Lee S Summit Planning Commission s5

LEE’S SUMMIT PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of Tuesday, October 14, 2003

The Tuesday, October 14, 2003, Lee’s Summit Planning Commission was called to order by Vice Chairperson Christopher, at 7:00 p.m., at Arnold Hall, 123 SE 3rd Street.

OPENING ROLL CALL:

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

Also present were David Bushek, Deputy City Attorney; Bob McKay, Director, Planning and Development Department; Linda Tyrrel, Assistant Director, Planning and Development Department; Tom Scannell, Planner, Planning and Development Department; Tom Peterson, Senior Staff Engineer, Kent Monter, Development Engineering Manager; and Kathy Wilkes, Administrative Secretary.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Vice Chairperson Christopher announced that some of the agenda was re-organized. Item 7, Amendment 6 to the UDO (Application #2003-237) did not include a discussion related to trailers. This would be heard at a later time. Item 7 was being moved on the agenda to be heard directly after Item 12. Some hearings that were on the agenda had been continued. Item 4, Application #2003-197 was continued indefinitely and would be re-advertised at some future date. Item 14, Application #2003-196 was also continued indefinitely and might be heard at the time of rezoning.

Regarding the Consent Agenda, the applicant for items A (#2003-213) and B (#2003-140) had requested to have these pulled from the Consent Agenda and heard briefly as items 1A and 1B.

Vice Chairperson Christopher asked if there were any other additions or corrections to the agenda. There were none. On motion of Mr. Atcheson, seconded by Mr. Pycior, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to APPROVE the agenda.

1. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA

A. Continued Application #2003-213 – PRELIMINARY PLAT – Lakewood Business Park, Lots 33A and 34-36; Glen Henson Construction Co., applicant B. Continued Application #2003-140 – FINAL PLAT – Lakewood Business Park, Lots 33A and 34-36; Glen Henson Construction Co., applicant C. Application #2003-218 - FINAL PLAT – Pryor Meadows, 3rd Plat, Lots 90-193; RPM Development, applicant PLANNING COMMISSION 2 October 14, 2003

D. Minutes of the September 23, 2003 Planning Commission meeting

Vice Chairperson Christopher called for a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as amended.

On motion of Mr. Atcheson, seconded by Mr. Pycior, the Planning Commission voted unanimously by voice vote to APPROVE Consent Agenda Items 1C and 1D.

1A. Continued Application #2003-213 – PRELIMINARY PLAT – Lakewood Business Park, Lots 33A and 34-36; Glen Henson Construction Co., applicant

1B. Continued Application #2003-140 – FINAL PLAT – Lakewood Business Park, Lots 33A and 34-36; Glen Henson Construction Co., applicant

Vice Chairperson Christopher opened the hearing at 7:07 p.m. and stated that 1A and 1B would be heard at the same time. As they were separate applications, there would be two motions.

Mr. Bob Hedberg of Summit Survey Company gave his address as 526 SW Third Street in Lee’s Summit. He explained that staff could not accommodate the request he had made and waive a subdivision requirement to construct all utilities to the subdivision’s edge. The street was located at the water tower at Eastport east of I-470; and was subject to a special construction agreement. The water line was constructed about 146 feet short of the property line on the south side of Lakewood Way. Building it at present would cost around $2,450.00; however, the City also had a requirement for a blowoff valve and chlorination of the line. Mr. Hedberg asserted that there was no reason for this, as the line would not go anywhere or serve anyone. He requested that the Commission recommend an escrow for the funds necessary for the water line but not to construct it at this time nor include the blowoff valve. Staff was not able to approve this, as the ordinance did specify building the line. He added that he could not get the final plat signed until this was addressed.

Following Hedberg’s remarks, Vice Chairperson Christopher asked for staff comments.

Ms. Tyrrel stated that the reference to the development agreement in the recommendations for both items covered the street extension. At present, the agreement prohibited an escrow for the street. Staff proposed that they take the development agreement to the Council at the same time as the final plat. They felt it was reasonable, as the street had already been engineered, designed, approved by Public Works and constructed. It needed to be stopped where it was because of the grade difference between the two properties. The issue remaining was the water line, as it was not mentioned in the development agreement. Mr. Hedberg was correct that staff did not have the authority to waive the requirement.

Following these comments, Vice Chairperson Christopher asked if the Commission had questions for the applicant or staff.

Mr. Pycior asked if staff was opposing the change. Ms. Tyrrel explained that staff was not opposed; but just did not have the authority to grant an ordinance waiver. Mr. Monter added that the road was originally part of the Eastport development. Regarding the water line, Public Works did not have a problem with the escrow but it was not a recommendation they could make. Vice Chairperson Christopher asked if the grade issue meant that they could not build the road up to the property line because of the slope. Ms. Tyrrel explained that if the road were built up to the property line, there would have to be a retaining wall. The water line could be PLANNING COMMISSION 3 October 14, 2003 built to the property line. She added that the extension of the road would be at the same time as the City’s construction of the Lakewood Way extension.

Vice Chairperson Christopher asked if the blowout valve was not needed because of the road stopping where it was. Mr. Monter replied that there was a hydrant where the road currently stopped. The water line came up to that point; and the hydrant essentially functioned as the blowout valve. They were talking about extending it to the plat boundary from that point; and as it was not very far staff would support it either way. Vice Chairperson Christopher asked if the blowoff valve was necessary to keep the water from stagnating in the line and Mr. Monter said it was. Mr. Hedberg added that otherwise, the law would require chlorinating the entire 140 feet. As the line did not go anywhere.

