PDF Format:

ApprovedPlanningCommissionMeeting.6.6.16.pdfApprovedPlanningCommissionMeeting.6.6.16.pdf


CITY OF SHAWNEE

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

MINUTES

June 6, 2016

7:30 P.M.


PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENTSTAFF PRESENT
Commissioner Bruce BienhoffDeputy Planning Director Doug Allmon
Commissioner Dennis BusbyPlanner Mark Zielsdorf
Commissioner Kathy PetersonAdministrative Assistant Angie Lind
Commissioner Les Smith
Commissioner Sara Somsky
Commissioner Henry Specht
Commissioner Alan Willoughby
Commissioner Steven Wise
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
Commissioner Augie Bogina
Commissioner Randy Braley
Commissioner Doug Hill
VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Good evening and welcome to the May 16, 2016 meeting of the Shawnee Planning Commission. We’ll start with roll call.

A. ROLL CALL

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Somsky.

COMMISSIONER SOMSKY: Present.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Present.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Present.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Here.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Busby is here.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bogina is absent.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Here.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Braley is absent.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Specht.

COMMISSIONER SPECHT: Here.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Smith.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Here.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Hill is absent.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: If you’d please join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

C. CONSENT ITEMS:

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Item 1 is listed under the Consent Items Agenda. Unless there is a request to remove an item from the Consent Agenda, the item will be approved in one motion. Is there a request to remove an item from the Consent Agenda? If not, is there a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Mr. Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented by City staff.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Mr. Smith.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Second.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. All in favor, say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay? Motion carried.


(Motion passes 8-0; Commissioners Bogina, Braley and Hill Absent)

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: New Business:

D. NEW BUSINESS


VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Doug.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: The applicant requests approval for exterior façade revisions at the Scout Financial Building, located at 12304 Johnson Drive. The application is filed by Matt Greene for Scout Financial, building owner.

The property is zoned CN (Commercial Neighborhood). Properties south, east and west are also zoned CN. Properties to the north are zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential).

The building was constructed in 1958, and is finished with a stucco exterior. During a remodel for a new tenant, exterior work was undertaken on the façade and surrounding privacy fence. Building permits are not required for fencing or exterior siding installation. According to the contractor, they did not realize that significant exterior changes require review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to installation.

I’ve got some photos.

The scope of the exterior work that occurred is as follows:


For the most part, the exterior changes (painting, railing, windows and stonework) that occurred are compliant with adopted commercial design policies. However, use of corrugated metal on the exterior of a commercial building is not a design feature the Planning Commission has approved in the past. Planning staff does have some concern about the look of the privacy fence and north wall as the metal weathers and ages over time. Although possibly acceptable as a design accent, use of corrugated metal for an entire wall is not a good precedent to set. Discussions with the contractor indicate the metal was applied directly over the stucco and fence face and would not be that difficult to remove. After review, the Planning Commission needs to determine if the use of galvanized corrugated metal is appropriate for the privacy fence or full-wall application on the building. The Planning Commission also needs to determine if galvanized corrugated metal is appropriate as window accents in the context of the office remodel.

In terms of a recommendation, the Planning Commission shall determine if the use of corrugated metal on the building’s exterior and privacy fence is acceptable, and that other exterior enhancements are in keeping with adopted commercial design policies. If so, staff recommends approval of SP-16-16-06, for exterior façade changes at the Scout Financial building, located at 12304 Johnson Drive, subject to condition 1. If the Planning Commission deems the use of corrugated metal as inappropriate, the fence and/or wall(s) shall be returned to their original finish.


I can just kind of highlight some of the…they did do some of the privacy fencing that would be allowed; no permit required for that; this is a new railing that they installed; I’ll put this up just a ways see you can see, the stacked stone work that was done; these are the corrugated panels around the Windows; and then this, actually that kind of shows the back wall that is fully enclosed with the metal as well; they did do some landscaping which would not be under any sort of reviewed tonight. With that, that completes our report.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Is the applicant present?

APPLICANT: Yes.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Would you state your name and address please?

APPLICANT: Sure, my name is Matt Greene, address is (omitted from record).

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Have you read staff’s report?

