PDF Format:

ApprovedPlanningCommission.1.4.17.pdfApprovedPlanningCommission.1.4.17.pdf

CITY OF SHAWNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES
January 4, 2017
7:30 P.M.

PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Commissioner Bruce Bienhoff Planning Director Chaffee
Commissioner Augie Bogina Deputy Planning Director Allmon
Commissioner Dennis Busby Planning Mark Zielsdorf
Commissioner Rusty Mudgett Administrative Asst. Angie Lind
Commissioner Kathy Peterson
Commissioner John Smith
Commissioner Les Smith
Commissioner Alan Willoughby
Commissioner Steven Wise

PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
Commissioner Randy Braley

(Planning Commission Meeting Called to Order at 7:32 p.m.)

A. ROLL CALL

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Good evening and welcome to the January 4, 2017 meeting of the Shawnee Planning Commission. We’ll start with roll call. Commissioner John Smith.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Busby is here. Commissioner Bogina.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Braley is absent. Commissioner Les Smith.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Mudgett is absent.

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Please join me in the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.

(Pledge of Allegiance)

C. CONSENT ITEMS

1. APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 19, 2016.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Item Number 1 listed under Consent Items Agenda are the minutes of the December 19, 2016 meeting.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I have a correction to the minutes when you get ready for them.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Why don’t I finish this, then I’ll let you do that then.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Unless there’s a request to remove this item from the Consent Agenda, the minutes 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? Commissioner Smith?

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: I’d move to approve the minutes with one correction. On page 9, the statements attributed to Commissioner Les Smith in four areas should be attributed to John Smith.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: I didn’t remember saying that stuff.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Terrific. Welcome, Commissioner Mudgett.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Anything else? Otherwise, we have a motion to accept the Consent Agenda, correct?

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: Yes, with the correction to the minutes. The minutes are on the Consent Agenda, aren’t they?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Correct.

COMMISSIONER J. SMITH: Right. Okay. With those corrections, yes.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is there a second? Commissioner Peterson?

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I second that.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: There’s a motion and a second to accept the Consent Agenda with the notations made by Commissioner Smith. All in favor say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Oppose nay. Motion carried.

(Motion carried 9-0. Commissioner Braley absent)

D. NEW BUSINESS

1. SUP-01-17-01; SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR THE OPERATION OF INFORMATION STATION, A GROUP DAY CARE WITH UP TO TWELVE (12) CHILDREN, AS A HOME OCCUPATION, LOCATED AT 4737 QUEAL DRIVE. THE APPLICATION IS FILED BY STACEY LEWIS, OWNER.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: New Business. SUP-01-17-01; Special Use Permit Approval for the Operation of Information Station, a Group Day Care with up to Twelve (12) Children, as a Home Occupation, Located at 4737 Queal Drive. The application is filed by Stacey Lewis, Owner.

MR. ALLMON: Good evening. Doug Allmon, Planning Staff.

The applicant requests special use permit approval for the operation of a group day care with up to twelve (12) children, as a home occupation, at 4737 Queal. The applicant currently operates a daycare for up to six children in her home, and has experience in early childhood development and a teaching degree. There have been no reported issues or problems in the past related to the existing daycare.

The property is zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential) and is located within the Hickory Hill Estates subdivision. The surrounding properties in all directions are also zoned R-1 and are developed with other single family homes in the Hickory Hill Estates subdivision.

The applicant is requesting approval to operate a group day care with up to twelve (12) children. The hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The applicant shall have a minimum of two adult care givers on site any time there are more than ten (10) children present at the home.

The property is served by a two-car driveway that has approximately 48 feet of depth. This provides room for off-street drop off and pickup of children.

In accordance with the City's requirement, the applicant has a fenced play area in the back yard. The back yard is surrounded with a 6-foot tall, solid wood fence on all three sides.

The Fire Department completed an on-site inspection of the residence on August 30, 2016, as required. The site inspection indicated all life safety requirements were satisfied.

The granting of the special use permit should have little, if any, detrimental effect upon surrounding properties. There are numerous special use permits that have been issued for the provision of child care as a home occupation without concerns being raised.

Since this is a new special use permit for this address, it will be subject to review in one (1) year.

Recommendation

In terms of recommendation, Staff recommends approval of SUP-01-17-01, special use permit for the Information Station located at 4737 Queal Drive, a group day care with up to twelve (12) children operated as a home occupation by Stacey Lewis, subject to the following conditions:

1. Review of the special use permit in one (1) year;

2. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the KDHE and maintain an annually renewed day care license from the State;

3. The applicant shall have no more than twelve (12) children at the home, including the providers own, between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday;

4. A minimum of two adult care givers shall be present anytime there are more than ten (10) children in attendance at the home;

5. The applicant may have a nonresident employee (or employees) who works at the home. The employee (or employees) work time cannot total more than 40 hours in combination, as allowed by the Shawnee Municipal Code (SMC) 17.66;

6. The applicant shall obtain an annual business license from the City Clerk every year the day care remains in operation; and

7. No signage, either on-site or off-site, is allowed.

That completes our presentation.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Doug. Is the applicant present? If you’d come forward to the mic up there and state your name and address, please.

MS. LEWIS: My name is Stacey Lewis and I live at 4737 Queal Drive in Shawnee, Kansas.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Are you in agreement with staff conditions?

MS. LEWIS: Yes.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yes, thank you. Then this is a public hearing item. Oh, does anyone have any questions for staff or applicant? This is a public hearing item. So, is there anyone from the public that wishes to talk on this matter? Hearing none, then we would be in Commission discussion. Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would suggest that home daycare is a valued service provided in a community and seems like an appropriate use for the property. As we’ve had, as staff indicates, no issues on other similar properties and businesses in the past.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Anyone else? Would someone care to make a motion? Commissioner Les Smith.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve SUP-01-SUP-01-17-01; Special Use Permit for 4737 Queal Drive, subject to staff conditions.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Is there a second?

