PDF Format:

ApprovedPlanningCommissionMeeting.8.7.17.pdfApprovedPlanningCommissionMeeting.8.7.17.pdf


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

PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Commissioner Dennis Busby Deputy Planning director Doug Allmon
Commissioner John Montgomery Planner Mark Zielsdorf
Commissioner Kathy Peterson Administrative Asst. Angie Lind
Commissioner Brian Roth
Commissioner Les Smith
Commissioner Alan Willoughby
Commissioner Steven Wise

PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
Commissioner Bruce Bienhoff
Commissioner Randy Braley
Commissioner Rusty Mudgett
Commissioner John Smith

(Planning Commission Meeting Called to Order at 7:31 p.m.)

A. ROLL CALL

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Good evening. Welcome to the August 7th, 2017 meeting of the Shawnee Planning Commission. We’ll start with roll call. Commissioner Montgomery.

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner John Smith is absent at present. Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bienhoff is absent. Commissioner Busby is here. Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Here.

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

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Mudgett is not here yet. Commissioner Roth.

COMMISSIONER ROTH: Here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you.

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Will you please join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

(Pledge of Allegiance)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. A couple things before we proceed in the meeting is first of all I’m glad to see that two of our Commissioners were reappointed, Commissioner Braley and Commissioner Willoughby. They’re very good and very -- very good members of the Commission and do a great job and do nice work for us. Also would like to welcome Commissioner Montgomery and Commissioner Roth, our newest members of the Planning Commission. Welcome. I hope you enjoy it as much as we do.

C. CONSENT ITEMS

1. APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 17, 2017.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Consent Agenda. Item 1 under the Consent Items Agenda are the minutes of the July 17th, 2017 meeting. Unless there is a request to remove this item -- unless there is a request to remove, yeah, this item, we’ve only got one, from the Consent Agenda, the item will be approved in one motion. Is there a request to remove this item from the Consent Agenda? If not, is there a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Is there a second?

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Second.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Commissioner Les Smith. There’s a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye.
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

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

[Therefore, the motion was made by Commissioner Peterson and seconded by Commissioner L. Smith to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion carried 7-0.]

D. NEW BUSINESS

1. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2017-2018.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: New Business. The first item of business is election of officers for the 2017-2018 term. Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I’d like to nominate Dennis Busby as Chairperson for the following year.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. At this point in time if he’s doing them individually, then we take individual votes.

(Off Record Talking)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: You want to do them one at a time?

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: No, we’ll do them all together.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Oh, go for it.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: And I nominate Bruce Bienhoff as Vice-Chairperson and Steve Wise as Secretary.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Are there any other nominations? If not, then all in favor of the three nominations for President, Vice-President and Secretary of the Planning Commission for 2017-2018 say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carried. We’re elected. Thank you.

[Therefore, the motion was made by Commissioner Willoughby and seconded by Commissioner L. Smith to elect Dennis Busby, Commissioner; Bruce Bienhoff, Vice- Chair; and Steven Wise, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the 2017-2018 term. The motion carried 7-0.]

E. OTHER BUSINESS
1. DISCUSSION ITEM - REVIEW BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS REGARDING THE USE OF EIFS FOR COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Next under other business, Discussion Item - Review Building Design Standards Regarding the Use of EIFS for Commercial and Residential Construction. Doug.

MR. ALLMON: Good evening. Doug Allmon, Planning staff. This will be the third time that we’ve brought this to you. The first time was just with a lot of background information. The second time was kind of to start the discussion. And then this time we actually went out and asked some other cities what they do. We received five, excuse me, six responses back from cities around the metro. We did not hear from the city of Overland Park, the city of Olathe or the city of Lenexa, which I would really consider peer cities. But as you can see in the staff report of the six, all six allow EIFS per the building code. Some are even more stringent than that, that they only allow the drainable system. The city of Leawood does allow it as architectural detailing only, which matches what our standard is today.

And so I think the purpose of this meeting, we did provide all of that background information for you again just so that the new folks would have it and kind of have a chance to review it. Again, I don’t know that we’re looking to have a definite answer tonight, but we’d kind of like some direction from the body as a whole. I would say that our business liaison is here if you have questions of him. He has had conversations and has been contacted by architects around the area that submit projects in the city kind of requesting that this be at least brought up for discussion. And then we have two very well versed gentlemen actually from -- one from STO, one from Dryvit, which are competing companies, if you believe it or not, are both here and they’re available for questions. They don’t have a formal presentation prepared. But they also, in looking at the back, they have material samples if you’re interested in observing them, punching them, whatever you may want to do with them to check their durability I guess would be the best --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is that the samples or the [inaudible; talking off mic].

MR. ALLMON: No, that would be the samples, not the reps.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Doug.

MR. ALLMON: So, it’s just the discussion item.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Doug. You know, my memory serves me that we had a bit of a discussion about this several times. And I think there’s people on our Commission that will have some good questions about it. The one -- a couple things that concerned me was when we had previous discussions it was, well, as long as they’re certified to be able to apply this stuff and it’s inspected. And the inspection would note whether or not it was put on properly and would work properly. And I’m not sure that we know -- have we figured out if we have inspectors that would be able to make sure that these were applied properly?

