Lee S Summit Planning Commission s6

LEE’S SUMMIT PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of Tuesday, May 27, 2003

The Tuesday, May 27, 2003, Lee’s Summit Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Trainer, at 6:00 p.m., at Arnold Hall, 123 SE 3rd Street.

OPENING ROLL CALL:

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

Also present were David Bushek, Deputy City Attorney; Linda Tyrrel, Assistant Director, Planning and Development Department; Tom Scannell, Planner, Planning and Development Department, Hector Soto, Planner, Planing and Development Department; Pam Fortun, City Engineer; Kent Monter, Development Engineering Manager, Jim Eden, Battalion Chief, Fire Department; and Kathy Wilkes, Administrative Secretary.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

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

1. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA

A. Minutes of the May 13, 2003 Planning Commission meeting B. Request for Authorization to Process Payment of funds to Historic Preservation Services, LLC C. Application #2003-059 – FINAL PLAT – Meadows at Summit Ridge, 3rd Plat, Lots 86- 127 and Tracts E and F; Williamsburg Properties, LLC, applicant D. Application #2003-076 – FINAL PLAT – Scherer Crossing, 1st Plat; MAR Enterprises, Inc., applicant

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

On motion of Ms. Rosenquist, seconded by Mr. Tranchilla, the Planning Commission voted unanimously by voice vote to APPROVE Consent Agenda Items 1A through 1D. PLANNING COMMISSION 2 May 27, 2003

2. Public Hearing: Application #2003-018 – REVISED PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN – Amendment regarding road improvements, Douglas Station Commercial Park, Lots 4A and 6; Mike Atcheson for Douglas Station LLC, applicant

(Mr. Atcheson left the table.)

Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 6:02 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in by the court reporter.

Mr. Mike Atcheson of 713 NE Dick Howser Court explained that the Douglas Station project was approved last year. The Preliminary Development Plan had been approved subject to all traffic improvements being done, which was underway. The traffic signal had been ordered; however, getting the mast poles installed had a three month lead time. This put the project short of time; with both Wendy’s and the Michelin/Goodyear tire store both getting ready to open. The application was requesting approval of the plan without the traffic signal being in so that these two businesses could go ahead and open. Mr. Atcheson had seen the revised recommendation and was in agreement.

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

Mr. Scannell read the revised Recommendation Item 1: “ The buildings on Lots 4A and 6, Douglas Station Commercial Park shall be permitted to receive an occupancy permit prior to the completion of the traffic signal improvements. All other roadway improvements included as part of the rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan shall be constructed prior to occupancy, whether temporary or final, of any of the buildings within Douglas Station Commercial Park.” Staff had analyzed the traffic aspects, including afternoon peak trips; and had concluded that these projects could open prior to the signal being installed. The applicants were working on the other traffic improvements, including turn lanes. Staff was recommending approval with the amended recommendation item.

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 then asked if the Commission had questions for the applicant or staff.

Ms. Ford asked if the revised recommendations wording of “any of the buildings” meant ‘other than’ Wendy’s and the tire store or ‘including’ them. Mr. Scannell answered that it included Wendy’s and the tire store. The road improvements identified from the traffic study at the rezoning stage had included some turn lanes and the traffic signal. The current request would just allow them to open without the signal in place.

Chairperson Trainer asked if there were further questions for applicant or staff. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing at 6:08 p.m. and asked if there was discussion among the Commission members, or more a motion.

Mr. Tranchilla made a motion to recommend approval of Application 2003-018, Revised Preliminary Development Plan, Amendment regarding road improvements, Douglas Station Commercial Park, Lots 4A and 6; Mike Atcheson for Douglas Station LLC, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of May 23, specifically Recommendation Item 1 as amended. Ms. Ford seconded. PLANNING COMMISSION 3 May 27, 2003

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

On motion of Mr. Tranchilla, seconded by Ms. Ford, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application 2003-018, Revised Preliminary Development Plan, Amendment regarding road improvements, Douglas Station Commercial Park, Lots 4A and 6; Mike Atcheson for Douglas Station LLC, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of May 23, specifically Recommendation Item 1 as amended.

