City of Olathe
City Planning Division
MINUTES – Consent Agenda
Planning Commission Meeting: November 23, 2015
The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Mike Rinke, with the following members
present: Ryan Nelson, Ryan Freeman, Ann Horner and Dean Vakas. Absent were Erin Davis,
Greg Harrelson, Jeremy Fry and John Almeida.
Recited Pledge of Allegiance.
The Chairman read the standard ex parte statement. No Commissioner reported having any ex
parte communications.
Motion by Mr. Freeman, seconded by Mr. Vakas, to approve the minutes from the November 9,
2015, Planning Commission meeting, as amended. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Freeman requested that PR-15-034 be removed from the Consent Agenda.
MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting: November 23, 2015
Application:
PR-15-034
Preliminary site development plan, Taco Bell
Location:
Southwest corner of 151st Street and Black Bob Road
Owner:
KC Bell, Inc., Paul Hoover
Applicant:
Spangenberg Phillips Tice Architecture, Jennifer Rygg
Engineer:
Payne & Brockway, Todd Allenbrand
Staff Contact:
Sean Pendley, Senior Planner
Site Area:
0.61± acres
Proposed Use:
Drive-through
Restaurant
Zoning:
C-2 (Commercial District)
Plat:
Black Bob Meadows
Shops, Lot 1
Building Area:
2,200 sq. ft.
Plan Olathe
Land Use
Category
Existing Use
Current
Zoning
Site Design
Category
Building
Design
Category
PR-15-034 (PC Minutes)
November 23, 2015
Page 2
Site
Community
Commercial
Undeveloped
C-2
4
D
North
Commercial
Shopping Center
CP-2
-
-
South
Commercial
Restaurant (Sonic)
C-2
-
-
East
Commercial
Restaurant
(McDonald’s)
C-2
-
-
West
Community
Commercial
Church
(Aldersgate)
R-1
-
-
1.
Comments:
The applicant is requesting a preliminary site development plan for a Taco Bell restaurant.
The site is currently undeveloped and there is an existing private drive extending from
151st Street to Black Bob Road.
The proposed development consists of a new drive-through restaurant with dining area
including 54 seats.
2.
History:
Previously, the site included a gas station and convenience store which was removed in
2008. In 2007, a final site development plan was approved for a bank (PR-07-047),
however the bank was never constructed and the site has been vacant ever since. A final
plat for Blackbob Meadows Shops was recorded in 1988.
3.
4.
Zoning Requirements:
a.
Setbacks – The proposed building meets the required building setbacks for C-2
districts. The proposed parking lot meets the minimum 15’ parking/paving setbacks
from street right-of-way.
b.
Building Height – The main building height is 19 feet, 6 inches with parapet walls up
to 22 feet. The maximum building height for standard C-2 districts is 35 feet from
finished grade.
Development Requirements:
a.
Access/Streets – The development will have access from an existing private drive
that extends from 151st Street to Black Bob Road. Both drives to the public streets
are right-in/right-out access. The plan for Taco Bell includes a two-way drive for the
parking lot and a one-way drive for the drive-through exit. There is a tight turning
movement for cars exiting the drive-through and turning right to 151st Street. The
applicant submitted vehicle templates to show tracking for the drive-through egress.
The proposed parking lot driveway will align with the existing drive leading to the
Sonic site to the south. There is no cross-access proposed to the west on the
church property.
PR-15-034 (PC Minutes)
November 23, 2015
Page 3
b.
Drive-Through – The building is oriented with the drive-through window on the west
elevation so it is not facing a public street per Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
requirements. The drive-through lane provides the minimum required width and
stacking depth.
c.
Parking – The site plan shows a total of 18 parking spaces which meets the parking
requirement for restaurants of one (1) space per three seats. The restaurant
includes 54 seats so a minimum of 18 parking spaces is required.
The development also includes two accessible parking spaces, which complies with
parking requirements for disabled persons.
d.
Lighting – A photometric plan for parking lot lighting shall be submitted with the final
site development plan in accordance with Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
requirements. Details for the proposed light poles and fixtures are required.
e.
Landscaping – The proposed landscape plan identifies new deciduous trees and
ornamental trees around the perimeter of the site and shade trees in the parking lot
landscape islands. Staff recommends removing the shade tree at the end of the
drive-through exit due to conflicts with sight distance on the private drive.
Staff recommends evergreen trees and shrubs on the south side of the trash
enclosure for additional screening.
A variety of shrubs are proposed around the parking lot to provide screening for 151st
Street and Black Bob Road. There are shrubs along the north, east and south sides
of the building to provide foundation landscaping.
5.
f.
Public Utilities – The property is located in City of Olathe water and sewer service
areas. Utilities are currently available to the site.
g.
Stormwater/Detention – The proposed site is less than one acre, therefore the
development is not subject to Title 17 stormwater requirements. A drainage plan and
stormwater calculations shall be submitted with the final site development plan.
h.