Mr. Atcheson asked Mr. Bushek if the Planning Commission would have the authority to modify a development agreement that was already in place specifically calling for certain improvements. He noted that a development agreement was negotiated by staff and approved by the Council and did not usually come to the Planning Commission. Mr. Bushek answered that Legal had discussed this and it had been structured so the approval of the plat would not constitute modifying the development agreement. The condition as written just stated that the applicant needed to comply with the agreement’s obligations, whatever those might be. Regarding the road, the plan was to amend the agreement to take the engineering situation into account but that did not affect approval of the plat. It was intended rather to explain what needed to happen with the development agreement; and the Commission would not be approving something contrary to the agreement. Mr. Hedberg added that the applicant had met with Legal regarding the agreement and had discovered that there were two different issues: the agreement and the subdivision regulations. The two were not connected. He added that the applicant was in agreement with all the other comments and recommendations.

Ms. Tyrrel added that the water line was not part of the development agreement; so Item 4 referring to the development agreement did not address that. Mr. Monter stated that it would be necessary to add a recommendation for money to be escrowed for the water line. Mr. Hedberg emphasized that the applicant was proposing to escrow the entire amount.

Ms. Ford asked if they would also need to add that the water line would not need to be extended to the property line. Ms. Tyrrel explained that the escrow was for future construction of the water line in lieu of constructing it at present.

Hearing no further discussion, Vice Chairperson Christopher called for a motion.

Mr. Atcheson made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2003-213, Preliminary Plat, Lakewood Business Park, Lots 33A and 34-36; Glen Henson Construction Co., applicant, subject to staff’s letter of October 10, 2003, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 4, with the addition of Recommendation Item 5, stating that the applicant should escrow all funds necessary in lieu of extending the water line to the property line. Ms. Rosenquist seconded.

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

On motion of Mr. Atcheson, seconded by Ms. Rosenquist, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application #2003-213, Preliminary Plat, Lakewood Business Park, Lots 33A and 34-36; Glen Henson Construction Co., PLANNING COMMISSION 4 October 14, 2003 applicant, subject to staff’s letter of October 10, 2003, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 4 with the addition of Recommendation Item 5 as stated.

Mr. Atcheson made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2003-140, Final Plat, Lakewood Business Park, Lots 33A and 34-36; Glen Henson Construction Co., applicant, subject to staff’s letter of October 10, 2003, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 8, with the addition of Recommendation Item 9, stating that the applicant should escrow all funds necessary in lieu of extending the water line to the property line. Ms. Rosenquist seconded.

On motion of Mr. Atcheson, seconded by Ms. Rosenquist, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application #2003-140, Final Plat, Lakewood Business Park, Lots 33A and 34-36; Glen Henson Construction Co., applicant, subject to staff’s letter of October 10, 2003, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 8, with the addition of Recommendation Item 9 as stated.

4. Public Hearing - Continued Application #2003-197 – REZONING from R-1 to RP-1, land located south of Langsford Road, east of Millstone Ave. and Application #2003-198 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN – Villas at Mill Creek; John Kreisel for Lake Ridge, LLC, applicant

Vice Chairperson Christopher opened the hearing at 7:21 p.m. and announced that Applications #2003-197 and #2003-198 had been continued indefinitely. He then closed the hearing.

6. Public Hearing: Continued Application #2003-176 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN – SE corner M-150 and Ward Road, proposed Raintree Lake Village; Raintree Lake Corp., applicant (to be continued to October 28, 2003 at applicant’s and staff’s request)

Vice Chairperson Christopher opened the hearing at 7:21 p.m. and announced that Application #2003-176 had been continued to October 28, 2003 at the applicants’ and staff’s request. He then closed the hearing.

9. Public Hearing: Continued Application #2003-190 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN and Application #2003-191 – REZONING from CP-2 to RP-3, SE corner of Raintree Drive & Raintree Parkway, proposed Windward Glen; Richard Dye for Windward Glen, LLC, applicant (to be continued to November 11, 2003 at staff’s request)

Vice Chairperson Christopher opened the hearing at 7:22 p.m. and announced that Applications #2003-190 and #2003-191 had been continued to November 11, 2003 at staff’s request. He then closed the hearing.

10. Public Hearing: Application #2003-221 - PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN and Application #2003-223 - REZONING from A to R-1 & CP-1, NW corner Hook & Pryor, proposed Hook Farms; Hunt Midwest, applicant (to be continued to October 28, 2003)

Vice Chairperson Christopher opened the hearing at 7:22 p.m. and announced that Applications #2003-221 and #2003-223 had been continued to October 28, 2003. He then closed the hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION 5 October 14, 2003

11. Public Hearing: Application #2003-222 - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT – for Hook Farms; Hunt Midwest, applicant (continued to October 28, 2003)

Vice Chairperson Christopher opened the hearing at 7:22 p.m. and announced that Application #2003-222 had been continued to October 28, 2003. He then closed the hearing.

13. Application #2003-175 – PRELIMINARY PLAT – Raintree Lake Village, Lots 1-6 and Tract A; Raintree Lake Corp., applicant (to be continued to October 28, 2003 at staff’s request)

Vice Chairperson Christopher opened the hearing at 7:22 p.m. and announced that Application #2003-175 had been continued to October 28, 2003. He then closed the hearing.

14. Continued Application #2003-196 – PRELIMINARY PLAT – Villas of Mill Creek, Lots 1- 68 & Tract A; John Kreisel for Lake Ridge, LLC, applicant

Vice Chairperson Christopher opened the hearing at 7:23 p.m. and announced that Application #2003-196 had been continued. He then closed the hearing.

