NOVEMBER 23, 2015 OLATHE PLANNING COMMISSION

Transcription

1 NOVEMBER 23, 2015 OLATHE PLANNING COMMISSION CASE LOCATIONS WARD 2 WARD 4 RZ ^_ WARD 1 WARD 3 ^_ PR User: gradyrm Date: 11/18/2015 ^_ Case Applications Highway Arterial Street City of Olathe Lakes Stream

2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, :00 PM FINAL AGENDA CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE QUORUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CONSENT AGENDA 1. Standing approval of the Minutes as written from the November 09, 2015 Planning Commission meeting - Cases: PLN , RZ , P , RZ , SU PR : Request approval of a preliminary site development plan for a Taco Bell Restaurant containing 0.61± acres; located at the southwest corner of 151 st Street and Black Bob Road. Owner: Applicant: Architect: Paul R. Hoover/KC Bell, Inc. Jennifer Rygg/Spangenberg Phillips Tice Architecture Todd Allenbrand/Payne and Brockway REGULAR AGENDA - New Business PUBLIC HEARING 1. RZ : Request approval of a Zoning Amendment for CP-2 Zoning District (Murphy Express convenience store with gasoline pumps/canopy) on 0.92± acres; located at 481 North K-7 Highway. Owner: Applicant/ Engineer: Commerce Bank Eric Wilhite/GreenbergFarrow ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Olathe will provide reasonable accommodations for all public meetings. Persons requiring accommodations in attending any of our public meetings should contact the City Clerk s office at a minimum of 48 hours prior to the meeting.

3 City of Olathe City Planning Division MINUTES - Consent Agenda Planning Commission Meeting: November 9, 2015 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Greg Harrelson, with the following members present: Jeremy Fry, Ryan Nelson, Ryan Freeman, Ann Horner, Dean Vakas and Mike Rinke. Absent were Erin Davis and John Almeida. Chairman Harrelson: Good evening. We are reconvening from Executive Session and will begin the public portion of the November 9 th Planning Commission meeting. Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Fry, to reconvene from Executive Session with no report, and back into open session. Motion passes unanimously. Recited Pledge of Allegiance. The Chairman read the standard ex parte statement. Chairman Harrelson reported that he received comments regarding Garmin items 1 and 2 on the agenda, via Amy Kynard, who passed the same information along to all commissioners. No other Commissioner reported having any ex parte communications. A motion to approve Consent Agenda items 1 and 2 was made by Commissioner Fry and seconded by Commissioner Vakas. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting: November 09, 2015 Request: PLN : - Request for approval of the 2016 Olathe Planning Commission Meeting Schedule and Development Review Schedule Applicant: Olathe Planning Division Staff Contact: David Clements, Planning Manager

4 Summary: This is a request for approval of the Planning Commission meeting schedule and Development Review schedule for This schedule defines the application review timeline beginning with the application dates and ending with the Planning Commission and City Council hearing dates. Attachment: 2016 Planning Commission Meeting and Development Review Schedule 005. Motion by Commissioner Fry, seconded by Commissioner Vakas, to approve PLN-15- Motion passes unanimously.

5 This application is continued from the October 12, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. The staff report has been amended, with new and revised sections italicized. The October 12 th packet includes additional attachments that are not included in the November 9 th packet. No plan sheets have been revised since the October 12 th meeting. City of Olathe City Planning Division MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting: November 9, 2015 Dave Clements, Planning Manager, made the following staff presentation: Application: RZ : Request approval of a Zoning Amendment for an M-1 District containing 39.44± acres and a revised Preliminary Development Plan for a business park containing 56.84± acres (Garmin Master Plan). Location: Owner/Applicant: Architect: Engineer: Staff Contact: 1200 East 151 st Street Garmin Realty LLC / Teresa Reicherter Gould Evans / Dan Zeller Phelps Engineering, Inc. / Judd Claussen Amy Kynard, Senior Planner Existing Zoning: M-1 (Light Industrial); BP (Business Park); and C-2 (Community Center) Proposed Zoning: No change to districts Plat: Garmin Properties Phase 1; Garmin Properties Phase 2; Gateway Business Park First Plat; Olathe Medical Clinic; unplatted Existing / Proposed Use: Business Park / corporate headquarters Site Area: 96.28± gross acres (overall) PlanOlathe Land Use Category Existing Use Current Zoning Site Design Cat. Building Design Cat. Site Employment Area* Business Park M-1, BP, & C-2 5 E North Conventional Neighborhood Single-Family Residential R-1 [1] - South Employment Area* Commercial C-2 [5] [E] East Conventional High School & Single- AG & R-1 [1] -

6 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 2 Neighborhood Family Residential West Employment Area* Business Park CP-2, M-1, & M-2 [5] [E] * The boundaries of this Employment Area are proposed for revisions as part of the 2015 PlanOlathe update. Part of the Garmin site is currently within a Conventional Neighborhood, but that portion is proposed for Employment Area. 1. Comments: This application consists of a preliminary development plan for a business park, specifically Garmin s corporate headquarters. Garmin s continued success has prompted the company to develop a plan for the long-term expansion and use of its campus. Garmin s campus currently includes a combination of offices, manufacturing, and warehousing uses. The existing buildings are surrounded by surface parking and are also served by a parking garage on the north side of the tower. As Garmin s existing buildings near capacity and the company continues to grow, the company has acquired some additional land adjacent to its campus. This application will unify all of Garmin s property and provide a plan for buildout of the campus. The expansion of the campus includes a new 712,842 square foot building to the northwest of the existing buildings. The new building includes a combination of warehousing, offices, and manufacturing uses. It will have loading docks on the southwest façade, and most of the offices will be located on the southeast end of the building for convenience to the rest of the campus. New surface parking would be provided on all four sides of the new building, but mostly on its southwest side. Two existing buildings along Mahaffie Circle would be demolished to make room for the necessary surface parking. Upon completion of the new building, the existing warehouse would be converted into offices. A portion of the building would be removed to separate it from the other existing buildings, which will be required by Code for the change in occupancy type. Details of the changes to this existing building have not been provided at this time. On the south side of the proposed warehouse-to-office conversion, existing loading docks would be removed, a small building would be demolished, and the surface parking would be reconfigured to provide additional spaces. A future 4-story parking structure is shown at the southwest corner of the site, but no details have been provided. The applicant indicates that it would be similar in size and appearance to the one currently under construction on the north side of the tower. Other changes to the site include the rerouting of the traffic circulation throughout the site, a trail system for connectivity and recreational purposes, and new recreational fields. There is also a deferred parking lot shown on the north side of the detention basin, in the same location as the temporary lot that was recently constructed to offset the loss of parking during construction of the new parking structure. The temporary lot will be removed upon completion of the parking structure, and the deferred parking lot would not be constructed in its place unless it becomes necessary to meet parking demand. The attached Statement of Purpose describes the project in more detail. 2. Background: Because the campus has grown incrementally, this is a complex application that includes multiple plat areas and zoning districts. In 1994, RZ rezoned what is now the east half of the campus to BP.

7 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 3 In 2003, the plan was revised for the campus and tower addition (RZ-12-03, PR ). In 2007, what is now the west portion of the campus was rezoned to BP and received plan approval for a warehouse and manufacturing expansion (RZ , PR , PR ). The campus was also platted/re-platted as Garmin Properties Phase 1 at that time (P ). In 2009, Garmin acquired the medical office building at the northeast corner of 151 st Street and Mahaffie Place, which was platted as Olathe Medical Clinic in In 2013, a final plat for Garmin Properties Phase 2 (P ) was recorded in conjunction with an expansion for a new surface parking lot to the northwest of the current buildings. Earlier this year, PR was approved for a parking lot expansion, and PR was approved for a new parking structure. Also in 2015, Garmin acquired two existing buildings on the east side of Mahaffie Circle, which are part of Gateway Business Park First Plat (platted in 1990). The entire area bounded by 151 st Street on the south, I-35 on the west, Ridgeview Road on the east, and the Mission Ridge subdivision on the north, was part of RZ-26-86, a 1986 rezoning case. Much of the area has been rezoned since 1986, but there is still a large area that retains the 1986 zoning classification and preliminary development plan, including the M-1 zoned land where Garmin proposes to build the new warehouse/office/manufacturing building as part of this application. The 1986 rezoning ordinance and preliminary development plan included a stipulation for a 75 foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the residential area. While not stipulations, it is also documented that the owner committed to the following for the M-1 district: Installation of landscape materials within the buffer area to be planted by Spring of 1987 to allow it to begin to mature prior to development of the industrial area; An additional 65 foot building setback on top of the 75 foot buffer area, for a total of 140 feet from residential property lines (parking would be allowed within the 65 foot area, but not the 75 foot landscape buffer); No overhead doors or loading areas on the rear of any buildings which back up to residential areas; No open storage of materials or vehicles behind buildings that back up to residential areas; High quality building materials and architectural uniformity; High quality building materials on rear of buildings which back up to residential areas; No rail spurs. With this application, there are three portions of the parking lot behind the new building that would encroach into the 75 foot buffer area so as part of the preliminary development plan for the overall Garmin Campus, the M-1 portion of the plan will require a Zoning Amendment to remove the stipulation from the 1986 ordinance. It is also worth noting that the landscaping within the buffer area was not planted in 1987 as intended. Also contrary to the property owner s commitments at the time of the rezoning, the current application would place a portion of the building within the 140 foot building setback from the residential area, and would place one overhead door on the northwest side of the new warehouse, which is semi-adjacent to residential property. Building setbacks, buffers, and landscaping are discussed in more detail below.

8 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 4 3. Public Notice: Notice of the public hearing originally scheduled for September 28, 2015 was provided in accordance with the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and statutory requirements. After the application was continued to the October 12 th meeting, the applicant mailed first class letters to surrounding property owners to notify them of the continuance. Some residents have stated that they did not receive those letters until after the October 12 th meeting. To ensure all surrounding property owners received adequate notice of the continuance to November 9 th, the applicant mailed certified letters well in advance of the new meeting date. Additionally, the rezoning signs posted on the property were updated to reflect the November 9 th public hearing date. 4. Neighborhood Meeting: The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on August 17, 2015 (see notes attached to October 12, 2015 Planning Commission packet). Residents expressed concerns regarding phasing, traffic, landscaping, lights, noise, and security cameras on the rear of the building. The phasing of the campus expansion is largely unknown. The loop road and traffic circulation on the east side of the campus will be constructed in conjunction with the new parking structure project, which is already underway. The timing for the new building, warehouse-to-office conversion, and future parking garage will depend on Garmin s growth and stock prices. Traffic, landscaping, and lighting are discussed in more detail below. In response to the noise concerns, the neighborhood meeting minutes indicate that Garmin offered to have a sound study done to make sure the building will not make the existing highway and train noise worse. To date, staff has not had any discussions with Garmin regarding this study or when it would be completed. In response to the question about security cameras, Garmin indicated that cameras would be used to monitor doors on the rear of the building, but they would not be aimed towards neighbors houses. 5. Comments Received / November 9 th Update: Since the October 12 th meeting, staff has received two messages regarding the Garmin Master Plan rezoning application through the City s OlatheConnect app. One of these was also received as a hard copy. These messages expressed concerns regarding traffic, noise, lighting, landscaping/buffering, and more. A copy of these comments has been provided to the Planning Commission. Several residents have also expressed frustration with Garmin associates smoking within the residential neighborhoods due to Garmin maintaining a smoke-free campus. The applicant has provided the following response: Garmin has notified their associates to not smoke on surrounding neighbor s private property and will continue to monitor the situation, but they cannot control or deny them the option to smoke on public property, which includes the public street right-of-way. Garmin has set a policy to be a smoke-free campus therefor no smoking is allowed on Garmin s private property. 6. Zoning Requirements: a. Dimensional Standards Because the portion of the site that is zoned BP is proposed to remain largely unchanged, only the M-1 dimensional standards are

9 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 5 addressed below. The new building complies with the following regulations that apply to the M-1 District for Site Design Category 5 and Building Design Category E: a. Maximum Height i. Buildings: 12 stories / 144 feet (the proposed building is 48 feet tall at its maximum height above grade) ii. Other Structures: 100 feet (setback a distance greater than or equal to height) (three liquid nitrogen tanks located behind the building are shown to be approximately 31 feet tall) b. Minimum Front Yard = 20 feet (the building is more than 100 feet from all property lines) c. Minimum Side Yard = 10 feet (the building is more than 100 feet from all property lines) d. Minimum Rear Yard = 10 feet (the building is more than 100 feet from all property lines) e. Minimum Parking/Paving setbacks (all parking lots are set back sufficiently to meet these requirements) i. 20 feet from street right-of-way ii. 7.5 feet from property lines f. Open space = 15% of net site area (this statistic was not provided, but staff believes the amount of open space indicated on the plan would exceed 15% of the site area) 7. Composite Design Standards: The building and site design categories are determined by the site s designation on the Future Land Use Map. This property is located within an Employment Area, so it is subject to Site Design Category 5 and Building Design Category E. a. Site Design Standards: Composite Site Design (Category 5) Parking Pod Size (max. 160) Pedestrian Connections Drainage Features Buffer Area Adjacent to Other Uses Proposed Design Pods are less than 160 spaces (1 exception) Trail system to connect campus Hardscape entry monument added Increased setback and landscape buffer provided 1. Parking Pod Size With the exception of one location that already has an approved plan for a configuration that includes a parking pod greater than 160

10 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 6 spaces (PR ), islands have been added to separate parking into pods of 160 spaces or less. 2. Pedestrian Connections A conceptual layout is shown for a new trail system throughout the campus, which will provide a number of cross-property connections to facilitate access between buildings and parking lots. 3. Drainage Features The site utilizes regional detention. The existing east basin adjacent to Ridgeview Road will be modified, with a new hardscape entry monument added. The applicable Site Design Standards option for a dry-bottom basin requires it to be maintained as extensively landscaped open space with a shallow slopes and a curvilinear shape. The plans indicate that approximately 45 existing trees will be removed around this east basin, with only 5 new trees planted. The applicant explains that removal of these existing trees is important for the redefining of the adjacent entrance as Garmin s front door since it will allow views to the new signage and parking garage to help visitors understand where to go. Furthermore, the applicant does not want to define the edges of the basin with landscaping, because it is maintained as an open lawn area and they do not want to call attention to the fact that it is a detention basin. In response to staff s comments that additional landscaping is needed to meet the above-mentioned requirement for extensive landscaping around the basin, the applicant has submitted a revised landscape plan excerpt that defines the entrance drive with Prairie Dropseed Grass and adds a row of Tam Juniper shrubs along the east edge of the basin, near the street. The landscape plan shows new trees to be planted along the edge of Garmin s portion of the west detention basin, located near the new building and I-35. These trees will also help to provide some screening of the dock doors from I Buffer Area Adjacent to Other Uses In accordance with the Site Design Standards buffer requirements, the new building is located more than 100 feet from the R-1 zoning district, and perimeter landscaping areas are more than 40 feet deep. b. Building Design Standards: The following is an analysis of the composite building design requirements for the proposed building. The development is subject to Building Design Category E standards (UDO ). The applicant has submitted a narrative to address the specific building design standards and a separate drawing is included in the packet to identify different building features (Color Elevations). The applicant has labeled the elevations as North, East, South, and West; but because the building sits at an angle, staff has chosen to refer to them as Northwest (or NW; labeled as North), Northeast (or NE; labeled as East), Southeast (or SE; labeled as South), and Southwest (or SW; labeled as West). Composite Building Design (Category E) Horizontal Articulation Proposed Design Wall offsets at multiple locations between office, manufacturing and warehouse functions. Wall notches provided through small recess between window frame and glazed portion of

11 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 7 Vertical Articulation Focal Point Element Façade Expression building. Change in roof height between warehouse (44 ), manufacturing/loading docks (32 ) and office building (23 ). Shed-roof skylights on the SE elevation, mechanical roof screen walls on SW elevation. Main entry on SE elevation has 10 increase in roof height from office building. Change in materials between lower and upper portions of building with insulated metal wall panels, precast concrete, Kalwall (fiberglass panel) and different types of glazing. Transparent Glass (>20%) All sides of the building exceed minimum 20 percent glass requirement, including glass panels and Kalwall. Building Materials on Primary Facades (>70% Category 1; remainder from Category 2) Category 1 / Category 2 NE elevation - 84% 16% NW elevation - 99% 1% SE elevation - 94% 6% SW elevation - 74% 26% Building Materials on Secondary Facades (>50% Category 1; remainder from Category 2) Transition Standards Overhead Doors / Loading Docks N/A (all facades are primary facades) Exception requested (see explanation below) Windows above some doors; exception requested (see explanation below) 1. Horizontal Articulation Category E buildings are required to incorporate horizontal and vertical articulation every 100 feet of primary façade width. The proposed building includes wall offsets and various locations where there are changes in building function between office, manufacturing and warehouse. The warehouse portion of the building does not include wall offsets but the applicant has proposed wall notches with small separation between the window frame and glazed portion of the building. The northeast and southwest elevations include multiple breaks in the precast concrete with Kalwall (fiberglass panels) that extend the full height of the façade. 2. Vertical Articulation The building include changes in roof height between the warehouse (44 ), manufacturing/loading docks (32 ) and office building (23 ). There are shed-roof skylights on the SE elevation and mechanical roof screen walls on SW elevation. The northeast elevation, facing residential area, does not include vertical articulation over the warehouse. The applicant has indicated that this type of articulation is not possible over the warehouse building. They request that the

12 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 8 rear elevation of the building be considered a secondary façade, which does not require vertical articulation. 3. Focal Point Element The main entry to the building on southeast elevation has a 10-foot increase in roof height from the office building. 4. Façade Expression The building includes changes in materials between lower and upper portions of building with insulated metal wall panels, precast concrete, Kalwall (fiberglass panel) and different types of glazing. 5. Transparent Glass Category E design standards require transparent glass on a minimum of 20 percent of primary facades. The proposed building includes clear insulating glass and glass panels on the office and manufacturing areas and Kalwall (fiberglass panels) and aluminum framed windows on the warehouse. Spandrel or opaque glass is allowed for a portion of Category E buildings. All sides of the building exceed 20 percent glass, including Kalwall, and the southeast elevation has 84 percent glass. 6. Building Materials The proposed building consists of precast concrete with form-liner finish, insulated metal wall panels, corrugated metal wall panels, Kalwall fiberglass panels, clear insulating glass and panelite glass. The applicant has submitted samples for the Kalwall and metal panels and these will be available for review at the meeting. All sides of the proposed building meet the definition for primary façade because they face or are visible from a public street or private drive that serves customers. The following is a breakdown of the proposed building materials and required standards. Façade (elevation) Category 1 Category 2 Northeast (faces R-1) Northwest (faces I-35) Southeast (faces Garmin) Southwest (faces RR/ Dillard s) Precast / Glass / Kalwall (84%) Precast / Glass / Kalwall (99%) Precast / Glass / Kalwall (94%) Precast / Glass / Kalwall (74%) Requirement (Category 1 / 2) Metal Panel (16%) 70% / 30% Metal Panel (1%) Metal Panel (6%) Metal Panel / Dock Doors (26%) 70% / 30% 70% / 30% 70% / 30% The metal panel is intended by the applicant to meet the definition of Category 2 s architectural metal, but may also meet the definition of corrugated metal, which would be prohibited as a Category 3 material. After examining the quality of the material sample submitted, staff is comfortable counting this material as a Category 2 architectural metal. 7. Transition Standard To meet this standard, portions of buildings within 200 feet of an R-1 or R-2 district must be no taller than 35 feet or two stories. The taller portion of the building averages 44 feet in height. The grade changes

13 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 9 8. Parking: across the length of the building, and there is one segment of the building that will be 48 feet tall at its highest point. Due to the shape of the property line, there are portions of the 44-foot tall portion of the building that are located within 200 feet of the adjacent R-1 district. In one area, the building is only feet from the R-1 district (its closest point). The applicant requests an exception to allow the building height and setback as shown. The applicant chose to locate the building where shown in order to keep the loading docks and most of the parking spaces and activity on the opposite side of the building from the residential area. Due to the shape of the site, that placed portions of the building less than 200 feet from the residential property. However, the applicant points out that the building sits below the level of the residential lots, making the effective height of the building less than 35 feet for the affected residential lots. At its lowest point, the berm is 37.5 feet below the top of the building. To further offset this requested exception, the applicant has provided additional landscaping adjacent to the residential properties in that area. 8. Overhead Doors / Loading Docks The building includes loading docks on the southwest elevation and a small loading dock on the northwest elevation. According to UDO requirements, overhead doors visible from a public street must incorporate a canopy and/or windows in the overhead doors. The doors on the main loading dock are facing Mahaffie Circle and the smaller dock is facing I-35 Highway. The few overhead doors on the northwest elevation appear to include canopies. The applicant does not provide canopies for the doors on the main loading dock to maintain a clear view for overhead security cameras to monitor shipping operations. This façade does include aluminum framed windows along the Kalwall sections. An exception is requested to allow the overhead doors as proposed. 9. Mechanical Equipment The rooftop mechanical equipment above the loading dock will be screened by perforated metal panels to match the exterior of the new parking garage. There are metal louvers above the office (logistics) area on the southwest elevation. The louvers will be painted to match the precast concrete. The floor plan identifies three liquid nitrogen tanks on the rear of the manufacturing area (NE elevation). The applicant is proposing additional landscaping along the residential property line to provide screening for the tanks. Garmin currently has a shortage of parking on the campus, but the new parking structure (PR ) under construction will provide additional spaces to meet the current demand. The proposed new development will further increase the parking demand on the campus. Upon full buildout of the campus as shown on the preliminary development plan, more than 1,000 additional surface parking spaces will be added. The applicant calculates that 4,542 parking spaces are required by the Unified Development Ordinance. As the site plan indicates, the campus at buildout will include approximately 4,591 parking spaces, including 185 deferred parking spaces. Without the

14 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 10 deferred parking, the plan would provide 4,406 spaces. Some additional spaces are likely be lost to accommodate the required 92 handicap stalls, which are not indicated on the preliminary development plan except for those in existing parking lots. 9. Traffic: The applicant completed a Traffic Impact Study that recommends a number of improvements along 151 st Street and Ridgeview Road. Since the campus expansion will be phased, the timing of these improvements will be tied to specific phases of development. The following image shows the locations of the improvements, corresponding to the letters used in the list below. 1. At the time that the private drive connecting Mahaffie Circle and Ridgeview Road is relocated, the developer will make the following improvements: A. On Ridgeview Road at the new/relocated private drive: i. Modify the pavement markings to provide a northbound left turn lane and one through lane in each direction; and ii. Construct a southbound right turn lane. B. On Ridgeview Road at Meadow Lane: i. Modify the pavement markings to provide a southbound left turn lane and one through lane in each direction. 2. Prior to occupancy of the new warehouse/office/manufacturing building, the developer will: C. At Ridgeview Road and the south drive/school drive: i. Install a traffic signal;

15 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 11 ii. Construct a northbound left turn lane; and iii. Construct a second southbound through lane. D. On 151st Street at the easternmost drive into the Garmin property: i. Construct a median to restrict northbound and southbound left turn and through movements. E. On 151st Street at Brentwood Street: i. Extend the eastbound left turn lane. F. At 151st Street and Mahaffie Circle: i. Construct a second eastbound left turn lane; and ii. Modify pavement markings on the southbound approach to provide a shared left/through lane and dual right turn lanes; and iii. Construct a second southbound right turn lane. 3. There are also certain improvements recommended by the Traffic Impact Study that will be designed and constructed by the City, which means that the Governing Body will make the sole determination regarding the timing of the improvements. The developer will make a contribution toward the cost of design and construction of these improvements, as agreed upon by the Governing Body. 10. Streets: G. At the intersection of 151st Street and Ridgeview Road: i. Construct a second southbound left turn lane; ii. Extend the existing westbound right turn lane; and iii. Modify the median to improve left turn storage for northbound traffic. H. On 151 st Street: i. Construct a third westbound through lane on 151st Street (beginning 300 feet east of Mahaffie Circle, and continuing west to the I-35 northbound entrance ramp). A new cul-de-sac is shown for the terminus of Mahaffie Circle adjacent to the new building. The bulb of this cul-de-sac is required to be 96 feet in diameter (pavement width, not rightof-way), so it will need to be revised prior to construction. 11. Landscaping and Screening: Due to the size and scale of the plan, staff requested that existing trees be shown on a separate sheet in order to make it clear which ones would remain and which ones would be removed. The landscape plan would then show only those existing trees to remain and new trees to be planted. The existing tree plan shows a total of 404 existing trees to remain, and a total of 433 existing trees to be removed. The majority of the trees to be removed would be removed due to grading and construction work, reconfiguration of parking lot and drive layouts, or new pedestrian corridors to connect the buildings. The landscape plan includes an Additional Trees Summary table which indicates that only 213 existing trees are proposed to remain. The applicant will need to provide more information with final

16 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 12 development plans and building permits to allow staff to review the plans in more detail and understand why these numbers do not match. The landscape plan shows a variety of trees and shrubs to be planted in accordance with Unified Development Ordinance requirements. The summary tables on the landscape plan show the calculations for required street frontage landscaping, landscape buffers adjacent to residential areas, and building façade/foundation landscaping. The parking lots include islands as required. Some of the parking areas include berms for screening, but some of the new or reconfigured parking lots do not show how they will be screened. The Unified Development Ordinance requires berms or shrubs to a height of three feet along 100% of any portion of a parking area that faces a street right-of-way. A stipulation is recommended to ensure that this requirement is met. A Type 5A buffer is required adjacent to the R-1 districts. The applicant has instead opted to provide a Type 6 buffer, which is wider and requires more planting material than the Type 5a buffer. Stipulations are recommended to ensure installation of landscaping within the buffer areas prior to construction of the portions of the development that are adjacent to those buffers. There is currently a series of small walls located near the northwest corner of the campus. Neither the applicant nor staff knows what the purpose of these walls is, but they were installed sometime during the 1980s as the residential areas were developing. They may have been intended to serve as a visual or sound buffer from the railroad tracks, industrial development, or I-35. The applicant proposes to remove these existing walls and provide the landscape buffer as shown. At the October 12 th public hearing, several Planning Commissioners expressed a desire to see the berms and landscaping installed immediately instead of waiting for construction of the new building to begin. This would allow the landscape buffer to begin maturing prior to construction on the site, and it would help to offset a previous developer s unfulfilled requirement for landscaping to be installed within that area in the 1980s (see Background on pages 2-3). The applicant has provided the following response to that request: 12. Lighting: The Berms will need to be constructed with the development of the project for several reasons. First, the storm sewer pipe needs to be constructed to handle the water from the residential areas. The storm can t be built until the site is developed. Secondly, the topsoil off the field will be used for the berm. If we strip off the topsoil it isn t practical to keep using it as agricultural use. Landscaping will be installed as soon as practical when the berms are developed with the project. Photometric plans have been submitted for the site and show 0.0 foot-candles at all points along the adjacent residential property line. The plans appear to comply with UDO requirements for lighting, but will be reviewed in more detail with final development plans and building permits. Light poles are restricted to 20 feet in height adjacent to residential areas, and the applicant has adjusted the lighting plan accordingly. The proposed new recreational fields and trail system will not be illuminated.

17 RZ (PC Minutes) Page Noise: After hearing concerns expressed at the October 12 th public hearing, the applicant has provided the following response regarding the impact of the proposed development on noise levels: 14. Utilities: The operations within the proposed building are planned to replicate those currently underway in the existing manufacturing and warehouse buildings. Noise from within the existing building cannot be heard outside to the north which would be a similar orientation for the new building with the neighbors on the east. We contacted an acoustical engineer and no significant increases in noise will be projected off the building, however a letter with additional information will be forthcoming. Per Section there is a Noise Control Officer with the City. We will review our findings however we feel the development will not add any significant noise to the neighborhood. The site is within the City of Olathe water and sewer service area. This is an expansion of the existing development, so all utilities are available within the vicinity. A major gas pipeline separates Garmin s existing development from the proposed new building and Brittany Place subdivision. The applicant has provided an executed encroachment agreement with Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. as documentation that the proposed plans have been reviewed by Southern Star for safety and compliance with regards to the pipeline and easement. 15. Stormwater: There is an existing detention basin located on the west side of the Garmin site along Mahaffie Circle. Stormwater detention will be provided through a combination of existing off-site and on-site detention facilities. A preliminary stormwater management report was submitted for the proposed development. The development is subject to Municipal Code Title 17 requirements as they relate to stormwater quality and detention. Stormwater detention shall be designed to control the one (1) year design storm to 75 percent of the existing condition and the ten (10) year design storm to existing conditions. The final site development plan shall include an updated stormwater management report and drainage plan. In response to comments voiced during the public hearing at the October 12 th meeting, the applicant s engineer has done some outreach with adjacent neighbors to discuss stormwater concerns. No information regarding these meetings has been provided to staff, but the engineer is proactively working to make sure that residents concerns are adequately addressed. 16. Rezoning Analysis: The following are criteria for considering applications as listed in Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section and staff findings for each item:

18 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 14 A. The conformance of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted planning policies. The future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this as an Employment Area, with a small portion near the northeast corner of the site designated as Conventional Neighborhood. This conventional neighborhood area is being considered for a change to an employment area with the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update. The proposed Garmin warehouse/office and manufacturing facility is appropriate in this Employment Area. B. The character of the neighborhood including but not limited to: land use, zoning, density (residential), architectural style, building materials, height, structural mass, siting, open space and floor-to-area ratio (commercial and industrial). The area in the vicinity of 151 st Street and Ridgeview Road is characterized by a variety of land uses. There are commercial and retail uses, public schools, warehouse facilities, and the Garmin campus. A single family neighborhood is located north of the campus. A variety of zoning districts are found in this area to accommodate this diversity of uses. There is no specific architectural style or standard of building materials for these existing conditions. The Garmin campus includes the main 8-story corporate tower, and one- and two- story manufacturing/warehousing buildings fronting on 151 st Street. The Garmin campus uses some common building materials and glass throughout the campus to provide some unity of design. C. The zoning and uses of nearby properties and the extent to which the proposed use would be in harmony with such zoning and uses. As noted, the Garmin campus includes areas of BP (Business Park) and M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning. The area of M-1 is a result of initial approvals for the Gateway Business Park along Mahaffie Circle. There is a single family neighborhood northeast of the campus. This area is zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential). The proposed zoning amendment and development would be compatible with the existing and planned zoning and uses for this area. D. The suitability of the property for the uses to which it has been restricted under the applicable zoning regulations. The vacant portions of the Garmin campus are zoned M-1. This area is suitable for development in the Employment Area of the Future Land Use map, and the proposed amendment provides a land use plan that is appropriate for the existing M-1 zoning district. E. The length of time the property has remained vacant as zoned.