3. Public Hearing - Application #2003-109 - SPECIAL USE PERMIT for maintenance facility in R-1 and Application #2003-110, PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 504 SW 163rd Street, Raintree Lake Maintenance Facility; RLPOA, applicant

Chairperson Trainer asked Mr. Bushek if these two applications would need one or two separate recommendations and votes. Mr. Bushek answered that as the Preliminary Development Plan was only required in this case because of the Special Use Permit application, they could be heard together. Chairperson Trainer then opened the hearing at 6:10 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in by the court reporter.

Mr. John M. Smith gave his address as 4494 Bowsprit in Lee’s Summit. He recalled that this application had come before the Commission on February 11th, with the same plan for a maintenance building at Raintree; and a Special Use Permit for ten years. The preliminary development plan had not changed. It was approved by the City Council on March 6, 2003 and they had obtained a grading permit. At this point, they discovered that they had omitted notifying two or three property owners to the north of Raintree Parkway. The plan’s opponents subsequently filed a lawsuit against the city and against the Raintree Lake Property Owners Association (RLPOA) and the Board requested that the City Council rescind the ordinance. The applicants then submitted new applications in order to provide proper notification. Mr. Smith introduced Mr. Joe Willerth, attorney for the RLPOA.

Mr. Willerth gave his address as 221 West Lexington in Independence (home address 4500 Bowsprit, Raintree). He repeated that the Commission, and later the City Council on March 6, 2003, had given unanimous approval to the application for a 5,000-square-foot maintenance building, to be used for storage of the Association’s equipment. The lawsuit was filed on April 4, 2003. The plaintiffs alleged problems respecting the original application and hearing. The application had been amended respecting technical requirements.

Mr. Willerth listed these amendments. The application was signed by Mr. Haeggars, Association General Manager pursuant to an authorizing resolution; all property owners within 185 were notified; a statement was added indicating the use of the storage and maintenance of vehicles of equipment and a correct legal description of Lot 2 was inserted. These were the technical grounds raised in the lawsuit. The new application was filed on May 2, 2003 and the lawsuit had been dismissed. He also noted that the prior file, including the minutes of the February 11, 2003 hearing, was an exhibit. It contained detailed accounts of the project and the concerns raised; so he would not duplicate that presentation. PLANNING COMMISSION 4 May 27, 2003

Mr. Willerth asserted that large Homeowners Associations had a need for such large buildings. The Lakewood Homes Association also had such a facility, located at the edge of the subdivision, used for storage of equipment needed to maintain the acres of common ground and other maintenance operations. He acknowledged that since the subject property was purchased about six or seven years before, the RLPOA had not been as prompt as it should be respecting mowing and maintenance there. The Board intended to change that. Mr. Willerth added that building an expensive and well-designed building would itself improve the site. Some neighbors had argued that this was inappropriate for a residential district; however, the property was located along 163rd Street, with the tracts across the road being large lots. Some of these had large barns and farm-type structures that would not generally be found in an R-1 residential zone. It was more a rural-type setting and the maintenance building with its berms and screening would not adversely impact the adjoining owners. Mr. Willerth added that the RLPOA President and Treasurer were present if the Commission had any questions for them.

Returning to the podium, Mr. Smith offered to review any parts of the site plan if the Commissioners wanted a review. He pointed out that the application was in compliance with UDO Section 10.160, which required a Special Use Permit for storage of recreational or vehicle maintenance equipment: “whether in open or enclosed yards, with the following consideration: the facility is to be located on land owned by, leased by or under the control of the users of the Association... open yards to be properly screened by means of a solid, sight- obscuring fence not less than six feet in height, screening directly adjacent to the land zoned residential to incorporate plantings as required in Article 14; and all parking areas and access drives shall be paved. Design standards of the UDO shall apply and be applicable to all buildings.” Mr. Smith pointed out that this did not stipulate the facility having to be in the particular subdivision. They were in compliance with the design standards mentioned in the section, as well as the RLPOA’s requirements for building materials. The applicants were in agreement, as before, with staff’s recommendations 1 through 9. He added that he wanted an opportunity to come back after staff’s presentation and the public testimony.

Following Mr. Smith’s and Mr. Willerth’s remarks, Chairperson Trainer asked for staff comments.

