Page 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, …

Page 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, 2021

CITY OF SHAWNEE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

MINUTES May 3, 2021

7:30 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Commissioner Bruce Bienhoff Doug Allmon Commissioner Carrie Bingham Stephanie Malmborg Commissioner Dennis Busby Mark Zielsdorf Commissioner Genise Luecke Commissioner John Montgomery Commissioner Carol Norman Commissioner Leo Nunnink Commissioner Kathy Peterson Commissioner Joe Van Walleghem Commissioner Alan Willoughby Commissioner Steven Wise COMMISSIONERS ABSENT

(Planning Commission Meeting Called to Order at 7:30 p.m.)

A. ROLL CALL

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Good evening and welcome to the May 3, 2021, meeting of the Shawnee Planning Commission. I am Commissioner Busby. I’ll do a roll call at this time. Commissioner Montgomery. COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson is not here. Commissioner Willoughby. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bienhoff. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Here. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Wise is not here. Commissioner Norman. Carol? COMMISSIONER NORMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Commissioner Bingham.


COMMISSIONER BINGHAM: Here. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Nunnink. COMMISSIONER NUNNINK: Here. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Luecke. COMMISSIONER LUECKE: Here. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Van Walleghem. COMMISSIONER VAN WALLEGHEM: Here. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Please join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance) CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. And I see that Commissioner Peterson has joined us and Commissioner Wise, is that correct? COMMISSIONER WISE: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very fine. C. CONSENT ITEMS

1. Approve the minutes from the April 19, 2021 Planning Commission meeting

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Consent Agenda Items 1 and 2 are listed under the Consent Items Agenda. Unless there is a request to remove an item from the Consent Agenda, the items will be approved in one motion. Is there a request to remove an item from the Consent Agenda? Commissioner Montgomery. COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I’d request that we remove FP21-10, Heartland Logistics Park, final plat approval, from the Consent Agenda.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you very much. Very fine. Now, is there a motion to approve the rest of the Consent Agenda? Commissioner Wise. COMMISSIONER WISE: I’ll make a motion to approve the Consent Items per staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Is there a second? Commissioner Van Walleghem. COMMISSIONER VAN WALLEGHEM: I will second that motion. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. There’s a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of Item 2, which has been asked to be -- come out of the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carried. [Therefore, the motion was made by Commissioner Wise and seconded by Commissioner Van Walleghem to approve Consent Agenda Item 1 as presented. The motion carried 11-0.]

2. FP21-000010; Heartland Logistics Park I, 2nd Plat located at 43rd Street and Clare Road - Final Plat Approval

CHAIRMAN BUSBY: That puts us into FP21-10; Heartland Logistics Park 1, 2nd plat, located at 43rd Street and Clare Road for the final plat approval. Commissioner Montgomery, you have a question on that. COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY: Yeah. I do have a question if the applicant is present or maybe staff can answer. The lots, the configuration and number of lots changed quite a bit. And I just was hoping for a little more explanation of why that was and what the plan might be. MR. SLUTTER: This is -- oh, go ahead, Stephanie. MS. MALMBORG: Sorry. I was just going to give you a quick intro. Mick, if you’d like to answer that question. We have the applicant Mick with RIC. MR. SLUTTER: Yeah. So, this is to help initially get the first building going which will be on the west side. It’s still set up like the approved preliminary development plan where we have, you know, the three buildings. So, this is just to get the property


platted. There is a lot of different tracts that have been added. Discussions with staff. Those are for stormwater detention mainly, except for the one that’s along the north side which will be an open space tract. But the rest of them are to be used for stormwater retention. But Lot 1 will be, you know, Heartland, well, hopefully it’ll be the next building with the remainder being -- hopefully coming soon. MR. ALLMON: This is Doug. I can also kind of add to what Mick said. So, when the preliminary development plan came through, we didn’t have the final stormwater design on a lot of this. And so, by ordinance, for the stormwater treatment areas and the stormwater bioretention cells, all of the engineering stuff has been more formally finalized now, and so these tracts are needed. We don’t normally -- we want those areas to be put in tracts. They’re easier to maintain. And then the area north of the levee essentially isn’t developable because of floodplain. They have shown an easement across there for future trail connection. But the thought there was that it’s just easier to have it in a tract and owned by the developer rather than give anyone the inclination that that area can be developed ever. So, that’s kind of a little bit deeper explanation maybe of why the configuration is the way it is now. But the drainage areas and all that have been established. And so now we have a better definition of where those tracts need to be platted. COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Montgomery, does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY: Yes. I said lots and I should have tracts. Better terminology, more accurate. I understand that. Thank you for the explanation. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Does anyone else have any questions on this item? Hearing none, would someone care to make a motion? Commissioner Wise. COMMISSIONER WISE: I’ll make a motion to approve Heartland Logistics Park 1, second plat, and final plat per staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is there a second? Commissioner Nunnink. COMMISSIONER NUNNINK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: There’s a motion and a second for approval of FP21-10; Heartland Logistics Park 1, second plat, located at 43rd Street and Clare Road, final plat approval as per staff recommendations. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carried. Thank you. [Therefore, the motion was made by Commissioner Wise and seconded by Commissioner Nunnink to approve FP21-000010; Heartland Logistics Park I, 2nd Plat located at 43rd Street and Clare Road - Final Plat Approval per staff recommendations. The motion carried 11-0.] D. NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Moving on to New Business, I’d like the staff to do something, and that is I’d like for us to switch around and deal with FSP06, the Chipotle, and then come back to the proposed Capital Improvement Plan. Is there any objection from any of the Commissioners for doing that? Hearing none.

(The Planning Commissioners discussed Item 2 next.) 1. Staff will provide an update on the proposed 2022-2031 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Next on the agenda will be the staff updating us on the proposed 2022-2031 of the Capital Improvement Program. Staff. MS. MALMBORG: Just a minute, Chairman. MR. PERLL: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Matt Perll. I’m the Assistant Public Works Director here at the City. I’ll be giving you a brief presentation over the proposed 2022 to 2031 Capital Improvement Program. I just got finished presenting this same presentation to the Council Committee meeting at their meeting.

2022-2031 Proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) [Overview slide] An overview of what we’re going to talk about today, the Council memo had a link to the new budgeting software that we’re using called ClearGov. The CIP will be published in the budget book as part of the new ClearGov system. The other items that we’re going to discuss, kind of just a refresher on what is the Capital Improvement Program. We’re going to hit on some highlights of projects for the current year and for the years of 2022 to ’26, and then the out years of 2027 to 2031. And then kind of go over the next steps in this process. As far as the discussion goes, feel free to jump in if you have questions. I feel like sometimes it’s easier to talk about them at the time instead of waiting until the very end. So, please do just I guess, Stephanie will let me know if somebody raises their hand. Okay. And then we’ll go ahead and get going.