MR. ALLMON: And kind of like what we talked about last time, there are certified installers, and the industry folks can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think there are also certified inspectors. And what we could do as a standard is A, require certified installation be specified in the plan so that they’re submitted, and then require third-party inspections, especially the non-drainable type applications that would be submitted to the City, third-party inspection that would be part of their file essentially to track that that material was installed, number one, correctly, and that window openings and other more critical areas were done per the industry standard. I will say that the building code has changed and has provisions for special inspections for that non-drainable type application.

But if you notice, some of the cities go as far as to say they won’t even allow the non-drainable, they only allow the drainable. I think that that was the City of Roeland Park is what we came up with on that.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I have a question. So, a couple questions. One is, so the thickness of the coating that they spray on, how is that applied and how do we -- how are you going to measure it?

MR. ALLMON: I would defer to one of the industry reps maybe to answer about the application. I myself and Dave and I think, Mark, didn’t you sit in on that with us? They have a very good description of this material and how it works.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: And I’ve read all the stuff in the --

MR. ALLMON: And obviously we’ve got an architect up there too and a construction person, so.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: If you’d please, because we’re on the record, if you’d please state your name and address. Thank you.

MR. TANKING: My name is Tracy Tanking. I’m with Architectural Building Systems. We’re the Dryvit distributor for the Kansas City area. Our address is 200 South Fifth Street, Kansas City, Kansas. We’ve been the Dryvit distributor since 1984. I’m just passing you guys a sample around because a question came up about our coating thickness. One of the things you’ll notice -- that’s our high impact mesh. It’s a very durable system. You cannot put the coatings on too thin. The mesh is going to gauge the thickness of mud that is troweled over the system. So, that blue mesh you’re seeing, you put on your base coat and you trowel the mesh into the base coat and that’s what gauging the thickness of the mud. Does that answer your question, sir?

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: No, I don’t think so. Now, what if -- looking at this, looking at the drawings, I thought it was a lot further -- it was further in like the backstop into your DMS air and water resistant barrier is number two. Well, it can’t be. See that right there? That’s all that --

(Commissioners talking amongst themselves)

MR. TANKING: So, maybe I should have started with -- that’s our first layer of our system. That’s our fluid applied air and weather barrier, which is a very common construction practice these days with a fluid applied air and weather barriers behind all clags, not just these, whether it’s brick, masonry, metal panels, stucco. Fluid-applieds are very common now compared to sheet applied materials. So, the fluid applieds, there are certain mill thicknesses. That’s a 20-mill thickness is what that is, goes on wet, 12-mill dry.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Okay. And what’s this?

MR. TANKING: That’s a drainage track to keep the drainage plane open behind there when they’re back-wrapping the system at termination points to keep that drainage plane so moisture can escape.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Okay.

MR. TANKING: And you’ll see, I mean, with our system it’s a fluid applied. And if you look on the backside you’ll see the adhesive where it’s attaching this. And what I’m talking about, this is industry standards, it’s not Dryvit. This is us, STO, all the major manufacturers have this, basically the same technology. The drainage point is created with the adhesive. There are no mechanical fasteners penetrating the air and weather barrier, so there’s no holes poking through that fluid applied air and weather barrier, so it’s a monolithic system that when moisture, if a sealant joint or improperly installed flashing ever fails, the moisture has somewhere to drain out to and no penetrations for that moisture to get inside the building.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: All right. That was going to be my next question was what is -- what’s the difference between the drainable and non-drainable. The non-drainable just doesn’t have that cross-hairs thing, you know, the black --

MR. TANKING: Correct. It doesn’t. I mean all of our -- any of our system adhesively attach all -- it’s code now that the adhesive has to be troweled vertically.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Okay.
MR. TANKING: A lot of times there’s different types of air and weather barriers, you know, whatever it is. But when you’re talking about a drainage system, it’s one component from one manufacturer, whether it’s STO, whether it’s Dryvit, all those, to where it’s one manufacturer that has that warranty from the sheeting out.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Okay.

MR. TANKING: But there are, I mean, and I’m not sure, I mean, stop when I’m going a little bit overboard, but there’s a lot of municipalities that do say drainage. That’s what we promote. We promote a lot of drainage. I mean when we’re talking to architects, we do a lot of architectural work in the City, we promote drainage systems. STO, Dryvit, all the major manufacturers are promoting that.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Okay. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Commissioner.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Well, you answered the drainable versus non-drainable, and I don’t know what this -- the one question I had is where it says seamless. And I think, I don’t know if it was both of them that had that because obviously one is a brick. But we have a siding on our warehouse that has the metal seam every 12 by 12 square. And obviously that’s a failure point, but it’s also a stop-gap measure should the surface crack, break, whatever. When you say seamless, is that completely eliminated? So, should there be some sort of damage there’s no stop-point either. So, if you have something that fails just because things happen, I’m not saying it’s the standard, but it has nowhere to stop. So, you may be replacing an entire wall instead of a 12 by 12 or 15 by 15, 20 by 20, whatever that you have. Is that something that you see, notice, or what are your thoughts on that?

