AGENDA OF THE LENEXA PLANNING

Transcription

AGENDA
OF THE LENEXA PLANNING COMMISSION
LENEXA CITY HALL - 12350 W. 87TH STREET PARKWAY
LENEXA, KS 66215
AUGUST 26, 2013 @ 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF August 5, 2013
CONSENT AGENDA:
All matters listed within the Consent Agenda have been distributed to each member of the Planning
Commission for study. T hese items are considered to be routine and w ill be enac ted upon by one
motion with no s eparate discussion. I f separate discussion is desired on an i tem, from either the
Planning Commission or from the floor, that item may be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed
on the Regular Agenda.
1.
a.
Final Plan for Dunkin’ Donuts, located at 12075 West 87th Street Parkway, in the CP-2,
Planned Community Commercial Zoning District. PL 13-04 F
b.
Final Plat for Zarda BBQ-Lenexa, located at 12075 West 87th Street Parkway, in the CP-2,
Planned Community Commercial Zoning District. PT 13-12 F
2.
Revised Final Plat for Cottages of Cross Point Creek, 12th Plat, located at 8518 Barstow
Street, in the CC, Planned City Center Zoning District. PT 13-04FR
3.
Final Plat for Coca-Cola Lenexa, located at 9000 Marshall Drive, in the BP-2, Planned
Manufacturing Zoning District. PT 13-13 F
REGULAR AGENDA:
1.
a.
REQUESTED TO BE CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 – PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning for Mill Creek Village South, located at approximately the northeast corner of the
future Ridgeview Road and Highway K-10, from AG, Agricultural, RP-3, Planned Residential
(Medium-High Density) CP-2, Planning Community Commercial and BP-2, Planned
Manufacturing Zoning Districts to CP-3, Planned Regional Commercial Zoning District. RZ
13-05
b.
REQUESTED TO BE CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 - Companion Preliminary
Plan for Mill Creek Village South. PL 13-06 P
2.
Revised Concept Plan for City Center Lenexa, located at approximately the southwest corner
of 87th Street Parkway and Renner Boulevard, in the CC, Planned City Center Zoning District.
PL 13-01 CPR
3.
Preliminary Plan for The Domain at City Center, located at approximately the southwest
corner of 87th Street Parkway and Renner Boulevard, in the CC, Planned City Center Zoning
District. PL 13-07 P
4.
Staff Reports, informational.
ADJOURN
IF YOU NEED ANY ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THE MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT HUMAN
RESOURCES @ 913/477-7500. KANSAS RELAY SERVICE 800/766-3777.
PC Packet Page # 1
Report to the
Planning Commission
MEETING DATE:
August 26, 2013
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM: 1 a and b
PROJECT TITLE:
Dunkin’ Donuts
PROJECT # / REQUEST:
LOCATION:
PL 13-04 F & PT 13-12 F - Final Plan and Plat
12075 West 87th Street Parkway, in the CP-2, Planned Community
Commercial Zoning District
APPLICANT: Ryan Berendzen of Nolte &
Associates, P.A.
OWNER:
12075 West 87th Street, LLC
PROJECT HISTORY:
The site was improved when plans were approved in July 2000 to allow a parking lot expansion for
Zarda BBQ. The Preliminary Plan for this development was approved by the Governing Body on July
16, 2013.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATION FOR AREA:
Community Commercial Center – Commercial uses with a combined or total gross leasable area of
125,000 to 400,000 square feet serving a 3 to 6 mile radius. Uses often include general merchandise
and often have two or more anchor tenants.
VICINITY ZONING PATTERN:
North: CP-2, Planned Community
South: BP-2, Planned Manufacturing
Zoning District
East:
CP-2, Planned Community
West: CP-2, Planned Community
VICINITY LAND USE PATTERN:
North: Commercial Retail & Office: Quivira
Crossings & ANB Bank
South: Business Park: Thermo Fisher Scientific
East:
West:
Commercial Retail: Zarda BBQ
Restaurant
Commercial Retail: Lenexa Trails
Shopping Center
FINAL PLAN ANALYSIS:
The owner proposes to construct a 2,100 square foot building on the north 198.96 feet of the currently
unplatted tract west of the Zarda BBQ Restaurant. The remaining southern portion of the site,
approximately 101 feet in depth, is to be retained to address required parking for the Zarda BBQ
restaurant.
The building is to be occupied by “Dunkin Donuts”, a bakery and coffee shop. It is anticipated that the
store will employ approximately 25 part-time and one full-time worker. Expected hours of operation
are to be 5 am to 10 pm in the lobby and 24/7 for the drive-up window.
PC Packet Page # 2
SITE LAYOUT:
The access drive from 87th Street Parkway, shared cross access drives with the Zarda restaurant to
the east, as well as the parking stalls and through drive, located along the east side of the proposed
development are to remain as they currently exist. The new building is to be located on the west side
of the existing through access drive and a new double loaded drive aisle for 90 degree parking stalls
will be provided on the north side of the building. The parking lot will retain the existing setback from
87th Street Parkway as it is consistent with paving setbacks on a djacent properties to the east and
west. The drive aisle for this new lot will also serve as access to the queuing lane that will wrap the
west and south side of the building, providing access to the drive-up window located on the east side
of the building.
The applicant will be designating an area on the west end of the drive aisle to allow for a future cross
access drive with the property to the west. They have indicated that negotiations with this adjoining
property owner relative to participating in the cross access agreement have not been successful.
Until this cross access can be worked out the applicant is showing one stall at the west end of the lot
to be marked out and signed for “no-parking” to allow for vehicle maneuvering in the event that the lot
is fully occupied.
All parking and shared drives will be included in a shared parking and cross access agreement to be
entered into between Zarda BBQ and Dunkin Donuts.
Pedestrian links are provided from the primary customer entry door for the Dunkin Donuts building to
the Zarda BBQ property, the public sidewalk located along 87th Street right-of-way and to the required
pedestrian open space area located at the northwest corner of the building.
LANDSCAPE AND BUFFERS:
While the landscape area along 87th Street Parkway right-of-way is very limited, plans reflect planting
necessary to address the intended buffer function as well as provide an aesthetic value fitting for the
parkway environment. P erimeter planting around the balance of the site is in compliance with the
intent of the landscape regulations. S tormwater for the site will be t reated through the rain garden
located just south of the building, after which it will leave the site in the northwest corner where it ties
into the existing system.
ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY:
The building finish is to primarily consist of thin brick applied with appropriate corner pieces to appear
as full brick. T he field color is to be light tan brick and the soldier course accent bands, projecting
about a half inch, are to be a dark brown color. Storefront window and door framing and coping are
to be dark bronze. The awnings are also to be dark brown in color and should be of a matte or very
low sheen finish. E .F.I.S. accent bands are to extend approximately eight inches from the brick
façade and painted a slightly muted orange color. The E.F.I.S. finish is also to be a matte or very low
sheen. The roof mounted mechanical units will be partially screened by the extended parapet walls
of the building and supplemented with appended screens finished to match the light tan brick. The
emergency access ladder and wall mounted service lines and equipment are to be similarly painted
light tan.
PC Packet Page # 3
Building relief is provided with the monolith features utilized for the entry door and pick-up window.
The entry door is recessed into the base of the monolith to address the requirement for overhead
protection. The trash enclosure is to be finished in a manner consistent with the primary building.
SIGN PROGRAM:
The proposed contour letter sign style and dimensions comply with the Unified Development Code.
FINAL PLAN RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the Final Plan as described in the Analysis section of the report.
FINAL PLAT ANALYSIS:
The property is currently unplatted; with the addition of a new building is required to be platted. The
proposed plat complies with platting standards.
FINAL PLAT RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends APPROVAL of this Final Plat.
PC Packet Page # 4
Wx
SAN x
LOCATION MAP
SCALE 1" = 2000'
EX. CONC. CURB & GUTTER
'
12.75'
12'
OHPx
5'
39.00'
NEW CONC. WALK
'
TRASH ENCLOSURE
(RE: ARCH.)
12
SAWCUT EXTG. PAVEMENT
& REMOVE APPROX. 20 L.F.
CONC. CURB & GUTTER
OWNER/DEVELOPER (Dunkin' Donuts):
VK Investments, LLC,
35 Penny Meadow Road
Sudbury, MA 01776
NYLOPLAST
ST. INLET
PROJECT ARCHITECT:
Nolte and Associates, P.A.
Attn: Ryan Berendzen, AIA
9400 Reeds Road, Suite 210
Overland Park, Kansas 66207
Phone: 913-322-2444
Email: [email protected]
/
/
OHPx
OHPx
OHP x
OHPx
OHPx
OHPx
OHP x
/
DG
OHPx
OHPx
OHPx
PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER
PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER - DRY
SITE PLAN
DG
LOT 7
MERIDIAN HEIGHTS
12100 W 88th Street
(OWNER: MARTYS MONROVIA 88, LLC
ZONING: BP-2
DG
THERMO FISHER/REMEL SHIPPING
12076 Santa Fe Trail Drive
REMEL - 1st Plat
(OWNER: REMEL, INC.)
ZONING: BP-2
N
0
20'
SHEET
40'
OF
PC Packet Page # 5
C1
13-079
/
/
/
/
OHPx
/
OHPx
EXISTING CURB & GUTTER
4'
4'
OHPx
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
HATCH, AR-CONC, ANNOTATIVE, SCALE=0.05, LAYER=C-ROAD-WALK-PATT
CONC. CURB & GUTTER (TYP.)
14'
/
9'
CONCRETE PAVEMENT
/
9.50'
ASPHALT PAVEMENT
HATCH, ANSI-131, ANNOTATIVE, SCALE=0.5, LAYER=C-ROAD-PATT
HATCH, AR-CONC, ANNOTATIVE, SCALE=0.05, LAYER=C-ROAD-PATT
136.00'
19.00'
EXTG. 4 x 4 GRATE INLET
TOP EL. = 1061.05
INV. IN (W)(12" CMP)=1057.25
INV. OUT(N)(18" CMP)=1057.05
9.50'
9.00'
/
10.00'
EXTG. DUMPSTER
& ENCLOSURE
9
PAVEMENT LEGEND:
GI
PROJ. NUMBER:
OHPx
25.00'
25.50'
CONC. CURB & GUTTER
8
EXTG. ASPHALT
TO REMAIN
10.00'
7
STO x
STO x
CONCRETE
FLUME
7-24-13
S. 87°38'45" W. 150.05'
6
5'
R1
2'
5
NYLOPLAST
ST. INLET
DATE PREPARED:
15" HDPE ST. SEWER
OHPx
4' DIA. STORM
MANHOLE
INV. OUT=1056.63
INV. IN =1057.13
DESCRIPTION
MCINTYRE MANN
(RETAIL STRIP CENTER)
12101 W. 87th Street Parkway
ZONING CP-2
EXTG. ASPHALT
TO REMAIN
CONCRETE
FLUME
----
RAIN GARDEN
AREA
STO x
STO x
i:\PROJECTS\2013\13-079\3.0 design\3.0 DWG Plans\3.0 FDP\13-079 FDP SITE.dwg, Site Plan, 8/12/2013 9:10:22 AM, 1:1
OHPx
STO x
STO x
CONC. CURB & GUTTER (TYP.)
4
R1
5'
R1
5'
SCH
OHPx
R2
0
----
32.81'
STO x
STO x
0'
R2
18.00'
25.00'
ZARDA BBQ RESTAURANT
ZONING CP-2
(UNPLATTED)
3.6'
DUNKIN' DONUTS - LENEXA
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS
R5'
17.00'
12.00'
3
R3
'
OHP x
x
EXTG. ASPHALT
TO REMAIN
R2
0'
STO x
STO x
EXISTING
BOLLARDS (TYP)
CONC. CURB & GUTTER
. 243.77'
N.02°21'15"E
OHP
PEDESTRIAN
AMENITY AREA
10'
5'
PAINT STRIPED
CROSSWALK
LOT 6
MERIDIAN HEIGHTS
(OWNER: G & S Partnership)
** - Added stacking can be accommodated in drive lanes between
north parking areas without impacting access to public right-of-way.
NEW CONC. WALK
---12075 W. 87TH STREET PARKWAY--LENEXA, KANSAS 66215
R
6'
OHP x
OHPx
'
STO x
STO x
EXTG. 18" CMP
STORM SEWER
* - Shared parking agreement to be established between Dunkin' Donuts
lot and Zarda BBQ Lot. With future access to the adjacent west development,
the shared parking agreement shall be expanded to include G&S Partnership
Development Area.
H.C. PARKING
SIGNAGE (TYP.-2)
R1
0
39.00'
Drive Thru Stacking is indicated as such:
Drive-thru Stacking Requirements: 14 Cars
Drive-thru Stacking Provided: 12 Cars**
EXTG. 4 x 4
CURB INLET
26'±
8.00'
6.00'
8.00'
DG
R1
0
Restaurant Fast-Food: 1 stall/75 square feet.
2,100sq. ft./75 = 28 stalls - 28 Stalls Required
Proposed Parking: 29 Stalls (2 handicap-accessible stalls)*
25.00'
19.00'
x
STO
STO x
64.00'
Current Zoning: CP-2
Proposed Zoning: CP-2
Parking Required:
CI
5'
9.5'
9.5'
EXTG. 12" HDPE
ST. SEWER
ACCESS ESMT.
9'
25.00'
9'
9'
EXTG. ASPHALT
TO REMAIN
PAINT STRIPED
CROSSWALK
R3
'
T.
R6
'
FUTURE CROSS
ACCESS CONNECTION
EXTG. 15" RCP
Lot 2, Zarda BBQ - Lenexa, a subdivision in the City of Lenexa, Johnson
County, Kansas (pending final plat approval)
Current Use: Vacant
Proposed Use: Fast Food W/Drive Thru
EXTG. 4 x 4 NON-SETBACK
CURB INLET
TOP ELEV. =1065.16
INV. OUT (W) (15")=1057.46
INV. IN (S)(12")=1061.16
ACCESS ESMT.
25.00'
x
STO
STO x
ACCESS ESM
PAINT STRIPE END STALL
FOR "NO PARKING"
Wx
Wx
Wx
Proposed Legal Description: (Dunkin' Donuts Lot only)
Lot Area: 38,073 Square Feet (0.87 Ac.)
CI
FH
'
PAVEMENT
SAWCUT
64.00'
CONCRETE
FLUME
EXTG. 4 x 4 AREA INLET
TOP EL. = 1058.22
INV. IN (S)(18" CMP)=1054.87
INV. IN (E)(15" RCP)=1053.97
INV. OUT(W)(30" RCP)=1053.72
R1
5
19.00'
9'
9.5'
Wx
EXTG. RETAINING WALL
Wx
WV
Property Address:
Lenexa, Kansas, 66215
2
Wx
Wx
NEW CONC. W
WALK
x
34'± (EX. DRIVE)
35' ACCES ESMT.
Site Information:
1
Wx
(TYP.)
B & GUTTER
CONC. CUR
AI
Wx
GI
EXTG. CONC.
W xWALK
SAN x
SAN x
& GUTTER
13,531 S.F. (35.54%)
REVISION DATE
WV
22,442 S.F. (58.94%)
21,148 S.F. (55.55%)
JTS
EX. CONC. CURB
W
x
EXTG. CONC. WALK
S.02°22'00"E. 243.72'
SAN x
N. 87°39'59" E. 150.00'
Wx
SAN x
EXTG. CONC.
DRIVE APRON
16,925 S.F. (44.45%)
OPEN/LANDSCAPE AREA
Kansas State Certificates of Authority
#E-296 #LA-29 #LS-54
95TH STREET
SECTION 34-12-24
PAVEMENT/DRIVE AREA
WWW.SCHLAGELASSOCIATES.COM
SE 1/4
14920 West 107th Street Lenexa, Kansas 66215
(913) 492-5158 Fax: (913) 492-8400
Wx
R. 24
SW 1/4
PROPOSED
2,100 S.F. (5.52%)
DRAWN BY:
R. 24
N. LINE - NE 1/4 SEC. 34, TWP. 12,
NT
SA
38,073 SQ. FT. (0.87 AC)
EXISTING
0 S.F. (0.00%)
BUILDING AREA
CHECKED BY:
N. LINE - NE 1/4 SEC. 34, TWP. 12,
Street
87th
E
RIV
QUIVIRA ROAD
PFLUMM ROAD
Wx
SAN x
SAN x
EXTG. RAISED MEDIAN
R
ET
AF
NE 1/4
D
AIL
LOT AREA:
Engineers Planners Surveyors Landscape Architects
SITE DATA TABLE (LOT 2 ONLY)
PROJECT
LOCATION
NW 1/4
SCHLAGEL & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Wx
87TH STREET PARKWAY
2
106
Wx
Wx
Wx
Wx
Wx
Wx
Wx
15.
16.
CI
SAN x
SAN x
14.
Wx
Wx
Wx
Wx
WV
4
106
GI
W
x
WV
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
80 S.F. Bed
1060
17.
FH
AI
EAST PROPERTY LINE
PERIMETER PLANTINGS ALONG LOT LINES ADJACENT TO PARKING LOT
ADJACENT TO LOTS WITH SAME LAND USE/ZONING
BUFFER WIDTH REQUIRED = 10 FEET
BUFFER WIDTH PROVIDED = 5 FEET(PREVIOUS CONDITION)
CODE REQUIREMENT 1 SHADE, 9 SHRUBS
LOT FRONTAGE LENGTH(EXCLUDES DRIVES) = 175 FEET
LANDSCAPE REQUIRED 2 SHADE, 18 SHRUBS
LANDSCAPE PROVIDED 2 SHADE, 18 SHRUBS
NOTE:"SHRUBS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON WEST SIDE OF PARKING LOT
BECAUSE OF TOPOGRAPHY BETWEEN THE LOTS IS STEEP.
62
10
MONITORING WELL
x
STO
STO x
SOD
CI
SOD
1060
OHPx
x
STO
STO x
OHPx
106
6
60
10
106
8
SOD
Kansas State Certificates of Authority
#E-296 #LA-29 #LS-54
4.
WWW.SCHLAGELASSOCIATES.COM
3.
UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN IS DESIGNED LOCATION OR LOCATIONS BASED ON UTILITY LOCATES. AS BUILT LOCATIONS
MAY VARY. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO COMMENCING LANDSCAPE
INSTALLATION. NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY CONFLICTS OR OBSTRUCTIONS.
QUANTITIES INDICATED ON THE PLAN ARE FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLANT QUANTITIES
PRIOR TO PLANTING. NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. THE PLAN QUANTITIES AND NUMBER
OF SYMBOLS SHALL SUPERSEDED QUANTITIES IN THE SCHEDULE
ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF LENEXA STANDARDS AND ANSI A60.1 THE AMERICAN STANDARD
FOR NURSERY STOCK.
ALL TREES SHALL MEET THE SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LENEXA ORDINANCE. ALL TREES SHALL BE CALLIPERED AND
UNDERSIZED TREES SHALL BE REJECTED.
ALL SHRUBS TO BE UTILIZED FOR SCREENING SHALL BE 24" HEIGHT AT TIME OF PLANTING.
ALL PLANTING BEDS CONTAINING SHRUBS, GROUND COVER, PERENNIALS, ANNUALS SHALL BE IN A PLANTING BED WITH 3"
MIN. DEPTH OF MULCH AND A "V-CUT" EDGE.
ALL TREES SHALL HAVE A MIN. 3 FT. DIA. AREA THAT HAS 3" MIN. DEPTH OF WOOD MULCH.
TOPSOIL SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES IN DEPTH FOR TURF AREAS.
ALL SHRUB BEDS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES OF TOPSOIL.
ALL PLANTING PITS SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITH PLANTING SOIL. PLANTING PITS MAY NOT BE BACKFILLED WITH ROCK.
ALL ROCK AND DEBRIS FROM EXCAVATIONS IN PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE PLANTING AREAS.
ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE SODDED UNLESS INDICATED ON THE PLANS.
ANY DEVIATION FROM THE APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL REQUIRE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT AND THE CITY OF LENEXA, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND OWNER SHALL APPROVE GRADES AND CONDITION OF SITE PRIOR TO SODDING
OPERATIONS.
INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPING SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF LENEXA STANDARDS
ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED TO ALLOW A MINIMUM CLEARANCE BETWEEN PLANT AND ADJACENT PAVEMENT
OF 1 FT. FOR PERENNIALS AND GROUNDCOVER AND 1.5 FT. FOR SHRUBS. A 2 FT. CLEARANCE FOR CAR OVERHANG IS
REQUIRED AT ALL PARKING ISLANDS AND PERIMETERS.
AFTER COMPLETE INSTALLATION OF ALL PLANT MATERIAL AND SOD THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT THAT THE WORK IS COMPLETE AND READY FOR REVIEW. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL REVIEW THE
LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS. WHEN THE LANDSCAPE
INSTALLATION MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPROVED PLAN, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL PROVIDE A
SIGNED AND SEALED LETTER TO THE CITY STATING THAT ALL LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED PER THE
APPROVED PLAN.
14920 West 107th Street Lenexa, Kansas 66215
(913) 492-5158 Fax: (913) 492-8400
2.
Engineers Planners Surveyors Landscape Architects
NOTES:
1.
5.
6.
160 S.F. Bed
SCHLAGEL & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
NORTH PROPERTY LINE
PERIMETER PLANTINGS ALONG STREET FRONTAGES
ADJACENT TO PARKWAY
BUFFER WIDTH PROVIDED = 10 FEET(PREVIOUS CONDITION)
CODE REQUIREMENT 2 SHADE, 3 ORNAMENTAL, 25 SHRUBS, 200 SF BED PER 100 FEET
LOT FRONTAGE LENGTH(EXCLUDES DRIVE) = 114 FEET
LANDSCAPE REQUIRED 2 SHADE, 3 ORNAMENTAL, 29 SHRUBS(OR 75% SCREEN OF PARKING) , 228 SF BED
LANDSCAPE PROVIDED 3 SHADE, 2 ORNAMENTAL(LOCATED IN PARKING ISLAND BECAUSE OF SPACE LIMITS)38 SHRUBS(9 ADDITIONAL FOR STBK REDUCTION), 240 SF BED(ADDITIONAL FOR STBK REDUCTION)
SOD
SOD
DUNKIN' DONUTS - LENEXA
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS
0
106
OHPx
MONITORING WELL
STO x
STO x
EAST PROPERTY LINE
BUFFER WIDTH PROVIDED = 10 FEET
LOT FRONTAGE LENGTH(EXCLUDES DRIVES) = 233 FEET
NOTE: TREES PROPOSED ON OTHER SIDE OF DRIVE DUE TO ESMNTS
106
8
STO x
STO x
60
SOD
1062
10
66
OHPx
MONITORING WELL
STO x
STO x
OHPx
SOD
10
68
10
70
OHPx
STO x
STO x
SOD
OHPx
STO x
STO x
---12075 W. 87TH STREET PARKWAY--LENEXA, KANSAS 66215
10
10
64
OHP x
DG
OHPx
STO x
STO x
DESCRIPTION
2
106
X
8
106
X
106
4
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
EAST PROPERTY LINE
BUFFER WIDTH PROVIDED = 4 FEET(EXISTING CONDITION)
LOT FRONTAGE LENGTH= 150 FEET
NOTE: TREES PROPOSED ON OTHER SIDE OF DRIVE DUE TO ESMNTS
N
0
20'
SHEET
40'
OF
PC Packet Page # 6
L1
9
13-079
8
PROJ. NUMBER:
7
6
7-24-13
4
5
DATE PREPARED:
DG
SCH
DRAWN BY:
DG
----
----
OHP
OHPx
3
1070
2
OHP x
1
OHP x
1068
REVISION DATE
OHPx
JTS
OHPx
CHECKED BY:
OHPx
OHPx
OHPx
OHPx
X
DG
10
66
X
OHPx
X
SOD
OHP x
X
SOD
X
i:\PROJECTS\2013\13-079\3.0 design\3.0 DWG Plans\3.0 FDP\13-079 FDP LP.dwg, OVERALL, 8/12/2013 9:11:17 AM, 1:1
X
X
GI
PC Packet Page # 7
PC Packet Page # 8
PC Packet Page # 9
PC Packet Page # 10
Legal Description:
A tract of land lying within the Northeast One-Quarter of Section 34, Township12 South, Range 24 East, in the City of Lenexa, Johnson
County, Kansas, being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of the said Northeast One-Quarter; thence South 87 degrees 39 minutes 59 seconds West along the
North line of said Northeast One-Quarter a distance of 290.08 feet to a point; thence South 02 degrees 20 minutes 01 seconds East a
distance of 20.00 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 1, 87 QUIVIRA PLAZA, a subdivision in the City of Lenexa as recorded in Book 200901
at Page 002748, said point also being the Point of Beginning; thence South 02 degrees 14 minutes 04 seconds East along the Westerly line
of said Lot 1, a distance of 80.00 feet to a corner of said Lot 1; thence South 87 degrees 40 minutes 14 seconds West along a Northerly line
of said Lot 1, a distance of 59.95 feet to a corner of said Lot 1; thence South 02 degrees 11 minutes 54 seconds East along the West line of
said subdivision 87 QUIVIRA PLAZA, a distance of 210.05 feet to a point on the North line of Lot 1 as platted in REMEL 1ST PLAT, a
subdivision in the City of Lenexa as recorded in Book 201105 at Page 005014; thence South 87 degrees 42 minutes 48 seconds West along
said North line a distance of 309.29 feet to a point, said point being the Northwest corner of said REMEL 1ST PLAT, said point also being
the Southeast corner of Lot 6 as platted in MERIDIAN HEIGHTS, a subdivision in the City of Lenexa as recorded in Book 6 at Page 47;
thence North 02 degrees 21 minutes 15 seconds West along the East line of said Lot 6, a distance of 299.79 feet to a point on the South
right of way of 87th street as now established; thence North 87 degrees 39 minutes 59 seconds East along said right of way, a distance of
150.00 feet to a point on the South right of way of 87th street as now established; thence South 02 degrees 22 minutes 00 seconds East
along said right of way, a distance of 10.00 feet to a point on the South right of way of 87th street as now established; thence North 87
degrees 39 minutes 59 seconds East along said right of way, a distance of 219.98 feet to a point, said point being the Point of Beginning,
and containing 2.2056 acres, more or less.
DEDICATION:
The undersigned proprietor of the above described tract of land has caused the same to be subdivided in the manner shown on the accompanying
plat which hereafter shall be known as "ZARDA BBQ - LENEXA".
A perpetual easement of access over, under, across and upon the areas designated as "Access Easement" or "A/E" is also hereby reserved to all
owners and occupants of property, their guests and invitees, subject to the provisions of the of the Covenants and Restrictions as described hereon.
The streets and roads shown on this plat and not heretofore dedicated as thoroughfares are hereby dedicated to the City of Lenexa, Johnson County,
Kansas.
RESTRICTIONS:
The use of all Lots and Tracts of land in this subdivision shall hereafter be subject to the covenants and restrictions which will be filed at the office of
the Register of Deeds of Johnson County, Kansas and shall hereby become a part of the dedication of this plat as though fully set forth hereon.
Property is subject to a blanket easement granted to Kansas City Power & Light Company recorded December 15, 1950 in Book 48 Misc., Page 48
of Official Records.
This plat shall not be filed by the Register of Deeds unless filing is within 365 calendar days after the City of Lenexa Governing Body approval date,
inclusive.
CONSENT TO LEVY:
87TH STREET PARKWAY
The undersigned proprietor of the above described land hereby consents and agrees that the Board of County Commissioners of Johnson County,
Kansas, and the City of Lenexa, Johnson County, Kansas, shall have the power to release such land proposed to be dedicated for public use from
the lien and effect of any special assessments, and that the amount of the unpaid special assessments on such land dedicated shall become and
remain a lien on the remainder of this land fronting and abutting on such dedicated public way or thoroughfare.
NW1/4
NE1/4
34
SW1/4
NT
SA
AF
ET
IL
RA
SE1/4
DR
.
QUIVIRA ROAD
PFLUMM ROAD
PROJECT
LOCATION
APPROVALS:
Approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Lenexa, Johnson County, Kansas, this ___ day of ____________, 2013.
Don Oppliger, Chairman
Approved by the Governing Body of the City of Lenexa, Johnson County, Kansas, this _____ day of _________, 2013.
95TH STREET
Michael A. Boehm, Mayor
SECTION 34-12-24
David Bryant, City Clerk
LOCATION MAP
SCALE 1" = 2000'
EXECUTION:
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, Steve Zarda, President of ZARDA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC, has caused this instrument to
be executed this ______ day of ____________, 2013.
ZARDA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.
Steve Zarda
I:\PROJECTS\2013\13-079\2.0 Survey\3.0 Plat\13-079F.dwg, Plat-24x36, 8/9/2013 11:04:34 AM, 1:1
ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
Be It remembered, that on this _____ day of ________________, 2013, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said
County and State came Steve Zarda, President of ZARDA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., a limited liability company organized
under the laws of the State of Kansas, known to me to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument of writing on behalf
of said Company, and such persons duly acknowledged the execution of same to be the act and deed of said company.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal on the day and year last above written.
My Commission Expires:_________________
LEGEND:
A/E
BL or B.L.
D/E
ROW or R/W
W/E
N
SurveyPropertyCornerSymbols
0
30'
60'
-
ACCESS EASEMENT
BUILDING LINE
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
RIGHT-OF-WAY
WATERLINE EASEMENT
FOUND 1/2" REBAR
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
FOUND MONUMENT
SET 1/2" REBAR W/LS-54 CAP
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
EXISTING LOT AND PROPERTY LINES
EXISTING PLAT AND R/W LINES
I HEREBY CERTIFY THIS PLAT WAS
PREPARED UNDER MY DIRECT
SUPERVISION IS BASED ON A FIELD
SURVEY PERFORMED ON 05-28-2013 AND
THE DETAILS SHOWN ARE TRUE AND
CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.
Y
AR
N
LS-1268
MI
EL
PR
I
David A. Rinne - Land Surveyor
KS# LS-1268
REV. 1: 8-9-13
PC Packet Page # 11
Report to the
Planning Commission
MEETING DATE:
August 26, 2013
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM: 2
PROJECT TITLE:
Cottages of Cross Point Creek, 12th Plat
LOCATION:
PT 13-04 FR
8518 Barstow Street, in the CC, Planned City Center Zoning District
APPLICANT: Paul Gibson of Tom French
Construction, Inc.
OWNER:
Tom French Construction, Inc.
PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Preliminary Plan for apartments, townhomes/condominiums and single-family lots was approved
in July 2006, and included the construction of 310 apartment units in 13, 3-story buildings, 113
condominium units and 29 small-lot, single-family homes.
The first plat for Lenexa City Center – North Village was approved in February 2007 and included
three lots with a total of 31 single-family homes. Since then, Final Plats have been approved in order
to record a legal description and thus sell the individual cottages.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATION FOR AREA:
development allowing for greater density in an urban environment.
North: RP-1, Planned Residential (LowDensity) Zoning District
South: CC, Planned City Center Zoning District
East:
CC, Planned City Center Zoning District
West: R-1, Residential Single-Family Zoning
District
City Center, mixed-use urban
North:
Suburban residential - Estates of
Parkhurst subdivision
South:
City Center - North Village
East:
City Center - North Village
Place of Worship - Lenexa Christian
West:
Center
REVISED FINAL PLAT ANAYLYSIS:
The applicant is requesting approval of a partial replat to Lenexa City Center – North Village. Only a
small area around the footprint of the unit is to be sold, with the remaining area to be maintained by
the Homes Association. In order to sell the individual units and be able to record a legal description
for the individual unit with the County, the re-platting process is necessary. The proposed plat
complies with platting standards.
REVISED FINAL PLAT RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends APPROVAL of this Revised Final Plat.
PC Packet Page # 12
PC Packet Page # 13
Report to the
Planning Commission
MEETING DATE:
August 26, 2013
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM: 3
PROJECT TITLE:
Coca-Cola Lenexa
LOCATION:
PT 13-13 F
9000 Marshall Drive, in the BP-2, Planned Manufacturing Zoning District
APPLICANT: Evan Haake of Coca Cola
OWNER:
Coca Cola Refreshments USA
The building was built in 1967 to accommodate a furniture store. Coca-Cola Bottling Company has
been at this site since 1975. O ver the years Coca-Cola has grown, with their latest expansion in
2012 to construct additional parking and a walking trail.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATION FOR AREA: Business Park - developments
providing space for light assembly and manufacturing, or warehousing and distribution. Settings may
range from campus-like to single-use buildings.
North: BP-2, Planned Manufacturing Zoning
District
South: CP-3, Planned Regional Commercial
and BP-1, Planned Business Park
Zoning District
East:
BP-2, Planned Manufacturing Zoning
District
West: BP-2, Planned Manufacturing Zoning
District
North:
Business Park – Meridian Heights, singletenant buildings
South: Regional Commercial Center – Teague
Electric
East:
West:
Business Park - Interstate Brands
Corporation
Business Park – Merriam Material
FINAL PLAT ANALYSIS:
This application is the platting of three separate tracts into one lot. The proposed plat complies with
platting standards.
FINAL PLAT RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends APPROVAL of this Final Plat.
PC Packet Page # 14
PC Packet Page # 15
Report to the
Planning Commission
MEETING DATE:
August 26, 2013
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM: 1 a and b – PUBLIC HEARING
CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 6, 2013
PROJECT TITLE:
Mill Creek Village South
RZ 13-05 & PL 13-06 P – Rezoning and Preliminary Plan
LOCATION: Approximately the northeast corner of the future Ridgeview Road and Highway K-10,
from AG, Agricultural, RP-3, Planned Residential (Medium-High Density) CP-2,
Planning Community Commercial and BP-2, Planned Manufacturing Zoning Districts to
CP-3, Planned Regional Commercial Zoning District
APPLICANT AND OWNER:
Mike Christie of Prairie Partners, LLC
The applicant is requesting these items be continued. The applicant and staff are each allowed one
continuance by right. Because this is the third continuance requested it must be approved by a vote
of the Planning Commission.
PC Packet Page # 16
Report to the
Planning Commission
MEETING DATE:
August 26, 2013
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM: 2
PROJECT TITLE:
City Center Lenexa
PL 13-01 CPR – Revised Concept Plan
LOCATION: Approximately the southwest corner of 87th Street Parkway and R enner Boulevard, in
the CC, Planned City Center Zoning District
APPLICANT: Henry Klover of Klover Architects
OWNER:
City Center Lenexa, LLC
The concept of creating a city center was first imagined as part of Vision 2020. Since then the City
Center Core land use designation and Planned City Center zoning district have been created. The
first concept plan for Lenexa City Center was adopted in 2003. M ultiple revisions have been
approved since that time, most recently in October of 2012 to incorporate the construction of
Perceptive Software’s world headquarters.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATION FOR AREA: The Comprehensive Plan designates
this area as City Center and describes the envisioned land uses as being a uni que mixed-use
development in the geographic center of Lenexa. Development should consist of greater intensity or
density with public open spaces and pedestrian-friendly streets with a mix of employment, shopping,
entertainment, office, retail, residential, recreation, and civic uses.
North: CC, Planned City Center Zoning
District
South: CP-O, Planned General Office
Zoning District
East:
RP-4, Planned Residential (High
Density) & CC, Planned City Center
Zoning Districts
West: RP-1, Planned Residential (LowDensity) & CC, Planned City Center
Zoning Districts
North:
Mixed Use – City Center North Village
currently existing as multi- and singlefamily dwellings
South: Office/Employment Center – developed
as Lifetime Fitness Center
East:
Mixed Use – City Center East office and
retail & High Density Residential – The
Trails apartments
West:
Suburban Residential – developing as a
golf course with single-family residences
CONCEPT PLAN ANALYSIS:
The master developer for Lenexa City Center is requesting the following amendments to the
approved Concept Plan:
• Modify the area of Penrose Lane south of 87th Place to allow for the development of a multifamily project in an area currently shown to develop with office and/or retail uses (Area G);
PC Packet Page # 17
•
•
•
•
Modify the location of City Center Drive to terminate at the proposed multi-family project rather
than between this project and a future building for Perceptive Software (between Areas C & D);
Slight modifications to the street layout in the middle and western portions of the overall area
based on the new multi-family use and proposed shift of City Center Drive (Among Areas C, D,
G & J);
Modifications to the building and p arking layouts based on proposed changes to the street
layout (Areas C & D); and
Slight modifications to the building, parking and water feature layout in the northeast corner of
the site (Area A).
The following table provides a g eneral overview of how the mixing of uses would change if the
proposed Concept Plan is approved:
Retail/Restaurant
Office
Civic
Residential
Hotel
Total
City Center Square Footages
Original Approved
Previously
Plan (2008)
Approved Plan
436,910
435,800
674,850
1,101,362