MR. GREENE: Yes sir, I have.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Does the Commission have any questions for the applicant or staff? Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: A couple of questions, probably more for staff. So, on this I think overall initially the corrugated metal on the fence looks nice the issue is, I’ve talked to other Commissioners, his long-term; as we know, galvanized over time, if it’s not maintained well can rust, which would not be appropriate; in terms of the accent, the windows, and when you drive by the building I think from Johnson Drive it looks, it appears really nice and the accent at the windows I don’t think is totally inappropriate, but the entire façade, I think like what was mentioned in here, that may be a precedent that we don’t want to set. My thinking is, that the accent at the windows is maybe acceptable but the whole façade should be returned to the original; the challenge with the fence is if we allow it and then it’s not maintained, what do we do with it at that point.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: In terms of property maintenance, to be quite honest with you, a wooden fence is easier to enforce because if pickets are rotten or termite damaged they’re obviously, and termite riddled, you can make them be repaired under the property maintenance code. A fence that may be solid but somewhat rusty is very subjective and so it would be a hard thing to say that a person would have to paint or maintain that fence over time unless of course you have the option of giving a condition of approval regarding the fence that staff review it periodically and that if they agree to it, now they are the contractor not the building owner, but if they were to agree to a maintenance plan you might have some better comfort level of approving the fence. That’s my best suggestion. We wrote the report the way we did because of your exact reasoning that the long-term maintenance of that and the back of the building in particular would be a concern of staff’s.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I agree with you as far as the fence and the rear wall façade but I don’t think the galvanized metal siding is appropriate around the windows. I mean, yeah it looks real good right now, and I just drove by it again…I just think it’s, you know, it’s not thing to do. It’s not a precedent to set and I don’t know of any other place that uses it other than on the inside of a building I’ve seen it but, you know…

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Correct.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I have a slightly different opinion than a couple of my other people…I like the industrial look very much and it’s not right on downtown but it is considered part of downtown, is it not? To make an exception becomes very difficult for us even though I may like it aesthetically but my question is, as the design element feature goes, could you guesstimate the corrugated metal around the windows of, about how much approximately of the exterior does that portion cover?

MR. GREENE: The corrugated metal around the exterior?

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Right.

MR. GREENE: Well, the entire back wall is covered with corrugated metal and that was mainly put on there because it was covered with pipes and, you know, wires and all that and so we were trying to clean it up for that matter. Around the Windows there’s probably on one side where some of the larger windows are, I would say is probably 30% on, what would that be, the east side; on the west side is probably closer to 15 to 20% on the west side, because they are smaller windows.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: And then the fence, because obviously, is the corrugated metal on the inside of the fence?

MR. GREENE: Yeah, I apologize, Doug did you have the other pictures that I sent over?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I do.

MR. GREENE: If you want me to throw those up there…

(Inaudible)

MR. GREENE: Inside is the…

(Inaudible)

MR. GREENE: So, on the bottom corner here you can see it’s just the straight galvanized metal and the intention, in all honesty, was maintenance free to tell you the truth because the building owner is like, I don’t want to have to touch it for the next 20 years, I don’t have to do anything with it for that period of time so that was his intention. I mean, even all of the bushes and stuff that he put in he goes, I don’t want to have to rake leaves, I just, you know…as much maintenance-free as possible was his intention of it. So, that was honestly what it was. He didn’t want to have to seal the fence, you know, the Cedar fence every third year with things so we went that avenue with it.

(Inaudible)

MR. GREENE: Oh, was there another one?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Yeah, this shows the full…

MR. GREENE: Yeah, sure enough, on the back there…

(Inaudible)

MR. GREENE: So, you can see here is kind of around the back of the building, so you can see part of that from Johnson Drive and then on the backside of the building here you can see that entire wall was covered with pipes and wires and everything else; it was actually pretty unsightly so the cost difference for the building owner to just sheet it with the metal, and all of the metal is encapsulated, it’s capped, it does have the rubber bushing where the screws are and everything else to try to protect it well. What we did across the back of the building, you know, not to put a big glare on Johnson Drive but mainly just to, you know, make it maintenance-free on the backside.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: One more question. Who is selected galvanized? Was that just an aesthetic he and you decided on or was it actually…

(Inaudible)

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: …because that’s not necessarily maintenance free.