19 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 15 The property is and has been vacant since rezoning and platting of the Gateway Business Park more than twenty years ago. F. The extent to which approval of the application would detrimentally affect nearby properties. The northwest portion of the campus has been zoned M-1 and planned for light industrial uses since The original plan for this M-1 area included six individual industrial lots, whereas the proposed plan provides a new lot configuration with one large building. The single-family homes in the adjoining Brittany Place subdivision have abutted the M-1 zoning in the Gateway Business Park since the time they were constructed. Adjacent residents understandably have concerns pertaining to issues such as noise, lighting, stormwater, traffic, landscaping, and more; however, most of these concerns would exist for this M-1 district regardless of whether or not this particular plan is approved. The proposed site plan has been designed to minimize the project s impact to adjacent residential areas, and the City s codes and regulations address many of these concerns. Several stipulations have also been recommended to further mitigate the impact of the project on adjacent residential areas. G. The extent to which development under the proposed district would substantially harm the values of nearby properties. It is not expected that the proposed warehouse/office/manufacturing building would substantially harm or negatively impact nearby property values, although adjoining single-family homes might not realize the same rate of property value appreciation as those homes that do not abut the new building. The proposed amendment provides one large building instead of six smaller buildings, but there was always to be industrial development on the site that could influence the value of adjoining single-family homes. Proper landscaping and screening will help to mitigate the impact of the development on adjacent home values. H. The extent to which the proposed use would adversely affect the capacity or safety of that portion of the road network influenced by the use or present parking problems in the vicinity of the property. The campus expansion and new building will provide more employees for Garmin in the future. Road improvements are planned as noted in the staff report, and will be phased and constructed in a manner designed to meet demand and not cause adverse impact on the road network in the area. Off-street parking and parking garages are designed to provide sufficient on-site parking for employees. I. The extent to which the proposed use would create air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution or other environmental harm.

20 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 16 The site includes proper stormwater drainage and detention, and is not expected to create excessive pollution or environmental harm. The development will follow all regulations and codes pertaining to prevention of environmental harm. Garmin has also offered to conduct a noise study to provide assurances to adjacent residents that the proposed development will not result in an increase in noise within the residential area. J. The economic impact of the proposed use on the community. The proposed development will increase employment opportunities in the city and generate new real estate taxes on land that is currently vacant. The anticipated 2,700 new employees would provide a significant boost to the local economy with a highly desirable tech-sector company. 17. Staff Recommendation: A. Staff recommends approval of RZ for the following reasons: 1) The proposed development complies with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 2) The amendment to the M-1 zoning classification meets the Unified Development Ordinance criteria for considering zoning applications. 3) The proposed development complies with the development and performance standards of the M-1 zoning classification as stipulated. B. Staff recommends approval of RZ with the following stipulation to be included in the rezoning ordinance: 1) The property shall be developed in accordance with the preliminary development plan and stipulations. C. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary development plan with the following stipulations to be completed with the final site development plan and final plat: 1) Final development plans shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits for the new building or any significant renovations of existing buildings that impact occupancy. 2) Prior to recording of a final plat, the applicant shall be required to pay Street and Signal Excise Fees. 3) An updated stormwater management report and drainage plan shall be submitted with the final development plan. 4) Sign permits shall be required for all signs in accordance with UDO ) All rooftop equipment shall be fully screened in accordance with Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requirements. 6) Parking lot screening shall be provided in accordance with UDO M.2.

21 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 17 7) Per UDO requirements, all exterior ground or building mounted equipment, including but not limited to mechanical equipment, utility meter banks and coolers, shall be screened from public view with landscaping or an architectural treatment compatible with the building architecture. 8) All on-site wiring and cables shall be placed underground. 9) Landscaping shall be provided adjacent to streets in accordance with UDO L. The landscaping adjacent to Ridgeview Road shall be installed at the time the private drive connecting Mahaffie Circle and Ridgeview Road is relocated. The landscaping adjacent to 151 st Street shall be installed at the time the south parking lots are reconfigured. The landscaping adjacent to Mahaffie Circle shall be installed at the time the new warehouse/office/manufacturing building is constructed. 10) Buffer A and Buffer B landscaping shall be installed with the adjacent private drive. 11) Buffer C and Buffer D landscaping shall be installed at or before the time of construction of the new warehouse/office/manufacturing building. 12) All water and sewer improvements, public or private, shall conform to the City of Olathe Technical Specifications and Design Criteria. 13) The liquid nitrogen tanks for the new office/warehouse/manufacturing building shall be screened. Details of the method of screening shall be provided for consideration with the final development plan. 14) The following traffic improvements will be installed in accordance with the Traffic Impact Study and City specifications: a. At the time that the private drive connecting Mahaffie Circle and Ridgeview Road is relocated, the developer shall: i. On Ridgeview Road at the new/relocated private drive: 1. Modify the pavement markings to provide a northbound left turn lane and one through lane in each direction on Ridgeview Road at the private drive; and 2. Construct a southbound right turn lane; and ii. On Ridgeview Road at Meadow Lane: 1. Modify the pavement markings to provide a southbound left turn lane and one through lane in each direction. b. Prior to occupancy of the new warehouse/office/manufacturing building, the developer shall: i. At Ridgeview Road and the South Drive/school drive: 1. Install a traffic signal; and 2. Construct a northbound left turn lane; and 3. Construct a second southbound through lane; and ii. On 151st Street at the easternmost drive into the Garmin property: 1. Construct a median to restrict northbound and southbound left turn and through movements; and iii. On 151st Street at Brentwood Street:

22 RZ (PC Minutes) Page Extend the eastbound left turn lane; and iv. At 151st Street and Mahaffie Circle: 1. Construct a second eastbound left turn lane; and 2. Modify pavement markings on the southbound approach to provide a shared left/through lane and dual right turn lanes; and 3. Construct a second southbound right turn lane. 15) The developer will make a contribution, as agreed upon by the Governing Body of the City, toward the cost of design and construction of the following improvements which will be installed in accordance with the Traffic Impact Study and City specifications: a. At the intersection of 151 st Street and Ridgeview Road: i. Construct a second southbound left turn lane; and ii. Extend the existing westbound right turn lane; and iii. Modify the median to improve left turn storage for northbound traffic; and b. On 151 st Street: i. Construct a third westbound through lane on 151st Street (beginning 300 feet east of Mahaffie Circle, and continuing west to the I-35 northbound entrance ramp). Chairman Harrelson welcomed everyone and outlined procedures for the process this evening, including the public hearing portion of the meeting. Mr. Clements then proceeded to present the staff report. Following staff presentation, Chairman Harrelson asks the applicant to come forward and make their presentation: Dan Zeller, Gould Evans, 4041 Mill Street, Kansas City, Missouri, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Zeller: I m going to give a brief update, a replication of the presentation we gave at our last Planning Commission meeting, basically, as a couple of neighborhood meetings we had, just to share some updated information with folks in the room. We also have Chris Voeth here, who is going to go through the specific comments that we had from our last Planning Commission meeting. Patrick Desbois is here from Garmin, as well as Teresa Reicherter. This is the updated master plan that Garmin is proposing to move forward. The reason for the updated Master Plan is to continue growth on Garmin s campus. They ve outgrown their warehouse manufacturing space. It s actually not effectively useable. The new building is actually taking the place of the existing warehouse manufacturing. The footprint of the existing warehouse manufacturing is about 475,000 square feet; our new footprint is 575,000. So, it s slightly larger than the footprint that is there today. The parking garage is under construction and the rest of the project, this loop that s continuing through here, as well as the warehouse

23 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 19 manufacturing building on the north side of the property, along with the parking lot, is all part of this new, updated master plan. Some site amenities to walk through briefly. We are proposing a softball field as a buffer to the neighbors on the north side. There s a soccer field with some sand volleyball courts here, and there s a two-mile walking/jogging trail that circles the campus. It s important to note that there s a 50-foot gas easement that s running through the middle of the campus, which is why most of these green fields are located here, because we cannot build on the gas easement that s running through the property. So, this is a metric of the building, and I wanted to walk through the material palates. The orange area is the warehouse; the blue space is the manufacturing space, a two-story space. On the upper level along the south façade are some offices. There s a dining commons on the lower level of the smaller portion of the building on the south face. And then, one of the businesses is the reverse logistics, and that s located here. All of the truck docks are located facing I-35 and away from the neighborhood. The material palate that we have for the building, a majority of them are Class A materials according to the UDO, but this is indicating where the precast would be located across the building. We do have clerestory, so the Kalwall that s on their existing warehouse today is wrapping the perimeter of the building with clerestory, with some articulation coming down the east side to let natural light into the building. We do have some metal on the building, and that s denoted here in the blue. And we have some clear glass and clerestory that s letting light into the warehouse manufacturing space. Also, we have some views to depict what the building will look like, what it s planned to look like. This is from the southwest, the entrance to the building, with the dining commons located over here, the main entrance located here, and the offices and warehouse are on the other side. This is looking straight from campus as they continue across the site into the campus, the main entry. This is from I-35. It s hard to tell but it is back here, across this side. This is from the north side of the property if you re coming southbound on I-35. That s what the north side will look like. There is an entrance on the back, a break room and some other things for people who work in the back end of the warehouse. This is a view from the parking lot looking back towards the dock doors, which are located back here on this side, screened by evergreens and tree material. Chris Vaith, McCowan Gordon Construction, 422 Admiral, Kansas City, Missouri, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Vaith: We had about a half-dozen varied topics that we were asked to follow up on from the last meeting. I m going to try to lead our team through the conversation. Myself and Dan will try to answer these questions, and we have other team members here who can get into more detail if required. We re going to hit traffic, height and setbacks, specifically the views from the neighbors, stormwater and drainage, the landscaping, and lighting and noise. Starting with traffic, there were questions about the improvements that would take place dealing with the new expansion. This shows the various outlets and inlets for the Garmin campus. There are three sections of improvements, which I will discuss by timeline. Group A are items that we

24 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 20 propose to do in conjunction with completion of the garage and the new inlet into Garmin. Group B are items that would have to take place prior to occupancy or completion of the new warehouse and manufacturing space. Group C are improvements that the City has agreed to do under a capital improvements plan, and the timing will be dictated by those plans. Just to kind of walk through the details of those. We zoomed in on each one of these and provided notes. Group A, which would happen essentially next summer, would be to provide a southbound right turn lane, a northbound left turn lane at this private drive, and a left turn lane at Meadow Lane to try and reduce the congestion along Ridgeview at that intersection. The second item, which is at the next Garmin and Meadow Lane intersection, is planned to be completed with the warehouse manufacturing facility. We re actually evaluating the possibility of doing that in conjunction with the previous improvements, just because there s some synergies along Ridgeview. But, we have some coordination to be done with the school, and also other work in that area. This would include installing a traffic signal, adding a northbound left turn lane, and a second southbound through lane. The next piece that would happen in conjunction is at the eastern-most entrance off 151 st Street into Garmin s property. We would be installing a median to only allow right-in or right-out traffic. This would basically eliminate the cut-through traffic either trying to get out, over into Garmin s space from the south lanes. The next intersection, again, fairly straightforward, is to extend the eastbound left turn lane into Garmin to allow for more stacking. And then, at Mahaffie and 151 st Street, we re looking at providing a second eastbound left turn lane, dual southbound right turn lanes, and then a shared left through lane out of Garmin s property. The last two improvements that are being done under a CIP would work at 151 st and Ridgeview intersection. Fairly extensive improvements that include a second northbound through lane, a second southbound left turn lane, extension of the existing westbound right lane, and then, modification of the median coming north to improve the left-hand turn stacking, just to kind of eliminate congestion. The final item deals with moving west along 151 st Street out of Garmin s property and extending a third westbound through lane on 151 st Street. All of these improvements were done under a traffic study that s been submitted to the City. The City has been in agreement with Garmin on these improvements, and these are the agreed-to timelines that we ve come up with. The next three topics we ll hit together because they all deal with the backside of Garmin. Touching on height and setback, how the stormwater drainage is being addressed, and landscaping and screening. The first item dealing with height and setback, this is out of our last meeting, just recapping. Currently, the building stands approximately 44 feet tall. The building itself sits, on average, seven feet below the actual grade of the surrounding neighborhood. We re actually lowering the grade of the overall site to try and reduce the effective height of the building to the neighborhood. In addition to the natural grade, we re adding a five foot berm, plus or minus, along the entire perimeter of Garmin s property, which will also be landscaped to add

25 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 21 additional screening. The top left demonstrates a typical view from the property. That s about a 10-year growth on the landscaping. There was some question as to maturity of the picture in our last meeting. If you look the right here, there was some question as to how the swale and storm drainage was being handled and exactly what property the drainage was going to take place on. The way this is being designed is there will be a drainage swale on Garmin s property that will essentially be east or south of the neighborhood s property, which will collect the stormwater drainage system. It will run along this swale, and the red dots here represent storm structures or inlets, catch basins to collect that water. That water is then going to be piped around Garmin s new facility and over to the storm detention basins. In addition to the pipe, there s also overflows built into the basin, so that in case there is an issue, the berm does not create a dam effect. Mr. Zeller: At our last meeting, we talked about the landscaping and screening across the entire perimeter. So, continuing all the way over to Ridgeview, across this area, there is a yellow band that continues all the way up here. We are doing extensive landscaping. We actually have increased landscaping from what was required and moved it up a section. This is a depiction of the landscape material that we would be using. It s not just one tree or evergreen shrub continuing across the berm. It s actually a mix of all of these deciduous and evergreen type trees, along with shrubbery. So, the intent is for it to be a nicely landscaped berm and not an eyesore. This is a zoomed-in plan of the plant material behind the residences. It shows how the trees, shrubbery, evergreen, how they would be intermixed throughout this area across the property line. The plans are all on the neighbor s side of the berm to help beautify that berm as much as possible. As Chris mentioned, these are the exact materials that we are proposing. The building, if you can see it, there s the Kalwall that is right through here, and the concrete is through here. Our intent is to try and screen it from the neighborhood as much as possible. This is the view from Garmin s side of the berm. You can see the amount of landscaping and the berm screen and what it does to the neighbors. Another comment that came up was about the light level coming out of the Kalwall on the building. I explained at our last meeting that the light coming out of this building would be identical to the light that s coming out of the building today because it s the same material. The only thing we have done is there s a parapet wall that sits up another six feet on the existing building today. We ve eliminated that because we took all the mechanical units and put them on the I-35 side of the building. But, we have lowered the light down below the Kalwall and taken it back. The first 20-foot section of electric light would actually be down below the Kalwall. So, the light that is exiting out of the Kalwall will be greatly reduced by doing that alone. We still get the benefit of natural light into the warehouse, but the amount of glow coming out of the warehouse should be dramatically reduced. Mr. Vaith: The final item was understanding the acoustic impacts this building might have, specifically along I-35. We hired an acoustical engineer to complete and study and we provided that study to the City. The three points that came out it are: The building, it s use, and occupancy itself will add no discernible noise levels to the surrounding area; it will actually have a negligible impact from a reflection standpoint on traffic moving south and will produce a fairly

26 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 22 significant buffer to both the rail and southbound traffic of about 10 decibels, which is essentially the equivalent of normal conversation versus a loud vacuum cleaner. So, that has been provided to the City for review, as well. Chairman Harrelson: Thank you for your comments. Mr. Clements, I know there was some information ed to us by Amy Kynard that referenced that study. Is it appropriate to address those items as part of the presentation to the public? Mr. Clements: Of course. Amy sent out today some information on the noise study, which he just summarized, and some additional information about the nitrogen tanks. Chairman Harrelson: Is she prepared to comment on those things? That would be helpful. Amy Kynard, Senior Planner, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Ms. Kynard: The information that was included in my , there was a copy of the letter provided by the applicant regarding the noise levels. The letter indicates that the sound levels from northbound trains and also from the highway will actually be reduced because the building will help to block that noise from the residential neighborhood. Southbound trains and traffic could bounce off the north side of the building a little bit, but it would be very negligible due to the way the building is situated. So, it s actually going to have a much greater impact on reducing noise levels as opposed to any increases. Is that what you re looking for? Chairman Harrelson: There was also a comment about the nitrogen tanks, I believe. I think we did some research on that that was addressed in that, as well. Ms. Kynard: Yes. The tanks are for storage of liquid nitrogen and are classified as a very lowhazard item. They have an FPA rating of 0 for both flammability and instability. So, it s very stable and not likely to burn or explode. Chairman Harrelson: Very good. I went out of order a little bit. Are there questions that we have for Amy, or for the applicant? Comm. Fry: I have a question for the applicant. There was a lot of talk and I know Commissioner Rinke had a lot of comments about this last time about the timing of the landscaping, when it could be planted, to try to get the growth even prior to the project happening. I wondered how that was discussed in your group, if there was an agreement made or not made on that. Mr. Vaith: As discussed at the previous meeting, is the applicant s intent to construct the berm and landscaping right out of the gate once the project does start. It s not something we look to construct at a date years ahead of the work taking place. It s a significant part of the overall stormwater control plan. The creation of the berm also helps balance the site. As I noted, we re actually cutting the grade of the site down to lower the building, and earth work is actually being done to construct the berm. The concern with doing it at any earlier date is we would destabilize approximately 30 acres of site out there to construct the berm, and then, further disturb the

27 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 23 stormwater if we don t do everything at once. It s not just as simple as putting the berm and some trees. Comm. Nelson: With regard to the swale, I see a lot of dealing with the stormwater coming off of the site, but I think one of the questions the neighbors had is how the water gets from the neighborhood to that area. I understand you re dealing with the stuff in close proximity, but there s some residents who are further away who have concerns about how the water gets from their property. I believe last time we had a conversation about the slope of the overall neighborhood. Could you elaborate on that for us? Mr. Zeller: Yes. The neighborhood to the east all slopes towards Garmin. Today, there are two ditches, approximately here and here. Those are actually the areas where we have the outflow. So, if something was to clog up on the underground pipe system, we have overflows here that would take water and channel it around the building in this direction, or channel it around the building here. So, we re not modifying anything upstream because it s not our land, but we re controlling it once it comes to Garmin property. There was a concern raised on the north side of the property, some neighbors who expressed concern about rivers running through the back of their yard. We can t fix anything in their yard, but what we are doing as Chris mentioned there will be a dip in the ground on Garmin s side of the property. So, anything coming off of the berm falling towards the neighbors will be caught in this swale and continue to drain down on the north side. The grade drops. This is the high point and the low point is down here, so the grade drops continuously across this area. So, the water will continue to run down through the neighbors back yards, but any water that s on Garmin s property will run down in the swale and continue out to the west. Does that answer -? Comm. Nelson: Yes. I think the other obvious question is, when we re adding that much square footage of non-porous material, what s the process of determining this is adequate drainage? Because that s a big question in this whole thing. In layman s terms, how do we add that much concrete between parking lots and building space and improve drainage? You ve already described what you re doing with the berm, but what about everything beyond that? I guess part of that is probably with the maintenance of the property, instead of just being overgrow grassy areas. Is that going to improve the scenario, as well? Mr. Zeller: Absolutely. Garmin intends to maintain this back property once the building is built and landscaped the same way they maintain their current property today, which is that they mow it on a regular basis. They trim the trees, mulch trees, do all the landscaping like you normally would for a nice commercial property. There is a detention basin located over where which is capturing all of the water. It was actually sized large enough when they put it in to handle the development that was going to be located in here before. We have not increased any impervious area from what that drainage calculation has determined. Comm. Nelson: Is that the seven-building development that was -? Mr. Zeller: I believe so. Whenever that detention basin was installed, they had the amount of pervious area and non-pervious area, and we re right at that same point. We haven t increased it. Phelps Engineering is our engineer, and they ll continue to update their drainage study to

28 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 24 make sure. But, there is a detention basin located over here, and it will capture all of the water and not impact anybody downstream of Garmin with this new development. Comm. Rinke: I d like to follow up on the timing of the berm and the landscaping. Is the primary issue that you re wanting to use the topsoil where the building would go to build the berm? Help me understand. I m guessing about anything is doable if you re willing to spend the money. Mr. Zeller: What the code, the City, the State of Kansas, and anybody who has any jurisdiction on a project when you start to scrape ground is, they require protection of the ground as you take the vegetation off the ground, to handle the run-off that might run across the ground. In theory, we will be building a dam, in some sense of the word, across this entire property line if we don t put the inlets in. So, we re putting the inlets in. All this underground storm sewer system has to go in, and that has to go in at the same time the development is taking place because of the piping around the building and how it ties into the rest of the drains from the building. So, everything ties in together to the stormwater, and the stormwater gets directed around the site. So, if the berms were put in place ahead of time, all of the storm lines would have to be put in place, and Garmin would have to come back later and actually connect to the storm lines with the building. But then, they would have to protect the ground around this area because all of the topsoil would be stripped off and there wouldn t be any vegetation. Comm. Rinke: You could haul in topsoil from somewhere else to build the berm, correct? Mr. Zeller: Yes. Comm. Rinke: I m just saying, if it s doable to build the berm and do all the piping, it s just an incremental cost, right? Mr. Zeller: Those incremental costs are not small incremental. Comm. Rinke: I know, but do you have an idea what the incremental cost would be? Mr. Vaith: We re talking millions of dollars, not tens of thousands of dollars. I don t know the exact number as to what the cost would be to do the berm, try to temporarily stabilize the site, and re-do stuff later on. Comm. Rinke: What s the cost of the entire project? I m just curious, as a percentage of the total project, how much would it cost to go ahead and do this now? Mr. Vaith: The site development alone was six to eight million dollars. Comm. Rinke: I m interested in the incremental cost in relation to the overall cost. To go ahead and do the berm and the piping now. Mr. Vaith: That s what I don t know. It s not just a simple, do A and then B. There s actually going to be added cost for doing this work twice. Comm. Rinke: Well, that s something I d be interested in knowing. Also, normally when a project is an M-1 or a business park, the buffer would be 5-A, and you guys elected to go with 6. I went

29 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 25 back and looked at the differences between those. The primary difference that I see is that on a 6 which is what you have chosen to go with you would have to have a berm height that averages four feet. Under 5-A, you have to have a combination of wall or a berm that has to be a minimum of 11 feet. Could you explain to me why you went with 6 versus 5-A. Mr. Zeller: More for aesthetic reasons. What that 5-A would be is a berm with a wooden picket fence along the top of it that would run continuous. Comm. Rinke: Or it could be an 11-foot berm, correct. Mr. Zeller: It could be if it would fit. You have to be able to have slope on both sides. So, to go up 11 feet, it takes a large footprint. Comm. Rinke: That would actually bring the building away from the neighbors, as well. I see two benefits there. Mr. Zeller: So, the landscape option that we decided to go with was better landscaping, denser landscaping, and a variety of landscaping. So, it actually has a nice visual look out the back window as opposed to a big hill or a picket fence. Comm. Rinke: But you ve exceeded the landscaping even on 6, so there would be nothing to stop you from exceeding the landscaping on the higher berm. Mr. Zeller: [No audible response.] Comm. Rinke: Okay. All right. That s all I have. Chairman Harrelson: Any other questions? I might make a comment. I notice that there actually are and this has kind of been a continued discussion, I know the installation of the landscaping materials is one of the items that remained from the old rezoning, and as a part of that, there are several bullet points that were still in place, and you re asking as a part of this rezoning to remove those items. I m curious and you may not have the answer now, but sometime tonight I d be interested in hearing your thoughts on it. As a commissioner, I look at those things that were in place. I understand that they are old. It was 1986, a long time ago. Yet, our City still sanctioned and said that these things are important to us at that time. So, I m going to be interested in hearing from you, if you re asking for relief on those items, what have you done to help us feel better about things you may have added as a result? Because if we re going to take something off, we d like to see, at some point, what did you do to go beyond what you re required to do? As a commissioner, I want to see, okay, I m fine with maybe removing some of those requirements, but I want to know what you did to go beyond the expectation if we re going to take some of those things away? Mr. Zeller: I ll look to Dave or Amy to help clarify, but we followed the current UDO. So, back in 1986, the requirements were completely different. So, we have actually followed all the current requirements. We didn t even know about the development agreement that was put in place in 1986 because Garmin purchased the property in So, it wasn t until our Planning Commission meeting that we heard about the agreements with the developer prior to us, what

30 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 26 they had agreed to with the City. So, we ve actually followed all the current UDO requirements. We didn t know that we were asking to remove anything from the old plan. WE were just updating our plan to meet the current UDO. Chairman Harrelson: But, as part of your due diligence, before you purchase the property, wouldn t that be public information when you purchased the property. Mr. Zeller: The zoning. Chairman Harrelson: Right. Mr. Zeller: I mean, it was zoned M-1, and that s what -. Chairman Harrelson: But those stipulations would carry on with the property, would they not? Mr. Zeller: I don t think so. Chairman Harrelson: We re being asked to remove those as a part of this rezoning, so I assume they still carried weight. Mr. Clements: As part of the amendment, yes, it is. Chairman Harrelson: Very good. Well, as we have our discussions and comments tonight, I would be interested to know what things we ve done to improve it. I m not going to fight you on removing those. They are old, and I understand, but I think we still have to recognize that at some point, our City said these items are important to us, and they re important to the folks that are here. So, I want to know what we re doing to replace or improve upon those items. Is there anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this item? [None.] I have a number of folks who have signed up to speak. [Chairman Harrelson outlined the public hearing process.] Bill Wilcox, 1405 Butterfield Place, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Wilcox: I live just a couple of doors off of Ridgeview. We ve lived there for over 35 years. We moved to that location when Ridgeview was a two-lane road, and there was farm fields across the street. We were part of the benefit assessment district to help pay for Ridgeview Road to be improved and widened. We ve come to the point now where we oftentimes have extreme difficulty getting onto Ridgeview, particularly if you want to turn south from where we are. If you want to go north, you can probably squeal into a right-hand turn pretty quickly sometimes. By the way, I like Garmin in the city of Olathe. I have nothing against the Garmin Company. I love them. I have some good friends that work there and have nice jobs. But, with the difficulty that we have now, I m just very concerned about how difficult it s going to become. I notice you made some comments and showed some things that were going to go on down around Garmin with the turn lanes, and so on. But, I don t see that helping us four or five blocks above Garmin on Ridgeview. I can t see that getting any better, and probably getting worse. I m just

31 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 27 concerned. If there s an extreme emergency from our place, I don t think we can out of there, with the possibility of another 2,700 jobs coming and those people coming to work. At any rate, that s just my opinion about Ridgeview. Lastly, in my opinion, I cannot believe the value of my property is going to be enhanced. In my opinion, it will be reduced by the extreme traffic that s going to go on Ridgeview Road. Thank you. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions? [None.] Next speaker? DeeAnn Villarreal, 1301 East Meadow Lane, Olathe, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Ms. Villarreal: [Setting up projector.] Amy sent you a copy of my thing here, and I m going to read it really fast. We live in the white house on the corner of Meadow Lane, on the east side of Ridgeview, across from Garmin s main entrance, the lowest elevation of the 151 st Street corridor. We ask the Planning Commission to deny Garmin s rezoning request as there are major issues that need completion prior to the Garmin expansion that have plagued our residential area since the tower was constructed. Thirty years ago in 1985, we established our residence in Olathe after living our entire lives in Overland Park. Olathe was a fantastic place to live. We could sit on our deck and see amazing sunsets, stars, and every Fourth of July, family came out to watch the fireworks from our deck. We spent years of labor making our house a home, and we plan to reside there the rest of our lives. We received the Olathe Residential Beautification award. The Garmin property was a bean field. In 1995, Garmin built their first two-story structure on the corner of 151 st, and all was still fine. It was in 2005 when they expanded and built the monstrous tower that devastated the area. Now there are no sunsets, no stars. I had to call Garmin for permission to watch fireworks. They told us we could walk over, but I did get to drive because of my 90-year-old mother. Everybody else in the neighborhood has to walk, other than the Garmin employees. Our front window blinds have been shut for over two years. My dogs bark at the Garmin smokers who use our property on the corner of Meadow Lane as their butt hut since Garmin became a non-smoking campus. Garmin tells us that this is a public sidewalk, but there is a public sidewalk on their side of the street, as well. We have spent thousands of dollars repairing our swimming pool, driveway, trees, and other water-related issues. Garmin s master plan does not address the in excess of two million square foot of hard surface water once it leaves our property and down into our neighborhood. The water is expected to drain into this overgrown ditch from a storm drain that was designed to relieve a bean field. This is the ditch currently. Not a waterway. It s a ditch. This is a quick YouTube video I made a couple of years ago. This is water coming down from the street with the traffic. [Plays video.] This is out my front window. Every time we get a healthy rain. Chairman Harrelson: Thank you for your comments. Any questions? [None.] Thank you.

32 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 28 Bonnie Thomas, 1117 East Sleepy Hollow Drive, Olathe, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mrs. Thomas: What I m most afraid of is that the City has already decided to give Garmin everything that they need to proceed with this expansion, and all of these meetings that we ve had with the public have been for nothing. There have been tax breaks, there have been industrial revenue bonds between the City and Garmin for many, many years, used to purchase the property. Therefore, the City and Garmin are really good friends, in my opinion. I have read the entire staff report that is on the City s website under the Planning Commission. I have some issues with some of the staff report and I would like to bring them to the forefront. First of all, on page 8 of the staff report, under the heading of Transition Standard, it talks about Garmin wanting to build the warehouse nine feet taller in some areas, 13 feet taller in other areas, than the code for our residential code. I don t want you to approve this structure because something that size should never be that close to a house. How would any of the planning commissioners or anybody here tonight how would you like to have a 48-foot-tall building, 712,000 square feet, behind your house? To get a perspective, currently Garmin s warehouse has 24 bays for semi traffic. Their new warehouse is going to have at least 45 pays for semis. I ll let you do the math. On page 9, the last paragraph under Mechanical Equipment is where you find the information about the nitrogen tanks. I heard all the information tonight about how they re safe and everything, but really? Liquid nitrogen? One hundred feet from a house? Would any of us really feel safe knowing something like that is there? My next item is page 13, number 15, which is the stormwater. This is a little positive information I m going to give out. I would like to thank Judd Claussen, who is the only person in this project who actually came to my house. While he was there, he was really surprised to see the slopes in my back yard, and he fully understood why many of our neighbors were concerned about where this water was going to go from these berms. Chairman Harrelson: Please wrap up your comments, ma am. Sorry. Mrs. Thomas: Oh, I m sorry. One of my concerns is the traffic that the gentleman brought up earlier, the 2,700 additional employees. The City might want to consider putting roundabouts in on Ridgeview to help with these additional 2,700 coming off of I-35 onto Highway 56. Thanks for your time. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions? [None.] William Thomas, 1117 East Sleepy Hollow Drive, Olathe, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Thomas: Does this overheard work? Chairman Harrelson: I m not sure. I have no idea what does or doesn t work up there.

