Lee S Summit Planning Commission s1

LEE’S SUMMIT PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of Tuesday, January 10, 2006

The Tuesday, January 10, 2006, Lee’s Summit Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Trainer, at 6:08 p.m., at Arnold Hall, 123 SE 3rd Street.

OPENING ROLL CALL:

Chairperson Trainer Present Mr. Christopher Present Ms. Rosenquist Present Ms. Funk Present Mr. Reece Present Mr. Pycior Present Mr. Atcheson Present Mr. Gray Absent Mr. Fristoe Present

Also present were Tom Scannell, Planning Division Manager; Linda Tyrrel, Assistant Director, Planning Department; Jennifer Thompson, Staff Planner; Rich Wood, Deputy City Attorney; Kent Monter, Development Engineering Manager, Jeff McKerrow, City Traffic Engineer, Pam Fortun, Staff Engineer; Keith Martin, Fire Chief, Fire Department; and Kim Brennan, Administrative Secretary.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Chairperson Trainer stated that Application 2005-338 (Item 7) was being moved up to be heard first. The preliminary plat for the I-470 Business and Technology Center (Application 2005-078, Item 11) would immediately follow the Preliminary Development Plan application (Item 5). On motion of Mr. Atcheson, seconded by Ms. Funk, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to APPROVE the agenda as amended.

1. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA

A. Application #2005-313 – FINAL PLAT – Kensington Farms, 1st Plat, Lots 1-101 and Tracts A-1 through H-1, J-1 and K-1; Pulte Homes of Greater Kansas City, Inc., applicant B. Application #2005-314 – FINAL PLAT – Kensington Farms, 2nd Plat, Lots 102- 199 and Tracts A-2 through H-2 & J-2 through K-2; Pulte Homes of Greater Kansas City, Inc., applicant C. Application #2005-316 – FINAL PLAT – Kensington Farms, 3rd Plat, Lots 200- 278 and Tracts A-3 through G-3; Pulte Homes of Greater Kansas City, Inc., applicant D. Application #2005-317 – FINAL PLAT – Kensington Farms, 4th Plat, Lots 279- 368 and Tracts A-4, H-4, and J-4; Pulte Homes of Greater Kansas City, Inc., applicant E. Application #2005-349 - FINAL PLAT – Arborwalk, 9th Plat, Lots 82-191 & Trs. A-9, B-9, C-9; Gale Communities, applicant PLANNING COMMISSION 2 January 10, 2006

F. Application #2005-353 – FINAL PLAT – Arborwalk, 7th Plat, Tract A-7; Gale Communities, applicant G. Application #2005-358 – FINAL PLAT – Newberry Landings 1st Plat; Stucker Construction, applicant H. Application #2005-380 – FINAL PLAT – Belmont Farms, 4th Plat, Lots 128-176 and Tract P; Investors Limited LLC, applicant I. Application #2005-381 – FINAL PLAT – Scherer Ridge Villas, Lots 1-3; Pinacle Properties, LLC, applicant Chairperson Trainer called for a motion to approve the Consent Agenda.

On motion of Ms. Funk, seconded by Mr. Fristoe, the Planning Commission voted by voice vote of seven “yes”, with one “abstain” (Mr. Christopher) to APPROVE Consent Agenda Items 1A through 1I.

2. Public Hearing: Continued Application #2005-301 – VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY – portion of Rice Road ROW north of Deerbrook, east of M-291; Meyer Brothers Bldg. Co., applicant

Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 6:11 p.m. and announced that Application 2005-301 was being continued to January 24, 2006 at staff’s request. She then closed the hearing.

(The foregoing is a digest of the secretary’s notes of the public hearing. The transcript may be obtained.)

3. Public Hearing: Continued Application #2005-306 – 2005 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT – providing for new estate lot land use classification; City of Lee’s Summit, applicant

Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 6:11 p.m. and announced that Application 2005-306 was being continued to January 24, 2006 at staff’s request. She then closed the hearing.

(The foregoing is a digest of the secretary’s notes of the public hearing. The transcript may be obtained.)

4. Public Hearing: Continued Application #2005-343 – REZONING from CP-2 and R-1 to PMIX and #2005-344 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN - Raintree Lake PMIX Development, SE corner of Raintree Drive & Raintree Pkwy; Raintree Lake Dev., applicant

Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 6:12 p.m. and announced that Application 2005-343 was being continued to January 24, 2006 at the applicant’s request. She then closed the hearing.

(The foregoing is a digest of the secretary’s notes of the public hearing. The transcript may be obtained.)

7. Public Hearing: Continued Application #2005-338 – VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY – abandoned old Blue Springs Lee’s Summit Road and abandoned Rock Road within PLANNING COMMISSION 3 January 10, 2006

proposed Savanna Woods in Section 9, Township 48, Range 31; Savanna Ridge Dev., LLC, applicant

Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 6:12 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in by the court reporter.

Mr. Joe Bauer of Archer Engineers gave his business address as 3741 NE Troon in Lee’s Summit. He explained that the right-of-way vacation was to clean up some old title work for the roads previously crossing the property. Bits and pieces had been abandoned over time, and this application was to clean up some miscellaneous parts of right-of-way still showing up on some of the plots.

Following these remarks, Chairperson Trainer asked for staff comments.

Mr. Scannell entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-12 into the record and stated that staff recommended approval of vacating the right-of-way. He confirmed that these were old roadways that had existed before the construction of Woods Chapel Road. Letters had been sent out to the utility companies, and the City had received no objections.

Following Mr. Scannell’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. As there were none, Chairperson Trainer closed the public hearing at 6:13 p.m. and asked for a motion.

Mr. Pycior made a motion to recommend approval of continued Application 2005-338, Vacation of Right-of-Way, abandoned old Blue Springs Lee’s Summit Road and abandoned Rock Road within proposed Savanna Woods in Section 9, Township 48, Range 31; Savanna Ridge Development, LLC, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of January 6, 2006. Mr. Atcheson seconded.

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

On motion of Mr. Pycior, seconded by Mr. Atcheson, the Planning Commission members voted by voice vote of seven “yes”, with one “abstain” (Mr. Christopher) to recommend APPROVAL of continued Application 2005-338, Vacation of Right-of-Way, abandoned old Blue Springs Lee’s Summit Road and abandoned Rock Road within proposed Savanna Woods in Section 9, Township 48, Range 31; Savanna Ridge Development, LLC, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of January 6, 2006.

(The foregoing is a digest of the secretary’s notes of the public hearing. The transcript may be obtained.) (Mr. Atcheson left the table)

9. Public Hearing - Application #2005-382 – REZONING from RP-1 to R-1, 0.83 acres in Park Ridge, north of Woods Chapel Road; ACH, LLC, applicant

Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 6:15 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in by the court reporter. PLANNING COMMISSION 4 January 10, 2006

Mr. Joe Bauer of Archer Engineers gave his business address as 3741 NE Troon in Lee’s Summit. He stated that the purpose of this rezoning was to correct the situation with the RP-1 villa area overlapping the R-1 residential part of the development. This was a 50-foot strip between the two zoning designations, with two of the R-1 lots not having the strip in their back- yards.

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

Mr. Scannell entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-14 into the record and confirmed that this was to clean up a situation where a few lots had two different zoning districts. The rezoning would not affect any of the plat already approved.