MR. ALLMON: I was just going to comment, and I think you probably realize this prior to building or buying your building, there was a cement to stucco failure.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.

MR. ALLMON: And it was cementitious. It was a mesh system. So, the system that you have on --

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: That would be a non-certified installer.

MR. ALLMON: Yes.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: And there’s a big long list. But I do know that should we have any sort of damage to the exterior --

MR. ALLMON: Uh-huh.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: -- that 15 by 15 seam --

MR. ALLMON: Yes.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: -- also alleviates that from being -- traveling into another area.

MR. ALLMON: They went back in to retrofit those failed areas with cement board and then troweled on a stucco finish over the top of that.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Oh, we could go on forever about the failures on my building. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about those seams.

MR. ALLMON: But it’s a different system I guess is what I’m saying.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Oh, absolutely. No. Those seams, not only do they allow an expansion and retraction due to cold weather that we experience here, but it also can compartmentalize other, quote, unquote, “issues.” Do you -- I mean I know this has been on the market now since, what, ‘87, is that what you said, ‘97?

MR. TANKING: ‘69 is when we came to the U.S.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Right. But what -- are you seeing that in your industry? Is it something -- is it a maintenance issue? I mean I’m just looking for an answer. I know that my particular building is not a parallel, but I do know that those seams can compartmentalize an issue and seem to be helpful in that situation.

MR. TANKING: When we say a seamless system, I mean our system, I mean there’s areas where there has to be an expansion joint.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Okay.

MR. TANKING: They’re very limited compared to stucco which you’re talking about.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No *

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Oh, awesome.

MR. TANKING: Yeah. Where that’s an application break. It’s not really a break in the system so it’s still seamless.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Okay. Is this the expansion? Is not

MR. SYKES: No, that’s a V-groove. I’m Jeff Sykes. I’m the regional STO rep. And my address is 1608 Blue Springs, Missouri. And as Tracy said, expansion joint and control joints are two different things. When you say control joint that’s a static joint. That’s just a place to stop. So, if you have an area to make your patch, you go to the corner to corner --

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Right.

MR. SYKES: -- so you don’t see it. Your applicator is going, you know, how good he is can he hide it or not on a patch and a repair. But your stucco, that’s really a control joint in the stucco. That metal bead --

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Right.

MR. SYKES: -- that’s mainly for cracking as it cures out. That doesn’t do a whole lot for your freeze and thaw.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Sure.

MR. SYKES: Okay. It’s going -- I’ll be honest with you. Stucco in this market is going to crack.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Oh, absolutely.

MR. SYKES: And to be honest, thank God it does because that keeps us in business [inaudible].

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: In between.

MR. SYKES: Yeah. I mean seriously. But stucco has its advantages. You know, there are both pros and cons of both. But the, you know, aesthetically you can V-groove it. If you need a true expansion joint, if an architect designs it in the building, if the building needs one, we need one. Dissimilar materials, we’re meeting up against brick, we need one. Wood frame construction at the floor line, we need one because the building is going to shrink. So, there are certain areas spelled out in everybody’s specification where they go, a true expansion joint. And that’s through the system. That’s not just to the sheeting. The sheeting should be cut as well. It needs to be a true expansion joint.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson, please go ahead.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: The only -- by the way, you answered all my technical questions, quote, unquote. My question is, is that obviously this comes in a lot of colors as well as textures, which I like variety. I appreciate that. But do these colors, they don’t completely align with our design guidelines. Should we -- there’s a couple -- or maybe it’s just the reproduction, but there is some --

MR. ALLMON: Both STO and Dryvit produce probably 60 colors or more. I’ve got the brochures and they have many, many, many colors that do meet our guidelines and --

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: But do we want to eliminate any of those as a non-option that do not meet current guidelines? Or do we want to do that as a discussion point?

MR. ALLMON: On a discussion point probably. I don’t know that we’ve really dug into the specifics of -- I haven’t looked at a brochure in probably three or four years.

(Inaudible; talking off over one another.)

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I’m sorry. Wouldn’t that already be -- our design standards show color. It doesn’t show material as much as it shows color, so I’m not sure we have to add that in would we?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [Inaudible; talking off mic.]

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Earth tones.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah. Earth tone colors. Fuchsia and [inaudible].

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I like aqua blue.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Put it in the bathroom.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Which a different color that’s not in the design guidelines is something we routinely deal with anyway on that, so.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We point that out in our [inaudible].

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yes, Commissioner Peterson, please, would you continue.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Sorry. One more clarification. In talking to the other cities about what they recommend and what they didn’t recommend, they said they use it only as an architectural detail. Do we know if their percentages of architectural detailing resemble ours?

MR. ALLMON: I didn’t --

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: And that’s roughly 30 percent of a fašade or --

MR. ALLMON: No. I think that their standard is similar to ours where you’re talking cornices, moldings, coins, true architectural features that -- because it’s foam you can shape it, you can mold it, you can do pretty things with it.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Oh, sure.