33 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 29 Mr. Thomas: Because I m only allowed three minutes and the clock has already started ticking. Which is ridiculous, by the way. It seems like we should have equal amount of time that Garmin has to prepare ourselves for this meeting. And I guess, I mean, you know from the last meeting. I think I was one of four people that showed up. Look who showed up tonight. Why do you think they showed up tonight? Word got out. The reason word didn t get out the last time, we weren t mailed according to the codes, in time for the meeting. As a matter of fact, the last meeting we had, we got our mail the day after. It was written on the 5 th, it was mailed on the 9 th, which was on a Friday. The holiday was on the day of the meeting, and it arrived in my mailbox a day late. And it says you re supposed to give 10 days notice. It s ridiculous. This whole thing is ridiculous. The other thing is, it s interesting to me that there is a pre-planning meeting, and in the preplanning meeting, Garmin gets to come to it, but us stakeholders, why aren t we in this meeting? This pre-planning meeting, where all these issues can come out ahead of time? It s our property that backs up against this property. It s our values that are going to go down. It s ridiculous. You guys are the First, I want to thank you for backing this off, so at least some of these people could come here and see this. I m not a public speaker. I m a homeowner. I ve got all my money tied up in my property. And as soon as that building goes up, it s going to knock down the value of my home. I ve got tons of research that I ve gone through, everything from planning site development, I ve taken photographs at night, combined the image of what Garmin would look like with houses at night in our neighborhood. I don t have time to do all of this. It s like, how can I present this to you guys? Can I leave this stuff with you? Will you understand it? It s just not enough time to prepare things, period. Some of the issues that came up, it s like, let s go through the approval criteria. It s like when you re considering an application for a rezoning or amendment, it s like whether the proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. Basically, it doesn t as it exists now. Whether the character of the neighborhood, including but not limited to the land use, the zoning, the density, the floor, the area. The size of that place. Is that really light industrial? There s a manufacturing facility in there. I mean, does that fit in the neighborhood? They said that it matches the materials and the structure around that area. God, I feel rushed. [Timer sounds.] This is just so frustrating. Chairman Harrelson: I will tell you that we have a process. I ll try to answer your question about being involved. We re here representing the public, so you re presenting to us. This is part of the process. You are getting your opportunity to provide input, and I would say by the number of people that have showed up, you re going to get your input. Mr. Thomas: Well, let me have the first seven minutes that wasn t used. How about that? Chairman Harrelson: I think we re going to get plenty of input tonight. I just have a feeling. Mr. Thomas: Well, but not my input. I think I was the one that made a postponement in the first place? Chairman Harrelson: I think we kind of got it from you.

34 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 30 Mr. Thomas: Well, who is paying for these improvements? Is the City going to do tax abatement? Chairman Harrelson: I think most of the bill is paid by Garmin, I believe. All the stuff that they re doing to that property is theirs? Mr. Thomas: But are they getting a 75 percent tax abatement like they did on all the other structures? Chairman Harrelson: I can t answer that question. Are there any questions? Comm. Freeman: First of all, thank you for your presentation and the time you ve put into it. It s very valuable for the future of the city. This impacts you as neighbors, and it impacts everybody in the city of Olathe, because Garmin is obviously a very big part of our city. The homes surrounding Garmin are a very big part of our city. Mr. Thomas: It should be your number one concern. I think citizens are listed at the top of this chart. Citizens. People who have lived here. I ve lived here 30 years. Paid my taxes. One hundred percent of my taxes, too. Go ahead. Sorry to interrupt. Comm. Freeman: I appreciate the passion. From last time, taking the information that you shared, and the other people that were here, and this time, what is it that you would envision as an alternative for that land? There was concern about the land as it is today --. Mr. Thomas: Well, if you go around that big skyscraper that s built there, it doesn t fit any of the other land use around there, period. I don t even know how that got approved. I d love to know the history behind that. I mean, that s like the most obnoxious thing Olathe every built in a residential area. If you look at the amount of residential that Olathe Comm. Freeman: Sure. We need to be time-concise and let everybody share their opinion, because I want to hear from as many people from the public as we can. Is there any specific recommendation that you would like to see? Mr. Thomas: What I d like to see, I mean, I d like to see jobs, and Garmin expand. Absolutely. I mean, I don t think there s a problem with that. We gave them all these tax abatements, and they re borrowing money, and we re taking on this, the citizens of Olathe. What I d like to see is for them to build something out there that improves the value of my property. Improves it. Not put a wall of dirt next to my property, and a bunch of trees go up, and a glowing thing at night. Comm. Freeman: Again, I just want to make sure that I understand your point. Is there any specific building that you would like to see happen on that piece of land? Is it smaller? Is it more of them? Mr. Thomas: I think the appropriate thing is to look at the other buildings that are there now, that was originally zoned for that business park. I think the buffer should be 75 feet before the property starts. Because that was originally agreed to. It should stay that way. I d like to also see it broken up.

35 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 31 Comm. Freeman: Thank you again for your input. I appreciate it very much. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions? [None.] Thank you. Travis Snyder 1375 South Church Street, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Snyder: I obviously stand in opposition to the current plan as proposed by Garmin. As far as I have ever known since purchasing our property in 2006, there was supposed to be at least a half-dozen or more smaller buildings on a portion of the land that Garmin wishes to land this enormous factory and warehouse. So, my expectation always was that there would be buildings back there, there would be numerous buildings back there, and it would be on a much smaller scale with appropriate green space, setbacks, etc. I am not against Garmin, not against the expansion of the Garmin properties in and around Olathe. To the contrary. I am hopeful for the continued growth and success of this company, as well as the benefit that Garmin brings to our community. What I am against is the false choice that the only option for Garmin is to expand into one single monstrosity of a factory and warehouse. I am against Garmin encroaching upon the current setback requirement of 140 feet by as much as 23 percent. This directly impacts me. I m at this feet that everybody is talking about. And I view myself as a little bit more than the common stakeholder. I view myself as a critical stakeholder. And nobody from Garmin has sought me out to discuss these issues with me. I am against the expansion of the Garmin facility exceeding the standard height of 35 feet within 200 feet of the residential property, especially when said access is 28 percent. All of this has an immediate impact on my property, and anybody that says otherwise is absolutely disingenuous. I stare at this thing, and at feet off my property, this thing will reside. And it will be as far as I can see, every direction forward, side, side-to-side. Garmin can scale down this complex and provide for a neighborhood-friendly design involving multiple buildings. That would be my suggestion. More green space towards the residences. Garmin can be a friendly neighbor. I don t see it right now, but I do think Garmin can be a friendly neighbor and use some of the planned sporting fields and other fields of dreams that are anticipated and I hear everybody talking about, on the news and elsewhere, as buffer between the residences, the neighborhoods, and Garmin. I oppose the close proximity of multiple liquid nitrogen tanks to the residential community. I ve done a little bit of research and have found numerous explosions, one of them just this year in June 2015 at the Boeing facility in North Charleston, South Carolina. It blew a 15-foot crater in the ground. One of the Boeing employees likened it to looking like a volcano. I don t think that belongs in Olathe. I don t think it belongs behind my house. I don t think my daughter should grow up with the threat of a volcano exploding in our back yard. If Garmin insists on a facility of this scale, size and scope, logic would suggest that it should be located in proximity to other warehouses, manufacturing and intermodals, such as can be found near Lone Elm and 159 th Street. I would strongly urge that it find its way down there.

36 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 32 Another quick point I d like to make is that if Garmin fails to find it in their interest to be a friendly neighbor and redraw the plans on a voluntary basis, then I think the City Planning Commission, as arbiter, should force reset and require new plans. It doesn t belong there. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions? [None.] Thank you. Doreen Snyder, 701 South Webster, Spring Hill, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Ms. Snyder: My husband and I own the property at 1168 East Meadow Lane. So, we re in the neighborhood. I have three main points that I want to talk about, and they all involve safety and property values. The first one is traffic. I know you guys have done a lot to alleviate the traffic. I hope it works. With that many more employees, it s going to add a lot to Ridgeview. It has to. I know the warehouse and another parking garage are going to be built on the other side of the property, away from Ridgeview and toward I-35. But, there s still going to be more traffic on Ridgeview, and personally, I just don t see how it s going to handle it with the plans that you guys have right now. I know when I was still working, I went out north because all of our exits out of the subdivision are onto Ridgeview. I would go out Frontier. I tried to read your traffic study, which I found a nightmare, personally, but I didn t see where the traffic study even included Frontier and whatever the next exit north of there is. But, all my neighbors, when I was working, came and went the same way because they couldn t get out Sheridan Bridge onto Ridgeview. My second concern is property value. I know they said they thought it would be negligible. Let s face it. The houses like my son s house on Church Street are going to be impacted drastically. I ve bought and sold a few houses in my life and I know that realtors do comparables with similar houses in the area. His property value is going to drop like a stone. I can t imagine. Eventually, maybe they ll come back, with the added employees, maybe they ll buy some of the houses, but for a few years at least, property values have to tank. And unfortunately, mine s going to be one of them. My next concern is that those 30-plus-foot-tall liquid nitrogen tanks I d like to know exactly where they re going to be placed. I read some of the same studies that my son did, and they re pretty scary. I know you say there is a negligible danger. I also attended one of the public meetings at Garmin and we went through some pretty nice presentations, but nobody mentioned those liquid nitrogen tanks when I was there that night. You have to really read the fine print. That s it. I m going to have a granddaughter living behind that nitrogen tank, so I m concerned. Thank you. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions? [None.] Thank you. Ron Litton, 1331 East Sleepy Hollow Drive, Olathe, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Litton: I live at 1331 East Sleepy Hollow Drive, which is Homestead, on the east side of Ridgeview, but about a half mile north of Garmin. My main issue is traffic. I can t get out in the morning; I can t go to dinner at night. During the day, we have another problem. When Garmin

37 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 33 decides to go to lunch, you have bicyclists and runners that won t yield at all for anybody. You have to stop for that string of traffic. You go down 151 st Street at lunch, you ve got the Garmin employees heading across 151 st Street, jaywalking, stopping in the median, lighting a cigarette, run across the street again. That s pretty darn dangerous. I don t know if that s a Garmin problem or a City problem, but somebody is going to get squished right there one of these days, and somebody is going to regret that one. I don t know what you guys are doing, a bridge, or whatever, but something needs to be done on that side. The big issue I have is traffic. I didn t even know until a week ago that you were having a session. Somebody hung something on my door. I m just glad I don t back up to the property like a lot of these folks do. I d be pretty darn upset. I was told by a gentleman back here, Your house is going to be really hit by value. And he s probably right. We live in Homestead, a little 15-house subdivision. It s a nice little area, and it s probably going to be hit. I just hadn t really realized it until last week that this was going on. Somebody mentioned that Garmin didn t put out a mailing. I believe it because I didn t get one. So, some neighbor did me the favor of hanging something on my door so I could show up. I don t see anybody here from my street. My guess is most of them don t even know this is going on tonight. So, there s a weakness in the system here of trying to figure out to communicate with citizens, and listening to them. I don t know whose fault that is. I ve got two granddaughters coming this year, staying at our house off and on. I don t want to walk up and down Ridgeview with them. That s all there is to it. I don t know how anybody can look at this as a good thing. I really don t. If you want an answer on how I d vote, I d vote no, no matter what. It s not that there s anything wrong with Garmin, the company. It just shouldn t be at that corner. My guess is it was done for money. They got tax abatements, the City got promises. That s the way it always goes. So, it s you-all s job. If you have another meeting, I ll come back again. I don t imagine anything will change. Thanks. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions? [None.] Thank you. Theresa Troll, 1105 East Sleepy Hollow Drive, Olathe, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Ms. Troll: I do have a photo. My property is right here, at the juncture where the freeway comes through. The railroad comes here, and the proposed building and parking lot structure is all in here. The first thing I d like to do, because I was here at previous meetings, is I d like to clarify that the noise I was the one that brought up the noise issues was my concern. I have a legitimate home business that includes a recording studio. I work a variety of different hours, and my concern is, with the traffic study that was done since the last meeting I received a copy of that, read through it. Received a communication from Amy today regarding the failure to include any kind of semi-truck traffic information on that, and the reason being according to the communication I received from Amy was that they only do the traffic study to include peak hour traffic, and that trucks wouldn t be a part of that. And I d like to clarify. I m not concerned about trucks that are coming in over here and unloading over here. Certainly, the building is going to block the noise from those trucks, but nothing is being said about the trucks and the increase in traffic going north and south getting to the 151 st Street exit. That goes right over my back yard, along with all of the homes in this entire corridor. That traffic is going to be increased. I wanted to clarify that that is the area I m talking about. I m talking about these trucks also,

38 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 34 reflecting those noises, reflecting off of the building from this side into our neighborhood. I just wanted to clarify that. Also, I d like to speak tonight concerning the lack of benefits to our neighborhood. Everyone is talking about being neighborly. I m a [unclear] girl. I know what a good neighbor is supposed to do. They re supposed to help each other. And I have been neutral about not being opposed or for this. I think everyone should win. But, what I see is a glaring lack of benefits for our neighborhood. And I ll liken it to really the worst divorces I ve ever seen. Both parties ended up with an equitable outcome. The fairest or the poorest of judge always hears both sides, and both sides win something, and get something. I don t see what we re getting. We re being tread upon by increased traffic congestion and noise, including these semis during non-peak hours. That will most certainly affect our livability. We re dismissed and devalued by the shadow of a tomb-like building, corporate greed, and the harlotry of government cronyism. There s no offer of alimony for lost wages or the cost to recover from the devastation of our property devaluation. And the worst part, if anything, is we don t even get visitation rights. We don t have any land use on theirs. They can t give it to us because it s a liability issue. I understand that. But, what is being done about making our side of the berm livable. I do appreciate that the engineering firm came out, walked around our property, and was surprised to find out that there was indeed drainage going through these homes. That the end of the line is my property. The City did not have that drainage swale on their map. So, apparently the City is lacking also in their understanding of what exactly is going on with our land structure. Therefore, I have to oppose this plan as it is written because it s not based in truth. That s all I have to say. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions? Mr. Freeman. Comm. Freeman: Thank you so much for your detailed research, and for the clarification on the traffic and the trucks. That did help me understand a little bit more about what we re looking for. Thank you. Chairman Harrelson: Other questions? [None.] Thank you. Bill Stutts, 1286 East Sheridan Bridge Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Stutts: My main concern is how wide you re going to widen Ridgeview. I see the lines painted. Are you going to move it six feet wider, eight feet wider on either side? Chairman Harrelson: We ll ask Traffic to come up after we ve concluded all of our comments. I ll ask them to address that specifically. Mr. Stutts: Okay. That s the only thing I have. Thank you. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions? [None.] Thank you. Dennis Villarreal, 1301 East Meadow Lane, Olathe, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments:

39 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 35 Mr. Villarreal: First of all, I d like to thank you guys for giving us the opportunity for other people to come and speak tonight. And to Garmin, I m not opposed and I don t think anybody here is to the expansion, the jobs, and everything that s going to come with that. I ll not bore anybody with any details in three minutes. I never did receive any packet that I thought Mr. Harrelson said we would receive. I received it by after I called Judd Claussen. He said he wouldn t meet with me anyway unless there was a City stormwater engineer there, as well. I told him I d been there, done that, and I m not going to bore anybody on that. My packet of information was mailed October 30 th, on Friday, and I received it the following Monday or Tuesday. The traffic study we received November 6 th at 3:48 p.m., as an . My biggest concern and I m wanting you guys to understand what we are thinking. We were there from the get-go. I was there when that was a bean field. We actually let them get business park status in 1994, and in 2003, through the revised campus addition, we learned that that was an eight-story tower that didn t match any of the previous drawings of two-store campus-type buildings that we saw. And they told us that the business needed changed. So, tonight you have the opportunity approve an M-1, which would allow them to build up to 12 stories. We ve already seen this from the campus eight-story; now things have changed for that. That is 144 feet. I m sure when they re ready to build, there will be more change, because I know there hasn t been any timeline set up as to when this project would start. My suggestion would be to table the discussion until they re ready to build this property and address the issues. Why rush it? Let s slow down. I think we need to get it right. My concern is drainage. The City has purchased properties at 1301 and 1302 Winterbrook for flooding issues. I believe with this coming up, there s going to be a lot more. Pat Desbois with Garmin has been with the company since 2011 and really knows nothing about the infrastructure and drainage issues in the area. Again, hardly enough time to receive due process. One thing I d like to bring up is at one of the neighborhood meetings we had, Garmin said that the City was responsible for improvements. They would try to lobby that. Mr. Harrelson, I m hearing you say that the improvements would need to be taken care of by Garmin, which would include the drainage to the property south of my property. I would just like you guys to the right thing. I think we need to wait to approve it until they re ready to dig. I ve got plenty of documentation, but just like all the other folks in the audience here, three minutes is certainly not enough to do that. Thank you. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions? [None.] Thank you. Okay, all those who have signed up have come forward. Anyone else wishing to speak? Please come forward. John Lidford, 1224 East Sheridan Bridge Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Lidford: I actually work for Garmin, not as part of any management. I m an engineer there. I work in automotive, so I help make products people use to get around. I ve heard a few things. I m glad this letter was put on my door so I could have a chance to come and help a little bit. Liquid nitrogen. I ve heard some strange things tonight. Liquid nitrogen is an inert gas. It is part of what we breathe. It s 70 percent air. Yes, it s compressed, a compressed gas. That is a

40 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 36 challenge. I agree. But there s already 10 liquid nitrogen tanks on the property. There s already light manufacturing on the property. There s already shipping on the property. It s just moving from one part of the building to another. So, that s kind of strange to me. I hear about house values going down. Travis and I have a history. He s my landlord. I used to live in the house that Mrs. Snyder had when I was renting it. I moved to that neighborhood because I wanted to be part of that neighborhood. I moved to that neighborhood because of the schools. I moved to the neighborhood because I wanted to be close to work. I bring my engineering salary and my tax dollars to that neighborhood. When I decided to move out of a rental house into a home, I bought a property with known foundation problems because I wanted to be in that neighborhood. We re bringing more people, more jobs, more taxes, more people who want to buy those houses. Yeah, some houses are going to be more impacted than others. I will totally agree with Travis on that. But, the whole neighborhood surrounding, I can t see it going up. There s a lot of money going to be coming in, and you start bringing in 2,000 more people who want to buy. I have four people in the neighborhood that work at Garmin. There s at least one more in the next neighborhood. I know of three others that looked in that exact neighborhood Brittany Place because they wanted to live there. I agree. Traffic stinks. But the thing I want to point out is, when is the traffic light? It s not when Garmin has a day off. It s when school has a day off. We have like 500 people a day driving on that road. How many people go to the schools? When school is out, I have no problem getting anywhere. Garmin brings a lot of people to the area. So does the schools. So does everything else. I heard something about Garmin borrowing money. I can t speak to that, because I don t know, but Garmin has no debt. That seems silly to think that Garmin is borrowing money and tax dollars to do it. That s all I ve got. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions? [None.] Thank you. Christina Whiteman, 1240 East Sleepy Hollow Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Ms. Whiteman: I m a project manager, so I know what it s like to do the research and due diligence. Is there a way I can give my remaining time to the gentleman that did do a bunch of research that spoke at the beginning? Is that something you can do? Chairman Harrelson: We would like to hear from you. If you something you d like to add, we d like to hear from you. Ms. Whiteman: Okay. I just wanted to ask. I appreciate the research. Thank you for doing that. Like I said, I m a project manager. I m sure the project manager is sitting over here somewhere. This is the only notice that I got, which was a neighbor putting it on my door. I did not receive any other notices. And the fact that it was late, and hearing that you guys had several of these I mean, that s just bad project management.

41 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 37 The other part that I had is that my husband and I are brand-new to the area. We just got married a year and a half ago and moved in a little over a year ago. I agree about the property value, and I agree about younger generations looking at these new houses. I m not going to want a building in my back yard. I m not. And to be honest with you, I m going to be talking to my husband about moving if our property is, indeed, going to go down, and if there are going to be that many issues. Secondly, I m going to be starting a family. I get it about the liquid nitrogen tanks. I totally get that. But, just like all the other people said who actually do have kids, there s huge concerns. There s a reason why a huge structure like that is not meant to be by a residential area, or that close. I think there s a reason for that. Also, traffic. There is only one exit out of my neighborhood, and it is Sleepy Hollow Drive. It s the last block before you get to the last church on Ridgeview. I am continuously late because of that traffic. I saw in the notice that I got, there s nothing over by my area. You re more than welcome to come out into my area. It takes at least 10 or 15 minutes between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. because I ve tried them all to get out of my neighborhood. I like the idea of a roundabout, an extra light in there. Honestly, expanding it to more than just one lane would be very beneficial, as well. But, that s not why we re here. That s all I wanted to say. I just wanted to give my voice as someone who is new to the neighborhood, a newlywed family who is thinking about starting a family here. That s my take. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions? [None.] Thank you. Adeline Lauen, 1351 South Church Street, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Ms. Lauen: I have more concern of the trains going by, not knowing what s in the trains. I have heard about more train accidents than I have heard of Garmin. I don t know what s in the trains that are going by constantly. I feel like having a building up muffles the sound from the trains and from the traffic. I have no problem with that building going up. None whatsoever. The traffic sucks, and they re working on it. And the water, like I was talking about last time, they re working on it. So, I have no problem with Garmin. I do not personally see any problem with the value going down. Anybody working at Garmin probably wants to move into my house when I move out. So, I don t see a problem with any of that. That s it. Thank you. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions? [None.] Thank you. Steve Greasby, 1407 South Sheridan Bridge Place, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Greasby: I am also a Garmin employee. By my estimate, about 10 percent of the households in our neighborhood are owned by Garmin employees. I know about eight people in my general vicinity who are Garmin employees. I personally paid list value for my home because I wanted to get in that neighborhood. I raised the property values there, and I know a

42 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 38 number of other people who paid list or very close to list to move in there. And I think more jobs will increase the property values. So, I am in favor of this. My one concern is traffic. I don t think it s a Garmin issue; I think it s a City issue. This is also highlighted by, I got a copy of the traffic study done for Garmin. This was given to me by the City. I did not get it from Garmin because I m just a peon there. But, according to the traffic study 0.25 percent of the traffic is due to Garmin. The City gives ratings to the various intersections. They are A through F, A being the best, traffic flows just great; F being there is a serious problem. Olathe tries to improve, if it s D or better, on anything that s signaled or an arterial roadway. And I would say, in my opinion, Ridgeview is an arterial roadway. This is the current traffic conditions. Coming eastbound and westbound on Sheridan Bridge, we are already at D and F. I think that s a City issue since the traffic contributed by Garmin is so low. I would just like a traffic light there. I would disagree with the people who want a roundabout because, like I said, there s a lot of Garmin employees who live there, and I have to cross that, and I don t want to cross a roundabout every day. I want a traffic crosswalk, or at least a pedestrian crosswalk to make it safe for people. That s all. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions? [None.] Thank you. We re going to have Celia come forward in a little bit. Traffic seems to be a very common issue, so we ll have you come up and address some of those. Anyone else? Casey Patton, 1371 South Church Street, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Patton: Does anybody have that map of our neighborhood that I can put back up here? [Locating overhead map.] So, people are up here, just telling what their address is. I can kind of picture where you guys are at, but it s really hard for me to say. So, I m going to say that we re right here. This is the plan for the new building. Who is mostly affected by it? Me, Travis, and a couple of my neighbors. They re trying to build 107 feet from the end of our property line, with the liquid nitrogen tanks. I have five kids at my house. They all play outside. One reason we bought the house is because of the open field. We can sit outside, watch the stars, and the fireworks from the Great Mall. It s a great neighborhood. I don t want to look at a brick building, or any other type of building that you want to put up here. I would love to sell. I ll sell it to Garmin right now. Because I m not raising my kids in this type of neighborhood. So, I m sure anybody who wants to sell in the neighborhood, buy the entire neighborhood, but it s going to cost you. As to the school and the traffic, if you close down the school, you re going to have the same problem by building this one. So, now you have 2,700 extra employees, on top of the school, on top of the employees that you have already. And that s if you close down the school. You re going to have the same problem. There s no way around it. That s all I really have. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions? Comm. Freeman: Just so I m clear and understand, you preference for use of the land is that there would be no structures on it at all? Or do you have something else in mind?

43 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 39 Mr. Patton: From what I ve seen from my neighbor, Travis, building the lower buildings separately, that looks perfectly fine to me. Comm. Freeman: Thank you. Just wanted to clarify. Chairman Harrelson: Other questions? [None.] Thank you. Gerald Tremmel, 1227 East Sheridan Bridge Lane, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Tremmel: About a month ago, my daughter asked me to take her to work at Olathe Medical Center. I said sure, no problem. I m retired, so I don t leave my neighborhood usually until about 12:30 or so. But, I had to leave to take her to the hospital early in the morning. We got to the corner of Ridgeview and East Sheridan Bridge Lane and I couldn t believe how bad the traffic was at that time. It took me about 15 minutes to get out into the traffic. The only way I got out into the traffic was by suddenly veering out, because there s no breaks in the traffic coming south on Ridgeview. Everyone is 20 feet behind the car in front of them, going down Ridgeview. It would be different if people spread out 100 feet between cars, but they don t do it. They re all 20 feet behind each car. If you try to put in a roundabout, it would just slow traffic down. If there was predominantly north-south traffic with people trying to get in from east and west, you wouldn t be able to get in because I m sure you ve all had experience with these roundabouts. Again, people are bumper to bumper, going through the roundabout. It might be predominantly north-south traffic, so no one from the east or west can get into the roundabout. Putting a light somewhere on Ridgeview, it s not going to make it better. It s just going to add to the congestion and the backup of traffic in all directions. I don t know of you could expand Ridgeview to four lanes. Is there even room to do that? I just can t see doubling the amount of people working at Garmin doing anything but adding to this nightmare. It s just going to get worse and worse. That s all I ve got to say. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions? [None.] Thank you for your comments. Myra Garner, 1113 East Sleepy Hollow Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Ms. Garner: I m the last red dot under the highway and by the train tracks. I have a little bit different perspective tonight. I agree with a lot of things in opposition. I haven t lived there 25 or 30 years like so many other people have. Yet, I am a retiree, and it s important to me how my subdivision is, my neighborhood, and especially my home property. When we moved into this neighborhood, Mission Ridge that s our little two streets is known for being Christmas Card Lane. People drive up and down our beautiful streets. We have a collaborative effort, and we don t even have a homeowners association, which is one thing that has to do with it. We ve only been there two years, but I knew that I had to get my Christmas decorations by the Friday after Thanksgiving because people were going to start driving through here. I love Christmas decorations, and I m pretty proud to have people come through here. I love the tree line. I have two beautiful trees in my front yard, and my husband works very hard on our yard. Even though we ve only been there two years, we ve made a lot of improvements to the house, even though

44 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 40 it was close to 30 years old. We put a lot of money in it. We re not retirees that can say, Oh, my house is about paid for. It s not. We paid current value when we bought it two years ago. So, we stand to lose a lot in our value because we put in new windows, gutters, and all of these things. But I m proud to be a part of that neighborhood. I like it because I know my neighbors. I m on the end of that cul-de-sac. But, I m also one of the ones that share that super frustration every time we get a little rain, we have a river running in our yard. We ve replanted grass, we ve planted sod, we ve done everything. And I don t know whose issue it is, but it s not just our yard. We re down at the end where that last red dot is going to be, where they say there s going to be drains around it. Anyway, my point is that it s not just a neighborhood. Garmin hasn t bothered me. I appreciate their business. But, we also re-did our deck this year, and our only view was the bean field, which is still down on that part. But, that s all we have right now, and we won t have that after this. And it won t be as pleasant for all the people who come driving through, probably. Thank you. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions? [None.] Thank you so much. Tricia Baptiste, 1358 South Brentwood Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Ms. Baptiste: I live in Brittany Place on the long street that goes through that, kind of triangle right there. I don t really wish to speak about the improvements that are proposed, and I know you ve heard a lot about traffic, but I would like to add additional perspective to it. Again, we live in Brittany Place, next door to the neighborhood that s called Christmas Card Lane. Typically, the traffic from our neighborhood, because it s so difficult to get out of our neighborhood because there is only one outlet onto Ridgeview, traffic goes from our neighborhood into the other neighborhood. I would just ask the City to please consider not in relation to Garmin necessarily, but in relation to traffic in general neighborhood safety. It s very difficult to get in or onto Ridgeview from either of those neighborhoods. I m guilty of it, as well, moving from our neighborhood into the adjacent neighborhood, just so we have a chance to get out. It s terrible. Also, I have a child who is older than school age to go across the street, but I also don t see a lot of consistency with crossing guards going out on Sheridan Bridge, across the street. There are three schools right there. There are plenty of mornings and afternoons that there should be a crossing guard there. The lights are flashing, but there is no crossing guard. That is just a concern of mine. It s also a concern that people coming out of our neighborhood might not recognize that it s during the school speed limit time because there is no flashing light turning south out of our neighborhood when you turn onto Ridgeview. So, going south on Ridgeview, the school zone light actually occurs before that. So, my worry is that people turning out of the neighborhood might not have a recognition that it is during a school period and they should be driving at the lower speed limit during that time. Thank you. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions? [None.] Thank you for your comments. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? [None.] We got everybody? Okay. We ve got a lot of stuff to

45 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 41 cover. Celia, could you please come forward? I might ask you to first address us on some questions we had relative to traffic. That seems to be one of the comment issues. I m not sure where to start. I know the applicant made some comments about traffic improvements. Could you please tell us about your interaction with the project and some of the considerations you made? Also, it seems to be a very common theme, Sheridan Bridge and the one entrance and exit out of the subdivision. This particular area seems to be a source of concerns. Can you address your thoughts about that and what we should expect, and what the residents should expect, relative to that intersection, if anything? Celia Duran, City of Olathe Engineer and Deputy Director for Public Works, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Ms. Duran: Recognizing that traffic is a big concern related to this expansion, we ve been talking about it, and I ve prepared some notes about it. First of all, before I talk about City responsibilities, our City traffic engineers have reviewed the traffic impact study prepared by Garmin, and we agree with the recommendations and improvements. We think those will help mitigate traffic congestion and delay in the area. It is staff s opinion that the proposed improvements will address traffic issues associated with expansion. The City also recognizes as a number of others have said that traffic delays are not just due to the Garmin expansion. They re also related to a junior high, a high school, residences in the area, and businesses. We think that that is a City commitment, and the City wants to do our part to address traffic issues on 151 st and Ridgeview. The City has a street preservation project scheduled for 2017 or It has been in 2018, but we re looking at whether we can move it up. Typically, that s a pavement preservation project, but we re looking at options and what we can do to improve traffic in the area north of Garmin. So, the question came up earlier. We ve looked at the pavement. The pavement is wide enough. We don t have to widen it with any of those improvements. So, we could possibly restripe it to a three-lane section, which means you lose the bike lane. But, that s an option. We re looking at left turn lanes at various intersections. Definitely Sheridan Bridge, and we ll have to look at other intersections to see what we can do there. We also looked at coming out of Sheridan Bridge, instead of just one way out, maybe there s a right, and a left. Or, a through left, and a right, so there s not just one lane out. So, those are some options. We will also look at roundabouts and signals. There s criteria that we have to look at. We can t put a signal at every intersection. There is going to be a traffic signal installed by Garmin at the school entrance. You have to look at spacing, and delays, and gaps. Those are all things that we re going to look at, and we ll go into a lot more detail as part of the street preservation project. So, we will continue to monitor traffic in the area, and when our project becomes available, we ll go into the design process and really look at the evaluation of traffic. One other item. I wanted to note that in the staff report, there is a stipulation that needs to be added. It includes the requirement for a second northbound through lane at the intersection of 151 st and Ridgeview. That was left out of the staff report. And, if the Planning Commission chooses to make a motion on this item, we would like to see that added because that was part of the traffic study.