Mr. Soto entered Exhibit (A), amended list of exhibits 1-18 into the record. Exhibit 16 was the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 11, 2003; Exhibit 17 was the transcript of that meeting; and Exhibit 18 was the transcript of the City Council public hearing of March 6, 2003. He stated that this site was surrounded on three sides by residential lots. Setbacks between the facility and adjoining property lines would be different, with the building set back about 400 feet from the rear property line near Raintree Parkway. It would be 85 feet from the west property line and 100 feet from the east property line; and 118 feet from the south property line at 163rd Street.

Mr. Soto continued that staff proposed, and the applicant had agreed to, buffering comprised of landscaping on three sides; plus a six-foot vinyl fence on the west side. The east landscape screening would be medium-impact and that on the south side, near 163rd Street, would be street frontage landscaping as described in Recommendation Item 8. Staff believed that the screening requirements would mitigate potential negative impact on the adjacent properties. PLANNING COMMISSION 5 May 27, 2003

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

Mr. Dan Dempsey gave his mailing address as P.O. Box 652 in Lee’s Summit and home address as 14518 36th Place in Independence. He had been asked to speak on behalf of a group of residents owning adjacent property. Mr. Dempsey said he was encouraged by some of Mr. Smith’s and Mr. Willerth’s comments. However, he stated that the neighbors’ comments were based on concerns about past history and future use. These were questions he had hoped the Commissioners would ask the applicant; although he understood that the applicant was not required to respond to them. He hoped they would take the opportunity to do so. Mr. Dempsey added that they had responded to some of the questions in some form and it was a matter of putting them on record.

Mr. Dempsey related that Raintree did not have a strong history of following their own rules and doing what they said they would do; nor for caring for this piece of property specifically. He did not know how the neighbors could be reassured that Raintree would suddenly become a good neighbor. They also wanted to know what Raintree had not contacted the individual property owners as the City encouraged as part of the Special Use Permit process. Had they done so, some of the questions could have been answered. One of the concerns was that the Board at Raintree was transient in nature as was the management and maintenance staff. That made a consistent, ongoing relationship difficult. The neighbors wanted some assurance that the building would meet all the architectural guidelines for Raintree; and the applicant had stated that during his presentation.

Mr. Dempsey also wanted to know if the RLPOA would submit itself to the same rules they had for the homeowners. The neighbors believed that would go a long way to answer concerns and questions. They also wanted to know how the proposed development was consistent with single-family homes in the area, as well as the desire for upscale development of the undeveloped land. While there were some agricultural operations, Mr. Dempsey pointed out, this was a planning process and when the land was developed it should be consistent. They felt that this particular type of development in an R-1 district was a step down and were very concerned that something else would happen across the street or next door. The neighbors also wanted to know if the RLPOA believed the proposed development should be able to infringe on the surrounding property owners’ rights of use and aesthetic enjoyment; and if the development should be allowed if it adversely impacted property values, marketability, development potential or zoning potential.

In looking at the site plan, Mr. Dempsey wanted to know if they anticipated any changes in setbacks, size of the building, height, construction type, materials, ingress, egress, or parking areas. The applicant had stated that the proposed building would meet Raintree’s needs now and well into the future; and Mr. Dempsey wanted to know if substantial changes would require a hearing. It was a large structure; and any changes that would increase the size or change the building’s character would raise issues to be re-visited. He also wanted to know if the RLPOA believed that this building should be compared to that at John Knox Village or Lakewood.

Regarding the lawsuit mentioned, Mr. Dempsey did not believe it was based on technicalities only. If it was, it wanted to see the ordinance with items highlighted that were technicalities so he would know what he needed to be concerned with. The plaintiffs had believed there were fundamental flaws in the approval of the original ordinance removing the rights that individual property owners had. They would let an attorney address that further if they needed to. PLANNING COMMISSION 6 May 27, 2003

Regarding the previous application had been entered as evidence in this proceeding, Mr. Dempsey asked staff for clarification if that had been done; and what effect that had on the application. The neighbors and former plaintiffs contended that when the property was originally purchased, it was to maintain a green space for controlled development consistent with the area. The neighbors felt it was inconsistent with the area.

Mr. Dempsey then mentioned the financial state of the RLPOA. He reminded the Commissioners that as a Planning Commission they had the responsibility of planning and one of the things they had to do was to look at the building’s future use or re-use. In another application, they had recently recommended for approval to the Council an ordinance allowing recreational facilities in an industrial district; as these tended to use “big box” buildings. Light industrial was the best re-use for this type building, if the Special Use Permit was not renewed after expiration. This might also be the case should the RLPOA partially construct the building and not be able to finish or operate it for financial reasons. It was not likely that someone would adapt a 5,000-square-foot big box metal building with vinyl siding for a home.