15. Application #2003-224 - PRELIMINARY PLAT – Hook Farms, Lots 1-333; Hunt Midwest, applicant (to be continued to October 28, 2003)

Vice Chairperson Christopher opened the hearing at 7:23 p.m. and announced that Application #2003-196 had been continued. He then closed the hearing.

2. Public Hearing: Continued Application #2003-179 – REZONING from PI-1 to CP-2 – NE corner Tudor Road and Douglas Street and Application #2003-180 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 100 NE Tudor Road, Backyard Burgers; Douglas Square, LLC, applicant

Vice Chairperson Christopher opened the hearing at 7:24 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in by the court reporter.

Mr. Robert Andrew of M.A.C. Corporation gave his address as 5400 NE Scenic Drive in Lee’s Summit. He was present on behalf of Mr. Rick Hoffman, the developer. Mr. Andrew explained that the six-acre property had formerly been used by Missouri Gas Energy (MGE) as a service operation center and was presently zoned PI-1 (Planned Light Industrial). They were proposing to rezone it to CP-2 and redevelop it, locating a church on the site of the existing MGE building. The northeast corner of the intersection would have a Backyard Burger restaurant; and the current parking area to the east of that would be a “flex” space for potential retail evelopment. That would be Phase 2 of the development with Backyard Burger, and possibly the church, being Phase 1.

Mr. Andrew displayed the site plan, pointing out the existing MGE building including a canopy in back formerly used by service trucks. He summarized the changes being made. The canopy would be removed and the property would become a church site. Mr. Andrew also pointed out the Backyard Burger location on the corner of the intersection and the retail flex space. One of staff’s recommendations was a cross-access easement with King Superstore, the adjacent PLANNING COMMISSION 6 October 14, 2003 property owner, on the north side and they had done that. The site plan had showed the existing location of a 15-inch storm sewer under the proposed flex space building. This would be relocated. The retail building’s parking area on Lot 3 would be moved out of the 20-foot buffer. The original application had an earlier plan rendering that had omitted the corrections previously recommended by staff; and this had been corrected. The parapet height on top of Backyard Burger was now the same or greater height than the rooftop equipment. The CMU base on the retail building now had wainscoting on four sides as required and the applicant had made some modifications to the original landscaping plan, providing berms and screening.

The drawings initially showed a reproduction of Backyard Burger’s flame logo on the pilasters. The applicant considered this an architectural element that added some visual interest to the building. However, staff felt this constituted signage and was out of compliance with the sign ordinance. The applicant had offered to reproduce it on the retail building to make it more of an architectural element and they wanted to continue discussion on that.

Recommendation Item 8 called for submitting revised building elevations with the various corrections; and the applicant was in agreement with that. The first bullet on Item 9 indicated the need for additional right-of-way along Tudor Road, which the applicant had discussed with Mr. Peterson. The right-of-way on Tudor was 100 feet and proportionately wide on the high school side. Mr. Peterson had concurred with the applicant’s request that they not give up any right-of-way on their side, as they were close on that site and the high school side had plenty of space for making any improvements. They did agree with the additional right-of-way along Douglas Street for future improvements specified in the second bullet item. Some improvements would go in along that corridor as the St. Luke’s project was developed.

Addressing Item 10, placing funds in escrow for a future northbound right-turn lane on Douglas Mr. Andrew explained that the property currently had a driveway approach near the intersection and another along the north property line onto Douglas; which at present did not have a median. The latter was used as an equipment entrance and got limited use. The applicant had numerous discussions with staff on this driveway approach, with the intent to re-open it in the future and make it a right-turn-only exit from the property. Mr. Peterson had suggested that they remove and curb across the driveway until the improvements were made along the Douglas corridor; and then provide the lane for right turns in and out of the property. By that time, Douglas would have a median and a southbound left-turn lane onto Tudor. The cross-access easement would give them access along the side of the King Superstore property. Item 10 had recommended escrowing funds for the future improvement; and the applicant had considerably debated that. They felt there were many unknowns as to when the improvements would happen and how much time would be involved; but were agreeing to it.

Regarding Item 11, Mr. Andrew explained that the reference to the driveway being gated needed to be changed to reflect it being closed for the foreseeable future.

Following Mr. Andrew’s remarks, Vice Chairperson Christopher asked for staff comments.

Mr. Scannell entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-25 into the record and stated that the 2001 Central/South Comprehensive Plan showed this lot and neighboring lots to the north and northwest as retail use. The area to the east, west and south had public and semi-public uses such as churches, schools and government. Staff supported the rezoning, as it was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. They had cited 11 recommendations; and wanted to modify Recommendation Item 9 by deleting the first bullet item. Staff had determined that the 100 feet of right-of-way along Tudor would be adequate to accommodate future road PLANNING COMMISSION 7 October 14, 2003 improvements. Also, the wording of Recommendation item 11 was modified to read “The access on Douglas Street shall be closed and constructed with curb and gutter until such time as the median on Douglas Street is constructed. At that time, the access will be constructed as right-in-right-out.”

Mr. Scannell continued that the applicant had raised an issue with Recommendation Item 7 regarding the painted flame logo. The UDO’s definition of a “sign” included any logo, object or design that conveyed a message; and staff’s interpreted that logo as a painted sign that was prohibited in all zoned districts.

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

Mr. Pycior asked Mr. Andrew if a restaurant venue like Wendy’s would be likely to use the logo, should Backyard Burgers move out of the location. Mr. Andrew answered that he believed it would, as it was an architectural element. He then introduced Mr. Hoffman, developer of the property and his partner Mr. Gene Stassiletti, operations manager for Backyard Burger. They had put the logo on the pilaster in dryvit so that it would be raised rather than being painted on. He added that they wanted to reproduce it on the adjoining building for the sake of continuity.