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Second.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Mudgett, thank you for the second. All in favor say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carries. Thank you.

MS. LEWIS: Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Good luck.

(Motion carried 9-0. Commissioner Braley absent)

2. S-204-16-11; REVISED SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM SIGN AREA ALLOWED BY THE SIGN CODE. THE APPLICATION WAS FILED BY DAVID VAVAK OF VIEW SIGN AND LIGHT, THE SIGN CONTRACTOR FOR HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Next on the agenda, S-204-16-11; Revised Sign Variance Request to Exceed the Maximum Sign Area Allowed by the Sign Code. The application was filed by David Vavak of View Sign and Light, the sign contractor for Harbor Freight Tools. Doug.

MR. ALLMON: Again, Doug Allmon, Planning staff. The Planning Commission denied a request for sign variance approval on December 5, 2016, for Harbor Freight Tools. Harbor Freight has revised the prior application reducing the size of the proposed sign, but is again requesting a sign variance to exceed the maximum sign area allowed by sign code.

The sign code allows the Planning Commission to grant a sign variance regarding the size of a wall sign, not to exceed 8.75 percent of the wall area. The proposed wall sign is 203 square feet exceeding the standard maximum size of 170 square feet. 203 square feet is approximately 8.4% of the wall area.

The applicant believes the sign variance is warranted because the business is set back a significant distance (approximately 400 feet) from Shawnee Mission Parkway, and is not easily seen from the street.

Recommendation

In terms of a recommendation, the Planning Commission shall consider approval of S-204-16-11, a wall sign size variance for Harbor Freight Tools located at 11219 Shawnee Mission Parkway. If the Planning Commission chooses to approve the revised variance request, Planning staff recommends the variance be subject to the following condition:

That is, Number 1, all requirements of SMC 5.64 shall be met and a sign permit shall be obtained from the Planning Department prior to the installation of the sign.

And I’m actually going to put up another visual for your discussion so you can see that. That completes our report.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Doug. Is the applicant present? Would you come forward and state your name and address, please?

MR. GONSHER: Good evening. My name is Eric Gonsher. Address is (Address Omitted).

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. And there is no recommendation so far from staff, so do you have something you’d like to present to us?

MR. GONSHER: I would.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Please go ahead.

MR. GONSHER: First, I’d frankly wanted to apologize to you all. Last time I think we came to present and weren’t prepared to answer some of the good questions and concerns that you all had broached. And so we’ve done our research. We’ve heard you, which is why we’ve come back with the revised request for the smaller sign and wanted to kind of address some of the questions and concerns that we heard the first go around.

Let me see if this will fit on there. Well, this isn’t going to work the way I thought it was going to, but --

(Off Record Talking)

MR. GONSHER: I put together this exhibit really to illustrate kind of the primary reasons that we’re seeking this sign variance. There’s a couple factors that contribute to the lack of visibility for the sign. One of which, as Doug mentioned, is the façade sits, depending on where your vehicle would be on Shawnee Mission Parkway, anywhere from about 419 feet to in excess of 500 feet from the façade. The other is there’s five existing out-parcel buildings that cluster the buildings, the three at the corner of Shawnee Mission Parkway and Nieman as well as the Payless Shoes building and then the newly constructed Centra Care building. I’ve put these photos as some viewpoints at the points that are illustrated on the Shawnee Mission Parkway to show how the visibility is truly blocked. And I’ve got larger images if that’s helpful. I’m happy to provide those, too. Also per the title records, the owner of the 24 Hour Fitness property has the ability, per those title documents, to construct another out-parcel
in the location labeled as 1 on kind of at the southeast corner of Shawnee Mission Parkway and Flint, which we believe would further impact visibility in the event that building was every constructed in the future.

I thought I’d just kind of note how this request initially came about. As developers, we’re often, for lack of a better word, at the mercy of our tenants. And Harbor Freight Tools has a great business. They’ve done very well in Shawnee for many years. They’ve got 700 locations nationally. And it was important to the ownership group of the shopping center to retain them in the shopping center. They had come to us with a major concern about visibility. The sign that they had up previously you all probably remember, I’ve got a photo of it, was very small. And so they started to look around, frankly, at other locations. They were kind enough to remind us during that discussion that there’s a number of municipalities where they could still service these clients. That the sign code is ten percent, the standard code without a variance, and we’re before you tonight asking for 8.4 percent versus the 8.75 percent we previously asked for. Those municipalities are Lenexa, Overland Park, Olathe and Mission. As
I mentioned, the ownership group was very interested in keeping them at the shopping center and made a significant investment into remodeling the façade with the primary goal of, you know, increasing the façade, increasing the signage, improving the visibility for Harbor Freight and for the other tenants in the shopping center.

The other thing I just wanted to mention is when we began this design process with the architect for the façade renovation, our architect’s recommendation for the Harbor Freight Tools sign, just in terms of kind of what would be aesthetically pleasing and within proportion to the façade that we were building was 266 square feet. We certainly understand that that’s way outside of the City’s code and respect the City code. And which is why we’re here tonight asking for 204 square feet. But we do want to build -- it’s important to us to build a project that’s aesthetically pleasing and that it looks good in the end. And I know that’s important to you all also.

The other thing I wanted to mention is the consistency with the other tenants. So, to kind of put into context our request of the 204 square feet, or 203.5, the JoAnn Fabrics sign, which is the tenant that’s adjacent to Harbor Freight Tools, their sign is 254 square feet. So, 50 square feet larger than what we’re requesting tonight.

And lastly, I know there was some discussion about really the size and proportion of the sign and I get it. I mean these things are big. And, you know, when you think of them in terms of the size of a room or whatever it is -- they can be daunting. So, I understand that concern. But we did do a survey of some of the other signs for other tenants that are in Shawnee that are occupying similar sized spaces that have wider signs than what we’re requesting tonight. And those signs are Bed Bath & Beyond, Westlake Hardware, PetSmart and OfficeMax.
So again, I appreciate the opportunity to be here and happy to answer any additional questions or concerns.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Does anybody on the Commission have a question for staff or applicant? Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Question for the applicant. Can you point out on the photograph that’s displayed where the medical building is?