198,883
80,000
505,538
104,922
169,590
135,840
(170 keys)
1,958,771
1,857,924
Proposed
Plan
459,300
980,362
198,883
363,170
58,000
2,059,715
The stated purpose of the City Center zoning district is to accommodate mixed-use development in
an urban environment of detailed, high quality architecture, community oriented open spaces, and
pedestrian friendly streets. T he amended Concept Plan continues to meet the purpose of the City
Center district, and reintroduces a s trong residential component in this quadrant of the overall City
Center zoning district.
The amended Concept Plan does not specify building heights. T he City Center zoning district
specifies minimum and maximum building heights ranging from 20 feet for residential to 110 feet for
mixed use and office buildings. H aving multi-story buildings along City Center Drive and bo th the
eastbound and westbound lanes of 87th Street Parkway will continue to be important in fulfilling the
overall concept of City Center. As development continues to occur, a m ix of multi-story buildings
should be built throughout the entire City Center development.
SITE LAYOUT:
Area A, located on the immediate corner of 87th Street Parkway and Renner Boulevard, is expected
to be a g ateway to the City Center development. A s such, it is anticipated that a water feature, or
other public gathering space, will be developed at this intersection. In addition to the public gathering
space, there will be room for development most likely consisting of restaurants or retail. The revised
Concept Plan shows the structures being pulled closer to Renner Boulevard, as well as the
intersection itself, which will provide for a better streetscape along that frontage. While an additional
ring of parking is shown, actual approval of this layout is not being granted as part of this revised
Concept Plan. The layout of this area will continue to evolve as specific developments are proposed.
While Area A is “in the middle” of the City Center zoning district, it is on the periphery of the Lenexa
PC Packet Page # 18
City Center development, thus it will continue to be i mportant to ensure that all areas are not only
walkable but also provide an attractive and comfortable pedestrian experience. As currently laid out,
a parking lot/structure is shown to separate the building on Area A from the remainder of the Lenexa
City Center development.
City Center Drive is shown to include a tree-lined median. In visiting several similar mixed use
developments, staff found large medians used as meaningful public spaces, both as a gathering area
with walkways and landscaping and for small kiosk-retail uses. For these reasons, staff anticipates
developing City Center Drive with a pu blic space dividing the travel lanes. S uch an area could
potentially be 50 -foot in width or more. The currently proposed revised Concept Plan does not
incorporate such a w ide “median” in City Center Drive, as such further study of this issue should
occur with future revised Concept Plans.
There are other slight discrepancies between the previously approved Concept Plan and what is
being proposed. T he differences primarily relate to how buildings line the streets. Within the City
Center design guidelines, items such as street enclosure and character, orientation to the street, and
screening of parking structures are specifically addressed and will continue to be carefully reviewed
with each Preliminary and Final Plan.
Area D includes the potential for additional building square footage along Hampton Street in an area
previously shown to include a g reater amount of surface parking adjacent to the street. S taff is
encouraged by the possibility of a stronger streetscape along Hampton Street due to the fact that it
will provide a g reater pedestrian experience, as opposed to walking on a s idewalk with surface
parking on both sides of the street.
On-street parking continues to be proposed along most streets. The area of greatest change is near
the city’s civic center where the layout continues to evolve. 87 th Place, between the civic center and
multi-family component is shown to provide access to two parking garages, one for the civic center
and one for the multi-family component. This block, while having a great many pedestrians due to the
provision of parking, will not have the same streetscape as other streets based on the lack of
buildings with publically accessible ground floor uses. R ather than providing an a menity zone
between the street and the sidewalk, green space is shown to be provided adjacent to the structures.
The width of the sidewalks will be similar to those provided elsewhere in the development based on
the anticipated high level of pedestrian activity.
No new landscape or buffer details were submitted as part of this revised Concept Plan. With each
Preliminary Plan submittal, detailed landscape and buffer plans will be r equired. T he City Center
Design Guidelines provide recommendations regarding street trees, public open spaces, parking lot
landscaping and screening, and the screening of service areas.
No new architectural renderings were submitted as part of the revised Concept Plan, therefore, it is
anticipated that the architecture proposed with previous Concept Plans will continue to apply. With
each Preliminary Plan submittal, items such as massing and articulation, ground level details,
weather protection, transparency, treating of blank walls, variations in building design, design of
upper floors and roofs, materials and colors, and rooftop screening will be evaluated.
PC Packet Page # 19
SIGN PROGRAM:
No new sign information was submitted as part of this revised Concept Plan. With each Final Plan
submittal, a detailed sign plan will be r equired. The City Center design guidelines provide
recommendations regarding the use of pedestrian scale signage, integrating signage into the
architecture of the buildings, and the use of creative and artistic elements in the signage.
CONCEPT PLAN RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the revised Concept Plan with the following stipulations:
1. Future Preliminary and Final Plans shall comply with the City Center zoning district and design
guidelines;
2. City Center Drive will be developed with a public space as discussed in the Analysis section of
this report; and
3. Building frontage similar to what is shown on the revised Concept Plan shall be constructed
along the west side of Hampton Street.
PC Packet Page # 20
PC Packet Page # 21
12,000 sf
12,000 sf
renner boulevard
M
ast
te
e
tre
hs
87t
retail/rest.
7,000 sf
retail/rest.
7,000 sf
retail
community center
J
16,000 sf
10,000 sf
A
C
8,500 sf
retail
auditorium
13,500 sf
scarborough st.
32,000 sf
5,000 sf
L
penrose lane
K
12,000 sf
6,000 sf
elmridge road
00
9,3
e
de
G
c
ity
c
0
nt
ia
l
f
13
,0
0
11,80
0 sf
f
0s
40
14,
0s
80
10,
e
riv
rd
e
nt
office
above
retail/rest.
6,500 sf
city center drive
sf
1
re
si
f
0s
,00
20
civic
park
retail/rest.
6,500 sf
hotel
D
E
sf
OFFICE
13,0
00
4
sf
office/retail
20,000 sf
89th street
OFFICE
3
OFFICE 2
F
OFFICE 1
office
winchester st.
87th street west
perceptive software
headquarters
RETAIL / RESTAURANT
RETAIL / REST. OR OFFICE
RETAIL / REST. oR RESIDENTIAL
OFFICE
CIVIC
HOTEL
RESIDENTIAL
FITNESS CENTER
PARKING STRUCTURE
90th street
*Square footage in plan depicts floorplate square footage
except for Lots K & L
P
lifetime fitness
91st street
CO NC EPT PL AN
CITY CE N TE R L E NE X A
N
50’ 100’
200’
400’
LENEXA, KANSAS
PC Packet
Page
# 2013
22
12012.001
- 21 AUG
Report to the
Planning Commission
MEETING DATE:
August 26, 2013
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM: 3
PROJECT TITLE:
The Domain at City Center
LOCATION:
PL 13-07 P - Preliminary Plan
Approximately the southwest corner of 87th Street Parkway and Renner Boulevard,
in the CC, Planned City Center Zoning District
APPLICANT: Nichole Anderson of NSPJ Architects
OWNER:
Domain Partners LLC
On October 2, 2012 a revised Concept Plan was approved for the overall City Center Development.
Changes were primarily concentrated at the southeast corner of the development site encompassing
an area that was described with Preliminary Plans for Perceptive Software and a 20,000 square foot
retail building. In conjunction with this Preliminary Plan, additional revisions to the Concept Plan are
being considered.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATION FOR AREA: The Comprehensive Plan designates
this area as City Center and describes the envisioned land uses as being a uni que mixed-use
development in the geographic center of Lenexa. Development should consist of greater intensity or
density with public open spaces and pedestrian-friendly streets with a mix of employment, shopping,
entertainment, office, retail, residential, recreation, and civic uses.
North: CC, Planned City Center Zoning
District
South: CP-O, Planned General Office Zoning
District
East:
CC, Planned City Center Zoning
District
West: RP-1, Planned Residential (LowDensity) Zoning District
North:
Mixed Use – future civic center
South:
East:
West:
Mixed Use – future building for
Perceptive Software
Mixed Use – future development of City
Center
Single-Family – Single-Family
Residential and Golf Club of Kansas
PRELIMINARY PLAN ANALYSIS:
The Domain at City Center is a 203 unit luxury apartment building to be located at the western limits
of the City Center Development on the southwest corner of 88th Street and Penrose Lane. Initial
discussions with the applicant included the possibility of non-residential uses on the ground floor.
While staff would like to see a n on-residential use, such as a coffee shop or dry cleaner, on the
ground floor of this multi-family block, there continues to be many opportunities for such nonresidential uses to be located in close proximity, such as across Penrose Lane.
PC Packet Page # 23
The following tables provide a breakdown of unit types and proposed parking:
Units
Efficiency Units
1-Bedroom Units
2-Bedroom Units
29
75
99
Parking
Surface/on-street
Parking Structure
Overall Parking Provided
51
306
357
The City Center zoning district property development regulations call for on-street parking and
structured parking for higher intensity areas. The mixing of land uses may provide opportunities for
shared parking thereby reducing the total number of parking stalls commonly required. D etails
regarding parking requirements are to be included with the development plan and shall be sufficient
to meet the parking demands of the proposed land use.
Parking in the garage has been provided at a ratio to adequately meet the demands of the proposed
multi-family development. All parking for guests is being provided on-street, allowing the developer to
maintain a higher level of security within the garage while defining a clear separation between guest
and resident parking.
This project is scheduled to break ground in the early part of spring 2014. The first phase will open
within 15 m onths of breaking ground, with final completion expected to be approximately 18 t o 20
months after the initial groundbreaking.
SITE LAYOUT:
The main elevation of the four-story building fronts Penrose Lane and wraps around three sides of a
four-story (plus roof parking) garage. The main elevation includes the entry to the clubhouse which
aligns with City Center Drive. Access to the parking garage is provided from 88th Street (north side
of the building). The main pedestrian access to the building is provided from Penrose Lane, through
the clubhouse entry. The entry portico projects out from the adjacent building façade.
Consistent with the City Center Neighborhood Design Standards and Guidelines, the development is
required to capture and treat the 1.37” water quality storm volume in onsite BMP facilities. T he
applicant is proposing to meet these requirements through the use of one rain garden in the
northwest portion of the site, and two mechanical / proprietary treatment devices located along the
east side of the property just prior to tying into the public system.
A trash compactor will be fully enclosed within the garage and service access is to be provided from
88th Street by a separate drive on the west side of the access drive for the parking structure.
The applicant intends to design the landscape to enhance the architectural finish of the building, while
also defining and providing character to the numerous outdoor spaces. Outdoor spaces include an
interior amenity courtyard for the residents, “front yard” spaces for ground level walk-up units, an
entry plaza in front of the clubhouse, a public green space as a part of the Penrose streetscape, and
an additional public green space which includes a rain garden as its central feature. Public amenities
such as sidewalks, benches, litter receptacles, and bike racks are also to be provided to enhance the
experience and functionality of the public spaces. Enlarged plans and details for these open space
PC Packet Page # 24
areas will need to be included with Final Plan submittal along with cut sheets for all proposed
furnishings.
The applicant describes the general architectural theme as “urbane contemporary”. P lans comply
with the City Center Design Standards and Guidelines. T he design is intended to complement the
building architecture established by the Perceptive Software buildings currently under construction.
The exterior finish of the buildings is to consist of brick, stone, and s tucco with cast stone and
decorative cornices and trim. The buildings are designed to coordinate with the mixed-use of City
Center while retaining a very upscale residential quality.
In order to create an appealing and pedestrian-friendly enclosure to the street the City Center Design
Standards and Guidelines include requirements for at least 75% of the building frontage on mixed use
streets to conform to an approved building line between 0 and 15 feet. The guidelines do not include
approved public open space areas in the percentage calculation. Along 88th Terrace the
development exceeds the requirements for percentage of building constructed within the build-to
range. Along Penrose Lane, 88th Street, and Winchester Street the building façade steps back or is
pushed to provide open space. Some of the stepping back is due to the presence of an underground
mine. With the provision of these open spaces Penrose Lane and Winchester Street comply with the
percentage of building constructed within the build-to range. T he applicant has explained that the
convex curvature of 88th Street and the provision of angled on-street parking, the property line bisects
the on-street parking spaces, are factors making it difficult to comply with the build-to guideline. The
distance between the outside edge of the sidewalk and t he building is approximately 20 f eet. For
these reasons and the fact that landscaping consisting of trees and shrubs is proposed adjacent to
the building, staff is supportive of the proposed layout.
Low fences with operable gates (details to be included with Final Plan) are proposed to provide a
visual and physical separation of the private entry space from the adjacent public streets and
walkways.
The façades of the building have a defined base at the ground level, center (2 middle stories) and top.
Select locations along the top story of the building are set back 4 t o 5 f eet from the façade of the
lower levels creating a larger balcony for the fourth floor units. Brick is used on the lower three floors
of the building. S tucco is used for the fourth floor material, further emphasizing the building “top”.
Bay windows are used to break up the horizontal massing of building.
The applicant describes the parking garage as being designed using a layering effect of the materials
in order to provide a more human scale at the first floor level and to add visual interest to the overall
façade. The brick elements are carried through three of the four stories and stop short of the ends of
the garage allowing for the stucco/concrete layer to read as one continuous plane beyond. Louvered
canopies have been added to both the first floor and upper level of the garage to add more relief to
the façade. Mesh/metal screens have been applied in a vertical fashion towards the center of the
elevation breaking up the horizontal nature of the garage. Staff is in general agreement with the
basic design scheme for the garage; however, with the Final Plan submittal a few additional design
details will be necessary. Like the recently approved parking structure in City Center East, the design
of the façade will need to address the screening of the vehicle headlights. In addition, a design detail
needs to be ad ded to visually divide the horizontal openings of the middle and upper floors into
vertical segments, similar to the screen configuration on the first floor, thereby reinforcing the window
PC Packet Page # 25
pattern of the apartment building. Lastly, additional detail is needed with the Final Plan submittal to
ensure the design of the carport proposed for the top level of the parking structure is appropriately
integrated into the overall architectural scheme.