[What is the CIP? slide] So, what is the CIP? The CIP is a ten-year plan that is revised every year as part of the budgeting cycle. It’s four projects typically over $150,000 in scope. And they include infrastructure projects such as streets, parks, facilities, and stormwater. The CIP is used to kind of guide the budgeting process and prioritize projects to best get outside funding for said projects. And then a quick note there that in 2019, we moved from a six-year CIP to a ten-year CIP to better match revenue projections provided by our Finance Department. [What is the CIP? continued slide] I believe a document was attached to the memo in the packet with some of, or actually all of the special funding revenue sources that we use to fund the CIP project. This is kind of just a refresher on some of the bigger ones that we use and where they are funded from. I’d note there with an asterisk that some of these do have a sunset or a sales tax that has a sunset in 2025. [$112 Million over 10 years to prioritized projects slide] The current CIP, proposed CIP over ten years is programmed out for $112 million. That is for the years of 2022 to 2031. The overall CIP that is presented tonight includes the year of 2021, which has about $50 million in program projects in this current year. So, overall, $162 million including 2021. [Total Funding Requested by Source slide] This is a quick snapshot from the ClearGov website on the different funding sources we use to fund projects. As you can see there there’s 10 or 11 funding sources that are shown. [2022-2031 Proposed CIP map slide] This is a map of all the projects on the proposed plan including 2021. The projects shown here include ones that have a dedicated location or a street range. Multi-year projects like our annual pipe repair or our annual street maintenance program don’t necessarily have locations tied to them until they are in that year for construction. So, those are not shown on this map. [Current Project Highlights (2021) slide] The current projects we’re going to show some highlights on this evening are Goddard Street, Monticello Road, 67th & Cottonwood storm drainage improvements, the stormwater pipe repair east and west, which is two projects, Fire Station 71 and 73 facility upgrades, and the park restroom facility improvements. [Goddard Street, 55th Street to Johnson Drive (SIP) slide]


Goddard Street is our third street improvement project. The Street Improvement Program is funded with a portion of the pavement sales tax that sunsets in 2025. This project will include a reconstruction and widening of the entire roadway between 55th Street and Johnson Drive. It will include sidewalk and trail improvements, storm drainage improvements, lighting improvements, and it is currently under design. The decision was made to push the construction of this project to early 2022 in order to avoid some major utility relocations that are part of this project and some right-of-way acquisition that needs to be done for the project, as well as construction timeframe. We don’t want to get into the roadway and then winter hits and we don’t have asphalt to finish the project until the next spring. [Monticello Road - SMP to 71st St. (CARS) (Phase 1) slide] Monticello Road, Shawnee Mission Parkway to 71st Street, this is currently under construction. As you can see from the project signs on the southern end of the project. This is a reconstruction and widening of the entire stretch from Shawnee Mission Parkway to 71st Street. There were some major utility relocations as part of this project, including the Southern Star pipeline as well as a 36-inch water main. There will be sidewalk and trail improvements, storm drainage improvement, and lighting improvements throughout the corridor. And just a quick note there that this is Phase 1 of the project. Phase 2 of the project will be conducted next year in 2022. [67th Street and Cottonwood Storm Drainage Improvements slide] 67th Street and Cottonwood storm drainage improvements. This is to alleviate flooding of six homes and two streets. This is a Johnson County SMAC funding-eligible project and funding was accepted for this project in 2020. It is currently under design with final plans expected in early June that will be taken to the Governing Body. It will involve culvert work under 67th Street and under Cottonwood Street, both of which will require lane closures and traffic control to accomplish. It will also include channel improvements behind the residences on the south side of 67th Street. [Stormwater Pipe Repair (East & West) slide] The stormwater pipe repair east and west project. This was part of the additional General Fund allocation that the Governing Body gave to the stormwater group to do pipe replacements. So, they gave $3 million, and staff decided to break that into two projects due to just project management levels. And then it’ll obviously include pipe replacement and lining of stormwater pipes. And the dashboard on the right there kind of -- it’s a little small to see, but that’s from a live dashboard of our stormwater data. It goes over where the five and -- four and five-rated pipes, which are what are going to be fixed with these projects.


[Fire Station 71 & 73 Facility Upgrades slide] Next, is the Fire Station 71 and 73 facility upgrades. Station 71, the Fire Department has outgrown that facility and it some glaring mechanical problems that are due to aging. There are also some privacy concerns with co-ed living. And then also in Station 73, the Fire Department has also outgrown that facility and there are additional privacy concerns due to co-ed living. The current status is under design. The architect is looking at a number of options, looking at both remodeling both Station 71 and 73, rebuilding Station 71 and remodeling Station 73, rebuilding a portion of Station 71 and remodeling the remaining portion of 71 and remodeling 73. So, remodel, rebuild, hybrid, those are the three options that the architect is exploring, and they are going to provide staff information on all those three options that will be presented to the Governing Body. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Matt, can you identify the location of 71 and 73? MR. PERLL: Sure. Station 71 is at 65th and Quivira. And then Station 73 is at 67th and Hedge Lane Terrace just west of K-7. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Matt. MR. PERLL: No problem. [Park Restroom Facility Upgrades slide] Next up is the park restroom facility upgrades. There are three parks that are in need of facility upgrades in the restrooms - Gum Spring Park, Herman Laird Park, and Swarner Park. Each of these restroom facilities was built in the 1980s, so they do not meet ADA concerns, as well as there is an increased demand for these park locations. So, the facilities just don’t have adequate room for the increased park demand. There are some nice renderings there of each proposed restroom facility. [Project Highlights (2022-2026) slide] For the years 2022 to 2026, we’re going to hit on a couple projects. Obviously Monticello Road Phase 2. There’s a new project on this year’s CIP for a new traffic signal at 83rd Street and Monticello Road, which would be a joint project with Lenexa. There are a number of Johnson County stormwater corrugated metal pipe repair/replacement projects programmed out. That’s a 50/50 match between the City and Johnson County Stormwater for replacement of failed or failing corrugated metal pipes. Then there is the Johnson County CARS projects which this year’s focus of our CARS submittal was arterial roads that are in poor condition and have a lot of stormwater work


that need to be done on them. So, again, we get 50/50 match between CARS funding the City match. So, it’s a good chance to get all the stormwater problems taken care of and fix the roadway with a matching fund. Then also there are some improvements to the Trail Café at Shawnee Town 1929 as well as a new building at the Shawnee Town 1929 as a chapel. [2022 – Monticello Road 71st Street to 7900 Block (Phase 2) slide] So, Monticello Road Phase 2 from 71st Street to the 7900 block of existing Monticello Road, this is a completely new roadway alignment south of 71st. It’ll be built to the minor arterial standard. The sidewalk and trail facilities will be included with this roadway. Storm drainage facilities will meet current standards. Street lighting along the entire route and installation of a conduit for future City fiber needs. [2023 – 83rd & Monticello Traffic Signal slide] So, in 2023, the 83rd and Monticello traffic signal was added to the CIP. With the completion of Monticello Road Phase 2 in 2022, City staff expects a much higher volume of traffic to be using this intersection. So, it will -- this project will include signal, striping, and crosswalks at 83rd and Monticello. And this will be a joint project where 50 percent is funded by Shawnee and 50 percent is funded by Lenexa. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Matt, question for you. MR. PERLL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: If it’s half-funded by Shawnee and half-funded by Lenexa, CARS program would also participate? So, that might be 50 percent from CARS and 25 percent from each City? MR. PERLL: I don’t believe we have applied for CARS funding for that project. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: But it could be applied for even though it’s two cities going together to do the job at the right time? MR. PERLL: I would have to -- Kevin Manning, are you on the call? Yeah. We’ll have City staff look into that. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very fine. MR. PERLL: There’s a thought here that we -- I’m not sure traffic signals are CARS-eligible funding. But we will confirm and get back with you on that one. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Matt.