There had also been concerns about vandalism, with the type of equipment being stored attractive to someone who wanted something untraceable to steal and sell. Mr. Dempsey asked how they intended to mitigate these concerns. He also wanted to know how much land Raintree maintained at present; and what options they had considered prior to this application. He remarked that he understood the Commission was not concerned with making sure they spent their money wisely but financially viable options did exist.

Further, the neighbors and former plaintiffs wanted to know if Raintree intended having any offices or sleeping facilities in the building; what utilities would service the building and if Raintree was going to move the General Manager’s office to the building. The prior application had a Recommendation Item stipulating no outdoor storage of equipment or materials and the neighbors wanted to know if they intended following that and if they intended parking any vehicles outdoors overnight, particularly larger ones such as tractors. They wanted to know what equipment, supplies, materials and vehicles Raintree would be housing in the facility and what additional equipment they would have within the next ten years as well as any boat or RV storage outside. They wanted to know what type of pesticides, insecticides, herbicides and fertilizers would be stored on the site. This involved environmental concerns including potential runoffs. They wanted to know often there would be field deliveries, what size of truck would be making these deliveries, how often it would be and what size fuel tank they would have on site. Mr. Dempsey remarked that fertilizer and fuel oil in particular were a concern because of bomb- building potential. They wanted to know the number of employees at the facility including full- time year-round employees, part-time year-round employees, full-time seasonal employees, part-time seasonal employees; what type of activities the employees would engage in; the hours and dates of operation and the months of operation.

Mr. Dempsey stressed that the neighbors felt very strongly about the issue and believed that the lawsuit they had filed had some very real concerns that were not addressed adequately.

After verifying that no one else in the audience wished to give testimony, Chairperson Trainer stated that she had made a list of the questions and concerns. She remarked that she would like the applicant to address the questions; however, this was not the appropriate place for a continuation of the lawsuit.

Returning to the podium, Mr. Smith first pointed out that the UDO in Section 10.160 permitted the proposed usage, by Special Use Permit, in an upscale residential area that needed to PLANNING COMMISSION 7 May 27, 2003 maintain large acreages of common property owned by all the residents. The Board meetings of the RLPOA had complied with State laws and were open to the public. A committee had engaged an architect and had made a presentation to the Board of Directors of the RLPOA and this presentation was open for anyone to attend and make comments. He emphasized that the RLPOA intended to comply with all the ordinance requirements and if the use changed, this would require additional public hearings and rezoning. There was a process in place to address concerns about re-use.

Mr. Smith was not sure about the original reason for purchasing this property. A neighbor had told him that it was originally to put in ballfields. He added that a Property Owners Association board was no different from a Planning Commission or City Council in that times and priorities changed and they had to be flexible to address that. Such an entity approving something at one point did not mean it might not be changed later. Moreover, any kind of commission or board was by nature transient; and could not give absolute long-term guarantees. The applicant was subject to the same rules required of any contractor and was complying with covenant requirements. Mr. Smith gave the composition roof, vinyl siding and masonry material as an example. They had gone to considerable effort and $250,000 in expense to mitigate the building’s visual impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Smith referred to the elevations showing items such as a chimney and residential-type windows. It was bermed and screened to a considerably further extent than required in the UDO. Regarding compatibility, he felt that the building’s location and its landscaping and berming would keep it from being an issue visibly. It also sat on a hillside that sloped down ten feet from the east to west; and the four-foot berm was on the east side with additional planting.

Addressing the financial concerns, Mr. Smith confirmed with Mr. Kusick, the RLPOA treasurer, that the budget was about $600,000 per year. The Association had recently purchased six lots along Raintree Parkway for the future installation of the swimming pool and recreational area for residents on the south side of the lake. They were making long-term capital improvements. This particular 3.8 acres had been paid for; and they were paying $26,000 a year on a loan for the six lots; which was paid down to about $38,000. The Board had renegotiated the loan to include that balance and had an annual renewable not at 4.25 percent. It was something they had planned and budgeted for.