MR. GONSHER: Yeah. It’s Number 2. So, right --

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Two. And in the report it mentioned that one of the concerns was you were hidden behind other buildings, so I’m curious how a larger sign is going to be seen if another building is in front of it.

MR. GONSHER: You make a good point. It’s not ideal. You know, having a structure in front of a building is always going to impede visibility. Our goal is to create the best visibility and the largest impact for the tenant that we possibly can while still maintaining an aesthetically pleasing façade and shopping center that’s consistent with the other signs and tenants that are around it.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Thank you. Question for staff as well.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: I’ve got a question for staff. And, Paul, I don’t know if you can put up or, Doug, the other photo back up. But I’m curious, the size of this sign in percentage relative to the JoAnn Fabrics sign. Because that JoAnn Fabrics sign really stands out. It seems quite large.

(Off Record Talking)

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: And also, is that sign that’s up there that says Harbor Freight, is that --

MR. CHAFFEE: That’s a banner sign.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Indicative of the size or --

MR. CHAFFEE: I’ll go into that.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Thank you.

MR. CHAFFEE: JoAnn’s sign is the larger size. JoAnn’s also has nearly twice the frontage wall area as Harbor Freight. That they’re 250 square, they’re under the seven percent requirement. It’s just that the way the calculation is made is, is seven percent of the wall area of the space that a tenant leases, which is the same as Lenexa, Overland Park, Olathe are all generally the same. Just to make one correction. Unless Lenexa changed their sign code recently and didn’t get it codified this morning, they still indicated that they’re at five percent of the wall area that’s allowed. But I went out this afternoon and took a picture after I visited a little bit with Eric because I know some of our conversation had to do with how well did the sign fit in with the rest of the shopping center. And really further to the west we have Dental Innovations, which is at a lower level. But over where the OfficeMax was there was no other sign there, so I just took it of JoAnn’s and Harbor Freight. The Harbor Freight sign that you see right now, basically the size of the lettering for Harbor Freight is the same size as what they’re requesting. It’s about 3' 9" in height. The other thing that happens is is that we have the little tag flying underneath, which is about 18 inches in height. So, that sort of gives you a feel for JoAnn’s. You know, JoAnn’s has the two tiers also. And all their letters are fairly large in size. So, I want to thank Eric for giving me information on the banner because it tended to work well. The size of the banner, the way the Harbor Freight letters work out is going to be about three feet longer than what you see. That’s about a 29-30 foot sized sign. So, it’s only a tenth of that size of what you see. And they’re probably going to have it on both sides. So, you know, it may be over just a little bit on both sides. But, you know, in reality, this is pretty indicative of what you might see, and then adding the tag line below it. Does that answer your question?

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: It does. And I would just note that although I recognize what you said about the size of the JoAnn’s sign, you know, the portion of the piece of the building that it’s on, you know, it looks like it’s much larger proportionally. And I would just comment that, or I guess I should save that for Commissioner discussion.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Commissioner Mudgett.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Paul, I’ve got another question for you. Just to restate, the allowable square footage of signs for Lenexa, Olathe, Mission and Overland Park that Eric mentioned is currently what exactly?

MR. CHAFFEE: Olathe and Overland Park is ten percent of the façade area. And they do the calculation the same way that we do.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Okay.

MR. CHAFFEE: Tenant space to tenant space. So, you don’t get to bleed over into your neighbor’s signage.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Okay.
MR. CHAFFEE: Lenexa and Leawood is five percent. And I didn’t look at Mission, but I wouldn’t be surprised driving through Mission if ten percent is probably not --

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Okay.

MR. CHAFFEE: -- not their requirement.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: And ours is seven, is that correct?

MR. CHAFFEE: And ours is seven. We’re kind of in the middle.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Seven percent. In the middle.

MR. CHAFFEE: Uh-huh.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Okay. Now, you said that JoAnn Fabrics has a larger square footage available?

MR. CHAFFEE: Yeah. JoAnn has, they have a -- well, Harbor Freight has 85 feet of frontage of their leasable space. JoAnn’s leasable space is 140 feet. And then as you can see from the picture Harbor Freight’s façade is a little larger than JoAnn’s, but JoAnn’s extends quite a further to the east.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: So, the calculation is actually the --

MR. CHAFFEE: So, the calculation is the same. JoAnn’s didn’t need a variance even though they have 254 square feet because they’re under seven percent of their wall area.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: So, the façade there is a little misleading since JoAnn’s looks actually smaller than Harbor Freight, is that correct?

MR. CHAFFEE: Yes. Yes.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: I’m no mathematician, but I wanted to be sure that I was seeing that right that that’s actually larger.

MR. CHAFFEE: Yeah. Yeah. You’re right.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Okay.

MR. CHAFFEE: Theirs comes in probably, I’m going to guess about 5¼ percent maybe.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Any other questions for staff or applicant?

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bogina.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Hi. I appreciate what you said about having to make a good argument in order to receive an exception. Do you recall -- well, your sign is going to be -- this sign would be between 19 and 26.4 feet high, is that true?

MR. GONSHER: It would be a total of 6' 4¼".

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: I mean, I’m sorry. The height on the building, it would be 19 foot from the sidewalk to the bottom of --

MR. GONSHER: The height to the top of the parapet is at 31.4 inches.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Okay. So, if I’m standing on the sidewalk how tall would the sign be? How much higher than the sign would it be from the sidewalk?

MR. GONSHER: That’s a good one. We could probably do some math and figure that out. Let’s see. So, the stop of the sign would be at 26' 4". And the sign itself is a total with a tag line, a total of 6' 4¼". So, about 20 feet to the bottom of the sign.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Twenty-two feet from the bottom of the sign?