Ms. Funk made a motion to recommend approval of Application 2005-382, Rezoning from RP-1 to R-1, 0.83 acres in Park Ridge, north of Woods Chapel Road; ACH, LLC, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of January 6, 2006. Mr. Reece 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. Reece, the Planning Commission members voted by voice vote of seven “yes”, with one “abstain” (Mr. Christopher) to recommend APPROVAL of Application 2005-382, Rezoning from RP-1 to R-1, 0.83 acres in Park Ridge, north of Woods Chapel Road; ACH, LLC, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of January 6, 2006.

(The foregoing is a digest of the secretary’s notes of the public hearing. The transcript may be obtained.) (Mr. Atcheson returned to the table.)

5. Public Hearing: Continued Application #2005-076 – REZONING from PI-2 to PMIX and Application #2005-077 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 31 acres East of Independence Ave between Hagan Road and Jones Industrial Drive (proposed I-470 Business and Technology Center, Lots 1-22); Wilgate Development, applicant

Chairperson Trainer stated that anyone whose testimony would apply to the subsequent preliminary plat hearing could state that, and not have to repeat testimony. She then opened the hearing at 6:20 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in by the court reporter.

Mr. Jim Bauers, attorney with White, Goss, Bowers gave his address as 4510 Belleview in Kansas City, Missouri. He described the application as the development of a 31-acre parcel on the west side of I-470 south of Strother Road and north of the Airport. It was known as the LBC development. The rezoning from P1-2 to PMIX would allow uses cited under the UDO. The development would have 22 lots and 272,000 square feet. The applicant agreed with the transportation analysis and also with staff’s Recommendation Items. Mr. Bauers introduced PLANNING COMMISSION 5 January 10, 2006

Kenneth Sterritt of Hamilton & Sterritt; Charles (Skip) Hirst of Hirst and Associates Architects and Jay Birchfield, a partner with Wilgate Development. Mr. Birchfield had brought some display boards illustrating some of the project’s details.

Mr. Jay Birchfield, a principal with LBC Development Corp., stated that the land had heavy industrial zoning since the mid-1980s. It had been marketed and platted as an industrial park. However, over the past decade the City had wanted to move away from heavy industrial uses on the I-470 corridor, particularly uses like metal buildings. The 130 acres would be developed within what was commonly known as the Lakewood business center, and they wanted to trans- form this part of it to more closely match the uses set out in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicants were proposing 32 acres as the I-470 Business and Technology Center, involving a rezoning to PMIX that would accommodate office, office/warehouse, some light industrial and retail. That would also allow a transition into the current heavy industrial uses already existing at the Lakewood Business Center.

The applicants had worked closely with City staff over the past 18 months, including addressing land use issues and infrastructure such as traffic. The development would not impact the existing sewer system for the next couple of years.

Following these remarks, Chairperson Trainer asked for staff comments.

Mr. Scannell entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-15 into the record and stated that the 2005 Comprehensive Plan showed commercial as the recommended land use. The applicant intended to put in office and retail uses along the northern lots facing I-470 and Independence Avenue, transitioning to more industrial uses on the south end lots closest to similar industrial uses. In the mid-1980s when this property was zoned, heavy industrial zoning also allowed every use allowed in lesser zoning categories. That meant a broad range of uses. However, over time there had been other rezonings and a trend toward lighter industrial and some commercial uses.

Staff felt that commercial uses along the corridor would be much more viable once the I- 470/Strother interchange was complete. They recommended approval of the rezoning, subject to the six Recommendation Items. Specifically, they were recommending that those northern lots along I-470 and Independence Avenue be restricted only to the uses listed in CP-1, CP-2 and CP-3 districts. The Comprehensive Plan called for more commercial uses on the remaining lots inside the site and along the southern portion; and staff recommended limiting the uses of these to be approved for CP-1, CP-2, CBD, BP and PI-1 districts. Additionally, staff recommended keeping as Special Uses any uses listed that way in the UDO.

Following Mr. Scannell’s presentation, 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 then asked if the Commission had questions for the applicant or for staff.

Ms. Funk asked Mr. Birchfield if the applicant agreed with all six of staff’s Recommendation Items. She particularly wanted to know about Item 6. Mr. Birchfield replied that they were, and had reviewed the wording in staff’s report.

Mr. Reece noted that Recommendation Items 1 and 2 addressed the sewer capacity issue in the Maybrook sub-watershed. At the last meeting, this had been brought up pertaining to the development north of Woods Chapel Road as well, and he wanted to know how much more development the sewer could handle. Mr. Monter answered that the GPA had done an analysis PLANNING COMMISSION 6 January 10, 2006 in two phases, analyzing the whole watershed in the first phase. The part about the Maybrook interceptor included both the areas Mr. Reece just referred to; and the report stated that depending on how quickly development occurred, the interceptor had capacity for the next two to five years. Within two years, staff planned to do another analysis of the sewer capacity unless development occurred more quickly than the GPA report projected. They had talked with the developers and did the analysis on the basis of those projections. If development was accelerated, staff did have the right to ask the applicant to re-analyze the capacity.

Mr. Reece remarked that a two-to-five-year window did not tell him how much capacity the system had. He did infer from Mr. Monter’s remarks that if development did occur rapidly it might exceed the system’s capacity. Mr. Monter answered that in that window of time, staff had just made projections on percentages. With this development specifically, they estimated that in the next two years, about ten percent would be built to the point where it would need sewers connected. That would be 60 percent in five years; and within that window, there might be a concern down the line if other development occurred more rapidly in those five years. That was the reason for staff analyzing the situation themselves after the first two years, and request a sewer capacity analysis if that was warranted. The development would not be recommended for approval if the analysis showed insufficient capacity.

Mr. Christopher noted that the traffic study appeared to cover only the area from Colbern to Strother Road, and asked if it was assuming the interchange would be there. Mr. McKerrow replied that it did in some of the scenarios considered. With this particular project, there were several ways to phase it; and staff recognized that there were some offsite infrastructure improvements. Without the Strother Road interchange, they could develop up to 120,000 square feet without a need for additional improvements. After the interchange went in, that would jump to 225,000 square feet; but after that point, depending on how much other development took place, they could need to do additional offsite improvements.

Ms. Rosenquist asked Mr. Scannell if the development standards referred to in staff’s report were the same as were used for the I-470 corridor in the study. Mr. Scannell replied that when the UDO was adopted the UDO, staff had done away with the I-470 additional controls. However, they had incorporated these into the UDO, so the UDO standards for aspects like materials and architecture were compatible with the earlier I-470 study. Recommendation Item 4 dealt with standards as applied to setbacks, floor area ratios, impervious coverage and density.

Chairperson Trainer asked if there were further questions for applicant or staff. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing at 6:36 p.m. and asked for discussion, or for a motion.

Mr. Fristoe made a motion to recommend approval of continued Application 2005-076, Rezoning from PI-2 to PMIX and Application 2005-077, Preliminary Development Plan, 31 acres east of Independence Ave between Hagan Road and Jones Industrial Drive (proposed I-470 Business and Technology Center, Lots 1-22); Wilgate Development, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of January 6, 2006 specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 6. Ms. Funk seconded.

