Lee S Summit Planning Commission s3

LEE’S SUMMIT PLANNING COMMISSION Joint Work Session with City Council Tuesday, June 24, 2003

Arnold Hall  123 SE Third Street

LEE’S SUMMIT DOWNTOWN MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Chairperson Trainer called the June 24, 2003 Joint Work Session of the Lee’s Summit City Council and Planning Commission to order by Chairperson Trainer, at 5:32 p.m., at Arnold Hall, 123 SE 3rd Street.

OPENING ROLL CALL:

Planning Commission Chairperson Trainer Present Mr. Christopher Absent Ms. Rosenquist Present Ms. Funk Present Ms. Ford Present Mr. Pycior Present Mr. Atcheson Present Mr. Tranchilla Present (entered at 5:34 p.m.) Mr. Fristoe Absent City Council Mayor Karen Messerli Present Councilmember Hallam Present Councilmember Cockrell Present Councilmember Rhoads Absent Councilmember Spallo Present Councilmember Williams Present Councilmember Hurley Present Councilmember Freeman Present Councilmember Bushyhead Present (entered at 5:39) (entered at 5:41 p.m.)

Also present were Robert Handley, City Attorney; David Bushek, Deputy City Attorney; Shelley Kneuvean, Assistant City Administrator; Steve Arbo, Assistant City Administrator; Bob McKay, Director, Planning and Development Department; Linda Tyrrel, Assistant Director, Planning and Development Department; Michael Gorecki, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Department; Heping Zhan, Senior Planner, Tom Peterson, Senior Staff Engineer, Public Works and Kathy Wilkes, Administrative Secretary.

Chairperson Trainer explained that this meeting’s purpose was for the Planning Commission and City Council to hear a presentation by staff and consultants. It was an opportunity to ask questions. She explained that as this was a work session and not a public hearing, there would be no public testimony. Mr. McKay and Mr. Arbo would describe how it would continue on to public hearings where citizens’ comments could be heard. Chairperson Trainer added that staff was very open to meeting with citizens and responding to questions.

Mr. McKay remarked that this was a process that had been going on for a number months. Staff had been working on Lee’s Summit’s Comprehensive Plan for several years. They had completed the Central/South plan and were in the process of completing the North area plan. Downtown had been specifically left out of these plans, with staff planning to bring this back PLANNING COMMISSION 2 June 24, 2003 separately. City Council had brought it to the forefront and staff had been able to begin sooner than expected. Mr. Arbo would explain the process. There would be another joint meeting to discuss the last two chapters of the plan.

Mr. Steve Arbo began with a summary of the community process taken. When selecting a consultant, EDAW was recommended to the City Council. A major reason was that a check of other communities had revealed that this firm was especially strong in integrating the community in the process. They consistently made sure that the various voices in the community were heard and had been highly recommended.

The consultants had suggested forming a Downtown Advisory Committee; a group of people with diverse interests that had a common interest and investment in the Downtown area. Staff had found twelve individuals to serve on the committee. Mr. Arbo read the names of the twelve members and invited those present to stand up for recognition: Mr. Glenn Jones, Mr. Brad Culbertson, Ms. Kay Ford, Mr. Chet Smith, Ms. Jeanine Rand, Mr. John Wisniewski, Ms. Jean Gamber, Mr. Gary Reeves, Mr. Mark Gilgas, Ms. Mary Alice Neal, Mr. Gary Fruits and Dr. Groghan from the School District. The committee had met three times with the consultant as well as on their own; and they had participated in the earlier public meetings. Individual members had also put in time with individual reading, phone calls and other communications. They represented areas such as real estate development, downtown property ownership, the School District, the Arts Council, the Senior Citizens Center, Downtown Main Street and the Downtown Roundtable Group.

Mr. Arbo continued that in all the decisions made, so far there were only three that involved conflict. One was whether the Downtown sidewalks on NE Main and on Third Street should be widened; the location of the Senior Center and whether the lumberyard should stay at its present location or relocated. As the report did not have the exact language from the Committee on the resolution of these issues, Mr. Arbo gave a brief review.

There had been considerable discussion about whether widening the sidewalks would be worth the parking spaces lost. The Committee consensus was that the City should consider widening the sidewalks if it could be done along with immediate replacement of the parking spaces close by. After much discussion, the Committee felt that it was still important to have the Senior Center located Downtown. There were specific suggestions for the location in the plan but the Committee acknowledged that the Senior Center organization might have other needs not met by the plan. They would in fact prefer to relocate at Second and Independence. The Committee had finally stated that they would prefer the Senior Center be relocated in the Downtown core; but if that was not possible they would recognize its need to locate somewhere else such as Second and Independence. Regarding the lumberyard, there was great concern about removing an existing business from the Downtown area. The consensus was that there could be good uses for the lumberyard’s current location such as incorporation into a greenway, visitors’ kiosk or public restroom. However, the Committee also wanted to find another location for the lumberyard within the Downtown study area.

Mr. Arbo remarked that the Committee had removed a number of political and financial barriers and tried to consider the future without these barriers. They came up with a vision or plan for as strong a Downtown area as possible and at this point, they were bringing it forward to be discussed with these realities factored in. Mr. Arbo remarked that this was a very different approach from a committee starting out contemplating all the limitations they had to work with. The Commission and Council needed to take this into consideration in looking at the ideas presented. There would be future public meetings with citizens having an opportunity to speak on an individual basis. PLANNING COMMISSION 3 June 24, 2003

One thing not yet done was the development of very specific implementation steps. This was part of the contract the City had with EDAW. These would be especially important in difficult areas such as establishing a ‘transition’ zone and determining what kind of zoning would both protect residential character of neighborhoods and acknowledge existing commercial uses when they were present. This would involve decisions on approaches to relocating some businesses. Mr. Arbo then introduced Mr. Cales Givens of EDAW, Inc., remarking that staff had heard many positive comments.

Mr. Givens emphasized that the report being considered was a draft and they were currently present for further input and guidance. He summarized some of the more important aspects of the report, referring to renderings of Old Lee’s Summit and the Downtown Core that were displayed. He referred to Mr. Arbo’s description of the process, assuring the Commission and Council that the project and report were grounded in true market realities.

Regarding the vision statement, Mr. Givens related that they had ended up with three statements. The project involved a large study area. On the renderings Mr. Givens pointed out the “Old Lee’s Summit” neighborhoods (Chipman Road/M-291/US 50 Highway) and the “Downtown Core” (SE First Street/SE Fifth Street/SW Jefferson Street/SE Grant Street).

The vision statement was divided into three parts. The first described the perimeters and emphasized the role of a welcoming image on entering Downtown. Wherever redevelopment occurred near the perimeter, it should aim for presenting a positive image of Downtown. The second statement focused on the Old Lee’s Summit neighborhoods. They were identified as the roots of the community, with a goal for people living there feeling that they lived in a community with strong ties to Downtown. This vision statement emphasized keeping the strong neighborhood character including attractive tree-lined streets and ‘a place where you know your neighbors.’ The third statement specifically addressed the Downtown Core, referring to a regional center that was commercially vibrant and as well as being a cultural and entertainment center for the town. This was where shops, restaurants and public entities were concentrated.

Mr. Givens remarked that implementation of plans like this often got bogged down in details. He believed that the vision statements he had outlined had been reached by consensus and fairly represented the goals.

Next, Mr. Eric Lennox of Canyon Research Southwest, Inc. explained that he would address three different issues: supply and demand for various forms of residential and commercial activity, the baseline recommendation for the study area and identification of some redevelopment sites.

First, the consultants had looked at statistics for residential, retail and office. “Residential” had included apartments, single-family housing and senior housing. There was about 70,000 square feet of retail space, 70,000 square feet of office space and 300-450 dwelling units. Regarding hotels, it would be difficult to get a large chain hotel into Downtown and the report suggested some future development of smaller “boutique” type hotels or bed and breakfasts in this part of town. Mr. Lennox remarked that a strong Downtown neighborhood needed thriving residential neighborhoods at its fringes.

Mr. Lennox continued that the Downtown core had a projected 30,000-40,000 square feet of retail space, 30,000-50,000 in office space and 150-200 units of dwelling space. There was some potential for lodging with Summit Technology Campus nearby as well as 50 Highway and 291 Highway. This was basically an urban mixed-use environment; and the consultants felt PLANNING COMMISSION 4 June 24, 2003 that the Downtown core should remain a community center. They recommended looking at an increased emphasis on incorporating cultural, recreational and entertainment uses. This would in effect extend the hours that Downtown was active.