46 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 42 Chairman Harrelson: Can you help us with that? Does Mr. Clements know where that s to be included? Ms. Duran: Yes. You would add that at stipulation 3.g., related to the intersection of 151 st and Ridgeview. Chairman Harrelson: Very good. So, the signal that is added, I think on the drawing it s point C, is that correct? Is that where the signal will be added? Ms. Durand: Yes. Chairman Harrelson: Okay. Further north of A seems to be the most aggravating area that s come up in our discussions. Any thoughts about what s happening there? We have congestion there now, obviously pretty severe in the mornings, it sounds like, and at night. I can t imagine that more people are going to make it better. Any discussion about, those traffic improvements that are planned, how that might relieve that spot? Ms. Duran: We re going to study every intersection and look at the delays. Right now, the road carries about 11,000 vehicles per day. So, if you look at expansion, we don t usually look at expanding the road until it s about 15,000. So, it s not really a matter of capacity as much as it is delay because of the number of intersections. So, it s hard to get out in the morning, as everybody knows. What can we do there? Would a three-lane section help that? Would turn lanes help that? A roundabout? Traffic signals? You have to look at the delay in getting in and out of that, and you re slowing down traffic down Ridgeview to let the side streets in. Those are things we ll look at, too. So, as part of our design process, we will hire a design engineer and take a look at what we can do to improve the delay and the congestion along Ridgeview. Chairman Harrelson: But we don t currently have a specific plan relative to that intersection? Ms. Duran: It will be part of our street preservation project in Chairman Harrelson: Okay. Any other things you might add that you ve heard tonight, that you d like to comment on? There was a study that was conducted I think you ve seen that. Anything relative to that? Some of the folks mentioned that they received that study, so, anything there that is of note that we might take in as part of our review? Ms. Duran: We have two senior traffic engineers and they ve worked closely with Garmin s traffic engineer. We ve gone back and forth, and they agree with the improvements there that are associated with Garmin. We have two other areas 151 st and Ridgeview, as well as the third westbound through lane on 151 st. Yes, Garmin contributes to that, but as we all know, a lot of other city traffic is related to that, too. So, what we are proposing is a development agreement that would go to City Council. That would determine timing, etc. The specific improvements have been identified, but cost sharing, too, to determine what portion is City course, and what portion is Garmin adding. So, I think that s a City Council decision, and that will be coming to them. That s when we ll know what improvements, and we ll have to work it out through the capital improvement plan. We think that traffic will be improved around this area and, as I said, we re going to have to north on Ridgeview. We have a transportation master plan going on right

47 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 43 now, and that should be completed sometime in January. No surprise, we have traffic concerns around the city. So, we look at all the different improvements needed, and the funding, and we try to prioritize as best we can. This is an area that we have looked at for a while, and we ll see how it works in, but with our project coming up for street preservation, it s a good opportunity to make improvements in the area. Chairman Harrelson: Very good. Questions for our traffic engineer? Comm. Nelson: First of all, you re saying Garmin is going to improve some aspects of the traffic, mostly what I think I hear you saying around Ridgeview and 151 st, that intersection area. Or are you suggesting that the impact will be broader than just the intersection itself? Ms. Duran: The traffic study looks at today s conditions, and then the future conditions with the added traffic. So, it won t get worse based on the traffic study with the added employees because of these improvements. These improvements will bring it back to what it is today. Now, we re going to be looking at 151 st and Ridgeview as part of our CIP. Is there something else we can do? The traffic study identifies a number of lanes, and it s such a narrow area. But, what else can we do? So, we ll look at that as part of our plan. But, yes, that s what it shows, is that those improvements will help mitigate the delays in the area. Comm. Nelson: In addition to that, you re saying the City is recognizing there are broader issues further north that are beyond Garmin. They re covering the new stuff coming in, in what they re connected to. But, the City is looking at how to improve the broader situation. Ms. Duran: Yes. Comm. Nelson: Okay. And then, my other question is, there s kind of an open timeline as to when all of this happens. I hear you talking about 2018, and you d like to move it up to If Garmin takes eight years to develop that, do you still see us needing to do those improvements even before they complete construction? Or is some of that going to be -? How do those marry together in timing? Ms. Duran: The street preservation project will be done in 2017 or That s part of our plan. So, whatever we do north of there will be done as part of that. Now, if we come back and say it needs to be a four-lane section, that s probably outside of the scope of our current project. But, I think there are a number of things we can do to improve that. So, if it s a complete expansion, we re probably aren t going to do four lanes at that time, but we could still do the three lanes, or the left-turn lanes, a roundabout or signal as part of that project. As far as 151 st and Ridgeview, that s part of a plan that we look at all of our capital improvement plans. So, I m not going to say right now, yes, this will be done in this year, because that s an extensive process, to look at all of our other improvements. But, what we would plan to do is to get that done before Garmin completes their warehouse. So, probably early next year, we ll be working on the CIP, and we ll try to fit that in wherever we can. Maybe in the five year. We ll just have to see how it works. And then, the through lane on 151 st, that s a very large project. That s not going to be done for a while, but we ll try to find a time slot to put it in. We ll continue to monitor traffic. If we need to move it up, we can do that.

48 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 44 Comm. Nelson: One thing that I really appreciate you pointing out. I have my areas of passion for our city, too, but I appreciate what you say about, this is one intersection in the entire city that you guys are trying to manage as the city grows. I think that s important for us to acknowledge, that you re dealing with a lot more than just where we have our passion points. I appreciate you pointing that out. Ms. Duran: Well, you know, wherever you live, that s the most important one, and I get that. But yes, we have to look at all of those. And it is difficult, because if had all the money, we d just go fix it tomorrow. But, we have to prioritize and use our funds wisely. Comm. Nelson: That s important. Thank you. Comm. Freeman: A question in regards to traffic. Automobile traffic seems to be addressed quite a bit. Does the City have any specific recommendations regarding pedestrian and cycling traffic? Because I hear that concern from the public. Especially if you look at widening just by restriping, we re going to lose bike lanes. Ms. Duran: And that s what we have to prioritize. Ideally, we widen it out, we keep our bike lanes. But that s something we look at with the design process. We look at pedestrian traffic. If we put in a roundabout, we look at pedestrian traffic across there. We ll look at bike lanes. Maybe there s an interim improvement, and maybe there s an ultimate improvement. We just have to look at all that and determine what we can do. I think we have the right-of-way there to be able to expand to our four-lane section in the future, but when do we do that? Is that in a phased approach? Comm. Freeman: Just out of curiosity, has there been any discussion with Garmin about, I know they re heavy into pedestrian and biking traffic. Has there been any discussion about whether they re going to do any options on their land specifically for that type of traffic traveling out of their property? Ms. Duran: I haven t talked to them about that. They may have plans, but I m not aware of that. Comm. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Comm. Vakas: Ms. Duran, thanks very much for coming tonight and providing this information. I think it s very important to get some fresh information here before the entire audience. I m very happy to hear that we re looking at improvements independent of the Garmin timeline. I think that s very important. I think the elimination of bike lanes is a mistake, so whatever we are doing, we need to preserve bike lanes. Maybe it s restriping and adding a bike path off of the road. I think that would be important. It seems like we ve had a problem here with communication with the public, and as important as this traffic study is, how can we get the word out? What kind of timeline would we expect to complete the traffic studies that you re talking about? Ms. Duran: You re talking about the City project -? Comm. Vakas: Yes.

49 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 45 Ms. Duran: We ll probably begin design, if we move it up to 2017 and we ll be knowing that really soon because it s getting to the end of the year, and that s when we determine when our street preservation projects are for next year. We look every year at, you know, did something deteriorate faster than we expected? We have our plan, but we ll move it up or move it back, depending on the pavement deterioration over time. So, we ll know really soon whether it s a 2017 or 2018 project. Then we will begin design a year before. So, that s when we will start on the design, we ll hire an engine, we ll have public comment, we ll have some public meetings and notices about that. And because we are aware that we have so many concerns about traffic, we will encourage a more formal public input process. Comm. Vakas: That would be great. Thanks very much. Chairman Harrelson: Any other questions for Celia? [None.] I don t think I have anything else. You mentioned a development agreement earlier. Mr. Clements, is that information contained in the stipulations? Mr. Clements: The development agreement is essentially the stipulations for traffic improvements. That s the same point. Chairman Harrelson: We carve that out and that s a separate issue, a separate item. Ms. Duran: But what that does is, it will determine the financial responsibilities for each of the different phases because, as I said, there s a couple of improvements that are part of the City project, too, because there s more than Garmin traffic; there s city traffic. So, that s what it spells out in the development agreement. Chairman Harrelson: Thank you. Comm. Freeman: I d just like to make a quick plug to the public. Olathe is very good about gathering this type of information in a very formal manner. It s called a Direction Finders Survey. We send it out quarterly as a city. I ve gotten it before, and I d encourage you to take that very seriously. Fill it out, send it in, say exactly what your concerns are. Traffic can be one of them. There are a lot of different areas. But, one of the things that Olathe tries to always do and does a very good job of is gathering input from the public. This is one form, but I just want to make note of the Direction Finders Survey, as well. Chairman Harrelson: Good point. Thank you. Mr. Clements, I m not sure if it s appropriate to have you address some questions that we have, or should we have the applicant come up and address some of the concerns that were mentioned first? Mr. Clements: I ll leave that up to your discretion. Chairman Harrelson: Let s have the applicant come up and address some of the concerns that we heard. And then, we might take a break after they make their remarks, and have you come up after our break. How would that be? Mr. Clements: Yes, sir.

50 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 46 Chairman Harrelson: Would the applicant come forward? We had a lot of input, so I think it s fair to respond, if they d like. Patrick Desbois, Vice President of Operations for Garmin, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Desbois: I will do my best here, and a little guidance on some of the questions from the Commission would be great. In terms of traffic, we just discussed those items. Are there any other questions relating to us in terms of traffic? Comm. Freeman: I just echo mine, what I asked Ms. Durand regarding options for pedestrian and cycling traffic on your property, to allow people on your property to exist safely with the bike lanes possibly being taken away. Any thoughts about transit for pedestrians and cycling on your property? Mr. Desbois: We d certainly like to see pedestrian and cycling in the public streets in those areas because there are a lot of fitness associates involved with Garmin. We certainly see that. We are adding a two-mile loop surrounding the property, as we mentioned earlier. That will allow for some cycling and pedestrian use. In terms of egress and exit, we haven t modeled that. We can take an action and go back and look at where we might exit the property, and work with the City on their traffic study and plan. But no, we haven t looked at it. Comm. Nelson: The other thing that I would just ask, which is one of the hanging questions here. There s some concessions we re making building height, egress, some of those types of things, the four points that the Chairman mentioned earlier that were in the original plan, and stuff like that. What I hear the neighbors saying is that we concede all these things, but what benefit to the neighborhood? That s a pretty huge question. And I don t know that you can speak into that in depth at this point, but I do think it s a big factor to address in the conversation. I d love to hear if you have any perspective on that. Mr. Desbois: That s a good question. The neighbors are correct, and I ve discussed this in our neighborhood meetings in terms of being a public company, in terms of liability to us as a company. I cannot formally approve the use of the grounds and the properties that are on there. I have asked that we have some leniency and look for opportunities in areas that we can be better neighbors. There was a request at one of the neighborhood meetings that we have the neighbors come on board and sit on top of our parking garage to watch the Fourth of July fireworks at the Great Mall. And we honored that, and we said we d be happy to do that, and be good neighbors. We hadn t done that in the past. From a liability standpoint, we had asked our neighbors not to show up, but we went ahead and did that. So, for special occasions like that, we want to be as flexible as we can. But, for everyday use of our property, it s a liability. We re a public company. That was stated, and that s the response. Comm. Fry: I made my list of what I felt were the top six issues that came up through this meeting. Clearly, first and foremost is traffic. We ve beat that to death. I think there are a lot of issues surrounding that. The one that I m a little unresolved about is, obviously you all are a very successful company, a very successful business, and we re very lucky to have you as an Olathe business. The big issue on size is, I think a lingering question that you ve heard over and

51 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 47 over again and some of it is just because you re a successful company. You have the right to grow, the right to build on your land, and at what point do you hear these comments about size and think, well, there s just no way we can do what we need to do if it s not this big? Or, are we hoping that we grow into this? Is there a compromise somewhere? I know that s a huge question, but that s the one I m struggling the most with, personally. Mr. Desbois: Understood. In looking at the responsibility that we have for use of our existing property and our future plans for it, first, let me give you a little context. It took us 25 years to get to the current 2,700 employees that we have on the site here today. So, when we look at this as, kind of our end-state, final plan for our property, we don t envision that happening overnight. It s going to take many years, but I can t predict what that is. Our growth took a long time, and I don t see us going to an additional 2,700 overnight. As a company, we re vertically integrated. That means that we like to own everything on site, in one place. We want to own our own design, our own manufacturing, our own distribution, our own sales everything all on one site. We are currently maxed out on our capacity for not only distribution and manufacturing, but also office space. So, our eight-story tower is pretty much full. We need more office space, we need more distribution, and we need more manufacturing. When we look at our entire site, we considered multiple options to what else we could do. We could build other towers, we could build smaller buildings. If we were going to do any of those, we would have to take things offsite. Being vertically integrated, we don t want to do that. We want to have our engineers who design the products be able to go to the manufacturing center, which is right there, work with our manufacturing engineers, and build the product. That s part of the value we bring as a company. So, to build smaller buildings in this area, it could meet one of the needs. We could fill more office space, but we re out of room in manufacturing and distribution. So, this was the best plan that allowed future growth to meet all of the three constraints that we think potentially could be the case in the future. Comm. Fry: One of the speakers talked about the potential of growing much bigger than what it is, and under the zoning change, you have the right to put a tower over there if you wanted to do that. Is there anything that can be discussed now to secure the trust of the neighbors to know that this is as big as it s going to get? Or is there a chance that you re going to build another tower that is that big -? It s a fear. It would be my fear, I guess, if I lived there. Mr. Desbois: Sure. I understand the question. I can t predict the future, but I can tell you we are spending a lot of time and effort, and we ve spent a lot of time and effort in the last several months and even beyond that in building this plan for the future. It is the right plan for the growth of this campus. We have no plans to build another tower over the manufacturing building. Like I said, a lot of time, effort and dollars go into that planning exercise. That s the best I can answer that. I don t know what commitment I could make, other than that s our current plan. Comm. Rinke: Like Dr. Fry, my biggest concern is the size of this building and being so close to the single-family residential. I know you ve acquired two properties that have buildings on them today that you ll be tearing down, and you ve also acquired a medical facility a while back. Did

52 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 48 you give any consideration to trying acquire some of the other properties to the west, that you could possibly resituate the building further away from the residential? Mr. Desbois: Just to be clear, the properties that you ve designated on this map, they re not shown. Let me clearly identify them. The medical building that you mentioned is still standing. We are using that today. We actually owned it, sold it, and bought it back. There are two properties here on Mahaffie Circle that today are standing buildings. One is a strip of businesses in two separate buildings in this area. We have looked at other buildings in this area over here. That s what we have today. I can t really speak to the status of these buildings. They re not for sale. We have looked at other adjacent property. But, we feel that in general, with the purchase of these properties here, it allows us enough additional acreage to be able to build out to the plan you see here tonight. Comm. Rinke: There s no real timeline for when you want to build this building, or at least you haven t provided that to us. If those properties would become available before you started construction, would you consider that? Mr. Desbois: We re a public company, so, in terms of future potential purchases or not, I probably can t comment on that. Comm. Vakas: Could we hear a little more about liquid nitrogen? Is that used in the manufacturing process? Mr. Desbois: It is, and let me address a couple of things on the liquid nitrogen. It is correct that we have liquid nitrogen on campus here today. The proposed area for the liquid nitrogen tanks is right here where the cursor is on the screen, which is quite a bit south from the area that s been discussed. It is not up in that area. It is literally used for manufacturing. This is the manufacturing area of the building, and you want liquid nitrogen in close proximity to that manufacturing. It is used in the manufacturing process. As mentioned earlier, it is an inert material. In terms of risk from a compressed air perspective, that s the risk. There s no chemical reaction that can occur with liquid nitrogen to cause any type of explosion. It is a compressed air into a liquid, and that compression itself has some level of risk. I don t know what that risk is, but it s very low. We ve had it on site for many, many years without incident. Comm. Vakas: The proximity to the back yards of the houses affected, the risk is so low as to be insignificant? Mr. Desbois: It s more than 200 feet away. We believe that to be the case. Comm. Vakas: More than 200 feet away from the lot line, or a back door, or what exactly? Mr. Desbois: From the property line itself. Comm. Vakas: And what are the size of the storage tanks? Mr. Zeller: There s a 6,000 gallon tank and a 3,000 gallon tank. It s exactly what they have on site today. And one of the things that we have been doing some research on is the tanks were vertical; in the report, they re 35 feet tall. We ve been working with a manufacturer, Pax Air, to

53 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 49 provide horizontal tanks. They re the same size, but they re not 35 feet tall. They re 10 feet off the ground, including the base. Comm. Vakas: So that s a more logical installation? On the surface, as we talk now, that s probably a more logical installation than the vertical? Mr. Desbois: That s correct. Mr. Zeller: Right. It would be easier to screen them. Comm. Vakas: So they can be screened from a visual standpoint. Is there any concern about providing some sort of secondary containment? Or, again, is the possible issue of rapid decompression so minor as to be nothing to think about? Mr. Desbois: I might ask for some help from the City because I believe we ve had some reports from our fire department and other specialty areas within the City that look at those levels of risk. I believe your statement is factual. Amy do you have anything to add? Ms. Kynard: Well, as Mr. Desbois mentioned, it s not a chemical reactivity that we re worried about. The primary risk would be if the building caught fire, or something else. It s very unlikely to happen on its own. It would be more of a secondary reaction from the research that I did. I don t claim to be an expert on that, but that s what I learned from reading about it on line. I can tell you simply that the hazard risk as defined by the federal regulations is a zero on a scale from zero to four, which is the lowest risk category. It doesn t mean nothing could ever happen; it just means that it s a very minimal risk. Also, I would add that we do have regulations under the International Fire Code that the tanks would be required. There are some setbacks, but those are very minimal compared to the setbacks that they are actually providing. So, this does exceed all of those requirements. Comm. Vakas: And again, I don t mean to blow any of this out of proportion so to speak because I think it is all very safe, and all within tolerance. But what I m saying is, just an clip from the fire department Do we have something a bit more official from the fire department? An official opinion with a signature? If we don t, is that something we could obtain? Ms. Kynard: We could potentially obtain something like that. I have an from the fire department that simply stated what regulations they would be required to me, but it was not elaborate enough to provide a specific opinion on it. Comm. Vakas: I just ask, as we go forward, that the Planning Department make extraordinary efforts to work with Garmin to mitigate, not just the visual, but all mitigation associated with those containers. Thank you. Comm. Horner: Is the horizontal orientation of those tanks that you re trying to do now, that s just to facilitate the screening on it? And that s likely to work? Mr. Desbois: Yes. The intent is that it s a visual improvement that we re proposing. We can go either way with the tanks.

54 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 50 Comm. Horner: I ll just make one observation on the whole process here. For some reason, we have difficulty and you aren t the only one it seems like we have case after case come up where the word just never gets to the community in a timely manner. And I know our postal system is not that bad. So, I don t know if our own timelines don t provide enough leeway, or whatever, but it s an aggravation. It starts this whole process off on such a bad foot because it makes the appearance of, you know, we re being tone deaf to the community that s impacted because they don t get the word. So, I don t know if there s a way from the Commission s standpoint to lengthen the timeline so that all of our neighbors get notified in a timely manner. I would also ask if you would consider any other, when we re talking about, What can you do for me? the steady drip, drip, drip of neighborliness. And maybe that includes, I realize you re a non-smoking campus, but You employ smokers, I guess is what I was saying. So, there must be a way to carve out something so that that isn t yet one more thing to the neighborhood. Because telling your employees you can t smoke here, they have to go somewhere, and I don t think it s unreasonable for you to provide that little piece of God s green earth for them to do that, and it doesn t put them on your neighbor s space. Mr. Desbois: I d like to comment on both of those, if I may. A very good point on the communication. It is absolutely our intent and my intent to be as transparent with the public, our neighbors, and be neighborly, as we can. I think in terms of communications, we followed the City guidelines of when mailings must go out, who they must go out to. There is a circumference that the City providers and tells you, we have to send out within 200 feet, X hundred feet, by X time before the meetings. We ve done our best to comply with those. I don t think that those necessarily hit all neighbors, and that s part of the problem. But, we certainly intend to be as transparent as we can. We re not hiding anything. We re trying to do good things for Garmin, for Olathe, for jobs, for all of us. And we want to communicate that. We ve offered up additional areas for our current construction, for example, on our parking garage. We ve offered a website. We ve give contact numbers, s, phone numbers directly to our facilities, Theresa, and security, if there are any issues. We ve tried to have as many means as we can to communicate out to the public, and we welcome any other opportunities or suggestions that are there to be transparent. That s our intent. In terms of smoking. Acknowledged, understood. We are a smoke-free campus, and that is current our policy, and it is our plan to continue that policy. Chairman Harrelson: Any other questions? [None.] All right. I m going to suggest we take a 10 minute break. We ll report back at 9:25 p.m. [Break] Chairman Harrelson: Okay, if everyone will take their seats, we will resume our meeting. When we left off, we were going to ask staff to answer some questions from commissioners. Any questions? Comm. Fry: I would like some advice from staff. This question of size. Not being professional planners, my question is just some advice from staff on conversations within the Planning

55 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 51 Department and Garmin that surround the concept of size, or the topic of size, and how we got to this point. Was it always about this same size? Did you advise them to scale it back? Was it a feeling of, from a planning perspective, is this something you say, as non-planners, but up here listening as advocating for the community and our town, that the size makes sense? I think this is where I m struggling, and I would just like some advice. Mr. Clements: It s a difficult question to answer, but let me try this. We ve been working with Garmin for close to a year on this. They know their needs, they know their growth, they know what they need to continue to be successful. And the plan they put for initially was very similar to this one. We told them from the very first meeting, Wow, that s a big building close to single family. This is not going to be easy. But we didn t say to them, You have to make it smaller, because they know their business plan, they know the things they have to do to be successful. It s not really our job to deter them from their growth that they ve identified as essential. That s the best answer I can give you. Comm. Fry: Perfect. Okay. Thank you. Comm. Rinke: I ve got some questions regarding that same topic. But, before I get there, I do want to say that I am happy that Garmin is in Olathe, and probably even happier that you re growing at a rate that you need to do this expansion. I do think, ultimately, there s got to be a solution to this. But, with regard to the size, this reminds me of a slightly different project, but it was Olathe Commons that s east of Whole Foods. There was a project where they wanted multifamily next to single family. So, right off the bat, you would say, well, it is residential, so it ought to be a little more compatible. But, they were wanting to put in multi-story residential there that we thought was way too big. We had several public hearings on that and spent a lot of time wrestling with that issue. And I know that, at the end of the day, I think staff thought that project was too big. And this feels like, I mean, this makes that project pale in comparison. So, I guess, help me understand why we would have opposed large multifamily next to single family, but this one is so much bigger and we re okay with it. Mr. Clements: With Olathe Commons, the initial proposal, there were a number of units, and the density is reduced by 50 or 60 units by virtue of moving the taller three-story buildings to the center of the site and putting smaller 35-foot buildings around the perimeter of the site. But, it s not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison here because Olathe Commons was asking for the multifamily zoning to do that. Here, Garmin already has the zoning. So, it s a little bit different situation. I m not trying to say your comparison doesn t have some good parallels. I think the actual zoning request is the difference. Comm. Rinke: They do have the zoning, but they re also asking for some exceptions from what s currently allowed. Mr. Clements: They re asking for the setback. Comm. Rinke: So, I think we need to get something for that. I guess I don t see it. One other tact on this, I mean, let s take Garmin out of the picture for a second. We ve approved a lot of warehouse-type facilities in Olathe in the last few years. What if this was a speculative

56 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 52 warehouse coming in on this site? What would you say as a planner? Would you think that was a good idea? Mr. Clements: That s a good hypothetical question, Mr. Rinke, and I think we have to look at everything on a case-by-case basis. But, I think Garmin has a vested interest in this community and a commitment to that site, and I think the circumstances of their application would be different than a large distribution warehouse. You have to consider Garmin s role in this, where a spec warehouse might be different. Comm. Rinke: But, as a planning commissioner, I need to look at this as whether this is the right use next to single family. And if it s because it s Garmin that we would maybe give a little bit of leeway here, I guess maybe I feel like maybe that s a City Council decision. From a pure planning standpoint, that s what I m looking at. From a pure planning standpoint, is this something that we would think is a good idea if it wasn t Garmin? Mr. Clements: Those are good observations. Comm. Rinke: Thank you. Chairman Harrelson: Mr. Clements, can you address, I know there seems to be a little bit of a black eye on the notification requirements. Can you be specific about the requirements and why perhaps we seemingly have some lack of notification etiquette on that? Mr. Clements: I mean, it s not uncommon, and Mrs. Horner is right. State statutes require certified letters to all property owners within 200 feet, which is not very far. But, that is what state statutes provide. And then, there is a second requirement that the City adopted, and that s a requirement for a neighborhood meeting. And because state statutes are only 200 feet, in our development ordinance, the City Council decided we needed to go beyond 200 feet, more than what state statutes require. So, for the neighborhood meeting, which is First Class mail, it s a 500 foot dimension. But, at the end of the day, there s always somebody beyond 500 feet that s not going to get a letter. Chairman Harrelson: So, the neighborhood meeting notification is 500 feet. Notification of the Planning Commission rezoning would be 200. Mr. Clements: Correct. Chairman Harrelson: Okay. I think there s a good possibility that someone right next door to someone else might not receive a letter. It s very possible that s going to happen. In fact, it s likely. Mr. Clements: It happens. Chairman Harrelson: Okay, very good. I have no idea whether our notification was done properly or not, but I know it s likely that some people in fact, I would say it s very likely that many of you across the street might not have gotten it, and everyone on the other side would. So, you may say, Why didn t I get notified? Well, if you fall outside the notification zone, you don t get it. I don t know what the answer is to that, but I have to think from the number of

57 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 53 continuances, notifications, we have a lot of people here tonight, those of you that came and spoke this evening were able to represent your neighborhood very well. We got a sense about how you feel. So, I don t know what the notification requirements were, if we met them totally. I have no idea. I wasn t involved in that process. But, from the show of folks that are here this evening, somehow it got taken care of. So, I would say that you were given the opportunity to participate in the public process, and I think that s all that matters. Ms. Kynard: I would just like to comment, we do have documentation that shows that they did meet the requirements in the Unified Development Ordinance and the state statutes. Chairman Harrelson: Very good. Amy says she does have documentation of that. I m glad you added that, Amy. Thank you. I know there was someone who came up to me earlier and said she Could you please come forward? I think you had a comment you wanted to make. I m going to allow this last comment. Theresa Troll, 1105 East Sleepy Hollow Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Ms. Troll: I spoke tonight concerning the benefits to the neighborhood, so I d like to make the following proposition. It involves Garmin, and the City, and what they might do to appease the difficulty of this situation between all of us. Number one: Effective immediately upon approval of this plan if it goes through as written that Garmin would pay the property taxes of every neighbor from now until 15 years following the completion of it. That might allow us to purchase our own visual consolations to what their building is going to do to our neighborhood. Secondly, that the City would agree, as part of an addendum to this plan, that if anything, any reason at all, that this building is ever abandoned due to business failure, or blowing up, or any other reason, that the City would agree to, within a one-year period of time, erect a memorial park in memory of our neighborhood and the Garmin building. I d like to remind everyone that in the native tongue, Olathe means Beautiful. And whatever is decided on this plan, and whether we work together or not, I d like everyone to consult their own conscious on whether, indeed, the decisions that are made are Olathe. Thank you. Chairman Harrelson: Very good. Those might be fine suggestions. Those aren t things that we re capable Ms. Troll: If they re successful in business, if they are that successful in business. Here s the question: If you devalue our properties and it costs the City tax money, if you took that same tax money to pay the water bill for the City, for one week Chairman Harrelson: Those are City Council issues [Overlapping dialog.] Ms. Troll: -- and you didn t flush the toilets for one week in memory of our forgotten neighborhood, it would stink. So, just an analogy.

58 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 54 Chairman Harrelson: Thank you for your comments. Any questions for the applicant or the City this evening? Ms. Troll: That s with all due respect. I really like Garmin. We like jobs. Chairman Harrelson: I m going to ask the Commission, we want to hear your comments before we close the public hearing. Or, we can close the public hearing and make comments. Whatever your pleasure. Go ahead. Comm. Rinke: I came into this process with an open mind, and I still think there has to be a solution to this. But, if we had to vote on this tonight, I would vote no, and I really don t want to vote no. So, I would actually like for it, if there was any chance that this thing could go back and we could figure out a solution, either scale back the project, increase the buffering or screening, then I d be happy to continue it. But, if I have to vote on the project as it s proposed tonight, I ll be voting no. Comm. Freeman: I d like to make a comment. I don t know if there s a clear answer to this from the applicant, so that s why I m not asking the applicant. But, I think there have been some great suggestions, following Mr. Rinke s recommendation of scaling it back. Here s the pivotal question, in my mind and I have heard rumblings of it If Garmin expands as they ve requested to meet their business needs, and without a definitive line because it is a public company, and I understand that, this is the last expansion that can happen based on the current property without removing other properties in the vicinity. The other side is, Garmin has offices all around the world, so I absolutely respect what s made Garmin successful from vertical integration and business practices that have made it successful. I don t want to pull away from that, but I m not sure that that s necessarily our responsibility as the Planning Commission to be able to decipher or solve those problems for you. And there s a lot smarter people at Garmin than me, personally. That s not something I can solve. However, I would suggest that there is a better solution. Instead of just one large building, possibly breaking it up into two smaller buildings and phasing it in? That s a thought. Or, allow for other parts of Olathe to be invested in. I know there are a lot of other areas that need investment, and maybe those are areas for future expansion, as well, that don t have the negative impact that the neighbors are perceiving. So, I hope that s clear enough. I think there are other options, and I m sure you ve considered many of them. I just think we re at a point where they may need to be revisited based on the feedback and the different items that we covered tonight. Comm. Fry: So, I sat down and made a list of what I believed were the key issues that came out of the neighborhood discussion tonight. I d like to go through them. The home price issue is a big one, and it always is. The one thing that is easy to say is that it s going to negatively affect my home price. And honestly, I m not smart enough to know how that really gets impacted from commerce coming in near your house. I think there have been some people today that have discussed the fact that potentially there could be a benefit to your home prices with Garmin people that want to walk to work. There are some unforeseen things that could happen that might be an advantage. Now, I m not going to discount that it could be a disadvantage, as well. I m just not sure that it s that black and white. So, I struggle with that one in my head, as well.