MR. PERLL: No problem. [2023 – Shawnee Town 1929 - Chapel slide] The next project on the agenda is the 2023 Shawnee Town 1929 chapel. This will be built as a period specific chapel in Shawnee Town 1929. It will be able to be rented out for weddings and other events. And it provides excellent proximity to Shawnee Town Hall or any wedding receptions or other events that tie to that building. [Proposed Projects (2027-2031) slide] On the out-year projects from 2027 to 2031, since this is a fully funded Capital Improvement Program, and those taxes, as I mentioned, do sunset in 2025, there is some reduced funding capacity shown on the CIP. With that in mind, most of these projects on the outer years are focused towards maintenance. And then also just some items to think about for the Governing Body as well as the Planning Commission is the sales taxes, the debt capacity, programming out future projects to use the debt capacity we have available. And then as well as potential additional funding opportunities that might become available. There is some current infrastructure packages at the federal level that might trickle down to the state and local governments. [Next Steps slide] So with that, next steps. We’re here tonight at the Planning Commission. Comments from tonight and the previous Council Committee meeting will be taken into account. And the overall Capital Improvement Program will be sent to the City Council meeting on May 24th for approval. With that, that’s my presentation. I will open it up for discussion. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Matt. Does anyone on the Commission have a question for staff on this matter? Commissioner Nunnink. COMMISSIONER NUNNINK: Yes. My question is I didn’t, I mean, these were obviously some pretty significant projects. I didn’t see in there, unless I just misunderstood some of the language that there was any funding or projects in there for overlay, improving just street overlay on streets that are aging, guttering and stuff like that or curbing. Is that a separate issue? MR. PERLL: I’m sure. The CIP actually does have an annual Street Maintenance Program programmed on it for every year of the CIP. That is the annual overlay program that handles deteriorating roads and curb and sidewalk. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Does that answer your question, Commissioner Nunnink?


COMMISSIONER NUNNINK: I guess. I mean it’s -- so, you’re saying that wasn’t part of this presentation but there is a program for that funding for those projects? MR. PERLL: Yeah. This is kind of just a highlight of some major projects on the CIP. COMMISSIONER NUNNINK: Okay. All right. MR. PERLL: The overall CIP was in the link in the staff memo. That does include, I think it’s around $50 million over 10 years or 11 years including 2021 for street maintenance. COMMISSIONER NUNNINK: Thank you. MR. PERLL: You’re welcome. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bienhoff. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah. Just reviewing the CIP and comments, not questions, but really appreciate the fact that there are a number of park programs in there. I think the parks are very important to continue to make Shawnee a great place to live and attract families and businesses for that overall well-being. And also would like to commend the staff on the use of ClearGov. Drilling down into that there’s a lot of great information and much better than what we see which appear to be spreadsheets with very tiny print. So, staff should be commended on that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Commissioner Bienhoff. Commissioner Willoughby. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I have a question on one of the special revenue funds, the park, the 209, the Park and Recreation Land Use Fund. And it says funds from development fees received by local builders are designated for the City’s neighborhood park program. How does that work? ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER GARD: This is Caitlin Gard, Assistant City Manager. Hi everyone. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Hi. ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER GARD: I can answer that question for you, Alan. There’s a number of ways that we get revenue to that fund, particularly from development. Parks open space fees that we get on our developments, the primary revenue source. We also do get a slight revenue source from the Holliday Sand and Gravel Company that’s operating in the northwest corner of our City that’s dredging many, many acres for the future Riverfront Park up in -- off 43rd Street and essentially


Frisbee Road. We get a, sorry, I almost said per acre. A per tonnage fee for the fill that they take from there. And that will be used to develop that park many, many, many years from now. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Any other questions for staff on this matter? Commissioner Peterson. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I have two questions. The first one being, I’m looking at the staff report. And it says where the certain streets are what year, what year, and obviously it’s construction and things slide. But it appears that we are going to be disturbing from Shawnee Mission Parkway south basically to 75th, Nieman and Quivira almost one right after the other one I’m assuming. Are those completely repaved? You’re digging it up, doing whatever? Because those are two major thoroughfares going from north to south and it’s going to affect what truck routes, where -- how is that going to be offered? It seems like they’re almost sitting on top of each other, but I could be wrong, so a little explanation there and then I’ll ask the second question. MR. PERLL: Yes. You are correct. Those are programmed out for 2023 for Quivira from Shawnee Mission Parkway to 75th Street. And then 2024 for Nieman Road from Shawnee Mission Parkway to the south City limits. Those roads are in pretty bad shape already. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I would agree. MR. PERLL: So, staff’s recommendation was to get those on the CARS funding application for those years to get them 50/50 percent, or 50/50 matched funding with Johnson County to get as much paid for with matching funds instead of having to redo all the stormwater and roadway with just City funds only. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I guess, and so that’s why they’re scheduled the way they are. And if the Quivira one falls behind schedule for some reason as construction sometimes can, you’re going to take that big chunk out of commission for traffic simultaneously? MR. PERLL: So, the years these projects are shown on the CIP is the anticipated year for construction. So, hopefully if we start construction in the springtime on Quivira, we’ll be done by wintertime and then also the following year we’ll start in spring with Nieman and finish by wintertime. Design on these two phases will probably take place on the winter preceding. So, 2024 for the Quivira, the design will probably take place winter of 2022-23 with bidding and construction starting in early spring. And then Nieman will be designed in ’24 to ’25 winter and bidding and construction starting that spring.