Maintaining the religious institutions concentrated near Downtown was also important; as they were good community centers and tended to draw people into the neighborhood as well as providing a good land use buffer between Downtown and the residential neighborhoods adjacent.

Parking was an issue Downtown. Mr. Lennox emphasized that in order for the Downtown core and the rest of the study area to have more mixed use development, parking was an issue that needed to be looked at. If surface parking could not be increased, it could be parking decks in conjunction with some mixed-use developments. Another recommendation was creating more open public spaces. That could include widening of the sidewalks and streets to create a wider streetscape; and pocket parks could also help encourage a more pedestrian orientation.

The Downtown could be looked at in terms of four different ‘nodes’. One would be government center concentrated around the new City Hall; others could be an entertainment node around Depot Square, a residential node and transitional zones. Encroachment of commercial development into residential neighborhoods was one of the listed issues and the consultants recommended commercial transition zones with lower-density commercial uses.

Mr. Lennox came back to the subject of gateways, particularly on Third, Second, Douglas and Jefferson Streets. Douglas and Third should remain residential gateways. The key was for people to feel that they had “arrived somewhere” when they got to the Downtown core. It would also be important to establish key named historic neighborhoods around the Downtown core. Outside the core, putting in neighborhood or pocket parks as infill development could help add to the open space in the community.

Regarding redevelopment, the consultants had identified six sites. These tended to be near gateway locations, such as the car dealerships around Chipman and 50 Highway. Over time, this could be a good redevelopment site with its proximity to the highway and Summit Technology Campus. Some vacant land also remained near Main and Orchard that could be a good location for some additional single-family or duplex development.

The consultants had identified 15 specific redevelopment sites. Mr. Lennox mentioned three he considered to have especially good potential. One was the existing City Hall on Market Street. The City had a good opportunity to address what they wanted to do here in terms of Downtown redevelopment. The lumber yard could create open space as well as a space for the Farmers Market. Last, the land right across the new City Hall could be a gateway location and should be given consideration.

Returning to the podium, Mr. Cales remarked that three additional elements needed consensus. One involved the improvement of streets, particularly regarding stormwater. Some of the neighborhoods had a rural character and feel, with no sidewalks; and these needed to be upgraded enough to deal with the stormwater problems. Secondly, additional green space, pocket parks and places for children to play would be desirable. Third was to embrace the historic district.

Mr. Cales continued on to outline 11 key principles. First was the railroad corridor, which they advised be trenched from 50 Highway to Chipman Road. After much discussion and sharing of technical analysis, the City would need to make decisions on aspects such as widening of the PLANNING COMMISSION 5 June 24, 2003 tracks. The railroad corridor should be an attraction. Physically, that was possible; Lee’s Summit was at the top of the elevation and the actual excavation over time would probably be beneficial to the city as a whole. Railroad traffic would increase in the future and projects such as elevating roads over the tracks at existing crossings would be less desirable than a legacy project using Federal and State dollars.

Another principle was the creation of a north-south greenway through the Downtown core area. A bicycle path along with it could hook up with the east-west Chipman Road path currently being constructed.

Third, the City should continue increasing the housing stock. Some infill development of this kind was possible. If the Senior Center relocated outside the Downtown core, it would be desirable to have it in a close enough location for seniors to walk Downtown. Mr. Cales also confirmed that there were numerous potential redevelopment sites, especially on the perimeter. The consultants would create an overlay zone of the developments along the perimeter. Mr. Cales also noted some confusion with people sometimes having difficulty finding downtown and he felt that regional gateways could be used constructively to address that. They had some discussions as to whether Second or Third Streets should be the east gateway; and had decided on both. Traffic coming from the south could go down Third and that from the north down Second. That was a way to disburse traffic and an incentive to make both these streets attractive as gateways.

Finally, Mr. Cales pointed out the residential areas shown in white on the map. He recalled that some of the main points of discussion at the last workshop involved the character of both Third Street and Douglas. Both needed to have their residential character maintained and the plan currently called for doing that including stopping the commercial encroachments on these two streets. Second and Jefferson could nevertheless be mixed use areas.

Mr. Cales agreed with Mr. Lennox that there was a strong market for a variety of different uses in the Downtown core. In particular there were opportunities for more people living Downtown in second story units. They also advised keeping offices such as the School Administration offices Downtown. Green Street at the new City Hall could be utilized as a public gathering place.

Additional residential and mixed-use development could characterize transition zones. It was important for the two types of development be approved only if compatible with adjacent neighborhoods. Parking in the Downtown area was very important; and improvements to the corridor along the railroad right-of-way could provide opportunities for expanded parking.

Mr. Cales then mentioned the importance of creating wider sidewalks Downtown. As it had been one of the points of contention, the consultants had prepared a simulation; showing bays extending out from the curb to accommodate streetscape items such as trees. On some sidewalks, the street trees and grates made navigation for wheelchairs or strollers difficult. With expanding activity Downtown would come a need for more sidewalk space. Typically, major urban streets should have a minimum of 14 feet on the sidewalks: six feet for two people to walk side-by-side and another six to eight feet for landscaping, newspaper boxes and other streetscape items. The ‘before and after’ simulation illustrated the effect; and Mr. Cales emphasized that adequate sidewalks for pedestrian was a good planning principle for Downtown areas.

Mr. Cales then pointed out his suggestion for the Senior Center, along Main Street just south of the Farmers Market in a transition zone. He acknowledged that there were other locations in transition zones where it could locate; however, it was in Downtown’s interest to locate the PLANNING COMMISSION 6 June 24, 2003 center where Downtown was accessible to seniors. The consultants had also discussed a possible future venue for the Farmers Market, which was an important meeting place and public relations tool. Mr. Cales also identified a parcel north of Second Street that could be a new Downtown residential neighborhood. More infill development sites were identified on the map.

Mr. Mitch Hoefer was enthusiastic about the potential for Downtown and for the plan. He felt that the community including the City Council and the Planning Commission were committed to seeing it happen. He pointed out that Downtown’s potential included 70,000 feet of office space, 350 new housing units, improved paving and mature street trees. It would be a very attractive Downtown environment. Certain projects would tend to act as catalysts, such as the new City Hall with its surrounding streetscape. Infill development would be part of the Downtown development as well.

One key element to the realization of the Downtown master plan would be “18-hour sidewalks.” This meant commercial activity and people on the streets in the evening as well as business hours. He referred to a rendering showing some of this development, including housing, retail including Farmer’s Market, the civic area and some opportunities for infill; all close to the Third and Main intersection. Regarding trenching the railroad tracks, Mr. Hoefer remarked that 50 or 60 trains and their whistles could be hard to live with.

Mr. Hoefer referred to the infill buildings on the rendering and stated that some added to Downtown and some did not. The consultants had looked at not only redevelopment sites but also infill potential. He concluded by describing a goal for Downtown’s visitors to see gateways on the perimeter leading to a business and residential center with coordinated parking and pedestrian activity.

Mr. Arbo then asked the Planning Commission and City Council for questions and comments.

Councilmember Freeman referred to the recommendation for using second story offices that were currently under-utilized. He had also read the market analysis contained in the draft indicating $14.00 per square foot. Councilmember Freeman's concern was that there was not enough incentive in the marketplace to do the retrofitting to make these offices ADA compliant. Mr. Lennox responded that they were looking at a 20-year timeline; and acknowledged that it was correct that some of the economically viable development today might be difficult. They would be addressing the issue of whether the City had the short-term incentive for stimulating it. He acknowledged that the rental rates were not at the level to stimulate high-level office development. Some type of City assistance in the form of zoning variances might be necessary. If rental rates increased enough in five or six years, some of the second floor space could be redeveloped. He mentioned as an example a project in Tempe, Arizona in 1985 and rental rates that had increased from $10.00 per foot to $60.00 per foot.

Councilmember Freeman then stated that it appeared that there was no economic force to support a large hotel but possibly a smaller one. He asked about the recommendation to put in a hotel. Mr. Lennox explained that he did not believe there was a demand for a large hotel in the Downtown core. These kinds of hotels had specific location requirements and Downtown did not have the requisite nearby office space. The demand was more likely to develop on 50 Highway. In neither area would it be likely to be a large hotel with conference center but a smaller 80-room facility. Some lodging could also be added in the form of bed and breakfasts if this kind of business started up, especially in some of the historic neighborhood homes.