SIGN PROGRAM:
Plans currently suggest the placement of a monument sign at the northeast corner of the building site.
The applicant has indicated that additional signage information will be included with the application for
Final Plan review.
PRELIMINARY PLAN RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the Preliminary Plan as described in the Analysis section of the
report.
PC Packet Page # 26
PC Packet Page # 27
PC Packet Page # 28
PC Packet Page # 29
PC Packet Page # 30
PC Packet Page # 31
PC Packet Page # 32
PC Packet Page # 33
PC Packet Page # 34
PC Packet Page # 35
PC Packet Page # 36
PC Packet Page # 37
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
08-05-2013
Page 1
PLANNING COMMISSION
LENEXA, KANSAS
MONDAY, AUGUST 5, 2013 - 7:00 P.M.
Chairman Don Oppliger called the regular meeting of the Lenexa Planning Commission to order at
7:00 p.m. on Monday, August 5, 2013. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Lenexa
City Hall at 12350 W. 87th Street Parkway, Lenexa, Kansas.
Roll call was taken with the following members present:
Commissioner Katterhenry
Commissioner King
Commissioner Burch
Commissioner Poss
Vice-Chairman Grunewald
Chairman Oppliger
The following members were absent:
Commissioner Horine
Commissioner Reichmeier
Commissioner Hoffman
Staff members attending were:
Beccy Yocham, Director of Community Development
Tim Green, Deputy Director of Community Development
Magi Tilton, Development Review Administrator
Tim Collins, Engineering Construction Services Administrator
Rick Hauber, Planner III
Karen Gable, Planner III
Keith Whiteford, Assistant City Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
July 1, 2013
The minutes of the July 1, 2013 meeting were presented for approval. H earing no changes
corrections to the minutes of the regular meeting, Chairman Oppliger entertained a motion
APPROVE the minutes as written. M oved by Commissioner Katterhenry, seconded
Commissioner Burch, and APPROVED by a m ajority voice vote. (6-aye, 0-nay, 0-abstained,
absent)
or
to
by
3-
CONSENT AGENDA:
1.
Preliminary Plat for Canyon Creek Highlands, located at approximately 98th Street and
Clare Road, in the R-1, Residential Single Family Zoning District. PT 13-01 P
2.
Final Plat for Canyon Creek by the Lake, 4th Plat, located at approximately Canyon Creek
Boulevard and Pickering Street, in the RP-1, Planned Residential (Low-Density) Zoning
District. PT 13-08 F
3.
Final Plat for Falcon Plaza, 5th Plat, located at approximately 101st Street and Woodland
Road, in the CP-O, Planned General Office and CP-1, Planned Neighborhood
PC Packet Page # 38
08-05-2013
Page 2
Commercial Zoning Districts. PT 13-09 F
4.
a.
Final Plan for Mansions at Canyon Creek, 2nd Plat, located at approximately Prairie Star
Parkway and M ize Boulevard, in the RP-3, Planned Residential (Medium-High-Density)
Zoning District. PL 13-03 F
b.
Final Plat for Mansions at Canyon Creek, 2nd Plat, located at approximately Prairie Star
Parkway and M ize Boulevard, in the RP-3, Planned Residential (Medium-High-Density)
Zoning District. PT 13-10 F
5.
Final Plat for CEVA, located at 8901 Rosehill Road, in the BP-2, Planned Manufacturing
Zoning District. PT 13-11 F
MOTION:
Chairman Oppliger entertained a motion to APPROVE Consent Agenda Item Numbers 1 t hru 5.
Moved by Commissioner Grunewald, seconded by Commissioner Katterhenry, and carried by a
majority voice vote (6-aye, 0-nay, 0-abstained, 3-absent)
END OF CONSENT AGENDA
REGULAR AGENDA:
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. a. CONTINUED TO AUGUST 26, 2013 – PUBLIC HEARING - Rezoning for Mill Creek
Village South, located at approximately the northeast corner of the future Ridgeview Road
and Highway K-10, from AG, Agricultural, RP-3, Planned Residential (Medium-High
Density) CP-2, Planning Community Commercial and BP-2, Planned Manufacturing Zoning
Districts to CP-3, Planned Regional Commercial Zoning District. RZ 13-05
b. CONTINUED TO AUGUST 26, 2013 - Companion Preliminary Plan for Mill Creek Village
South. PL 13-06 P
Staff requested that these items be continued to the August 26, 2013 Planning Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING:
2.
CONTINUED FROM JULY 1, 2013 – Special Use Permit for Suburban Lawn & Garden, to
allow large wind energy conservation system (wind turbine) at an overall maximum height
of 105 feet, located at 9160 Hedge Lane. SU 13-08
APPLICANT PRESENTATION:
Jeff Skidmore of Schlagel Associates addressed the Commission on behalf of Suburban Lawn and
Garden. He stated Matt Stueck of Suburban is with him this evening as well as Gerry Sposato, COO
and Vice President of Argosy Wind Power. Suburban received final plan development approval in
March 2011. He presented the exhibit of the approved plan which he stated had the wind turbine on
it at that point in time. T his is a s mall piece of a 28 acre development. They are requesting a
permanent special use permit to allow the wind turbine. Mr. Skidmore presented another exhibit of
the plan showing the placement of the wind turbine as it would currently sit, if approved. Originally, it
was placed at the southeast corner of the building. T hey have now shifted the wind turbine
approximately 450 foot east of the original location. The original location was approximately 600 feet
PC Packet Page # 39
08-05-2013
Page 3
from the residential properties to the west and i t is now 1,001 feet to the closest point of any
residential property. It will be 78 foot hub height, 27 foot radius for a total overall height of 105 feet.
Included in the packet was the sound information as well as the footprint information as prepared by
Argosy Wind Power. They are committed to the sound data as submitted. The wind turbine will be
built to those sound standards and equipment information. T hey have held two neighborhood
meetings. A item that came up is infrasound, which are noise waves below the threshold of human
hearing. There are studies for both pro and against in terms of wind turbines. All of the studies that
they have seen are in relationship to large mega-watt facilities, 250-300 foot structures, 65-75 foot
blades, wind farm type facilities. They are not installing a wind farm facility; they are bringing this
down to a local level, commercial level to serve just this one facility, a 28 ac re facility. There have
been questions regarding the impact of migratory birds and bi rd patterns. H e spoke with David
Binder of the Department of Wildlife and Parks in Kansas and explained the situation. The State of
Kansas has not had issues with any of the current wind farms; again, most of the studies are related
to large wind farms. He was told they do not have jurisdiction over this wind turbine, they defer to
the local jurisdiction which is the city government, Lenexa. I n this instance they felt that 100 feet
would be below any migratory paths or below the threshold impact of any migratory birds. Ice throw
was an additional concern; which is very difficult to predict. They literally have a glass house within
500 feet of where the wind turbine is proposed. In icing conditions it is a situation where they will
shut it down. There will not be an issue with that. The will have the hoop houses adjacent to the
turbine. That won’t be an i ssue as the owners are committed to shutting the turbine down and not
having it function until the icy conditions no longer exist. Mr. Skidmore stated they are here to
answer any questions the Commission may have and would be happy to respond to the public as
well.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Administrator Tilton addressed the Commission. She stated she will keep staff comments short as
Mr. Skidmore gave a t horough presentation. S he does however, what to go over a few points
relative to the criteria by which the Special Use Permits are evaluated. The recently adopted
Comprehensive Plan update strongly encourages the incorporation of sustainable and energy
efficient development practices. The proposed wind turbine is shown to be located east of the row of
hoop houses on the southern part of the site, approximately 945 feet from the west property line.
The overall height from grad to the tip of a blade of 105 feet (three blades will be 54 feet in diameter
and height of the pole, including the hub height is 78 feet). Wind turbines that comply with the
maximum height regulation for the specific zoning district in which they are proposed to be installed
are considered a small wind energy conservation system and thus allowed an accessory use. The
proposed wind turbine exceeds the maximum height allowed in the CP-2 zoning district (45 feet),
thus it is considered a l arge WECS and requires a S UP. O ver the past several years, the
surrounding area has progressed from primarily rural residential and agricultural uses to more
suburban development with a mix of residential and office type uses. Staff has spoken with several
property owners to the west regarding concerns such as noise, both decibel and infrasound levels,
shadow flicker, ice throw, migratory patterns of birds and bats, property values and U L listings.
Within the context of the report, staff acknowledged and responded to those issues that seemed to
be most significant. All of the concerns were forwarded to the applicant.
With respect to noise, the proximity of the interstate and arterial streets, the ambient noise levels
currently experienced by the neighboring residential development should not be increased with the
operation of the wind turbine. Staff measured the noise levels at the subject property using a decibel
meter. M easurements taken on t he suburban Lawn and G arden property, roughly at the original
location of the proposed wind turbine farther to the west that what is now proposed, were between
PC Packet Page # 40
08-05-2013
Page 4
50dB to almost 70dB. A dditional measurements were taken standing on the sidewalk on t he east
side of Dunraven Street. These measurements ranged from less than 50 dB to the upper 60’s dB.
For comparison: a human whisper is around 30 dB, normal conversation ranges between 60-70 dB,
city traffic and farm tractors often are at the 90 dB level and motorcycles and appl ause in a l arge
auditorium get into the 95 dB range.
Staff spoke with an acoustics consultant to better understand the concerns relative to noise
produced by wind turbines. They reviewed the information provided by the wind turbine
manufacturer and it is their opinion that the measured noise levels for the proposed wind turbine in
the infrasound range are no higher than other sound frequencies and thus are not likely to be
perceived at adjacent property lines.
With respect to shadow flicker, some of the factors impacting the likelihood of flicker to occur include
the sun’s altitude, the sun must be relatively low, sun’s position, the sun must be behind the tower,
presence of sun vs. a cloudy or overcast day, and presence of adequate wind to turn the blades.
There are few developed areas of the city where there is adequate space for truly functional wind
generation equipment to be utilized. Staff believes this location is appropriate for a wind turbine of
the requested height and size.
Suburban Lawn and Garden has indicated their intention to comply with all supplementary use
requirements for large wind turbines, including but not limited to lighting, noise and vibration, as well
as applicable fire and building codes and ordinances. They also understand that nay code issues
will need to be fully addressed with application for building permit.
The application is compliant with all of the supplementary regulations for large WECS and s taff
recommends approval of the permanent SUP to allow one large wind energy conservation system at
an overall maximum height of 105 feet with the stipulation that utility connections from the wind
turbine shall be underground and if electrical transformers are required to be above-ground they
shall be screened in accordance with the requirements for other similar site features.
PUBLIC HEARING: Chairman Oppliger opened the public hearing.
Leslie Davis of 23508 W 93rd Street addressed the Commission. She stated she is about two houses
over from the property line. She asked if studies for sound had been done.
Administrator Tilton replied that staff asked a consultant to look at the information provided for the
wind turbine and to provide staff with their opinion.
Ms. Davis stated they had not heard anything about that and whether it be wind farms or single wind
turbines is that they continue to have concerns about infrasound. A s she described infrasound
typically under normal hearing range you can feel that sound much like if you plugged your ears and
a car with loud music is going by you can still feel the bass. That is a major concern to disrupting
sleep; there are a lot of health issues related to that. The World Health Organization commented on
wind turbines and making farms and single turbines, they said it is a reasonable possibility that
public health could be damaged and should be taken without awaiting further scientific proof. She
thinks it is premature until we understand more about the infrasound that this turbine could put off.
The other concern is simply the unsightliness of it. Staff at one point called it iconic, they call it
monstrous. They think it could affect or make property values decline.
PC Packet Page # 41
08-05-2013
Page 5
rd
Retired Captain Abraham Kyle of 23509 W 93 Street addressed the Commission. Where his home
is he would see those turbines going day and night and that will take him to flashbacks; constantly
back over to Afghanistan and Iraq. I t is going to be very detrimental to his health. H e is already
walking on one prosthetic leg; he does not want to lose the rest of his health to a wind turbine. He
has two young children in the house and three dogs. The dogs will have to hear the sound
constantly. That will cause them to whine all day and night and he does not want to get calls from
his HOA complaining about his dogs yelping and whining because of the wind turbine. They are not
taking into effect the accountability of the animals in the neighborhood, let alone personal health.
Susie Marsh of 8923 Meadow View Drive addressed the Commission. She stated she is the closest
house to K-7 and Suburban. She asked if the dogs can hear it; they said humans can’t hear it. The
dog whistle has a sound the dogs hear. She had a question for who is representing Suburban. She
turned to Matt Stueck and s tated she can see it is obvious to everyone how Suburban Lawn and
Garden is going to benefit from this wind turbine. All the neighbors in the residential area are not
going to benefit from it. She thought maybe Suburban Lawn and Garden can give them some free
trees. All the trees there are supposed to buffer the sound for whoever lives there, Suburban can
give them coupons for some free trees and they can come plant them as well. She thinks that would
be great and that would help with a lot of things. Otherwise, she stated, they don’t benefit. It does
not matter what they say here, because it is obvious that they are going to go through with it. That
would be one thing…..
Chairman Oppliger asked Ms. Marsh to please direct her questions/comments to the Chair.
She stated that is all she had.
Bill Davis of 23508 W 93rd Street addressed the Commission. He stated Ms. Marsh raised the issue
that this is all for Suburban Lawn and Garden. There is nothing for anybody else; it is not anything
for the residents, other than the iconic nature, the icon, to help the paid staff over in Lenexa. What
we really got is that these guys want an icon that says, “We are the greenest here”. We really don’t
know much about this wind turbine, we don’t know if it is energy efficient or not. We have existing
power plants that we already paid for that provides electricity. By the time they build it and ship it
over here are they really saving any energy, he i s not sure that they are. What you are going to
have is an icon. Only the icon is going to be right in their front yards and they were there first and
they are a pretty nice neighborhood. They thought they were getting a nursery like Martin City, now
all they have done for years is move a bunch of dirt around, rip out the trees, which created a sound
buffer from K-7. He continued, now they want to erect this tower. T hey really have not done
anything except put up a couple of pole barns and now they want a giant wind turbine. They think it
is hunky-dory here at the Planning Commission. Suburban says it will increase their property value,
at the expense of the home owner property values. He does not think enough is known about this
thing and the long term effects it may have. He thinks that needs to be considered. This group says
it falls within the codes, weren’t they just re-written to allow this thing, they were never allowed
before, the city just re-wrote them.
Sam Kear of 23622 W 93rd Terrace addressed the Commission. He is concerned this will have a
negative impact on the overall property values. He does not want a wind turbine that goes up in a