MR. GONSHER: Approximately.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And this building is probably higher you would guess than buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5? Or I’m sorry, there is no 1. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

MR. GONSHER: It is, yeah. The out parcel buildings are -- I think the Centra Care building, which was just constructed, the highest point is about 25' 6", something like that.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: That’s the highest point of the building?

MR. GONSHER: Right.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, there isn’t a problem with seeing this sign above the other buildings?

MR. GONSHER: Well, what happens is because Shawnee Mission Parkway sits lower than the shopping center, as the vehicle is driving down Shawnee Mission Parkway, visibility at certain points is completely impeded. To your point about, you know, if the sign is bigger or smaller does it make any difference if there’s a building in front of it, you know, having the sign being a little bit wider and a little bit taller helps a little bit. But there’s definitely an impact on some of those out parcel buildings even though the height isn’t as tall as this building, it’s just because of the view corridor from Shawnee Mission Parkway. And I’ve got some larger photos from the initial exhibit that I’d be happy to provide that --

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: I guess my point is that there is only one building and it’s not very wide, but it is the building that’s going to be the most -- the tallest. And so I don’t really understand that much about how there is any advantage because you already have the height advantage, how there’s any advantage in having larger numerals or longer letters.

MR. GONSHER: Well, it’s really about the view corridor as the traffic is driving down Shawnee Mission Parkway at a quicker speed. So, there is certain points where the sign is not going to be visible at all and there will be certain points where it is completely visible. And having the larger sign allows the traffic to see it just a little bit more often than it would if it was smaller.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Could you tell us how you got the reduction from 1.25 to 1.2 as you are today?

MR. GONSHER: Yeah. Frankly, you know, again, our architect had made the recommendation of 266 square feet. And it’s our goal to create a project that not only we’re proud of and our tenants are proud of, but you all at the city is going to be proud of. And so we want it to look in proportion. I hope you don’t take this the wrong way. But even at 212 square feet we felt like it was still going to be too small. Frankly, we wanted to make sure that you all knew that we were hearing your concerns and that’s why we’ve reduced the size to make sure that you knew that you were being heard.
COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Maybe I didn’t ask it well. How is this proposal different in size of the letters than two weeks ago?

MR. GONSHER: Oh, I’m sorry. Yes. I can tell you that.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: If they’re 3.9, they’re still 3.9 feet tall. Are they just not as wide?

MR. GONSHER: I can give you the exact dimension. So, the previous request at 212 square feet was 6' 5¾" tall by 32' 7⅞". Today’s request is 6' 4¼" tall by 32' 4¼" wide. Is that answering your question?

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, it’s 30 -- both proposals were 32 foot long?

MR. GONSHER: Yeah. The first one with the 25 percent variance is 32' 7⅞". The second one 32' ¼".

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And so this proposal is six foot tall and what was the proposal two weeks ago?

MR. GONSHER: The current request of 204 square feet, 6' 4¼" and the previous request with the 25 percent variance was 6' 5¾".

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, the sign will be one inch shorter. One inch shorter than what you proposed two weeks ago?

MR. GONSHER: Yeah. And we really were going off the percentage of the variance, the 20 percent versus the 25 percent. And that’s in proportion the way the sign vendor modeled it.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And will the letters -- so, the letters are changing by one inch?

MR. GONSHER: Yeah.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Not just the gap between Quality Tools and Harbor Freight?

MR. GONSHER: Right. And we did explore making the caps smaller to try to keep the letters bigger. Harbor Freight Tools corporate wouldn’t go for that. They’ve got certain standards across their store locations. So, it is a direct impact on the actual size of the letters that the gap remains the same between both proposals.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And I just have one more thing. Why after five years or so after, and it seems like success, do they now feel the need for a sign, a sign that’s larger than the code?

MR. GONSHER: It’s a good question. And in our business of retail shopping centers we’re constantly having to unfortunately work with tenants that are constantly evolving and changing their business models and trying to -- as the business climate becomes more and more competitive with online shopping, the good retailers that are in the marketplace are laser focused on making sure that they can continue to operate at the most efficient levels. So, this was really an initiative that came from Harbor Freight corporate. You know, we’re just the messenger. But for them it’s about, you know, I know through this process that one of their primary goals when they’re looking for a location is good visibility to their customer base. And it was important to us to try to retain them in the shopping center and obviously in Shawnee.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Okay. Thank you.

MR. GONSHER: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Paul, do you have a comment here? Then we’ll come back to Commissioner Mudgett.

MR. CHAFFEE: One other thing in relation to the last question about Harbor Freight and their former sign. If you remember before the façade modification was made to this shopping center the façade had more of a triangular look to the top, much tighter. So, the sign that they’re proposing or something relatively similar to it just couldn’t fit on the old façade as it was. So, I think that’s why they came up with the size that they did initially.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: And, Paul, that was not the corporate sign when that was put up?

MR. CHAFFEE: You know, I’ve seen -- I’ve been online and looked at Harbor Freight’s signs and they have white ones and they have red ones and they have individual letter ones and they have ones in cans and just the three existing in the Kansas City area between ours and one up in Liberty that’s white and one in Kansas City, Kansas that’s inside of a can. So, you know, they may be going through a re-branding process on all of their signage. But, you know, this itself wasn’t even similar to any of the others that had been installed.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Paul. Commissioner Mudgett, do you have a question?

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Yeah. Paul, I’ve got two questions for you, Paul.

MR. CHAFFEE: Okay.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two questions for Paul and two questions for Eric. The photo that you just had up there of the original Harbor Freight sign. Now, just to ask very candidly. If you were to see that sign, and maybe this is a question for Eric too. If you were to see that sign on that size of a façade, would that be any indication to a retail developer or a potential tenant that the rules or sign regulations in Shawnee might be somewhat of a struggle to deal with?

MR. CHAFFEE: I don’t think so. And the reason is this is nowhere close to the seven percent that they could have put up initially.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Right. But they might be perceived as that’s what somebody made them put up there because it’s awfully small to fit in with that space.