Mr. Cales added that a smaller “boutique” hotel with a small number of rooms could be a good transition. Councilmember Freeman asked if the recommendation was for the neighborhoods PLANNING COMMISSION 7 June 24, 2003 on both the north and south sides of Second and Third Streets to remain residential; or if it was for them to remain residential to the north of Second and south of Third. Mr. Cales answered that for Third Street, the recommendation was for both sides. Some commercial development that had already taken place could be ‘grandfathered’ in; however there was residential development on both sides of the street. Councilmember Freeman asked if it was correct that his recommendation was for older houses to be redeveloped as they became more economically viable; and that they be redeveloped as houses rather than commercial adaptation. Mr. Cales answered that was correct; the aim was to retain the residential character. With these streets being gateways, avoiding the highway/commercial strip look going into Downtown was in the city’s best interests.

Councilmember Freeman then referred to reading in the report a discussion about a type of entertainment area Downtown. He asked about the consultants’ recommendations for specific locations, noting a mention of the current location of the feed store. Mr. Cales responded that the years ago there used to be agricultural images associated with Lee’s Summit and there was currently a viable business in that location. However, if it was to be available for re-use in the future, it would be a great site for an entertainment center or perhaps another restaurant. Councilmember Freeman remarked that Jefferson City was doing some similar streetscape work on High Street to make it pedestrian-friendly.

Regarding the parking, Mr. Lennox pointed out that he owned a small business Downtown and had observed that part of the parking problem was that owners and employees would park right next to the business and parking was tied up all day. Suggestions like an 18-space parking facility across from City Hall might be helpful. Regarding streetscapes, he stated that Downtown had to create a niche for itself and one of those niches was a center for entertainment/gathering places. He advocating utilizing the UDO to facilitate that, as well as giving the Main Street a venue to market Downtown.

Councilmember Hurley noted that the City did not have jurisdiction over the railroad lines and asked what the approach would be as well as the cost. Mr. Cales acknowledged that in East Coast cities where he had worked, there was not always a good relationship with railroads. However, the railroad did have a stake in the Downtown real estate. Railroad traffic was expected to increase and there was a possibility of a commuter train. So the railroads might have a need to redevelop tracks over the next 20 years. He felt that the mutual interest was the best approach to the railroad; although the city would probably need to go up the ‘food chain’ of government authority. Raised railroad overpasses could be used; but the noise alone could encourage blight. Councilmember Hurley pointed out that nevertheless, the City did not have jurisdiction over the railroads.

Mr. Jeff McKerrow of TranSystem Corporation stated that it was important to keep in mind working with railroads that they were a business and would only do what was in their best interest. The City could approach them; but would have to recognize that they would not invest a great amount of their own capital in these types of projects. They did have the right-of-way to double track if they needed to. Mayor Messerli agreed that the City did not have jurisdiction, adding that her nine years of experience trying to work with railroads confirmed the statement that their own gain was the only incentive. She did think it important for Lee’s Summit to have a plan or vision in place so that should the railroad need anything from the city at some point, it would then have leverage.

Councilmember Spallo remarked that the idea of having an office on a second floor with residential on the ground floor was backward. It would seem more logical to have a loft apartment over a business. Mr. Lennox answered that actually, retail should be the prominent PLANNING COMMISSION 8 June 24, 2003 use on a bottom floor and the second could be either office or residential development. He added that what happened with downtown areas over time was that when they got depressed, business owners bought buildings and moved in businesses that did not have location-specific traffic such as law firms or insurance agencies. Most of what he was referring to would be new construction, which would be ADA compliant.

Asked for comments, Mr. Cockrell deferred to the Councilmembers and Ms. Ford declined on the basis that she had been the DAC and had a number of comments that were detailed. She preferred to send them via email. Councilmember Bushyhead said she would have no problem with plans to come back and continue the discussion before going to public hearings. Council- member Freeman agreed, saying he did not want to rush through the process.

Mayor Messerli wanted to address the process involved. Approval of the document was the responsibility of the Planning Commission and not City Council. The Council played an enforcement role as they made such adjustments as zoning changes. The two groups’ dialogue was very important, as it could minimize the possibility later of staff members getting upset about it not coming before the Council. She stated that she would certainly support additional meetings if the participants felt they were necessary to do the job well.

Chairperson Trainer asked Ms. Ford if she wanted to skip this session for comments or if she could summarize her points. Ms. Ford said she first wanted to hear from members who had raised their hands indicating they had comments. Hearing their questions and the responses had already clarified some things she’d had questions about.

Councilmember Bushyhead wanted to discuss the railroad issue as a group. She and Councilmember Hallam also believed redevelopment to be an important issue to cover more thoroughly. Mr. Arbo said that both he and Mr. McKay had worked with the Commission and Council to identify key issues; and the next session they would group these topics together and work through them. Mayor Messerli commented that everyone keep in mind how difficult it could be to get participation from both groups. They would be picking dates for meetings and anyone in either group could be there and participate. Anyone who could not, however, would need to understand that the Planning Commission and City Council would have to move forward. It was impossible to find dates that were good for everyone.

Ms. Ford said that the DAC would not see the final draft until Monday afternoon. She suggested that it would be helpful for them to get together and go over the draft. In talking with some of the DAC members, she had heard questions. Ms. Ford was not sure whether the DAC should meet before another meeting with the Council and Commission or at some other point in the process; but she felt it would be helpful. Mr. Arbo said that the DAC could reconvene with the consulting team and give some feedback on the final draft form.

Chairperson Trainer asked what the participants considered the larger issues to be. Council- member Hallam felt they were redevelopment and the demolition of any existing buildings. Ms. Ford remarked that the Commission and Council needed a specific definition of the phrase “under utilized.” Councilmember Williams related that from the beginning, he had wondered about the density of the area and traffic problems. On any good Friday night with a Downtown special activity the neighborhood had up to about 5,000 people. He guessed that to be about five percent of Lee’s Summit’s population. Taking Lee’s Summit’s population growth into account, he wondered how Downtown would handle traffic if Downtown were successfully promoted as an entertainment center and the population percentage it drew was the same. He was not opposed to entertainment; but had concerns about traffic levels when the plan talked about more green space and wider sidewalks taking up street space. PLANNING COMMISSION 9 June 24, 2003

Councilmember Freeman remarked that other than closing off Green Street for outdoor events, he had not heard details about how to attract people for ‘18-hour sidewalks.’ Mr. Cales stated that they did plan to address implementation, which would be the more difficult part but they wanted to present and discuss the plan thoroughly first. Mr. Tranchilla agreed with Council- member Williams’ concerns about traffic. He wanted to know if parking was part of infrastructure and if the Downtown plan would gain or lose parking.

A number of participants wanted to discuss the railroad. Councilmember Hallam said it might be helpful if they could hear some examples of places where the kind of municipal/private cooperation suggested had been successful. Mr. Cales related that the plan would be continually updated over the coming years. Ms. Ford observed that while the Commission and Council were talking about a long time frame, she believed that the Commission and Council had some limitations regarding the sidewalks. She understood that the City was already moving on the design aspect and these decisions had to be made rather quickly. Second, a number of citizens had asked her in the past few days about what had happened to the City Hall Task Force recommendations. It seemed that some of these did tie in with the draft they had just seen, especially with parking. That particular citizens’ group had been involved in the bond issue and the new City Hall plan and someone needed to go to archives and find the Task Force recommendations to see how they tied in with those of the DAC.

Chairperson Trainer asked Ms. Ford if her notes indicated the Commission and Council were covering everything outlined in the recommendations. Ms. Ford listed the issues looked at: redevelopment; the definition of what was and was not under-utilized; housing stock, *. Regarding housing in particular, the part about redevelopment was basically eliminating old housing stock but acknowledged elsewhere that more housing stock was needed. She felt that the Commission and Council needed to take a closer look and give more consideration to older homes that might not be stylish or attractive but would be a loss if they were redeveloped for other use. The Commission and Council needed to be careful how they defined “under-utilized.” She also pointed out that 15 years ago, the 500 and 600 block of SE Miller would have been considered blighted. Today the newspaper’s editor lived there as well as City Hall officials and the street had basically been revitalized by private interests. The participants needed to carefully consider what kind of redevelopment they wanted to see.