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

On motion of Mr. Fristoe, seconded by Ms. Funk, the Planning Commission members voted voice vote of seven “yes”, with one “abstain” (Mr. Atcheson) to recommend APPROVAL of Application 2005-077, Preliminary Development Plan, 31 acres east of Independence Ave PLANNING COMMISSION 7 January 10, 2006 between Hagan Road and Jones Industrial Drive (proposed I-470 Business and Technology Center, Lots 1-22); Wilgate Development, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of January 6, 2006 specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 6.

(The foregoing is a digest of the secretary’s notes of the public hearing. The transcript may be obtained.)

11. Continued Application #2005-078 – PRELIMINARY PLAT – I-470 Business and Technology Center, Lots 1-22; Wilgate Development, applicant

Mr. Jim Bauers, business address 4510 Belleview in Kansas City, Missouri, stated that the testimony provided in respect to the rezoning and preliminary development plan applied to this preliminary plat application. Chairperson Trainer then asked for staff comments.

Mr. Scannell stated that the information and testimony given in staff’s presentation for the rezoning and preliminary development plan applied to this preliminary plat application.

Hearing no discussion or questions, Chairperson Trainer called for a motion.

Mr. Fristoe made a motion to recommend approval of continued Application 2005-078, Preliminary Plat, I-470 Business and Technology Center, Lots 1-22; Wilgate Development, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of January 6, 2006 specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 6. Ms. Rosenquist seconded.

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

On motion of Mr. Fristoe, seconded by Ms. Rosenquist, the Planning Commission members voted voice vote of seven “yes”, with one “abstain” (Mr. Atcheson) to recommend APPROVAL of continued Application #2005-078, Preliminary Plat, I-470 Business and Technology Center, Lots 1-22; Wilgate Development, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of January 6, 2006 specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 6.

6. Public Hearing: Continued Application #2005-271 – REZONING from CP-2 and PMIX to CP-2 and Application #2005-272 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN - Lee’s Summit East Shopping Center – NE corner 50 Highway and Chipman Road, Lee’s Summit East Shopping Center; RED Development, applicant

Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 6:40 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in by the court reporter.

Ms. Julie Jergin of RED Development gave her business address as 4717 Central in Kansas City, Missouri. She related that at the Commission hearing last month, the application had been continued in order to accomplish two things. One was to address the concerns property owners had raised, in order to achieve a win-win result for the City, property owner and community. Second, they were to work with staff and MoDOT to find a schedule for construction in phase IA, and to pursue the possibility of completing the south connector road. The applicants believed they had made some significant progress. Ms. Jergin reviewed the status of the properties. PLANNING COMMISSION 8 January 10, 2006

Siki Sushi restaurant: They had a signed Letter of Intent for the owners to purchase the property, and were working on a purchase agreement. That agreement would be subject to the City’s approval of the project. Liquor Store: The applicants also had a signed Letter of Intent to purchase this property, which was also subject to the City’s approval of the project. Bob Sight Ford: They’d held a number of meetings with Mr. Tom Sight, his contractors and other representatives. Not all the issues had been addressed; however, the applicants felt that the progress was positive and the car dealership would be better positioned after the details were resolved. Mr. Sight’s situation with this property was different from the other nearby properties, in that he would remain in business in the same general location. The lot would be reconfigured to accommodate the change to Blue Parkway. Some of the details remaining included the extent and cost of that reconfiguration, architecture and reimbursement for any down time that might occur. The applicants felt that the improved frontage to 50 Highway and Chipman, in addition to the Blue Parkway improvements, would eventually be a win-win situation for the Ford dealership and the community in general. Bank of the West: The applicants had a verbal agreement with Mr. Tom Perkins. It covered several items noted in the drawings, including a monument identification sign along Blue Parkway, another monument sign at the entry, and enhanced landscaping at the private entrance from Blue Parkway to the main entrance. They also would provide additional capital improvements to the bank’s property in the future, in exchange for a cross-easement parking agreement. Ms. Jergin believed the bank had sent a letter. Summit Park Plaza and Hearth and Home: Their representatives, Mr. Galvin and Mr. Hunters, had spoken with the owners. These would not be directly impacted, Dr. Hagerty had expressed some concerns regarding the lack of signage during construction. The applicants were working on a sign relocation, and possibly a possible patching and overlay to the street. Dave Cross Ford: At the last hearing, they had brought up several concerns about the proposed layout including Tract 20’s radius, the access off Chipman, and vehicle circulation. The applicants had met with Mr. Cross and his representatives and had agreed to redesign the pad layouts adjacent to Dave Cross Ford for better traffic flow. They had also worked with staff on an offsite monument identification sign, monument direction sign and right-in access off Chipman. Mr. Cross had also mentioned earlier that Blue Parkway’s relocation would put a hardship on his business and its customers. The applicants did some additional traffic counts to see how many customer trips the dealership received today compared to the amount of traffic the proposed development and improvements would bring. Currently, at peak traffic times, Dave Cross Ford had a maximum of just 11 cars per hour. The traffic study estimated at least 400 vehicles into the entry drive off Blue Parkway and past the dealership. Accordingly, the applicant disagreed with Mr. Cross concerns in this regard. They believed that the changes would increase his potential customer base.

Regarding MoDOT’s schedule, the applicants had met with them within the last 45 days. They could not guarantee that the process of completing Phase 1A would not have setbacks, they had worked with MoDOT on a schedule showing completion of 1A on or about February 2008. There might also be an opportunity, by working in a private-public partnership, to take a few more months out of the schedule. Regarding the south connector, they could potentially take a year out of that schedule as well; but based on the recent meetings, having that connector complete by fall of 2007 would not be possible. Fall of 2008 would be the nearest completion date. The traffic analysis had not concluded that the connector needed to be complete for the project to function at an acceptable level. PLANNING COMMISSION 9 January 10, 2006

Ms. Jergin concluded that the applicants were anxious to get the project through the approval process and start on it. They agreed with staff’s comments in the January 6, 2006 report.

Following Ms. Jergin’s presentation, Chairperson Trainer asked for staff comments.

Mr. Scannell entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-43 into the record. He related that the applicant had done considerable work over the past few months to address all the Planning Commission’s items and issues. They had added two addenda to the traffic study, which staff had reviewed and responded to with additional recommendations for necessary road improvements. One of the plan’s revisions was to open up the accesses to the bank and to Dave Cross Motors, including a right-turn-only access to Dave Cross Motors off Chipman Road.

The shopping center was still short of parking by 169 spaces. They were currently negotiating with the bank for additional parking. If this was included, the shortfall was reduced to 70 spaces. Staff did not support a modification on that, rather wanting to see the shopping center comply with the UDO requirements. In order to do that, the application would either have to produce additional parking spaces or reduce the square footage. Other aspects such as architecture and signage had not changed.