MR. ALLMON: Where you try to do that in a real stucco application and you’re going to have some issues just making that work. So, I’m pretty sure Leawood’s standard is very similar to ours, which is just the cornices, molds, coins, you know, those kind of things.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Great. Wish these were around about two years ago when we were discussing.

COMMISSIONER ROTH: I’ve got a couple questions if it’s okay.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Roth.

COMMISSIONER ROTH: So, your air barrier system, what happens when you EIFS that intersects with brick? You have an air barrier that has to be continuous all the way back down. So, how do you address that if we’re going to talk about writing that spec and what looks like? What do you do on that scenario?

MR. TANKING: Both our fluid applieds are allowed to be feather claddings besides just EIFS. So, if it’s brick we recommend using that monolithic air and weather barrier, so that way you don’t have that transition question that comes up on every job site, you’re going to a sheet applied to a fluid applied. We recommend using the manufacturer’s air and weather barrier behind all claddings.

MR. SYKES: And I know that you’re aware, but you’ll see it a lot of time on a project that has zero EIFS on it, but will still get the fluid applied or he’ll still get the fluid applied. I mean 435 right now has two buildings, five-story buildings and they’re all fluid applied our products. And there’s no EIFS on it, maybe a soffit is all.

COMMISSIONER ROTH: And the second question -- so, we had talked about requiring third-party inspections. There’s a cost associated with that. Do you know what that cost would be?
MR. SYKES: Industry standard, and I used to be involved in a company called Stucco Inspection and Repair locally and I sold out of that three years ago. And they still do inspections. Typically it’s going to be about $0.10 a square foot depending on what you’re going to require. You know, the good thing is specifications make a manufacturer rep do observations. We’re not going to do inspections, but we’ll do observations. And I think a lot of general contractors require that by the manufacturer rep. You know, the thing with inspections are it needs to be a true third-party. And it used to be when it first came out, your barrier systems or your non-drainage systems had to be inspected and the drainage systems didn’t. But in reality they both do. And neither one of us promote barrier systems. I mean it’s just -- it’s a better system. Because we lived through the era when we were a barrier system. And to be honest with you EIFS has been tested. It doesn’t leak. But things around it may leak and that water didn’t have a way out. I did a project [inaudible] Village, 300 windows we took out. We put the same windows back in. All we did was the draining system so when the window leaked, we put the flashing in it that was V’d out. The window flashing because the window guy said I don’t need it. I’ll save you X-amount of dollars. And those are the things. And if you look at the code, the residential code said all windows and doors must be flashed. So, we follow that code and we tie our weather barrier, whether it’s paper goods or fluid applied, we don’t do 90 percent of the issues. And most of our issues, repairs we did, are with stucco repair. There’s more stucco repair out there than there is EIFS repair. Now, that could be there’s more stucco residentially. If you keep that mind and what’s on your building?

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Don’t ask.

MR. SYKES: I was just kidding you.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Oh, I know what’s on it.

MR. SYKES: But flashing the areas -- the critical details and flashing, I mean really on a building code, and I said this to Blue Springs. It’s your critical details on your flashings that we need to hammer in on. If you flash right that has never changed. Flashing goes to daylight. If it goes to daylight, the water comes out of the building. We don’t have issues. But, you know, and even the drain system, it’s not a gutter system, incidental water. That’s how the code reads, incidental water. So, --

MR. TANKING: One of the things I will say is, you know, kind of along some of the lines of what Jeff was saying, I’m not sure I know some of the people on the board are familiar with this. But with the current energy codes changing, continuous insulation has become a mandated. And it’s becoming very challenging for architects and general contractors and building owners and developers to develop the buildings and the budget they want. You know, if you want, you know, a brick building, it becomes very expensive to do when you’re moving that heavy brick four and six, eight inches off the structure line. And I think Jeff has got samples. I have samples back there that show we can still replicate that look and give that building and the architect the freedom to design the aesthetics they want, but still meet the intent of the current energy codes and keep the building in budget for the owner.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: A couple questions. In regards to third-party inspections, so what I’m seeing are probably two different things. One is the actual stucco system installation. But I also know the Air Barrier Association requires, you know, that continuous air and vapor barrier from the roof all the way down. So, is the third-party inspection taking care of both of those at the same time, or is it really two different inspections? In other words, the air barrier or water barrier and then also the EIFS installation.

MR. SYKES: Well, I think it should be two. Because it could be some of it’s going behind brick. And at that point it might be a different air barrier. But, you know, your fluid-applied air barrier is basically you put your pen on the paper, it should never come off. Even when you get the roof, you just continue with the roofing membranes. You’re air barrier-ing right down. And those transitions, where that roof meets that wall and that wall meets the foundation, those are your critical details. Our details are going to match up how they should be. But those areas need to be inspected and need to, you know, that third party. Again, we’ll do observations, but that’s just it. I mean I have five states. Now, I’ll get there if it’s 10,000 square feet or more, but on the 2,000 feet it’s tough for me to get there. My local rep will get there. Tracy on a local level gets there. But those are observations, they’re not inspections. And I think they both should be inspected in case it’s a different, you know -- I did a -- on 435 the other day I did, and it’s all brick, but I did the moisture observation.