MR. CHAFFEE: I would --

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: That’s just my perception.

MR. CHAFFEE: I would disagree with that. I think, you know, anyone who called the office we would show them the sign permit that was submitted by Harbor Freight. Or if Harbor Freight came in and requested something larger, we certainly would have worked with them to do that.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Okay.

MR. CHAFFEE: So, this sign was their choice.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Okay. Next question. How substantial of a business is Harbor Freight to us? I mean to the city. Is there --

MR. CHAFFEE: All business --

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: I mean, I know it’s busy. I shop there all the time, so.

MR. CHAFFEE: All businesses within the City of Shawnee are substantial to us.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: I know we don’t show favoritism, but.

MR. CHAFFEE: So, and I don’t know how much sales tax they collect and that generally doesn’t come into any of our types of decisions that we make. But, you know, we like Harbor Freight. We’re glad they’re in Shawnee.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Right.

MR. CHAFFEE: We’re glad that they got with a new developer and decided to keep the space that they’re located in.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Okay. Eric, a couple quick questions. You worked with an architect to come up with the original 266-foot design. That’s what he came up with originally, right?

MR. GONSHER: He did, correct.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Is this an architect you work with a lot?

MR. GONSHER: We have on a number of occasions. It’s Russ Eden, who has also done other projects for other developers in Shawnee.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Okay. And is he a qualified designer?

MR. GONSHER: Sure. Sure.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: You would agree with that?

MR. GONSHER: I believe so, yeah.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: And how happy was he in reducing 266 square feet, his original design to 204?

MR. GONSHER: You know, really the rub came primarily from Harbor Freight Tools. You know, I mean from the architect’s perspective they design what they’re taught to design --

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Right.

MR. GONSHER: -- in architectural school based on, you know, dimensions and the –

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Yeah. I’m no designer. My wife is constantly reminding of that.

MR. GONSHER: Yeah. I’m not either. I’m not either. And I don’t know that what architect design was the way it should be in Shawnee. I’m not saying that by any means. I mean, I don’t want this to be taken the wrong way. We’re happy to play by the rules of the City of Shawnee. We respect the code. We respect the Commission. And we are happy to be before you requesting the 204 square feet.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Sure. But he was okay with that production in the end?

MR. GONSHER: You know, I mean --

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: To a certain point.

MR. GONSHER: -- he designed it a certain way, so I’m sure he would have preferred to have it be the way he designed it. But we’re, again, we’re happy to be before you with this request and just hope that we can be granted the variance.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Okay. Thanks, Eric.

MR. GONSHER: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I heard that the person that was really the, you know, had the biggest beef with this was the owner of the building in, you know, in his quest to keep Harbor Freight. I mean that’s, and so he was the one that --

MR. GONSHER: Absolutely, yeah. So, our group purchased the shopping center. Shortly after we purchased it we frankly lost Office Depot. So, there’s no question that as Harbor Freight’s lease was expiring and they were looking at all options as all tenants do when their leases expire, there is no question that our group was very committed to doing whatever we could to satisfy the requirements of Harbor Freight Tools to keep them in the shopping center. But with that said, all the signage, design, sizes, artwork was all direct from Harbor Freight Tools. None of that was from the developer’s side. We’re simply the messenger as it relates to that.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: The picture that I’m looking at is four of six of the U.S. Signs packet, which shows the Sign Number 1 north elevation. It has the façade as well as the entire building across the bottom. First of all, I appreciate the obvious time you have spent in coming back. You made a recession, you know, of a percentage and I appreciate that. I also appreciate all of the work. This is much easier for us to make a decision on and I know that that doesn’t come free, so I appreciate that. The other thing is, is that I’m going to go back to -- I understand our regulations are this frontage of the building that you are leasing and Harbor Freight is a long narrow space that’s only 85 feet long. But if we -- my question is, with the percentage difference as a concession, I don’t -- the variance -- if you go much smaller than that I think the building -- you increase the façade. You increase that square footage, but that doesn’t give Harbor Freight any additional whatever. But if you look at the building as a whole, I don’t know how you could do it any different and not make it look disproportionate. If you were to -- because if you were to look at the -- then you go back to the one where it’s the banner. That was a really good visual for me especially knowing that that is approximately the size that it would be. That seems to fit. I don’t know what it would -- how much smaller you could go without it being inadequate. Not only for visibility. Because I drive on Shawnee Mission Parkway and I know it’s hard. I know Harbor Freight is there though because I get to go there, which is great. But if you don’t and if you’re GPS challenged or whatever, then you need as much signage as you’re allowed. So, I appreciate coming back to us with a modified plan.

MR. GONSHER: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Anyone else?

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: I would just say one thing.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bogina.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Commissioner Peterson, I don’t think this drawing is proportionate that the sign is approximately 11 feet from the edge of the -- from each edge of the 55 feet. 32 feet would be the sign itself. And so I don’t think the picture is really proportionate to --

MR. GONSHER: There is a scale on there. I don’t know if anybody has a ruler. Because I think Lauren -- somebody had made that concern and so Lauren reached out to our sign vendor and we played with it different ways. And believe me I wanted to make sure that what I was presenting tonight was accurate. I apologize about the Lenexa. But, yeah, I mean there’s a scale on here so we could --

MR. CHAFFEE: Yeah. I think the one with the banner gives probably as good a view as you can. There will be 18 inches more on, well, assuming it’s centered, which I’m assuming it is. There will be 18 inches more on the west side and 18 inches more sign on the east side. But the letters that you see in the middle are pretty much spot on to what they’re requesting. But then in addition to that you would have the little blue tag line which is 18 inches in depth that would run underneath the --

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Excuse me, Paul. I think what we’re talking about is this picture to scale, which would be Sign 1?