So, we are not anticipating any simultaneous construction on these roadways if that answers your question. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: It’s a good plan I think. But okay. The second one does go back to the special funding revenue operating budget. I had a question about that. 207 is the Special Parks and Recreation Fund. 209 is Parks and Recreation Land Use Fund and then there is Parks and Pipes. I understand completely the number of parks that we have, not just large but small, and renovations and maintenance is expensive. With Parks and Pipes sundowning soon, do we have the ability to redo that? Because I noticed on the Public Safety Fund it has no sundown date. MR. PERLL: You are correct. Those do sunset in 2025, so that would take a Governing Body ordinance and resolution to extend those for another ten-year period. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: And do they just go into the Parks Department and they get to decide? Or do each one, I know Parks and Pipes, you know, is -- had some special meaning behind it for how it got used. But is the other one just operating or which -- I’m not questioning that we need it. I am just asking. Or does it have a special use within the budget, having three separate revenue sources. ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER GARD: Hey, Kathy, it’s Caitlin. I can answer that question for you. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Thanks. ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER GARD: Depending on the revenue source it’s very specific on how we can use that funding. For example, the Special Alcohol Fund is designated by state statute that a portion of it goes specifically to our Parks and Recreation Department. And the Governing Body has designated that to go to Shawnee Town 1929. So, specifically depending on the revenue source, it’s going to be a little bit different. But I think your overall question is just in regards to funding specifically for our Parks Department. I think it’s almost imperative that we have that sales tax renewed in 2025 -- COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Right. ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER GARD: -- or we’re not going to see a lot of things like Riverfront Park or East Riverfront Park or really any new development. It’s going to solely go to maintenance because we are heavily supplemented by the General Fund as well. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I appreciate that. And yes. I know how important our parks are to us and we need to maintain them as well as upgrade them and make those as integral as we can. So, thanks for answering that, Caitlin.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I don’t have a question, Dennis. I just forgot to take my hand down. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very fine. One of the interesting things is I can remember so many times when Parks and Pipes came up again that people were worried about. And, you know, hopefully the last time, I’m trying to remember it passed by 65 percent of the vote I think. And it’s really one of the integral parts on why we’re able to do what we are right now with our parks. So, hopefully in 2025 or before that when the -- when it comes up for another vote that that will continue on. I want to thank the staff for all the information because this is one of the first times I’ve had all this special revenue operating budgets and where they come from in front of us, and I really appreciate that. And I appreciate, much like Bruce did, that this is a little easier to deal with than a long spreadsheet with little bitty numbers on it, so I appreciate it very much. Is there any further discussion or questions for staff on this? Seeing nobody raising their hands then, I -- if I’m reading this properly, then we do not need to do anything other than say thank you for your submitting it to us. But we do not need to pass anything or recommend anything. Is that correct, staff? MR. PERLL: That’s correct, Commissioner. MR. ALLMON: It would be good, usually you -- usually you guys do say that you reviewed the CIP and that you review it -- then that you forward it to them. And if you don’t have any additional specific comments, I remember we used to always talk about the sidewalk out on 71st and some of those things the City has now taken care of. As long as you don’t have anything specific, just say that you’ve reviewed it and that you’re in agreement with it. That’s generally what we do, Dennis. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Doug. Would someone like to make a recommendation? Commissioner Nunnink. COMMISSIONER NUNNINK: I recommend to forward on to the City Council the presentation of the Public Works Department. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Nunnink, if you wouldn’t mind adding something, and I’d suggest, and any additional comments that we had, and the comments [inaudible] forward them on. COMMISSIONER NUNNINK: Any additional comments.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER NUNNINK: And any additional comments that we had during the present. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Is there a second to the recommendation? Commissioner Wise. COMMISSIONER WISE: I’ll second the motion. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: There’s a motion and a second to recommend to the City Council that we’ve reviewed them and agree with what they’re doing. Any further discussion? Commissioner Montgomery, you have your hand up. All in favor say aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Our forwarding is done. Thank you. Thank you, staff. [Therefore, the motion was made by Commissioner Nunnink and seconded by Commissioner Wise that after review by the Planning Commission to forward to the Governing Body the Proposed 2022-2031 Capital Improvement Program along with their comments made during the meeting. The motion carried 11-0.]

(The meeting continued with Other Business.) 2. FSP-000006; Chipotle Mexican Grill located at 22410 W. 66th Street - Revised Site Plan Approval CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Then, FSP-000006; Chipotle Mexican Grill located at 22410 W. 66th Street - Revised Site Plan Approval. Staff. MS. MALMBORG: Thank you, Chairman. This is Stephanie Malmborg with the Community Development Department here in the Council Chambers. As you mentioned, our first item in New Business tonight is Chipotle Mexican Grill at 22410 West 66th Street, and this item does require Planning Commission discussion for an open item. On the presentation now you’ll see the general site location in relation to the boundaries of the City of Shawnee. It’s located just east of Highway K-7 to the west of Monticello Road and north of Shawnee Mission Parkway. It’s part of the Monticello commercial center. Now, on the screen you’ll see an aerial image of the subject site. The existing building is 3,517 square feet. The applicant does not propose to change the building. Instead,


they’re seeking revised site plan approval for a standalone restaurant building, which used to be a former Arby’s restaurant, and they were looking to change it to a Chipotle Mexican Grill. The proposed site improvements include façade improvements consistent with the corporate branding for Chipotle. Relocating and reconstructing the trash enclosure, improving pedestrian connectivity and various landscaping. Now, on the screen you’ll see a bird’s eye view of the subject site. I just want to note really quickly this bird’s eye view is not the most current up-to-date view. There’s been some construction to the lot to the west here, but it is a good view of the subject site. Just an overview here. This is part of the Monticello Center commercial development. The building was originally approved by the Planning Commission in March 2005 and was soon thereafter developed for use as an Arby’s restaurant. They recently closed the building and it’s currently vacant. Chipotle has a different location in the same shopping center as part of a multi-tenant retail strip building facing Shawnee Mission Parkway a little bit to the south of this particular site. And they’re looking to move into a standalone building that they can use without other tenants and have their own dedicated area. The site plan you see on the screen here, it includes changes to all sides of the façade that identify with the corporate branding for Chipotle, adding an outdoor seating area. And that’s located to the southeast of the building if you can see my cursor moving there. There are landscape improvements proposed, removal of one existing tree proposed, repurposing of the traditional drive-thru into an order/pick-up lane. So, what that means is it no longer functions as having an order board that you make your order in the drive-thru and then go to the pick-up window and pay. The ordering is done all before you actually get to the drive-thru lane or the pick-up lane. So, it’s really just to pick up rather than walk inside to their pick-up shelf. They also propose to remove the existing trash enclosure which was located in the drive-thru lane sort of at the northwest corner of the site. And they propose to relocate it to the northeast corner of the parking lot. They’ll be building a new enclosure that will match the proposed materials for the Chipotle façade. And they will also be adding some pedestrian connectivity improvements at the southwest corner of the site. Now, on the screen you should see a quick image of the pedestrian improvements. There’s a couple things here. They’re providing an ADA path from the building to the existing sidewalk along Hilltop/Silverheel Road to the south there. And there is a remnant piece of missing sidewalk, if you will. You can see in the picture there. They’ll be putting in that one section that’s missing to link up to the new sidewalk that was actually just recently installed as part of that road improvement project. There is an open item for discussion this evening. Staff felt that the Planning Commission should be able to have some discussion on this item. They are proposing


to remove a pretty mature, healthy-looking tree as depicted in the photos here and on the plan. They are adding quite a few trees and shrubs to the site. So, we do want to note that and give them credit for that. However, this is generally not something we like to do is remove a perfectly healthy tree. And I’d like for maybe the applicant to explain more about why they propose to do that. I know that the proposed building signage on the elevations may be in play here as some reasoning for that. But I would like for the applicant to be able to speak about that later after I finish my presentation. So, the tree in question here, you can see two different pictures. The top I took last week. The bottom one is a Google street view from I think a few years ago. It looks like the tree is not quite as large in that particular image. But I wanted to show maybe that view of the façade and where the tree could potentially be blocking the façade or potential signage. Now, on the screen you’ll see the elevations. And I apologize. It looks like these got moved around a little bit unfortunately. But we’ve got the north, south, east, and west elevation on here. You can see that south elevation. Let me get my cursor on here. That tree that we just saw on the last slide would potentially maybe block this side of the building. So, that could be the applicant’s concern there with the tree. But we do have signage also on the east façade here. And then as you also notice with the Chipotle branding, they’ve got different brick and EIFS and metal consistent with other Chipotle locations and their branding. Here are some photos of the existing site. And again, I’m sorry, the slide seemed to get messed up somehow. I apologize. We’ve got the north and south façade, the east façade and the west façade. And you can see that existing red brick and then sort of how Chipotle is proposing to transform what is clearly an Arby’s corporate brand looking building to a Chipotle type branded building. Our last slide here, staff recommends approval with conditions. Those conditions being that the project is constructed substantially in accordance to the material provided in the staff report and that list of submitted plans and documentation. The applicant must preserve the existing trees. That’s staff’s recommendation. All mechanical equipment must be adequately screened from view. And general property maintenance must be completed. And that concludes staff’s presentation on this item. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Stephanie. Is the applicant present? MR. DIERKS: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: If you’d state your name and address, please. MR. DIERKS: Yes. My name is Detlef Dierks. I’m with Dungan Design Group. We are at 8826 Santa Fe Drive in Overland Park.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Are you in agreement with staff recommendations? MR. DIERKS: Yeah. Everything with the exception of the tree in question. I would like to discuss that a little further and explain why we would like to remove that tree. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: If you’d like to go ahead and discuss that now. If you’d like to give your explanation now, that would be fine, Detlef. MR. DIERKS: Okay. Yeah. So, our main concern really stems from the relocation of the existing Chipotle that’s already kind of within that center to this new location. The approach on Hilltop Road, say, if you were, say, pull up the Google street view and walk it just along, that tree is pretty much in front of our new building, that new façade kind of blocking all the signage that you would have good access to and good views from. We feel the side of the building kind of provides a few glimpses of our signage but not a good clear view. And we really want people to know where we’re moving. Now, that we’re a drive-thru/pick-up location, it’s more of a destination driven space as opposed to an instance driven space where people might just show up and sit around. So, we really want to emphasize where we moved and just get better visibility off of that one road that kind of goes around our building. We’re definitely open to providing an additional tree. We just can’t have it right there on the corner blocking the entire main façade of our building giving us most visibility, especially since we don’t have any pylon signs or monument signs kind of directing people towards us. We really need to use the façade itself. We have provided nine additional trees on site. We are open to additional trees if the City wants. We just really, really just don’t like that one location. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very good. Thank you, Mr. Dierks. Does the question have any questions for applicant or staff? Commissioner Peterson. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Good evening everybody. I apologize for being late. My question is, I do understand how this is a blocking to -- it’s not just moving a sign to the other side. Have you looked into moving that tree? I know that is an expensive process. Or having someone else who wants, I know it sounds crazy, but really hate the fact that we’re -- this is a mature tree that we are just going to lop off because it -- MR. DIERKS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Whatever. Have we checked out other options? MR. DIERKS: I have not personally. I know you are correct it is expensive to relocate trees. I don’t know if it’s out of Chipotle’s options or purview. We could look into that