Ms. Ford remarked that if the logo was considered an architectural detail, it would still be a problem. That particular intersection included the new high school and the recently opened police building that was designed to complement the high school. These and other developments comprised a very attractive area; and the former MGE building detracted from that in comparison. Her concern now that the flaming-burger image would detract from what otherwise might add to the visual attractiveness. She did not feel comfortable with the logo being included.

Ms. Rosenquist asked if it would be feasible to include the logo on their Backyard Burger sign and Mr. Scannell confirmed that they could still include the flame logo that way. Mr. Andrew pointed out that the other sign on the north elevation would likely not be very visible from Douglas so they had intended to remove that. He suggested this might be a tradeoff in including the logo.

Regarding Recommendation Item 7, Ms. Ford read the wording that ”The painted flames on the Backyard Burger building shall be removed from the building elevations” and noted that the one logo would be a sign and would be addressed as signage. Mr. Scannell confirmed that the only logo being referred to in the item were the painted flames on the pilasters.

Vice Chairperson Christopher asked if there were further questions for applicant or staff. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. and asked for discussion among the Commission members, or for a motion.

Mr. Pycior made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2003-179, rezoning from PI-1 to CP-2, NE corner Tudor Road and Douglas Street; and Application #2003-180, Preliminary Development Plan, 100 NE Tudor Road, Backyard Burger, Douglas Square, LLC, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of October 10, 2003, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 6 with Item 7 to read ”The painted flames on the Backyard Burger building shall be removed from the pilasters on the building elevations”; and Items 8 through 10 with Item 11 amended as stated by staff. Vice Chairperson Christopher asked if Mr. Pycior’s motion would also include modifying PLANNING COMMISSION 8 October 14, 2003

Item 9; and Mr. Pycior added the stipulation that the first bulleted item be deleted from Item 9. Ms. Rosenquist seconded.

On motion of Mr. Pycior, seconded by Ms. Rosenquist, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application #2003-179, rezoning from PI-1 to CP-2, NE corner Tudor Road and Douglas Street; and Application #2003- 180, Preliminary Development Plan, 100 NE Tudor Road, Backyard Burger, Douglas Square, LLC, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of October 10, 2003, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 11; with Items 7, 9 and 11 amended as stated.

3. Public Hearing - Continued Application #2003-187 – SPECIAL USE PERMIT for indoor recreation (gymnastics), and Application #2003-188 - PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 1190 SE Century Drive, Lot 15, Eastside Business Park; Randy King for PKG Enterprises, LLC, applicant

Mr. Randy King gave his address as 1550 SW Market and stated that he was basically in agreement with staff. He was available to answer any questions. Vice Chairperson Christopher then asked for staff comments.

Ms. Tyrrel entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-19 into the record and explained the two Recommendation Items listed. Recommendation Item 1 set a time limit of ten years on the Special Use Permit. The wording in Item 2 needed to be adjusted, as the parking spaces were already constructed; so the word “constructed” needed to be changed to “maintained.” She continued that the site had three buildings scheduled, two of which had been built. The parking for these first two had been built, along with some of the parking for the third. Ms. Tyrrel referred the Commissioners to the information in the tables on pages 2 and 3 regarding the amount of parking required and how much was provided. Even with the additional parking requirements for the gymnasium use, they had adequate parking to accommodate all three buildings. She had been to the site that afternoon and had noticed that although the parking was built, some stored pallets needed to be removed and some bumper blocks put in place.

Among the conditions in the UDO’s Special Use section relevant to this application was that the building had to be an industrial style. This would ensure that it could have industrial use if the gymnasium vacated. That was the case in this application, as the building had been constructed for industrial use. Ms. Tyrrel concluded that all the requirements had been met.

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

Ms. Ford asked Mr. King about the gymnasium facility’s specific use. He replied that it would be similar to Dave’s Gymnastics. Addressing staff, Ms. Ford then observed that Dave’s Gymnastics had a great deal of activity. While the standard of 30 parking spaces came from a PLANNING COMMISSION 9 October 14, 2003 manual or ordinance, Ms. Ford pointed out that the term “gymnastic facility” could have more than one meaning. It could be a fitness center with only 10 or 15 users at a time; however, she wondered if 30 spaces would be enough for the kind of facility that would host competitions. Mr. King replied that the traffic study, done by T.J. Brown, was in fact based on Dave’s. The parking requirement had taken the respective sizes of the two facilities into account. The hours were also a factor. The additional building across the road that Ms. Tyrrel had referred to would have only day use; and it had the same owner. That provided an additional 18 spaces.

Ms. Ford noted on the table that 1190 Century Drive had 19 spaces and asked if this was in addition to the 30 spaces referred to for a total of 49 spaces. Ms. Tyrrel explained that the table did not total the amounts in rows. The “Total Parking Required” was 72 for office/warehouse; and adding the gymnasium’s 30 spaces would make the required parking 91 spaces. The actual provided parking, once the project was built, would be 99; for eight extra spaces. The “19” figure referred to 19 of the 62 spaces for the third building. They did not need these 19 spaces for the third building and could use them for the gymnasium.

Ms. Ford recalled a previous application for a facility in another part of town in which parking was an issue and users were parking on the street. Ms. Tyrrel explained that in this case, the applicant was originally granted a waiver for half the requirement, as they did not think they would need so many spaces. They had later added them. In this case, the applicant was providing the required amount to begin with, plus a few extra spaces. Also, because the development was all industrial the other buildings would all have day use and if the gymnasium was being used by students or for meets, the most heavy use would be in the evening. Ms. Ford asked about Saturday use and Mr. King stated that as the applicant was part owner of the other building, the access would not change with the tenant. He also pointed out that Dave’s was a 20,000-square-foot facility and the proposed gymnasium use here was 6,000 square feet.