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

Mr. John Kaugren with the Lathrop and Gage law firm was present representing Dave Cross Motors. Mr. Cross, who was not able to attend, had provided a letter to the Commission dated December 28, 2005: “ This letter is intended to express the unqualified opposition to the rezoning proposed for that area of Chipman Road and Blue Parkway. Dave Cross Motors dealership, which is located adjacent to the proposed rezoning, currently has direct access to and from Blue Parkway. The opposition is directly related to the abandonment and realignment of Blue Parkway as proposed for the rezoning. The dealership will be deprived of its public street access to Blue Parkway if it is realigned as proposed. Further, no alternative access has been proposed which is acceptable and adequate to the operation of the dealership. If Blue Parkway is vacated and moved as proposed in the rezoning plan, Dave Cross Motors will be unequivocally damaged and suffer substantial loss of business and similar loss in property values. “ Dave Cross Motors has been in Lee’s Summit for more than 45 years. It is a three-generation, family-owned business and the members of the family have been, and remain, citizens of Lee’s Summit. Dave Cross Motors has been a contributing corporate citizen to the community, providing jobs and tax revenue to the city, long before the days of fashionable malls and oversized box stores. Dave Cross Motors first opened its doors in 1960, at the intersection of US Highways 50 and 291 South. It has been in its present location since 1989. One of the most significant factors associated with its location is that Dave Cross Motors is located at a key intersection in Lee’s Summit, with ready access. . . This location is critical for the financial well-being of the dealership. “Dave Cross Motors respects the right of a person to reasonable use his property and takes no position on the overall appropriateness of the zoning plan; except to the extent that the development of the plan would have a direct and negative effect PLANNING COMMISSION 10 January 10, 2006

on Dave Cross Motors. Therefore, Dave Cross Motors urges this Commission to recommend denial of the application. Dave Cross Motors will take any and all necessary steps and measures under the law to prevent the action proposed today and protect its business operations and property values.”

Mr. Tom Sight, of Bob Sight Ford, gave his address as 607 NW Blue Parkway. He had a number of reservations about the project, and noted that his dealership was being impacted the most. At present, people could walk between the main building and body shop. He was aware of the city’s need for a bigger sales tax base and to realign roads to handle traffic. However, there had been problems at the Chipman Road/US 50 intersection and had seen a MoDOT presentation about how the realignment would change that intersection. However, both the City and MoDOT seemed to have gotten behind RED Development fixing the problem. He was literally in the middle, and one of his concerns was that there would be enough funds available to resolve his business’ situation. The traffic flow and layout of his business would be completely flipped around and changed, with the back of the building becoming the front and vice versa. The original plan he had seen did not allow servicing the vehicles in the back of the building, and they currently serviced from 120 to 140 cars per day. They had to make sure the layout provided access to the whole building. Mr. Sight was in favor of the application, as long as he could come out of it as well situated as he had been before and still had a viable business. He offered to give any of the Commissioners a walk-through of the dealership to show them the layout and how the development would impact it.

Mr. Tsitsing Paik gave his address as 1949 Wade in Overland Park, Kansas. He was the owner of the Siki Restaurant, and had been working with the applicants. They had reached a mutual agreement that he was satisfied with.

Following these comments, Chairperson Trainer asked the Commission for questions for the applicant or staff. She first asked at what point in the project funds would be available to the business owners they were negotiating with. Mr. Scannell replied that from the City’s perspective, they were looking for a preliminary development plan showing the Blue Parkway realignment and specifically showing how it would impact the neighboring businesses. The plan would have to show the access to public streets and any shared parking. It was at this point that the more detailed issues would be ironed out. Concerning the financial arrangements, the City wanted to be involved in that but would essentially be working with them to minimize down time. Ms. Jergin then related that the applicant was aware of how Mr. Sight’s building would be impacted, including the front of it becoming the back. They did need to keep easy access to the site. They had also looked at how they might utilize parking, some of which might be provided after that part of Blue Parkway was vacated. They were currently putting together some construction numbers for Mr. Sight, including a down time estimation. Once they got this information compiled, they wanted to meet with Mr. Sight again and review them.

Chairperson Trainer then asked how many times the applicants had met with Mr. Cross since the last meeting. Mr. Greg Galvin with Kessenger, Utter came to the podium and gave his address as 1064 NW Highpoint in Lee’s Summit. He stated they had met with Mr. Cross a total of six times; three occasions since the last hearing.

Mr. Rick Orr of MoDOT came to the podium, gave his business address as 600 NE Colbern Road in Lee’s Summit and answered some questions for Chairperson Trainer. He had been working on this project with the City and RED Development for about two-and-a-half months. He agreed with the dates the applicant had given for completing Phase 1 at the same time as the south connector. PLANNING COMMISSION 11 January 10, 2006

Mr. Reece did not think the Commission should approve the application until all of Mr. Cross’ and Mr. Sight’s concerns had been addressed, and did not intend to vote for it until then. He did not want to ‘railroad’ the application and have that result in these businesses’ access being cut off. Progress was not served by disrupting established businesses and possibly destroying them.

Mr. Atcheson asked Mr. McKerrow if the applicant’s traffic study supported closing the drive. That was due to its proximity to the Chipman Road intersection, and the volumes of traffic there.

Mr. Christopher believed that the traffic bottleneck would remain at the shopping center, although he acknowledged that there were a lot of traffic issues and that the applicant had meetings with MoDOT to coordinate the center’s start date and road improvements. However, he was still not sure how the traffic bottleneck at the Chipman/US 50 entrance ramps was going to be addressed. He saw a possibility that the improvements to Pryor might actually exacerbate the problem to some degree. It would take some of the eastbound traffic down Pryor, then down Chipman to that intersection. However, until Phases 3 or 4, the westbound traffic would still be in a quagmire, which was worse during the Christmas season but a problem all year. He did not see any ingredients to address that, such as double left-turn lanes or improvements to Chipman under the US 50 bridge. Mr. McKerrow answered that much of the high demand at that interchange was due to both people exiting off eastbound I-470 to US 50 and then off at Chipman Road; then heading west from there. That impacted not only that particular intersection but also the operation of the adjacent signals, especially those at Murray. By taking off much of that traffic, with much of the westbound traffic using the Pryor interchange instead of looping around to Chipman, they would be able to work with the timing of signals to keep traffic moving better. It would increase the overall capacity of the US 50/Chipman interchange.

Regarding the phasing of the project, the City currently had funds for Pryor Road’s interchange, Blue Parkway and the connectors between them. These were all one project, which was currently under design and would come on line with the development. Mr. Christopher asked if the Blue Parkway ramps on I-470 were in the same phase as the south connector, and Mr. McKerrow answered that it was not. However, it was part of the ongoing three-phase project that also included the Pryor Road interchange, connector, and Blue Parkway interchange.

Mr. Christopher asked if the west part of the Pryor Road interchange would be complete by spring of 2008; and Mr. McKerrow replied that it was possible if the City continued to work with MoDOT. It would, in any event, be sometime in the early part of 2008. What was labeled “1B” was actually a combination of a south connector and Blue Parkway. Mr. Christopher remarked that the developer had suggested, and MoDOT had confirmed, that this could be complete by fall of 2008. Mr. McKerrow answered that, again, this should happen if RED was able to maintain their pace and put in some of the private incentive tools. Mr. Christopher noted that they had been referring previously to 2010-2011. He felt that if it was within the power of the developer to make that happen sooner, it should be part of the process. Mr. McKerrow noted that this was not in the current staff recommendations; however, that could be added.

Chairperson Trainer asked if there were further questions for applicant or staff. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. and asked if there was discussion among the Commission members.