59 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 55 The berm, drainage and tree issue I think is definitely another one, and that also goes to size and how it s going to affect your views. The timing is the problem there, and I understand completely where Garmin is coming from. Their explanation makes perfect sense to me. I don t think they could have that berm built and have vegetation on it that would make everybody happy when the building went up. I think if you do look at it long term, I think it will be good. So, I guess that s the same issue we have with any large project that comes into our city, is when is it going to look the way that everybody anticipates it will look 10 years down the road? And the answer is, 10 years down the road. I guess that s something we all have to deal with on all projects. The safety of the nitrogen tanks I think is maybe a smaller issue than it was perceived to be. I mean, we all have propane tanks on our decks that are a whole lot more dangerous than nitrogen tanks that are a ways from your home, and there s a whole lot higher likelihood of something going wrong with that on a daily basis than a very well-protected, inert gas tank. So, I don t know that that issue is one that I would I wouldn t die for that one. I think the other one that made me squirm a little bit was this City conspiracy idea, that somehow we, as neighbors, were misled, or you were misled, or that there s some cash exchanging hands behind the scenes. And I think back and I think, as volunteers, we re on this board, not as professional planners, but we re here because we love the city of Olathe. And we love the city of Olathe because of what the professionals of Olathe provide for us. And the Mayor, and the City Council, and Traffic, and Public Works, and the people who work every day to make sure that our community is what we enjoy living in. I think they should be commended, and also be given the benefit of the doubt. I think they are working very hard and diligently to make our community the reason that we love it. So, I feel like we have to give them the benefit of the doubt. Sure, things fall through the cracks from time to time, and there s going to people who should have received mailings that didn t, and that s a tragedy. But, we have a great turnout tonight, and I think that s because of the mobilization of your group. And I think that s wonderful. To me, those are the smaller issues. I think the bigger issue was traffic, although I still believe that this is a resolvable issue. We trust in our team, we trust in our City. I think this is going to be a solvable issue. I come back to size. I am torn. I don t know exactly how I should vote based on the size, and whether it is good planning, or not good planning. I think Commissioner Rinke s comments were brilliant about the idea being, if this was not Garmin, would we want to approve this? Honestly, I don t know. And I think that has to come down to the City. We obviously have to give a recommendation to the City, and we re not the final say, and that s the way it should be. To jump back to traffic, I think the reason we have traffic issues is because we need road improvements and those come from tax revenue, and tax revenue comes from commerce, and it comes from businesses like Garmin that are investing in our city. So, it s difficult to have one without the other. So, it s just something to carry away, that it s not just as simple as well, we just need to build more roads and not worry about where the money is going to come from. So, again, above my pay scale up here, but I think size is the question that I m still questioning. I

60 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 56 love the project. As Garmin grows, I think a business deserves to build what they can build, and what they can grow into. It s whether or not it would pass if it were a warehouse or not, I think is still a legitimate question. I think I m leaning towards approval, but I m going to listen to what everybody else has to say up here. Those are my comments. Comm. Nelson: It s a privilege to serve with this group of people. I appreciate all the hours that each person here as volunteered to be here tonight. And staff, I just want to thank you. I heard a lot of people starting about communication from staff, and there was critique. I really appreciate all the s you sent out, all the phone calls the team has fielded. I really appreciate that. And that s just, again, for this one project. A tremendous job. When I think of the project, I honestly think the stormwater situation improves as a result of the property being developed. We re taking the water somewhere intentionally, and I think that s ultimately good for the community. I think traffic is a concern right now, but I think some of the improvements that will result from this project will be really good long term. And it s good to hear that the City has paid attention and realizes that this has to fall somewhere on the priority list. When I think of vertical integration, again, I m not an expert at developing massive companies by any stretch of the imagination. I respect that concept, and I think it makes perfect sense. The question is: Does it make sense in this location? And everything in me wants to make it make sense in this location because I think it s good for Garmin, which is ultimately good for the city. However, is it good for the neighborhood, putting this immediately next to single-family housing? That s the barrier that I m stuck on. Short of an appraiser coming and evaluating the condition of a home now and projecting what it s going to be after this comes, everything is hearsay to say, Hey, our property values will fall. While that is certainly a concern, my greater concern is the fact that there are some concessions being made for a massive project in this zoning near this type of single-family residence. That s my biggest barrier in this whole process. I think a lot of the other things are going to be great for the neighborhood over time, but I do wrestle with putting this so close to single-family homes. Chairman Harrelson: Very good. Any other comments? Comm. Horner: I have the same reservations in terms of its size. Commissioner Rinke stated it really well. I can t believe that we can t somehow bring it to a scale that would get us closer to a win/win on the whole plan. But, if tonight s the night, there s no more time to discuss it, we ve got to go one way or the other, I m inclined to vote no. Because I think it s too much for that property. Comm. Vakas: I d offer just a few comments. One, I appreciate that the City recognizes that they re behind when it comes to traffic management in this area in general, entirely independent of Garmin s expansion. It s very good to hear this evening that the City has plans to move along on improving traffic, again, independent of the timeline for Garmin s expansion. You know, from my view of things, we have Garmin, we have a Garmin campus. We want it to go to full potential. If we re not happy with this expansion plan, then we should be talking about moving all of Garmin to some other location. I don t think that s realistic. The idea that the

61 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 57 building is not just a warehouse, it s a manufacturing location and a warehouse, and a lot more, it all makes pretty good sense from where I sit. I realize my back yard isn t immediately behind the warehouse. But, I recognize a lot of positives, like what was pointed out by other commission members, as a result of this expansion. Expansion will happen over time. It could happen over the next decade. So, this isn t some impending doom that come Monday, we re all going to be sorry about voting yes. I think the plan is very supportable. Chairman Harrelson: Mr. Clements, before we close the public hearing, could you remind us what our options are this evening relative to this case? Mr. Clements: You need to make a recommendation to City Council, a recommendation to approve the amendment to the M-1, or a recommendation to deny, or, if you needed more time, it could be a vote to continue again. Chairman Harrelson: So, those are our options. I ll make a couple of comments. Many of the commissioners here have made some great comments that I could not make better, so I won t try. I guess overall, I would say we re on notice about traffic. It sounds like the applicant has some significant plans. I don t know whether all those traffic improvements are going to work, but there were some fairly significant plans that were zoned that hopefully will improve traffic. We still have an issue at Sheridan Bridge Place, I believe it is. We still have an issue there, and I still would like to see the City work on that. And that s not really an issue relative to this expansion. I d like for them to look at that. I think they re going to, it sounds like. So, we re on notice for that, so that s good. The architectural look of the building, I think it s pretty good. There are some unique features to it. In terms of the type of building it is, it s totally adequate. I m not unhappy with the look at all. It s a nice-looking building. We have Garmin here, and I still do think, as I had studied this past weekend, I think, because it s Garmin, I will tell you that I tried very hard to look at it in a positive way. I respect those of you that are in opposition to it very much. But, I thought, you know, this is Garmin. How can we say yes? How can I say yes, as I look at this? So, there were many things that I studied, and I thought those are good features, good ideas. But, I still kept coming back to these stipulations. As I evaluated some of those stipulations, there were some - And I don t know, before Garmin was even here, someone, at some point, said, You know what? There are some residents that live right next to an area that s going to be developed as an industrial area. I mean, eventually it s going to, someway, somehow. Something is coming there. I don t know if it s this, but something is. So, someone back in 1986 said, you know, it would be really important to have some consideration for the residents by having these stipulations in this zoning. Now, that was in 1986, I grant you, and things have changed since there. But, at our City, at some point decided that these were important things to think about when developing an industrial park right next to residential. We have a warehouse on one side, an open lot, and residential. In the middle is the transition. And it s Garmin s warehouse. So, that s a tough transition. Now, we think about how we could make it fit, how we could make it less objectionable to those who are right next to it. When I look at some of the stipulations that were in this previous rezoning, I think, gosh, there was a lot of thought put into that. It seems like Garmin is asking for relief on almost all of those. So, again, I still come back to, what things

62 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 58 were done in exchange for relief on those items. So, as I look at it, I don t see that much. I mean, I see the berm, the landscaping, and those are things are things that are pretty standard in screening, and not much different than any other project. So, that isn t what I look at as an improvement over what we would have gotten otherwise. So, it s difficult for me to support the project, frankly. I like that they re expanding. I love Garmin. I really, really do. But, I still come back to these property owners who are going to live there, and I m not going to live there. They are. So, as I evaluate it, it s really difficult for me. So, I m going to hope that somebody here makes a motion. Now that I ve made my remarks, shall we close the public hearing? Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Vakas, to close the public hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Chairman Harrelson: The public hearing is closed. Any other comments that we have about the case this evening, or is there a motion? Comm. Rinke: A question. Mr. Clements, do you think there s any chance, if this was continued, that there could be any improvements to this plan? Mr. Clements: I think it s a better question for Garmin. Comm. Vakas: Are we able to ask that since we closed the public hearing? Mr. Clements: Yes, you can talk to the applicant. Sure you can. Chairman Harrelson: Would the applicant come forward, please? You ve heard the comment. What s your take on our position this evening? Mr. Desbois: I appreciate all the comments. I think the big one that I m hearing this evening is in terms of size, and is there an opportunity to look at breaking the size up, potentially building smaller buildings, something closer to the original amendment from You know, as I mentioned earlier, it doesn t fit our business needs. So, it won t match all of our future expansion needs in terms of needs for distribution, manufacturing and office space. We ve looked at multiple options, and that s the one that matches it. So, I don t see us going back and looking at how to break it up because then it won t meet the needs of the distribution and manufacturing requirements that we have for growth. I think that s the big one. Are there any other ones? Comm. Freeman: I know there s not a timeline to start the project. What s the timeline once construction begins? Mr. Desbois: Roughly, once construction begins, it will take us about 24 months to complete. Two years to build the new manufacturing/distribution center. At that point, we take our existing associates that are in manufacturing/distribution, move them to the new warehouse that s being proposed. And then, we look at a second phase, which is to convert our existing manufacturing/ distribution into office space. That s probably a multiyear effort to redistribute that existing

63 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 59 distribution/manufacturing and warehouse. So, the whole thing is likely a four to five year project. Comm. Freeman: Okay. That makes me feel a little more comfortable in regards to traffic and the improvements that are coming in We re going to be well within that timeframe for upgrades, which are much needed with or without it. Mr. Desbois: It s probably to note that when we move our distribution/manufacturing associates to the new warehouse, we re not intending to add very many associates. The true growth comes in that office space growth, when we redo that area. We have the ability to increase, but not up to the additional 2,700 with just distribution/manufacturing. It s a lot of high-tech jobs and engineering jobs that we plan on being able to fill. Comm. Freeman: Thank you. I appreciate that. Chairman Harrelson: Thank you. Mr. Clements, if we move for denial this evening, and we vote for denial, they still get their shot at City Council, as well, right? Regardless of how we vote. Mr. Clements: Right. It would go to City Council on December 1 st, and it would take an extraordinary majority of the City Council to overturn the Planning Commission. Comm. Freeman: I d be happy to add an additional comment as far as where I m at with this. The reasons that I m on the fence about it as far as the approval side is because it was already zoned industrial. I think the size is a bit excessive, and that causes me to have more reservations. Honestly, the timing on the traffic makes a lot of sense to me. I don t see a shortterm impact on that. I see it as long-term challenges. It didn t become a challenge overnight, and it s not going to go away overnight, either. But, it s not going to be, you know, a new school opens, and we have all these students there. So, traffic is a concern today. I don t see it being exacerbated by this expansion. So, size is my only concern. It was already industrial. From a lot of the renderings that I ve seen, it s going to be well covered by the landscaping and the berm. Yes, we will see tops of buildings. But, in my mind, there s a very large building just to the east of that already. But, from a view perspective, I don t know that I see the big challenges. My only concern is maybe how close it is to some of the properties. I guess that would be my only recommendation as far as improvement, if it was a minor improvement. If that makes sense. Chairman Harrelson: All right. Is there any other discussion, or is there a motion? Comm. Nelson: I just had one more thing. I remember when I was first invited to be on this, one of the conversations that was brought to me was that this Planning Commission is not a political entity in and of itself. We simply take the templates and the recommendation and we use our citizen judgment to evaluate, do we want to support this, or do we not want to support this? And then, it becomes a political responsibility of our City Council. And we re dealing with a lot of politics in this. So, our question is, from a planning perspective, does this work? It s obviously pretty subjective, as we re all wrestling with this. My bottom line is, as much as I want to vote yes, I ve got to vote no, because there s no going back once we say yes. I mean, the City Council can. But, with my best understanding of the project, as much as I want to see Garmin thrive to its full capacity, I have a hard time saying that one large organization, we have to go

64 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 60 that way, and without regard to the neighbors. That s a really, really tough call for me to make, but, because I feel we need to land somewhere tonight, and we can t keep kicking the can down the road, I feel like I have to vote no tonight. Chairman Harrelson: Is there anyone brave enough to make a motion? Comm. Fry: A point of order for Mr. Clements. Is there any difference if the motion is to approve and it is turned down, versus a motion for denial that s approved? Mr. Clements: No. Comm. Fry: There s no difference. Okay. Chairman Harrelson: Is that a motion? [Laughter.] Comm. Vakas: I would make a motion. Chairman Harrelson: Go ahead. Comm. Vakas: I make a motion that we vote to approve RZ Comm. Fry: Second. Comm. Freeman: May I request, about the stipulation that Celia requested regarding traffic? Comm. Vakas: With the amendment as requested by Ms. Duran. Motion by Commissioner Vakas, seconded by Commissioner Fry, to recommend approval of RZ , for the following reasons: 1) The proposed development complies with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 2) The amendment to the M-1 zoning classification meets the Unified Development Ordinance criteria for considering zoning applications. 3) The proposed development complies with the development and performance standards of the M-1 zoning classification as stipulated. Commissioner Vakas s motion included recommending approval with the following stipulation to be included in the ordinance, as amended. 1) The property shall be developed in accordance with the preliminary development plan and stipulations. Commissioner Vakas s motion included recommending approval with the following stipulations to be completed with the final site development plan, as amended: 1) Final development plans shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits for the new building or any significant renovations of existing buildings that impact occupancy.

65 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 61 2) Prior to recording of a final plat, the applicant shall be required to pay Street and Signal Excise Fees. 3) An updated stormwater management report and drainage plan shall be submitted with the final development plan. 4) Sign permits shall be required for all signs in accordance with UDO ) All rooftop equipment shall be fully screened in accordance with Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requirements. 6) Parking lot screening shall be provided in accordance with UDO M.2. 7) Per UDO requirements, all exterior ground or building mounted equipment, including but not limited to mechanical equipment, utility meter banks and coolers, shall be screened from public view with landscaping or an architectural treatment compatible with the building architecture. 8) All on-site wiring and cables shall be placed underground. 9) Landscaping shall be provided adjacent to streets in accordance with UDO L. The landscaping adjacent to Ridgeview Road shall be installed at the time the private drive connecting Mahaffie Circle and Ridgeview Road is relocated. The landscaping adjacent to 151 st Street shall be installed at the time the south parking lots are reconfigured. The landscaping adjacent to Mahaffie Circle shall be installed at the time the new warehouse/office/manufacturing building is constructed. 10) Buffer A and Buffer B landscaping shall be installed with the adjacent private drive. 11) Buffer C and Buffer D landscaping shall be installed at or before the time of construction of the new warehouse/office/manufacturing building. 12) All water and sewer improvements, public or private, shall conform to the City of Olathe Technical Specifications and Design Criteria. 13) The liquid nitrogen tanks for the new office/warehouse/manufacturing building shall be screened. Details of the method of screening shall be provided for consideration with the final development plan. 14) The following traffic improvements will be installed in accordance with the Traffic Impact Study and City specifications: a. At the time that the private drive connecting Mahaffie Circle and Ridgeview Road is relocated, the developer shall: i. On Ridgeview Road at the new/relocated private drive: 1. Modify the pavement markings to provide a northbound left turn lane and one through lane in each direction on Ridgeview Road at the private drive; and 2. Construct a southbound right turn lane; and ii. On Ridgeview Road at Meadow Lane: 1. Modify the pavement markings to provide a southbound left turn lane and one through lane in each direction. b. Prior to occupancy of the new warehouse/office/manufacturing building, the developer shall:

66 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 62 i. At Ridgeview Road and the South Drive/school drive: 1. Install a traffic signal; and 2. Construct a northbound left turn lane; and 3. Construct a second southbound through lane; and ii. On 151st Street at the easternmost drive into the Garmin property: 1. Construct a median to restrict northbound and southbound left turn and through movements; and iii. On 151st Street at Brentwood Street: 1. Extend the eastbound left turn lane; and iv. At 151st Street and Mahaffie Circle: 1. Construct a second eastbound left turn lane; and 2. Modify pavement markings on the southbound approach to provide a shared left/through lane and dual right turn lanes; and 3. Construct a second southbound right turn lane. 15) The developer will make a contribution, as agreed upon by the Governing Body of the City, toward the cost of design and construction of the following improvements which will be installed in accordance with the Traffic Impact Study and City specifications: a. At the intersection of 151 st Street and Ridgeview Road: i. Construct a second southbound left turn lane; and ii. Extend the existing westbound right turn lane; and iii. Modify the median to improve left turn storage for northbound traffic; and b. On 151 st Street: i. Construct a third westbound through lane on 151st Street (beginning 300 feet east of Mahaffie Circle, and continuing west to the I-35 northbound entrance ramp). The roll being called, the result was as follows: Aye: Fry, Freeman, Vakas (3) No: Nelson, Rinke, Horner, Harrelson (4) Motion failed 3-4. Chairman Harrelson: Well, sadly, we had to vote no. I guess it will go to City Council on what day -? Mr. Clements: December 1 st. Chairman Harrelson: December 1 st. That will be an interesting day for all involved. We thank the Garmin folks. Sorry we couldn t support your project, and we hope it moves on to City Council and you get an opportunity to present to them.

67 MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting: November 09, 2015 City of Olathe City Planning Division Application: P : Final Plat for Garmin Properties Phase 3 Location: Owner/Applicant: Engineer: Staff Contact: Approximately ¼ mile north of 151 st Street, at the end of Mahaffie Circle Garmin International, Inc. / Patrick Desbois Phelps Engineering, Inc. / Judd Claussen Amy Kynard, Senior Planner Site Area: ± gross acres Proposed Use: Industrial / Business Park Previously Platted: ± acres Zoning: M-1 (Light Industrial) and C-2 (Community Center) Lots: 1 Tracts: 0 1. Comments: This is a request for approval of a final plat for Garmin Properties Phase 3. The subject property is located approximately ¼ mile north of 151 st Street, at the end of Mahaffie Circle. A related rezoning amendment and revised preliminary site development plan (RZ ) for Garmin Master Plan is also on this agenda. The proposed final plat would accommodate an expansion of the Garmin campus to include a new 712,842 square foot warehouse/office/manufacturing building. Approximately ± acres of the plat area were previously platted as either Garmin Properties Phase 2 or a portion of Gateway Business Park First Plat. 2. Neighborhood Meeting: The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on August 17, 2015 (see RZ attachments). Residents concerns primarily related to the associated preliminary development plan, and are therefore discussed in more detail in the staff report for RZ Final Plat Review a. Lots: The plat consists of one large industrial lot, and no tracts. b. Utilities: The site is within the City of Olathe water and sewer service area. This is an expansion of the existing development, so all utilities are available within the vicinity.

68 P (PC Minutes) Page 2 A major gas pipeline separates Garmin s existing development from the proposed new building and Brittany Place subdivision. The applicant has provided an executed encroachment agreement with Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. as documentation that the proposed plans have been reviewed by Southern Star for safety and compliance with regards to the pipeline and easement. c. Streets/Right-of-Way: The plat includes street right-of-way and right-of-way vacation in order to relocate the future cul-de-sac at the terminus of Mahaffie Circle. Since the applicant proposes to use the entire property for one building, the proposed reduction in the length of Mahaffie Circle will not affect access to properties within the overall business park. d. Stormwater: There is an existing detention basin located on the west side of the Garmin site along Mahaffie Circle. Stormwater detention will be provided through a combination of existing off-site and on-site detention facilities. A preliminary stormwater management report was submitted for the proposed development. The development is subject to Municipal Code Title 17 requirements as they relate to stormwater quality and detention. Stormwater detention shall be designed to control the one (1) year design storm to 75 percent of the existing condition and the ten (10) year design storm to existing conditions. The final site development plan shall include an updated stormwater management report and drainage plan. e. Excise Taxes: The final plat is subject to a street excise tax of $0.215 per square feet. Land area that was previously platted is exempt from excise taxes. Based on the net plat area, ± acres, the required street excise tax is $272, The final plat is subject to a traffic signal excise tax of $ per square foot of land area for industrial districts. Based on the net plat area, ± acres, the required traffic signal excise fee is $12, The required excise fees shall be submitted to the City Planning Division prior to recording the final plat. 4. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of P with the following stipulations: 1) The final plat is subject to a street excise tax of $0.215 per square foot for a total amount of $272, The required excise fee of shall be submitted to the City Planning Division prior to recording the final plat. 2) The final plat is subject to a traffic signal excise tax of $ per square foot for a total amount of $12, The required excise fee of shall be submitted to the City Planning Division prior to recording the final plat. 3) Prior to recording the plat, the "Notice on Plat" shall be added to the plat as described in OMC Title 17 section C. 4) Prior to recording the plat, a digital file of the final plat (pdf format) shall be submitted to the City Planning Division. 5) Final development plans shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.

69 P (PC Minutes) Page 3 6) All on-site wiring and cables shall be placed underground. 7) All above ground electrical and/or telephone cabinets shall be placed within the interior side or rear building setback yards. However, such utility cabinets may be permitted within front or corner side yards adjacent to street right-of-way if cabinets are screened with landscape materials. Please refer to RZ for discussion of this application. Motion by Commissioner Vakas, seconded by Commissioner Fry, to approve P , with the following stipulations: 1) The final plat is subject to a street excise tax of $0.215 per square foot for a total amount of $272, The required excise fee of shall be submitted to the City Planning Division prior to recording the final plat. 2) The final plat is subject to a traffic signal excise tax of $ per square foot for a total amount of $12, The required excise fee of shall be submitted to the City Planning Division prior to recording the final plat. 3) Prior to recording the plat, the "Notice on Plat" shall be added to the plat as described in OMC Title 17 section C. 4) Prior to recording the plat, a digital file of the final plat (pdf format) shall be submitted to the City Planning Division. 5) Final development plans shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 6) All on-site wiring and cables shall be placed underground. 7) All above ground electrical and/or telephone cabinets shall be placed within the interior side or rear building setback yards. However, such utility cabinets may be permitted within front or corner side yards adjacent to street right-of-way if cabinets are screened with landscape materials. The roll being called, the result was as follows: Aye: Fry, Freeman, Vakas (3) No: Nelson, Rinke, Horner, Harrelson (4) Motion failed 3-4. Chairman Harrelson: Well, sadly, we had to vote no. I guess it will go to City Council on what day -? Mr. Clements: December 1 st. Chairman Harrelson: December 1 st. That will be an interesting day for all involved. We thank the Garmin folks. Sorry we couldn t support your project, and we hope it moves on to City Council and you get an opportunity to present to them.

70 City of Olathe City Planning Division MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting: November 9, 2015 Sean Pendley, Senior Planner, made the following staff presentation: Application: RZ Rezoning from CP-2 and CP-3 to R-3 district, preliminary development plan for Vantage at Olathe Apartments Location: Owner: Applicant: Engineer: Staff Contact: Southwest corner of 127 th Street and Mur-Len Road Mur-Len 127, LLC, Jeffrey Jenkins Polsinelli, John Petersen Olsson Associates, Brad Sonner Sean Pendley, Senior Planner, AICP Site Area: 17.3 ± acres Proposed Use: Multifamily Residential Units: 288 Plat: Lot 1, Moore Business Park Density 16.6 units/acre Plan Olathe Land Use Category Existing Use Current Zoning Site Design Category Building Design Category Site Community Commercial undeveloped CP-2/CP-3 3 B North Mixed Use Residential Apartments (Clarion Park) RP South Community Commercial Offices/ Undeveloped C East Community Commercial Retail C West Community Commercial Car dealership/ Undeveloped C-3 - -

71 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 2 1. Comments: The applicant is requesting a rezoning from CP-2 and CP-3 commercial districts to R-3 (Low-Density Multifamily Residential) district and a preliminary site development plan for Vantage at Olathe Apartments. The proposed development consists of thirteen 3-story apartment buildings with a total of 288 dwelling units. The applicant has submitted a project summary (attached). The Vantage Apartments development is a gated community with amenities including a clubhouse, pool, fitness center and dog park. Examples of other Vantage projects are listed at 2. History: The property was rezoned to CP-2 district (RZ ) and CP-3 district (RZ ) in 2006 and a preliminary development plan was approved for a commercial development with 12 free-standing and multi-tenant buildings and a car wash. The property was platted as Moore Business Park, First Plat in 1989 but there have been no final site development plans submitted and the property has remained undeveloped. 3. Neighborhood Meeting/Public Notice: The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on October 1, 2015 (see attached meeting minutes). There were approximately five property owners in attendance. There were questions regarding future land use and the proposed type of multifamily residential development. The applicant gave an overview of the project and answered questions regarding the development. Frank Ancona attended the meeting and expressed concerns with the proposed development and how it may impact his auto dealership. The applicant mailed the required public notification letters to surrounding properties within 200 feet and posted signs on the subject property per Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requirements. 4. Zoning Requirements: a. Setbacks The R-3 district has different options for minimum and maximum building setbacks. For the Site 3 option that allows densities up to 17 units per acre, as proposed, there is no minimum setback but there is a maximum building setback of 15 feet. The proposed development exceeds the maximum building setbacks since all the residential buildings are located at least 30 feet from the street right-of-way. The purpose for the maximum building setback is to encourage higher density developments with the buildings facing the street and parking to be located on the interior of the development. There are no apartment buildings fronting Mur-Len Road and the site plan shows only detached garages and a storage building on this street frontage. Staff recommends replacing the garages and storage building with apartment buildings that have a setback of approximately 30 feet to be consistent with the 127 th Street frontage.

72 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 3 b. Building Height The maximum building height for R-3 districts is three stories and 40 feet from grade. The proposed apartment buildings are three stories and the height is approximately 39 feet to the top of roof. c. Common Open Space For site design category 3, a minimum of 5 percent open space area is required, of which 50 percent must be active open space. A minimum of.87 acres of open space is required and the proposed plan identifies 8.1 acres. The minimum active open space is 0.43 and the development includes 0.9 acres of active open space area. 5. Development Requirements: a. Access/Streets The proposed apartment development is gated and there are two access drives; the main driveway on Mur-Len Road and secondary drive on Moore Avenue. The applicant submitted a traffic impact study for the development. The study recommends the following improvements: 150 southbound right-turn lane on Mur-Len Road at the new access drive 45 northbound left-turn lane on Mur-Len Road at access drive 150 southbound right-turn lane on Mur-Len Road at 129 th Street The site plan shows the required improvements and Traffic Engineering staff supports the proposed plan and study recommendations. The study also noted that the main drive will need to be reconfigured to allow for a separate exiting left and shared through/right-turn lane. b. Parking The site plan identifies a total of 540 parking spaces with 470 surface parking spaces and 70 garage units. The requirement for apartments is 1.5 spaces for each dwelling unit. The minimum required parking is 432 spaces. Each apartment building and the clubhouse include two (2) accessible parking spaces. A photometric plan for parking lot lighting will be required with the final development plan in accordance with UDO requirements. The preliminary site plan identifies a trash compactor near the access drive on Moore Avenue. An enclosure is required to match the building per design standards. c. Landscaping Residential developments located along arterial streets are required to provide a landscape buffer of 25 feet in width. The landscape plan includes the required landscaping along 127 th Street and Mur-Len Road. There are existing overhead power lines on both streets so the landscaping will need to be located outside of utility easements and adjusted to avoid conflicts. A landscape buffer is provided along 129 th Street since it is a collector street and there are street trees along Moore Avenue. Additional evergreen trees are included around the detention basin and around the trash compactor. The landscape plan identifies shrubs along the parking areas facing public streets. Additional trees may be required on the interior of the development. In multifamily residential developments, one (1) tree is required for every dwelling unit. The trees within parking landscape islands may count toward the interior landscape requirement.