Councilmember Freeman stated that the report was to be market driven; however, much of the Downtown housing stock and other resources were more City-initiated. He wanted some discussion of that issue.

Mayor Messerli remarked that according to some of the feedback she had received, a number of people were apprehensive. She hoped that the citizens present at the joint session would continue to participate. It should be obvious that the City was really at the beginning of this project and there was nothing that was completed or set in stone.

Councilmember Bushyhead wanted some discussion of civic space, as well as the Senior Center location. Chairperson Trainer remarked that the lumber yard location would fit into this aspect but Councilmember Hallam felt that the three issues had to be individually considered.

Chairperson Trainer asked how much time should be realistically allowed to accomplish something. Mayor Messerli believed it would take more than one meeting and Councilmember Hallam recommended limiting them to two hours. Mr. Arbo suggested trying two two-hour sessions and Chairperson Trainer asked him if he had a date certain. Mr. Arbo did not at PLANNING COMMISSION 10 June 24, 2003 present as he would have to coordinate the consultants’ schedules. They would announce a future date as soon as possible.

ADJOURNMENT

Chairperson Trainer asked for any further comments. Councilmember Hallam and Councilmember Bushyhead remarked that the group had made a good start. Hearing no further discussion, Chairperson Trainer adjourned the meeting at 6:58 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION 11 June 24, 2003

LEE’S SUMMIT PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Tuesday, May 24, 2003

The Tuesday, May 24, 2003, Lee’s Summit Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Trainer, at 7:16 p.m., at Arnold Hall, 123 SE 3rd Street.

OPENING ROLL CALL:

Chairperson Trainer Present Mr. Christopher Present Ms. Rosenquist Present Ms. Funk Present Ms. Ford Present Mr. Pycior Absent Mr. Atcheson Present Mr. Tranchilla Present Mr. Fristoe Absent

Also present were David Bushek, Deputy City Attorney; Linda Tyrrel, Assistant Director, Planning and Development Department; Heping Zhan, Senior Planner, Hector Soto, Planner, Planning and Development Department; Kendra Cobbs, Planner, Planning and Development Department; Tom Peterson, Senior Staff Engineer, Public Works and Kathy Wilkes, Administrative Secretary.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Chairperson Trainer asked if there were additions or corrections to the agenda. There were none. On motion of Ms. Rosenquist, seconded by Mr. Christopher, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to APPROVE the agenda.

1. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA

A. Application #2003-101 – FINAL PLAT – Belmont Farms, 2nd Plat, Lots 50-90 & Tracts A-L & O; Investors Limited, LLC, applicant B. Application #2003-103 - FINAL PLAT – Lakewood Shores, Lots 121A-140A; Lakewood Oaks Development Co., applicant C. Application #2003-125 – FINAL PLAT – Fairway Village, Lots 2A & 2B; Roy Allen for Dana Zander, Inc., applicant

Chairperson Trainer called for a motion to approve the Consent Agenda.

On motion of Ms. Rosenquist, seconded by Ms. Funk, the Planning Commission voted unanimously by voice vote to APPROVE Consent Agenda Items 1A through 1C.

2. Public Hearing: Application #2003-102 – STREET NAME CHANGE – Cosentino Drive to Hollywood Drive; Raintree North Shopping Center, applicant PLANNING COMMISSION 12 June 24, 2003

Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing and announced that Application 2003-102 was continued to a date certain of July 8, 2003 to allow for proper property owner notification. She then closed the hearing, at 7:19 p.m.

3. Public Hearing - Continued Application #2003-060 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 3370 NE Ralph Powell Road, Snake N’ Rooter; Snake N’ Rooter, applicant

Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 7:20 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in by the court reporter.

Mr. Jeff Schroeder of Scharhag Architects, representing the applicant, gave his address as 1806 Swift, North Kansas City, Missouri. He explained that this was an existing business with a good track record as a business and neighbor; and they wanted to relocate to a larger facility in a better location. They agreed with staff’s four recommendation items. Regarding the driveway modification in Recommendation Item 2, they were trying to separate visitor and employee areas and keep parking on the side of the building rather than the front.

Following Mr. Schroeder’s remarks, Chairperson Trainer asked for staff comments.

Ms. Tyrrel entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-16 into the record and related that staff had met with the Snake N’ Rooters owners several months before. There was some concern about this type of business having machinery and trucks that might fit better into an industrial than a commercial zone. They had assured staff that they were looking for a high quality office location and would not have any outdoor storage. They had met the architectural requirements of this particular business park. This business would not require as much parking as a standard office building, as they had some service employees who parked at the job sites. The UDO specifically provided for an alternate parking plan which would keep enough space on the site to allow for future parking should the business change hands and need the standard number of parking spaces. In this case, there was enough land available to serve the needs of the building with another occupant. Staff was recommending approval with the recommendations of the mechanical equipment being screened, modifications to the driveways and Items 3 and 4 providing for the possibility of a change to the building or property use in the future.

Following Ms. Tyrrel’s comments, Chairperson Trainer asked if there was anyone else present wishing to give testimony, either for or in opposition to the application. Seeing none, she then asked if the Commission had questions for the applicant or for staff.

Ms. Rosenquist noted that at a recent meeting the CDC had discussed land banking for parking purposes. She asked if this was a district that provided for that and if there were any uses in this zoning district that could potentially require more parking spaces than the 84 total. She also wanted to know if an additional condition was needed regarding the land banking. Ms. Tyrrel was not sure about the CDC’s discussion; but the subject property was zoned CP-2. The potential total 84 parking spaces would be adequate for the standard of four per 1,000 square feet for office use. Should a retail use go into the building, the requirement would be five spaces per 1,000 square feet they would be short. This was a two-story building so the 84 spaces were based on both stories being occupied. According to the UDO, a tenant change amounting to redevelopment would require another preliminary development plan.

Ms. Rosenquist asked if the Commission needed to put it in as a condition should this create a parking shortage. Ms. Tyrrel referred her to Item 4, stating that in the case of a change “the applicant or owner shall provide information regarding the proposed use of the space and PLANNING COMMISSION 13 June 24, 2003 whether the use generates the need for additional parking spaces.” Once they provided this information, Planning would make a determination whether parking was adequate. If it was not, the applicant would not be allowed the use or would have to apply for a modification.

Mr. Christopher asked how this differed from the industrial building on Century that the Commission had considered at the previous meeting. Ms. Tyrrel answered that in that case, there was no additional land to build the required additional four spaces. In this case, the applicant’s first plan did not provide for enough future spaces and they subsequently reworked it to get the total number required. This building was being constructed specifically as an office building and the future parking plan had enough spaces for that use.

Chairperson Trainer asked if there were further questions for applicant or staff. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. and asked if there was discussion among the Commission members.

Ms. Ford commented that she would not be able to support the application if not for the recommendation item requiring the applicant provide for future parking if needed. However, she felt that the city’s interests were being protected.

Chairperson Trainer asked if there was any further discussion. Hearing none, she called for a motion.

Ms. Funk made a motion to recommend approval of Application 2003-060, Preliminary Development Plan, 3370 NE Ralph Powell Road, Snake N’ Rooter; Snake N’ Rooter, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of June 20, 2003, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 4. Mr. Tranchilla seconded.

Chairperson Trainer asked if there was any discussion of the motion. Hearing none, she called for a vote.

On motion of Ms. Funk, seconded by Mr. Tranchilla, the Planning Commission members voted by voice vote of five “yes” (Chairperson Trainer, Ms. Ford, Mr. Christopher, Ms. Funk and Mr. Tranchilla), one “no” (Ms. Rosenquist) and one “abstain” (Mr. Atcheson) to recommend APPROVAL of Application 2003-060, Preliminary Development Plan, 3370 NE Ralph Powell Road, Snake N’ Rooter; Snake N’ Rooter, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of June 20, 2003, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 4.