Mechanical Equipment – The rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened by
roof parapets on the building. All exterior ground or building mounted equipment,
including but not limited to mechanical equipment, utility meter banks and coolers,
shall be screened from public view with landscaping or architectural treatment
compatible with the building architecture per UDO requirements.
Building Design Standards:
The following is an analysis of the composite building design requirements. The
applicant has submitted a narrative to address the specific building design standards for
this development (see attached).
Composite Building
Design (Category D)
Proposed Design
Horizontal Articulation
Wall projections with stone columns on primary facades
Vertical Articulation
Variation in height with stone columns 1-4 feet above
PR-15-034 (PC Minutes)
November 23, 2015
Page 4
roofline
Focal Point Elements
Tower elements with metal cap on primary facades,
extend only above roof 1’ on north façade and 3’ on east
facade (4’ height required)
Façade Expression
Metal canopies above all windows and doors
Building Materials
Primary Façades – see table below for detail percentage
Secondary Façades – N/A
Mixed Materials
The front and side facades include a mixture of stone,
stucco and metal. No change in materials on rear façade.
Transparent Glass
Storefront glass on front and side facades, north (25%),
east (13%), west (10%)
a.
Horizontal Articulation – The proposed building includes wall projections at least
4” deep on the north façade and 4’ deep on the east elevation.
b.
Vertical Articulation – The front and side elevations include stone columns or
towers ranging in height from 1-4 feet above the roof parapet. The Category D
standards require variation in height of at least 2 feet on primary facades.
c.
Focal Point Element – There is a tower element with stone column on the East
elevation at the main entrance. There are secondary focal points with stone
columns for the front door and drive-through window.
d.
Façade Expression Tools – There are metal canopies above all windows and
doors for the restaurant.
e.
Building Materials – The proposed building consists of stone veneer, stucco,
storefront glass and metal slats. All elevations are considered primary façades
because they face public streets or are visible from private drives that serve
customers. The following is a breakdown of the materials and required standards:
Façade (Elevation)
Category 1
Category 2
Requirement
(Category 1 / 2)
Front (North)
Stone/Stucco/Glass
(72%)
Metal
(28%)
70% / 30%
Left Side (East)
83%
17%
70% / 30%
Right Side (West)
90%
10%
70% / 30%
Rear (South)
78%
22%
70% / 30%
The proposed building meets the standards for Category 1 materials for primary
facades. The applicant has submitted photos with samples of the proposed stone
and a restaurant in Merriam with similar design. Building material samples shall be
submitted for the proposed stucco and metal.
PR-15-034 (PC Minutes)
November 23, 2015
Page 5
Building Design Category D also requires mixed materials on primary facades. All
elevations include a mixture of stone, stucco and metal but there is limited stone on
the side and rear elevations. Staff recommends additional stone veneer on the side
and rear elevations to provide mixed materials on a substantial portion of primary
facades. Due to the high visibility of the site at the corner of two arterial streets,
higher quality design and building materials are recommended.
Transparent Glass - Category D design standards require transparent glass on 25
percent of primary facades. The proposed building has glass on 26 percent of the
North façade, 13 percent on the East façade, 10 percent on the West façade and
there is no glass on the South façade. Staff supports the proposed use of glass
since it is used on the entire dining area of the building.
f.
6.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary site development plan (PR-15-034) with
the following stipulations:
a.
A final site development plan is required.
b.
A drainage plan and stormwater calculations shall be submitted with the final site
development plan.
c.
The shade tree at the end of the drive-through exit shall be removed due to
conflicts with sight distance on the private drive.
d.
Evergreen trees and shrubs shall be located on the south property line to provide
additional screening for the trash enclosure.
e.
The East, West and South elevations shall include additional stone veneer to
provide mixed materials on a substantial portion of primary facades per Building
Design Category D standards.
f.
Building material samples shall be submitted for the proposed stone, stucco and
metal prior to approval of the final site development plan.
g.
A parking lot lighting plan, in accordance with Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) requirements, shall be submitted with the final site development plan.
Details shall be provided for the light poles and fixtures.
h.
Sign permits shall be approved for all wall and monument signs per UDO
18.50.190.
i.
As required by the UDO, all exterior ground or building mounted equipment,
including but not limited to mechanical equipment, utility meter banks and
coolers, shall be screened from public view with landscaping or an architectural
treatment compatible with the building architecture.
j.
All new on-site wiring and cables shall be placed underground.
This item was removed from the Consent Agenda at the request of Mr. Freeman.
PR-15-034 (PC Minutes)
November 23, 2015
Page 6
Comm. Freeman: Would staff be willing to give an overview? I know there are a couple
stipulations recommended in this application.