neighborhood that is very quiet. T his could have multiple possibilities for noise and vibration. He
stated, there are a lot of unknowns that have not been explained to his satisfaction. They mentioned
the noise study, he is curious if they were done in the evening when everyone is sleeping. Currently,
it is a very quiet neighborhood in the evening and the wind turbine will be going 24/7 and when the
traffic dies down when they are sleeping the wind turbine could be kicking up all night long. It would
PC Packet Page # 42
08-05-2013
Page 6
have a negative impact on the whole neighborhood.
Mary Ellen Grant of 23433 W 90th Street addressed the Commission. She stated her concern
happens to be property values, as well. If she saw on the part of Suburban, some kind of indication
that they were going to make the property attractive, if anyone has driven by the last couple of years
it has really tanked as far as the appearance from when the previous nursery was there. She has
called herself to have the city ask Suburban to mow the grass at the corner of Dunraven. She said
she does not have a lot of confidence in Suburban complying with the code as mentioned by one of
the staff members.
Jeremy Johnson of 9317 Kenton Street addressed the Commission. He stated they have lived there
for seven years. From their advantage they can see both the subject property and al l the way to
downtown Kansas City, Missouri on a clear night. He would welcome Suburban to the neighborhood
as his wife loves gardening. Tonight he is requesting the Commission deny the special use permit
for a wind turbine. Please note that some of his fellow neighbors came better prepared, they have
had a chance to look at the studies available. He stated the benefits would be to Suburban and the
City as being an i conic image, other benefits really are nil. T he residents are not going to see
anything, unlike cell phone towers which provide a signal or sirens for tornado’s for warnings; they
are not going to get anything from this turbine. As far as cost, he is not sure the benefits have been
weighed. The health and well-being needs to be thought of, he is sure the risk is not as bad as a
chemical risks, fires or smoking, but it needs to be considered. There is a lot of uncertainty, there
might be risks associated to turbines and their effect on the community. He wanted to point out the
noise issues that the neighbors pointed out, he does not know if the studies were done at night. K-7
is not heavily traveled at night. They can hear things quite well at night. He does not know if that
has been taken into consideration and how well it will be heard. Another big concern is how it will
affect their property values. He is concerned with the shadow flicker and property values. He
conceded that he took a risk when he moved there with development across the property, a wind
turbine was not a part of that in his decision making. He said they appreciate Suburban talking with
them and their time and energy put into it, but they were given promises that if there were concerns
they could shut it off at certain times. That is fine and dandy but it is a business and he does not
guarantee that they can cash in on that, there is not anything put in writing. What do they do in case
there is a problem? Do they call them up or file a legal claim. He stated these are his thoughts and
opinions and hopes the Commission gives fair thought in making their decision.
Nathan Van De Voorde of 23702 W 88th Street addressed the Commission. He stated he would like
the Commission to consider the potential for loss of human life. H e said we have heard the
assurance that as a business owner Suburban Lawn and Garden would absolutely turn off the wind
turbine if ice were to become a situation where due to loss of property damage of their own that they
might consider shutting off that turbine. He asked them to consider who is making that decision.
Karl Rutzmoser of 23505 W 93rd Street addressed the Commission. He stated he would like to
thank Suburban for meeting with them and apologized as he did not make the second meeting. He
agrees with all the other neighbors with their concerns, but there is the possibility of interference that
the wind turbine could have on cell phone use and TV reception. He stated he and his wife have
chosen not to go with cable and they do not have a land line, they use cell phones. A lot of people
only use cell phones and i f the cell phone has interference from the turbine and there is an
emergency that is going to be a real problem. That is a health issue. There are a lot of concerns
here and he applauds them for wanting to conserve energy and g o green. He thinks it is a g reat
idea; he does not like the idea that you have to make concessions for them to go up as high as they
want.
PC Packet Page # 43
08-05-2013
Page 7
Brian Stenstrom of 9300 Sunray Drive addressed the Commission. He did not attend the previous
meetings. He has not heard anyone ask for an explanation as to why this is actually needed. We
are talking about a nursery here. We are not talking about a manufacturing facility or an office
complex or hospital or anything else that has a large draw of power. To him, just to echo what other
people have said, this is clearly to him, just a m arketing deal to be able to say that they are the
greenest company out there, look at our wind turbine. F rom his knowledge they are completely
unreliable; if the wind does not blow you are not making power. From what he understands there
are also a lot of maintenance issues with them. How much time will this actually be making power?
It is just going to be an eye sore for the neighborhood.
Ed Wiseman of 9327 Kenton Street addressed the Commission. He stated he is in 100% agreement
with the neighbors to deny this request. He has been an engineer for 35 years, he has installed
these is Texas and West Virginia. S ingle ones and multiple ones. H e has not seen the sound
studies. He thinks more consideration needs to be taken. He does not want free trees. There is a
reason he moved there, to be in a ranch level house to retire. This is his last house before his kids
put him in a home. He did not move there to have a 105 foot tower put there. There are reasons to
have codes and regulations and have a governing body. He sees no sense in this happening that is
why there are codes and regulations for residential and surrounding areas. He thinks this should be
denied.
Robert Anderson of 9323 Kenton Street addressed the Commission. He stated he has some
information to distribute to the Commission. He stated he has been doing a lot of research and there
is so much out there about what is going on with these wind turbines. He submitted an example of 9
pages of information. He would like to read to the Commission. Wind developers acknowledged
that their project will emit at least 45 decibels of sound at least a half-mile away. They commonly
adopt an approach to noise assessment that leads to the conclusions that background sound levels
are around 45 dB A, wind sound will make turbine noise, and total noise impacts will be insignificant
for nearly everyone within one mile of a wind farm project. E ach of these conclusions relies on a
novel approach to acoustics and cannot be sustained on professional grounds. T owns that have
permitted wind farms based on t his approach find that subsequent operations generate a l evel of
complaints that a developer’s model was unable to predict. This is the consequence of flawed and
biased modeling methods. Most communities doing their homework have concluded that in order to
protect residents from chronic noise, sleeplessness, and the adverse health impacts that result from
sleeplessness, setbacks need to be more than one mile from homes and noise need to be limited to
no more than 6 dB A above the existing background level. T hese are the resources towns are
relying on.
Chairman Oppliger asked so they can make a comparison, what size of turbine is this referring to.
Mr. Anderson stated it lists several pages of townships.
Chairman Oppliger asked about the wind turbine that is being referred to, the size.
Mr. Anderson stated it is not referring to one in particular, there are larger ones that can be 400 feet
tall, all these will submit similar sound, he believes one was mentioned is talking about a 45 dB A
level and the noise level of the one proposed is in the 50-55 dB A range, so it is actually higher than
the ones he research are speaking of. He does not know if anyone has done any research on wind
turbine noise. H e stated he has sent dozens of e-mail information to the Planning Director. T he
nine pages are due to complaints in the community that have had wind turbines. P eople have
PC Packet Page # 44
08-05-2013
Page 8
complained about noise, sleeplessness, headaches, etc. If you look at the diagram it talks about the
different types of noise that comes from the turbine blades. There are different types of sounds that
come from these. It talks about low frequency sound. Low frequency sounds will penetrate walls
and windows. There are vibrations and pressure changes. Those are the ones that have the dB A
readings that are below 20 hertz. Let alone the ones that are in the 50-55 dB A range that they are
speaking of, usually at a minimum wind speed, usually at an average wind speed. There is a lot of
information available. The next is a study done by a medical doctor, Nona Pierpont, on wind turbine
syndrome and effects on the brain. This was text from the keynote address, the First International
Symposium on the Global Wind Industry and Adverse Health Effects. It says the latest research of
the abstract shows that low frequency sounds directly stimulate the inner ear with physiologic
responses of both cochlea and otolith organs. Low frequency sounds still sends signals to the brain.
The physiologic response of the cochlea’s to turbine noise is also a t rigger for tinnitus, which is
ringing in the ears. Physiologic responses and signal from the otolith in the ear, organs are known to
generate a w ide range of brain responses, including dizziness and nausea, seasickness without
movement, fear and a lerting wakefulness and difficulties with visually based problem solving. H e
stated this has been proven conclusively. It goes on to say that population levels surveyed in Maine
now shows clear disturbances of sleep and mental well-being out to 1400 meters, which is 4600 feet
from turbines and the diminishing effects can travel out to up to three miles. Many communities are
recommending a s etback of at least 1.2 miles, at least a mile from homes because of these
problems. T hey are widespread. People are complaining of these problems being woken up,
headaches, ringing in the ears, nausea, if turbines are close to people. T he next thing is the city
code of the Health Nuisances, Section 3-5-I-3, and the next is Article 3-5-C. This one clearly states
that, “Any structure or property which is unfit for human use or habitation, or which is detrimental to
the public health, safety and welfare” is a publ ic nuisance. We have a violation of the Nuisance
Code and perhaps even a violation of the Noise Code of the dB A levels. Article 3-9-E…..
Chairman Oppliger relayed to Mr. Anderson the Commission is familiar with the ordinances and
have used them in the past when considering applications. He stated they are used appropriately on
Special Use Permits. He thanked him for pointing them out.
Mr. Anderson stated he did not know if it applies here. Some of these studies show what he has
been trying to express how widespread these problems are across the United States where the wind
turbines have gone up in communities and then they realize it has caused problems. He would ask
the permit be denied and look into it closer before it gets installed. He asked for an explanation of
the decibel levels and explain the acceptable levels will affect the community.
Candise Bailey of 9313 Kenton Street addressed the Commission. She stated most of them that are
at the meeting have lived in the area for about seven years and moved there because they liked the
area. They were not upset when the hospital was built or the church was built. They really were not
upset when Suburban came because there had been a tree farm previously. They are concerned
about health issues and the property values. Her extra concern is the company that is going to be
doing this, Argosy, what she understands; they have only been in business for one year. The people
that are in the company have been in other wind farm businesses, but, this particular business has
only been in existence for a year or two. Her concern is how responsible they are going to be to
Suburban and to the residents. She does not want it any more than anybody else does.
Aaron Falk of 8804 Sunray Drive addressed the Commission. There are a couple of things that
nobody has talked about being fires and oil. There is probably oil in turbines and his concern is it
throws off oil and it catch on fire and jump across the road and burn some houses. There is a fire
station close by but at the beginning of this year he awoke at 4:00 am to leave for work and there
PC Packet Page # 45
08-05-2013
Page 9
was a big fire across from the fire station. No fire trucks were there. He raced up there and a cop
just pulled up and no fire trucks. The barn was pretty much gone and when he got on K-10 the fire
trucks were coming down from 87th Street, probably from another call; that could be a hazard. He
stated there is a turbine on I-435 and he never sees it running. That is a concern. What if it does
not work after installed and it will just deteriorate.
Hearing no further comments from the public, Chairman Oppliger entertained a motion to CLOSE
the public hearing. M oved by Commissioner Grunewald, seconded by Commissioner Poss, and
carried by a majority voice vote. (6-aye, 0-nay, 0-abstained, 3-absent)
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Chairman Oppliger stated that the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City
Council. The City Council is the approving body, the Commission does not approve it, and they take
the technical data and make the black and white decision for recommendation. The City Council at
their meeting, whatever comes out of this meeting, is on August 20. This is the only public hearing
that will be hel d. The Commission appreciates the comments and i nformation, they will ask
questions here, that is why he asked the questions to be directed to him and the experts will come
forward and you will get some answers. You may not like the answers; however, the Commission
needs the answers to make an informed decision. They have the experts that they must depend
upon to draw their conclusion so that a recommendation can be made to the City Council for them to
make the final decision. He asked Mr. Fricke to give the Commission an interpretation of his letter
that was included in the packet. H e also stated that the Huber Construction Company on 43 5 @
Roe has a rather bizarre looking box that twirls around every once in a while. He too has wondered
about it and asked Mr. Huber about it. It is a wind turbine and was installed to show that they are in
the wind turbine business, if you want one they can construct and install it. It is not active and as far
as he k nows, it does not even develop any power. I t just twirls around. T his is a m ore serious
device. He then asked Mr. Fricke to tell the Commission about infrasound.
John Fricke from Coffeen Fricke & Associates, Inc. addressed the Commission. He stated it is
another word for low-low frequencies. It seems to be a friendly word that people have developed.
He presented a c hart that helps to explain about infrasound. H e stated it begins with the human
hearing, the ear is sensitive to all kinds of frequencies. Standardly reporting 20 hertz or 20 cycles
per second to 20,000 hertz until we start damaging our hearing. We really don’t say much about the
below 20 hertz or the infrasound as people are now calling it. They previously divided these bands
of audio into the high frequencies down to about 2,000 hertz, mid frequencies to about 200 hertz and
low frequencies to 20. The graph indicates that while we are sensitive and can understand or feel or
know about sounds that are happening in those lower frequencies the government has chosen to
pretty much ignore it and is why some of the early curves stop at 20 hertz. The purpose of the curve
is to show what our hearing inflects; we do not hear or are not sensitive to all frequencies. What is
happening to the curves on the chart, are someone’s idea over many years, an idea of the sensitivity
we have to the hearing. In the chart across the bottom are the frequencies, 10, 100, 1,000…those
are frequency cycles per second. Going up the side of the chart is amplitude or volume. T he
volume graph shows that there is a little wiggling going on w ith the high frequencies. Generally,
through the 1,000 hertz part of the band. T here are equal contours and i f they follow the same