MR. GREENE: Well, compared to some of the other options, as far as repainting every 3 to 5 years with the stucco and re-caulking because that was stucco right over top of cinderblock, you know, so with all of that he was like, you know, put me up a façade up there that is somewhat maintenance-free or lasts a lot longer. This is the first building he’s owned and he wanted to try to make it to where he was getting the best bang for his buck and didn’t have to go out there and work on it every other weekend, you know, so to see. So, that was the idea. To tell you the truth, I have built many barns in my life, you know, as well as being a horse owner so, you know, we took all of the precautions to make sure we had the right material. There is clear coating that can be put on the product, galvanization as well that doesn’t take away from the aesthetics or cloud it, but will seal it better if that is something that is desired…that’s not a problem.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: One more question.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: This is more towards staff. When it comes to aesthetics, is there ever a percentage, I know that certain signs can’t be over a certain percentage of a façade and things like that, on a design feature…I’m going to give a what if…what if he had to remove it from the fence and perhaps the back wall but was allowed the design feature around the windows if it was less than 20% of the structure. Is there any guideline in that…

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Our design policy does not give specific percentages but it does allow accenting. I think, if you read our staff report we’re pretty clear that we are not comfortable in setting a precedent in full galvanized metal walls in commercial areas. It’s a slippery slope, I guess I would say. But, in terms of accenting, the policy talks about accenting, it encourages accenting, it just doesn’t simply encourage accenting with corrugated metal. That’s your role as the aesthetics board of the city, to see if that’s appropriate in the context of the remodel.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: To follow up on that. I know galvanizing can be painted but that can become a maintenance issue; the challenges we still have the corrugated metal. So, even if it’s painted, and it’s not the shiny finish, but it’s still going to be that. One option might be to go to more of a flat-panel system that would be painted or prefinished and then it wouldn’t have the corrugated look to it. I do think on the fence, on a long-term standpoint, probably leaving it wood would be the better precedent but maybe there’s another material that could be considered for that back wall that would be more in compliance than just the galvanized corrugated metal.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other questions for the applicant or staff? I have a comment. That’s almost a residential area. I know how it’s owned, I can read that, but corrugated metal roofing that became a wall just is an appropriate for that site. It’s walking over something we’ve never done and yet right next to it is residential area and I think it’s really not appropriate for it. So, if there’s no other questions, we’re in Committee discussion. No public discussion on this?

STAFF: No.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: No public discussion on this, so we’re in Committee discussion. Mr. Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: yes, I have a couple of concerns with the precedence. One is the precedence that’s the use of the material. When this Planning department and the Planning commission has gone at great lengths to carefully plan out how we would like the City to look aesthetically, provided guidelines out there that are public and available and staff is here to work with the applicants, so that’s one aspect that, you know, we get into a position of well you let this property address use it, why not mine. The other one is, a precedence of well, what if I just build something, maybe go get it approved because the work is done and…I agree with the comments that it’s really not appropriate use of material as clearly laid out in our design guidelines.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Specht.

COMMISSIONER SPECHT: I would agree with that. I think that, like Kathy said, the accent around the windows, I think that there is, you know, if we were to go through the, you know, the standard procedure going up to and through Planning commission, that would definitely be probably a good option but I think that as a whole from a fencing and a wall, I would just have a hard time, you know, agreeing to the in setting that precedence now.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Secondary question. Should we decide any or all this is…I empathize with the owner, we just purchased a building, I get it and so I hate to see…is there a timeline on corrections or is there any consideration whatsoever for that aspect? I understand that the procedure was not done but…

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: You could set some guidance for the applicant if you’re going to require it to be removed. Obviously, if they didn’t remove it in that timeline that you think is reasonable it could be punishable by issuance of a citation and prosecution in Municipal Court. So, I think the timeline that the code sets is probably something in the neighborhood of 10 days which is applicable to just about anything. If you’re not comfortable, if you think that’s not enough time you can obviously get the owner and the business some leeway to get into compliance. If you’re not comfortable with the materials that were presented, they may come back to you with something else as an alternative. I’m not saying that that something that you have to agree to. Anybody can make an application to do that but if the presentation tonight is denied or portions of it denied we’d expected to be taken off in a timely manner. And obviously would appreciate guidance from you guys in setting up a reasonable period of time.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Question so, do you have another product in mind? For the accent around the windows.

MR. GREENE: It met the look that he was looking for, the owner. So, do I have a product on the top of my head? I don’t. I would need to talk with the owner, I mean, if you guys did accept the product that was up there, then I would probably just have to take it down and, you know, leave it bare for a period of time until something was thought of or approved; you know, the same with the fence, basically, honestly the fence didn’t need to be there we just didn’t want the backside of the other fence to look forward so we were trying to clean it up some, so we would probably just go remove the galvanization and leave it be until the time came that the owner came up with another option.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: And it’s stucco around the windows?