Sean Pendley, Senior Planner, appeared before the Planning Commission and made the
following comments:
Mr. Pendley: The application is for a preliminary site development plan for a Taco Bell at the
southwest corner of 151st and Black Bob. This site is currently undeveloped and was previously
a gas station/convenience store. The site has been cleared for several years. Taco Bell is
proposed to go right on the corner. I’ll show an aerial photo for reference. Access will remain
essentially as it’s shown here, with a private drive extending from 151st Street around to Black
Bob. However, there will not be direct access on the west side. Rather, there will be new access
for the drive on the south side of this access road. There will be no new direct access to 151st
and Black Bob, only as shown existing. The site development plan does show the new parking
and access drive. The access drive will align with Sonic, which is located to the south. That’s
the main access to the site. We have a drive-thru lane on the north and west side of the
building, and the egress/one-way drive for drive-thru on the south. Again, this is generally
consistent with what’s there, with the exception that this existing curb cut will be closed.
The site is large enough for the building and parking. It’s now a 2,200 square foot building. They
do have the minimum required parking for this development – 18 spaces – so they do meet their
parking requirements. We did have some comments regarding the building elevations. We
worked with the applicant on a number of changes from the original submittal. This is the east
elevation, the side facing Black Bob Road. This is the main entrance. The primary materials
consist of a stucco and stone veneer and metal slats. The applicant did provide the required
percentages of all materials. They do meet building design Category B requirements for
Category 1 materials. Staff did have some questions about the amount of stucco here. It looks
like it could be EFIS, which is not a Category 1. But, the applicant did indicate that it is an
applied stucco material, so it is, in fact, a Category 1 material. We did ask that material samples
be submitted with the final development plan. I believe you had a sample in your packet for the
stone veneer, as well as a sample photo of another Taco Bell that was recently constructed in
Merriam. Very similar. This one will be a little different. It will have more stone veneer. Staff also
did note in the comments that we would include recommendations for additional stone veneer,
especially on the sides that were more primary facades, facing Black Bob and 151st. Although
the stucco would meet the Category 1 material for the front, we just think that for this side of the
building, because it is highly visible, right on the corner of two major arterials, we just think a
little bit higher design requirement would be necessary. That also goes to the fact that all sides
of the building are shortened, with the exception of the north elevation. The UDO requirements
for 25 percent glass, this building is showing 26, I believe, so they are meeting that requirement
on the north side. But, the other elevations are short. I’ll show those other elevations. So, that’s
the west elevation, that’s the drive-thru side which faces the west. The lower left here, this is the
north elevation, facing 151st Street. That’s the only side that meets the glass requirement. The
other sides, they don’t. So, staff just recommended some additional stone veneer on those
sides where they may be short on glass [inaudible] overcompensate that with additional stone.
So, we think there are a number of ways to improve the appearance of the building. They meet
the vertical and horizontal articulation requirements.
The rear side of the building facing south is fairly plain, although there is a number of building
projections, so they meet that requirement. There’s a metal screen wall here for mechanical and
service equipment, which is fine. Again, staff would recommend some additional stone veneer
on the parts – again, since there’s no glass, it could conceivably be considered a primary
elevation. It’s going to be facing a private drive. We just think some additional elements could
improve that appearance. The applicant has indicated that they are generally in agreement with
PR-15-034 (PC Minutes)
November 23, 2015
Page 7
these stipulations, so a final site development plan will be required. If approved by the Planning
Commission, that final site plan would be approved by the staff.
That concludes staff’s presentation. The applicant is available for questions. The architect is not
here, but the engineer is.
Vice Chairman Rinke: Does anyone have any questions?
Comm. Nelson: You’re basically saying that at out of respect for the use of the space, it doesn’t
make sense to put windows there, but to compensate for the lack of windows, you’d like to see
some veneer that’s going to help break up the monotony of just consistent material.
Mr. Pendley: That’s correct, on the side and rear elevations.
Comm. Nelson: So, we’re trying to cooperate with them and not make them put in something
that doesn’t make any sense, but we want to help improve the aesthetic because of the visibility
that it has to the main drives and the - ?
Mr. Pendley: That’s right. You’ve probably heard this before, where some applicants have
indicated that the minimum transparent glass requirements we have in the new composite
design standards are a little bit high, and that makes sense, especially for a use like this where
the whole back half of the building is a kitchen area, or a service area. So, obviously, there’s not
going to be any windows or glass back there. That makes sense. So, what would be a solution?
Improve that quality of material. That’s why we recommended the additional stone on those
sides.
Comm. Nelson: I appreciate the sensitivity to the use of the space and you guys working with
them on that.
Comm. Freeman: In regards to that glass in a kitchen area, I understand that there would be
limited glass or it needs to be a certain height to protect the building, but I guess from a design
perspective, I would be interested to see another rendition with the adjustments made, or
possibly if there’s an option to have glass up higher. That way, if anybody else uses this building
20 years from now, it’s more suitable for other uses, other than just being a big wall for the back
half of the building. Has there been any discussion about that?