4. Public Hearing – Application #2003-116 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN and Application #2003-117 – SPECIAL USE PERMIT for car wash in CP-2 – 950 SE Bridgehampton Way, Eastland Car Wash; Hirst & Associates, applicant

Mr. Charles (Skip) Hirst of Hirst and Associates architects gave his address as 621 NE Woods Chapel Road in Lee’s Summit. He was present representing Mr. and Mrs. David Eastland, owners of the property, which was immediately behind the Napa Auto Parts store. They wanted to put in a car wash, which required a Special Use Permit although the zoning was correct for this kind of work. The adjacent properties were all CP-2 except for RP-3 (Bridgehampton) to the south. Napa was to the north, the Auto Clinic to the west and northwest, and the Super-8 motel across the road to the east. A vacant lot, also zoned CP-2, was also to the east and a four-plex was south of the property. PLANNING COMMISSION 14 June 24, 2003

The applicant concurred with all five of staff’s recommendations. They were already using 20- foot light poles but these would be on a two-foot base that would make them 22 feet; so the applicant was going with 18-foot poles on the two-foot concrete base. Regarding the low-impact screening, the applicant already had the fence and provided a hedge as a screen for Bridgehampton. The hedge was a barberry-type shrub that kept some leaves throughout the winter; they were changing that to holly as it was an evergreen.

Mr. Hirst continued regarding the noise generation that the dryer was on the far end of the carwash, about 40 feet from the four-plexes. A six-foot fence with plantings on both sides would be followed by 80 feet to the building and then 112 feet to the other end of the building where the dryer was.

Following Mr. Hirst’s remarks, Chairperson Trainer asked for staff comments.

Mr. Soto entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-14 into the record and summarized the project as a six-bay, 3,500 square foot facility in the CP-2 district. The UDO did allow this as a special use. There were commercial uses on three sides, with the residential uses to the south. Where CP-2 districts abutted residential districts, the UDO required a high-impact buffer screen; and the applicant was providing a six-foot vinyl fence as well as low-impact landscape screening on both sides of the fence. The residences were set back about 120 feet from the proposed facility and this screening should mitigate any impact. He concluded stating that staff recommended approval subject to the Recommendation Items 1 though 5.

Following Mr. Soto’s comments, Chairperson Trainer asked if there was anyone else present wishing to give testimony, either for or in opposition to the application. Seeing none, she asked if the Commission had questions for the applicant or for staff.

Mr. Christopher asked Ms. Tyrrel if the City had any record of noise generation from car washes. Ms. Tyrrel answered that they did not. The previous Travel Clean carwash application had provided some information on noise. There was also a Phillips station on Douglas Street that had previously provided a carwash. Mr. Christopher asked if there had been any complaints from neighbors about the application and Ms. Tyrrel answered that there had not been to her knowledge.

Ms. Funk asked if the near neighbors had been notified and Mr. Soto answered that they had. It was part of the public hearing process to notify all neighbors within 185 feet. Additionally a sign had been posted on the site. Ms. Funk asked if they had received any response to the notification and Mr. Soto answered that they had not.

Chairperson Trainer asked if there were further questions for applicant or staff. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. and asked for discussion among the Commission members, or for a motion.

Mr. Tranchilla made a motion to recommend approval; of Application 2003-116, Preliminary Development Plan and Application 2003-117, Special Use Permit for car wash in CP-2 – 950 SE Bridgehampton Way, Eastland Car Wash; Hirst & Associates, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of June 20, 2003, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 5. Mr. Atcheson seconded.

Chairperson Trainer asked if there was any discussion of the motion. Hearing none, she called for a vote. PLANNING COMMISSION 15 June 24, 2003

On motion of Mr. Tranchjlla, seconded by Mr. Atcheson, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application 2003-116, Preliminary Development Plan and Application 2003-117, Special Use Permit for car wash in CP-2 – 950 SE Bridgehampton Way, Eastland Car Wash; Hirst & Associates, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of June 20, 2003, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 5.

5. Public Hearing: Application #2003-107 – SPECIAL USE PERMIT for indoor recreation facility in PI-1, 1260 NW Main Street, Lot 3A, Main Street Industrial Park; Les & Kristen Norman, applicant

Mr. Jeff Schroeder of Scharhag Architects gave his address as 1806 Swift, North Kansas City, Missouri. He stated that the applicant was asking for a Special Use Permit due to the requested use in this zoning district. The applicant had agreed with staff’s recommendations 1 and 2. Concerning parking, this was a small building and they had provided parking information on similar facilities. The applicants planned to have no more than 20-22 people in the building at a time, including parents, children and coaches. There would be some doubling up with parents bringing their children, as well as other children, to the facility. Typically, operations times would be evenings and weekends though there would be occasional daytime use in the summer. Mr. Schroeder felt that this would be a fairly low-impact use.

Following Mr. Schroeder’s remarks, Chairperson Trainer asked for staff comments.

Ms. Tyrrel entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-14 into the record and stated that this was a fairly new type of request. The old 715 ordinance only allowed this type of use in commercial districts. However, staff had found that this type of use required an industrial-type building with tall ceilings. Children in an industrial area had been a concern; and so the UDO specified this as a special use, in order to consider such applications on a case-by-case basis. In this case, Main Street would be the primary access. This particular use was basically an adult type use. The ordinance did not really address parking issues; so staff had asked the applicants to provide information from other similar uses. This was indicated by the table on page 2 of staff’s report. They were providing almost double the number of spaces that the other uses had. The parking provision did include some shared spaces with the adjacent use, which staff assumed would tend to be regular business hours. Staff recommended a time period for the permit of ten years, as this was a new kind of application.

Following Ms. Tyrrel’s comments, Chairperson Trainer asked if there was anyone else present wishing to give testimony, either for or in opposition to the application. Seeing none, she asked if the Commission had questions for the applicant or staff.

Ms. Ford asked about the age groups involved. She had heard the applicant refer to young people being brought by parents but then a reference from Ms. Tyrrel to adult use. Ms. Tyrrel said that her statement was an error. Ms. Ford then wanted to know about the roads nearby.

Mr. Tom Peterson came to the podium and Ms. Ford remarked that development was occurring around the north part of Main Street, which was still basically a rural road. She wanted to know if the City had any plans to improve it or had development agreements with businesses involved. Mr. Peterson related that the City was looking at other roadway alignments for the PLANNING COMMISSION 16 June 24, 2003 whole area between Douglas and the railroad tracks. These would likely tie more directly into Commerce and de-emphasize Main Street. Main Street came into Chipman Road a relatively short distance from the Chipman/Douglas traffic light. The current plans for Chipman Road currently being finished up would limit some of the access to Main Street because of this proximity. There might be an additional signal at Commerce, about a quarter-mile away. Public Works was also considering a north parallel route to Douglas up to the future St. Luke’s complex. Main Street would eventually be improved; but the City had no set plans at present. Victoria Drive was an industrial collector route; so this could provide some traffic relief for Douglas. He confirmed for Ms. Ford that this would probably not be less than five years.

Ms. Rosenquist remarked that a shared parking arrangement was involved. She asked how it could assure that should the property change hands, there would be adequate parking, considering the other permitted uses in industrial districts. Ms. Tyrrel answered that if this were an industrial use, the parking would meet the code without any shared arrangement. If the use did change, this would be considered re-development and if it did not meet the codes the applicant would have to arrange for adequate parking.

Mr. Christopher confirmed that the Commission was considering a Special Use Permit only and not a site plan. Ms. Tyrrel explained that a Preliminary Development Plan was processed when the building was constructed and this was a tenant asking to move into it. When the plan was approved, the parking the Commission was looking at was adequate to meet the code requirements for industrial use. The Commission was looking at a change of use.

Mr. Schroeder returned to the podium and stated that the property owners had planned to construct and use the building whether the subject tenant was allowed or not although they hoped to get the permit approved. It would be a ‘spec’ building if they did not, based on 25 percent office space and 75 percent warehouse. In this event, the parking on the site would meet the City requirements. The applicant felt that there would still be adequate parking even without a shared parking arrangement; however, staff had asked for the sidewalk connection and shared parking. Because the users would be young people who were often being driven to the site by adults, there might be fewer people than a facility used completely by adults. He remarked that in his experience with a daughter playing softball, many parents drove more than one and there were anticipated to be no more than about a dozen young people at a time. With this kind of use, there would be no large vehicles.

Ms. Tyrrel added that the development plan showed 24 spaces to be constructed now and 14 spaces reserved as future spaces for a total of 38. She believed but was not certain that the seven shared spaces were additional; however, the site had a minimum of 38 spaces.