pricing. I don’t know at what point it becomes too much. Like I say, we are open to planting some trees, you know, just even to the left of that one just to give us more visibility for our building. We absolutely -- we’re with you. We don’t like to remove trees. We like trees on our sites. They make everything look a lot better, a lot cleaner, a lot just nicer place to be. But if we can’t get people to come to our building because they can’t see it, then that’s a problem for us. So, like I said, we’re willing to work -- we’re willing to do what we can to make everybody happy here. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Commissioner Willoughby. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I have three questions. Is it possible to move the signage to the west side of the south façade? MR. DIERKS: I mean, it could be possible. We feel that just based on the approach from Hilltop that it is better on that other side. You know, Arby’s had it on the opposite end. I don’t know how well that worked out for Arby’s since they’re no longer open. But I, well, let’s see here. Also, the way we’ve kind of turned the -- modified that front façade, we’ve really made the -- on our proposed south elevation, kind of made the right-hand side more of the presentation sign side so the rest could kind of turn back towards our drive-thru lane. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Okay. Second question. Is the monument sign, is that out of the question? Is that not available or -- MR. DIERKS: I don’t believe they are here. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I see. MR. DIERKS: For our use. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Okay. Third question. Have you looked at raising the tree? You know, cutting the bottom limbs off to the point where the Chipotle sign is visible? MR. DIERKS: I, you know, I don’t know if we’ve explored that option either. I can definitely bring these to everyone’s attention. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: Uh-huh. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Nunnink. COMMISSIONER NUNNINK: Well, Alan, you did a good job of asking my questions. I guess the last question is there was a mention of, I think, Stephanie, you had mentioned they were going to be adding several trees? I thought you said that. And the presenter


only indicated they were considering or something. So, I guess my question is ultimately how many trees are you going to add at the end of the day, and is that a reasonable accommodation for removing this one? MR. DIERKS: Right now, we’re proposing to add nine new trees. They are a smaller variety, but we are proposing nine more trees. And then we can -- we’re open to adding more on top of that if it’s -- if there’s a compromise to get that one tree to be removed or relocated; however, we can -- COMMISSIONER NUNNINK: Yeah. MR. DIERKS: -- we can accomplish that. COMMISSIONER NUNNINK: I mean I’m all in favor, I mean, I’m definitely as much of a believer in keeping tree as anybody else, but if we can be, you know, I think the reasonable thing and accommodate the fact that you’ll be adding many more trees and maybe another one in another spot. I mean if this is, you know, these pictures are, you know, are still, so you can’t really move around and see exactly the other views. But at the end of the day if you’re adding trees, you’re trying to accommodate the additional trees in the right places, I don’t see why this should stop this from moving forward. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Willoughby, did you have another question or just forgot to lower your hand? Commissioner Luecke. COMMISSIONER LUECKE: Yeah. I was wondering if it’s possible to specify the, I want to say the size of the trees that they’re replacing it with, not necessarily height but, you know, diameter, something like that, so that they -- the new trees, some of those, at least some of those are -- they start out larger, so we’re closer to the end on those. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is that a question for staff? COMMISSIONER LUECKE: I’m not sure. Is that for staff? Yeah. Staff, I guess. MS. MALMBORG: Yes. This is Stephanie. Right now, they’re proposing minimum planting sizes which is 2½ inch caliper at plant size and installation. And the larger the trees are, they are more expensive, but they do sell these particular trees in larger sizes. I do want to clarify a couple things really quickly though. As the applicant mentioned, these are more understory ornamental type trees rather than larger shade trees for the most part that they’re proposing on the site. Also, four of them are smaller variety and their purpose is to be south of the trash enclosure to screen the trash enclosure. So, there is really just five noticeable larger trees that are proposed for this site. And I do want to also mention something from the staff report that it would be a consideration the Planning Commission should make on precedent for this item. If we


have other future requests for similar tree removals, we do have to make sure that we’re keeping that in mind with this decision this evening. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Stephanie. MR. DIERKS: Mr. Busby. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bienhoff. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was curious and it wasn’t clear, are there any signs at all on the property or the development that would indicate Chipotle is in there? I don’t know if that’s a question for the staff or the applicant? MR. DIERKS: I’m not aware of any monument signs or pylon signs associated with this building itself within the premises. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very fine. MR. ALLMON: This is Doug. I believe there may be a shopping center sign, but it may be full. I’m not sure if Arby’s had representation on that. I honestly can’t remember. But that would obviously be an option for the developer to do a monument sign like they have across the street in Shawnee Crossings for additional signage. I’m not suggesting that that, you know, be the answer to this tree. But there may be an option for additional signage out along the road. I just can’t recall. I’m 99 percent sure that there is one right on the Parkway. My suggestion was, and I think we probably ought to look at this. I’m looking at that bottom photo and that is a very large mature overstory tree. I can’t tell the species from the photograph, but it looks like it’s a maple possibly. I know that a lot of red maple were planted in this subdivision when it was originally put together. And I would think before we would just go out and tear down a -- cut down a tree that’s been there for 15 years or more that there’s got to be an option like Mr. Willoughby said to limb the thing up a third. You can limb up a canopy a third, leave two-thirds in place and you’re not going to kill the tree. You can also -- that’s a very dense tree. It would probably do that tree some good to selectively limb out pieces of the tree to allow it to breathe and grow. I think that we should do some more investigation before anybody decides just to cut the tree down. I think that would be a precedent, a bad precedent and a mistake because we literally have trees all over this community that may be in front of somebody’s sign someday. And I don’t think that should be an excuse to cut down a tree anywhere in the City. But I think there’s a compromise here that would involve maybe getting an arborist involved. The tree is too large just to tree spade and relocate. I believe that that’s --