Mr. Pendley: Staff did not request the applicant to show the minimum requirement on glass. The
applicant did provide a response letter indicating the design and how they meet or do not meet
certain requirements. As a response to that, staff recommended the additional stone. So, we
didn’t ask for the additional glass on those sides, but again, because it’s something the
Commission feels is important, we could certainly entertain that and see if the applicant can do
that.
Comm. Freeman: I don’t know if it has to be glass, but I do agree with staff’s recommendation
and Commissioner Nelson, that it needs to be broken up somehow to help improve the look of
the building. Because just from the drawings, I can see how that would be very obvious that
that’s just a kitchen, and it looks like a different quality of building from the front half to the back
half.
Mr. Pendley: If it helps, if you check your packet, I also have the picture here. It’s a little bit
apples and oranges because there are differences here. This is a building that is in Merriam,
next to the IKEA. They at least show you where they have that additional stone veneer, so
obviously they could do that, and they know that’s an easy fix. They have a little bit more metal,
and there are differences here that we don’t have. We’re going to have some improvements on
the façade with the canopies and articulation. But, this just shows you that they do have the
ability, and they agree that that’s something they can do there. They can change those
materials as needed.
PR-15-034 (PC Minutes)
November 23, 2015
Page 8
Comm. Freeman: I would agree with that, and I would also say that on the rear of the building,
since it is facing a major arterial, in our case, I can’t tell whether it is or is not. But, I would also
like to see that encompassing the building to the rear, as well, or some sort of element to break
it up. Perhaps another column of something on the back corner, opposite the other side. So, just
a suggestion that I think would be good to consider as a commission.
Vice Chairman Rinke: Any questions or comments?
Comm. Freeman: The other concern that I wanted to bring up, just for my peace of mind,
whenever I see a small lot like this with this type of high-traffic development, my concern is
ingress and egress of the parking lot, the safety of it. I like the way that it’s designed, where the
majority of the traffic is going to flow around the building, even on the right side in and out. But, I
did notice that there’s a mention of that right turn on the bottom left of the image that we’re
looking at, pulling out to the right to head back up to 151st Street. There is some concern with
the sharpness of that angle. That’s a point I’d be interested in hearing a little more about, as well
as the drive-thru. I see how the entrance to the drive-thru is two-way traffic heading out, as well.
I’m wondering how easy it will be – it looks pretty narrow up on the top right with that island for a
car to exit up the building and to the right. Any concerns around that? I’d hate to see a building
constructed and then hear about lines at fast food restaurants that nobody can get in and out of.
Mr. Pendley: That definitely was a concern that staff had, as well, especially the egress and the
drive-thru. That’s why we asked the applicant to provide the vehicle turning templates here.
They’re showing the tracking for a vehicle coming out of the drive-thru, going right, heading up
to 151st Street. They show that movement. It will work, although it is tight, and there could be
some potential conflicts if a car is not following the closest track. We did explore a few other
options. We looked at other options with the building on the east, which actually would be the
best in terms of their access and circulation. It would make it a little easier exit. But, that would
put the drive-thru window immediately facing Black Bob, which we didn’t want to do. Obviously,
that’s a UDO requirement now, that drive-thru windows cannot face a public street, or at least
an arterial. So, this was the best possible way out in terms of a drive-thru orientation. But, as far
as access, I may want to defer to the applicant and see if they could talk about that access drive
here, as well as the drive-thru. Todd Allenbrand with Payne and Brockway could maybe speak
to that a little bit better, about how that maneuver would work. I don’t think we asked for the
turning templates for the main parking lot or main driving aisle, but again, that’s something you
may want the applicant to address.
Vice Chairman Rinke: I’m glad you brought that up, because now that I look at it more closely, I
guess I am concerned about how the trucks get in there to service the restaurant. So, I’d be
interested in more discussion from the applicant on that.
Todd Allenbrand, Payne & Brockway, 426 South Kansas, appeared before the Planning
Commission and made the following comments:
Mr. Allenbrand: We did actually run a trash truck through the site for the utilities department, so,
the trash truck can make all the maneuvers. We ran it two different directions. We ran it in,
coming off Black Bob, coming into the site, going directly into the dumpster, and then backing a
little bit up into the drive lane to get out. And then we ran it all the way around the site, like if
they didn’t back up and they just wanted to pull in, go directly in front – [Demonstrates
maneuvers on overhead.] And both movements for the trash truck were, you didn’t run over any
curb. That would depend on the driver, obviously, but they could make all the maneuvers. And
this space right here exceeds 25 feet, so it’s wider than the standard drive lane that’s required in
the City. And like Sean was saying, this movement right here is definitely a challenge, but the
software showed that a vehicle could make that maneuver out of that location. And we did
increase the width of the drive lane according to the requirements by the City. There’s actually a
curb cut in that location. I think it was designed to anticipate maybe a drive-thru at one time or
PR-15-034 (PC Minutes)
November 23, 2015
Page 9
another. But, it was only like 12 feet across, so we increased it 20 feet to allow for the
movements of the vehicles.
