicated that if the property owner planted trees, landscaped it, seeded it 

and establishes it until the grass is growing, they wanted it and would maintain it.


Page 25 

The homes association has a landscaping service who takes care of all the grounds. 

He did not believe the middle driveway would ever be used by the Fire Department, 

and he did not see the need for two gates. He pointed to a wooden fence that was part 

of the homes association and suggested that the developer could circle off this area 

with a wood fence and gate, which would provide some continuity with what exists. 

He knew today was not the proper time to discuss street lighting, building elevations, 

and trash pickup; however, these were important issues to residents who hoped to 

give their input on those items. With regard to landscaping and the cul-de-sac, 

Mr. Stumpf said residents hoped the work could be started and finished within a 

reasonable time frame. 

With regard to watering Tract A, Mr. Collins clarified that the homes association would 

put in an irrigation system, with a separate meter. Mr. Stumpf agreed, adding that he 

believed the developer would install a sprinkler system for the homes association. He 

said when residents meet with the Board they will need to determine the costs on an 

annual basis. 

With no one further to speak, the public hearing was closed. 

Mr. White moved for the approval of Preliminary Plat No. 2002-15 for Wincrest, 8700 

West 151st Street, with stipulations a and b. 

For clarification, Chairman Hunter asked if the intent was for the access drives to be 

titled in the way proposed by the applicant and that no letter of intent will be required 

by the homes association. Mr. White concurred, explaining that the landscape plan 

has been approved, and the applicant is responsible for maintenance. If the owner 

happens, through a contract, to move that responsibility to a homes association, 

Mr. White did not think that affects the plat. He believed it was important that there 

be a common maintenance and overseeing of the access to the project, and he thought 

this was the best way to do that rather than dividing it up. 

Mrs. Conrad seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 

FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL – WINCREST – 8700 West 151st Street. 

Application made by Schlagel & Associates, P.A. 

(Approved) 

Mr. Bear stated that the applicant is proposing to construct several driveways into the 

recently approved office development at the northwest corner of 151st Street and 

Antioch. In addition, the applicant is proposing to bring the site to final grade and 

install all landscaping along the northwest edge of the development. He said the 

intent is to have the infrastructure installed and to allow the owner to sell the 

individual office lots. 

Mr. Bear explained that Benson Street adjoins this property immediately to the north, 

and as part of this project, the applicant is required to finish that street into a cul-desac. 

As required by the Fire Department, the applicant will install an emergency 

access road between the end of the cul-de-sac and the driveway within this develop- 

ment that will lead to 151st Street. Mr. Bear said that access road is proposed to be 

made of grasscrete pavers. He stated that grasscrete is a pavement system that is 

constructed of a series of concrete blocks that are arranged in such a manner that will


Page 26 

allow grass to grow between the gaps. The result is supposed to be a surface that is 

sturdy enough for fire trucks to drive on but appears as a finished lawn and allows 

some stormwater to percolate through. Although staff is unaware of this system being 

previously used in the City, they believe it could be beneficial in situations like this 

one. Mr. Bear said staff is willing to give it a try subject to approval by the Fire 

Department. At both ends of the access road will be a gate for emergency access only 

that will also be subject to approval by the Fire Department. He said closely spaced 

evergreens will be planted on either side of the access drive to discourage cut-through 

traffic from bypassing the gates and cutting through to 151st Street. 

As relayed in Staff Comments, landscaping is proposed in a large open-space tract 

located along the northwest edge of this development. Mr. Bear advised that the open 

space tract will be landscaped and seeded and sprinklers will be installed. He said the 

tract is intended to be dedicated to the Wellington Park Homes Association. 

Mr. Bear stated that staff has reviewed the application, and the Engineering Services 

division has also reviewed the grading plan and has noted there may be a couple of 

minor changes yet that can be handled at the building permit stage. 

Staff recommends approval of this application subject to stipulations a through d 

shown in Staff Comments and also subject to an amendment to stipulation c. 

Mr. Bear said stipulation c(1) should read: “A northbound left-turn lane on Antioch 

Road at the northernmost driveway.” Stipulation c (2) should read: “A southbound 

right-turn lane on Antioch Road at the southernmost driveway.” Mr. Bear said the 

remaining numbers should then be renumbered to 3, 4, and 5. 

Mr. Collins recalled that the northernmost entrance off Antioch was going to connect 

all the way through to 151st Street and asked if that was correct. Mr. Bear said that 

is correct, adding that traffic can still get from Antioch all the way through to 151st 

Street as the office park develops. He said there is no proposed dedicated driveway in 

order to bypass all the way through from Antioch to 151st Street. He said this plan is 

identical to the rezoning plan that was approved, and it will be necessary to drive 

through parking lots to get all the way through. 

Mr. White understood that staff and the Fire Department is willing to give this a try at 

this location; however, he asked what alternative existed if this did not work. Mr. Bear 

said if it does not work, a more traditional driveway can be installed with gates on 

either end. He said systems like this are being used increasingly around the country 

and other communities where stormwater runoff is trying to be eliminated. He said it 

seems to be something that in most places is being used with success. 

Mr. New asked staff if this drive could be better configured to the curb on the private 

drive because it seems to be too much of a sharp angle for a fire truck to maneuver 

into a 14 foot drive. Mr. Stuecheli replied that the intent is to come off 151st Street 

and turn straight into the cul-de-sac. He stated that staff would look at that at the 

construction plan stage. 

Mr. Lance stated that a problem is that the CMU? Material absorbs a lot of heat which 

needs a lot of attention to keep enough water on it so that the grass does not dry up 

and blow away.