MR. GREENE: Yeah, I mean, it’s the same finish as what’s on the side of the building at this time. So yeah, it’s just a stucco/brick, you know, façade. Or not façade, I apologize. A block look.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Thank you.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: One more question. On the rail, I am not familiar with commercial code of rails, is it the right depth and has the adequate fall protection? I know the look, I just am not sure…

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Our Codes inspectors and chief building inspector has looked at all of the materials. The only thing that requires a permit is the window because it was within a loadbearing wall. They have an engineer’s certificate that the windows were installed appropriately. So, the only thing that would require a permit is that and they have taken care of, basically we’ve been waiting to issue that permit until we found out what you guys decided tonight. So, they have that information signed and sealed by an engineer. The railing is compliant.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Specht.

COMMISSIONER SPECHT: One more question for the applicant. The metal wall on the back of the building, is that just as statics or is that a part of, I guess is it easy to just pull that off and…

MR. GREENE: It can be unscrewed.

COMMISSIONER SPECHT: Okay.

MR. GREENE: It can be unscrewed. It has 2 x 2 furring strips, wood furring strips that are attached to the block. Like I said, mainly just sectioned off to hide all of the wires, the unsightly stuff on the backside of the building that was there, so it can be removed. It would cause any detriment to the building, you know, for that.

COMMISSIONER SPECHT: Okay, good, thank you.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I have one comment and for the fellow Commissioners. The miss use of building materials after we painstakingly go through all these processes, it’s kinda like being a little bit pregnant. My feeling is, if we okay stuff that we don’t have in our guidelines then it’s like being a little bit pregnant. Does anyone have a motion? Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I move that we vote on SP-16-16-06; revised site plan for Scout Financial, located at 12304 Johnson Drive, to be denied with the exception of the design material review around the windows; the fencing in the back façade, that’s not an acceptable product.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is there a second? Commissioner Specht.

COMMISSIONER SPECHT: I’ll second that motion.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: All in favor say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed, nay.

COMMISSIONERS: Nay.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I’m sorry, I didn’t get a count.

(Inaudible)

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Show of hands, nay.


(Motion to deny with exception of the windows, 5-3; Commissioners Bogina, Braley and Hill Absent)

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Motion carries. The permit is denied.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: The permit is denied and I would like clarification on that. That we are allowing the corrugated to stay around the windows.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: That was my motion, as a design it needed to be reviewed with you guys.

(Inaudible; multiple speakers)

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is that going to create a bigger problem than having it just reviewed rather than being specific?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Yes, because that’s why we’re here. You guys are doing the review to see if it’s appropriate. That’s why staff brought it to you. Staff is not to make the determination that corrugated around the windows is okay. That’s for you guys to determine.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Doug, if the motion is denied, if we deny the permit on this, they could come back in and see if we would okay the stuff around the window, but we would almost have to deny it to begin with…

(Inaudible; multiple speakers)

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I would prefer that you either deny it outright, everything that was presented in terms of metal tonight or make your approval conditional of what portions of metal you are comfortable with. That would make it much easier for us in terms of enforcement. Basically, are you comfortable with the fence, yes or no? Are you comfortable with the back wall, yes or no? Are you comfortable with the elements around the windows, yes or no? In my opinion, as I stated in the report, the other elements like the stone around the front porch, the railing, the color of the stucco, is all compliant with our guidelines. So, we would request your approval be conditional on how you want to approve the look of the building, essentially.

(Inaudible; multiple speakers)

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: It would be better for us to break each of those elements out.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Just address each of them.

(Inaudible)

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Okay, very good.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: I voted no hoping it would fail so that we could vote a different way. Because I think that we all are all over the place on this thing. Seems like there’s a lot of consternation about this material being used on the building at all; some are okay with the accent around the windows, some aren’t. You know, the fence is an issue, so yeah I it’s pretty confusing what we just try to do.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Terrific. How about this, would somebody, would you like to amend your motion?

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I would like to withdraw it.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Withdraw it, okay. Do we need to vote on the withdrawal of a motion?

(Inaudible)

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is there a second on the withdrawal of the motion?

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Second.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: All in favor of withdrawal of the previous motion say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed, nay. The motion is withdrawn.