Vice Chairperson Christopher asked what the total number of parking spaces available to the gymnasium would be. Mr. King replied that at present there were 37, which did not count the additional spaces for the third building. He confirmed that ultimately, there would be 99. Vice Chairperson Christopher asked how many spaces they would actually have if they shared the whole site, with the proposed use. Ms. Tyrrel stated that the first two buildings would have 18 and 19 respectively; and with 19 on the third building it would be about 56.

Ms. Rosenquist asked Ms. Tyrrel how many Special Uses the city currently had in industrial districts for gymnastics and recreational uses. Ms. Tyrrel recalled two that were recently granted; and to the best of her knowledge these were the only ones other than the current application. Ms. Rosenquist recalled previous discussions on re-use of buildings and that a condition for an agreement on shared parking was required on one of them. She wondered if this would be necessary for the current application. Ms. Tyrrel answered that in this case, the three buildings were all on the same lot rather than on separate lots as in the earlier application. Moreover, the plat did include a cross-access easement so the total 99 spaces would be shared by the three buildings. She confirmed that this would be adequate for both the square footage of the proposed use and industrial use in the future.

Vice Chairperson Christopher asked if “cross access easement” was more than just access and included parking. Mr. King said that it was, including shared parking on common ground for all three buildings.

Ms. Ford asked Mr. King if the three buildings presently had the same owner and he answered that they did. She asked if it was possible that one or two of the buildings could be sold and PLANNING COMMISSION 10 October 14, 2003 have some kind of use that would include evenings, that might produce a parking problem. Ms. Tyrrel answered that her recollection of the plat was that the three building footprints all had the lot in common including the parking. Even if there were three separate owners, the parking would still be shared. Uses allowed in the PI-1 district, which was primarily office and warehouse, were typically daytime use. Other uses would most likely be special uses, which would have to go through the Planning Commission. Vice Chairperson Christopher asked if a dance studio would be a Special Use Permit; and Ms. Tyrrel replied that dance studios were not allowed in PI-1.

Vice Chairperson Christopher asked what would be the ratio of parking spots were for the other gymnastics facilities in Lee’s Summit and if that was part of the analysis. Ms. Tyrrel did not know about parking ratios in the other facilities. Regarding his reference to dance studios, they would be allowed only in CP districts.

Mr. Tom Peterson came to the podium and explained that the parking survey done at Dave’s had counted 59 spaces. Over three days in the middle of the week, counting every half-hour, about 25 spaces had been used at a time. Vice Chairperson Christopher remarked that the heavier attendance during meets would mean much heavier use. Mr. Peterson pointed out that Dave’s was a 20,000-square-foot facility and the current application would be much smaller, about 6,000 square feet. It amounted to about 15 spaces per thousand square feet.

Vice Chairperson Christopher asked if there were further questions for applicant or staff. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. and asked for discussion among the Commission members. Mr. Atcheson remarked that considering the excess parking spaces and the existence of three buildings with shared parking, the project did seem to be long on parking. He did believe it would be a good idea to stipulate the shared parking in a written and recorded agreement. Mr. King stated that this had been turned in, although it was not filed with the County as yet.

Hearing no further discussion, Vice Chairperson Christopher called for a motion.

Mr. Atcheson made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2003-187, Special Use Permit for indoor recreation and Application #2003-188, Preliminary Development Plan, 1190 SE Century Drive, Lot 15, Eastside Business Park; Randy King for PKG Enterprises, LLC, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of October 10, 2003, specifically Recommendation Items 1 and 2; with Item 2 modified to state that “A total of 30 parking spaces for the sole use of the gymnasium are required to be maintained on the site; and the applicant shall provide a cross- access parking easement within the three buildings at 1150, 1170 and 1190 Century Drive.” [revisions underlined] Ms. Ford seconded.

On motion of Mr. Atcheson, seconded by Ms. Ford, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application #2003-187, Special Use Permit for indoor recreation (gymnastics), and Application #2003-188, Preliminary Development Plan, 1190 SE Century Drive, Lot 15, Eastside Business Park; Randy King for PKG Enterprises, LLC, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of October 10, 2003, specifically Recommendation Items 1 and 2; with Recommendation Item 2 revised as indicated. PLANNING COMMISSION 11 October 14, 2003

5. Public Hearing - Continued Application #2003-207 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 301 NE Todd George Road, Family Video, Lot 2, McKee’s Corner; Rockford Construction, applicant

Mr. Alan Michaels gave his address as 15335 W. 95th Street in Lenexa and stated that he was present on behalf of Family Video. He displayed renderings of the project and said he was in agreement with staff’s recommendations. Mr. Michaels related that the lot was zoned CP-2 (Planned Community Commercial) and is surrounded by other commercial developments on the south and on the north, east and west by multi-family (RP-3, Planned Residential Mixed Use). The video store would be on the lot colored on the rendering and would be about 7,000 square feet plus a 1,500-square-foot retail bay. A lot was indicated for future development with some prospective tenants. He pointed out another area intended for use as a detention basin. The applicant had met with staff regarding concerns about screening; and extensive landscaping and buffer was included. Mr. Michaels passed out three copies of Family Video’s company profile including photos to give a better idea of the look of the facility and information about day- to-day operations.

Following Mr. Michaels’ remarks, Vice Chairperson Christopher asked for staff comments.