Vice Chairman Rinke: What about for delivery vehicles?
Mr. Allenbrand: I’m not sure how their deliveries are made. I’m assuming their deliveries come
in on the north side of the building where that sidewalk goes back, right in this area. So, I would
assume that if a trash truck can make it, their delivery trucks probably can.
Vice Chairman Rinke: Do you know what type - ? I mean, I’ve seen fast food that have 18
wheelers coming in.
Mr. Allenbrand: They didn’t share what size. And I can’t speak for the architects, but I would
assume it’s based on the use they might be able to define what size truck can go. You know, if
they need a smaller delivery vehicle, they could probably say, this is the size we need to use to
deliver in this area. I’m just not sure what it would be.
Comm. Freeman: Could you speak to the width of the top right corner from where I’m viewing?
The one closest to the intersection? My concern is the trash truck going out that way. You said
that they didn’t hit any curbs, but if there’s a line of vehicles there, how wide is that
measurement? Is it realistic to have cars parked there, waiting to go through the drive-thru lane,
and cars still pulling out there? I could see eight or 10 cars making that a reality pretty quick.
Mr. Allenbrand: That’s 25 feet, which exceeds the minimum width by a foot.
Comm. Freeman: Okay. For the drive-thru lane or the two-way traffic?
Mr. Allenbrand: The drive-thru lane is 12 feet right in here, and it’s just a little bit wider. I don’t
have the exact width. I think through here it’s 14, and then that’s a little wider so that they can
make that turn without hitting the curb.
Comm. Freeman: Okay. The parking spaces to the far right of the screen, closest to Black Bob.
Is there any sort of curb further to the right, to where that in-and-out traffic is traveling? Or, is
there any sort of limit to keep them from just pulling straight out of that parking spot? Are they
expected to pull right out into that lane?
Mr. Allenbrand: Like, if there’s a car parked in this parking stall, can they just go out and go like
that?
Comm. Freeman: Yeah, can they?
Mr. Allenbrand: Yes. That lane is 25 feet wide, so that still exceeds the minimum width required
by the City. So, there is enough room for two-lane traffic through there.
Comm. Freeman: Okay. Thank you.
Comm. Nelson: Sean, with respect to delivery vehicles and stuff, is that something that in final
plans, you guys can confirm that there’s appropriate access?
Mr. Pendley: We could certainly ask that of the applicant. It’s not idea, but I will tell you what
some restaurants do. If they use a semi-truck, they’ll park right on a private drive. It’s not ideal,
but they do that, and they’ll block it. And depending on the time of day they deliver, they block
private drives. We don’t have any ordinance that prohibits that because, again, it’s private, and
not a public street. So, I would hope that they also would have smaller vehicles, too. That’s
certainly something we can ask the applicant to address at final development.
Comm. Nelson: Should we add a point in the stipulation, just saying something about further
exploration about delivery vehicles? How do we model that to give you guys the freedom to say
-?
PR-15-034 (PC Minutes)
November 23, 2015
Page 10
Mr. Pendley: Yes, we can add a stipulation that says that the final development plan shall show
how deliveries are made, show vehicle delivery locations.
Vice Chairman Rinke: I had the same thought that they probably would park on that access
road. I guess I’d like to see a stipulation that maybe would limit the deliveries to non-peak hours,
or else that they have to use smaller trucks.
Comm. Nelson: I think what’s a concern to me from that perspective is that they may not serve
all the hours, but the other businesses in the area, such as Sonic, does serve those. So,
blocking it while they’re not open doesn’t mean the other businesses around are not open. I’d
love to hear Taco Bell say we can access from within the parking lot, but I think we need to hear
what the plan is.
Mr. Clements: Sure. We could stipulate that.
Vice Chairman Rinke: Any other questions or comments? Okay. With that, I would entertain a
motion.
Comm. Freeman: Further discussion first, for me. I’m a fan of having a continuance and being
able to understand this a little bit deeper. My concern is that we have something, we put it out,
and it’s not going to allow for good flow of traffic. I think about over by my office, a competitive
fast-food restaurant – Chick-fil-A – constantly has issues. It’s difficult for businesses around
them to be able to operate during their busy hours. It’s just a concern of mine. I’m not an expert
engineer that can figure it out, but I’d almost like to hear it from the applicant, to understand
what their vision is for it, make sure we all have buy-in. I want this to be good for Taco Bell, as
well as the other businesses and citizens needing to access those restaurants. So, with that
said, I’ll make a motion for a continuance.
Vice Chairman Rinke: Do we actually need to have - ?
Mr. Clements: You can just defer it to a future meeting. It’s not a public hearing.
Vice Chairman Rinke: Just defer it, subject to staff finding a time?