MR. TANKING: But I think the third-party inspection is something we promote. I mean if we could have municipalities enforce that. I mean we want our systems installed properly. We can’t be on every project every day. And I mean Jeff is right, it needs to be a disinterested party. It shouldn’t be really us and it shouldn’t, I mean, we recommend third-party inspections on all projects. When we’re doing architectural presentations, we recommend them. When we’re dealing with an owner we recommend them. And like Jeff said, I mean, to a budget number out, I mean it’s a small price to pay with the savings you’re getting to create these looks that on these buildings these architects want, that’s a small price to pay when you’re talking 10 to 15 cents a square foot.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Please, Commissioner Wise, go ahead.

COMMISSIONER WISE: One other question. So, I noticed like these other cities, they don’t separate residential from commercial. For example, so in our case let’s say if we don’t do anything, is it that we allow -- I mean I guess do we, maybe the better way to start is do we actually not allow EIFS except for detailing right now? Is that how it’s currently written?

MR. ALLMON: The way that we actually police it is that in multi-family and commercial office applications it’s detail only. We do not regulate single family and duplex design. If it’s not an elevation that’s approved by the Planning Commission and it meets our building code, then they can use EIFS today. And that’s in more single-family and duplex residential construction. I think what we’re really talking about is maybe allowing it on some larger buildings, the larger apartment complexes, the assisted or senior care facilities, and potentially on office and commercial buildings. I still, and I’m probably wrong, but I still have reservations about having the material close to the ground. I just do. I always think there should be a masonry product at the ground level with maybe an EIFS application above. That’s a personal opinion. I don’t know if that’s based in fact or just maybe aesthetic of what I think things look nice, so.

MR. SYKES: Can I answer that?

MR. ALLMON: Sure.

MR. SYKES: There again that is something that you’ll find [inaudible; talking off mic]. But I mean we can take a hammer and start hitting things. And a lot of times you look at the -- when we get into a situation we’re below grade, it states it [inaudible] high impact mesh in all our literature. And then sometimes it’s listed in the code below [inaudible]. Because the issue is that it’s [inaudible] out or that third-party inspector didn’t catch it. It gets coated. It looks beautiful. And then all of a sudden it gets beat up because it’s whatever, a lawnmower runs into it or something. And that’s, again, when we’re talking to the architect, we talk about, you know, curbing, protected. But that, I’m telling you how many times that gets missed. And somebody has to police that and make sure that does get --

COMMISSIONER WISE: And that’s one point to the question about the durability. It’s not so much a lot of times the thickness of the coating, it’s the mesh. And if you don’t get the right, the heavy duty mesh where you need it, things like that, and like you said the detailing around the flashing that’s what’s so critical. Because if the flashing is not done right, I mean, that -- it can come apart in a hurry. But, yeah, the key is getting the mesh in and making sure it stays in if it’s heavy mesh. I mean I agree that still, especially if you’re going to be in a highly abusive environment around the base, a more durable material is probably going to hold up better. But the key is if you don’t have that, to at least get that heavy duty, the armored mesh down low.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: On these inspections, is this something that City inspectors would be capable of getting that certification to do or no?
MR. ALLMON: I would not anticipate City staff being EIFS certified. They enforce the building code. The building code has specific provisions about EIFS installation. It calls for third-party inspections on non-drainable. I think we have the ability as a city to require third-party inspections even on the drainable to make sure that everything is being installed properly. And those inspection reports would come in separately, but would be included in the permit file is how I would see it. Our guys, we have basically two guys out there now.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Oh, I know.

MR. ALLMON: And so they’re very busy.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I was not looking to add to that.

MR. ALLMON: Yeah. No, I understand. But I think that being that the industry has these certification programs now, which didn’t exist probably 10-15 years ago, I think there are qualified people to do these third-party inspections that are legitimate and not just going to rubberstamp something because they’re getting paid.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Doug, to be sure you’re talking about commercial application. Because if we’re not -- if we’re allowing this to go on single-family or duplex residential, then we’re not including them -- you’re not including them in this are you?

MR. ALLMON: I don’t see us being involved in --

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Okay.

MR. ALLMON: -- anything related to single-family installation.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Okay.

MR. ALLMON: That’s really a homeowner call. We have a building code and those structures meet the building code. Our inspectors will look for that in terms of building code for single-family or duplex construction. This is more for the bigger projects. We’re approached often, especially with the energy code that he’s talked about. And I’ve had other examples where we’ve required real stucco on high parapets and things and just the weight factor of cementitious above entrances. There are a lot of architects that aren’t comfortable because of wind load and bearing, where you do an EIFS application that’s high in the air, it’s much lighter. And in the architect’s opinion it’s much safer to install especially above entrances and those things. So, I think that’s kind of what we’re talking about here.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Montgomery.