Mr. Tyrrel entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-16 into the record and stated that the property had been zoned commercial for a long time. This part of the project was Phase 1 of two phases and the Phase 2 building would have to match the first’s architectural features to be approved administratively. Ms. Tyrrel then reviewed staff’s Recommendation Items. The development abutted a residential neighborhood with four-foot sidewalks; and a modification was granted in Item 1 that allowed the sidewalks to match in width. Modifications 2 through 5 covered technical requirements of the UDO. Since the detention basin that Mr. Michaels had mentioned served a residential area, Item 6 recommended a joint agreement for maintenance. Ms. Tyrrel requested that the item be expanded to read “A joint agreement shall be entered into for the maintenance of the existing detention basin. A recorded copy of the agreement shall be submitted to the City prior to a building permit being issued.” [addition underlined]

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

Ms. Ford remarked that the commentary mentioned that “staff has some concern that the layout of the building in Phase 1 will negatively impact the marketability of Phase 2 because of its reduced visibility from any right of way.” She asked Mr. Michaels if he was concerned about it. Mr. Michaels stated that the applicant had spoken with developers of the property and there was ongoing interest. He then introduced Mr. Roger Ruppert, regional manager with Family Video, who gave his address as 101 Stonecrest Place in Lawrence, Kansas. Mr. Ruppert said there were two interested parties but they had not closed on the property yet.

Vice Chairperson Christopher asked if there were further questions for applicant or staff. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing at 8:19 p.m. and asked for discussion among the Commission members, or for a motion. PLANNING COMMISSION 12 October 14, 2003

Mr. Pycior made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2003-207, Preliminary Development Plan, 301 NE Todd George Road, Family Video, Lot 2, McKee’s Corner; Rockford Construction, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of October 10, 2003, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 6 with Recommendation Item 6 expanded as stated by staff. Ms. Rosenquist seconded.

On motion of Mr. Pycior, seconded by Ms. Rosenquist, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application #2003-207, Preliminary Development Plan, 301 NE Todd George Road, Family Video, Lot 2, McKee’s Corner; Rockford Construction, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of October 10, 2003, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 6 with Recommendation Item 6 amended as stated.

Vice Chairperson Christopher then adjourned the meeting for a break at 8:20 p.m. The meeting re-convened at 8:30 p.m.

8. Public Hearing Continued Application #2003-166 – REZONING from AG and R-1 to RP- 1 and Application #2003-167 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN – land located south of M-150, east of Stoney Creek Drive, proposed Meadows of Parkwood; John Kreisel for Stoney Creek Development, LLC, applicant

Mr. John Kreisel gave his address as 212 SE Saddlebrook Drive in Lee’s Summit and stated that he was present representing Stoney Creek Development, LLC. He stated that 23.84 acres included two zoning designations, AG and R-1. The agricultural zoning to the east was large lots. The Stoney Creek had two different home classifications. To the west was Parkwood at Stoney Creek, the larger home sites with prices varying from $190,000 to $450,000. To the south was a creek area that would stay as is and Stoney Creek development was to the south of that. These prices were from $180,000 to $240,000. A retail/office project was to the north and the larger lots to the east fronted on Ward Road. The applicant wanted the RP-1 zoning that allowed for higher density, and planned for 77 lots at 60x120 feet. The Stoney Creeks Homes Association would have jurisdiction over this development and Parkwood. The proposed development would be east of Stoney Creek Drive; so it would not be directly in contact with Parkwood but would have the same restrictions. The lots would cover about 20 acres; and the flood plain area would serve as a buffer. House prices would be from $175,000 to $230,000. The applicant had four different floor plans and several elevations; but staff had some concern about the placement of the garages. The rear yard setbacks did fit the ordinance; however, houses were set back further than usual with 30-foot setbacks for the garages. Staff recommended that the living space be moved forward to 20-25 feet with less space in the front. The designs had been changed to allow for staff’s recommendations on setback. The square footage of the houses varied from about 1,250 to 1,670. Mr. Kreisel requested that the Commission bring the floor plan changes back to staff at a later date.

Following Mr. Kreisel’s remarks, Vice Chairperson Christopher asked for staff comments. PLANNING COMMISSION 13 October 14, 2003

Ms. Tyrrel entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-16 into the record and related that the Comprehensive Plan did not go into much detail in distinguishing between R-1 and RP-1 other than low density vs. medium density. This property was close to the commercial hub at the corner of Ward and M-150. The land to the north and northeast had already been zoned office and retail and it made sense to have this property be a transition between the commercial and R-1 developments. The 3.23 units per acre was still not a high density for that zoning. Regarding the setbacks, Ms. Tyrrel explained that the UDO specified a front building line of 20 feet for living area and 30 feet for garages, with the idea of garages basically being behind the homes. In Recommendation Items 4 and 5 staff was stipulating that the elevations be changed. The applicant had requested 25 feet for the garages; and if this was granted it would be a modification to the RP-1 standard. Recommendation Item 1 specified that the development be in accordance with the plan and Item 2 allowed four-foot sidewalks to match those on adjacent property although the internal sidewalks would be five feet. Item 3 addressed the phasing. The applicant wanted to build the south half of the project first, which would result in two long dead- end streets. The temporary asphalt road was for emergency access. If the applicant agreed to the building elevation changes, they could bring them back for administrative approval.