Ms. Rosenquist asked if the Commission needed to put in provisions for land banking or if that was a condition of the development plan. She also wanted to know if there was a shared agreement with the adjacent owner for the seven shared spaces. Ms. Tyrrel answered that the land banking was allowed to be handled administratively and did not need to be an additional condition. Mr. Schroeder replied to the second question that the subject lot and the adjacent one had the same owners, who were willing to provide an agreement if desired. Ms. Tyrrel added that staff could add a condition stating that if one of the lots were sold, an agreement would be required. The problem at present was that the owners could not legally grant themselves an easement.

Ms. Rosenquist then asked how many Special Use Permits had been granted around the Commerce and Victoria district with its light industrial uses. Ms. Tyrrel answered that there were two on the current agenda but she did not know of others. PLANNING COMMISSION 17 June 24, 2003

Chairperson Trainer asked if there were further questions for applicant or staff. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing at 7:59 p.m. and asked for discussion among the Commission members, or for a motion.

Mr. Atcheson made a motion to recommend approval of Application 2003-107, Special Use Permit for indoor recreation facility in PI-1, 1260 NW Main Street, Lot 3A, Main Street Industrial Park; Les and Kristen Norman, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of June 20, 2003, specifically Recommendation Items 1 and 2. Mr. Christopher seconded.

On motion of Mr. Atcheson, seconded by Mr. Christopher, the Planning Commission members voted by voice vote of six “yes” (Chairperson Trainer, Mr. Christopher, Ms. Funk, Ms. Ford, Mr. Atcheson and Mr. Tranchilla) and one “no” (Ms. Rosenquist) to recommend APPROVAL of Application 2003-107, Special Use Permit for indoor recreation facility in PI-1, 1260 NW Main Street, Lot 3A, Main Street Industrial Park; Les and Kristen Norman, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of June 20, 2003, specifically Recommendation Items 1 and 2.

6. Public Hearing: Application #2003-142 – SPECIAL USE PERMIT for indoor recreation facility in PI-1, 800 NW Main Street; Eagle Woods, LLC, applicant

Mr. Merrell Tomsfeldt, managing member for Eagle Woods, LLC, gave his address as 1003 SW Hickory Court in Blue Springs. He introduced Mr. Travis Reynolds, one of the partners of the Institute For Sports Performance, who would occupy the property; and explained that Eagle Woods was presently the owner and also owned another company that currently occupied the property. This occupant was a designer and wholesaler of optical frames. Eagle Woods occupied 5,000 square feet of the upper office space; and generally the property had a low- density use. Currently it used only 6 to 8 of the available parking spaces. The Institute would be a leasee. Eagle Woods had purchased the vacant property a year ago. They felt the Institute would be a good occupant for the property and would complement the businesses to the south such as Steppin’ Out and Extreme Fitness. The proposed use was not precisely a recreational facility but concentrated more on sports-oriented rehabilitation. They required on existing changes to the outside of the property and minimal interior changes; and had more than adequate parking.

Following Mr. Tomsfeldt’s remarks, Chairperson Trainer asked for staff comments.

Ms. Tyrrel entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-15 into the record and stated that staff recommended approval for a period of ten years. She confirmed that this would not be a recreational facility but would concentrate more on aspects such as sports medicine. This made it a rather borderline use. Should the Commission approve, the building would have industrial tenant and one with a special use.

Following Ms. Tyrrel’s comments, Chairperson Trainer asked if there was anyone else present wishing to give testimony, either for or in opposition to the application. As there were none, she asked if Commissioners had questions for the applicant or staff. Hearing none, Chairperson PLANNING COMMISSION 18 June 24, 2003

Trainer closed the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. and asked for discussion among the Commission members.

Ms. Ford commented that this was the second Special Use Permit in an industrial district. She was concerned that the Commission might be compromising the amount of industrial space the city had available; and noted that developing more industry was one of the issues the City was currently concerned with. Ms. Rosenquist and Mr. Christopher essentially agreed. Ms. Rosenquist recalled a recent CDC discussion about ensuring adequate parking for re-uses should such special uses go away. She felt that these special uses could be built in a permitted area and so was doubtful that using industrial space was necessary. Mr. Christopher stated that he understood this concern, commenting that the Commission needed to make sure that too many buildings with potential industrial uses were not appropriated in this way. Ms. Rosenquist remarked that staff might give some direction as to where such uses could go.

Chairperson Trainer then re-opened the hearing at 8:08 p.m. Mr. Travis Reynolds came to the podium and gave his address as 1003 NW Maple in Lee’s Summit. He explained that Institute For Sports Performance had height requirements and it made sense for this kind of startup business to lease space rather than put up a new building. This particular location was close to Lee McKeegan and had access to I-470, which made it a good fit for that business. He emphasized that it involved both rehabilitation, research and athletic consulting work rather than just recreational use.

Chairperson Trainer remarked that the Commission was currently looking at plans for the city and some of the commissioners were pointing out that this was not exactly what was planned for that kind of district. Ms. Tyrrel pointed out that the UDO amendment passed by the City Council in March allowed these types of uses as Special Uses in industrial districts.

Mr. Tomsfeldt returned to the podium and explained that Eagle had purchased the property the year before and had marketed it for a full year for an industrial use. As they were unable to lease it in that time, it appeared that Lee’s Summit had plenty of industrial space; and it was not feasible for them to let the property sit vacant any longer. He also pointed out that it was a special use they were asking for and not a zoning change; and the property could easily revert back to industrial use at a later time.

Chairperson Trainer asked if there was any further discussion. Hearing none, she closed the hearing at 8:08 p.m. and asked for further discussion, or for a motion.

Mr. Tranchilla summarized the points made. The Commission was discussing a ten-year Special Use Permit for an industrial property that had sat vacant for three years. He felt that the points on Special Use Permits in the future; however, he did not have a problem allowing this particular business.

Mr. Christopher made a motion to recommend approval of Application 2003-142 Special Use Permit for indoor recreation facility in PI-1, 800 NW Main Street; Eagle Woods, LLC, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of June 20, 2003, specifically Recommendation Item 1. Ms. Funk seconded.

On motion of Mr. Christopher, seconded by Ms. Funk, the Planning Commission members voted by voice vote of six “yes” (Chairperson Trainer, Mr. Christopher, Ms. Funk, Ms. Ford, Mr. PLANNING COMMISSION 19 June 24, 2003

Atcheson and Mr. Tranchilla) and one “no” (Ms. Rosenquist) to recommend APPROVAL of Application 2003-142 Special Use Permit for indoor recreation facility in PI-1, 800 NW Main Street; Eagle Woods, LLC, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of June 20, 2003, specifically Recommendation Item 1.

Chairperson Trainer then adjourned the meeting for a break at 8:15 p.m. The meeting re- convened at 8:22 p.m.

7. Public Hearing: Application #2003-138 – SPECIAL USE PERMIT for lighting Oak Tree Farm tennis courts, 501 NE Clubhouse Drive; Oak Tree Farm Homes Association, applicant

Ms. Valerie Robbins, Board member of Oak Tree Farms Homeowners Association, stated that for several years they had been upgrading their facilities including the playing fields and clubhouse. They had been setting aside funds for upgrading the tennis courts; and had looked at comparable lighted courts at Lake Winnebago, Winterset and Lakewood. The homes surrounding the common ground had an ongoing problem with vandalism; and the pool was open late hours, until 9:00 p.m. They were looking for a way to give the homeowners more value for their funds as well as providing better security; and lighting for the tennis courts was one of the items they had looked at. The Homeowners Associated hoped that this would draw more families to the courts in the evening hours. As part of the overall remodeling, they would resurface and upgrade the parking lot.

Following Ms. Robbins’ remarks, Chairperson Trainer asked for staff comments.

Ms. Cobbs entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-16 into the record and stated that a Special Use Permit was required for the lighted courts, because of the potential adverse affects on nearby property owners. The property the courts were on was zoned RP-1, Planned Single Family Residential. The applicant was requesting seven 20-foot steel light poles, each with two 1,000- watt metal halide lamp heads and would maintain an average 61 foot-candles. The UDO did not directly address maximum wattage for such uses; however, staff was concerned with light spillage and intensity and so recommended approval subject to seven recommendations.