MR. GONSHER: Yeah. I know our sign vendor took that directly from our architect’s drawings and then overlaid the Harbor Freight Tools sign onto there.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: But if that area is 55 feet. May I?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Please, Commissioner Bogina.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And if the sign is 32 feet, then there is 23 feet between the edge, I mean, 23 feet divided by two is 11½ feet. And that does seem like that it’s 20 percent of the area. And that’s the only thing I’m saying. I’m not saying that 32 or whatever is right or wrong. But I don’t think you can go by this little architectural drawing and say it’s proportionate to, because I don’t think it is proportionate. I think it’s a little -- the signage is a little bit smaller than what should be if it was proportionate.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very fine. Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yeah. Paul, do you happen to know the letters’ height and width?

MR. CHAFFEE: I do not off the top of my head.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Or Eric.

MR. GONSHER: Actually I think I do. So, they are, is it 8' 9½" tall with the tag line and the letters. I don’t have the letters broken down here. And then it’s 29 feet wide.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: So, the letters with the tag on it is 8' 9" inches?

MR. GONSHER: 8' 9½".

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: And the Harbor Freight request is with the tag line?

MR. GONSHER: 6' 4¼".

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: And it includes the tag line?

MR. GONSHER: 6' 4¼" includes the tag line.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other questions for staff or applicant? At this point we would be in Commission discussion.

MR. GONSHER: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: And one thing I’ll start with on Commission discussion is if there is a motion to approve this variance, then it needs to be with a specific reason so that we don’t end up with people wanting a bigger sign because they want a bigger sign and we have no way to say, hey, we can’t do that and we have not done that. So, if there is a motion, then we need to have a specific reason. I don’t think it’s necessary for a specific reason if the motion is to deny it. So, now we’re open to Commission discussion. Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess as I look at the front of -- the façade of that building and look at Harbor Freight sitting next to JoAnn’s, and it may just be an optical illusion, but it seems to me that the Harbor Freight from an aesthetic standpoint, the sign variance would seem to make it to be personally appear better on the front of the building than a smaller sign would when you compare that. I know that JoAnn’s is a much smaller façade that really protrudes out and so that sign kind of overpowers it. But I think if we -- I do think the larger sign there actually fits kind of nicely within that space. And I’m not normally a fan of sign variance.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Les Smith.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree wholeheartedly. You know, there’s a lot of different reasons and rationale for sign ordinances. And this particular case being on a wall, I would submit that it’s mostly for aesthetic reasons. And quite frankly, I would have supported the last variance request because I believe it is more aesthetically pleasing for that corridor. So, I don’t want to get tied up in numbers and inches here and an inch there and three-quarters of an inch there. Sometimes you just have to eyeball it when it’s that close. And to me eyeballing it makes it a lot more aesthetically pleasing as I said. And it seems to fit better. I don’t think there should be a large variation between any of them. And no telling what will come next on the other hand. But I would wholeheartedly support that variance.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Anyone else? One of the issues that was brought up by the gentleman was that, you know, this sits behind other buildings. Ten Quivira Plaza has the same situation with it. When we get out where Walmart and those are they have the same situation that there is buildings out in the front of them. So, it’s not just, hey, this is the only one it’s occurred at, it’s occurred on Shawnee Mission Parkway and most other cities in the same manner. So, that specifically doesn’t say to me that this is an exception. It’s more the general case of our developments along Shawnee Mission Parkway.

Any other discussion? Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I understand that perhaps others may not have it and I understand how we feel about setting a precedent. But in the same vein we have to look at these on an individual basis. And if somebody from Walmart or somebody from whatever wanted to come to us and say we want to change, they would have to present their case and it would have to be convincing. This is the same situation we have here. And I believe that this is a good variance for obvious reasons with the vantage points that they have and don’t have for the fact of the changes of the façade. It’s not the small peak anymore. It is a broad square sign. And not only do I feel that it is aesthetically appropriate, but it would seem a penalty to whoever takes that space because they have a small percentage of frontage, but yet this huge façade on top that that would be unfair for any other, for lack of a better thing. It wouldn’t because JoAnn Fabrics has the frontage that goes to the end of their building, not just that little what’s under their little cupola façade. And the one on the west side of the building, which is the gym I believe, has the large façade, but they also have the larger portion that goes off to the side, which you can see in that one where they showed the entire shopping center. So, I understand why the variance is what it, I mean, it is what it is. But I think this absolutely meets all the rules of an exception because of the façade and its size. It should have been smaller if we were going to go with -- they couldn’t go over two feet tall in my opinion.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Commissioner Mudgett.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: I completely agree with the previous Commissioners. I think it’s important for us as a Planning Commission to acknowledge. Here we have a developer who has stepped forward and reinvested in Shawnee, made some improvements to the facility. And in those cases it’s important for us to evaluate any changes that he wants to make within the rules and sometimes exceptions are appropriate. And I think in this case they are.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Anyone else? Hearing no further comments, would someone like to make a motion? Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I would move for approval of S-204-16-11; Sign Variance and Size, Revised Application for Harbor Freight Tools, 11219 Shawnee Mission Parkway, by View Light and Sign, the applicant, as stipulated in the sizing and report and subject to -- I guess there are no conditions other than the sizing. And I think in this case, you know, and based on our discussion, from an aesthetic standpoint sitting next to the JoAnn’s sign, which I think was a couple of feet taller, although we have a much larger building frontage, I think the way it’s laid out, I think the sign variance is appropriate.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Is there a second?

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Second.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Mudgett, thank you for the second. There’s a motion and a second to approve S-204-16-11; Sign Variance, revised application by Harbor Freight Tools, 11219 Shawnee Mission Parkway, View Light and Sign is the applicant. All in favor say aye.

COMMISSIONERS BIENHOFF, MUDGETT, PETERSON, L. SMITH, WILLOUGHBY, WISE: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Oppose nay.

COMMISSIONERS BOGINA, BUSBY, J. SMITH: Nay.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I didn’t get the split on that.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: I did not and I guess I would request, if appropriate, for a voice vote on this.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very fine. We’ll go by a voice vote. Commissioner John Smith.