Chairperson Trainer appreciated Mr. Reece’s perspective. She had talked with Mr. Cross on the phone, and stated that unless he was willing to buy the property next to him he could not PLANNING COMMISSION 12 January 10, 2006 control the development that would occur there. He should try to work together with them to work things out. While the parties had met on a number of occasions, it was clear that they were not in agreement. The Commission had planned for this particular area to be commercial, and there might not be a perfect well to totally resolve Mr. Cross’ problem. The City and MoDOT were also pushing some of these traffic issues, and she’d had a long discussion yesterday with both Ms. Tyrrel and Ms. Scannell about trying to find a way to make the process work perfectly. She was not able to do that, and she suggested that the Commission would not do it unless they crossed that area of the city off the map and said they would not develop it. She also remarked that she had been here when they did the other side of US 50, and this was equally important. The Commission had made decisions on other developments elsewhere in the city that would congest the ramp and she advised the other Commissioners to be careful about voting for denial. The applicant was part of the financial resource to get the road project done. She did not think the representative of MoDOT present would do all these improvements without a commercial developer helping them to get there. She was very much in favor of the application, and had taken the same personal chances in the cases of the Woods Chapel development and the property on south M-291. The Commission might as well shut the city down if they wanted to wait for traffic to be perfect.

Ms. Rosenquist agreed with the financial end of making the road improvements happen, she was not clear about the timing and the ability to relieve congestion in the area with the improvements. She had gone over notes from the last hearing; and noted that several months work with MoDOT had already been done. Now a representative from MoDOT said it had been two- and-a-half months, and she found this inconsistent. While she understood that the City might not be able to completely alleviate Mr. Cross’ concerns; however, the alignment and the accessibility to his personal property would be difficult with the plans she had seen.

While the applicant had made it sound like everything was resolved, Mr. Sight had more concerns that did need to be addressed more fully. After looking at the previous plan, she noted that there had been a loop road on the back side of Summit Technology. There had been no mention of how that played into this project. The road had been marked as having a right-in and left-out only onto Chipman Road. She had been the only “no” vote on the earlier hearing: not because she disagreed with the use or what the City was trying to accomplish overall, but rather because she considered the internal traffic flow to be not good and believed that traffic as a whole would not be improved enough. She did know that the City needed the improvements; but was not certain they would be sufficient. Moreover, the site plan had parking problems. Ms. Rosenquist was not completely sure that the plan was the best one it could be. Her concerns were basically traffic concerns, internal traffic flow and parking.

Chairperson Trainer then re-opened the public hearing, at 7:25 p.m. and asked Mr. Orr to clarify some of the dates. Mr. Orr stated that although he had been involved in the project for two-and- a-half months, his predecessor had been involved with it since March of 2005. He and they had worked closely with Mr. McKerrow and with Ms. Dena Mezger, the City Engineer, and felt they had a good working relationship with both the City and RED Development. The design work on the interchange improvements was on an accelerated schedule; and he was confident that this would be successful.

Mr. Christopher asked if he could see any problem with a completion date before January 1, 2009 for the Pryor interchange, the south connector and the ramps onto I-470. Mr. Orr answered that MoDOT’s internal schedule depended on so many factors that they could not commit to any particular date. They could state that they were committed to following through with the City of Lee’s Summit and everything discussed this evening. He was not as familiar PLANNING COMMISSION 13 January 10, 2006 with the individual traffic concerns as Mr. McKerrow was; however, RED Development had been more than easy to work with, and had met with MoDOT on several occasions. He was confident that there were ways they could assist to provide additional time and resources that MoDOT did not have to devote to this particular project. Mr. Orr stated that it was reasonable to accomplish the improvements described generally within the time frame they had discussed. Factors that MoDOT could not control included Federal oversight on the project, geotechnical concerns and right-of-way purchasing.

Mr. Pycior asked if there was any way to improve the level of service [LOS] east of US 50 without moving Blue Parkway. Mr. McKerrow answered that several years ago, MoDOT had worked on a currently shelved plan that kept the north part of Blue Parkway at its current location. There was still a relocation on the south side, the north ramps on Chipman were eliminated. By taking out ramps and realigning various roads on the south side, Blue Parkway could remain as is on the north side. Ms. Pycior asked specifically about keeping the access to Chipman Road from US 50 the same. Mr. McKerrow said the LOS could not be improved under those conditions. A memo from MoDOT stated agreement with the findings of the traffic study. The loop road being constructed with the development was a condition of this application.

Mr. Atcheson asked if the loop road was full access where it met I-470, and Mr. McKerrow replied that it was. Blue Parkway would actually curve and become part of Ward Road. The current loop on the south side would “T” into the relocated loop road, and it would be a full access road with a traffic signal. Regarding maintaining access to the businesses, he assured the Commission that City staff looked at private development just as they would at any City project; and existing business accesses would be maintained at all times. He acknowledged that this might not be the best access.

Mr. Reece asked if the relocated Blue Parkway would have access to the properties on either side, and particularly if there would be access to Bob Sight Ford on both sides of the property. Mr. McKerrow said there should be access provided. The City did not intend to land-lock property. What degree would take some additional negotiation with staff and MoDOT. Blue Parkway on the south side of Chipman was a MoDOT facility, so as staff worked with them on relocation they would have to work with MoDOT as to whether it would remain that way or become a City street. Mr. Reece remarked that what he was hearing Mr. McKerrow saying amounted to it being possible that there might be no access off the relocated Blue Parkway into both sides of the Bob Sight property. Mr. McKerrow answered that there would be access. Whether or not it was full access was something he could not guarantee at present.

Mr. Christopher asked what was the completion date for the shopping center. Mr. Jeff McMahon of RED Development came to the podium and gave his address as 4717 Central. He stated that the completion date was scheduled for late fall of 2007. Mr. Christopher agreed that if all the improvements were in place, that would relieve the bottleneck. This was an opportunity to resolve a number of traffic issues, although the completion dates looked overly optimistic. Mr. McKerrow replied that staff was willing to look at the combined schedules; but there were factors outside of the City’s and developer’s control. Even MoDOT did not have total control due to Federal oversight, environmental issues and other factors. Staff recommended that this project not be opened until at least the Pryor/I-470 interchange was done. If that did not happen by fall of 2007, staff recommended delaying the opening. He knew there was potential for a fall 2007 opening; but was not comfortable with that aggressive of a schedule. Mr. Christopher thought he had heard testimony about having Phase 1 done by February 2008, and Mr. McKerrow acknowledged that again, this might happen but it would require a lot of cooperation between private development, the City and the State. PLANNING COMMISSION 14 January 10, 2006

Mr. Tom Sight returned to the podium and said that he had discussed full access in his meetings with both Mr. McKerrow and Ms. Jergin. He emphasized that the plan would not work for him without full access off the street. It would involve driving around the block to get to the body shop from the main building.

Chairperson Trainer closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m., and adjourned the meeting for a break. The meeting re-convened at 7:40 p.m., and Chairperson Trainer re-opened the public hearing as Mr. Reece had a question.