Mr. Clements: Yes, and we’ll work with the applicant and put it back on the agenda as soon as
we come up with the answers that the Planning Commission seems to be looking for. The
architect is out of town. That’s the reason we don’t have the representative of the company here
tonight.
Comm. Freeman: And I’m also very excited to hear their ideas about the additional stone, or
whatever, to help spruce up the back half of the building.
Vice Chairman Rinke: I was happy with that, as well. I’m very familiar with the one in Merriam,
and it was pretty boxy. I think staff has done a good job trying to dress this one up a little bit
more than what they have in Merriam.
Comm. Freeman: My motion still stands.
Vice Chairman Rinke: We don’t need a motion.
Mr. Clements: We’ll just move it to a future agenda if that’s the direction of the Planning
Commission. Unfortunately, the primary applicant is not here. There is a potential issue with
delaying this project. They had hoped that the final development plan could come back before
the Planning Commission, but we haven’t done that since we have the new UDO in place. The
finals are done administratively. But, if it gave the applicant a comfort, we could see if there’s a
possibility of bringing a final back before the Planning Commission, and recommending
approval of the preliminary, with the stipulation that we get the final back. We haven’t done that
since we have the new UDO, but that’s the way we used to do it. And I think they were
operating under that assumption, is that final would come back. But, that’s not the way it is. I
PR-15-034 (PC Minutes)
November 23, 2015
Page 11
think that would help the applicant, if we could recommend approval of the preliminary, with the
stipulation that these details be provided with the final. That has to be approved by the Planning
Commission. That makes sense.
Comm. Freeman: I would agree with that suggestion.
Comm. Vakas: If we’re concerned about delivery of replacement supplies, I’ve never seen a
Taco Bell not being supplied by a semi-trailer. So, if the applicant is going to come back with a
preliminary and a final, we need to make sure we’ve got a good explanation on how this is going
to work.
Mr. Clements: We will absolutely make sure that the applicant is at the next meeting so that they
can address that in person. I think that’s a good point. The applicant needs to address the
delivery issue.
Comm. Nelson: So, at this point, there’s not a motion on the floor - ? We’re taking a different
tact at this point?
Vice Chairman Rinke: Well, I think we’re now going down the path of having a motion to
approve the preliminary plan with additional stipulations.
Comm. Nelson: That’s what I was going to say. I think we need to clarify what our stipulations
are, so it’s clear to the applicant when the final plan comes back, so that they can come back
and deal with that and move on, rather than we add more stipulations later. So, I think it’s
important for us to be clear on the stipulations we’re suggesting be added. I’d like to add the
stipulation that we have clarity on the delivery vehicles and their plan for access in and out of
the property. Can I add that - ?
Comm. Freeman: I think that sounds great.
Vice Chairman Rinke: So, is that a second?
Comm. Nelson: Yes, I would second that.
Motion by Commissioner Freeman, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to approve PR15-034, with the following stipulations, as amended:
a.
A final site development plan is required.
b.
A drainage plan and stormwater calculations shall be submitted with the final site
development plan.
c.
The shade tree at the end of the drive-through exit shall be removed due to
conflicts with sight distance on the private drive.
d.
Evergreen trees and shrubs shall be located on the south property line to provide
additional screening for the trash enclosure.
e.
The East, West and South elevations shall include additional stone veneer to
provide mixed materials on a substantial portion of primary facades per Building
Design Category D standards.
f.
Building material samples shall be submitted for the proposed stone, stucco and
metal prior to approval of the final site development plan.
g.
A parking lot lighting plan, in accordance with Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) requirements, shall be submitted with the final site development plan.
Details shall be provided for the light poles and fixtures.
h.
Sign permits shall be approved for all wall and monument signs per UDO
18.50.190.
PR-15-034 (PC Minutes)
November 23, 2015
Page 12
i.
As required by the UDO, all exterior ground or building mounted equipment,
including but not limited to mechanical equipment, utility meter banks and
coolers, shall be screened from public view with landscaping or an architectural
treatment compatible with the building architecture.
j.
All new on-site wiring and cables shall be placed underground.
k.
The applicant shall provide additional information regarding deliveries at the time
of final development plan, including type of trucks, location of delivery parking
and standard hours of deliveries.
Motion passes unanimously.
Vice Chairman Rinke: Okay. Is everybody clear on what we’re voting on? We have a motion by
Mr. Freeman, a second by Mr. Nelson, to approve preliminary site development plan:
The roll being called, the result was as follows:
Aye: Freeman, Nelson, Rinke, Vakas, Horner (5)
No: (0)
Motion carried 5-0.