(Motion to withdraw previous motion passes, 8-0; Commissioners Bogina, Braley and Hill Absent)

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Now, would someone like to make another motion being specific about the elements? Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I move that we deny SP-16-16-06; revised site plan for Scout Financial building at 12304 Johnson Drive, stipulating that the corrugated on the fence is not acceptable; the corrugated on the back of the building is not acceptable; the corrugated around the windows is not acceptable; but, everything else is above board as far as, you know, the gravel, the façade wall, the railing, everything else is, you know, looks good.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is there a second? Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: I would second that motion. Question, we need a reason for denial? To be stated.

(Inaudible)

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby, would you like to state a reason for denial also?

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Because it doesn’t meet our, what we think is appropriate for this area. Is that enough?

(Inaudible)

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Okay, there’s a motion to deny that is very specific. Is everyone comfortable with this motion now? Commissioner Peterson?

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Are we going to have three separate votes? One on the fence, one on the back wall, and one on the other? Or, up or down about the…

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I think, Commission Peterson, the way the motion was put was this motion contains how the Commission is to feel about the different elements. So, there some that is denied in some okay, so it’s all segregated out that way and I think it’s fairly clear now. Commissioner Specht.

COMMISSIONER SPECHT: Sorry, I’m still a little confused. Doug, did you say that it would be easier to approve with the exception of certain items or is it easier to deny with the exception of certain items?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I think the motion that was made is that the motion maker and the seconder was comfortable with only the enhancements that met the Commercial Design Guidelines and nothing in terms of metal and will have to see with the voter is. There may be a need for another motion after that if we can’t come to a consensus.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other questions?

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: I just comment that, that was my understanding that I seconded was one vote, no metal on the fence, the building, or around the windows.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Correct. Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Is this motion to entail that if this is denied that that will be removed within 10 days or do we want to extend that for some consideration?

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Doug.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: For 30 days.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I would say you could do it either way. You could at the 30 day proviso or you could come up with the time that everybody is comfortable with after the motion was voted up or down.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: And the normal rule is 10 days to take care of it?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Yes.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: With no addition on a date on that, then we would revert to the normal 10 days that this City allows. Is everyone feeling more clear now? All in favor of denial per Commissioner Willoughby’s motion, say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed, nay.

COMMISSIONERS: Nay.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Now you’re confusing me. The motion was in the affirmative, yet the explanation was in denial. Yes means yes, or yes means no?

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I think the vote was, is on denial. We voted yes to deny the applicant, 16-16-06.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: What I came up with out of that, sorry maybe I’ve confused things because it is complicated because there are several elements to the approval or denial; I think what you’re doing is approving the application with only the elements that you think meet the Commercial Design Guidelines as Alan stated.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Which means no metal.

(Inaudible; multiple speakers)

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Now I’m confused. We voted to deny elements of it but we voted to okay other elements. So, that was a yes vote, a vote to deny certain elements and the other elements we’re okay with aunt that motion, if I counted right, passed.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: We can’t word it that way. Generally, you would make a motion to approve with just specific conditions that the elements that meet the Guidelines are appropriate. I think we understand what you’re saying is that the majority of the Board was not comfortable with use of metal, that the railing was fine, and the stone was fine, that the landscaping was fine, that’s how it will be worded.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Correct, thank you.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: And you understand. I think that the applicant understands that.

MR. GREENE: Basically, no metal is what your site. Okay. Everything else is good.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: No corrugated.

MR. GREENE: No metal period, or it would basically have to be resubmitted.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Correct. There is nothing that can keep you from coming in with an application if your owner says I want to do inlaid tile around the windows…

MR. GREENE: Right.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: In a silver color and we would review that separate application.

MR. GREENE: Okay.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I’m sorry, I’m probably the one I confuse that. It’s an unusual situation.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very good, then the motion…then we’re finished with this.


(Motion to deny all metal, passes 6-2; Commissioners Bogina, Braley and Hill Absent)

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Thank you. Next on the agenda…

MR. GREENE: So our timeframe is 10 days? Is that what I have to get that often there?

(Inaudible)

MR. GREENE: Thank you, I appreciate that.

(Inaudible)

MR. GREENE: And then as far as that back fence can’t lay, then all I have to do is take the corrugated metal off at they could just set bare for that.

(Inaudible)

MR. GREENE: Okay, which there is a neighboring fence behind. So, okay. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER BUSBY: Thank you. Next on the agenda is:


VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Doug.