Mr. Reece recalled that he had not heard any testimony tonight about the bank. He asked if their concerns about access had been addressed. Mr. Greg Galvin returned to the podium and stated that while he was not present representing the bank, he did have a letter dated January 10, 2006 that Mr. Tom Perkins had allegedly faxed to the Commission. The letter was addressed to Mr. McKay: “Bank of the West has had an opportunity review the revised development plan for the Lee’s Summit East project as submitted by RED Development. This is for the area bounded roughly by Chipman Road on the south, I-470 to the north, Summit Technology to the east and US Highway 50 to the west. Bank of the West has also met with representatives of RED Development to discuss various issues that were presented. Some of the items are outlined in the attachment to this letter. Bank of the West does not object to the revised development plan as submitted, subject to the satisfactory negotiations of the items set forth in the attachment The Bank supports approval of the plan by the Planning Commission and the City on a timely basis.” The attachment had listed eight different items that had been discussed at the bank’s home office in Omaha, and had been agreed to conceptually subject to documentation. Mr. Scannell added the letter into the record as Exhibit 44.

Chairperson Trainer closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. and called for a motion.

Mr. Christopher remarked that all the Commissioners could support resolving the issues with the surrounding businesses, particularly Dave Cross, although it appeared there could be some legal action associated with that. If the Commission continued the hearing, that might only result in delaying any resolution. He wanted to delete Recommendation Item 3, which made a Certificate of Occupancy contingent on opening the Pryor Road interchange to traffic. He also wanted to add wording to Item 8: “The developer shall be obligated by the development agreement to provide private financial assistance required to meet an accelerated schedule for completion of the Pryor Road south connector road and the Blue Parkway extension including eastbound entrance ramps and westbound exit ramps. These improvements shall be completed no later than one year after the completion of the shopping center.”

Chairperson Trainer recommended not specifying “private” financial assistance as the only option. She was concerned with their getting to their goal, not how they got there; and the Commission did not deal with the financial end. She suggested adding the wording “other appropriate funding”. Mr. Reece did not agree, pointing out that sometimes the Commission did put requirements and stipulations on projects that did in fact involve financial arrangements. Chairperson Trainer stated that she did not want to place a limit with the “private” wording. PLANNING COMMISSION 15 January 10, 2006

Mr. Christopher made a motion to recommend approval of continued Application 2005-271, Rezoning from CP-2 and PMIX to CP-2 and Application 2005-272, Preliminary Development Plan, Lee’s Summit East Shopping Center; NE corner 50 Highway and Chipman Road, Lee’s Summit East Shopping Center; RED Development, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of January 6, 2006 specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 8; including the an addition to Item 8 reading: “The developer shall be obligated by the development agreement to provide private financing or other appropriate financial assistance and incentives required to meet an accelerated schedule for completion of the Pryor Road south connector road and the Blue Parkway extension including eastbound entrance ramps and westbound exit ramps. These improvements shall be completed no later than one year after the completion of the shopping center.” Mr. Pycior seconded.

Chairperson Trainer asked if there was any discussion of the motion. Ms. Rosenquist pointed out that Item 3 made “building the Pryor Road interchange at I-470” as a condition of getting a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Christopher wanted to leave that item as is. It referred to the two ramps on the west side of the Pryor Road interchange. The Item 8 change pertained to completing the other improvements. Hearing no further discussion, Chairperson Trainer called for a vote.

On motion of Mr. Christopher, seconded by Mr. Pycior, the Planning Commission members voted by voice vote of six “yes” (Chairperson Trainer, Mr. Atcheson, Mr. Fristoe, Mr. Christopher, Ms. Funk and Mr. Pycior) and two “no” (Ms. Rosenquist and Mr. Reece) to recommend APPROVAL of continued Application 2005-271, Rezoning from CP-2 and PMIX to CP-2 and Application 2005-272, Preliminary Development Plan, Lee’s Summit East Shopping Center; NE corner 50 Highway and Chipman Road, Lee’s Summit East Shopping Center; RED Development, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of January 6, 2006 specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 8, with Item 8 modified as stated.

(The foregoing is a digest of the secretary’s notes of the public hearing. The transcript may be obtained.)

10. Public Hearing – Continued Application #2005-361-PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN and Application #2005-362 – SPECIAL USE PERMIT for mini-warehouses in PI-1 – Jefferson Street Mini Storage, 5 SW Industrial Dr., Mathews Properties, LLC, applicant

Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 7:55 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in by the court reporter.

Mr. Richard Mathews of 139 SW Fourth Street stated that he had purchased this property almost 9 years ago, when it had been a junkyard and he had owned the building across the street. Over the last 8 years, he had been communicating with the City trying to get information about infrastructure such as sewers and street improvements. The area had only septic tanks and no sewer, so an earlier project he proposed was not feasible. The current plan was for mini-storage with five office/warehouse facilities. He did have a problem with Recommendation Items 2 and 3. Regarding Item 2, the property faced Industrial Drive and the users would exit onto that. Only about 160 feet was on Jefferson. He did not think it was reasonable to be expected to do 1,000 feet of repairs to Jefferson. The cost of removing power poles and relocate them on both sides of the street, putting in curbs and other expenses would amount to more than the total cost of the project itself. Regarding the turnaround mentioned in Item 3, they were trying to set up a secure area with a fence. The property was 40 feet deep and 28 PLANNING COMMISSION 16 January 10, 2006 feet wide; and they would be backing out onto Industrial Drive, which was a dead-end street. Mr. Mathews emphasized that he had been waiting for a period of years with this property, and had spent about $250,000 of his own money to remove a junkyard existing in the city.

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

Ms. Thompson entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-21 into the record. She described the project, with the mini-warehouse storage buildings totaling 21,600 and the office/warehouse building at 7,950 square feet. Staff’s issues with the project were basically the roads, offsite traffic circulation and the sidewalks. Ms. Thompson reviewed the five Recommendation Items. She noted that the sidewalk requirement in Item 4 was consistent with staff’s requirements for other applicants.

Mr. McKerrow came to the podium and referred the Commission to the Transportation Impact memo in their packets. Last summer, the City Council had directed staff to look into the unimproved, basically rural roads that Lee’s Summit still had. They were 18 to 20 feet wide with no curbs or gutters or shoulders, and drainage ditches right against the side of the road. They had tried to interpret the UDO on what was adequate infrastructure. After discussions with both the Public Works Committee and City Council, the guidance last September called for not permitting commercial and industrial development on narrow unimproved roads until the road was upgraded to at least 24 feet wide. Mr. McKerrow added that these were guidelines given to staff, not a set policy; so it would be up to the Planning Commission to make their recommendation and to the Council to make their final decision. Staff’s recommendation was based on the general direction they were given. Regarding the turnaround, he felt that staff had been consistent in requiring commercial and industrial applicants to have traffic circulation on site. They did not want situations where the only way for a vehicle to get out of the site was to back up onto a public street.

Mr. Fristoe asked if staff’s recommendation would be influenced if this property were further north, next to improvements that were already made, such as those made by the Christian school. They had made 50 feet of improvements, and he wanted to know if the applicant would be required to improve 50 feet as well. Mr. McKerrow said that would be likely be staff’s recommendation.

Following staff’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 the Commission had questions for the applicant or for staff. There were no questions; and Chairperson Trainer closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. and asked if there was discussion among the Commission members.