City of Olathe
City Planning Division
MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting: November 23, 2015
Application:
RZ-15-009: Zoning Amendment for CP-2 Zoning District (Murphy
Express convenience store with gasoline
pumps/canopy)
Location:
481 North K-7 Highway
Owner
Commerce Bank
Applicant/Engineer:
Greenberg Farrow, Trae Rushing
Staff Contact:
Dan Fernandez, Planner II
Current Zoning:
CP-2
Proposed Zoning:
CP-2
Site Area:
0.92± acres
Proposed Use:
Convenience Store/Gas Station
Platted:
Yes
Plan Olathe
Land Use
Category
Existing Use
Site
Urban Center/Downtown
Vacant
North
Urban Center/Downtown
Fast food
restaurant
South
Urban Center/Downtown
East
West
1.
Current
Zoning
CP-2 (Proposed
Site
Building
Design
Design
Category Category
4
D
CP-2
N/A
N/A
Retail
CP-2
N/A
N/A
Urban Center/Downtown
Storage
facility
R-1
N/A
N/A
Urban Center/Downtown
Retail
CP-2
N/A
N/A
CP-2)
Comments: The applicant is requesting a zoning amendment to a CP-2 (Planned
General Business District) property on the west side of K-7 Highway, north of Santa Fe in
the West Village shopping center. The subject property was rezoned (RZ-06-006) to CP-2
in May 2006. The preliminary plan included a bank with drive through on the subject
property. A final development plan (PR-09-017) for a bank was approved by the Planning
Commission in August 2009; however, the bank was never built. The applicant is
proposing an amendment to the approved preliminary plan to permit a convenience store
with gasoline pumps at this location.
RZ-15-009 (PC Minutes)
November 23, 2015
Page 2
The proposed development includes a 1,200 square foot Murphy’s Express convenience
store and a canopy with 6 fuel dispensers. The convenience store would sit directly under
the gas canopy.
2.
Site Conditions: The subject site is currently vacant and has never been developed.
3.
Neighborhood Meeting / Public Notices: A neighborhood meeting was not required for
this application since there are no residential properties in close proximity to the subject
property.
Notice of the public hearing was published in the newspaper, and the applicant has
provided affidavits and receipts certifying that signs were posted and certified letters
mailed in accordance with the Kansas Statutes and City of Olathe regulations regarding
public notice of rezoning applications. Staff has received no correspondence for or
against the proposal.
4.
5.
Zoning Requirements:
a.
Dimensional Standards: The project meets the applicable dimensional standards
for the C-2 District. The building at its highest point is 13’ 10” and the highest point
of the canopy is 18’ 9”. The existing zoning district permits a maximum height of 35
feet. The structure and the parking/paving areas meet all required setbacks for C-2
Districts.
b.
Open Space: The plan provides for 50.1% open space for the proposed
development which meets the open space requirement of the C-2 District.
Development Requirements:
a.
Access/Streets: The project is located within the West Village Shopping Center
and will have an access drive onto an interior road within the complex. That road
connects to K-7 and 135th St. There are no proposed changes to the public streets.
The plan also includes connecting driveways to the property to the north.
b.
Parking: The UDO requires one space per 250 square feet of building area for a
convenience store with gas sales which would require a total of 5 parking spaces.
The plans show 8 parking spaces including one van accessible space which meets
the parking requirement.
c.
Landscaping/Screening: The landscape plan shows a variety of trees and shrubs
planted around the perimeter and within the interior of the site. The applicant is
providing required parking/paving screening as well as screening around the
proposed dumpster/recycling enclosures and other mechanical equipment. If
approved, a landscape plan in accordance with the UDO shall be submitted with the
final development plan.
The project does not meet the minimum required foundation landscape requirement
of 25% on the primary elevations. If approved, the landscape plan submitted with
the final development plan shall include foundation landscaping.
Mechanical equipment will be located on the north elevation and painted to match
the building materials. If approved, staff will be stipulating additional screening for
the mechanical equipment as painting rooftop equipment is not considered to meet
the screening requirement.
RZ-15-009 (PC Minutes)
November 23, 2015
Page 3
d.
6.
Utilities and Stormwater: The subject property is located within the City of Olathe
water and sewer service areas.
Site Design Standards:
The recommended composite design standards for the subject property are Site Design
Category 4 (UDO 18.15.120) and Building Design Category D (UDO 18.15.040). The
applicant has submitted a response letter to address the specific composite design
requirements for this development (see attached).
Composite Site Design
(Category 4)
Proposed Design
Outdoor Amenity Space
Development has less than 65% open space and is on
less than 4 acres
Parking Pod Size
The proposed parking lot has a total of 8 spaces.
Pedestrian Connectivity
Sidewalks along the west side of the property; interior
sidewalk
Detention and Drainage
Features as Amenities
Regional detention
The following is staff’s analysis of the composite site design requirements.
7.
a.
Outdoor Amenities – The requirement does not apply to the proposed Murphy
Express since it is for developments with more than 65% open space or larger than 4
acres.
b.
Parking Pod Size – Maximum parking pod size is 80 spaces. There are 8 spaces
proposed on the plan.
c.