73 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 4 d. Stormwater/Detention A regional detention basin is proposed on the southwest corner of the property. A preliminary grading plan has been submitted and a stormwater study will be required with the final development plan. The development is subject to Title 17 requirements for water quality and detention. e. Public Utilities The site is located within the City of Olathe water service area and sewer service area. The proposed development will require water and sewer main extensions. There will need to be some adjustments made to the preliminary utility layout and some meter locations will need to be adjusted. Adequate separation is required between water and sanitary sewer lines. Water meters and the connection to the public main are required to be in grassy areas. The final site development plan will need to be revised accordingly. 6. Site Design Standards: The subject property is located in a commercial area according to the future land use plan. Due to the proposal for multifamily residential zoning, the recommended composite design standards are Site Design Category 3 (UDO ) and Building Design Category B (UDO ). The applicant has submitted a response letter to address the composite design requirements (see attached compliance letter). Composite Site Design (Category 3) Outdoor Amenity Space Landscape Options Connectivity Detention and Drainage Features as Amenities Proposed Design Pool, grilling area and dog park. Proposed amenities do not meet minimum standard for 10% of site area (0.9 acres). A minimum area of 1.73 acres is required. Landscape buffer and metal fencing with stone columns. New sidewalks along 129 th Street and Moore Avenue, pedestrian connections through gates on east and west sides of complex. Dry-bottom basin includes landscaping on the south and west sides to provide screening from public streets. The following is staff s analysis of the composite site design requirements. a. Outdoor Amenities The site plan identifies a pool, grilling area and dog park with a total area of 0.9 acres of active open space. The outdoor amenity requirement for Category 3 is 10 percent of site area. Based on the total site area, 17.3 acres, the minimum area for amenities is 1.73 acres. Staff recommends additional outdoor amenities to comply with this requirement. b. Landscape Options There are landscape buffers and fencing around all sides of the development. The fencing consists of a 6 metal fence with stone columns located 60 on center. c. Connectivity New sidewalks are shown on 129 th Street and Moor Avenue per UDO requirements. Pedestrian connections and walk-in gates are identified on the

74 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 5 east and west sides of the site. Sidewalks are located throughout the interior of the development. d. Drainage Amenities The proposed detention basin is a dry-bottom basin with landscaping around the south and west sides to provide screening. 7. Building Design Standards: The proposed apartment buildings consist of four building types and three different color schemes. Staff would note that recent zoning approvals for market rate apartments such as Olathe Commons and the Reserve at Greenwood provide internal garages and enclosed entrances. The applicant proposes a garden apartment project with three story buildings with open stairways and detached garages. While there may be some locational differences in these projects, staff believes that an increased level of amenities are important to help justify the rezoning from commercial to multi-family. Somerset Apartments south of 129 th Street is an existing development that includes internal garages and enclosed entrances. Internal garages can provide more open space and reduced surface parking areas. Enclosed entrances are a convenience feature that benefits residents. Staff did suggest alternative designs for the site but the applicant prefers to proceed with the plan as originally designed. While the three story garden apartment design is reasonable for the site, there are examples in the area of other multi-family projects that include amenities, features and higher density that may be also be appropriate for the site. The following is an analysis of the building design Category B requirements and proposed design. Composite Building Design (Category B) Horizontal Articulation Vertical Articulation Ground Floor Interest Tools Transparent Glass Front Entry Element Building Materials Category B Standards: Proposed Design Wall offsets of at least 4, projections with gable roofs, balconies and stairwells. Variations in roof form (gable roofs, hip roofs). Transparent glass on first floor windows. Staff recommends additional features such as bay windows on the primary facades and shutters on various windows. Requirement for 25% glass on primary facades, buildings include between 2.5% and 12.8% glass Porches on first floor and covered entry for stairwells. (See applicant s building material summary) Primary Façade - Category 1 (70%) / Category 2 (30%)

75 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 6 Secondary Façade (50%) / (50%) a. Horizontal Articulation The primary elevations include wall offsets of at least 4 with porches, balconies and stairwells. b. Vertical Articulation The proposed buildings includes two different roof designs for each building type with gable roofs and hip roofs. c. Transparent Glass Category B design standards require transparent glass on a minimum of 25 percent of primary facades. The proposed buildings include between 2.5% and 12.8% glass. Staff recommends additional windows, especially on Type II and Type III buildings which include very few windows on the side elevations. d. Ground Floor Interest Tools The proposed buildings include transparent glass on first floor windows. Staff recommends additional features such as bay windows on the primary facades and shutters on various windows to provide additional detail and interest. e. Front Entry Element The buildings include porches on the first floor and covered entries for stairwells with gable roofs and stone columns. f. Building Materials The applicant provided building material percentages for the different building types but did not break down the materials for primary and secondary facades. The proposed buildings consists of the following materials: Building Type I Building Type II Building Type III Building Type IV Category 1 Category 2 Requirement Stone/Stucco/Glass (75.8%) Stone/Stucco/Glass (71.4%) Stone/Stucco/Glass (70.4%) Stone/Stucco/Glass (73.9%) Fiber cement (24.2%) Fiber cement (28.6%) Fiber cement (29.6%) Fiber cement (26.1%) (Category 1 / 2) 70% / 30% 70% / 30% 70% / 30% 70% / 30% The proposed building materials consist of stone veneer, cement plaster stucco, cement fiber siding, glass and composition shingles. The primary and secondary facades include the required percentage of Category 1 building materials. Building material samples shall be submitted with the final site development plan. g. Club House/Garages The proposed clubhouse consists of stone veneer, stucco and standing seam metal roofing. The detached garages and storage buildings include stone siding, stucco and composite shingles. Due to the proposed density and requirements for maximum building setbacks, staff recommends relocating the garages and storage building along Mur-Len Road to the interior of the development and replacing with apartment buildings closer to the street. 8. Comprehensive Plan Analysis:

76 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 7 The future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property as Community Commercial Center. This area is intended for a mix of commercial uses, including larger scale tenants, restaurants and full-service supermarkets. Adjacent uses typically include higher density residential uses and mixed-use buildings. Although the proposed multifamily residential development is not consistent with the Commercial designation on the future land use map, staff believes the proposed use is appropriate due limited demand for commercial uses in this area and the benefits for higher density residential uses near existing commercial developments and transportation networks. Staff supports the proposed rezoning to R-3 district with stipulations for high quality design and amenities. The following are criteria for considering rezoning applications as listed in Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section G. The applicant has also provided responses for these items in the project narrative. A. The conformance of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted planning policies. The proposed development does not follow the current Plan Olathe designation for Community Commercial Center. However, the apartment development does comply with other goals and principles of the Comprehensive Plan. Principle LUCC-3: Encourage Housing Near Services. Encourage higher density housing development near transit services, commercial centers and planned transit nodes and corridors to create activity areas that add to the community s quality of life. Principle HN-2.1: Support housing development and redevelopment that includes a variety of housing types and opportunities to enable a wide range of economic levels, age groups and lifestyles to live within the community. B. The character of the neighborhood including but not limited to: land use, zoning, density (residential), architectural style, building materials, height, structural mass, siting, open space and floor-to-area ratio (commercial and industrial). The surrounding area consists of a mixture of commercial and office buildings, multifamily residential developments and single family homes. The proposed 3-story apartments have a higher density than surrounding 2 and 3-story multifamily developments. C. The zoning and uses of nearby properties, and the extent to which the proposed use would be in harmony with such zoning and uses. The zoning of surrounding properties includes C-3, C-2, RP-5 and R-1 districts. The proposed multi-family development is consistent with the existing apartments on the north side of 127 th Street. The additional residential units will also have a positive economic impact on the existing commercial uses. D. The suitability of the property for the uses to which it has been restricted under the applicable zoning district regulations.

77 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 8 The property could be developed under the existing CP-2 or CP-3 zoning, but there has been some vacant space in surrounding commercial developments and staff is not aware of any demand for new commercial uses in this area. E. The length of time the property has been vacant as zoned. The subject property has never been developed. The site has been vacant since it was rezoned to CP-2 and CP-3 districts in There have been no final site development plans submitted for the property. F. The extent to which approval of the application would detrimentally affect nearby properties. The proposed development with 3-story apartment buildings should have no detrimental effect on surrounding properties. A new residential development should have a positive impact on surrounding commercial and residential developments. G. The extent to which the proposed use would adversely affect the capacity or safety of that portion of the road network influenced by the use, or present parking problems in the vicinity of the property. The proposed multifamily development will have reduced peak hour traffic volumes compared to traffic from commercial uses permitted with the existing CP-2 and CP-3 zoning. The proposed development exceeds the minimum parking requirements for multifamily residential uses. H. The extent to which the proposed use would create air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution or other environmental harm. The proposed development includes a detention basin and best management practices for water quality to comply with the City s current stormwater requirements. I. The economic impact of the proposed use on the community. The proposed development provides additional high-density residential uses for the community and housing that can support retail uses in the 127 th Street and Mur-Len Road area. J. The gain, if any, to the public health, safety and welfare due to the denial of the application as compared to the hardship imposed upon the landowner, if any, as a result of denial of the application. The proposed rezoning to R-3 does not pose a threat to the public health, safety and welfare. According to the applicant, the continued restriction to commercial use will deprive the owner of value. 9. Staff Recommendation: The Planning staff supports the rezoning from CP-2 and CP-3 districts to R-3 district and recommends stipulations for higher quality design and amenities to meet the expectations

78 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 9 of the Planning Commission and City Council for applications seeking a rezoning from commercial to a multi-family residential district. A. Staff recommends approval of RZ for the following reasons: (1) The proposed development complies with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan for Housing and Land Use (Principle LUCC-3 and Principle HN-2). (2) The requested rezoning to R-3 district meets the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) criteria for considering zoning applications. (3) The proposed development, as stipulated, meets composite design standards for Site Design Category 3 (UDO ) and Building Design Category B (UDO ). B. Staff recommends approval of RZ with the following stipulations to be included in the ordinance. (1) The proposed apartment buildings shall provide enclosed entrances, closed stairways, and internal garages. (2) The garages and storage building along Mur-Len Road shall be removed or relocated to the interior of the development and replaced with apartment buildings that have a setback of approximately 30 feet from street right-of-way. (3) The proposed development shall provide additional outdoor amenities for a minimum of ten (10) percent of total site area per UDO requirements for R-3 district, site 3 option. (4) The primary building facades shall include bay windows and/or other architectural treatments, such as shutters, to provide additional detail and ground floor interest. (5) Type II and Type III buildings shall include additional windows on the side elevations to comply with transparent glass requirements for Building Design Category B standards. C. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary development plan with the following stipulations to be completed with the final site development plan: (1) A final stormwater plan and drainage calculations shall be submitted and approved in accordance with Title 17 of the Municipal Code. (2) Adequate separation is required between water and sanitary sewer lines. Water meters and the connection to the public main are required to be in grassy areas. (3) The required landscaping along 127 th Street and Mur-Len Road shall be located outside of utility easements and adjusted to avoid conflicts with the existing overhead power lines.

79 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 10 (4) Trees shall be required on the interior of the development at a rate of one (1) tree for every dwelling unit. The trees within parking landscape islands may count toward the interior landscape requirement. (5) A parking lot lighting plan, in accordance with UDO requirements, shall be submitted and approved with the final site development plan. (6) A building material sample board shall be submitted with the final site development plan. (7) As required by the UDO, all exterior ground or building mounted equipment, including but not limited to mechanical equipment, utility meter banks and coolers, shall be screened from public view with landscaping or an architectural treatment compatible with the building architecture. (8) All on-site wiring and cables shall be placed underground. Following staff presentation, Chairman Harrelson opened up the meeting to questions from commissioners: Comm. Rinke: Sean, I wanted clarification on stipulations B (1) and B (2) as it relates to the garages. Is the intent that all the garages would be interior? Or are you allowing some internal and some that would be freestanding? Mr. Pendley: I think we would support any option. Specifically, I think it would be most important to get those buildings around the perimeter of the development, to give the option for internal garages. Chairman Harrelson: This is a rezoning. It appears that we ve written the rezoning for approval, but with some very significant stipulations such that, if we approve it, it would change the plan the applicant has presented significantly. So, we re saying the rezoning is appropriate, but we have some significant conditions. B (1) and (2) would change the project significantly, it appears. Could you comment on that? What s the hierarchy of needs here? What are the things that are driving us nuts about the makeup of the project? Mr. Pendley: I will note that we talked about this with the applicant through the whole review process. We noted that we thought it was important to have features like that for this particular development. However, the applicant is very clear in their objection to that requirement, and that is something they will point out in their presentation. So, we understand that, and we know that that will change the concept. So, it really comes down to what the Planning Commission and City Council feels is most appropriate. Staff s recommendation is based on past recommendations for other projects. That s where our direction was for this proposal. Comm. Nelson: Just for clarity, and for the record, if we were to approve this with stipulations, from that point forward, it s an administrative reviews? I mean, even moving the buildings to within 15 feet of the -? At that point forward, there s a lot of site design, so final plat is going to go through you guys. We re not going to see that again. Correct? Mr. Pendley: Well, this rezoning and preliminary development plan will still need to go to City Council. They will look at it in terms of, whether you approve it as stipulated or approve it with

80 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 11 modifications, Council will still get the ultimate say on that preliminary development plan. Once that preliminary development plan is approved by Council, then yes, the final site development plan will be for staff review only. So, it s possible you may not see this back in any form unless the Council were to send it back. You will see a final plat, but that s really just for outlining. That s actually already platted. This is platted with the original commercial zoning. It s just never had a development here. Chairman Harrelson: Very good. Is the applicant available? John Petersen, Polsinelli Law Firm, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Petersen: This is a very important project, Mr. Chairman. Happy to let due consideration be made. I have the privilege this evening of appearing before you on behalf of America First Real Estate Group. Dominik Vaccaro, Vice President of America First, is here with us tonight. He is the vice president of development, and although I m going to try to take us through in an expedited fashion, the highlights and our rationale for this project, obviously the owner, developer and long-term owner of this proposed project is happy to talk about any business issues, or any of their thought process as they put this application together. Jim Liechty is here. He served as our project architect. Brad Sonner with Olsson and Associates. All the good stuff about where the water goes, how the streets get improved, how the project works in terms of the infrastructure. I have been at this podium about this particular piece of property more than once. Despite my youthful appearance, I think I was here back in the 80 s,90 s, and the most recent plan I think was 2008, with the car wash. I thought at that point, we finally had a proposed plan that would bring this piece of property which at first blush, sitting at the intersection of two major thoroughfares, and really, in just about the same time as we brought the commercial plan through and a new flyover across the highway we had a use that would actually turn into reality and bring this piece of property into a productive state. History has shown, it remains vacant. So, with that as background, I think you have a sense of the area. [Showing views from the property.] I didn t get a shot of our neighbors to the west, Frank Ancona, which is a great dealership. I know there is a representative here this evening. A great part of the business community of Olathe directly to our west. The point in showing you this is really to set the stage, and it s really the premise upon which we entered the office of the Olathe planning staff and said we want to take a new approach here. We re residential developers. Across the United States, this company develops high-quality residential communities, focused primarily on renters by choice. Not developing property that is renting by need. But, they pride themselves on doing this. They understand the context of not only the city at large, but also the small area demographics of where they re placing one of their residential communities. When you do that, you come up with a balance of quality, compatibility, good transition, but reality to where you can put just the right level of amenities, the right level of improvement to where you ve got a good price point, that will be an upgrade, will be a great addition to the community. But, it also has long-term economic viability. So, we went in to see David and Sean and told them we had two issues here. And I think we came to an absolute agreement on Day One, at least in terms of the concept. Let s take a look and see if this piece of property that has been zoned retail and commercial for some time, does it make sense within your Comprehensive Plan to consider residential? Given this day and age, given the new pattern of citizens of Olathe, does it make sense? And I know what you re going to say, David and Sean. If it s multifamily residential, it better be of high quality. We want to continue to raise the bar for residents that choose to live in Olathe, whether it s single-family,

81 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 12 triplex whatever it is we want to continue to raise the bar to not only have a great living environment, but bring up all properties around it. And we got it, and we agreed, and that is the context in which we move forward. Very pleased that staff concluded from the beginning that the use was appropriate when you consider it within the context of the Master Plan. We obviously have talked a lot about the history, but they looked at two key components: Encourage housing near services. That makes sense here. We have a lot of employee-based activity. Residents now want to be near where they work, maybe near where they shop. It may not be across the street, but in general proximity. And, this is a key one: A range of housing types that take into account and I ll read it out of the Master Plan: Support housing development and redevelopment that includes a variety of housing types and opportunities to enable a wide range of economic level, age groups, and lifestyles to live within the community. Those were the two fundamental components that staff relied on to say they thought this was a use compatible with the Master Plan. And I tell you I ve got to throw this in because I promised her I would Miss Susie Coleman owns the strip shopping center directly across the street. She tried to wait out the conversation about Garmin. She finally approached Dominic and said she was so in support of the project, would you please tell the Planning Commission that this would be great for our area, great for our business? I said the problem is, if I say it, they won t believe me, so, please follow up with a letter to the Commission and City Council. But, I told her I would do that. So, at least for purposes of this, I think we have agreement on the use. Now, staff has brought up issues about quality. Our goal is quality, and we think we have attained a project of distinction, truly. It does raise the bar in terms of the quality and the amenities and the style. Now, does it fit exactly with what Sean laid out in terms of where a building sits, or how you treat the streetscape? No. But I think we re on the same page. I d like to spend a little time explaining our rationale, why we think we ve hit that. First of all, open space. It s always an indicia of quality. Five percent is required. We re at 47 percent open space for the residents of our residential community. Active open space, 0.43 acres is required. We re at I think one of the touch tones is, it s a secured community. In and of itself, that s what gives people exclusivity and not using that in a negative way and brings another element for people when they have choices of living in Olathe. We ve hit the mark on traffic. I won t spend any time on that. Stormwater; onsite detention; design for all appropriate storms. One other thing I d like to hit. When we look at the plan, this is Mur-Len to the right. This is the berming and landscaping concept that we re utilizing for our Mur-Len frontage. Our detached garages. I just wanted to show you this grade separation. One, it s berming, it s extensive landscaping you re going to see, really creating a front door. The garages are kind of buffering, both for our residents out to the major thoroughfare, the major thoroughfare back into our residents. You re not going to see much of the garages given the grade utilization, through the utilization of berming, as we get into the living area. I just wanted you to keep that in mind. That s our project. When you go off the flat, plain look of what a site plan says, you can see that we have decided to attack quality in a number of ways. We want people driving down 127 th and down Mur-Len to look over and say, Wow. That is a place. What is going on here? And it s by the type, the quantity, the species of landscaping, the way we ve designed the landscaping to be of interest. Right here, this is a full-growth picture, but we would put it in at about half that size. We picked species that grow quickly. But, part of the issue, when we get to how far back the buildings are, part of it is that we do have power lines to deal with. We want landscaping, not to hide this project, but to create a real sense of wow. And that s what we tried to do here.

82 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 13 Now, there s all the other things, when you speak to quality, I mean, quality is when someone walks in and says, Boy, I want to live here. Now, you may not see this when you re driving down the street, you may not know it unless you choose to come into this particular neighborhood, but there are amenities for those who live there that say, I m proud to live here. I m choosing to live here. I m not living here because I can t afford to go somewhere else. I want to live here. And, of course, when you re attracting, whether it be Millennials that are deciding that they want to live close to where they work, or it s the empty nesters, I have a place I own where it s a little warmer here in December and January, but I love Olathe, and I want a place to call my home in my secure community. They want a place and the common areas that, again, they re proud of. It s stylish. It s like their own living room. Now, staff has hit a couple of elements where they ve said this means And I don t want to overstate this because we re not in a huge fight with staff. It s kind of one of those, how do we work together to get to a project that really makes sense? They ve said, you know, we haven t done this, so we don t think it s hit that bar of quality. And one of them is internal garages. And remember, this is internal garages just on the first floor units, where you can enter from your garage into your unit. Everybody has an outside entrance. You either surface park, or you have the availability of a detached garage. One comment Sean made, we d rather have them on the perimeter of the building? Well, you wouldn t see them anyway because they would be internal to the site. Setting aside our landscaping along our perimeter. They would be internal to the site, so nobody passing by would know whether they are internal garages, or not. Here s the real point. A project can be a project of quality when you re focusing on certain demographics, people you re trying to attract here. That s not necessarily the biggest attraction to them. That s not what s drawing them to live there, as it might be at Olathe Commons. Or whatever it may be on Greenwood Reserve along College Boulevard. Little different demographic and focus. It s an expensive element. It s a redesign of a building, and it drives price points. Having said Chairman Harrelson: Mr. Petersen, you are significantly beyond your time. I appreciate you having to stay this late, but could you wrap it up for me? Mr. Petersen: I ll get through it real quick. This is one of the key parts, so let me hit it real quick, Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence. So, just to put it in context, Olathe Pointe, 9.0 percent of its parking opportunities in the entire project, of the apartment part of the project, were enclosed; 21 percent of Greenwood Reserve. In essence, when we re talking about moving the buildings out to the street, it s really just along Mur-Len, is where we re talking about. As staff has indicated, we really have the buildings along our west, north and south perimeter. Very simply stated. You push the buildings up on the street I understand the new style to create a streetscape. I would just submit to you that 127 th and Mur-Len is not where people stroll down, and you create that kind of active streetscape life across from that shopping center. What we chose to do was create kind of a grand entrance here, pull the buildings back in this area here, put that great landscaping in here, and build the perimeter here. Here s where we come into our secured zones here. It s just a different way to approach quality, and I would submit to you, just having those buildings up, I would respectfully suggest, don t tip the scale of quality one way or the other. Chairman Harrelson: Are there questions for Mr. Petersen? Mr. Petersen: I will close with this, Mr. Chairman. We re putting in much more stone in compliance with the beauty of Olathe. Again, I would respectfully submit, it s a building of great interest. I don t know what else we could hang on there that would create the interest.

83 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 14 Comm. Freeman: The items that you re apart from staff on, they seem to be very small, but you seem to be very proud of the project, and very excited about it. Are there any negative detractions from a visibility perspective that you see, other than the garages? Are there any concerns that you have that would make it not look as good? Or is it a cost thing? Mr. Petersen: The garages, I said was a cost thing. But we took those dollars and we put them in places like the landscaping. It s just not important to the success of the project for this developer, one. Two, the one that we really feel strongly about, we think pulling these buildings along Mur-Len, a bit like they do on College with the new project, those balconies are tight, right up on a thoroughfare. This just speaks to more living. We just think it really dampens down the feel of the project to pull those buildings. Up here, we ve got a little more area to do some landscaping. This is just a key function and cornerstone of the project, and they just feel it speaks to being a better project without pulling those buildings up. It s a bit of an opinion. Comm. Freeman: Understood. Another question in regards to the architecture on the buildings themselves. I think Sean mentioned some things with, possibly more windows on some of the sides. If I look at one of the overviews, I saw one that was kind of bare, adding some elements to help add more detail. I think the front side looks good. You talked about added stone. But, it seems like there s a couple of little things. Is there a big reason why you can t come together on that? Mr. Petersen: This gets down to real practical issues, particularly on the size. We had a question about shutters, or something. We just think that s a good-looking, lots of ins-and-outs, lot of interest. Here is the issue right here on the sides. These are bay windows that protrude here. They don t protrude on the first floor, but they do on the second and third. The question from staff were these blank walls here. Here s the practical effect. Those are the bathrooms, the closets, and it s difficult to put windows there. Now, at final plan, if we were allowed to look forward, can we continue to look at that, to bring some interest? That s not going to stop this project. Comm. Freeman: I understand. Thank you. Chairman Harrelson: Any other questions? [None]. Is there anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this item? Or any person wishing to speak? Please come forward. Dominic Vaccaro, America First, Applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Vaccaro: I want to commit to you, on behalf of our company, first and foremost, we are longterm owners and managers of multifamily properties. I specifically did not say one thing, and that was developers. We re not build it and flip it once it s completed. We want to be long-term owners in the communities in which we operate. Mr. Petersen articulated the highlights of our building. I think working with the staff, there have been elements along the way that we ve changed and tried to improve upon on what we ve always believed is a very high-quality project. So, I wanted to relay a spirit of cooperation, which we have had, and will continue to work through some of the details. We hope to get this project approved, and appreciate your consideration. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions?

84 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 15 Comm. Rinke: If we eliminated the stipulation requiring the internal garages and you can keep the garages along Mur-Len, is that enough? Would you be in agreement with the rest of the stipulations? Mr. Vaccaro: I think so. Comm. Rinke: You re fine with the enclosed entrances and -? Mr. Vaccaro: I m sorry, the entrances would be another challenge for us. I think even with the frontage along Mur-Len that might be something we would be open to. Our struggle was, we had a lot of discussions with planning staff about how to screen the vehicles, and we thought the berming and the landscaping was the most attractive way to do that. One thing that Mr. Petersen didn t talk about was one of the real challenges we had on this site, which is that we have four primary streets surrounding it. From that perspective, it was kind of a challenge working with traffic on where we had to have turn lanes; the required setbacks for drive lanes; things of that nature. Really, we were left with that one entry point as our primary point of ingress and egress. We tried to create kind of this grand entry that would be appealing. That s why we positioned the layout the way we did. It s not that we were headstrong against buildings, or really wanted the garages along Mur-Len. It s just trying to create the overall aesthetics that we think represents the quality features of this project. Working around some of the traffic and other constraints is really how we landed with the plan we have. Comm. Vakas: I d just make a comment about the apartments on College. I can t help but agree with you. It s very awkward, having the balconies so close on a high-speed avenue. So, your preference to not do that makes sense to me. That s my only comment. Chairman Harrelson: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this item? Seeing none, is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition to this item? Please come forward. John Roe, Roe & Epstein Law Firm, 920 Main Street, Kansas City, Missouri, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Roe: We represent Frank Ancona, who is here tonight in the audience, his Honda dealership, and the entity that owns the land that is west of the property that is the subject of this rezoning application. That entity is Ancona Holdings, LLC. The Honda dealership was originally constructed in It was renovated in 1998, and there was another renovation and expansion very recently, in 2013, where the existing dealership was partially demolished, and Mr. Ancona added about 22,000 square feet of building, and re-did the office and service areas into the new dealership. In short, Mr. Ancona has invested six to seven million dollars in that property to the west of the property that s the subject of this rezoning application. And that doesn t include the land that he already owned. So, he made that investment, did that within the last couple of years, and he did that with the expectation that he would remain in a commercial area, and that the property next door to him would not be going to residential. If he knew that, frankly, he probably wouldn t have made that investment. Mr. Ancona is very much opposed to the rezoning and is opposed to the changing of this area from commercial to residential. The application for rezoning should be denied because it does not meet the criteria in your ordinance to warrant a change in the zoning. And if that s what we re here tonight for, to look at things from a planning perspective, if we look at it from a planning perspective, this application should be denied. Appraising books have been written about appraising dealerships that say dealerships benefit from retail exposure, and traffic. The source for that is Appraising Auto Dealership Facilities. Those sources also say that access and

85 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 16 visibility are important for both vehicle sales and dealership market value. The source for that is The Peculiarities of Appraising Auto Dealerships. Those things retail exposure and visibility are very important considerations and are negatively impacted by this rezoning application. Let s look at your criteria. You ve got 13 of them, and I have four minutes. So, it s going to have to be fast. But, I m going to spend the bulk of my time talking about what I think is the most important criteria. It s the number 1 item in your list: Whether the proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. Think about those two words for a minute Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive means taking into account all pertinent considerations, and Plan means your program for accomplishing your goals and objectives. So, that s the document that we have to judge this application against. And that s not just me talking. Page 1-2 of your Comprehensive Plan says that it is the community s vision, illustrating how we want to see Olathe grow and develop, today and in the future. Page 1-3 says, The team listened to the vision and concerns of 1,500 people. Page 1-5 says, It represents the community vision for how Olathe should grow and develop, today and in the future. Well, against that backdrop, you ve got a commercial designation on this property, and you ve got an application for a residential use. The bottom line is that the use that is being proposed here to you does not conform to your Comprehensive Plan, a plan that is only five years old, and a plan that is updated annually. And in each one of those annual updates, the people of this community saw fit to leave this area where this subject property is located, as commercial. So, we submit that you should not disregard your Comprehensive Plan, the will of the community, the citizens of this community, as to how this property should develop. Two. The character of the neighborhood, including but not limited to a number of different features there. The character of the neighborhood is commercial. In terms of land use, you have commercial uses to the west. That s Mr. Ancona s property. To the south you have commercial and office uses, and to the east you have commercial retail land uses. To the north you have the 127 th Street overpass, which acts like a barrier because it s six lanes wide. It is a major thoroughfare. So, in terms of land use, this application doesn t fit with the character of the neighborhood. In terms of zoning, you ve got C-3 to the west. That s regional center, business uses that have a regional market. To the south and east, the zoning is C-2. That s community center under the UDO, commercial uses that draw from multiple neighborhoods. So, in terms of zoning, this application does not fit with the character of the neighborhood. In terms of height with the exception of Mr. Ancona s newly-remodeled showroom, which is two stories in height everything else around this property is one story in height, and they want to have 13 three-story buildings there. So, when you look at the character in terms of land use zoning, height is not consistent, and the staff report notes that the density is higher than densities in other multifamily projects in the neighborhood. The next topic is the zoning and uses of nearby properties and whether the application is in harmony with that. We ve already touched on that, but I want to bring up one other consideration. Spot zoning. The question of whether rezoning constitutes a spot zoning should be answered by determining whether the rezoning was done to benefit an individual, rather than pursuant to a comprehensive plan for the general welfare of the community. Spot zoning is also defined as zoning a parcel to a use category different from the surrounding area, usually to benefit a single development interest. And I would submit to you, that s exactly what you ve got. You ve got an out-of-town applicant who has swooped into town, professes to take into account the wishes of the community. The biggest wish of the community is Plan Olathe, and they have thumbed their nose at it, and they want to drop residential right there where this community has planned it to be commercial, and commercial all around it. The suitability of the property for uses to which it has been restricted under the applicable zoning district regulations That s your

86 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 17 number 4 criteria. Well, guess what? Your own City staff, in the staff report, says, The property could be developed under the existing CP-2 or CP-3 zoning. Why are we even talking about changing it if one of your criteria is, can you develop it that way? Some time was spent on the length of time that the property has remained vacant as zoned. Well, that 127 th Street flyover had been in the works for a long time. I kind of went back because I was working for Mr. Ancona at the time; it dates back into the 1990s. Studies were being done back then. The condemnation case filed by the City was filed in It was open for traffic in early The zoning that s on the property right now was done in 2006; in 2007, a development plan. They started pushing some dirt around, had a preliminary plan. What happened in 2008? The credit markets froze. Lending dried up. That s exactly what happened. So, to sit here and make it sound to you folks like, Oh, this property needs to be rezoned, it s been vacant as zoned for a long time, doesn t take into account the facts that have happened at this particular location. What happened is the owner of the property got in trouble in 2008, and now, here comes somebody who is going to buy it under a contingency contract, and they re asking you to zone it in defiance of your Comprehensive Plan. A couple other things I know I m over time here The extent to which approval of the application would detrimentally affect nearby properties, and the extent to which development under the proposed district would substantially harm the value of nearby properties. We submit that both of those things militate against rezoning this property. There would be a detrimental effect to nearby property, and it would substantially harm property values. You ve got a couple other things here about whether the proposal would affect capacity Chairman Harrelson: Pardon me. Could you please bring your comments to a close, please? Mr. Roe: Just a couple other things. The City spent 20-some million dollars on that overpass, and in doing the planning for that overpass, they took into account the commercial development of this ground, and of the area. You re not going to get the $20 million bang for your buck by reducing and eliminating the commercial property there. Two last things. The gain, if any, to the public health, safety and welfare due to the denial of the application as compared to hardship of the landowner. I ll go back to the Comprehensive Plan, and I would submit this to you, when a community, after careful and deliberate review of present and reasonably-foreseeable needs, adopts a general development policy for the community as a whole like you have done, when you adopt amendments that are in conformance with the plan, there is a confidence that you are looking out for the public interest. By the same token, when you adopt amendments that are contrary to that Comprehensive Plan, you re not looking out for the public interest. Chairman Harrelson: All right, could you please finish it up? You ve gone way, way beyond time. One more comment. Mr. Roe: One more. You have kind of a catch-all phrase: Any other factors which may be relevant to the particular application. Mr. Ancona has property zoned C-3 that is not yet developed. He has planned for that to be a future auto dealership. Rezoning this property right next door builds in a residential component that is going to be in opposition to anything that he wants to do on his property. They re going to want buffers, and they re going to want lights screened, and they re not going to want any loudspeakers out there. That s why you have commercial next to your commercial, and your Comprehensive Plan says you put these kind of applications near it. Look at your staff report. The word near. Not in the middle of it.

87 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 18 With that, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, follow your Comprehensive Plan. I urge you to recommend denial. You have good planning reasons to deny this application. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions? I would make one comment about the Comprehensive Plan. We just went through a Comprehensive Plan review, and although I respect your comments about our Comprehensive Plan, it s been fairly well published that the Comprehensive Plan is meant to be general in nature. It s not a zoning map, per se. So, I think we ve looked at general areas and said that the Comprehensive Plan is meant to be flexible. I m not disagreeing with your comments about whether it should be commercial or residential, but our Comprehensive Plan is meant to be general in nature. So, it is flexible, and I think we ll listen to each piece of property on a case-by-case basis and evaluate whether it needs to be rezoned, or not rezoned. Mr. Roe: All I d say then, Mr. Chairman, is here s 127 th Street and I-35. Right there is your commercial designation. There s where your uses are like this one goes around it. It s not just here. Look at every one of these locations. You put these things around it. You don t drop it right down the middle of it. Chairman Harrelson: I understand. Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to this item? Please come forward. Peter Burgess, 922 South Fifth Street, Leavenworth, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Burgess: I have offices in 10 Main Center in downtown Kansas City, Missouri. I ve not had the pleasure of introducing myself to the Commission. I would like to take a second to give you a little background. Back when I was lieutenant colonel in the army, I was a planner, and my most significant assignment was as chief of all force plans for Europe for the United States Army for three years. So, I have a planning background. After I left the army, I went into the real estate profession as an appraiser. I have been an appraiser for 32 years now. I hold the MAI designation as an appraiser. I m also a broker, licensed in Kansas and Missouri. My purpose is to give you a quick summation of the three-page paper that I had sent you. A minute and a half is not going to give me time to give you the information that went into my analysis. My conclusion is that changing the zoning of Lot 1, of more business park, from the City of Olathe s land use plan for general use to multifamily residential use, fails to conform to promises laid before the Frank Ancona Honda owner, and damages his present and future property value in more business park. Now, there are items of history that I think we need to walk the cat back a little bit. Mr. Roe had already touched on them, but I d like to redirect your attention back to , and that period of time when we had the great recession begin. One of the things that occurred is that we had the bankruptcy of General Motors and Chrysler, and the closing of major automobile units. We had Pontiac and Saturn go out, and several others, which closed down dealerships. At the same time, we had lenders freeze the market for development. So, that period up to now, where now we have good car sales, low gas prices, and a market that has reopened the window, it s time that the dealerships can expand again. So, that is my synopsis, and if you do get a chance to read this before you make a decision, it s short, but I think it s telling. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions? [None.] Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to this item? [None.] Seeing or hearing none, are there -? [Mr. Petersen returns to the podium.]