sound he explained our sensitivity of hearing. Which means at 1,000 hertz if we are talking 40
phons per, and you raised the frequency, our sensitivity or the amplitude of sound necessary to
create the same effect is much higher. In this particular case, 40 @ 1,000 increases all the way to
100 dB A of noise required to perceive it as the same. So while we are sensitive to it, it has to be
louder than all get out to feel it. If you continue with the curve is what could be a natural
PC Packet Page # 46
08-05-2013
Page 10
progression, it would be really, really, loud before you even know that noise is happening in those
low frequencies.
Chairman Oppliger asked if Mr. Fricke was familiar with the studies where the humans are upset
with the infrasound.
Mr. Fricke stated he has a s tudy that he observed from the National Council of Acoustical
Consultants at one of their conferences and evaluated a lot of this. Low frequency noise, some of
the conclusions out of it were that most of the problems from infrasound perception and other things
had to do with the earlier versions of the wind turbines. Y ou will find 1.5 megawatt is a pr etty
standard sized turbine used all around the country. The one proposed is only 50 kilowatt that is
about 1/30 of the power generating size. It is quieter. He presented an analysis of this particular
wind turbine done in a laboratory condition. It shows the amplitude allowed at frequencies did. It
shows at the high end the noises in the black drop off, there is not a lot of real high frequency stuff
there. There is not much sound to pick up. The noise drops off pretty rapidly on the low end. The
red areas mean the noise from the turbine is buried inside the ambient noise.
Chairman Oppliger asked if Mr. Fricke sees any health issues, for instance the employees of this
commercial operation.
Mr. Fricke stated in his opinion no, it would be more hazard with a truck driving by. He stated he
could not certify medical cases but he believes this is a l ightweight version. H e looked over the
Internet and in most cases it is the large ones the studies are on where the negative is being
reported. The big ones did have more low frequency noise to them. The new ones are streamlined.
Chairman Oppliger asked if there is any cell phone interference or satellite interference from wind
turbines.
Mr. Fricke replied the simple answer is no, the frequency of revolution or rotation of this unit is about
68 hertz. T here is nothing to suggest that there is any emission of high frequency elements any
more than a fan in your home.
Chairman Oppliger asked about this size of the turbine.
Mr. Skidmore presented a graphic to give the Commission a reference scale. By the city ordinance
this is a l arge scale wind turbine. In the realm of the world of wind turbines, this is not a l arge
turbine. This is a 55 k ilowatt turbine; the graphic presented compared the difference in size. The
proposed turbine is a on the very, very low end of the graphic.
Chairman Oppliger asked about ice throw.
Mr. Skidmore stated that is a very difficult one. It depends on pelt size, it depends on where it is
released, at what speed the blades are going, what the resistance is, and the shape of the structure,
etc. The Massachusetts Department of Health and environment gave them a very simple formula. It
is 1.5 times the blade diameter plus the height. It roughly gives them 200 feet for this structure. It is
a simplified method; it would roughly throw ice in a 200 foot radius. This would be within the realm
of their property. Again, they have a commitment from the owner in icy conditions; they will not use
it and can’t use it. It would have a huge effect on their facility, they have eight hoop houses located
directly adjacent to the turbine and a bit beyond that will be the glass house and it would not stand
for ice throw conditions.
PC Packet Page # 47
08-05-2013
Page 11
Chairman Oppliger stated that would also go for the fire issue, it would be on their own property. He
would assume in the winter that the usage would probably drop off as compared to the seasonal
sales. Maybe it would not be in use.
Mr. Skidmore stated it could be used 12 months of the year. They do have cut back hours in those
situations though.
Commissioner Grunewald asked for an explanation regarding the term of the special use, typically
there are term limits on a special use.
Director Yocham stated that when a use comes to the Commission for a s horter period of time it
corresponds to limits that are set out in the code or to a lease term. The longer length ones are
typically where the property is owned by the applicant. The regulations that were adopted with wind
turbines did not set any term lengths for the special use permit. The request is for a permanent
special use permit, the property is owned by the applicant and this is a significant investment and
staff is comfortable recommending a permanent term, with the understanding that goes with every
special use permit is that if they are not operating this in compliance with an approval or in
compliance with the supplementary use regulations or any other code of the city, staff always has
the opportunity to go through a revocation process. With that in mind, staff is comfortable that the
enforcement or revocation process is enough protection to recommend a permanent special use
permit.
Commissioner Grunewald asked if this were determined to be a nuisance or a threat it probably
would not be permitted to be used at all.
Director Yocham stated if it constituted a nuisance in addition to just the special use permit
revocation process there would be both public and private remedies. The neighbors could sue
Suburban or the city could if it were a public nuisance.
Commissioner Grunewald asked what the permissible sound levels are for day and night.
Administrator Tilton stated they are 60 dB A for the hours from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm and drops to 55
dB A from 7:00 pm to 7:00 am, as measured from anywhere off the property.
Commissioner Grunewald stated he would like to hear why this type and size of turbine and how it
will be used and why it is going in.
Mr. Skidmore stated most of the smaller ones are for smaller facilities such as residential use. They
have a 40,000 square foot greenhouse and it does not have air conditioning, it won’t have a big
electrical load. 50 kilowatt is about right and is a good fit. This turbine is available in 30 foot pole
heights and several additional heights including higher than what is being proposed. The fit came
about between all parties and based on current loads and what has been done in other facilities, this
will help offset the electrical. It will not offset all of it, it will still be metered. When this is running,
functional and producing there won’t be as much of a demand from KCPL.
Commissioner Grunewald asked if they knew how much it would reduce the utility need.
Mr. Skidmore stated that is a hard one, Mr. Sposato may be able to comment on that. It obviously
will depend on w ind load and speed for what is produced. D uring the year there will be t he high
PC Packet Page # 48
08-05-2013
Page 12
wind months and will produce much more than some of the lower months.
Commissioner Grunewald stated concerns were expressed about the construction not going as
quickly as anticipated. He asked what is the commitment to actually follow through on it and using it
and when would it be installed, when will everything happen.
Mr. Skidmore stated over the last few years progress has been made, they are currently in for site
development permits. The soil shed building on the north piece should be started within the next 30
days or so. The storm sewers, rain gardens, infrastructure below grade will be installed, the parking
lots and pavement. The next piece is the building itself; the building comes from Belgium and is
ready to be shipped. They are working with a l ocal architect to get it permitted. This piece, the
turbine will come with the building package to be incorporated with the overall project, when the
electric is getting installed to the building. They are hoping late this year or early next year.
Commissioner Katterhenry stated one of the issues was light flicker and it really has not been talked
about much. He would like a little more information.
Mr. Skidmore stated there was a map included in the packet. The owners have engaged Argosy
Wind Energy and brought them on board. He presented an exhibit explaining Shadow Flicker. He
stated the red area is what could possibly receive approximately less than 30 hours of flicker a year.
That is not an hour a day for 30 days; it may be 10 minutes a day, depending on the sun. This map
represents a worst case scenario. With the sun coming up in the southwest with the turbine facing
the southwest and g etting the full exposure of the sun during that time. T hat would be the worst
case scenario, again northeast/northwest mornings and evenings. That may be broken into 10
minutes a day for 45 days, depending on the timeframe. Argosy produced this with their software.
The grey area is less than 10 hours of flicker a year. There are some areas to the west that would
be in that window. We have a commitment from Suburban that if that is an issue or if it becomes an
issue, they will agree to turn the turbine off until 9:00 am in the morning during the month of October
that the sun gets to a high enough elevation that the flicker is not an issue.
Commissioner Katterhenry asked if there is an issue, if this is approved, how the process will come
about. Does it entail a complaint?
Mr. Skidmore stated in the neighborhood meeting, Matt Stueck, the owner, asked them to contact
him. If he is not able to be contacted, there is a nuisance process that can be filed with the city. Mr.
Skidmore stated they can be or dered to make it stop. M att Stueck has asked that if there is an
issue, that they come to him first.
Commissioner Katterhenry he k nows that the larger ones can put out a s ound and he i s trying to
wrap his hands around this.
Mr. Skidmore stated that all wind turbines are not created equal. This one is a direct drive; there are
no gears in this one. It is manufactured as a quiet wind turbine. Again, part of the last 30 days was
to research the studies and i nformation that they received from Argosy, has been i ncluded in the
packet. B efore that they were not in any of the packets; they did not have that sound data, they
were not committed at that time. With Argosy, they have a commitment; they understand that the
Commission will be approving the sound levels submitted in this packet. They are committed to that.
Commissioner Katterhenry asked if they have put the same unit up in other places and how has the
reaction been?
PC Packet Page # 49
08-05-2013
Page 13
Mr. Sposato addressed the Commission. He stated they have put the installations up in Europe and
have them around animals and livestock without any problems. In Scotland and the UK there are a
lot of them and sound is very much an issue and they have to be very careful on putting the turbine
too close to a house. They have not had any force backs on any that they have put in or any sound
issues. He stated they are all the same size, they may be on shorter or taller towers but the blades
themselves are the same size. The only variation is the height of the tower.
Commissioner Katterhenry asked how far they are from the houses.
Mr. Sposato stated in Scotland or Europe the closest they can go is 280 meters which is about 850
feet.
Commissioner Katterhenry stated it would be comparable to this location.
Mr. Sposato stated there was another exhibit in the packet that shows different sound levels at
different wind speeds. The average wind speed at the site is 14.99 mph as dictated by the three tier
wind program analysis. At that mph you will see a 25-30 dB A rating up to 606 feet. Anything over
606 feet will be less of a dB A rating. If we increase the wind speed to 33.5 mph then the 30-35 dB
A read goes up t o a l ittle over 1100 feet away from the source. Again, as it goes past 1100 feet
sound does decrease. The sound testing is done by TUV of Scotland; they are one of four in the
world allowed to do this type of sound testing. It is a private company who did a full wind study over
a number of days on turbines. This was done by day and night.
Commissioner Burch asked for clarification on the different heights and the blade sizes and noise
levels.
Mr. Sposato replied the sound itself will not change based on the height of the tower. W hat you
have with sound is the generator itself and the turbine blades that are attached to it. T he tower
height is changed to offset a number of variables. I t depends on the number of structures in the
area being houses, trees that they have to go up over a certain area to be effective wind turbines. In
some cases the higher up you get a better wind or higher wind so you get a better output of the
generator itself. In this case 78 feet was chosen to adhere to the request of the city to keep it under
a certain height limit. The sound itself is based on the diameter of the rudder itself the design of the
blades and the generator being used.
Commissioner Burch asked if there were plans to put any signage on the turbine.
Mr. Sposato stated the only thing on there now is the Argosy name.
Director Yocham stated code would not permit signage on the turbine.
Commissioner Burch asked if any wind studies had been done to determine what percent of the time
would it be going at 15 mph versus the 30 mph.
Mr. Sposato stated the 15 mph is the average wind speed here in Lenexa at that site. It does not tell
them if it will be 50% of the time or what. There will be lower days and higher days; there will be
days where it will not run at all because there is no wind. T here will be days where it runs faster
because there is more wind. It all works out to 15 mph average. There will be certain months that
have a higher and lower percentage. They cannot predict up time or down time versus average as
PC Packet Page # 50
information is not that precise.
08-05-2013
Page 14
Commissioner Burch asked if there are studies regarding property values, is there factual data that
says a wind turbine is going to affect these property values.
Mr. Sposato stated there are no studies that he has.
Commissioner King asked if the speed of the blade is the wind speed being referred to.
Mr. Sposato stated the generator is set up to run between 0 and 68 rpm’s. As the wind increases
the rpm will increase but the rpm will never go above 68 rpm’s. It is controllable from a variable
frequency product that they have inside the control system. They put torque against speed, so what
they are doing is putting an electrical load on the amount of energy they are producing. The wind
can go 50 mph and the turbine will only go 68 rpm’s. They can program less rpm’s into the turbine
as well to make it only to 50 rpm or 55 rpm. It depends on what the individual site requirements call
for.
Commissioner King asked what the best estimate is for the blade speed.
Mr. Sposato stated the blade speed is going to be 0-68 rpm’s. That is the rating of this turbine, it will
never go over 68 rpm’s.
Commissioner King stated some blades go over 100 mph.
Mr. Sposato replied there are some turbines that generate 100-125 rpm’s, yes, it is the design.
Commissioner King stated this is likely a larger tower.
Mr. Sposato stated you could have smaller blades, smaller turbines with higher rpm speeds. You
could have turbines that use a gear box and induction motor that require higher rpm’s that generate
power. They are a permanent magnet, direct drive system, as soon as the wind starts to turn they
start turning the blades and start making energy. That is why they are a low speed system. They
are not mid-range or high speed. They do not use a gear box or induction motor so they can run at
lower speeds and still make power where other turbines have to run higher speeds. They prefer not
to do that, it is not their design to do that.
Commissioner King asked Mr. Skidmore why this location over some of the other Suburban
locations.
Mr. Skidmore stated the big part of it is the new development. With the city guidelines they are
reclaiming the rainwater, a g reen piece of it. I t is easy to bring this in as a par t of the new
development, as a piece of this development. I t is a g reen piece, it is important to the owner to
portray that green development. Again, they are recycling the rain water, they are adhering to the
BMP requirements for rain gardens, there are several vegetated channels, and there is a pond along
the east side that is being incorporated to reclaim the rain water. This is just another piece of the
puzzle.
Commissioner Poss stated most of his questions have been answered. H e asked if the noise is
coming from the tips of the blade at the top or is it coming from the center of the unit where it is
generating electricity or is it a combination of all and is the sound going out, down or up.
PC Packet Page # 51
08-05-2013
Page 15
Mr. Sposato stated every moving part makes a sound. Some parts create more sound than others.