Page 27 

Mr. Dan Foster, Schlagel & Associates, 12201 West 88th Street, agreed with all 

stipulations. With regard to the grasscrete, this area is irrigated so the grass will 

remain alive, 

Mr. Lance asked where the fire gate detail was proposed. Mr. Foster said that is up to 

the Fire Department, and the applicant is still working out whether there will be one 

or two gates. He said if there is only one, which is shown currently, it will be in the 

middle of the access drive. Mr. Lance clarified that the gate would be between the culde-sac 

and road, and Mr. Foster concurred. 

Mrs. Conrad moved for the approval of Final Development Plans for Wincrest, 

8700 West 151st Street with the amendment to stipulation c as read by staff, and 

Mrs. Diebel seconded the motion. 

Referring to the original rezoning request, Mr. Reitzes recalled there was an issue of 

whether to extend Benson all the way over to 151st Street. At that time, Mr. Reitzes 

was in favor of extending it and was not in favor of the cul-de-sac formation here, 

which he said has somewhat dampened his enthusiasm. Mr. Reitzes stated that his 

reasoning at the time was that it would not make much difference with cut-through 

traffic to the single-family residential area adjacent to the north. He said he was 

surprised that staff is supporting using the grasscrete with the gated access here. 

Mr. White agreed with Mr. Reitzes, adding that he would use that as justification to 

vote against this application as he voted the first time. He believed Benson should be 

a through street. 

Mr. Sanders stated that the Golden Rule has always been not to mix residential and 

commercial development, which is the struggle involved here. He said it looks like a 

forced solution trying to get the best of all worlds wherein there is almost a connection 

here from the Fire Department’s standpoint, however, there truly is not a connection 

from a day-to-day circulation standpoint. 

The motion passed by a 5 to 4 vote. Those opposed were Mr. Reitzes, Mr. White, 

Mr. Lance, and Mr. Collins. 

FINAL PLAT NO. 2002-16 – WINCREST – 8700 West 151st Street. Application made 

by Schlagel & Associates, P.A. 

(Approved) 

Mr. Bear said the applicant is requesting approval of a final plat for an office park. He 

said this item is identical to the preliminary plat which the Commission earlier 

approved. 

Staff recommends approval of this item, with the inclusion of stipulations a and b. 

Mr. John Petersen, representing the applicant, agreed with both stipulations. 

Mr. Sanders moved for the approval of Final Plat No. 2002-16, Wincrest, 8700 West 

151st Street, with stipulations a and b. Following a second by Mr. Reitzes, the motion 

carried by a 9 to 0 vote.


Page 28 

FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL – 103 METCALF CENTER – 10325 Metcalf 

Avenue. Application made by House of Denmark. 

(Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 13, 2002.) 

No motion was necessary. 

SIGN DEVIATION – THE FOUNDATION CENTER – 9001 West 110th Street. 

Application made by Overland Park Chamber Foundation. 

(Approved) 

Mr. Bear said the applicant is requesting approval of a sign deviation to allow the 

construction of a monument sign closer to the right-of-way than is allowed by the 

UDO. The property is currently zoned CP-0, Planned Office Building District. He 

advised that the Overland Park Chamber Foundation is located at the northeast 

corner of College Boulevard and Grandview Street. Mr. Bear said the sign is proposed 

along Grandview Street, west of the existing building and parking lot. Along 

Grandview Street, is a mowed swath of grass approximately 20 to 25 feet in width. 

Beyond that grass is a band of trees and low brush that effectively separates the 

parking lot and building from the street. He referred Commissioners to pictures of the 

site that staff distributed. Mr. Bear said the sign is proposed on the edge of the trees 

within the swath of grass. In this location, the sign will be approximately three feet 

from the public right-of-way. A deviation is required because the UDO requires the 

sign to be located at least ten feet from the public right-of-way. He explained that the 

Planning Commission can grant a deviation only if it finds that the five criteria listed 

in Staff Comments can be satisfied. 

Staff believes that all five criteria can be met in this instance. Mr. Bear advised that 

the site is somewhat unique in that a significant number of trees were preserved 

between the parking lot and the public street. Locating the sign in compliance with 

the setback requirements would mean that several trees would have to be removed. In 

addition, he said the sign would not be visible if located within the strip of trees 

especially during the summer. Mr. Bear relayed that there does not appear to be a 

better location for the sign anywhere on the site. 

Mr. Bear said the sign will be designed to complement the other signs in Corporate 

Woods and should not look out of place in the proposed location. Therefore, staff 

feels that the sign is not opposed to the general spirit and intent of the ordinance. 

Staff recommends approval of the application, subject to stipulation a. 

Ms. Mary Birch, President of The Overland Park Chamber of Commerce, representing 

the Overland Park Chamber Foundation, requested this sign deviation. Granting this 

sign deviation would allow the preservation of a significant number of trees. She said 

this is a quasi-community building that serves the public, and visibility is very 

important. Ms. Birch said Corporate Woods favors allowing this monument sign. 

Mr. Lance asked if the proposed sign would be lit at night, and Ms. Birch said it would 

not be lit. He asked if there would be any landscaping around it, and Ms. Birch said it 

would be similar to other Corporate Woods signs by using daffodils around it.


Page 29 

With no further questions or discussion, Mr. New moved for the approval of the sign 

deviation request for The Foundation Center, 9001 West 110th Street, with stipulation 

a. Mr. White seconded the motion, which passed by a 9 to 0 vote. 

The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:40 p.m. 

Minutes transcribed by Nancee Ellis. 

___________________________________ 

Charles Hunter, Chairman

Planning Commission Meeting (April 8, 2002) - City of Overland Park

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?