88 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 19 Mr. Petersen: I will be brief. I won t lecture you on the Master Plan. You deal with it every day. I think you know it s a living document. It s not just a map. It s goals, and policies, and by its very design, it evolves. So, I ll stand on your vast experience on that regard. And I won t walk through every one of the Golden criteria and show you that I could make a legal argument. It really boils down to this, let s move one objection off the table. God bless you, Mr. Ancona, build your dealership. You re a great corporate citizen of Olathe. You ve got a lot of land there to develop on. On behalf of the owner of this property, we, for the record, will not object to it. We will not oppose it. We will support the continued business vibrancy in the area. We think with our design, we think it will be compatible. It s one of the reasons we created a nice landscape design over there and only had our emergency entrance on that side of the street. So, we re all for you, and we ll support you, and we ll stand at this podium and do so. Bottom line, really, the fundamental issue And I respect their right to come forward, obviously, but it really comes down to this, and there s two of them: The harm to neighboring properties, if someone wants to develop their property in one way. I guess it s been vacant, designated commercial, for decades. Before the recession, during the recession, and after the recession. And really, is this project going to harm the economic viability of the property to the west or create less car sales or less awareness? I don t think I can create some great legal argument that it will or it won t. I ll pretty much leave that to common sense and observation, where other multifamily residential projects have worked very well from a compatibility standpoint with all sorts of retail commerce. The one I would stand on, which I always think is the fundamental one of all the Golden criteria, it s number 11 in the version the City of Olathe has promulgated: The gain, if any, to the public health, safety and welfare due to the denial of the application, as compared to the hardship opposed upon the landowner if any is a result of the denial of the application. Time has proven this property viability in terms of retail, commercial development, other than maybe if there s design for future car dealers to come across the street I don t know I think we ve proved the case that the viable step is to take a component of the Master Plan, bring some living opportunities in there to support commercial activity 288 potential car buyers, Mr. Ancona, right across the street, and let this property owner return value for his investment, and at the same time, I think, bring very minimal, if any, negative impact to our property owners to the west. Remember, we have multifamily directly to the north. They didn t oppose your development to the west. I don t think they complained about the operation of your great dealership fronting on I-35. So, with that, we would appreciate your support, and ask you to move us forward favorably to the governing body. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions for Mr. Petersen? [None.] Thank you. I have a question for staff, a general question about rezoning. If we approve the rezoning as written with no changes to the stipulations, should we do that I m not saying that we would, but should we do that and the applicant decides not to move forward with the project, the rezoning stays with the property, does it not? [No audible response.] So, if the applicant walks away from the project because the stipulations are not in their favor, now we have a property that s rezoned residential that was commercial, do we not? Mr. Clements: It would be zoned multifamily and there would be stipulations. Chairman Harrelson: That would be the ramification of our approving the project as written, that we are truly changing the rezoning. Mr. Clements: Right. Chairman Harrelson: Just wanted to make that clear. I think I knew the answer, but I wanted to make sure we knew what we were doing here. Any comments by the Planning Commission?

89 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 20 Comm. Freeman: I ll make one. I think the project is a good project. I think there s a need to meet and exceed the expectations of City planning, as well as the UDO. Any zoning change, especially with the impact in the area for the interested parties surrounding that property, the expectation is that it would meet and exceed. I don t see any monumental changes, but they are important to the City s success, and the respect of the surrounding property owners. One more general comment. I don t know that I even need it answered, but the question pops in my head - I wonder if the property was sought to be purchased by the interested parties that don t want to see it developed in this fashion -? People always say if you don t want it developed as residential, buy it. If you want it developed in a certain way, was there any consideration about purchasing the property? I d welcome any answers if anybody would like to answer that, if it s been considered, but not a requirement. Chairman Harrelson: Any other comments or questions? Comm. Nelson: I think the key is, if we re going to rezone something, it s got to exceed the expectations. And sneaking in under the edge of it, I think we lack meeting the standards. And because of the fact that it stays with the property, I have some serious concerns. If this doesn t go through and we don t increase the standards, then it s easier for the next project to be completely different than what this is. That s my two cents. Comm. Rinke: I do think this would be an appropriate use for this property. I think the only thing I might change would be with regard to the garages. I don t see the internal garages as being that big of an attraction, or making them look like they re that much nicer of a project. As far as having the garages along Mur-Len, I could go either way on that, but I would echo Mr. Vakas comments. I think the project that we approved on College, I mean, it s awfully close to the road, and I think in hindsight, I m not sure I would have voted for that. So, I could actually support this by eliminating the internal garages and eliminating item B.2, which would require moving the garages. Comm. Horner: I have no problem with where the garages are positioned on the drawings right now either. I think it provides buffering [inaudible.] Mr. Clements: I would just mention that in the past, there have been concerns by elected officials about garages being placed on an arterial like that. We re just drawing on that experience and that body of knowledge we have with other decisions that are made, and just want you to know that. Chairman Harrelson: Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Motion by Commissioner Fry, seconded by Commissioner Freeman, to close the public hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Chairman Harrelson: Any other follow up comments, or is there a motion? Comm. Freeman: I m in agreement with staff s recommendations. So, my motion would be to move forward per staff s stipulation. That can be a comment if somebody else wants to follow up with something. If not, I will make that my motion. Motion by Commissioner Freeman to approve RZ Motion fails due lack of a second. Comm. Vakas: I d offer another motion, Mr. Chairman.

90 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 21 Motion by Commissioner Vakas, seconded by Commissioner Rinke, to recommend approval of RZ , for the following reasons: (1) The proposed development complies with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan for Housing and Land Use (Principle LUCC-3 and Principle HN-2). (2) The requested rezoning to R-3 district meets the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) criteria for considering zoning applications. (3) The proposed development, as stipulated, meets composite design standards for Site Design Category 3 (UDO ) and Building Design Category B (UDO ). Commissioner Vakas motion included recommending approval with the following stipulations to be included in the ordinance, as amended: (1) The proposed apartment buildings shall provide enclosed entrances and, closed stairways, and internal garages. (2) [deleted] (2) The garages and storage building along Mur-Len Road shall be removed or relocated to the interior of the development and replaced with apartment buildings that have a setback of approximately 30 feet from street right-of-way. (3) The proposed development shall provide additional outdoor amenities for a minimum of ten (10) percent of total site area per UDO requirements for R-3 district, site 3 option. (4) The primary building facades shall include bay windows and/or other architectural treatments, such as shutters, to provide additional detail and ground floor interest. (5) Type II and Type III buildings shall include additional windows on the side elevations to comply with transparent glass requirements for Building Design Category B standards. Commissioner Vakas motion included recommending approval with the following stipulations to be completed with the final site development plan: (1) A final stormwater plan and drainage calculations shall be submitted and approved in accordance with Title 17 of the Municipal Code. (2) Adequate separation is required between water and sanitary sewer lines. Water meters and the connection to the public main are required to be in grassy areas. (3) The required landscaping along 127 th Street and Mur-Len Road shall be located outside of utility easements and adjusted to avoid conflicts with the existing overhead power lines. (4) Trees shall be required on the interior of the development at a rate of one (1) tree for every dwelling unit. The trees within parking landscape islands may count toward the interior landscape requirement. (5) A parking lot lighting plan, in accordance with UDO requirements, shall be submitted and approved with the final site development plan.

91 RZ (PC Minutes) Page 22 (6) A building material sample board shall be submitted with the final site development plan. (7) As required by the UDO, all exterior ground or building mounted equipment, including but not limited to mechanical equipment, utility meter banks and coolers, shall be screened from public view with landscaping or an architectural treatment compatible with the building architecture. (8) All on-site wiring and cables shall be placed underground. The roll being called, the result was as follows: Aye: Fry, Rinke, Vakas, Horner (4) No: Freeman, Nelson, Harrelson (3) Motion carried 4-3.

92 City of Olathe City Planning Division MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting: November 9, 2015 David Clements, Planning Manager, made the following staff presentation: Application: SU Approval of a renewal of a Special Use Permit on 125± acres for the Lone Elm Quarry Location: Owner: Applicant: Agent: Staff Contact: 1600 West 151 st Street Deffenbaugh, Inc. APAC Kansas Inc. / L. Diane Tucker Lathrop & Gage LLP / David E. Waters David Clements, Planning Manager Site Area: 125± acres Proposed Use: Plat: Quarry Construction & Demolition Landfill Unplatted Land Use Zoning Comprehensive Plan Designation Site North Quarry/Construction Demolition Landfill & Quarry/Construction & Demolition Landfill/Office/Warehouse M-3 Employment Area M-3 Industrial Area East Farm/Ranch Land, Farm Improvements CTY RUR Employment Area South Parks & Open Space Cedar Lake Greenway West Quarry/Construction & Demolition Landfill M-3 Industrial Area 1. Comments: This is a request for the renewal of a Special Use Permit to allow the continued operation of a quarry south of 151 st Street, west of Lone Elm Road. APAC Kansas Inc., operates the Lone Elm quarry at this location.

93 SU (PC Minutes) Page 2 The existing Special Use permit expired in September The application was filed on April 24, 2015, with a goal of being renewed before the September expiration. However, due to requests by the City of Olathe for additional time for research and review, the application was continued several times and the consideration of the renewal is taking place after the September expiration. The continued public hearing and final action by the City Council on the renewal/reinstatement can occur after the September expiration. Please see the applicants attached April 23, 2015 letter concerning the Special Use renewal. The applicant is requesting a ten-year renewal. To assist with review of this application, please see the following attachments: a. April 23, 2015 Letter re: Special Use application. b. Lone Elm Quarry site map with phasing lines. c. Overall quarry area map. d. Special Use Renewal Alternatives e. Economic Assessment-Armada Intelligence f. Exhibit 1-Approval Criteria-Applicants responses 2. Time Limits: Section of the UDO, states that quarries and mines may have an initial special use time period of 10 years, and renewals may be issued for five (5) year periods. The applicant is requesting an exception to this standard renewal period. 3. Approval History, City Council Priorities: The initial approval of the Lone Elm Quarry south of 151 st Street was in This approval was for 10 years, and was renewed in At that time, the applicant requested a 10 year renewal. The City Council approved a 7 year renewal to September There are related Special Use permits for construction and demolition landfill operations at the quarry location. These operate with separate approvals and are not summarized here. During the 2008 Special Use renewal for the quarry, the applicant requested a 10 year renewal. The City Council extended the Special Use for (7) seven years. At that time, the City Council discussed the impact of quarries on the community, and the future of quarries in Olathe. The City Council believed it was appropriate to begin to think about an exit strategy for quarry operations. In May of 2015, the City Council conducted a council retreat. The council discussed many topics at this retreat. One item pertained to quarries, and the City Council again emphasized a priority of phasing out quarry operations. 4. Details of Operation: APAC acquired the mining rights for this property in 2010 and has operated it since that time. The APAC operation mines down within the current mine phase lines, and will not be disturbing any more lateral foot print or surface area outside of those areas. In 2014, truck and hauling traffic for the site averaged 60 truckloads per day. A main user of material from the quarry is the nearby O Donnell and Sons asphalt plant.

94 SU (PC Minutes) Page 3 In response to concerns of traffic and dust, APAC states the mine plan involves mining down instead of horizontal, which will help mitigate this concern, along with the continued practice of regularly applying water on the haul roads. APAC states that they employ 8 to 10 persons at the quarry. There are also employees at the O Donnell and Sons asphalt plant. Additional information can be found in the applicant s submittal information, attached to this staff report. 5. Oversight/Regulations: In addition to Special Use stipulations required by the City, the operation is regulated by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment for stormwater, pollution control and solid waste management. Copies of current permits and licenses were submitted with the Special Use application. 6. Economic Analysis: The City of Olathe believes it is important to look at the economic impact of the quarry operation. The City authorized an economic analysis prepared by Armada Intelligence. This report is attached. The report provides a high level macro look at the quarry operation, and notes that the quarry can be important to a growing city like Olathe. While this report provides a brief analysis of the quarry, it did not provide the detailed analysis/impact originally envisioned. The report states that a ten year expansion of the Lone Elm Quarry operation would not adversely affect the most likely development. While Armada Intelligence offered their opinion on the quarry operation, their project scope did not include a recommendation on the renewal period. 7. Quarry Area Plan: The Lone Elm quarry is one of three active operations in the 151 st and 159 th Street area. There are also two asphalt plants in this area, which provide material for area road projects using gravel aggregate from the quarries. Due to the City Council s stated priority on limiting future quarry operations, staff will be working to prepare a quarry sub-area plan to help understand the combined quarry impacts, asphalt plants, related timelines and reuse potential. 8. Special Use Renewal Alternatives: To understand the implications of the Special Use renewal on the operation, staff asked the applicant to prepare a summary of the impact of a 10 year and 5 year renewal, and no renewal of the quarry operation. This summary is found in the attached Special Use Renewal Alternatives paper. Analysis: The applicant prepared Exhibit 1 providing their analysis of the Special Use approval criteria for the application. The following is the staff analysis of the criteria for considering applications as listed in Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section G and findings for each item:

95 SU (PC Minutes) Page 4 A. The conformance of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted planning policies. The subject property is designated an industrial area on the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan. The quarry operation would comply with this land use designation. B. The character of the neighborhood including but not limited to: land use, zoning, density (residential), architectural style, building materials, height, structural mass, siting, open space and floor-to-area ratio (commercial and industrial). The character of the area is typified by other quarry and landfill operations, and one story industrial and distribution facilities, all with similar zoning. There is no specific architectural style or established development character that would be negatively influenced or impacted by the quarry renewal. C. The zoning and uses of nearby properties and the extent to which the proposed use would be in harmony with such zoning and uses. The areas near the subject property typically have similar M-2 or M-3 zoning classifications. Holland Quarry and landfill, Asphalt Sales Quarry and landfill and Johnson County Aggregates are similar operations in the immediate vicinity of 151st to 159th Street and Lone Elm Road to Old 56 Highway. D. The suitability of the property for the uses to which it has been restricted under the applicable zoning district regulations. The property is suited for uses permitted in the existing M-3 zoning classification. A quarry is allowed with a Special Use permit. The property would also be suited for limited development in the future after reclamation is complete. E. The length of time the property has remained vacant as zoned. Quarry and landfill activities have been on-going at the site since the property was annexed and zoned in 1996 and F. The extent to which approval of the application would detrimentally affect nearby properties. The APAC Lone Elm quarry and other quarry operations in this vicinity contribute significant truck traffic in this portion of the city. There are also problems with fugitive dust from the quarry operations. While APAC takes preventive steps to minimize dust, there are days and circumstances when air borne dust is a problem in the area. The City of Olathe Public Works facility at 1385 S. Robinson Street is a nearby property impacted by dust from the combined quarry operations in this vicinity. Truck traffic and dust are factors that detrimentally affect nearby properties, and are major considerations in the City Councils priority of phasing out quarry operations.

96 SU (PC Minutes) Page 5 G. The extent to which the proposed use would create excessive air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution or other environmental harm. The applicant has provided all current licenses and permits for operation of the facility from appropriate state agencies. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment is the responsible agency for solid waste management, stormwater runoff and pollution control. Inspections and records indicate that there has been no environmental harm with the landfill. However, these agencies do not measure the impact and nuisance of fugitive dust on the area and nearby properties. While APAC takes preventive measures to water haul roads, there are days and circumstances when air borne dust is a problem from quarry operations in the area. H. The economic impact of the proposed use on the community. The property owner pays annual real estate taxes on the property. The City of Olathe share of the real estate tax is $ a year. There is no sales tax generated by the wholesale sale of gravel aggregate to users. The renewal of the Special Use would not increase this minimal amount of revenue. Employment is not expected to increase with the renewal. I. The gain, if any, to the public health, safety, and welfare due to denial of the application as compared to the hardship imposed upon the landowner, if any, as a result of denial of the application. Denial of the application at this time would impose a certain hardship on the applicant as a mining and business plan is in place for the operation. However, there would be a gain to the public health, safety and welfare if quarry operations are phased out as identified by the City Council priority. The public safety and welfare would be enhanced if future quarry and landfill activities are reduced or eliminated, improving air quality and reducing quarry related truck traffic. 9. Staff Recommendation: As stated, in 2008 the applicant requested a 10 year renewal, and the City Council approved a 7 year renewal. The City Council indicated an interest in phasing out quarry operations with this reduced time limit. At this time, staff recommends approval of the renewal of the Special Use permit for a (4)-year period. This recommendation is consistent with the City Council priority of phasing out quarry operations. Staff recommends approval of a renewal of a Special Use permit for the Lone Elm Quarry, SU , with the following stipulations: a. The special use permit shall be approved for a time period of four (4) years from the date of Governing Body approval, or approximately January 15, Additionally, the applicant shall submit copies of inspection reports for all uses which are regulated by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), prepared by Johnson County Health Department (on behalf of KDHE) to the City Planner annually (after such uses have begun), no later than December of each calendar year. If any of the uses on this site, or within the operations area on the site are found to be operating in a manner which is not consistent with state statutes, the City Planner shall initiate proceedings for revocation of the special use permit.

97 SU (PC Minutes) Page 6 b. The overburden, spoils piles shall not extend above the height of the berms. c. That blasting is to be conducted between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, unless conditions outside the control of the operator (such as weather) require blasting at another reasonable time, in which case Fire Department shall be given advance notice. Extraction activities will be conducted between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday, unless conditions outside the control of the operator (such as weather) require operation at other reasonable times, in which case Planning staff shall be given advance notice. d. The quarry operation shall fully comply with all applicable local regulations as well as applicable regulations of the US Environmental Protection Agency, Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Kansas State Board of Agriculture -- Division of Water Resources, Johnson County fire codes and the City of Olathe fire codes and applicable regulations of other agencies throughout the permit term. e. Airborne dust produced as a result of the quarry operation shall be controlled by the operator and shall comply with all requirements of the Air Quality Standards and Regulations of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, as well as all other state and federal air quality regulations which are or may become applicable to uses and activities conducted at the landfill. f. Dust particles shall be minimized by the regular application of the water (or calcium chloride during dry periods) on haul roads, stockpiles and in active quarry areas. g. All below-ground operations shall be located no less than two hundred (200) feet from the nearest property line, measured laterally as required by UDO, Section This requirement will not apply to the following areas within the 47± acre tract (as approved by the BZA in 1996) to reduce the minimum 400-foot setback from the north, east (portion), and west (portion) property lines to fifty (50) feet. h. The quarry operator shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and county fire codes. Additionally, the quarry operator shall provide the City of Olathe Fire Department with the following: (1) An aerial photograph/drawing of the quarry site indicating the locations of all storage magazines, and other hazardous materials when these items are initially placed upon the site and immediately upon relocation to other site areas. (2) A material safety data sheet describing the contents of each magazine. (3) Information on the average daily use of explosives, quantity and type, and the approximate time of detonation. (4) Information on the average daily amount of fuel stored at the site. (5) Keys to any gates that may be lock, and a general road access layout. (6) Listing of emergency contact personnel and appropriate phone numbers. (7) Access to the quarry for periodic inspections.

98 SU (PC Minutes) Page 7 i. The quarry shall be and remain in compliance with all current and future changes to the Olathe Municipal Code Title 17 - Storm-water Management. j. If the owners/operators of the quarry are proposed to change during the term of the permit, an administrative review application shall be filed and reviewed to assure that stipulations are transferred to the new owner. k. All reclaimed areas shall have a minimum of 24 inches of soil with the top 12 inches consisting of "topsoil" grade material, which material shall not be removed from the properties to be dedicated at any time without written permission from the City. All reclaimed areas shall be covered with materials having no less organic content than the existing topsoil prior to quarrying, and fertilizers and other soil amendments be used as necessary to ensure the establishment of vegetative cover on the reclaimed areas. I. Prairie grass mix shall be used for cover (City will provide specifications). Trees, grasses, legumes or other appropriate ground cover shall be planted in all reclaimed areas when the topsoil cover is placed and that the plantings be maintained as necessary. Additionally, the use of native vegetation and variation in the alignment on the berms shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to construction of the berm. m. Truck traffic to and from this quarry shall be directed to use the Lone Elm Road and I-35 interchange. The applicant shall post a sign at exits providing this direction. n. Load beds of trucks hauling materials to or from this site shall be covered to control spillage. o. Spillage on nearby roads shall be removed periodically, within not longer than a twenty-four (24) hour periods, and the quarry operator shall post near the exit of the quarry a sign encouraging drivers of vehicles hauling materials or supplies to or from the construction and demolition landfill to promptly report any potentially hazardous spills on area roads and highways to the construction and demolition landfill and quarry operator. p. Noise and vibration from on-site operations shall be in compliance with all City of Olathe adopted codes and ordinances. q. The quarry and construction and demolition landfill operator shall maintain the existing Site Reclamation Agreement and Reclamation Bond in the amount of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00). r. The property shall be platted prior to the development of a reclamation plan. s. Prior to conducting any grading in connection with the reclamation of the property, the applicant will need to submit a complete grading.and drainage plan for review by the Public Works Department. t. All existing trees outside the area of excavation shall be left in their natural condition. u. The quarry and construction and demolition landfill operation shall have hours of operation consisting of Monday through Saturday, 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM.

99 SU (PC Minutes) Page 8 v. The earth berms shall remain in compliance with Section (d) of the Olathe Municipal Code regarding weeds. w. The blasting operations shall conform with the descriptions presented for consideration with respect to this application which generally calls for sequential delays in the firing of the blasting charges and that the blasting also conform with the Olathe Municipal Code Sections , et seq., (Uniform Fire Code adopted) and all other applicable rules and regulations of agencies which govern the handling, use, and storage of explosives and blasting agents. Particle velocity cannot exceed 0.30 at any residentially zoned property line. x. An independent third party shall monitor monthly blasting and seismic readings associated with regular quarry operations. Those monthly readings shall be submitted within a timely fashion to the Olathe Fire Marshal's Office for review. y. The quarry operator shall allow city staff to collect groundwater samples for testing as frequently as may be deemed to be appropriate by city staff. z. All aspects of the quarry operations approved by this permit shall be conducted in a manner which is consistent with the descriptions and explanations of the use as provided in the May 14, 1999, Special Use Renewal Request prepared by Polsinelli, Shalton, Flanigan & Suelthaus, P.C., the prepared expert reports, the site plan drawings and the descriptions and explanations included in the record of the proceedings with regard to this permit and also in a manner which is and remains consistent with the above-stated stipulations which shall prevail over any inconsistencies which may exist with respect to the other descriptions and explanations of the uses. aa. Excavations shall be staged to assure lateral stability throughout the course of quarry operations. bb. The quarrying operation shall comply with New Source Performance Standards applicable to non-metallic mining as set forth by the US Environmental Protection Agency. cc. Prior to consideration of this special use permit by the City Council, the applicant shall install the proposed silt fence and check dams on the existing quarry/landfill sites as shown on Figure 2 in the Water Quality Report. dd. The applicant shall submit an updated Water Quality Report and Stormwater Management Plans to the city staff for review and approval on the same 5 year cycle period as the Lone Elm Quarry and C&D Landfill Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required by KDHE." Following staff presentation, Chairman Harrelson opened up the meeting to questions from commissioners: Comm. Rinke: Just to be clear, this is just for the mining, correct? It does not apply to using it as a landfill.

100 SU (PC Minutes) Page 9 Mr. Clements: That is correct. I did mention briefly in the staff report that there are other special use permits for C&D Landfills in the area, and they operate under different timelines, but I did not put all that detail in the staff report. Comm. Rinke: Thank you. Chairman Harrelson: Any other questions? [None.] Thank you, Mr. Clements. Is the applicant available? David Waters, Applicant s Representative, Lathrop & Gage, LLP, Mastin, Overland Park, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Waters: I also serve on the Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Westwood, Kansas, in far northeast Johnson County. So, I certainly know what it s like to be on your side of the dais this evening. Joining us are members of our team from APAC: Brian Lane, Operations Manager; Danny Heinz, Sales Manager; Diane Tucker, Environmental Manager; and Beau Boulden, who is the VP of Operations. We have a broad array of people who can hopefully answer any questions you have. We certainly appreciate staff s recommendation of approval tonight, and appreciate your consideration of our request. Before we start, just a couple comments about the time period requested for the renewal. As you ll see in your staff report, we initially requested a 10 year period of time. Last time they granted 7 years. When we first met with staff again, we thought the 10 year renewal was what was allowed. If you look at your staff report, there are references to asking us to prepare a zero year, a five year and a 10 year response as to what those years of renewal would be. It might have been a bit of a disconnect because we came to find out that the UDO probably got changed at some point, and only a five year renewal is allowed. So, let me just stipulate at this point that that is what we would ask for, then. That is what your code allows. So, to the extent that our application was for 10 years, we would be requesting the full five years as your code allows, which is different than the four recommend by staff. We would go down from the 10 to the 5 that s allowed by code tonight. We do estimate that the Lone Elm quarry has an approximate useful life of right at about 10 years, depending on local economic factors, depending on demand. Right now, that s what we are estimating what the useful life of the quarry is going to be. We believe that a 10-year renewal would have allowed the site to advance its operations towards completion. I think if you reviewed the report of the economic advisor that s in your staff report, they came to a very similar conclusion, that a 10-year renewal would really not change the development in this area. Again, we appreciate staff s recommendation. We do agree with all of staff s stipulation. I think there s one that we still need to talk about. There s a reference as to where some silt fencing needs to be, and I don t think we ve quite finalized where that location is. So, we have to get together a little bit on that, but otherwise, we do agree with the other stipulations. I would say, by and large, we agree with the other findings in the staff report as to the Golden factors, especially in regards to character of the neighborhood, zoning, etc. If time allows, we ll try to go through some of that, but let me turn it over to Brian Lane to talk about some of the operations on site. Brian Lane, Operations Manager, APAC, 7415 West 130 th Street, Suite 300, Overland Park, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Mr. Lane: A little bit about APAC. We re a Midwestern company with 11 active quarries in the Kansas City metro area and northwest Missouri. We also have two asphalt plants and four active C&D landfills. We employ around 200 people in the Kansas City area, and we produce around 3 million tons of aggregate out of those 11 quarries annually. The material we produce

101 SU (PC Minutes) Page 10 goes directly into local projects such as road construction, buildings, in and around the Olathe area. As far as the operation goes, as Mr. Clements stated earlier, inside of the yellow lines are where our active mining phases are. We are currently mining in a downward direction, basically taking the rock out in that same footprint, but just going down to the bottom elevation in the pit. So, there is no lateral disturbance of any more land outside of that area. Again, to reiterate, we are just going down in that area. Some of our neighbors to the west Johnson County Aggregates, as pointed out earlier, and O Donnell Asphalt to our north, who is an onsite asphalt producer. We supply material to them. One of the benefits of having a quarry and asphalt plant on the same property is it greatly reduces the truck traffic that would be needed to supply aggregate to the asphalt plant. If the quarry wasn t on the site, that aggregate would have to be shipped in from another location, which would significantly increase truck traffic. Recently, we relocated our customer truck scale location to help improve safety and provide better customer service in the form of truck traffic, provide more visibility, and also help to reduce the track-out as far as, you know, the further the scale is away from the road in this case 151 st Street the less chance that material will be tracked out onto that road. This is another view of the scale house. You can see the new scale positioned off to the right, the old scale to the left, and in the center is the current Deffenbaugh landfill scale. [Referring to pictures.] Now we re coming close to the pit operations. Again, the pit is being developed in a downward direction. We re working our way through five ledges of limestone. As David mentioned, we have what we feel is about 10 years of life here, producing anywhere from 1,500 to 2,000 tons a day of rock out of this pit, which is processed into construction materials, mainly asphalt and materials for roads and buildings in the area. Here is another photo of the active mining area. The haul roads are the lighter white, coming from the active pit area towards the processing plant area, where we process the limestone into useable sizes. Again, the same view, where our crushing plant sits. The western berm, protecting the western property line, with Johnson County Aggregates off further to the west. And then, our mining delineation. So, this red area is similar to the yellow lines we saw in the other picture. That s the footprint that we re working down. Here s a close-up view of our crushing and screening plant. Basically, we re drilling and blasting, taking the limestone out of the ground, and we re processing it in this plant down into sizes useable for asphalt paving, concrete, road base, and similar products. Some of the local projects that we ve had the privilege to be involved with out of this particular site are the Olathe District Activity Center. We supplied the material that went underneath these fields, basically to help drain the water from the field. We also are supplying material to the new FedEx warehouse on 167 th and Lone Elm, which is a big project that s ongoing. [Timer sounds.] Again, College Boulevard Activity Center, and Olathe West High School, which we re very proud to be helping support that project. With that, I d like to turn it over to Diane Tucker, our Environmental Manager. Diane Tucker, 2502 Southwest Locust, Oak Grove, Missouri, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the following comments: Ms. Tucker: As Environmental Manager, in my experience, I have found that very few really know the level of APACs commitment to safety, protecting the environment, and engaging our local communities. For example, on the federal level, we have the Mine Safety and Health Administration that we report to. Since taking over operations at Lone Elm, we have had no recordable accidents or injuries at our facility. We also obtain permits and maintain compliance with several other federal, state and local agencies, which I will not go into great detail about.

102 SU (PC Minutes) Page 11 But, obtaining these permits and maintaining compliance with them involves also training of our personnel through new hire training, as well as annual training, filing our reports, internal audits, and external inspections. Here is another picture of the site entrance. I won t elaborate except to point out that we do maintain this berm right along 151 st Street, in compliance with our special use permit. Again, at the side entrance, you can see where we maintain the site entrance, keep it free of debris. We keep it regularly swept, which is also in compliance with our special use permit. We maintain the entrance, well landscaped and clean, and like Brian said, we voluntarily moved the scale house to reduce track-out and improve safety at our location. One of the things I d like to talk about is our air permit with the state of Kansas. We do go above and beyond in controlling dust at our facilities. We have a system, a standardized method of documented compliance for road watering. We also conduct regular maintenance and inspections of our dust suppression equipment on our crushing plant. In the staff report, staff mentions there are problems with fugitive dust from the quarry operations. I have received no dust complaints in the last two years at this facility. If complaints are received, a thorough investigation is conducted and corrective actions are taken immediately. And, of course, we maintain that the trucks have tarps to protect our citizens and keep debris off the road. I m also going to touch on our commitment to engaging and supporting our local community. We host an annual open house, open to the public. We do maintain a great partnership with the Olathe Fire Department. [Timer sounds.] The Olathe department responds to about 80 explosives Chairman Harrelson: Let her wrap it up. Keep going. Ms. Tucker: We have an educational outreach program with fourth graders in Olathe. We had 300 students that participated this fall. And, we also have a partnership with Olathe Northwest High School on our APAC web redesign. I will not go into any more detail about all the other community projects that we service, and I will hand this off to David for our conclusion. Mr. Waters: We have some other slides we can go through on Golden factors and such, if need be, but again, we appreciate the recommendation. We ll get with Dave on that final stipulation and finalize that. Otherwise, we re in agreement with it, and would appreciate your support for the full five years. We will stand for questions. Chairman Harrelson: Any questions of the applicant? Comm. Freeman: First of all, Commissioner Rinke and I visited your facility, and we really enjoyed that. Very educational in nature. It seems like from the staff report and from what I researched, it s pretty clear that the intention was to ramp down operations. I just want to make sure that that was something that was made clear to APAC. Mr. Waters: Any quarry by its very nature is one that you have depleting asset. What we ve determined based on market demands and such, we ve estimated that there s 10 more years of useful life in this quarry. We think this site would support that. We think that the City s economic advisors would support that, as well, and we think the way it matches the industrial nature of the area Again, we re limited to asking for five years, so that s why we re here, is to ask for five years. But, by its very nature we see that, if things kind of continue down this path, this is probably something that within 10 years or maybe shortly thereafter it probably would be a site that would be fully utilized. That s the expectation right now.