Mr. Smith concluded that he agreed that Raintree had not done a good job in keeping the property mowed but intended to change that. The drainage problems would be addressed with the engineering plan, which had to be approved by the City. He added that many of the things Mr. Dempsey had mentioned would pertain to compliance with the City’s existing ordinances.

Chairperson Trainer asked about the concerns with equipment, storage and theft. Mr. Smith responded that they had agreed as a condition to have no outside storage. That was one reason for the building being the size it was. Chairperson Trainer then asked about the hazardous materials concerns. Mr. Smith was not sure about how much fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides they used. In the event that they stored fuel or brought in fertilizer they would have to apply for a hazardous use permit with the Fire Department and would comply with its rules. Regarding the employees and hours of operation, Mr. Smith related that there would be a full- time maintenance supervisor and about six part-time people including students who did chores such as weed-eating in the summer. During the winter, that would go down to one full-time and one or two part-time workers. Some of these were retired people.

Following these comments, Chairperson Trainer asked if the Commission had questions for the applicant or for staff. PLANNING COMMISSION 8 May 27, 2003

Mr. Pycior asked Mr. Soto if there was anything about the application, issues, impacts or analysis that was different from the last time. Mr. Soto answered that there was not.

Ms. Ford mentioned that she was not at the first hearing; but had some questions. She remarked that some of the issues were in the nature of an internal ‘family fight’ that the Planning Commission could not get involved in. She had driven by the site that afternoon and wanted to know and asked him what would be the major difference between the residences and the facility given the effort to be compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Smith answered that with the berming that staff had recommended added to the extensive landscaping, plus the east-west slope of the property, the building would not be that visible from traffic going west on 163rd Street. In addition, the building’s design and materials were intended to help it blend in.

Ms. Ford remarked that the building clearly included metal garage doors, which would make it basically just a huge garage. She wanted to know if these would be like the steel doors used in residential garages or if they would be the industrial-type steel doors. Mr. Smith answered that they would be solid metal doors and would have to be larger than residential. The building had 10-12 foot sidewalls, which would permit a larger door for items like tractors and trucks. Ms. Ford then asked about the parking spaces, remarking that there appeared to be five including one handicapped space and he had mentioned six or seven seasonal workers.

Mr. David Haeggars, General Manager of Raintree Lake, came to the podium and gave his address as 825 SW Raintree Drive. He related that Raintree currently had two tractor drivers and two people to run weed-eaters plus a supervisor for a total of five. In the winter, only the maintenance supervisor worked steady hours. Some retired people were available to assist with two-person projects. Personnel would park at the new facility. Ms. Ford asked if it could be as many as six or seven in the summer; and Mr. Haeggars answered that some of these were high school students who did not have cars. Ms. Ford remarked that having only four spaces was a concern in terms of adequate parking and Mr. Haeggars added that the clubhouse was in walking distance and had over 50 spaces if overflow parking was needed.

Ms. Ford then asked Mr. Smith if as a longtime Raintree resident he would be willing to live near this facility. Mr. Smith answered that if he had purchased his property on 163rd Street and it was one of the one- to three-acre lots, he would have been buying at the edge of the subdivision. There was property across the street with no controls on future usage and a buyer would need to look at what usages would be permitted. He added that the Dempsey property in particular was not located in the city of Lee’s Summit. If he had bought there, he would have explored the issues and not bought the property if he had a problem. Ms. Ford asked if he meant that it was appropriate for that area and he replied that he did.

Mr. Christopher asked Ms. Tyrrel what the error had been in notifying the property owners. She explained that in the original notification they had only contacted neighbors within 185 feet of the building and not the property line. That increased the number of property owners notified from about 10 to 16. She added that the residents had caught the error.

Mr. Christopher then asked Mr. Smith if vinyl was permitted in Raintree as a material and Mr. Smith answered that it was; though it had to meet guidelines. Roof materials did as well. He confirmed that the building conformed to these material standards. Mr. Christopher then asked Mr. Dempsey if he had specific plans for his property near the site, recalling that at the earlier hearing Mr. Dempsey had mentioned that. Mr. Dempsey returned to the podium and explained that he had anticipated starting a residence on the 1.75 acres for early in 2003. However, he PLANNING COMMISSION 9 May 27, 2003 had put these plans on hold when the subject application went through; and they were still on hold.