Pedestrian Connectivity – A sidewalk will be located on the west side of the
property and will connect to the sidewalk on the property to the north. The plan also
shows an interior sidewalk into the site. If approved the applicant will need to include
stamped concrete walkways within the interior of the site and at the drive aisles with
the final development plan.
d.
Drainage Amenities – The proposed development does not consist of any open
drainage or detention ponds. The project will use an existing regional detention
system.
Building Design Standards
Composite Building
Design (Category D)
Proposed Design
Horizontal Articulation
12” decorative cornice
Vertical Articulation
Not met due to canopy on top of building
Focal Point Elements
Not met due to canopy on top of building
Façade Expression
Awnings, canopy, ornamental cornice
RZ-15-009 (PC Minutes)
November 23, 2015
Page 4
Ground Floor Interest
Tools/Glass
Transparent glass on east/west elevations, canopies over
the entrances
Building Materials
Primary Façades:
-
West elevation meets Category 1 building
materials (71%)
-
North elevation meets Category 1 materials (88%)
-
South elevation meets Category 1 materials (78%)
-
East elevation meets Category 1 materials (71%)
a.
Horizontal Articulation – The proposed building design includes a 12” decorative
cornice on the top of the building.
b.
Vertical Articulation – Vertical articulation is not provided due to the canopy located
on top of the building.
c.
Focal Point Element – A focal point element on the building is not provided due to
the canopy being located on top of it.
d.
Façade Expression Tools – The proposed building includes an ornamental cornice
on top of the building and awnings above the windows on the north and south
elevations. Canopies have also been placed above both entrances on the east and
west elevations.
e.
Ground Floor Interest Tools/Glass – The east and west elevations are above the
transparent glass requirements and also have canopies of the entrances on these
elevations. The north and south elevations show spandrel glass which does not
count towards the glass requirement. If approved, the applicant is requesting an
exception to be able to use spandrel glass instead of transparent glass. The
applicant states that spandrel glass is necessary since the interior has storage/secure
areas at both locations.
f.
Entry Element - The entrances on the west and east elevations have a canopy that
projects approximately 4’ from the wall.
g.
Building Materials: The proposed building would be constructed of brick, glass and
aluminum cornices.
Requirement
(Category 1 / 2)
Category 1
Category 2
West Façade (Primary)
Brick/Glass
(71%)
Aluminum
(29%)
70% / 30%
North Façade (Primary)
Brick
(88%)
Spandrel
glass/Aluminum
(12%)
70% / 30%
South Façade (Primary)
Brick
(78%)
Spandrel
glass/Aluminum
(22%)
70% / 30%
RZ-15-009 (PC Minutes)
November 23, 2015
Page 5
East Façade (Primary)
8.
Brick/Glass
(71%)
Aluminum/Metal
(29%)
70% / 30%
Canopy Design Standards
The canopy covering the gasoline dispensers is to be constructed of brick columns with an
aluminum cover and measures approximately 122’ x 45’. The canopy also has a
decorative cornice and raised parapets on all four elevations. This meets the
requirements found in Section 18.50.040 of the UDO which requires gas station canopies
and columns to be constructed of Category 1 or 2 materials that are similar to the principal
building.
9.
Staff Analysis:
Staff would note that the proposed building does not meet all the design guidelines for
Category D. The location of the building under the canopy will not permit the design and
application of the composite building standards to the convenience store building. The
required focal element and vertical articulation cannot be provided.
The required design features are to be located on the building and not the canopy as the
UDO provides separate design features for gasoline canopies.
While the applicant has attempted to design the building and canopy as one unit to meet
the composite building standards, the result is an unusual design not keeping with the
building design, tower elements and features found in West Village.
Newer convenience stores with gasoline canopies such as the Buzy Bee on Ridgeview
and recently approved QuikTrip locations feature separate building and canopies which
makes meeting all of the design guidelines on the building possible.
The applicant has stated that the proposed design of the building and canopy is the
corporate model that has worked at their other locations across the country. The
customers also like the layout since they are completely covered from inclement weather
when pumping gas and entering the store. The applicant has also stated that the building
and canopy should be viewed as one structure since they are connected.
10.
Staff Recommendation:
A. Staff recommends denial of RZ-15-009 for the following reasons:
(1)
The proposed building does not meet the Category D Composite
Building Design standards by not having vertical articulation and a
focal point element due to the canopy being located on top of the
building.
Motion by Commissioner Freeman, seconded by Commissioner Horner, to continue RZ15-009, to the December 14, 2015, Planning Commission meeting.
Motion passes unanimously.
Other Matters for November 23, 2015, Planning Commission Meeting
Comm. Rinke: Our next meeting is December 14, and now that we’ve continued this last item, I
think we’re in for a pretty full agenda that evening. We have, like six public hearings. So, we
kind of got off light tonight, but be geared up for next meeting.
Mr. Clements: Plus, we do have our workshop at 5:30 that evening, so please mark your
calendars. We’ll make sure we get a reminder out on the workshop.
Meeting adjourned.