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

Mr. Mike Woods of 3950 SW Ward Road stated that his acreage adjoined the development’s east boundary and that almost everyone there maintained horses or some kind of livestock. A hedgerow and barbed wire fence currently ran north and south on the east boundary and he wanted to know if there were plans to buffer or put up a privacy fence to prevent children coming through the fence and into pastures. Mr. Kresel replied that they had no plans to put a wood fence up presently. They would normally try to set the fence six inches off but the barbed wire fence could be a foot one way or another. They intended to survey and work with adjacent owners to locate the fence to give room for wood fences; and would prefer to leave the hedgerow in place. He added that many of those section lines in that area were as much as six feet off so they would like to get a true and accurate survey of property lines. He states that he would prefer to leave the hedgerow there if it’s close enough to the property line. He confirmed with Vice Chairperson Christopher that they would relocate the livestock fence so that it would be maintained along the entire property line. Regarding privacy fences, each lot owner would be responsible for putting one up at their option.

Following these comments, Vice Chairperson Christopher asked if the Commission had questions for the applicant or for staff.

Ms. Rosenquist noted a discrepancy in the name of Kamryn. Recommendation Item 3 called it “Drive” and the plat showed it as a “Lane.” Ms. Tyrrel said that “Drive” on the plat was correct.

Vice Chairperson Christopher asked if there were further questions for applicant or staff. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. and asked for discussion or a motion.

Mr. Pycior made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2003-166, Rezoning from AG and R-1 to RP-1 and Application #2003-167 Preliminary Development Plan, land located south of M-150, east of Stoney Creek Drive, proposed Meadows of Parkwood; John Kreisel for Stoney Creek Development, LLC, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of October 10, 2003, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 5. Mr. Tranchilla seconded. PLANNING COMMISSION 14 October 14, 2003

On motion of Mr. Pycior, seconded by Mr. Tranchilla, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application #2003-166, Rezoning from AG and R-1 to RP-1 and Application #2003-167 Preliminary Development Plan, land located south of M-150, east of Stoney Creek Drive, proposed Meadows of Parkwood; John Kreisel for Stoney Creek Development, LLC, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of October 10, 2003, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 5.

12. Continued Application #2003-165 – PRELIMINARY PLAT – Meadows of Parkwood, Lots 1-77 and Tracts A-H; John Kreisel for Stoney Creek Development, LLC, applicant

Vice Chairperson Christopher opened the hearing at 8:50 p.m.

Mr. John Kreisel of 212 SE Saddlebrook Drive in Lee’s Summit, representing Stoney Creek Development, stated that the information in the preceding application applied and that the applicant was in agreement with Recommendation Items 1 through 3.

Following Mr. Kreisel’s remarks, Vice Chairperson Christopher asked for staff comments. Ms. Tyrrel stated that staff recommended approval, subject to City Council’s approval of the rezoning.

Mr. Pycior made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2003-165, Preliminary Plat, Meadows of Parkwood, Lots 1-77 and Tracts A-H; John Kreisel for Stoney Creek Development, LLC, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of October 14, 2003, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 3. Mr. Atcheson seconded.

On motion of Mr. Pycior, seconded by Mr. Atcheson, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application #2003-165, Preliminary Plat, Meadows of Parkwood, Lots 1-77 and Tracts A-H; John Kreisel for Stoney Creek Development, LLC, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of October 14, 2003, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 3.

7. Public Hearing: Continued Application #2003-237 – AMENDMENT #6 TO UDO – City of Lee’s Summit, applicant

Mr. McKay entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-8 into the record and stated that these amendments had been submitted to the CDC, who had authorized staff to proceed to the Commission and City Council. He explained that many of the deleted items dealing with applications had not been used and were not necessary. Many of them that had been moved and were now in the specific articles that addressed them. This was intended to have all the pertinent information in one place. Staff was trying to remove the Special Use Permit portion PLANNING COMMISSION 15 October 14, 2003 from Rezoning, as they did not have the same criteria; and on page 2 in Article 10, Section 10.030 (“Standards For Approval”) there was a correction that was not in staff’s packets. Section 4.280, referred to in this section, had been removed. The phrase “and standards” was also removed.

Article 4: Applications and Procedures. The CDC had requested a change in Section 4.020. The phrase “with an appropriate affidavit for proof of ownership” was changed to “with affidavit for proof of ownership.” Under 4.040.3 (page 4), “affidavit of proof of ownership” was now “affidavit testifying to proof of ownership.”

On page 12, Section 4.270.B the reference to “Section 4.390” was corrected to “Section 4.360.” The paragraph “Procedures” on the next page was moved over to Section 4.270, “Special Use Permit applications”, and was now paragraph G. The reference to “rezoning” was removed so that it referred only to special uses. He explained that the purpose was to create a Special Use section separate from rezoning. In the same section, paragraph H had been added stating that “see Article 10, Division 1 for general provisions and Division 2 for specified Special Uses” to assist with cross-referencing.

Article 5: Zoning Districts. Section 5.030 (page 3), “Conformance to comprehensive plan”, was removed as it was a duplicate.

The changes in Section 5.050 (page 4) were a cleanup and consolidation of the modifications section.

Article 6: Overlay Districts. Sections 6.070-6.110 (Airport permit), Sections 6.280-6.330 (Floodplain development permit) and Sections 6.460-6.510 (Historic preservation certificate) were moved from Article 3. These were all overlay districts.

Article 7: Design Standards. Section 7.180 (page 10) was originally to be deleted. The Community Development Committee had requested it be retained. They did not object to public gathering place requirements in industrial districts being dropped; but wanted them to remain for office and commercial districts. The CDC was willing to change “A minimum of ten percent (10%) of the development site is encouraged to be designated” to “A minimum of five percent (5%) of the development site shall be designated”, with the percentage reduced to five percent but ‘encouraged’ changed to a mandate. Other than these modifications, 7.180.A and 7.180.B remained as is.