Mr. Christopher asked about his previous reference to a septic tank. Mr. Dempsey explained that among his concerns was that the excessive runoff created by a large building with a lot of impervious surface nearby might impact the ability to have an on-site septic treatment system. If runoff was diverted downstream from his property, saturating that soil could have an effect, as underground water would flow in that direction. He had talked with Mr. Smith and with the general manager and Board president about the question of getting a sewer hookup; and the City Council would have to pass an ordinance allowing a piece of property outside the City Limits to hook up to the sewer system. They would also need an easement granted to get across the property. Mr. Dempsey asked Chairperson Trainer if he could respond to some of the other comments and she replied that he could do so after the current questions.

Mr. Tranchilla asked if the building would have an alarm system; and both Mr. Smith and Mr. Haeggars answered that it did. Mr. Haeggars added that it was monitored. Mr. Smith had talked with Chief Conlee about 163rd Street, which dead-ended about a half mile to the east with the bridge out. Cass County had shut the road down and the traffic on it was mostly local. The police had a minimum amount of calls in the area; and it was not likely that vandalism would be a major issue.

Chairperson Trainer asked if there were further questions for applicant or staff. Hearing none, she invited Mr. Dempsey to return to the podium and make his statements.

Mr. Dempsey asked what impact the previous file being entered into evidence might have. Regarding Mr. Smith’s answer about whether he would buy a lot nearby, he agreed with the idea of researching potentials in the area; and speaking on behalf of his father as the registered owner, Mr. Dempsey asserted that he had done such research before buying. They had checked the zoning, which was R-1 and the stated purpose Raintree gave for purchasing the property was to have a green space to keep development consistent with the area. He had heard nothing about a potential maintenance facility. Chairperson Trainer asked for confirmation about how large a parcel he and his family owned; and Mr. Dempsey answered that the piece adjacent to the west was 1.75 acres. That included a portion of the road.

Chairperson Trainer asked staff for an answer to Mr. Dempsey’s question about impact. Mr. Bushek wanted to make it clear that the current hearing made a new record and gave anyone with new information or testimony an opportunity to present it. Regarding the documents submitted into evidence, these were usable in whatever way the Commission wanted them to be. The transcript and minutes from the hearing had been added to the exhibit list and as with any document included as an exhibit, if it were accepted as evidence the Planning Commission and City Council could use it as they liked.

Hearing no further questions or discussion, Chairperson Trainer closed the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. and asked if there was discussion among the Commission members.

Ms. Rosenquist first commented that this application was for a Special Use Permit and not a rezoning. If problems arose with the property’s use under the Special Use Permit after construction was completed, citizens would have the opportunity to address the problems as a violation of the permit. Ms. Rosenquist then made a motion to recommend approval of Application 2003-109, Special Use Permit for maintenance facility in R-1 and Application 2003- 110, Preliminary Development Plan, 504 SW 163rd Street, Raintree Lake Maintenance Facility; PLANNING COMMISSION 10 May 27, 2003

RLPOA, subject to staff’s letter of May 23, 2003, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 9. Mr. Atcheson seconded.

On motion of Ms. Roseqnuist, seconded by Mr. Atcheson, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application 2003-109, Special Use Permit for maintenance facility in R-1 and Application 2003-110, Preliminary Development Plan, 504 SW 163rd Street, Raintree Lake Maintenance Facility; RLPOA, subject to staff’s letter of May 23, 2003, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of May 23, 2003, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 9.

Chairperson Trainer then adjourned the meeting for a break at 7:08 p.m. The meeting re- convened at 7:14 p.m.

4. Public Hearing - Application #2003-073 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN and Application #2003-074 – SPECIAL USE PERMIT for car sales – 716 NW O’Brien Road, Summit Sales & Leasing; Lisa Cannady, applicant

Chairperson Trainer confirmed with Mr. Bushek that the two hearings could be voted on together. She then opened the hearing at 7:14 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in by the court reporter.