you can see that from the diameter of the tree trunk. But an arborist or even maybe someone from the City, our Parks Department could look at the tree and give us some suggestions that could leave it in place but thin it so that a sign could be visible through it. We’ve done that on other examples. There’s a gas station on Widmer on Shawnee Mission Parkway that they did not like the tree and they were able to limb up a tree along the Parkway, a big cottonwood, and you can now see their gas price signs. So, I think we can get there without cutting the tree down. So, I’ll stop -- I’ll stop going on and on about the tree. But I think it could be a mistake to say, yeah, your sign is obstructed, so cut down the tree, especially one that looks like to be 30-35 foot tall. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Doug. Commissioner Peterson. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Yes. I was looking at that too as well as it appears to be a maple, but I wouldn’t hold my breath on that. But I would guess that a lot of its root system is underneath the concrete. So, moving it or anything is really not an option. I would check into with an arborist. Doug, you said all the things that I really want to say. MR. ALLMON: Kathy, if we get out there and it’s an ash tree, the question may be already answered, and we replace it with something that’s not prone to the ash borer. I don’t think it’s an ash tree from looking at it though. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Right. The other thing too is I am finding the four more ornamental trees over by the trash and I’m seeing a lot of -- but I’m trying to find where the other five are. Can somebody point that out on the open items staff report where those other five are going to be? And I understand ornamental tree. I get it. I get the 2½ caliper thing. But if we cannot fix this tree to make it work, I would really entertain a bigger investment to replace the tree because there’s going to be a huge difference between a tree that is obviously 15 years old and a 2½ caliper tree. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Montgomery. COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY: I don’t know. I don’t think I -- if I heard it, I didn’t get the answer to the question of a monument sign. By that, I mean a ground level sign. Is that not a question for staff? I think, is that not allowed here? MR. ALLMON: Hi. This is Doug. They wouldn’t be allowed to have an individual monument sign on their lot interior. But I believe there is a large, probably 15-foot-tall multi-tenant monument sign along the Parkway that the developer put in. And those tenant panels are interchangeable. I just can’t remember if Arby’s had a spot on that sign or not if there are vacant parcels on that. But that’s certainly something the applicant should talk to the property owner about, about getting one of those panels swapped out from an Arby’s panel to a Chipotle panel, or if there is a blank panel taking one of those. All that would require would be a sign permit.


MR. DIERKS: This is the applicant. There is one Monticello Village monument or pylon sign or highway sign if you will, but there’s only four spaces and they seem to be reserved for some of the larger tenants like the Price Chopper and the Dollar Tree. I’m not see any other signage available. MR. ALLMON: And it might be possible to modify that sign too. That sign is very old. And since then, I think the sign code was changed to allow a slightly larger percentage on some of those monument signs. So, it might be possible to add two more panels to the bottom of that sign. Obviously, our staff is not going to force someone to do that, but that’s an avenue for them to at least investigate more visibility along the Parkway to let someone know that Chipotle is in there. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Doug. Commissioner Van Walleghem. COMMISSIONER VAN WALLEGHEM: Yes. I really wanted to sort of express my concurrence with comments that I heard Doug make and I heard a couple of other members make about the desirability of keeping an overstory type of tree on the site. And I agree, I think the comment that trimming that tree up, it may continue to obscure the sign for a period of time, but you can continue to undercut that tree. And I think you’d really help the environment in this shopping center, which has got a whole lot of open pavement. And having larger mature trees there I think is one of the best ways we can mitigate that effect. And that’s really all I wanted to say. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Commissioner Willoughby. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: To Kathy’s question, if you go to page 7 of the printout, it shows that three of those new trees are on the east side of the parking lot south of the new trash enclosure. There is another one where the trash enclosure used to be or is now. And then there’s one in between that and the new trash container location. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Does anyone else have any questions for the applicant or staff? I have a question for the applicant. Mr. Dierks, a question for you is this would appear to be strictly an e-commerce restaurant then? MR. DIERKS: No. It will be both e-commerce and typical walk-in restaurant. We’ll encapsulate both concepts. The online app pick-up ordering through the drive-thru or inside. There’s also a pick-up location on the inside of the store. But just like any Chipotle, you’ll have the ability to walk in and order straight from the serve line and dine-in just like any other Chipotle experience. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very fine. And you will have dining room seating in there then as well?


MR. DIERKS: Yes. Correct. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is this one of the first restaurants you’ve done with the strictly drive-thru via no ordering board? MR. DIERKS: Well, it’s a fairly new concept for Chipotle. They just started rolling it out about a year ago. It will be one of the first here in the Kansas City area to utilize a drive-thru. But they seem to be working out really well. The preemptive ordering through the app eliminates any backup we have in the drive-thru itself, minimizing the queue lines. It’s turning out to be a fairly efficient system. We’re finding out each car once they pull up and get in the lane, they’re only there for about 16 seconds before they’ve gotten their food and they’re well on their way. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: So, you have a less of a problem with this type of arrangement from stacking than you would have had before? MR. DIERKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is that correct? MR. DIERKS: Yeah. I think that’s a fair statement. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: And so the rest -- and so the customer knows because you send him a text that says your order will be ready at 7:14? MR. DIERKS: Correct. Yeah. You will order through the Chipotle’s Apple app that you can get on your phone. You do all your ordering. Once you pick your store location, you can even set the destination whether you want to pick it up in the drive-thru lane or in the in-store pick-up shelf. For whatever reason, they just like to give you the option. But you can pick through the app and it will tell you what time your food will be ready. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: So, if that’s the case then, if somebody is at the wrong place in line or something, then basically you bring them on around and have them park and then somebody brings out the orders if they’re out of line then, is that correct? MR. DIERKS: Correct, yes. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: So, does your -- have they found that they needed more parking than normal even though you’re taking care of a stacking problem? MR. DIERKS: Not necessarily, no. The traffic within the lot has kind of remained about the same. It’s just adding an extra level of convenience for those who want it faster.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very fine, Mr. Dierks. This is a newer concept and I wanted to, if you will, drill down a little bit -- MR. DIERKS: Oh, yeah. Absolutely. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: -- on what you guys are finding out because I think we’ll see other people coming up with this. MR. DIERKS: I think so. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Van Walleghem, you have another question? COMMISSIONER VAN WALLEGHEM: No, I don’t. Sorry. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very fine. Are there any other questions for applicant or staff? Hearing none, then we’re in Commission discussion. I’ll start off by saying a suggestion that, you know, I’m not sure we can pin this down. We’ve offered suggestions, and maybe that this is something we kick to staff and applicant to tell them to work out on whether they can do some modifications from an arborist with that tree to make it less of a problem for the restaurant. I certainly can envision driving down, I believe it’s the hill drive there and having a tree in front of your whole store and going -- you can’t even see it. So, I can understand their problem with it. But I sincerely believe what staff is saying is correct that I think we should be able to find a way to do something different in that other than just cutting the tree down. Commissioner Bienhoff. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I too share this sentiment that I’d sure hate to see a nice, healthy, mature tree cut down for site line just because we choose to have a sign more visible. I think a couple points that come to mind, a few things that were mentioned. This is a destination. You order through the app. It seems more and more common that people are finding locations based on maps versus site visibility. Certainly, if it is a destination you might route to it via map or look it up online. So, I think an option might be to approve it, but deny the request for the tree removal and allow the applicant to proceed with other options. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very fine. Other discussion? Seeing no other discussion, then would someone like to propose a motion on this? Commissioner Willoughby. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: I move for approval of Project FSP21-06, revised site plan approval for Chipotle Mexican Grill at 22410 West 66th Street subject to the