Mr. Pycior was not at all comfortable with the road improvement. It was the first time he had seen a recommendation like this; and he had heard from Mr. McKerrow’s testimony that this was something fairly new to the Council. While he knew some improvement would need to be made to the road, but did not like the requirement specified in staff’s recommendation. Ms. Rosenquist asked Mr. Fristoe if he had mentioned the Christian church doing 50 feet of improvements. He explained that he had not, but was asking about the requirement if the property was further north. A number of people were using Industrial Drive, and he did not like the idea of making one developer do so much improvement.

Mr. Christopher asked how many vehicle trips there would be, and Chairperson Trainer re- opened the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. Mr. McKerrow said it would be about 154 trips per day. PLANNING COMMISSION 17 January 10, 2006

Mr. Pycior mentioned that the first developer near M-150 had improved M-150 from Ward Road to M-291. It would make more sense for this applicant to have to improve the road in front of his property. Ms. Rosenquist asked how many areas in town were deemed unimproved, and Mr. McKerrow said there were a number; citing Scherer Road and Jefferson. Projects approved on these two roads were the reason the Council had brought up this issue. Portions of Hook Road, some roads on the north side of town and parts of Blackwell fell into the unimproved category. Ms. Rosenquist then asked if any of the nearby businesses could be making any improvements that would go through the approval process and that would trigger this kind of requirement, without tonight’s applicant having to do it all for 1,000 feet. Mr. McKerrow answered that the same rule would apply to other developments. The City was currently looking at these roads but there was no current plan for Jefferson. Any commercial or industrial development that came along on this type of road would have the same requirement. He acknowledged that this was the first time this kind of project had come forward for one of the unimproved roads, so it was the test case.

Staff had held a number of internal meetings as well as meetings with the developer. The church and high school to the north were also doing improvements on Jefferson from Persels to their south property line. The 1,000 feet from the subject property’s boundary would make that connection. It was similar to the requirements the City had placed on the church. Mr. Pycior asked if the church had to make improvements from their southern property line to Persels. Mr. McKerrow answered that they were working on that, as it was one of the requirements for the new high school. Ms. Rosenquist asked if other private businesses had this 1,000-foot requirement; and Mr. McKerrow said there were but he could not recall the names.

Ms. Rosenquist felt that the applicant had a valid point, and she did recall the junkyard and the mess that had been on the property previously. He would have to pay excise tax on top of any improvements. She asked if there was a mechanism for which staff could work out for other property owners in the area to participate in the improvement, rather than putting the burden all on one business. Mr. McKerrow replied that if a group of property owners came forward with an alternative plan, staff would be willing to look at it. Mr. Pycior pointed out that a business owner knowing that another business was being required to do the improvements would certainly not be likely to suggest anything like that.

Mr. Atcheson wondered if there was any mechanism or program for the applicant to recover some of the money spent or to make a proportional contribution. Mr. McKerrow explained that what the Council was looking at was a general concern about the older rural roads with an increased amount of truck traffic. The standard approach of looking at level of service would not suffice for a full answer in this situation. Mr. Atcheson asked if the guidance had been not to allow any more development on these roads until they were fixed. Mr. McKerrow answered that with industrial and commercial developments, it was no additional development until the roads were upgraded to at least an interim standard.

Chairperson Trainer noted that the Commission could delete Items 2 and 3 and let the Council make the determination. Hearing no further questions, she closed the hearing at 8:25 p.m. and asked for discussion.

Mr. Atcheson stated that people wanting to develop property being required to make improvements happened all the time. He was not in favor of striking Items 2 and 3 altogether, as not requiring the applicant to make any improvements might be inconsistent and unfair to other applicants who did have to make improvements. Mr. Pycior felt that the requirement seemed arbitrary, although he was not opposed to making any improvements. Mr. Reece noted PLANNING COMMISSION 18 January 10, 2006

Mr. Mathews’ testimony that having to improve 1,000 feet of the road would make the project financially unfeasible. However, he did not know how the Commission could delete the Recommendation Item if this was a City requirement.

Ms. Rosenquist asked how far away sewers were from the property. She also noted the applicant’s remark that he might have proposed a different type of project if there was sewer service on Industrial Drive. She was also not comfortable with the arbitrary figure, and felt that Council needed to set some guidelines; noting that someone at the end of this kind of road would not have to improve all the way up to an improved road. In the long term, the sewer situation would impact what the applicant might want to do with the property in the long run. She was not comfortable with striking Item 2 but was not sure how it might be modified; and was not willing to strike Item 3. That was a common requirement for that kind of business, to keep trucks from backing out onto the road.

Chairperson Trainer re-opened the public hearing, at 8:30 p.m. Mr. Monter said he did not know how far away they were in time with sewer service. Mr. Mathews related that in 2000, he had talked with City staff and money had supposedly been allotted for sewers and road improvements in 2000 and 2001. Subsequently it had seemed to disappear and go to other projects in other parts of town because the roads near the subject property had slower development. The sewer line was about one-quarter of a mile away, on Jefferson. In the past 18 months or so he had got together with others in the neighborhood to put together a bond for putting sewers in and tie into the sewer at Jefferson. The City had told them that this line was not big enough. The Church on the Rock, the largest landowner, did not want to participate because the price was based on square footage of property. Their position was that as a church they were not a taxpaying organization so would not participate and that put too heavy a price on the other property owners. He had fought these kind of battles over this property for nine years, and at this point all he had to do with it was mowing. Moreover, if the City put sewer lines in, that would tear up and undo all the road improvements he was being asked to put in. He did not have a problem putting money in escrow to improve the 128 feet of frontage on Jefferson, but 400 feet was on Industrial Drive which was a dead-end street. He added that he would like to know where the money that had been there for improvements in 2000 had gone.

Ms. Rosenquist asked if there was a better approach to the improvements. She was in favor of making the applicant responsible for his portion; but while she understood the concerns over the road, the prospect of the work having to be done twice bothered her. The Recommendation Item made the applicant responsible for more than he should be responsible for.

Mr. Christopher asked what kind of sewer system the office/warehouse construction would have, and Mr. Mathews replied that it would be a septic/holding tank with a pump. None of the industrial properties had sewer service but all used holding tanks. The lack of sewer service had been a major stumbling block to development for the 11 businesses in that area, and having the tanks pumped regularly was a significant expense. He added that these streets amounted to a “blister” on that side of town and no one wanted to pay attention to it; and that he felt these businesses had lost the sewer funds to Mr. Kenney and around the Toys ‘R’ Us store. The improvements cited in Recommendation Item 2 would cost as much, if not more than, what all the rest of the project cost.

Mr. Mathews related that the sewer was right in front of the school; however, as it would go down the hill from there they would need a pumping station. Consequently, the sewer stopped at the school; but while the school was allowed to add another high school to the sewer line the nearby businesses were told that the line was not big enough. On one day, he had counted 169 PLANNING COMMISSION 19 January 10, 2006 cars in one hour that went to the school, with more when the high school was operating, and at present the school traffic backed up on Jefferson for three-quarters of a mile. At the same time, staff was claiming that his business would add 150 cars.