An amendment to 7.280 (page 12) was a reflection of questions from an applicant about what was a “front” on an industrial building and whether that applied to a side facing a side street. The wording in 7.280.B.2 was changed to “Sides of all industrial buildings facing or fronting on a street as in (1) above shall incorporate a minimum of fifty (50%) per cent of the approved materials listed in “A” above on the remaining sides.” [additions underlined] This was also covered in 7.280.C.2 with the wording “Sides of all industrial buildings facing or fronting on other than arterial streets as in (1) above may utilize the same metal panels as stated in “B” above.” [additions underlined]

Following these comments, Mr. McKay asked if Commissioners had an questions about materials in their packets related to the amendment.

Vice Chairperson Christopher asked about the subject of trailers mentioned earlier. Mr. McKay explained that the ordinance did not specifically deal with trailers, although there had been PLANNING COMMISSION 16 October 14, 2003 discussions about recreational vehicle parking and storage; and the requirement that they be on a hard surface. However, many older homes had single-car garages and did not have as much room for additions like pads. He felt that as this would affect many more people than expected, it would need more discussion before amendments came up for approval. Trailers were parked all over town; but they had been left alone for a long time as the City only enforced on a complaint basis. Doing some analysis and discussion beforehand could avoid creating unnecessary anxiety and controversy in the community. The CDC might have more discussion but he was not sure when the matter would be brought back.

Mr. McKay continued that much of this amendment amounted to “cleanup.” Handicapped parking issues and some building code requirements had been clarified. Vice Chairperson Christopher asked what the next step would be after Planning Commission approval and Mr. McKay replied that he would add the sections mentioned and if approved, a public hearing would be set for the City Council.

Ms. Tyrrel clarified that staff had intended in Section 7.280 (industrial building materials) that whatever side was adjacent to a street would have the higher standard for materials. She asked if this was clear in the wording. Vice Chairperson Christopher asked if that would apply to two “front” sides for a building on a corner and Ms. Tyrrel confirmed that it would. Mr. McKay stated that essentially, a corner lot would have two “fronts.” Problems had been coming up with claims that the front of a building was just the entrance side and other sides were not subject to the higher standard. The intent in fact was that any building side facing onto a street in a metal building area was a side with the requirement of 50 percent approved materials.

Ms. Rosenquist asked if Mr. McKay wanted to comment on the lengthy discussion in the Committee regarding Section 7.310 (Airport hangars): “Metal hangars shall be permitted at the Lee’s Summit Airport provided that a painted or texture finish on smooth panels is provided. Corrugated or ribbed metal panels are prohibited.” He related that most of the hangars existing at the Airport currently were ribbed metal. The issue was the policy on hangars adjacent to a street; and this part of the ordinance had been clarified. The ordinance said they had to have a painted smooth panel or stucco/rough-textured finish. The discussion was to change this to the same standards as in a specified metal building area, with the 50 percent requirement. The CDC had preferred to raise the bar for the City’s airport and keep the requirement as is. That meant that any new hangars installed would need the smooth or painted metal panels and could not have ribbed metal on the side facing the street.

Vice Chairperson Christopher asked how the new Section 7.310 would apply to the existing hangars and Mr. McKay said they would be non-conforming. Ms. Rosenquist recalled a mention that these hangars would be taken down and Mr. McKay said this would happen to a series of hangars if and when the Airport expanded to the west. The new ones would be subject to this ordinance section. He added that Section 7.310 applied to all four sides of the building and not what faced on a street so it was a higher standard.

Ms. Rosenquist asked about what was added regarding fixed base operators (FBOs) and Mr. McKay answered that this was an amendment discussed by the CDC; however, at present the FBO buildings would be subject to general material requirements in Article 7. Ms. Rosenquist asked if that needed to be included in the amendment and Mr. McKay said that with the ban on corrugated or ribbed metals, FBOs could not use them.

Vice Chairperson Christopher asked if the motion could reference the changes without re- stating each and Mr. Bushek answered that it could, as long as the Commissioners were clear PLANNING COMMISSION 17 October 14, 2003 on them. Mr. McKay said that staff would re-draft before bringing the amendment to the City Council.

Hearing no further questions, Vice Chairperson Christopher closed the public hearing at 9:18 p.m. and asked if there was further discussion. Hearing none, he called for a motion.

Mr. Tranchilla made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2003-237, Amendment #6 to UDO, City of Lee’s Summit, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of October 10, 2003, incorporating staff’s comments. Ms. Rosenquist seconded.

On motion of Mr. Tranchilla, seconded by Ms. Rosenquist, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application #2003-237, Amendment #6 to UDO, City of Lee’s Summit, applicant ; subject to staff’s letter of October 10, 2003, incorporating staff’s comments.

PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at the meeting.

ROUNDTABLE Ms. Rosenquist complimented Mr. McKay on his amendment presentation.

Mr. Pycior stated that he might have a schedule conflict for the November 11, 2003. He asked if there would be a meeting on November 25th, and Commission members confirmed that there would. He also asked Mr. Bushek why he was not sworn in during public hearings; and Mr. Bushek explained that he was giving legal information and not testimony.

Ms. Tyrrel asked if the Commissioners would be interested in having a work session on the Downtown Master Plan hearing at the October 28th meeting. There was tentative agreement to have a session either from 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mr. Pycior asked if this would be a workshop situation and Mr. McKay explained that the public could attend in a workshop, but have no input; with the staff acting as moderators.

Mr. McKay also mentioned that the administrative delay on demolitions would be extended and Ms. Tyrrel announced that the Historic Preservation plan would have separate hearings, most likely in January or February.

ADJOURNMENT

Having no further discussion, Vice Chairperson Christopher adjourned the meeting.