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY: Yeah. A follow-up to that. I was going to ask if, you know, what you’re hearing from builders. Is there a demand for this to loosen the --

MR. ALLMON: We’re approached, I mean, the word is out that we don’t allow it, so it doesn’t get brought up probably as much as it would if it were allowed. But we are contacted in pre-application meetings and architects that are comfortable with it and have reputable installers want to use it. And it’s for the energy code. It’s for cost savings. It’s for truly architectural detailing. They can do more than they can with standard stucco. So, I’d say, yes, we -- there are architects and designers who prefer it. They find a way to work around it without using, but --

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Question for you. Just to be sure, this is not considered structural in nature. This is not structural at all.

MR. SYKES: Well, that is true. But I think if you look at the testing with their fluid applies, we actually add structure to the building because we become part of the building. We make the sheeting stronger because we cover up all the joints of the board and make that -- almost like there’s one sheet of sheathing on that wall. The EIFS itself does not. But the fluid applied does make that building stronger.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: So, wind load.

MR. SYKES: Wind load is --

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: If I was concerned about wind, if I was concerned about tornadoes, and I know brick buildings get blown town in tornadoes, but is this as safe as what we would call our normal, or what we’ve been using for years?

MR. TANKING: There used to be a video, I wish we still had it because it’s been on VHS and it never got transferred over. But we actually had wind load testing that would buckle studs before our system came off the substrate. So, whatever the load of the structure is, I mean, we meet all wind load requirements for the code.

MR. ALLMON: I was going to say, and the substrate and all of that structure is heavily regulated by code. Snow load, wind load, all of that.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Dave, would you care to comment on how many -- you get a lot of inquiries that probably don’t necessarily make it to the Planning Department and doesn’t make it to us. So, how widespread is the demand for this?

MR. HOLTWICK: Dave Holtwick, Business Liaison for the City. Exactly. I hear from, in fact, there were a couple of architects that do projects in our city that just basically asked me to get this before the Planning Commission because they said we’re working with clients here in the City who would like to do their project here. And because of some of the requirements that we have for external materials, especially maybe in the planned industrial area, I mean they just said what can you do. We don’t want to take these projects -- we had -- we’ve had a couple of projects that have threatened to go to other areas. I mean we try to keep our standards similar at least to what other cities have. And so, you know, we encourage them to do whatever they can. But oftentimes a project will come in and we’ll be sitting in our pre-development meetings and if it says EIFS on the plans we just -- it’s said right then you can’t. And you’ll see them look at each other like, what. So, you know, I mean I just -- and some of you know, some of you don’t, I used to be in governmental affairs with the Homebuilders Association of Greater Kansas City back at a time when -- from 2000 to 2008. And there were some residential projects that, even in talking with these guys just the other day, I said, well, but, you know, the EIFS on that -- that wasn’t EIFS. I mean there may have been a clear coat added to some cementitious stucco. But it’s -- there are so many projects that I think we all thought were EIFS that were not. And especially, you know, whether it’s in -- just in the building material itself or the ability to make the energy code, I mean, it’s nearly impossible on a commercial project without something like this. Some are even now calling this CI product rather than EIFS for a continuous installation, so that it does have a barrier to help with that insulation. So, yes, I’m sorry. Probably a longer answer than you were looking for for the question. But I do hear it fairly often. And that’s why in my role, both being an ombudsman for the projects that come in and representing the City, I wanted to make sure that we at least had a chance to talk about. So, I appreciate you all considering it, so.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Commissioner Montgomery.

COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY: And again I know, Doug, you said they didn’t respond, but do we know what Overland Park and Lenexa have in --

MR. ALLMON: I don’t. And we would -- we could reach out further. I’ll have Tyler, our code official, re-contact them and we could bring that back to you.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: If you don’t mind. I don’t mind asking them. I mean they know whether the product is being used in those three cities.

MR. TANKING: I know we both have projects.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: You don’t have to tell us how much it’s being used. But is it available for drainable and non-drainable.

MR. TANKING: Drainable mainly. And I shouldn’t I know what exactly it is, but I know that we’re both -- like Jeff said, we’re doing very large projects in Overland Park and Lenexa right now. I mean they just finished the hotel up. It was neither one of our products, but they just finished Springhill Suites at 435 and 87th Street that was just currently done. Jeff has some projects. I mean --
MR. SYKES: Well, we just finished up -- it was a repair, but on the Marriott. I mean the whole Marriott is it. The sky -- what’s that?

MR. TANKING: iFLY.

MR. SYKES: iFLY.

MR. TANKING: Which Jeff just did last year.

MR. SYKES: Yeah. That was EIFS. And he’s right. You’ll see in our literature now we’re going to CI systems because of the, you know, EIFS --

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: It’s a better word.

MR. SYKES: It’s a better word and it --

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: It’s a more palatable word for us.

MR. SYKES: Yeah. There you go. And you guys won’t catch it when it goes on your plans.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Right.

MR. SYKES: No, this is great. It’s all marketing, right. But, you know, the biggest thing, and we’d be happy to, you know, do a quick presentation to your code guys. The biggest thing really is flashing. That flashing and all the, you know, for eight years that’s all I did was repairs in Kansas City. [inaudible] flashing, roof flashing, window flashing, and I’ll be honest -- and deck flashing. Those three things residential in Leawood are the issues, were the issues, are still the issues. And flashing is everything. And that should be what we hammer home with inspectors is flashing.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Am I interpreting this correct that your systems will save money versus stucco and brick?