The 100-foot setback had not been met; so Item 1 asked for a modification. Addressing light spillage, staff was requesting baffles and/or reflectors and a vinyl wind screen on the north and east fence. Evergreen trees eight feet tall and 30 feet apart should be planted along the east side of the tennis courts; the lights should be turned off by 10:00 p.m. and they should not be visible from the adjacent property. The Special Use Permit would be a maximum ten years.

Following Ms. Cobbs’ comments, Chairperson Trainer asked if there was anyone else present wishing to give testimony, either for or in opposition to the application.

Mr. James Byers of 1131 NE Columbus in Lee’s Summit stated that his bedroom was close to the tennis court and he was in favor of having proper illumination of the tennis court with less wattage. He was pleased with the efforts of the Homeowners Association to provide safety for the residents and to do improvements that would upgrade property values. However, he was concerned about the excessive wattage. Regarding vandalism, he noted that a mailbox had PLANNING COMMISSION 20 June 24, 2003 been knocked down with a street light about 25 feet away so he was skeptical of how much protection the tennis court lights would be.

Mr. Don Witte of 1133 NE Columbus lived next door to Mr. Byers. He also appreciated the work the Board had done on upgrading facilities and he was quite in favor of improving the tennis courts including illumination. However, he felt that 14,000 watts was quite excessive. The 60 footcandle figure mentioned was the right illumination for televised tennis matches; and what was needed for recreational use was closer to 24-30 foot-candles. He wanted to know if he would be able to see the light sources from the other side of the street; and while he was generally in favor, he had concerns about the total light and the spillage.

Ms. Tyrrel came to the podium to give testimony and gave her address as 1130 NE Columbus. She was diagonally across the street from the tennis courts. Her first concern was the fact that there were 374 homeowners in Oak Tree Farms and many did not even know about the tennis court lights being proposed as there had been no mailing sent out to the entire subdivision. The Board had made efforts to make residents aware through information posted at the clubhouse; however, no neighborhood meeting had been held nor had their been a subdivision-wide mailing although the Board had met the legal requirement for 185 feet. The previous weekend she had walked around and distributed flyers to about 50 homes. Ms. Tyrrel asked to enter the flyer into the record. The flyer had included a mention of the hearing and three people had asked her to represent them. These were Ms. Karen Samyn, Ms. Catherine Stephens and Ms. Mona Shackles. Ms. Shackles had also written a letter which she also wanted entered into the record.

Ms. Tyrrel continued that she did not know exactly how many people were totally opposed to the lighting; however, she had talked with several people who were while distributing the flyers. So it was important to first decide whether the subdivision had a consensus to have any lights at all. Ms. Tyrrel was not sure that she totally objected but wanted to make sure it was done properly. The photometric plan actually showed the maximum foot-candles as 125; and the United State Tennis Court and Track Builders Association website specified 125 foot-candles as what was needed to televise professional tennis games. The site gave 75-100 foot-candles as “very good” and 50-75 as “good”. The current plan called for more than double what was needed. Stadium Honda and Adams Toyota, in comparison, had 1,000-watt bulbs. Moreover, according to the manufacturer’s brochure for Elsco Lighting, the lights on the court perimeter should all be single-headed lights and this proposal called for double-headed fixtures on every pole. The lighting could be reduced substantially and still be well within the range needed to play tennis. If this was done, the Commission would need to see a revised photometric plan. Ms. Tyrrel also expanded on the comparison to Winterset Park. As suggested in the Board’s letter, she had visited Winterset at night and watched people playing tennis. It was quite bright enough to play tennis by; and Winterset’s court had seven light poles like those proposed for Oak Tree. However, these poles had a single head on the perimeter and double in the center for a total of eight light fixtures. Oak Tree Farm showed a total of 14 light fixtures. The Winterset courts had a fairly large common area with a clubhouse and pool as well as tennis courts, much larger than Oak Tree Farm’s comparable area. The latter tennis courts were immediately adjacent to the right-of-way on the north side, unlike the Winterset courts which were about 140 feet from the nearest right-of-way. The homes that backed up to the Winterset courts had a minimum distance from their property lines of 75 feet. Another significant difference was the elevation change. In Winterset, the courts were down low in comparison to the homes that backed up to them. These homes would be looking down at the lighted tennis courts but did not see light spillage. On the other side, the homes were lower but were also at a good distance, about 140 feet plus the street width plus the setback for almost 200 feet. At Oak Tree Farm, in contrast, there was no setback. Finally, the Winterset courts had evergreen trees PLANNING COMMISSION 21 June 24, 2003 planted around the perimeter while at Oak Tree Farm there was little space for that. Ms. Tyrrel suggested that additional landscaping be provided on the north and east side of the courts.

Security from vandalism had been a reason given for the lighting; however, Ms. Tyrrel did not believe that the tennis court lighting would be the way to resolve these problems. The lights would be on only one or two hours a night with no protection late at night. Some other kind of parking lot or security lighting might be more appropriate for that purpose. The ordinance allowed parking lot lights in residential areas, with the maximum wattage at 400 watts. Those could be installed with administrative approval and would not need a Special Use Permit.

Ms. Tyrrel noted that the packets included a petition in favor of the lights signed by a number of residents on Clubhouse Court plus one person on Columbus. She had talked with some of these people when delivering the flyers. They had said they were not opposed to lighting the tennis courts but did not realize how bright these lights would be.

In summary, as a resident Ms. Tyrrel opposed the plan as presented. She believed the excessive brightness should be reduced and in fact asked the Planning Commission to continue the application so that a neighborhood meeting could be held. If moving forward with a recommendation, she asked for additional conditions. One could specify that no more than six single-headed light fixtures would be used, with one double-headed pole in the center. The final approved plan should have no more than 75 foot-candles and trees should be added on the north side of the tennis court. These would have to be within the right-of-way along Columbus Street. Regarding the evergreen screening described in Recommendation Item 5, Ms. Tyrrel did not believe that 30 feet was a close enough interval. It should be closer to 20 feet. Ms. Tyrrel asked for the same thing on the north side, although she was not sure they needed to be evergreens. The species should probably be determined by a landscape architect who knew what kind of tree would fit into an 11-foot space and would get tall enough to block off the tennis court lighting. Ms. Tyrrel agreed with the other recommendations, although she was not sure the referenced wind screen would be very useful.

Mr. Bill Kay of 500 NE Clubhouse Drive was concerned about the security issue and was in favor of motion control lights rather than turning the lights off at 10:00 p.m. as indicated. He did not like the idea of the screening, as this could serve to give vandals some cover. He added that he lived near the tennis courts and saw that tennis was played all year long although it was most popular in summer. Mr. Kay wanted the courts available full time.

Ms. Marcia Lee of 1124 NE Clubhouse Court remarked that she had never been approached to sign the petition mentioned. She thanked the Board for their efforts but believed that the Oak Tree residents needed to be made more aware of what was going on. She also had concerns about security but did not think the lights would do anything for that as vandalism went on all hours of the day and night. Ms. Lee was also concerned about increased noise and traffic, commenting that she already had to deal with that being so close to the pool and tennis courts. She added that she walked a lot in the neighborhood and it was very rarely that she saw the tennis courts being used. Ms. Lee also wanted to know what would happen in the wintertime when days were shorter.

Ms. Carolyn Roachka gave her address as 1125 NE Clubhouse Circle. She agreed with Ms. Tyrrel and other speakers that this was a good effort to upgrade the subdivision; but needed to go back to the subdivision residents so they could understand exactly what was being proposed. They needed to discuss concerns about the wattage and what else was going to be done with the tennis courts. She felt that security was a separate issue and agreed that lights PLANNING COMMISSION 22 June 24, 2003 which went off after 10:00 p.m. would not be much help. The matter needed to go to the homeowners for them to determine if this project was meeting their needs.

Ms. Valerie Robbins returned to the podium and addressed the issues just brought up. Regarding the notification issue, she remarked that this had been a work-in-progress for two years. Homeowners Associations boards sometimes had a problem getting residents to volunteer to serve. They had been working on this for over two years and it was voted on unanimously by the Board, many of whose members were present. Addressing the remarks about the petition, Ms. Robbins stated that they did not have a petition. What the Commissioners had in their packets referred to residences directly impacted that were within sight of the lights. At no time did the Board say that these were the same lights that were at Winterset but had said they were comparable. It was the same contractor and same manufacturer. The manufacturer, Elsco Lighting, had said that 40 feet away from the light source there was no light pollution.