The generator itself is very quiet; most of the sound you will get will be c oming from the blades.
Most of the sound would be coming from the tips, called tip speed. Sound immerses out, if it goes
up it goes up, it goes away. He does not have a pattern for the whole turbine.
Commissioner Poss stated he is under the assumption this is a pretty sophisticated piece of
equipment. He asked if the turbine is automated or manual, if we know the sun is at this elevation
on July 1 and will make flicker, is it automatically programed to shut down and automatically kills it or
is it done another way.
Mr. Sposato stated that they will have to manually shut it off. There is a photo sensor to track the
sun as it goes across the sky. In the few days that there might be a flicker issue between a certain
time, it can go off. It can also be remote accessed through their locations from anywhere in the
world through an IP address so it can be controlled.
Commissioner Poss stated he is cautious, the main issue is it would be relied upon by somebody to
turn if off or back on. If ice becomes an issue at 4:00 in the morning, are there any built in safety
mechanisms to tell them.
Mr. Sposato stated there is no built in safety for icing conditions for any turbine that he is aware of. It
depends on a number of factors that may or may not occur, depending on temperature, velocity of
the wind, generation of rpm’s, type of ice, encapsulation, etc. Those are all factors that cannot be
determined until it happens. If an ice storm is predicted the day before, you can turn the turbine off.
Commissioner Poss asked if there is a specific reason that wind turbines are always white.
Director Yocham stated that this one is not going to be white; it is going to be galvanized to match
the building.
Commissioner Poss asked that the landscaping on Dunraven Street be explained.
Mr. Skidmore stated based on the setback requirements it is a v ery dense requirement for
landscaping. H e presented an exhibit showing the landscaping that consists of street trees, good
understory, pine trees, sugar maples, upright junipers, shrubs, a very significant buffer all along
Dunraven Street. In addition to that there is about eight foot of grade change from Dunraven Street
down to the parking lot.
Commissioner Katterhenry asked if there is the ability to slow it down if it is going really fast and
would slowing it down reduce the sound? Is it something that is controlled easily?
Mr. Sposato stated the turbine could be programmed to operate at a lower rpm. A program would
have to be uploaded and downloaded every time you changed the rpm, it is a complete program
change, there is not a switch that can be turned on and off. Turning it down would be making it less
efficient by lowering the rpm would be lowering the output itself.
Commissioner Burch stated that they can install the same system at a 45 foot level today without a
special use permit and would still have the same questions and/or issues. The only difference is the
height of the pole, the sound, noise, flicker and ice throw would be the same. She stated we are still
within the Golden Criteria. It is a balancing act to make sure that all property owners get the benefit
PC Packet Page # 52
of their property.
08-05-2013
Page 16
Commissioner Poss stated he agrees with Commissioner Burch, at the end of the day, the noise is
the noise; the question is whether it will be on a 78 foot pole or a 45 foot pole. The turbine can be
installed today on a 45 foot pole and still have the same issues/questions. He does not think it will
be a detriment to the landscape/aethetics for the area.
Chairman Oppliger stated that everyone has done an excellent job, he has learned a lot about wind
turbines. H e stated the applicant is making an i mmense investment into the property and he
believes he would not to anything to damage the building by a wind turbine. He does not believe
there will be any serious health issues. The studies and reports have been s hared and digested.
He believes some of the information off the internet is referring to the giant wind turbines and n ot
something as small as this one. He has confidence in the City of Lenexa and staff and he knows if
there is a problem a solution will be found. If it is unsolvable we have the means to make changes.
It will be monitored as all things are in Lenexa.
MOTION:
Chairman Oppliger entertained a m otion to recommend APPROVAL of a Permanent Special Use
Permit located at 9160 Hedge Lane to allow one large wind energy conservation system at an
overall maximum height of 105 feet with the stipulation that utility connections from the wind turbine
shall be underground and if electrical transformers are required to be above-ground they shall be
screened in accordance with the requirements for other similar site features. Moved by
Commissioner Burch, seconded by Commissioner Grunewald, and carried by a m ajority poll vote.
(6-aye, 0-nay, 0-abstained, 3-absent)
POLL VOTE:
AYE:
Commissioner Burch
Commissioner Poss
Commissioner King
Commissioner Grunewald
Chairman Oppliger
NAY:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
Commissioner Horine
ABSENT:
PUBLIC HEARING:
3.
Special Use Permit renewal for Mid America Wastewater, to allow the continued use of an
industrial wastewater pre-treatment facility located at 14021 West 101st Street, in the BP-2,
Planned Manufacturing Zoning District. SU 13-12
George Cloud, facility manager for Mid-America Wastewater an employee of American Water
Enterprises/ Contract Services Group addressed the Commission. M r. Cloud stated he is here to
request the renewal of the Special Use Permit for Mid-America Wastewater Treatment Inc. located
at 14021W. 101st Street. It is a wastewater pretreatment facility that serves the Coca-Cola and
Shasta bottling plants in Lenexa. The Mid-America facility processes an average wastewater flow
near 100,000 gallons per day. Approximately 70% emanates from the Coca-Cola facility and 30%
from the Shasta facility. The main constituent in the wastewater from both facilities is sugar. The
sanitary sewer lines are segregated from the process lines at all three facilities; therefore, fecal
PC Packet Page # 53
08-05-2013
Page 17
waste is not treated at the Mid-America facility. The process at the Mid-America facility consists of
two major steps: anaerobic digestion followed by aerobic digestion. Once process wastewater from
Coke and Shasta is pretreated at the Mid-America facility, it is transfer to Johnson County's Middle
Basin wastewater treatment plant via the city's wastewater collection system. The object of the
process at the Mid-America facility is to reduce the "strength" of the wastewater before it is
pumped to the county's plant for final treatment and discharge into the environment. The process
produces a solid material that is hauled periodically from the facility to a Johnson County
wastewater plant via a septic truck.
The two buildings at the Mid-America site are used for office and laboratory space and to house
various pumps, blowers, boiler, etc. The process at the Mid-America facility produces about 70,000
ft3 of methane per day. Under normal operations, the methane is burned in the facility's boiler and
any excess methane is burned at the flare. Also, the facility operates a Kansas State accredited
laboratory; it is accredited for BODS, TSS, and pH. In addition, the laboratory performs tests that are
not accredited: COD, VA/PA, and NH3.
Coca-Cola owns the Mid-America facility and maintains a contract with Shasta for the shared use of
the facility. Coca-Cola also maintains a contract with American Water Enterprises, Contract Services
Group (AWE/CSG). AWE/CSG is charged with the operation and maintenance of the Mid-America
facility.
The Mid-America facility was built in two stages. The first-phase construction plans for the Mid
America facility are dated 1988, and the second-phase are dated 1993. The first phase of
construction on the Mid-America site consisted of the office/laboratory building, one equalization
tank, and the anaerobic digester. The second phase added a second equalization tank, the SBR, a
second building to house the blowers, and the aerobic digester.
Initially the plant was owned and operated by the city of Lenexa. At some point prior to 1993, Coke
assumed ownership of the facility and operational responsibility. At about this same time
contractual agreements were made between Coke and Shasta and between Coke and
Environmental Management Corporation (EMC). EMC was later purchased by AWE/CSG. Shortly
after Coke assumed ownership of the facility, the second phase of construction commenced.
Currently, the plant is proceeding through a four-million dollar upgrade. Late in 2012, an engineering
team conducted a complete assessment of Mid-America facility and recommended replacement of
one equalization tank; a complete rehabilitation of the SBR, anaerobic digester, and aerobic
digester; a redesign and replacement of the facility's boiler, methane handling system, and flare;
and repair/replacement of various pumps and other equipment throughout the plant.
The Mid-America facility is primarily regulated by three governing agencies: City of Lenexa, Johnson
County, and State of Kansas. OSHA and the EPA also have regulatory control over the facility.
Planner Gable stated that Mr. Cloud gave a thorough report. She mentioned that there have been
no code violations for the property and recommends a 25 year renewal.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Oppliger entertained a motion to CLOSE the public
PC Packet Page # 54
08-05-2013
Page 18
hearing. Moved by Commissioner King, seconded by Commissioner Katterhenry, and carried by a
majority voice vote. (6-aye, 0-nay, 0-abstained, 3-absent)
All Commissioners were in concurrence that the property has been in existence and properly run
without any violations and is a good fit.
MOTION:
Chairman Oppliger entertained a motion to recommend APPROVAL of the Twenty-Five-Year
Special Use Permit renewal for Mid America Wastewater, to allow the continued use of an industrial
wastewater pre-treatment facility located at 14021 West 101st Street, in the BP-2, Planned
Manufacturing Zoning District. Moved by Commissioner Katterhenry, seconded by Commissioner
Grunewald, and carried by a majority poll vote. (6-aye, 0-nay, 0-abstained, 3-absent)
POLL VOTE:
AYE:
4.
Commissioner Burch
Commissioner Poss
Commissioner King
Chairman Oppliger
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
None
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Horine
Deviations for a m ultiple tenant sign and setback for the sign placement for the Devinki
Building, located at 12600 Santa Fe Trail Drive, in the BP-2, Planned Manufacturing Zoning
District. DV 13-07
Sam Devinki of SIK, LLC addressed the Commission. H e stated he understands that city’s make
rules for the benefit of the city and when someone asks for an exception the natural tendency is to
say no. However, he believes there are some good reasons in this case to make an exception and
say yes. He thinks it would be beneficial from a tax point of view in that this property sits 60 feet or
so away from the street. Every tenant they bring to look at the property, the first question they ask is
if they are allowed a sign near the street so people know that they are located there. For 15 years
they have had one tenant, Brooks Publishing that had the whole building. Everything was great
because they did not care about a sign because they did the sell to the public. Brooks has recently
gone out of business so now they have a building that they have to rent to individual tenants. The
building is set up for five tenants. They have three tenants but it has taken them 1.5 years to get
them in there and the building is still 40 v acant. They always ask about signs. T he letter in the
packet is what he sent to the city and a picture of the sign. He thinks the sign would be appropriate
because the street is a two lane street, across the street is the railroad tracks and a sign would not
interfere with anybody and would not detract from anything or anybody. When people come down
the two lane street and are looking for a business on this street, they have to turn their head. The
building is about 60 feet off the street so they really have to look over to see the little signs above the
door and that distracts them from the traffic and is a potential hazard when people are not looking
where they are driving. He stated they are just asking for a small sign simply to let people know that
this is the address and these are the businesses at this address. It would be beneficial and would
PC Packet Page # 55
08-05-2013
Page 19
increase the safety factor at that location. It might be worthwhile to note that just two or three blocks
away is just what they are asking for. Just as a matter of fairness he does not know why they should
be treated differently than the guy down the street. It would not be the first time the city has allowed
a multi-tenant sign.
Planner Hauber stated the property would be allowed a 32 square foot sign. Five foot in height, 10
feet back from the property line. With this request he i s asking for two deviations. A setback
deviation which would allow up t o 50% in setback. A t this time there is only 12 f eet between the
property line and the pavement setback. There is some merit for consideration of a setback
deviation to allow a sign to be perpendicular to the property line and believe a five foot setback is
appropriate; provided they provide the landscape and location that addresses any type of site
distance concerns. With regard the tenant listing, current code would only allow an identification of
the building and an address range for an office warehouse building such as this. At this point staff
does not believe the building is subject to any unique site constraints that would impact visual
access to the front of the building. It actually has some very good visibility from Santa Fe Trail Drive.
There are no obstructions in either direction or any interference on the other side of the street as well
regarding visibility. Staff recommends denial for the tenant listing however, approval for a setback
deviation should the applicant wish to pursue a sign that would comply with code. Staff would also
suggest the applicant consider revisions of their sign criteria for the wall signs, at this point they are
very small wall signs. Smaller than code requires and there is potential for better visibility with larger
wall signage.
Commissioner Grunewald stated he had driven by the site and did not come to the same conclusion
as the applicant and his next thought was what Planner Hauber suggested in making the wall
signage larger. He stated he is sympathetic while around the corner there appears to be a sign as
Mr. Devinki would like, the Commission tries to be c onsistent and if it were to grant an ex ception
here it would have to continue to others that request it.
Planner Hauber stated they would work with the applicant in figuring out what size and t ype the
signage could be.
Commissioner Katterhenry stated he drove by as well and t oo thought the building signage was
small. He did not feel he was missing the building itself. It makes sense for the setback deviation.
One of the things he always worries about is you set a precedent and it opens the door for many
things. We can’t open that door too far. He stated he is in favor of the setback.
Commissioner Burch concurred.
Commissioner King stated she is all about way-finding signs. She agrees with the other comments
made.
Commissioner Poss concurred as well.
Chairman Oppliger asked about the sign being referred to and asked for clarification.
Planner Hauber stated it was allowed prior to current code and it was part of the settlement of
PC Packet Page # 56
08-05-2013
Page 20
acquisition of right of way for the Quivira Road overpass.
MOTION:
Chairman Oppliger entertained a m otion to DENY the deviation request to allow tenant listing.
Should the applicant decide to move forward with a m onument sign that includes a building name
and address range only, a motion to APPROVE the deviation request to allow the sign to set back a
minimum of 5 feet from street right-of-way. M oved by Commissioner Katterhenry, seconded by
Commissioner Grunewald, and carried by a majority poll vote. (6-aye, 0-nay, 0-abstained, 3-absent)
POLL VOTE:
AYE:
Commissioner Burch
Commissioner Poss
Commissioner King
Chairman Oppliger
NAY:
ABSTAIN:
None
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Horine
PUBLIC HEARING:
5.
Consider the advisability of adopting amendments to the Unified Development Code
specifically relating to hospitals.
Administrator Tilton addressed the Commission. S he stated recently staff has received inquiries
regarding the locating of a small scale or non-surgical hospital within the City of Lenexa. S uch
hospital would be di fferentiated from a t ypical multi-story, multi-service hospital that also includes
emergency rooms. Staff looked at code relative to hospitals and looked at the definition. Staff is not