MR. SYKES: I can tell you when I was contractor we would bid stucco high. The difference is its tonnage. You’re moving tonnage up a wall versus, you know, 70-pound buckets of foam.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: So, the savings to the project would more than be enough that the extra money for these inspections wouldn’t be a detriment?

MR. SYKES: Yeah. As you go up the wall absolutely. Besides energy-wise you’re saving.

MR. TANKING: And one of the things, we keep talking about the energy code, and I’m not sure where you guys -- where the City of Shawnee is on their energy code, if they’ve adopted the ICC on that. So, a lot of architects when EIFS is eliminated from that discussion, you know, today I was looking at a project that was an insulated stucco. And it’s kind of an unknown quantity, you know, thing for our marketplace. And the contractors are, well, how do I do it. You know it’s like, well, what are we doing. You know, I mean it just puts a whole plate of questions, how to detail, how to install because there’s NO really policing. There’s not a manufacturer like STO, like Dryvit that really has great details that shows this is exactly what you do here, this is what you do here. I mean that’s where a lot of the problems are coming very, very soon, Or when you start talking about insulated stucco because I’ve been involved with three or four projects. Nobody has done the thought process of how to do termination points and there’s a lot of issues coming forward from that sector.

MR. SYKES: Yeah. The only thing with stucco, you’re hanging that out there two inches and it’s 15 pounds is what stucco weighs. With metal stud sheathing and everything EIFS weighs somewhere between 6 and 8. And nobody, STO, Dryvit, nobody is going to take the ownership of that fastener. With stucco out here it’s brittle. In this market it’s going to crack. It’s going to crack. And we both sell, and this is, I mentioned earlier, we both sell this final coat. But in this whole stucco panel that’s all we’re selling is that texture and that color. And there was a lot of projects in the years past that because that was EIFS. Just because it looks like EIFS, but it was stucco and we got nailed with it.

MR. ALLMON: [Inaudible] a good discussion?

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: We like good discussions, Doug.

MR. ALLMON: Would you like us to reach out to those other cities? Obviously they’ve said two. Apparently maybe Olathe doesn’t allow it. I’m not sure. I’d be glad to contact them and see what their standards are and maybe bring some potential ideas in terms of design guideline changes to you based on kind of what I’m hearing and then you can say yes or no.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I’d like to really here from -- we have two people on the Commission up here that are involved enough in this, I’d like to hear how they feel about it.

MR. ALLMON: Sure.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: And that’s Commissioner Roth and Commissioner Wise. Commissioner Wise.

COMMISSIONER WISE: Yeah. One thing, I think that would be good, Doug. Because like Roeland Park, for example, I think trying to, you know, get to the drainable system with the special inspections and how do we start wording that language, I don’t, you know, the challenge, I mean, I guess we could limit it to like, you know, multi-family residential. But it’s probably more critical to try to get the right criteria in there and then we can evaluate it on a project by project basis rather than trying to limit it by projects. At least that’s what I’m thinking. But again, getting the -- you have the inspections in there. You make sure that the installers are certified because again, anybody can install it. I mean I’d go put it on a house. That doesn’t mean it’s going to work well. So, one, you want the certified installers, but then you want the inspectors as well, multiple inspections. So, I think at least from my thinking is really looking at what that language would look like and how, I mean, we can’t dictate how they write the specs. We can’t control it to a certain degree. But the more we can limit it, I think the better off we would be as this becomes more prevalent.

MR. ALLMON: That’s kind of where we were at. If we got a directive from you to say don’t reinvent the wheel, but go look at what maybe some other cities have written in that are allowing it that are restrictive we would probably mimic some of that language. Obviously if they had been allowing it we can see if there are any product and project issues. I will say in a lot of the emails that we get, that Tyler got with the newer applications no one really indicated issues or problems with buildings recently. I’m saying like five years that were discussed. And I think some of those projects that you guys talked about were in their examples of buildings that they’re -- and included Johnson County. Johnson County allows it as well, who, you know, obviously oversees the certified building licensing procedures.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Roth.

COMMISSIONER ROTH: So, I agree. I think we’re missing the boat on this. I mean if we’re having people come to us and ask us if we provide this project or do this project absolutely we should be doing this. My last three projects that we’ve had EIFS, it’s been a great product. I think most architects write in the spec to have at least a certified installer. If we can add on the third-party inspection I think that’s crucial. And the cost of 10-15 a square foot is just very, very well -- a good value for your money I guess, so.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Les Smith.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: I guess we should be interested in what the other communities do. But I think more from the standpoint of getting ideas and how to manage it and regulate it as opposed to whether or not they allow it. If they allowed a bad system, we’re not going to do it and vice versa. So, I think we need to determine if the technology has gotten to the point to where it is a good product. We need to decide if we want to allow that. And if we do, we should move forward on that. When I first came out of the Commission, I don’t know the history of it, but I was shocked that it pretty much is just not allowed at all even though it’s regulated IBC. So, that would be what I’d like to know is how you’re going to regulate the installation with the inspections as determined, and your recommendation is important, whether or not it’s a good product. And if it is, then let’s go forward. My other thought is, and, Mr. Chairman, you brought it up early on, that if there is product that is not installed well or failed or for whatever reason that’s what kind of what we have property maintenance codes for. And then it’s on our back to find it and get it fixed.