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: The applicant requests approval for exterior façade revisions at the HD Engineering Building, located at 11660 W. 75th Street.

The building was formerly a convenience store that was remodeled into a professional office building in 2006. During that remodel, a central spire was constructed as an architectural feature that served as the hinge point between the existing building and new addition. The upper face of the spire was open with decorative steel for ornamentation. Other portions of the building are constructed of brown jumbo brick and stucco.

The building was recently acquired by HD Engineering, who occupy a majority of the existing tenant space. Since acquisition, the new owner realized the building roof below the spire was experiencing water penetration issues. To fix the problem, the new owner initiated exterior siding work to enclose and waterproof the open spire. Building permits are not required for exterior siding installation. The City was notified of the work by a Planning Commissioner who drove by the site and noticed the work in progress. Upon contacting the owner, work was ceased on the project.

The owner is now requesting approval to complete the spire siding project on all four sides of the structure. The siding material is solid cedar wood that is installed in a staggered lap pattern. The cedar is stained a deep walnut color. The owner has indicated a desire to create a more rustic look that at the same time blends with the existing building materials. The intent is for the stained cedar to form the backdrop for a piece of ornamental metal art that depicts natural prairie grasses and a sunflower. The existing standing seam spire roof and cast stone coping will remain in their present color and condition. The Planning Commission has approved limited amounts of wood or wood-like material as a building accent in the past.

The Planning Commission shall determine if the installation of stained cedar siding and ornamental art to the decorative spire is acceptable. If so, staff recommends approval of SP-16(17)-16-06, for exterior façade changes at the HD Engineering building, located at 11660 W. 75th Street, subject to the conditions listed below. If the Planning Commission deems the request as inappropriate, the spire shall be returned its original ornamental steel design. Waterproofing of the spire could be undertaken through installation of clear glazing on the ornamental steel frame.

That completes our report.

(Inaudible)

APPLICANT: John Hulse of HD Engineering, at 11660 W. 75th Street.

(Inaudible)

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: The wood decorative that you’ve described as walnut, that gets sun exposure quite extensively. Is there a reason why that wasn’t a more durable or less maintenance?

MR. HULSE: Well, the maintenance issues were addressed in the finish that we put on it; it was an oil-based walnut stain… (Inaudible) which is an oil stain but the intent of the cedar is, it was also weather lightly to enhance the look of a more natural patina.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Smith.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Thank you. Walk me through the (Inaudible) as of today it looks pretty ragged, so how are you going to finish that? Clearly you stopped at a certain point because we said stop.

MR. HULSE: We stopped at Doug’s request. Basically, there is a 2 inch, 17 gauge or 15 gauge hat channel that is spaced about 32 inches on center that’s fastened directly to the existing steel structure of the building with a tech five screw and then there are self-tapping stainless screws that attach the wood to each individual hatch channel around the structure. And where a structural engineering firm, so…

COMMISSIONER SMITH: How are the corners treated? (Inaudible)

MR. HULSE: The corners are treated with the oil stain in the (inaudible).

COMMISSIONER SMITH: I mean, are they, how are they abutted? Is there a trim on it?

MR. HULSE: It’s an alternating lap.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Okay, perfect.

MR. HULSE: So that it maintains that in and out profile that you see there on the drawing.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Yeah, I had to imagine that the way it sits today is not exactly what you’re after so, a little clarification was good. Thank you.

MR. HULSE: We acquired that building about three years ago. I think we’ve spent around $150,000 on it. We’ve taken the rents from month to month lease at $13 a square foot to five year leases at about $19.50 a square foot. So, whatever we’re doing is working. People like it.

COMMISSIONER SMITH: I just appreciate you making an investment up there. There’s a lot of vacant buildings.

MR. HULSE: We’re at 100% occupancy.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: And the decorative artwork is not considered any type of signage because it lists no logo, names, etc., is that correct?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: It’s not considered signage unless you guys consider it signage. My eyes it’s art, ornamentation. Their logo is an H. and a D. and I don’t think that any tenant in there, in that space has that type of art in its business material. I think the idea is to try to tie the metal to nature and to tie the façade to nature. That’s a guess. I’ll let John speak to that.