Chairperson Trainer again closed the public hearing and remarked that she did not know if the Commission could resolve this issue tonight. The City Council had created this talking point, and she suggested that this application be sent on to them. If they continued, she was not sure they could get enough information in a timely manner to resolve it. This applicant was the first to go down this road. Mr. Atcheson felt that the Commission did have some responsibility to give direction. He wanted to see this application get approved and the applicant put funds in escrow for improving the road fronting on the property; but not all 1,000 feet. That would be completely consistent with other projects. Mr. Mathews confirmed for Mr. Reece that he had about 125 feet of frontage on Jefferson and the City was asking him to improve 1,000 feet.

Mr. Pycior read a change to Recommendation Item 2: “Jefferson Street shall be improved to provide a minimum of 24 feet in width, plus either curbs and gutter or 6’ grass shoulders, from the southern property line of the proposed development to the northern property line, plus the appropriate taper; and an appropriate escrow agreement be entered into by the applicant and City for future improvements at a time deemed appropriate.”

Mr. Pycior made a motion to recommend approval of continued Application 2005-361, Preliminary Development Plan and Application 2005-362, Special Use Permit for mini- warehouses in PI-1; Jefferson Street Mini Storage, 5 SW Industrial Dr.; Mathews Properties, LLC, applicant , subject to staff’s letter of January 6, 2006 specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 5, with Recommendation Item 2 amended as stated. Mr. Atcheson seconded.

Mr. Pycior then added wording for Recommendation Item 4: ”A five-foot sidewalk shall be constructed from the south property line to the north property line”. Mr. Atcheson seconded the modified motion. Mr. Christopher agreed with the wording but intended to vote “no.”

Chairperson Trainer asked if there was any discussion of the motion. Ms. Rosenquist agreed with the rewording of Item 2, but stated that the City was trying to improve its corridors and was looking at a major development at M-350 and M-291. She did not like the idea of having any office development using septic systems with a sewer so close by. Ms. Funk agreed. Hearing no further discussion, Chairperson Trainer called for a vote.

On motion of Mr. Pycior, seconded by Mr. Atcheson, the Planning Commission members voted voted by voice vote of five “yes” (Chairperson Trainer, Mr. Atcheson, Mr. Fristoe, Mr. Reece and Mr. Pycior) and three “no” (Mr. Chrisotpher, Ms. Rosenquist and Ms. Funk) to recommend APPROVAL of continued Application 2005-361, Preliminary Development Plan and Application 2005-362, Special Use Permit for mini-warehouses in PI-1; Jefferson Street Mini Storage, 5 SW Industrial Dr.; Mathews Properties, LLC, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of January 6, 2006 specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 5; with Items 2 and 4 modified as stated.

(The foregoing is a digest of the secretary’s notes of the public hearing. The transcript may be obtained.)

11. Public Hearing - Application #2005-383 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN – Lee’s Summit Fire Station #7, 2150 SW Scherer Rd.; Williams Spurgeon Kuhl & Freshnock, applicant PLANNING COMMISSION 20 January 10, 2006

Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 8:45 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in by the court reporter.

Mr. Rick Qeuell of 110 Armour Road in North Kansas City, was an architect with Williams Spurgeon Kuhl & Freshnock. He related that the proposed Fire Station #7 would be located at about 2150 SW Scherer Road, west of Pryor. It would include living quarters, three bays and a training center. One of the challenges of the site was the water tower at the southwest corner and an overhead high-voltage transmission line on the south side. The modification referred to in staff’s one Recommendation Item, for a 25-foot setback on the north/northwest side of the property, was needed in order to move the station and training tower as far away from the overhead power lines as possible.

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

Mr. Scannell entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-21 into the record and stated that staff recommended approval, with the referenced modification to the 50-foot setback. A 50-foot electric easement cut through the property, and the narrower setback would maintain some distance from it; especially with the fire station tower.

Mr. Atcheson noted that the sewer lateral would be directly below the proposed soccer field. Mr. Reece asked if the lateral would meet the City’s requirements, particularly minimum acres of land required for a lateral field. Mr. Monter stated Jackson County required three acres, with this site being more than two acres larger than that.

Chairperson Trainer asked if there were further questions for applicant or staff. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. and asked for discussion, or a motion.

Mr. Pycior made a motion to recommend approval of Application 2005-383, Preliminary Development Plan, Lee’s Summit Fire Station #7, 2150 SW Scherer Rd.; Williams Spurgeon Kuhl & Freshnock, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of January 6, 2006 specifically Recommendation Item 1. Mr. Fristoe seconded.

Chairperson Trainer asked if there was any discussion of the motion. Ms. Rosenquist agreed that Lee’s Summit needed another fire station in that area as well as a training facility. However, despite the information given from City Council tonight regarding some of the rural areas and roads, and the fact that sewer lines were on the property, the City was not imposing the same improvements for Scherer Road as it was trying to make the previous applicant accountable for on Jefferson. The applicant was being asked to be accountable for 1,000 feet of road on that. She found it incomprehensible that the City would try to impose that kind of condition on an applicant but not impose the same standards on its own projects. Mr. Reece and Ms. Funk agreed. Ms. Rosenquist stated that in light of this situation, she would be voting “no”.

Hearing no further discussion, Chairperson Trainer called for a vote. PLANNING COMMISSION 21 January 10, 2006

On motion of Mr. Pycior, seconded by Mr. Fristoe, the Planning Commission members voted by voice vote of five “yes” (Chairperson Trainer, Mr. Christopher, Mr. Atcheson, Mr. Fristoe and Mr. Pycior) and three “no” (Ms. Rosenquist, Mr. Reece and Ms. Funk) to recommend APPROVAL of Application 2005-383, Preliminary Development Plan, Lee’s Summit Fire Station #7, 2150 SW Scherer Rd.; Williams Spurgeon Kuhl & Freshnock, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of January 6, 2006 specifically Recommendation Item 1.

(The foregoing is a digest of the secretary’s notes of the public hearing. The transcript may be obtained.)

PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at the meeting.

ROUNDTABLE Chairperson Trainer asked Ms. Brennan if there was any progress on the joint meeting with City Council. Ms. Brennan had forwarded the information but there had been no progress. Chairperson Trainer remarked that she would need to call Mayor Messerli and make that her project. Ms. Tyrrel stated that Mr. Lewis planned to talk to Mayor Messerli.

Chairperson Trainer said she would not be present at the first February meeting. She would attend the January 24th meeting.

Mr. Reece asked Mr. Monter how far away the sewers were from the fire station property. Mr. Monter stated that there was nothing concerning that in the CIP projects at present.

Ms. Rosenquist stated that the issues raised about rural roads and sewer needed to be brought to the Mayor’s attention. She added that she would not be attending the February meetings.

Ms. Tyrrel gave a report on last week’s City Council meeting. The Commission had voted unanimously to recommend denial of Fresh Woods [December 13, 2005] but the Council had voted unanimously to approve it. They had wanted her to take back the message to the Commission that this did not mean they were not appreciated. Staff had provided some additional information to address some of the concerns. The average lot area met the requirements. They had also approved Lee’s Summit Social Services.

Mr. Reece remarked that he did not see a point in having standards when even the City Council would not abide by them.

Mr. McKerrow stated that Council had felt there was too much development on the old unimproved rural roads, which was the impetus for the requirements discussed this evening.

ADJOURNMENT Having no further discussion, Chairperson Trainer adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.

PC011006