proposed to make any changes to the definition. What is being proposed are three items: 1) to
modify the zoning district in which they are permitted by right or SUP, 2) to incorporate
supplementary use regulations specific to hospitals and 3) to amend the off street parking
requirements for hospitals.
Current regulations allow for a hospital in the CP-O, CP-2, CP-3 and CC districts with a Special Use
Permit. Staff is proposing to allow hospitals by right in the BP-1, BP-2 and CP-4 districts and with a
Special Use Permit in the CP-1, and Planned Mixed Use District. I n reviewing the regulations for
hospitals in surrounding municipalities it runs the gamut. Some cities allow them with a SUP in any
zoning district; some allow them by right in certain non-residential districts. With respect the
supplementary use regulations staff looked at access, wanting them to be located with direct access
to or within an acceptable distance to collector and arterial streets. H eliports and helipads were
looked at and r equire if a hos pital were to have that, they be a minimum of 500 feet from any
residential zoned property. N oise was also a c onsideration. S taff wanted to re-confirm that any
noise be i n compliance with the requirement found elsewhere in the UDC. T he UDC relative to
noise also does have exceptions for emergency vehicles. Staff also wanted to require that outdoor
lighting fixtures that are adjacent residential zoning not exceed 20 feet in height. Again, there are
certain requirements for heliports and h elipads for illumination, those are requirements from the
Federal Aviation Association and heliports and hel ipads would be ex empt from the 20 foot
requirement. P arking was looked at as well. C urrently, the UDC requires a hos pital provide 1.5
parking spaces per bed, plus one per employee. T hat is on the very high side from other
PC Packet Page # 57
08-05-2013
Page 21
municipalities. Staff proposes the parking requirement be one per two beds and one per employee
on the largest shift. It runs the gamut, some look at bed, some look at employees and some look at
employees differently than visiting doctors. We are trying to find a requirement that is not on the
high end but within reason of all the cities looked at.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Oppliger entertained a motion to CLOSE the public
hearing. Moved by Commissioner Grunewald, seconded by Commissioner Katterhenry, and carried
by a majority voice vote. (6-aye, 0-nay, 0-abstained, 3-absent)
Commissioner King stated any concerns or questions she had was addressed.
Commissioner Poss stated it is pretty straight forward. H e asked if we have any heliports or
helipads in Lenexa.
Administrator Tilton stated that currently there are none, however, Shawnee Mission Medical Center
at Prairie Star Parkway and K-7 will have one as it continues to develop.
Commissioner Grunewald asked what the driver was behind calculating the number of parking
spaces. There are two different ways.
Administrator Tilton stated staff would propose to do both. She looked around other cities and the
number of employees per bed i s a l ot higher than she realized. W hen she found that there were
2800 associates at SMMC for 504 bed facility, granted that is for 24 hours, she had to make some
assumptions. It is still important to look at the number of beds because that is a driver. T he
hospitals that recently inquired are under 100 beds; they were in the 40-50 bed range. I t is a l ot
different than a 500 bed facility. Their staffing needs are also less but felt it important to look at both.
She also consulted the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) which had a w hole report on parking
standards. Hospitals across the county runs the gamut. There is a variety of equations that could
be used. Staff wanted to make it simple but account for employees.
Commissioner Grunewald asked who makes the exception for the traffic study.
Director Yocham stated if someone would say that their operation does not match what is showing
and ask if we would accept a traffic study, that would be allowed and the Transportation Manager
and City Engineer would have the final say on that.
Commissioner Katterhenry asked if we had any constraints on the heliports and helipads regarding
their fueling stations.
Administrator Tilton stated there are regulations that the Fire Department would also be i nvolved
with, when she was looking at that it was simply providing the space for it. They did not get into
providing the services relating to fuel. Her assumption and she stated she could be wrong, is that it
is for the landing and not the servicing. It would be part of the site plan process if they were going to
have the servicing there.
Commissioner Burch asked if the 500 feet from residential was standard for hospitals.
PC Packet Page # 58
08-05-2013
Page 22
Administrator Tilton stated the way the 500 feet was decided is that staff looked at several existing
hospitals in the area that were near residential. The distance from the center of the heliport to the
closest residential property line was in some cases as short as 200 feet and the highest found was
500 feet so we decided on the 500 feet. The one that was 200 feet was for multi-family zoning. We
did not make a distinction of the type of residential, just residential in and of itself.
Commissioner Burch asked if the facility on Prairie Star Parkway and K-7 would be in compliance.
Administrator Tilton stated she looked at it after the 500 feet was decided upon and it complies.
u
MOTION:
Chairman Oppliger entertained a motion to recommend APPROVAL of adopting amendments to the
Unified Development Code specifically relating to hospitals. Moved by Commissioner King,
seconded by Commissioner Poss, and carried by a majority poll vote. (6-aye, 0-nay, 0-abstained, 3absent)
POLL VOTE:
AYE:
6.
Commissioner Burch
Commissioner Poss
Commissioner King
Chairman Oppliger
NAY:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
Commissioner Horine
ABSENT:
Consideration that the recommended 2014 - 2018 Capital Improvement Program for the
City of Lenexa is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Deputy Community Development Director and City Engineer Tim Green addressed the Commission.
He stated the purpose is to introduce the 2014-2018 CIP Program. It is set for adoption by the City
Council on August 6. He went through the presentation and explained the following projects:
Annual Pavement Management Program - The annual Pavement Management Program will
maintain roadways during their useful life. Current maintenance procedures include curb and gutter
replacement, crack sealing, slurry seals, and mill and overlays.
K-10 and Renner Boulevard Interchange Improvements - The existing pavement and storm drainage
system is in disrepair. Additionally, the grades south of the interchange cause a site distance
problem. The roadway and storm drainage system will be removed and reconstructed in their
entirety.
Annual Bridge Maintenance - Our consultant has identified a number of maintenance needs to keep
our bridges safe and to extend their useful life. Specific improvements include: expansion joint
repairs, crack sealing, guardrail repair, and scour protection.
K-10 Highway and Lone Elm Road Design and ROW Acquisition - This project provides for the
PC Packet Page # 59
08-05-2013
Page 23
design of a new interchange at K-10 Highway and Lone Elm Road. Included with the project are
auxiliary lanes on K-10 between Lone Elm Road and Woodland Road to the east, as well as to the K7 interchange farther west. Improvements to Lone Elm Road will also be included.
College Boulevard –Renner Boulevard to Ridgeview Boulevard - Reconstruct College Boulevard
from Renner Boulevard to Ridgeview Road with a four-lane asphalt roadway. Work includes concrete
curb and gutter, storm drainage facilities, traffic signals, street lighting, sidewalk and trail. This project
was incorporated into the Johnson County Gateway Interchange and will be managed by KDOT.
95th Street and I-35 Interchange - Improve the existing interchange and make enhancements to
access control along 95th Street from Monrovia to Marshall Drive. This project was incorporated into
the Johnson County Gateway Interchange and will be managed by KDOT.
87th Street Parkway and SB I-435 Exit Ramp Improvements - Construction of a right-turn lane on the
southbound exit ramp from I-435 to westbound 87th Street Parkway.
Renner Boulevard from 87th Street Parkway to 84th Street - Reconstruct Renner Boulevard north of
87th Street Parkway approximately 2,650 feet. The project will separate the north and southbound
lanes, make each two-lane, add a traffic circle, curb and gutters, as well as signalize the intersection
at 84th Street.
113th Street and Renner Boulevard Intersection Improvements - Construct intersection
improvements at 113th and Renner Boulevard to the serve the proposed Lenexa Logistics Centre.
Improvements will include northbound and southbound left-turn lanes and right-turn lanes, along with
improvements to the access drive on the east side of Renner Boulevard (to improve signal efficiency
by aligning left-turn lanes). A traffic signal is anticipated.
K-10 and Ridgeview Road Interchange Improvements - Rehabilitate the existing diamond
interchange into a diverging diamond interchange (DDI). This project was incorporated into the
Johnson County Gateway Interchange and will be managed by KDOT.
Lenexa Logistics Centre Special Benefit District - Construction of a 40-foot wide industrial street,
along with storm drainage system, detention, and sanitary sewers for the proposed Lenexa Logistics
Centre, Phase 1.
Annual Street Light Replacement Program - In 2009, the City of Lenexa ended its lease of and
purchased 2,437 street lights from Kansas City Power & Light. Purchasing them outright instead of
leasing them led to a cost savings which funds this program. Over time, old and functionally deficient
lights will be replaced modern, energy-efficient ones.
Annual Facilities Improvements and Maintenance - Funding for maintenance and improvement of all
City-owned facilities, including parks. Includes: interior and exterior, site parking, roofing, deferred
maintenance for equipment replacement, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC).
Lenexa Civic Center - Design and construction of a Civic Center and associated parking structure.
The estimated 200,000 square foot Civic Center will include civic, recreational, cultural and retail
space. The design will include exterior space for a market and recreational activities.
Freedom Fields Renovation - The renovation of Freedom Fields is to improve existing amenities as
well as add new sports fields and additional improvements.
PC Packet Page # 60
08-05-2013
Page 24
Annual Playground Equipment Replacement - Replace playground equipment at various parks due
to age and safety.
Annual Parks Shelter and Restroom Improvements - Replace Shelters and restrooms at various park
locations.
Little Mill Creek North Park Site Improvements - Addition of permanent restroom facility, shade
structure, and playground.
Lenexa City Center – Mixed-Use Bike/Hike Trail - This trail will provide alternate access to Lenexa
City Center. The trail will be ten-foot wide concrete and will connect the trail along Renner Boulevard
to 87th Street Parkway, along with providing internal access to sidewalks and trails within the
development.
Entry Signage and Wayfinding - Replace five large monument signs which would reduce
maintenance costs on signage.
Trail Renovations - Tear out and replace 95th Street trail and replace Little Mill Creek Trail staircase
trail connection at 87th Street and 77th & Constance.
Quivira Road Pedestrian Facility - A five-foot wide, concrete walkway that will provide a critical
missing link in the sidewalk system along Quivira Road. Due to the terrain, retaining walls will be
required and will vary in height from a few feet up to six feet high.
Annual Stormwater Infrastructure Replacement - This project reflects the ongoing replacement of
CMP and the catch basins that connect them, primarily in eastern Lenexa.
Upper Coon Creek Stormwater Development - Provide regional stormwater facilities appropriate for
development along the northeast corner of K-10 and K-7 extending north to Prairie Star Parkway.
Plans include the enhancement of an existing wetland just south of the Prairie Star Parkway bridge
between Monticello Road and K-7, as well as a similar feature upstream likely within existing
parkland east of Monticello Road.
Clear Creek Detention and Restoration - This project will reduce the potential for future flooding and
will also result in water quality and stream stabilization improvements.
Video Camera Network and Upgrade and Expansion - Install and upgrade video cameras at key
locations throughout the city. The plan includes installing video cameras at various City Buildings to
include Municipal Services, Fire Department, Parks - such as, Legler Barn, park areas and city pools.
This includes the addition of several cameras and license plate readers at high traffic intersections.
There will also be emphasis to connect to video feeds from schools, and local businesses as
available.
Internet/Intranet Web Design - For website: Redesign all of the processes, most back end systems
that feed and populate the website, redesign of the website, and integration of current calendar,
internal request systems, and reporting / For Intranet - Installation and upgrade of Sharepoint within
Lenexa to provide integration with Exchange/Outlook, ADP, Munis, Accela, Lucity, mobile systems
access, security, and most internal administrative processes including reporting and analytics
available for each department.
PC Packet Page # 61
08-05-2013
Page 25
Police CAD/MPS Intergraph and E-Ticketing Solution - Move from current Versaterm CAD to
Intergraph CAD for interoperability with all other Johnson County agencies. This involves moving to
Intergraph (MPS) Mobile for Public Safety (MDT Application). Additionally, the change in CAD will
necessitate an upgrade and replacement of current e- ticketing components.
Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus Fleet Replacement - Replace current fleet of self-contained
breathing apparatuses (SCBA). This includes 68 harnesses, 140 bottles, 140 masks, communication
equipment, confined spaced rescue breathing equipment, and apparatus storage brackets.
Heavy Rescue Fire Apparatus- This unit replaces fleet #963, a 2004 International 4400 SBA chassis
vehicle. Fleet #963 is recommended for reassignment to Municipal Services for use as a mobile fleet
service vehicle. This purchase will help to ensure a safe, efficient, and effective fire apparatus fleet
that is necessary for fire operations at commercial, industrial, and residential occupancies.
Fire Engine/Pumper - This apparatus replaces fleet #9201, a 2008 class “A”engine/pumper.
Apparatus #9201 will be reassigned to reserve status and fleet #952 (2000 class “A” engine/75-foot
aerial ladder) is recommended for trade-in. This purchase helps to ensure a safe, efficient, and
effective fire apparatus fleet that is necessary for fire operations at commercial, industrial, and
residential occupancies.
This apparatus replaces fleet #9202, a 2008 class “A” engine/pumper. Apparatus #9202 will be
reassigned to reserve status and fleet #929 (1991 class “A” engine/pumper) is recommended for
trade-in. This purchase helps to ensure a safe, efficient, and effective fire apparatus fleet that is
necessary for fire operations at commercial, industrial, and residential occupancies.
Wrapping up there are 76 projects that are unfunded at a cost of about $377,000,000.
Commissioner Grunewald stated it is nice to see not only Gateway items but all of the other
improvements going on.
Commissioner Katterhenry stated the diverging triangles do work well.
Everyone concurred.
MOTION:
Chairman Oppliger entertained a motion finding that the 2014 - 2018 Capital Improvement Program
for the City of Lenexa is CONSISTENT with the City of Lenexa Comprehensive Plan. Moved by
Commissioner Poss, seconded by Commissioner Grunewald, and carried by a majority poll vote.
(6-aye, 0-nay, 0-abstained, 3-absent)
POLL VOTE:
AYE:
Commissioner Burch
Commissioner Poss
Commissioner King
NAY:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
Commissioner Horine
PC Packet Page # 62
Chairman Oppliger
08-05-2013
Page 26
ABSENT:
The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
Lu Anne Johnson , Recording Secretary
Beccy Yocham, Director of Community Development
PC Packet Page # 63

AGENDA OF THE LENEXA PLANNING

Transcription

Similar documents

H - Queen Creek

NY Correction History Society images of NYC DOC Black History

MLK - Landcroc

10/06/2015 Minutes - The City of McCall

Scanned Document - Covenant Health

Ref: SB0160 Sun and Mountains Near the Sea, Busot Alicante

City Commission Meeting 06-07-2011

Ah-Nab-Awen Park - City of Grand Rapids

Directions to UCSD Extension K-12 Facility Located at: 6256

Berewick