103 SU (PC Minutes) Page 12 Comm. Freeman: Understood. So, with the thought of possibly getting less than 10 years, and you re asking for five now, would there be a push to ramp up operations to gain the most out of your asset? Mr. Waters: That s something that we d certainly have to consider. You can only do so much. You can t just, kind of blast a bunch of rock and dig it all out if there aren t buyers for it or projects for it to go to. That s something that would have to be considered, as well. APAC would have to look at what its options are, what other sites are available, and what demand it s going to anticipate for the next few years. Comm. Nelson: I m curious about the reclaiming process of this. Does APAC have anything to do with that? Mr. Waters: APAC only has the mining rights here. The reclamation would be done, I believe, by the property owner. Of course, there state requirements on that. APAC does not have the right to fill the site with anything, or to do any of the reclamation. Comm. Nelson: Do you have any perspective on how long it would take to reclaim? Mr. Waters: I don t. I think that would depend on whether it s a landfill use, and what the demands there are. I don t know that the timeline would be. Comm. Nelson: I m wondering if it s like one year of mining to one year reclaiming, that s one perspective. But, if it s a one-to-ten or one-to-15, or whatever the case may be Mr. Waters: I know Dave has given some estimates before, and I think the special use permit for the landfill was worked on, on certain assumptions, but I wasn t part of that project. So, I d have to defer to Dave and your staff on what they think that might look like. Comm. Nelson: And, can we really project not knowing, or -? Mr. Clements: Well, the landfill experts indicated to us with last year s renewal that one year of mining requires four years of landfill, at a moderate level. Chairman Harrelson: Any other questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak in favor? All right, moving on to those wishing to speak in opposition. Is there anyone? Seeing or hearing none, are there any other comments by the Planning Commission, or is there a desire to close the public hearing? Motion by Commissioner Horner, seconded by Commissioner Vakas, to close the public hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Chairman Harrelson: Are there comments by Commissioners, or is there a motion? Comm. Freeman: I d be happy to share some comments. I ve spent a lot of time, thinking about this. Obviously APAC has been operating this for some time, and even before APAC had the mineral rights to operate it, its business is very important to Olathe. In the research that I ve done, and from the staff report, to understand what the impact is that quarries have, and why City Council shared in the past that they wanted to scale down the quarries I wanted to understand that. At first glance, I didn t have a good feeling for that. There were a couple of things that came to my attention. One, Commissioner Nelson asked about the reclamation process. And although the operation timeline is important, the possible uses for that are really the end goal from a City perspective. It s great to not have anything going on there, I guess.

104 SU (PC Minutes) Page 13 Actually, I don t know if it s great, or not great. But, for that to be able to be used is really, I guess, where my interest is. That s why it kind of impacts my timeline for APAC. Some questions I have seen are: What s the future land use for that area? There s a sports tourism study that s being conducted right now that may show additional need for athletic or recreational fields in that area. There are several projects that are expanding, such as Olathe Medical, options for the Great Mall. And I think it is in a real key area of our city. For all those reasons, and since I m trying to wrap up as much time as I can, I feel like four years is the maximum I would feel comfortable with. I d have to agree with staff s recommendation for the maximum. I may even be inclined to do a little bit less because of the notice previously, saying that City Council was intending to ramp this down, and the process and the time that it takes to really make it a useful land item. Comm. Nelson: I would just add to that. I even wondered about the possibility of one year, so that next year when they renew, we re dealing with both things at once. Not necessarily saying to end it in that time, but align things so that we re moving forward at the same pace, etc. I do think the nature of this business, one year is a short term, and that s not a lot of notice for the progress. So, I would lean towards the four year, but in the back of my mind, I wondered about bringing it into alignment with the other renewal that they re looking at, just wondering about the possibility of a one-year option. Comm. Horner: I want to understand the alignment. You re talking about the other one that s -? Comm. Nelson: Right. Comm. Horner: Okay. All right. I m comfortable with four. Chairman Harrelson: Is there a motion on SU ? Motion by Commissioner Rinke, seconded by Commissioner Vakas, to approve SU , with the following stipulations: a. The special use permit shall be approved for a time period of four (4) years from the date of Governing Body approval, or approximately January 15, Additionally, the applicant shall submit copies of inspection reports for all uses which are regulated by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), prepared by Johnson County Health Department (on behalf of KDHE) to the City Planner annually (after such uses have begun), no later than December of each calendar year. If any of the uses on this site, or within the operations area on the site are found to be operating in a manner which is not consistent with state statutes, the City Planner shall initiate proceedings for revocation of the special use permit. b. The overburden, spoils piles shall not extend above the height of the berms. c. That blasting is to be conducted between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, unless conditions outside the control of the operator (such as weather) require blasting at another reasonable time, in which case Fire Department shall be given advance notice. Extraction activities will be conducted between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday, unless conditions outside the control of the operator (such as weather) require operation at other reasonable times, in which case Planning staff shall be given advance notice. d. The quarry operation shall fully comply with all applicable local regulations as well as applicable regulations of the US Environmental Protection Agency, Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Kansas State Board of Agriculture --

105 SU (PC Minutes) Page 14 Division of Water Resources, Johnson County fire codes and the City of Olathe fire codes and applicable regulations of other agencies throughout the permit term. e. Airborne dust produced as a result of the quarry operation shall be controlled by the operator and shall comply with all requirements of the Air Quality Standards and Regulations of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, as well as all other state and federal air quality regulations which are or may become applicable to uses and activities conducted at the landfill. f. Dust particles shall be minimized by the regular application of the water (or calcium chloride during dry periods) on haul roads, stockpiles and in active quarry areas. g. All below-ground operations shall be located no less than two hundred (200) feet from the nearest property line, measured laterally as required by UDO, Section This requirement will not apply to the following areas within the 47± acre tract (as approved by the BZA in 1996) to reduce the minimum 400-foot setback from the north, east (portion), and west (portion) property lines to fifty (50) feet. h. The quarry operator shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and county fire codes. Additionally, the quarry operator shall provide the City of Olathe Fire Department with the following: (1) An aerial photograph/drawing of the quarry site indicating the locations of all storage magazines, and other hazardous materials when these items are initially placed upon the site and immediately upon relocation to other site areas. (2) A material safety data sheet describing the contents of each magazine. (3) Information on the average daily use of explosives, quantity and type, and the approximate time of detonation. (4) Information on the average daily amount of fuel stored at the site. (5) Keys to any gates that may be lock, and a general road access layout. (6) Listing of emergency contact personnel and appropriate phone numbers. (7) Access to the quarry for periodic inspections. i. The quarry shall be and remain in compliance with all current and future changes to the Olathe Municipal Code Title 17 - Storm-water Management. j. If the owners/operators of the quarry are proposed to change during the term of the permit, an administrative review application shall be filed and reviewed to assure that stipulations are transferred to the new owner. k. All reclaimed areas shall have a minimum of 24 inches of soil with the top 12 inches consisting of "topsoil" grade material, which material shall not be removed from the properties to be dedicated at any time without written permission from the City. All reclaimed areas shall be covered with materials having no less organic content than the existing topsoil prior to quarrying, and fertilizers and other soil amendments be used as necessary to ensure the establishment of vegetative cover on the reclaimed areas. I. Prairie grass mix shall be used for cover (City will provide specifications). Trees, grasses, legumes or other appropriate ground cover shall be planted in all reclaimed areas when the topsoil cover is placed and that the plantings be

106 SU (PC Minutes) Page 15 maintained as necessary. Additionally, the use of native vegetation and variation in the alignment on the berms shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to construction of the berm. m. Truck traffic to and from this quarry shall be directed to use the Lone Elm Road and I-35 interchange. The applicant shall post a sign at exits providing this direction. n. Load beds of trucks hauling materials to or from this site shall be covered to control spillage. o. Spillage on nearby roads shall be removed periodically, within not longer than a twenty-four (24) hour periods, and the quarry operator shall post near the exit of the quarry a sign encouraging drivers of vehicles hauling materials or supplies to or from the construction and demolition landfill to promptly report any potentially hazardous spills on area roads and highways to the construction and demolition landfill and quarry operator. p. Noise and vibration from on-site operations shall be in compliance with all City of Olathe adopted codes and ordinances. q. The quarry and construction and demolition landfill operator shall maintain the existing Site Reclamation Agreement and Reclamation Bond in the amount of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00). r. The property shall be platted prior to the development of a reclamation plan. s. Prior to conducting any grading in connection with the reclamation of the property, the applicant will need to submit a complete grading.and drainage plan for review by the Public Works Department. t. All existing trees outside the area of excavation shall be left in their natural condition. u. The quarry and construction and demolition landfill operation shall have hours of operation consisting of Monday through Saturday, 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. v. The earth berms shall remain in compliance with Section (d) of the Olathe Municipal Code regarding weeds. w. The blasting operations shall conform with the descriptions presented for consideration with respect to this application which generally calls for sequential delays in the firing of the blasting charges and that the blasting also conform with the Olathe Municipal Code Sections , et seq., (Uniform Fire Code adopted) and all other applicable rules and regulations of agencies which govern the handling, use, and storage of explosives and blasting agents. Particle velocity cannot exceed 0.30 at any residentially zoned property line. x. An independent third party shall monitor monthly blasting and seismic readings associated with regular quarry operations. Those monthly readings shall be submitted within a timely fashion to the Olathe Fire Marshal's Office for review. y. The quarry operator shall allow city staff to collect groundwater samples for testing as frequently as may be deemed to be appropriate by city staff. z. All aspects of the quarry operations approved by this permit shall be conducted in a manner which is consistent with the descriptions and explanations of the use as provided in the May 14, 1999, Special Use Renewal Request prepared by Polsinelli, Shalton, Flanigan & Suelthaus, P.C., the prepared expert reports, the site plan drawings and the descriptions and explanations included in the record of the proceedings with regard to this permit and also in a manner which is and

107 SU (PC Minutes) Page 16 remains consistent with the above-stated stipulations which shall prevail over any inconsistencies which may exist with respect to the other descriptions and explanations of the uses. aa. Excavations shall be staged to assure lateral stability throughout the course of quarry operations. bb. The quarrying operation shall comply with New Source Performance Standards applicable to non-metallic mining as set forth by the US Environmental Protection Agency. cc. Prior to consideration of this special use permit by the City Council, the applicant shall install the proposed silt fence and check dams on the existing quarry/landfill sites as shown on Figure 2 in the Water Quality Report. dd. The applicant shall submit an updated Water Quality Report and Stormwater Management Plans to the city staff for review and approval on the same 5 year cycle period as the Lone Elm Quarry and C&D Landfill Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required by KDHE." The roll being called, the result was as follows: Aye: Fry, Nelson, Rinke, Vakas, Horner, Harrelson (6) No: Freeman (1) Motion carried 6-1.

108 MINUTES - Other Matters PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - November 9, 2015 Chairman Harrelson: The Planning Commission did a great job this evening. All of you made some very valuable comments. It was a very long night, so, thank you for your work. And staff did a great job, especially with Garmin, which had a lot of loose ends and moving parts. Very good work. Meeting adjourned.

109 STAFF REPORT Planning Commission Meeting: November 23, 2015 City of Olathe City Planning Division Application: PR Preliminary site development plan, Taco Bell Location: Owner: Applicant: Engineer: Staff Contact: Southwest corner of 151 st Street and Black Bob Road KC Bell, Inc., Paul Hoover Spangenberg Phillips Tice Architecture, Jennifer Rygg Payne & Brockway, Todd Allenbrand Sean Pendley, Senior Planner Site Area: 0.61± acres Proposed Use: Drive-through Restaurant Zoning: C-2 (Commercial District) Plat: Black Bob Meadows Shops, Lot 1 Building Area: 2,200 sq. ft. Plan Olathe Land Use Category Existing Use Current Zoning Site Design Category Building Design Category Site Community Commercial Undeveloped C-2 4 D North Commercial Shopping Center CP South Commercial Restaurant (Sonic) C East Commercial Restaurant (McDonald s) C West Community Commercial Church (Aldersgate) R Comments: The applicant is requesting a preliminary site development plan for a Taco Bell restaurant. The site is currently undeveloped and there is an existing private drive extending from 151 st Street to Black Bob Road.

110 PR (Staff Report) November 23, 2015 Page 2 The proposed development consists of a new drive-through restaurant with dining area including 54 seats. 2. History: Previously, the site included a gas station and convenience store which was removed in In 2007, a final site development plan was approved for a bank (PR ), however the bank was never constructed and the site has been vacant ever since. A final plat for Blackbob Meadows Shops was recorded in Zoning Requirements: a. Setbacks The proposed building meets the required building setbacks for C-2 districts. The proposed parking lot meets the minimum 15 parking/paving setbacks from street right-of-way. b. Building Height The main building height is 19 feet, 6 inches with parapet walls up to 22 feet. The maximum building height for standard C-2 districts is 35 feet from finished grade. 4. Development Requirements: a. Access/Streets The development will have access from an existing private drive that extends from 151 st Street to Black Bob Road. Both drives to the public streets are right-in/right-out access. The plan for Taco Bell includes a two-way drive for the parking lot and a one-way drive for the drive-through exit. There is a tight turning movement for cars exiting the drive-through and turning right to 151 st Street. The applicant submitted vehicle templates to show tracking for the drive-through egress. The proposed parking lot driveway will align with the existing drive leading to the Sonic site to the south. There is no cross-access proposed to the west on the church property. b. Drive-Through The building is oriented with the drive-through window on the west elevation so it is not facing a public street per Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requirements. The drive-through lane provides the minimum required width and stacking depth. c. Parking The site plan shows a total of 18 parking spaces which meets the parking requirement for restaurants of one (1) space per three seats. The restaurant includes 54 seats so a minimum of 18 parking spaces is required. The development also includes two accessible parking spaces, which complies with parking requirements for disabled persons. d. Lighting A photometric plan for parking lot lighting shall be submitted with the final site development plan in accordance with Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requirements. Details for the proposed light poles and fixtures are required. e. Landscaping The proposed landscape plan identifies new deciduous trees and ornamental trees around the perimeter of the site and shade trees in the parking lot

111 PR (Staff Report) November 23, 2015 Page 3 landscape islands. Staff recommends removing the shade tree at the end of the drive-through exit due to conflicts with sight distance on the private drive. Staff recommends evergreen trees and shrubs on the south side of the trash enclosure for additional screening. A variety of shrubs are proposed around the parking lot to provide screening for 151 st Street and Black Bob Road. There are shrubs along the north, east and south sides of the building to provide foundation landscaping. f. Public Utilities The property is located in City of Olathe water and sewer service areas. Utilities are currently available to the site. g. Stormwater/Detention The proposed site is less than one acre, therefore the development is not subject to Title 17 stormwater requirements. A drainage plan and stormwater calculations shall be submitted with the final site development plan. h. Mechanical Equipment The rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened by roof parapets on the building. All exterior ground or building mounted equipment, including but not limited to mechanical equipment, utility meter banks and coolers, shall be screened from public view with landscaping or architectural treatment compatible with the building architecture per UDO requirements. 5. Building Design Standards: The following is an analysis of the composite building design requirements. The applicant has submitted a narrative to address the specific building design standards for this development (see attached). Composite Building Design (Category D) Horizontal Articulation Vertical Articulation Focal Point Elements Façade Expression Building Materials Mixed Materials Proposed Design Wall projections with stone columns on primary facades Variation in height with stone columns 1-4 feet above roofline Tower elements with metal cap on primary facades, extend only above roof 1 on north façade and 3 on east facade (4 height required) Metal canopies above all windows and doors Primary Façades see table below for detail percentage Secondary Façades N/A The front and side facades include a mixture of stone, stucco and metal. No change in materials on rear façade. Transparent Glass Storefront glass on front and side facades, north (25%), east (13%), west (10%) a. Horizontal Articulation The proposed building includes wall projections at least 4 deep on the north façade and 4 deep on the east elevation.

112 PR (Staff Report) November 23, 2015 Page 4 b. Vertical Articulation The front and side elevations include stone columns or towers ranging in height from 1-4 feet above the roof parapet. The Category D standards require variation in height of at least 2 feet on primary facades. c. Focal Point Element There is a tower element with stone column on the East elevation at the main entrance. There are secondary focal points with stone columns for the front door and drive-through window. d. Façade Expression Tools There are metal canopies above all windows and doors for the restaurant. e. Building Materials The proposed building consists of stone veneer, stucco, storefront glass and metal slats. All elevations are considered primary façades because they face public streets or are visible from private drives that serve customers. The following is a breakdown of the materials and required standards: Façade (Elevation) Front (North) Category 1 Category 2 Requirement Stone/Stucco/Glass (72%) Metal (28%) (Category 1 / 2) 70% / 30% Left Side (East) 83% 17% 70% / 30% Right Side (West) 90% 10% 70% / 30% Rear (South) 78% 22% 70% / 30% The proposed building meets the standards for Category 1 materials for primary facades. The applicant has submitted photos with samples of the proposed stone and a restaurant in Merriam with similar design. Building material samples shall be submitted for the proposed stucco and metal. Building Design Category D also requires mixed materials on primary facades. All elevations include a mixture of stone, stucco and metal but there is limited stone on the side and rear elevations. Staff recommends additional stone veneer on the side and rear elevations to provide mixed materials on a substantial portion of primary facades. Due to the high visibility of the site at the corner of two arterial streets, higher quality design and building materials are recommended. f. Transparent Glass - Category D design standards require transparent glass on 25 percent of primary facades. The proposed building has glass on 26 percent of the North façade, 13 percent on the East façade, 10 percent on the West façade and there is no glass on the South façade. Staff supports the proposed use of glass since it is used on the entire dining area of the building. 6. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary site development plan (PR ) with the following stipulations: a. A final site development plan is required.

113 PR (Staff Report) November 23, 2015 Page 5 b. A drainage plan and stormwater calculations shall be submitted with the final site development plan. c. The shade tree at the end of the drive-through exit shall be removed due to conflicts with sight distance on the private drive. d. Evergreen trees and shrubs shall be located on the south property line to provide additional screening for the trash enclosure. e. The East, West and South elevations shall include additional stone veneer to provide mixed materials on a substantial portion of primary facades per Building Design Category D standards. f. Building material samples shall be submitted for the proposed stone, stucco and metal prior to approval of the final site development plan. g. A parking lot lighting plan, in accordance with Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requirements, shall be submitted with the final site development plan. Details shall be provided for the light poles and fixtures. h. Sign permits shall be approved for all wall and monument signs per UDO i. As required by the UDO, all exterior ground or building mounted equipment, including but not limited to mechanical equipment, utility meter banks and coolers, shall be screened from public view with landscaping or an architectural treatment compatible with the building architecture. j. All new on-site wiring and cables shall be placed underground.

114 BLACK BOB RD BLACK BOB RD 150TH ST 150TH ST 150TH TER BLACKFOOT DR 150TH TER 150TH PL 151ST ST PR ST TER KAW DR BLACKFEATHER DR Aldersgate United Methodist Church De Soto?Ä Lenexa?Á?Á?Ä Lenexa!"`$ %&e( Overland Park Feet 152ND ST Gardner!"`$ Io Overland Park Spring User: gradyrm Date: 11/18/2015 TACO BELL RESTAURANT PR

115 4 User: gradyrm Date: 11/18/2015 TACO BELL RESTAURANT SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN W 151ST ST PR SITE PLAN

116 4 User: gradyrm Date: 11/19/2015 TACO BELL RESTAURANT SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN W 151ST ST PR DRIVE THROUGH PLAN

117 4 User: gradyrm Date: 11/18/2015 TACO BELL RESTAURANT SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN W 151ST ST PR LANDSCAPE PLAN

118 4 User: gradyrm Date: 11/19/2015 TACO BELL RESTAURANT SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN W 151ST ST PR BUILDING DETAIL A

119 4 User: gradyrm Date: 11/19/2015 TACO BELL RESTAURANT SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN W 151ST ST PR BUILDING DETAIL B

120 4 User: gradyrm Date: 11/18/2015 TACO BELL RESTAURANT SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN W 151ST ST PR EAST/ENTRY SIDE ELEVATION

121 4 User: gradyrm Date: 11/18/2015 TACO BELL RESTAURANT SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN W 151ST ST PR ELEVATIONS

122

123

124 STAFF REPORT Planning Commission Meeting: November 23, 2015 City of Olathe City Planning Division Application: Location: Owner Applicant/Engineer: Staff Contact: RZ : Zoning Amendment for CP-2 Zoning District (Murphy Express convenience store with gasoline pumps/canopy) 481 North K-7 Highway Commerce Bank Greenberg Farrow, Trae Rushing Dan Fernandez, Planner II Current Zoning: CP-2 Proposed Zoning: CP-2 Site Area: 0.92± acres Proposed Use: Convenience Store/Gas Station Platted: Yes Plan Olathe Land Use Category Existing Use Current Zoning Site Design Category Building Design Category Site Urban Center/Downtown Vacant North Urban Center/Downtown Fast food restaurant CP-2 (Proposed CP-2) 4 D CP-2 N/A N/A South Urban Center/Downtown Retail CP-2 N/A N/A East Urban Center/Downtown Storage facility R-1 N/A N/A West Urban Center/Downtown Retail CP-2 N/A N/A 1. Comments: The applicant is requesting a zoning amendment to a CP-2 (Planned General Business District) property on the west side of K-7 Highway, north of Santa Fe in the West Village shopping center. The subject property was rezoned (RZ ) to CP-2 in May The preliminary plan included a bank with drive through on the subject property. A final development plan (PR ) for a bank was approved by the Planning Commission in August 2009; however, the bank was never built. The applicant is proposing an amendment to the approved preliminary plan to permit a convenience store with gasoline pumps at this location.

125 RZ (Staff Report) November 23, 2015 Page 2 The proposed development includes a 1,200 square foot Murphy s Express convenience store and a canopy with 6 fuel dispensers. The convenience store would sit directly under the gas canopy. 2. Site Conditions: The subject site is currently vacant and has never been developed. 3. Neighborhood Meeting / Public Notices: A neighborhood meeting was not required for this application since there are no residential properties in close proximity to the subject property. Notice of the public hearing was published in the newspaper, and the applicant has provided affidavits and receipts certifying that signs were posted and certified letters mailed in accordance with the Kansas Statutes and City of Olathe regulations regarding public notice of rezoning applications. Staff has received no correspondence for or against the proposal. 4. Zoning Requirements: a. Dimensional Standards: The project meets the applicable dimensional standards for the C-2 District. The building at its highest point is and the highest point of the canopy is The existing zoning district permits a maximum height of 35 feet. The structure and the parking/paving areas meet all required setbacks for C-2 Districts. b. Open Space: The plan provides for 50.1% open space for the proposed development which meets the open space requirement of the C-2 District. 5. Development Requirements: a. Access/Streets: The project is located within the West Village Shopping Center and will have an access drive onto an interior road within the complex. That road connects to K-7 and 135 th St. There are no proposed changes to the public streets. The plan also includes connecting driveways to the property to the north. b. Parking: The UDO requires one space per 250 square feet of building area for a convenience store with gas sales which would require a total of 5 parking spaces. The plans show 8 parking spaces including one van accessible space which meets the parking requirement. c. Landscaping/Screening: The landscape plan shows a variety of trees and shrubs planted around the perimeter and within the interior of the site. The applicant is providing required parking/paving screening as well as screening around the proposed dumpster/recycling enclosures and other mechanical equipment. If approved, a landscape plan in accordance with the UDO shall be submitted with the final development plan. The project does not meet the minimum required foundation landscape requirement of 25% on the primary elevations. If approved, the landscape plan submitted with the final development plan shall include foundation landscaping. Mechanical equipment will be located on the north elevation and painted to match the building materials. If approved, staff will be stipulating additional screening for the mechanical equipment as painting rooftop equipment is not considered to meet the screening requirement.

126 RZ (Staff Report) November 23, 2015 Page 3 d. Utilities and Stormwater: The subject property is located within the City of Olathe water and sewer service areas. 6. Site Design Standards: The recommended composite design standards for the subject property are Site Design Category 4 (UDO ) and Building Design Category D (UDO ). The applicant has submitted a response letter to address the specific composite design requirements for this development (see attached). Composite Site Design (Category 4) Outdoor Amenity Space Parking Pod Size Pedestrian Connectivity Detention and Drainage Features as Amenities Proposed Design Development has less than 65% open space and is on less than 4 acres The proposed parking lot has a total of 8 spaces. Sidewalks along the west side of the property; interior sidewalk Regional detention The following is staff s analysis of the composite site design requirements. a. Outdoor Amenities The requirement does not apply to the proposed Murphy Express since it is for developments with more than 65% open space or larger than 4 acres. b. Parking Pod Size Maximum parking pod size is 80 spaces. There are 8 spaces proposed on the plan. c. Pedestrian Connectivity A sidewalk will be located on the west side of the property and will connect to the sidewalk on the property to the north. The plan also shows an interior sidewalk into the site. If approved the applicant will need to include stamped concrete walkways within the interior of the site and at the drive aisles with the final development plan. d. Drainage Amenities The proposed development does not consist of any open drainage or detention ponds. The project will use an existing regional detention system. 7. Building Design Standards Composite Building Design (Category D) Horizontal Articulation Vertical Articulation Focal Point Elements Façade Expression Proposed Design 12 decorative cornice Not met due to canopy on top of building Not met due to canopy on top of building Awnings, canopy, ornamental cornice

127 RZ (Staff Report) November 23, 2015 Page 4 Ground Floor Interest Tools/Glass Building Materials Transparent glass on east/west elevations, canopies over the entrances Primary Façades: - West elevation meets Category 1 building materials (71%) - North elevation meets Category 1 materials (88%) - South elevation meets Category 1 materials (78%) - East elevation meets Category 1 materials (71%) a. Horizontal Articulation The proposed building design includes a 12 decorative cornice on the top of the building. b. Vertical Articulation Vertical articulation is not provided due to the canopy located on top of the building. c. Focal Point Element A focal point element on the building is not provided due to the canopy being located on top of it. d. Façade Expression Tools The proposed building includes an ornamental cornice on top of the building and awnings above the windows on the north and south elevations. Canopies have also been placed above both entrances on the east and west elevations. e. Ground Floor Interest Tools/Glass The east and west elevations are above the transparent glass requirements and also have canopies of the entrances on these elevations. The north and south elevations show spandrel glass which does not count towards the glass requirement. If approved, the applicant is requesting an exception to be able to use spandrel glass instead of transparent glass. The applicant states that spandrel glass is necessary since the interior has storage/secure areas at both locations. f. Entry Element - The entrances on the west and east elevations have a canopy that projects approximately 4 from the wall. g. Building Materials: The proposed building would be constructed of brick, glass and aluminum cornices. West Façade (Primary) North Façade (Primary) South Façade (Primary) Category 1 Category 2 Brick/Glass (71%) Brick (88%) Brick (78%) Aluminum (29%) Spandrel glass/aluminum (12%) Spandrel glass/aluminum (22%) Requirement (Category 1 / 2) 70% / 30% 70% / 30% 70% / 30%

128 RZ (Staff Report) November 23, 2015 Page 5 East Façade (Primary) Brick/Glass (71%) Aluminum/Metal (29%) 70% / 30% 8. Canopy Design Standards The canopy covering the gasoline dispensers is to be constructed of brick columns with an aluminum cover and measures approximately 122 x 45. The canopy also has a decorative cornice and raised parapets on all four elevations. This meets the requirements found in Section of the UDO which requires gas station canopies and columns to be constructed of Category 1 or 2 materials that are similar to the principal building. 9. Staff Analysis: Staff would note that the proposed building does not meet all the design guidelines for Category D. The location of the building under the canopy will not permit the design and application of the composite building standards to the convenience store building. The required focal element and vertical articulation cannot be provided. The required design features are to be located on the building and not the canopy as the UDO provides separate design features for gasoline canopies. While the applicant has attempted to design the building and canopy as one unit to meet the composite building standards, the result is an unusual design not keeping with the building design, tower elements and features found in West Village. Newer convenience stores with gasoline canopies such as the Buzy Bee on Ridgeview and recently approved QuikTrip locations feature separate building and canopies which makes meeting all of the design guidelines on the building possible. The applicant has stated that the proposed design of the building and canopy is the corporate model that has worked at their other locations across the country. The customers also like the layout since they are completely covered from inclement weather when pumping gas and entering the store. The applicant has also stated that the building and canopy should be viewed as one structure since they are connected. 10. Staff Recommendation: A. Staff recommends denial of RZ for the following reasons: (1) The proposed building does not meet the Category D Composite Building Design standards by not having vertical articulation and a focal point element due to the canopy being located on top of the building.

129 PARKER PARKER TER TER MARION ST PRAIRIE ST N K7 HWY Olathe Maintenance Shop #2 RZ SPRUCE ST Æ «K-7 Olathe Fire, Stn 5 SPRUCE ST ACCESS RD De Soto?Ä Lenexa?Á?Á?Ä Lenexa!"`$ MARION ST %&e( Overland Park Feet Gardner!"`$ Io Overland Park Spring User: gradyrm Date: 11/18/2015 MURPHY EXPRESS RZ

130 4 User: gradyrm Date: 11/18/2015 MURPHY EXPRESS ZONING AMENDMENT 481 N K7 HWY RZ SITE PLAN

131 4 User: gradyrm Date: 11/18/2015 MURPHY EXPRESS ZONING AMENDMENT 481 N K7 HWY RZ GRADING PLAN

132 4 User: gradyrm Date: 11/18/2015 MURPHY EXPRESS ZONING AMENDMENT 481 N K7 HWY RZ STORMWATER PLAN

133 4 User: gradyrm Date: 11/18/2015 MURPHY EXPRESS ZONING AMENDMENT 481 N K7 HWY RZ UTILITY PLAN

134 4 User: gradyrm Date: 11/18/2015 MURPHY EXPRESS ZONING AMENDMENT 481 N K7 HWY RZ LANDSCAPE PLAN

135 4 User: gradyrm Date: 11/18/2015 MURPHY EXPRESS ZONING AMENDMENT 481 N K7 HWY RZ PHOTOMETRIC PLAN

136 4 User: gradyrm Date: 11/18/2015 MURPHY EXPRESS ZONING AMENDMENT 481 N K7 HWY RZ ELEVATIONS