COMMISSIONER JOHN SMITH: Nay.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Yea.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Yea.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yea.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Busby says nay. Commissioner Bogina.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: No.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yes?

COMMISSIONER WISE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Braley is absent. Commissioner Les Smith.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Aye or yea.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Mudgett.

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I’ve got 5-6 -- 6-3, is that what you got?

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Uh-huh.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: 6-3. We have 6-3, motion in favor. The motion passes. Thank you.

(Motion passed 6-3. J. Smith, Busby, Bogina - Nay; Braley absent)

3. S-206-16-11; SIGN VARIANCE APPROVAL TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM MONUMENT SIGN HEIGHT ALLOWED BY THE SIGN CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11023 JOHNSON DRIVE. THE APPLICATION IS FILED BY SCOTT HARVEY, OWNER OF BACK IN MOTION CHIROPRACTIC. THIS ITEM WAS TABLED AT THE DECEMBER 19, 2016 MEETING.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Next on the agenda is S-206-16-11; Sign Variance Approval to Exceed the Maximum Monument Sign Height Allowed by the Sign Code for Property Located at 11023 Johnson Drive. The application is filed by Scott Harvey, owner of Back in Motion Chiropractic. This item was tabled at the December 19, 2016 meeting. Doug, please.

MR. ALLMON: Doug Allmon again for Planning Staff. Back in Motion Chiropractic is located at 11023 Johnson Drive on the southeast corner of Johnson Drive and Nieman Road. The business is located in the former 7-Eleven convenience store in downtown Shawnee. The owner desires to use the existing non-conforming monument sign for their new business.

The applicant would like to use the base of the existing monument sign on the site for their new monument sign. The previous 7-Eleven sign was approximately 9 feet tall with a 4.17 foot base and a 4.83 foot tall sign face.

The Sign Code allows monument signs to be up of 7 feet tall above the average grade.

The Sign Code does allow the Planning Commission to grant a sign variance regarding the height of a monument sign, not to exceed 25 percent (8.75 feet) of what is regularly allowed. The proposed height of the monument sign in this case will be 8.17 feet. The proposed sign height exceeds the allowable height by approximately 17 percent, or just over one foot.

The applicant believes that the strict application of the sign ordinance will cause unnecessary hardship because the existing monument sign would be difficult to alter or remove the base structure. While the overall sign height exceeds sign code requirements, the sign face has been reduced to meet the size requirements. The non-conforming height of the existing sign is also being reduced by approximately one foot by the proposal.

Recommendation

In terms of a recommendation, the Planning Commission shall consider approval of S-206-16-11, a monument sign height variance for Back in Motion Chiropractic at 11023 Johnson Drive. If the Planning Commission chooses to approve the variance, Planning staff recommends the variance be subject to the following conditions:

1. All requirements of Shawnee Municipal Code 5.64 shall be met. A sign permit shall be obtained from the Planning Department prior to installation of the sign.

2. Per Municipal Code Section 5.64.050.B, landscaping around the sign base shall be maintained in a neat, clean and healthy condition. Any landscape plantings that perish shall be replaced not later than the next planting season.
And here is an elevation view including the height and the material that they’re going to use. And that completes our report.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Doug. Is the applicant present? If you would come up to the microphone and state your name and address, please.

DR. HARVEY: Scott Harvey. My home address (Address Omitted). And like you said I own the building across the street. And like I said, my recommendation today is based on what’s there. You know, and I think he pretty much stated everything that, you know, kind of why I’m looking to do this variance.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Are you in agreement with the staff recommendation and essentially the amendments on it?

DR. HARVEY: It seems all pretty clear to me, yeah.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Terrific. Does the Commission have any questions for the staff or applicant?

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bogina.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: I think everybody appreciates businesses that are downtown. But this is an electronic sign?

DR. HARVEY: It is.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And so even though it’s electronic and it’ll probably get a lot of activity and a lot of looks it still -- do you still feel it should exceed the height at the intersection?

DR. HARVEY: It’s not necessary other than, I mean, I don’t need that additional height other than, like I said, just trying to conform without undue I guess cost of demolishing the existing sign that’s on the corner.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, you’re going to add the stack stone to the existing brick face?

DR. HARVEY: Yes. I’ll façade it with that.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And so wouldn’t they just take a quickie saw if they wanted to make it shorter or wider or whatever --

DR. HARVEY: Absolutely.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: -- and saw parts of it?

DR. HARVEY: That’s my option. That’s my option.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: And so that’s probably a very small -- it’s probably not that difficult to do. And so why would -- to conform. And so what would be the reasons not to conform?

DR. HARVEY: Like I said, my request wishes to try to use what was existing there for, and it’s not a major problem and like I said I can do it. But they had told me that I had that option, so that’s why I’m here.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Okay.

DR. HARVEY: So, initial --

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: So, is the --

DR. HARVEY: My initial intent was to use what was there. But once we looked into it, started getting prices for new Plexiglas or new frontage. The sign has been pretty well damaged and so it was pretty much a given that we need to at least tear down the existing. It’s all been upgraded to LED. You know, I really didn’t want to do so, but, you know, again, with the stress and strain that’s been on it. And a different kind of pan sign than what I was really wanting to do also. Like I said, we decided to put a new sign on top of, and I was just hoping to use the existing base without having to do -- and again, like I said, it’s not a major problem, but it was there and I was just hoping to be able to just set my new sign pretty much on top of the existing brick.

COMMISSIONER BOGINA: Okay. Thank you.

DR. HARVEY: And it will -- what did you say it was?

MR. ALLMON: [Inaudible; talking off mic] foot shorter than [inaudible].

DR. HARVEY: Right. And is that with my new sign?

MR. ALLMON: [Inaudible; talking off mic] with your new [inaudible]

DR. HARVEY: Okay.

MR. CHAFFEE: And your sign face [Inaudible; talking off mic] 50 square feet [inaudible].

DR. HARVEY: Right. Yeah. And that’s the other thing. Yeah.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I’m sorry. What was that, Paul?