Ms. Robbins also asked to enter into the record the letter from Mr. Rawlin Shuck, who lived at Columbus and Clubhouse Drive 87 feet from the tennis courts, who was requesting the lights because he felt that it would reduce the security problems. The Commissioners’ petition had been signed by every resident who faced the tennis courts. Ms. Robbins asserted that the Board wanted residents to understand what the Board was doing and had been notified on three separate occasions. The dates were in the packets: April 28, June 3 and June 16. Ms. Robbins emphasized that the Board had no desire to spend members’ dues money on a project they would have problems with. “The more the better” from a caller was typical of the responses they had about the security problem. While the lights would be turned off at 10:00 p.m., the plan was for at least to have more usage especially in the summertime. At present, the lifeguards at the pool left at 9:00 p.m. and it was very dark in the area. The idea was to have families using the facilities and the lights would add security for the lifeguards as well. The letter on June 3rd had been mailed to the required residents within 185 feet. Ms. Robbins emphasized that after the last letter, she had made sure that everyone understood the extent of the wattage. She added that Ms. Tyrrel’s bedroom windows angled away from the lights and she had an all-night street light between her house and the tennis courts.

Ms. Robbins added that the Board had no problem with the recommendation items. They had gone to Winterset, to the contractor and to the manufacturer. The contractor had come out and measured the tennis courts and this was their recommendation in terms of number of lights. They had also told her that in Winterset, the developer had decided on the lower number of lights.

Chairperson Trainer remarked that these situations occurred and she understood that the Board had been dealing with this a long time. She asked if the Commission had questions for the applicant or staff. Ms. Robbins added that the Board had talked extensively with Winterset representatives about what kind of issues their Homeowners Association had dealt with. They were told that the Winterset residents had liked the addition and had no problems.

Mr. Christopher remarked that he did not see any analysis in the packets, including equipment specs; although he had heard numerous comments relating to levels of light. He wanted to know if this information was available. He remarked that as suppliers essentially supplied the product, they were likely to err on the side of being conservative. Mr. Christopher also noted the testimony about light levels for recreational use. Ms. Cobbs answered that a photometric diagram was in the packets. The figure of average 61 foot-candles that she had quoted was on this diagram, with the maximum given as 125. PLANNING COMMISSION 23 June 24, 2003

Mr. Christopher looked over the layout and noted that there was about 119 on the east side, closest to the residences. He asked Ms. Cobbs about the UDO perameters and Ms. Cobbs replied that the UDO did not address maximum wattage in residential areas but only commercial. It did not have any residential guidelines. Mr. Christopher asked if there was an industry standard for tennis courts. Ms. Cobbs had found some information from the Tennis Federation; she agreed that 125 foot-candles was not intended for recreational use.

Ms. Rosenquist stated that she had serious questions about the lighting and other variables that were not addressed in the packets. She noted that there was normally more complete information about wattage. Ms. Rosenquist felt that this application needed to be continued and the Homes Association needed to work out the issues with staff and the residents.

Chairperson Trainer noted that the Commissioners were not present as experts in the area. However, while she was not making judgments about who was right or wrong, she had heard varying versions as to what was at Winterset. Chairperson Trainer remarked that it looked like a continuance would be necessary unless one of the participants changed their minds. She urged the Commissioners to make a recommendation that would make it clear what was expected if they voted for continuance. She acknowledged that in situations with Homeowners Associations, it never happened that 100 percent of the participants were happy; however, the next time the application was heard these questions needed to be answered.

Ms. Rosenquist remarked that she knew how difficult such issues often were for Homeowners Associations. However, she was also aware of how important it was for all residents to know what was going on, especially when a significant amount of money was being spent. She wanted an answer to questions she had about the wattage and screening. She noted Ms. Tyrrel’s remark that with a certain wattage, the application could be done administratively without a Special Use Permit and wanted some details about that.

Ms. Funk stated that she believed that the elevation of the courts relative to that of the homes was a major issue. This could determine whether screening would be effective or not. She also had questions about the timing and schedule of the lights plus whether they would be automatic or controlled by the residents.

Chairperson Trainer asked if there were further questions for applicant or staff. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. and asked if there was discussion among the Commission members.

Mr. Christopher commented that no one seemed to be totally opposed to the idea of having lights on the tennis courts. He had heard considerable concern about the level of the light and suggested that the applicants meet with all the nearby neighbors. It appeared that the participants had reasonable attitudes and should be able to work something out.

Ms. Ford considered it important for the Commissioners to do some comparisons. She did not consider Winterset to be a particularly good example because of the distances, which were not comparable; and it might be helpful to look at a more dense residential area.

Chairperson Trainer asked if there was any further discussion. Hearing none, she called for a motion.

Mr. Atcheson made a motion to recommend continuance of Application #2003-138 – SPECIAL USE PERMIT for lighting Oak Tree Farm tennis courts, 501 NE Clubhouse Drive; Oak Tree Farm Homes Association, applicant to a date certain of July 16, 2003. After consultation about PLANNING COMMISSION 24 June 24, 2003 the Planning Commission schedule, Mr. Atcheson subsequently amended his motion to state a date certain of July 8, 2003. Ms. Rosenquist seconded.

On motion of Mr. Atcheson, seconded by Ms. Rosenquist, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend CONTINUANCE of Application #2003-138, Special Use Permit for lighting Oak Tree Farm tennis courts, 501 NE Clubhouse Drive; Oak Tree Farm Homes Association, applicant, to a date certain of July 8, 2003.

8. Other Agenda Item: RESOLUTION adopting Future Land Use Map - Application #2003-094 – NORTH AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; City of Lee’s Summit, applicant

Chairperson Trainer left the table and Vice Chair Christopher chaired the hearing. He opened the hearing at 9:08 p.m. and asked if Commissioners had any questions about the land use map and the North Area Comprehensive Plan.

Ms. Ford noted that there was only one discussion and asked if all the criteria set up at the last meeting. Mr. Zhan confirmed that they had.

Vice Chair Christopher asked if there were further questions for applicant or staff. Hearing none, he called for a motion.

Ms. Rosenquist made a motion to recommend approval of Resolution 03-01, Resolution Adopting Future Land Use Map, Application 2003-094, North Area Comprehensive Plan; City of Lee’s Summit, applicant; subject to Resolution 03-01. Vice Chair Christopher asked if there was a date on the map and Mr. Zhan answered that there was not. Mr. Bushek stated that it was on the resolution. Mr. Tranchilla seconded.

Vice Chair Christopher noted that the language on the agenda was different from the title on the resolution and asked if it made a difference. Mr. Bushek stated that it was clear. The actual body of the resolution contained the language. There should be something indicating that it was a final version.

Mr. Zhan explained that normally, when the City adopted a Comprehensive Plan, they adopted the entire plan which included the maps. The document itself had a date on the cover and this was inclusive.

Vice Chair Christopher asked if there was further discussion of the motion. Hearing none, he called for a vote.

On motion of Ms. Rosenquist, seconded by Mr. Tranchilla, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend approval of Resolution 03-01, Resolution Adopting Future Land Use Map, Application 2003-094, North Area Comprehensive Plan; City of Lee’s Summit, applicant; subject to Resolution 03-01.

(Chairperson Trainer returned to the table.) PLANNING COMMISSION 25 June 24, 2003

PUBLIC COMMENTS

There were no public comments at the meeting.

ROUNDTABLE

Ms. Rosenquist remarked concerning Special Use Permits in industrial areas that she had voted on the basis of some of the discussions of the Community Development Committee. They had discussed parking issues, especially in industrial areas. There was a question about whether lesser usages under Special Use Permits tended to lock buildings into those uses. She did agree with the second application more as it was a more appropriate use for the area but did not agree with granting Special Use Permits just for economic reasons.

Ms. Rosenquist also wondered, regarding the second application, how the city had wound up with only one CP usage in the area. Mr. Christopher noted that uses along Chipman were CP. He believed that was the only property with that zoning mentioned just because it was the only CP adjacent. He related that two weeks before, the Commission had approved a building in an industrial use with no provisions for a change of use and this for him was an issue. His view on the two applications that night was that the parking for future industrial use was already applied for.

ADJOURNMENT

Having no further discussion, Chairperson Trainer adjourned the meeting at 9:18 p.m.