Ms. Lisa Cannady of National Mortgage Acceptance, applicant, gave her business address as 712 NW O’Brien and her home address as 14421 Gammon Road in Greenwood. She explained that her mortgage company owned and occupied the office building. They had previously rented out some extra space in it; and she had now chosen to expand into that space. The building had its own parking area and two entrances; and she planned to use one of these entrances and its parking area as an auto sales business. She did not anticipate any impact on the neighborhood, as this approach would not be the usual kind of car dealership. She planned to finance the vehicles and in fact had been doing this kind of financing for awhile. Her parents had a dealer license and she had been testing the idea successfully. She did not plan to solicit any walk-in business and did not want to detract from the mortgage business on the site. Her idea was to sell to her customers; and in fact most of her business in the past had been from referrals. She had agreed to a maximum of ten cars, so this would be a small business and she did not anticipate hiring any additional employees. Basically she was expanding her business to avoid having future tenants.

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

Mr. Soto entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-13 into the record. He noted that car sales would be allowed in the CP-2 district as a special use and that the applicant had agreed to no more than ten cars on the premises at any one time. The site had sufficient parking for that number of cars as well as the existing use. The building had a total of 35 spaces and the requirement for its 1,250 square feet of tenant space was 17. Staff was recommending a modification to the setback, as the south property line parallel to O’Brien Road abutted the existing parking lot and both were set back about 80 feet from the road. There was a significant grade change to the road at that point; and with the proposed landscaping that should provide enough buffer. To the east was an existing subdivision; but the building itself was between this and the lot where the PLANNING COMMISSION 11 May 27, 2003 sales would take place. The permit would be for a period of ten years; and since 1984, the average length of a Special Use Permit for this use was 12 years.

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

Ms. Ford noted that the only access to the parking lot was a private street, which was basically Pappi’s parking lot; and asked the applicant if she planned to reconfigure it. She noted that people did often use it as a quick way to cut from O’Brien to Blue Parkway. Ms. Cannady answered that it was being used by the public as a street. The building had an easement and the lot was accessed from Blue Parkway. She acknowledged that it was a rather small entry. Ms. Ford remarked that customers wanting to park and look at the cars might have some difficulty. Ms. Cannady was not concerned about problems with the parking lot; as the application called for straightening out some of the parking spaces. When the parking lots were patched last year, they were also re-striped and the five spaces on the side would be straightened. She had not done that yet but would along with the landscaping.

Ms. Cannady added that she intended to always leave parking for customers directly in the front. This was her current practice with the mortgage business. She emphasized that the main business was the mortgage company and she would not be soliciting any drive-by business. It would usually be on the basis of appointment and there would not be likely to be more than two customers at any given time. Keeping the parking lot tidy was a priority; and in fact she was the one who maintained the property. She did plan to move back and secure the concrete blocks that were down, as people from Pappi’s did bump into them; and had moved the entrance to keep the spillover traffic out.

Mr. Tranchilla asked if she would be selling on both the parking lots and Ms. Cannady answered that it would only be off the one door. She added that she was investing personal funds in the vehicles and so would not have many at any given time. The other side was to be used for the mortgage business. Mr. Tranchilla asked if she agreed with staff’s recommendations and Ms. Cannady answered that she did.

Mr. Fristoe remarked that the lot did not seem very well-lit and asked about security. Ms. Cannady explained that the proposed additional landscaping would surround the rest of the lot and the existing barrier on the one side would be chained at night. There was adequate light from the building itself and she did plan to park the cars close to the building. The sign provided additional light and the lot was right on the highway. In addition, there was considerable activity around from the Pappi’s traffic; and she had not had security problems in the past. Mr. Fristoe asked if she planned to use Pappi’s signage; and she answered that she did not. She intended to have only lettering on the door, which was in fact required by the State for identification.

Ms. Ford asked Mr. Bushek if a Special Use Permit attached to the property or the owner and Mr. Bushek answered that it was for the property. Ms. Ford confirmed that if the applicant sold the property the buyer could have the same used car sales use. Mr. Bushek pointed out that this would be under the same conditions listed in the application as well as subject to UDO requirements. Ms. Ford pointed out that nevertheless a successor could have ten cars there all the time. She was concerned about junk cars on the lot in that event. Mr. Bushek repeated that a new owner would be subject to the same conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION 12 May 27, 2003

Chairperson Trainer asked if there were further questions for applicant or staff. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. and asked if there was discussion among the Commission members, or for a motion.