MR. HULSE: It’s, we’re, Native American art. We’re a minority business. It’s a nod to Kansas, it’s a nod to where we come from, our heritage. My kids are the fourth generation to be raised in Shawnee, Kansas and we’re just pretty proud of being from Kansas and Shawnee.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I very much agree with that. I like the elements there, my concern was down the road if someone wanted to put up a sign because there are certain guidelines that go with that. With this then be…

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: I’ll try and answer that and we have a history of that actually in Shawnee and you may remember the UMB bank out west. They had the Scout on a horse and they wanted to do a tower elements and put their Scout logo up and call it art, the Commission at that time determined that it was signage because it was specifically tied to the building and that was denied. In this case, I think that you would not be setting a precedent by calling this are. If you’re comfortable that it is indeed fact art and ornamentation.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: A quick question for staff. If you could help me a little bit, I noticed that the report stated that there is no permit required for siding, which I think has been referred to as installing siding there, so can you help me understand the specific reason this request is here?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: The request is here because again, just like with the last case, you’re the aesthetics board. It’s different than what was originally approved; it’s significantly enough of a difference that we could not administratively approve it. If they were looking at installing glass there to waterproof it where you still saw the ornamental metal, I’d had called John and said let’s do an administrative site plan approval for it and I would have approved it. But, because it’s a different material than what was originally shown back in 2006, it’s kind of our duty to bring it to you to make sure that you are comfortable with what the material is, what it looks like architecturally, and that it fits in the surrounding neighborhood and in the context of the building itself. That’s kind of your role as Planning Commissioners.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: And a follow-up question. If, is the type of material that would be approved on other projects if it wasn’t such different from the existing? Does that make sense?

(Inaudible)

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: As we stated in the report, wood has been approved as accent before. If you’re familiar with the First Watch facility, they did a significant upgrade, you guys were comfortable and removing the red awnings and placing a wood-like material. Architecture is somewhat subjective, obviously, and so but to answer your question specifically we have approved wood-like materials before. I think the difficulty is, is that it’s not done and so I think there is a perception of maybe what you see now is what it will ultimately look like. I think once it’s buttoned up and stained and finished it will look different than it does today.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Thank you.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Specht.

COMMISSIONER SPECHT: A question for the applicant. On the, I think you said it was a walnut stain and urethane, what’s the typical maintenance look like that? Is it a yearly or is it every 2 to 3 years? What do you expect there?

MR. HULSE: I would put it at 3 to 5 years. The intent was to keep it looking brilliant new. Really that timeframe is going to be determined aesthetically on what amount of patina you want and allow to happen to some extent. We’ve taken careful steps in our fasteners and materials to not allow streaking so that we are in full control of the aesthetics and the patina that’s allowed to occur on the building.

COMMISSIONER SPECHT: Thank you.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Then we’d be in Commission discussion. Commissioner Willoughby.

(Inaudible)

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson do you have a discussion?

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I just have one point and it is just food for thought. We just denied an application partly because it went on without, you know, consultation but this is wood so it’s warmer and fuzzier than corrugated metal but it is obviously a decorative feature so are we going to allow outside the design parameters when it’s wood versus metal? It’s just a question.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Doug, would you answer that?

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Our Design Guidelines are not complete in terms of every single material, there is again some interpretation by you as a board. You’ve allowed wood-like materials as accent in the past. I think in this is just a personal opinion, there’s an apples to oranges comparison. You’re talking about a tied down lap system siding compared to really corrugated tin that can even become rough on the edges and, I understand on the last application what they were attempting to present, it is a style, but I don’t think that this would be precedent-setting if that’s what you’re asking.

(Inaudible)

DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALLMON: Okay.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I move for approval of SP-17-16-06; revised site plan, HD Engineering building at 11660 W. 75th Street, per recommendations.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Somsky.

COMMISSIONER SOMSKY: I second the motion.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Motion and second, all in favor say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed, nay? Motion carries.


(Motion passes 8-0; Commissioners Bogina, Braley and Hill Absent)

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you.

E. OTHER BUSINESS

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any business from staff?

(Inaudible)

*Staff reminded Commissioners the July 6, 2016 meeting is on a Wednesday due to Independence Day holiday.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Commissioner Somsky.

F. ADJOURNMENT

COMMISSIONER SOMSKY: I move to adjourn.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Second.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: All in favor, say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

VICE-CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed, nay? We’re adjourned, thank you.


(Motion passes 8-0; Commissioners Bogina, Braley and Hill Absent)