following conditions, and with all four of those conditions as stated, you know, that they must somehow preserve that tree. And with -- and my recommendation would be to go to Neil Holman who is an arborist and get his viewpoint on this. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Is that part of the motion? COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: No. That was a just a side light. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Is there a second? Commissioner Montgomery. I think we lost Commissioner Montgomery here someplace. Commissioner Montgomery? Is there a second on the motion? Commissioner Bienhoff. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would second that motion. MS. MALMBORG: Dennis, I think you’re muted. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Ah, doggone it. My apologies to everyone. There’s a motion and a second for approval of FSP-006, Chipotle Mexican Grill located at 22410 West 66th Street, revised site plan approval per staff recommendation including the preservation of the existing tree. Any further discussion? I have a question for staff. And that is approving it this way, then would the applicant, if we could not meet up with this, would the applicant be able to come back on this item alone and ask us to change our mind? Or would they have to start over with a new -- MR. ALLMON: Hi. This is Doug. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yes, Doug. MR. ALLMON: I think we can work with the applicant. You know, we may get out there, as I said, it may be -- the top picture looks a little different than the bottom picture. If it’s a diseased ash tree, then it’s not worth saving. And we would work with the applicant to do something larger in caliper that would grow maybe a little faster, maybe a 3-inch tree, 3½-inch tree to replace it. But I think, if you guys are okay with it, if it’s something like that, we would make a report back to you and let you know how it kind of ends up. But if it’s a maple or an oak or something like that, then it’s very easy to get a staff member. I didn’t want to volunteer Neil, but he’s very good to help me look at different trees throughout the City. He can give us a recommendation. Then any skilled tree company can thin or limb up that tree at not much, I don’t want to say not much, but not great expense. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Doug. Any further discussion? Commissioner Peterson.


COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I just would like to be clear. I’m sorry. Is our motion saying try to work it out, but if you don’t, you got to replace it? Or will you come back to us? I think it should be very strict about trying other options of what we can do to save that tree before whatever. And I just want to make sure. That’s kind of how we all feel it appears. And I just want to make sure our motion is very clear. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson, as I understand the motion, it includes all three -- all four items in there including the preservation of the existing tree. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: So, that means that absolutely that tree is to be preserved. And I think, and from what Doug said, if there is an issue with it that’s it’s an ash tree that’s probably going to die or some other thing, then staff can certainly work out with the applicant on an arrangement and advise the Planning Commission of what happened. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: But the motion as it stands says that tree will remain. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I wanted to make sure it was clear. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Is there any further discussion? All in favor say aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. Motion carried. Thank you. [Therefore, the motion was made by Commissioner Willoughby and seconded by Commissioner Bienhoff to approve FSP21-00006, Chipotle Mexican Grill located at 22410 West 66th Street, revised site plan approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report including the preservation of the existing tree.]

(The meeting continued with Item 1, Proposed 2021-2023 CIP Update)

E. OTHER BUSINESS CHAIRMAN BUSBY: That moves us into Other Business. Does the staff have any Other Business for the Commission? Hearing none, then we’re into our business -- MS. MALMBORG: Chairman Busby. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yes.


MS. MALMBORG: Sorry. I just got the microphone back. I think the only thing we would like is to make sure to discuss the meeting format. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Correct. And that’s what we’re about to do. MS. MALMBORG: Great. Thanks. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: So, you all received an email today. It doesn’t take much to figure it out. The one question is do -- how do Commissioners feel about meeting via Zoom as we are now or the other two possibilities? And one thing I’ll share is I believe this is up to us only on how we proceed. So, if we want to remain this way that’s fine. If we want to wait a month and make a different decision, I don’t think there’s any issue with that unless some of the circumstances change. So, we need to have a discussion about what people think are going to work best. Commissioner Montgomery. Commissioner Montgomery? So, I don’t believe he’s -- I don’t know that we’ve lost him or what. COMMISSIONER NORMAN: He’s on mute. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I’m sorry? COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: He’s on mute. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Ah, Commissioner Montgomery. COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY: Can you hear me now? CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY: Okay. I apologize. I think that the hybrid option makes a lot of sense. It allows some flexibility for Commissioners to feel comfortable attending and others who do not. It still allows for plenty of social distancing in the chamber. And it seems like a good compromise to me to move forward with the hybrid option. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Peterson. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I agree with Commissioner Montgomery with one caveat, and that is as much as I would like to return to the chambers, meeting our new Commissioners that I’ve never seen face-to-face, and have the ability to interact with developers and citizenry as well as staff, how much of a problem is it going to be on a meeting by meeting basis to say this many are going to be at home via Zoom, this many are going to be -- I don’t want to create a lot of work for staff.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Caitlin, can you ask because I believe the City Council is doing this somewhat now. How far ahead do you have to know to know how many monitors to line up and et cetera? ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER GARD: Yeah. That’s a good question. Stephanie and I were just talking about that. I would say that it was our least preferred option. Not that we can’t handle it because now we can handle -- actually all of the Council came to the Council Committee meeting earlier tonight, so they were all in person. It’s a lift for staff but it’s not something that we can’t do if that’s the direction that you all give us tonight. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. But there would be rotating that I would we would have to know ahead. We’re going to have to be able to tell the staff that I’m going to be in the chamber this time and I’m not going to be next time which seems like that could, and as Caitlin said, they can figure it out and handle it. One of the interesting things is I really so much miss sitting down five minutes before a meeting and just simply saying hi to people. And likewise, I can assure you it is one hell of a lot easier to run a meeting in person because I can read people’s expressions. I can read their attitude and that. And the hybrid version to me is, and I can certainly be in chambers. But the hybrid version says we’re going to have people that are essentially in the customary Zoom part of it and we’re going to have others in there that can -- that will be feeling like a completely different feeling on it. So, it sounds to me like that one sounds really tricky, and I guess we’ll used to it. We can get used to it like anything else. But again, we don’t have to decide this now. My understanding is we can decide when we want to. And basically, if it doesn’t work, we can change our mind and decide we don’t want to do that anymore. Commissioner Nunnink. COMMISSIONER NUNNINK: Yes. This question is for Caitlin, just clarification. So, you’re saying that the hybrid model is difficult to manage because of which part, the technology part or planning for -- not knowing how many -- who’s going to be in and who’s going to be out? ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER GARD: I would say both, the simplest answer of both. We can accommodate all 11 of you plus staff in the Council Chambers, social distanced. Obviously not at the dais. So, we would have to set up tables, chairs, technology, microphones, et cetera, all while still running a Zoom meeting, which while we’re really good at that and have gotten really good at that, it’s still a whole process. So, one way or the other is preferred, but we can absolutely do whatever you guys come to your conclusion on. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Bingham.