Mr. Pycior made a motion to recommend approval of Application 2003-073, Preliminary Development Plan and Application 2003-074, Special Use Permit for car sales; 716 NW O’Brien Road, Summit Sales & Leasing; Lisa Cannady, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of May 23, 2003, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 5. Ms. Rosenquist seconded.

On motion of Mr. Pycior, seconded by Ms. Rosenquist, the Planning Commission members voted by voice vote of seven “yes” (Chairperson Trainer, Ms. Rosenquist, Mr. Atcheson, Mr. Christopher, Mr. Fristoe, Mr. Pycior and Mr. Tranchilla) and one “no” (Ms. Ford) to recommend APPROVAL of Application 2003-073, Preliminary Development Plan and Application 2003-074, Special Use Permit for car sales; 716 NW O’Brien Road, Summit Sales & Leasing; Lisa Cannady, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of May 23, 2003, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 5.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

There were no public comments at the meeting.

ROUNDTABLE

Chairperson Trainer asked when the Commission would be seeing the large projects at the east end of town. Ms. Tyrrel answered that there was not a date certain as yet. Chairperson Trainer stated that when this did come up, and it was the same applicant, they were asked to do a master plan for the entire acreage; and if that was again not done, she wanted to know well in advance. Ms. Tyrrel answered that staff had informed the applicant of that requirement and they had complied.

Chairperson Trainer then noted that Mr. Zhan had sent documents on the North Comprehensive Plan and asked if the Commissioners had looked at them. Ms. Tyrrel confirmed that this was scheduled for the June 10th meeting. Chairperson Trainer remarked that she wanted to make sure that the Commissioners had the information needed.

Mr. Christopher wanted to know if there could be another meeting with the property owners on Woods Chapel Road, as he felt there were elements of compromise on each side of the discussion. Ms. Rosenquist asked if anything was yet being done with the LDS property regarding any kind of P-MIX master plan and Ms. Tyrrel answered that Mr. McKay had been working on that. She was not sure if it was ready for the Comprehensive Plan. He might be providing a sketch; but a plan for this property was one of the goals for next year. Ms. Rosenquist remarked that she would like to see something as a vehicle for discussion, as it was such a large piece of property. Chairperson Trainer asked if the other Commissioners were willing to look at a rough draft and Mr. Christopher remarked that the intent so far had been to make it a commercial-dominant mix with a lot of flexibility. He was in favor of trying to firm up the plans a little more as this was the last large tract to be developed. PLANNING COMMISSION 13 May 27, 2003

Mr. Atcheson noted that the 1,100 acres were one entity and should the City need to build a road through it, showing plans for commercial-retail development would just inflate the price. Mr. Christopher said he understood that right-of-way agreements had already been made on the LDS property. Mr. Bushek was not certain that the locations were set. Ms. Ford cautioned that while “rooftops” were necessary for retail, it would be a mistake to have all rooftops as this would sacrifice the advantage of having this last large parcel for commercial or office development. She added that the City using tax funds to build the roads, that amounted to using taxpayers’ money for a purpose that would benefit the landowners. They would then be able to demand a higher price for the land than they would if the roads were not already there.

Ms. Ford also announced that the next night, May 28, was the next public meeting for the Downtown Master Plan, the last time there would be input before official public hearings. So far, public comments had been interesting. The Master Plan Advisory Committee would hear a proposal the next afternoon from 2:30 until 5:00 p.m.; and that proposal would be presented to the public that evening. Ms. Ford added that those planning to attend should keep in mind that parking was very limited. There was construction at the school and there was no parking except on the street and the Second Street public parking lot, which was currently full of carnival equipment for Old Tyme Days.

Ms. Tyrrel added that the Downtown Master Plan would also be presented at a joint workshop with the Planning Commission and City Council on June 24 from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. It would be followed by the regular Planning Commission meeting.

Mr. Fristoe remarked that he had appeared as a witness last week before a Planning Commission in Bolinbrook, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago. He felt the Lee’s Summit Commission compared favorably in terms of using time well; as there was a 3.5-hour presentation just on one topic with no time restrictions. The meeting had lasted from 8:00 to 11:15 p.m.

Ms. Rosenquist announced that the guidebooks from the Downtown walking tour earlier in the month would be available at Old Tyme Days that weekend.

ADJOURNMENT

Having no further discussion, Chairperson Trainer adjourned the meeting at 7:53 p.m.