MR. ALLMON: And in that third person party inspection process I would assume that there is some ownership of that too, so that a homeowner or a business owner I guess, or a building owner maybe has some recourse if something does fail because the inspections are required and they have --

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: I’m sure they’re bonded or something.

MR. ALLMON: Yeah. They have backing.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: They have some liability.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: So, with their emphasis on how important flashing is, is that already covered? Or do, will, you know, will that be expanded on?

MR. ALLMON: Our guys for windows, they do rough-in, they do window inspections. They inspect them to code. I think what I’m hearing from them is that you can never be too good because it’s so critical. That’s where your product, whether it’s cement, even brick is going to fail if you don’t have proper weather protection for rain and penetrations in openings, so.

MR. SYKES: And I might add, and he hit -- he nailed it there. It doesn’t matter what cladding. It can be lap siding. If it’s not flashed right, it’s going to rot and water is coming in your building. And if, you know, I always tell architects when I do my lunch and learns. I say, you know, if you have the garage comes off your normal house and that’s a two-story there and you’ve got that little kick-out there, it doesn’t matter what your house is. I show the next slide and it shows it’s rotting behind the stucco. It can be brick. It can be lap siding. If that roof flashing is missing, that wall is wet. And it doesn’t matter.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, gentlemen. Any other discussion on this? If not, then I presume we might have a motion asking the Planning Department to go ahead with the additional information on what other cities and how they use it and what their ideas are for a --

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Verbiage.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: -- for regulatory.

MR. ALLMON: Some regulatory and some policy. It’ll be similar to -- we’re one of the few communities that require safe rooms and so we went out and borrowed some FEMA language and we borrowed some language from some other cities and kind of put together some specs and standards for multi-family.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Cut and paste, huh? Copy and paste.

MR. ALLMON: And it seems to work. So, we’ll do the same for this.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Plagiarism.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.

MR. ALLMON: And you ask if I think it’s a quality product, I think that it’s come a long ways. I’ve been a planner for over 20 years. And from where they were then to where they are now, especially after getting to talk with them and seeing their products, I’m comfortable with its use in some applications for sure.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I would like to just up your ante a little bit and say, yes, go ahead and check and see what verbiage is in other cities, but have that as data to present with wording that we are going to start reviewing.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah. Absolutely.

COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Because I don’t want to come back with they say this and then we’re off again. I think we need to truncate this process because we need to have this in place before the next building season so to speak starts hitting us.

MR. ALLMON: [Inaudible; talking off mic] brick. They can imitate cast stone. There’s some material samples you should check, especially in terms of architectural detailing on building corners and around doorways.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is the cast stone not considered a part of EIFS?

MR. ALLMON: Cast stone is a solid masonry material, but they can imitate it.
CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Oh.

MR. ALLMON: And you should check it out on your way out.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Doug. Anything else on this matter? If not, we’d give direction -- do you want a motion to do this?

MR. ALLMON: You don’t need a motion. It’s just a discussion item.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very fine.

MR. ALLMON: We’ve got good direction.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very fine. In this instance then, does the staff have anything for the Commission?

MR. ALLMON: [Inaudible] some upcoming road closures related Nieman Now! he wanted to point out to you because you guys are highly visible and out and about in the community, so people may be asking you. I’m going to look over the top of my glasses. Tuesday, August 8th at 10 p.m. through Wednesday August 9th at 7 a.m., Roger Road will be closed just east of Nieman. Wednesday, August 9th, and this is all on the web by the way. Wednesday, August 9th from 10 p.m. through Thursday, August 10th at 7 a.m., Nieman Road will be shut down in both directions from 61st Street to West 59th Street. Nieman will also be closed to through traffic from Johnson Drive south to West 59th Terrace. And then on Thursday, August 10th, from 10 p.m. through Friday, August 11th at 7 a.m., Nieman Road will be shut down in both directions from West 61st Street to West 59th Terrace. Nieman will also be closed to through traffic from Johnson Drive south to West 59th Terrace. And this is not necessarily related to the lane diet, these are drainage projects. And they’re trying to keep portions open, but in some cases they just can’t. So, that’s all I have.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Doug. Does the Commission have any questions for staff? If not --

F. ADJOURNMENT

COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I move for adjournment.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Mr. Willoughby.

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Second.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is there a second on that?

COMMISSIONER L. SMITH: Second.

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Les Smith. A motion to adjourn this meeting and a second. All in favor say aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

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

[Therefore, the motion was made by Commissioner Willoughby and seconded by Commissioner L. Smith to adjourn. The motion carried 7-0.]

(Shawnee Planning Commission Meeting Adjourned at 8:23 p.m.)