MR. CHAFFEE: I mentioned also to Dr. Harvey that the sign face goes down from 50 square feet of the 7-11 sign to 32 square feet. The sign he’s looking at placing on top of the existing monument is [inaudible].

DR. HARVEY: Significantly smaller than what I can actually have.

MR. CHAFFEE: He has six feet wide and seven to ten feet wide and it’s four foot tall instead of five feet tall.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Any other questions for applicant or staff? Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What is the existing base that you’re planning to use? What is it constructed of?

DR. HARVEY: It’s just brick.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Brick.

DR. HARVEY: Yeah. With all -- it’s got electrical and it’s got a lot of reinforcement. I think that whole metal goes all the way down into the brick. And I mean it’s not --

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Did you get any kind of estimate as to what it would take to shorten that, make it smaller to conform?

DR. HARVEY: I haven’t, but like you said, if I can get a saw and go hack it off and it could be done in a few hours I’m sure. But just like I said, I was hoping to not have to go through that and --

MR. CHAFFEE: [inaudible] electrical conduit.

DR. HARVEY: Right. And there’s electrical in there. And like I said there’s a lot of metal in that sign.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Thank you.

DR. HARVEY: And you can see I’ve been trying to save cost and I hope you guys appreciate what I’ve done over there from where it’s been sitting. But like I said, it was there and I was hoping to just not have to mess with a whole lot.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Paul, how did 7-11 get a nine foot tall sign? Was that way before?

MR. CHAFFEE: That building was built before –

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: But the sign --

MR. CHAFFEE: -- the mother of our current sign regulations. It’s a legal non-conforming. At the time it was constructed it was okay. Just with changes over time --

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Okay. Thank you.

MR. CHAFFEE: -- [inaudible] change.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Commissioner Bienhoff.

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yeah. So, with that said, so with the change in tenant then, you’re required to bring the sign into conformance with current code or so it can no longer be legal non-conforming?

MR. CHAFFEE: That’s correct. Scott needed to [inaudible] something [inaudible].

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Anyone else? Thank you, Dr. Harvey. I guess we’d be in Commissioner discussion. Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I think that they’ve made some significant improvements to that corner. Nobody can argue that. I think the cost of shortening that base is more than Dr. Harvey is willing to admit to. And no, he doesn’t have a permit. And not that the cost of it is necessarily our consideration, but I believe with coming down a foot already of what was there, this is very aesthetically pleasing and it matches the work that he has done inside and outside of the building. It is a corner lot. It’s not [inaudible]. I don’t see any problem. I see that he had something that was way too big. He’s come down a little bit. The biggest part is the base and I think if you cut into the base you’re actually going to do more damage than good. With covering it with stone it’s very aesthetically pleasing. I think we should grant it.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. I have a comment. And that is I disagree with Dr. Harvey on one thing. Every construction project I’ve been involved in was going to be so much and by the time I was finished it was three times as long and three times as much money.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Absolutely.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: And I really think with what he’s doing and making his actual sign smaller to make up for the height issue without having to tear that out is something that makes sense to me. And I think just common sense says this is a good approach to it and it doesn’t bother me at all to grant a variance with it.

Any other discussion? Would someone care to make a motion, please? Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Regarding S-206-16-11; Sign Variance, Back in Motion Chiropractic, located at 11023 Johnson Drive, owner Dr. Scott Harvey, I move that we pass his application for a sign variance as stated by staff and according to the recommendations.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Do I hear a second?

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Second.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Second by Commissioner Mudgett. There’s a motion and a second. All in favor say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carried. Thank you.

(Motion carried 9-0. Braley absent)

E. OTHER BUSINESS

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Does staff have anything for the Commission?

MR. CHAFFEE: Staff just has one item of other business. You all should have gotten an invitation to an Economic Development Summit that the City and the Chamber will be doing on Thursday, January 19th, 11:45 to 6:00 out at the Holiday Day Inn Express. These are -- in the past have been good educational opportunity and it’s where we come up with some of our goals like we have to have the 30 percent appraised value of the community being commercial industrial and office. And it sort of gives a little background as to why we established that goal and what benefits that is to the community. And then we’ll also be having some discussion on some other economic development tools that the city uses currently or perhaps that we’d like to use in the future. You know, we’ll go through some exercises of, you know, since we established that goal ten years ago, we started out, we’re about 24 percent. Now, we’re only 28 percent. And some years we go back to 26 percent and sort of why does that happen. And, you know, we all love -- the residential growth is great. But in order to get the higher appraised value -- or assessed values, you have to generate more commercial to go along. And so we’ll have some discussions on how that works. And hopefully some good discussion and input along the way from all of you as I’m sure there are some ideas out there that we’ve never thought of that will work well for the city. So, I just wanted to encourage you if you haven’t RSVP’d and you have the ability to do that that’s great. I’m sure that we’ll produce some sort of a notebook type handout and I’ll try and get copies of those for any Planning Commissioner who is unable to attend.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What was the when and where again?

MR. CHAFFEE: When is Thursday, January 19th at Holiday Inn Express, 11:45 to 6:00.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Paul. Does Commission have anything for staff? I have one thing and that is I’ve in the last 24 hours become concerned about walking. And I hope we have regulations here that we damn well enforce when it comes to walking because we wouldn’t want another basketball game to be ended like it was.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He traveled so far he shouldn’t have gotten miles.

MR. CHAFFEE: [Inaudible; talking off mic]

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Anything else? If not, a motion, please. What, Bruce?

COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Are you a K-State fan?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Oh, yeah. Yes. I’m very much a K-State fan, Bruce.


F. ADJOURNMENT

COMMISSIONER MUDGETT: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion to adjourn.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Commissioner Mudgett. There’s a motion to adjourn. Is there a second?

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Second.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Second by Commissioner Les Smith. All in favor say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. We’re done. Thank you very much.

(Motion passed 9-0. Braley absent)

(Shawnee Planning Commission Meeting Adjourned at 8:40 p.m.)