COMMISSIONER BINGHAM: I was curious whether we meet in person or we do hybrid. Are we going to be required to wear masks? CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I believe so inside City Hall still. COMMISSIONER BINGHAM: That’s what I thought, yeah. ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER GARD: Dennis, apologies. This is Caitlin. Volunteers or the public are not required to wear masks. They are recommended or encouraged. City staff will be wearing masks. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yeah. That’s interesting. ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER GARD: The new Johnson County order came into effect, I believe, Saturday morning or Friday at midnight. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Correct. So, that says that at this point in time, we can’t require anybody attending a meeting to wear a mask? ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER GARD: That is correct. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Okay. ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER GARD: Highly encouraged or recommended. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Luecke. COMMISSIONER LUECKE: Yeah. That’s what I was going to point out is that masks aren’t required anymore. I’m also seeing the cases -- am seeing the cases tick up in Johnson County. If you get -- they have emails that come out, I guess it’s three times a week now. And so, the cases are ticking up. I think I’d be more comfortable if we waited to see what happens here. But I’d go either way as well. But I’d be wearing a mask. But I am concerned that cases are -- seem to be ticking back up. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Commissioner Wise. COMMISSIONER WISE: Yeah. I would second that thought that we probably should wait at least until the next meeting to make a decision. I think the other thing to keep in mind too is there is still going to be Zoom required for public is what I would guess because we have so few seats available. So, we’ll also have to keep that in mind that if we’re even in there, the public may or may not really be able to be in there. So, either way we’re still stuck with somewhat of a hybrid model is my assumption. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Caitlin, you care to comment on that?


ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER GARD: Yes. That’s technically correct. With the social distancing there is, what, ten chairs in here right now. And that’s with a much smaller group than you all have. We would have to set it up to see how many members of the public we could actually fit in here if all 11 of you did come back. And then it would be a discussion on how much staff you want in the room, whether you’d still allow staff or even applicants to present via Zoom. There’s a number of decisions that you all will have to make. But we will for the foreseeable future continue to run, at least the presentation via Zoom. We’ve gotten a lot of really good feedback that those on the listening end like watching the presentation and not just listening to the audio. So, I can see that continuing. I’m not so sure as far as participating via Zoom how long that’s going to continue. But at least the presentation and that being shown on like our YouTube channel and broadcasting will still continue. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Caitlin. Commissioner Bienhoff. COMMISSIONER BIENHOFF: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I share the similar concerns about coming back in person at this time. You know, my preference would be to -- my personal preference would be to wait and kind of watch the CDC guidelines and would prefer not to wear a mask, but would not feel comfortable doing that today, and don’t look forward to a two-hour meeting with a mask. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Commissioner Montgomery. COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY: So, just with the county’s new guidelines or lack thereof, who decides in a city building the social distancing, the capacity, and masks? Is that the City staff decision or City Council? Wouldn’t we sort of just go by that? I know we obviously can -- it sounds like we can go to some extent by our personal preference. But aren’t there policies in the City Hall that somebody is establishing? ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER GARD: Yes, there are. This is Caitlin again. It gets into a tricky situation when terms like recommended or requested or I guess essentially then required come into play. Nolan Sunderman, our City Manager, who operates as our, effectively, our CEO is making a lot of policies and decisions as far as staff is concerned. But then once we open it up beyond staff, it gets a little tricky as to who and how policies are disseminated. And ultimately, that would be a decision up to our Governing Body who I don’t believe is interested in taking this topic up. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you, Caitlin. Commissioner Montgomery, you have another comment or just forget to lower your hand? COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY: The latter. Thanks. Sorry. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Very fine. Commissioner Peterson.


COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Quite frankly, it sounds like, although we want to establish a new normal or whatever the term is, that there is some hesitancy now. What if we table this until at least the 17th, but as much as the first meeting in June to revisit it. That gives time for -- see what the numbers are. See what -- if anybody has changed their feelings because it would be difficult to wear a mask for two hours and speak into a microphone. And it does create audio issues for some. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: So, Kathy, I’m not sure we have to table it, but I think we can just set it and say we’ll have another discussion about it on June 7th. I think, you know, the uptick in some areas on this is concerning. It’s low enough now I don’t think I’d be concerned. But it starts to uptick and we’ve already made this decision for two weeks from now, then I’m kind of going I’m not sure I want to be happy with that. As we go along, we’re at roughly 50 percent vaccinated. Hopefully that’ll be 70 percent in a month. So, if we agree to take this up again on June 7th, I think that might give us more time and more information to maybe make a -- enough more information to be confident in a decision like this. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: I would agree because we want everybody to be comfortable with whatever that decision is. Not just a majority, it needs to be what makes everybody feel good. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Right. Does anybody have any further discussion on this? Any further comments? Then if we’d ask -- then at that point if we’d ask staff to make that a part of, I’m not sure it has to be a part of our meeting, but we’ll reconvene on this on the June 7th meeting. And I’m assuming June 7th is not some holiday that I forgot about, is it? MS. MALMBORG: Chairman Busby, this is Stephanie. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Yes. MS. MALMBORG: I don’t think we have any holidays that particular day. But in the event that one is created, we’ll make sure that it’s on that first meeting in June agenda no matter day that falls on. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Does it need to be on the agenda or is it just an agreement we’ll talk about it? Because I’m not sure we have to have as this being part of a meeting. MS. MALMBORG: I can put a placeholder. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I’m sorry?


MS. MALMBORG: Yeah. I can put a placeholder for it in the Other Business on that agenda so that we don’t forget to bring it up. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Terrific. MS. MALMBORG: I would like to -- CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I think that would be good. MS. MALMBORG: Thank you. I would like to clarify for just staff that you, the Commission have decided to stay with this meeting format with Zoom. And I’d like to confirm that you’re still okay with staff and applicants providing presentations via Zoom at this time? CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Thank you. Yes. Do you want a motion? Would that help you that way? MS. MALMBORG: No. I don’t think we need a motion; I just wanted to clarify. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: I believe that’s correct. Does anybody object to that language? Super. We’re fine with that. We’ll deal with it again on June 7th, and hopefully we’ll have more information. Do any of the Planning Commissioners have anything for staff? Commissioner Peterson. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Actually, I don’t, and I would like to make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: You can’t yet. I have something. Sorry. You can wait here, but, you know, one of our old good friends has found out is I think is terminal. And they’ve been in front of the Planning Commission numerous times. And, you know, realistically they were always nice people. There are always seemed like there was just some kind of problem with them. And so, I thought I’d alert the Planning Commission that one of our contacts here is terminal here. So, it’s sad and, you know, we all appreciate that it could happen to any of us. So, I thought I’d let everybody know. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Who? CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Bellmont Promenade. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Oh.


CHAIRMAN BUSBY: And if you didn’t sit through all the meetings that most of us sat through, I can assure you, we and staff literally spent hours and hours and hours, and for us not as much as staff spent on this. And it’s a shame, but it sounds like it’s falling apart and may not be around any longer. So, anyway, if you wonder where that Bellmont Promenade is -- it has a lot more work to do than most people are going to accomplish in many years. F. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN BUSBY: So, now Commissioner Wise. COMMISSIONER WILLOUGHBY: All right. I’ll make a motion to adjourn. Is there a second? Commissioner Peterson. COMMISSIONER PETERSON: Second. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: There’s a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUSBY: Opposed nay. We’re done. Thank you all. Good night. [Therefore, the motion was made by Commissioner Wise and seconded by Commissioner Peterson to adjourn. The motion carried 11-0.]

(Shawnee Planning Commission Meeting Adjourned)

Documents

Page 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 3, …