20

PLANNING COMMISSION November 9, 2004

LEE’S SUMMIT PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of Tuesday, November 9, 2004

The Tuesday, November 9, 2004, Lee’s Summit Planning Commission was called to order by Vice Chair Christopher, at 6:02 p.m., at Arnold Hall, 123 SE 3rd Street.

OPENING ROLL CALL:

Chairperson Trainer Absent Mr. Christopher Present

Ms. Rosenquist Present Ms. Funk Present

Mr. Fristoe Absent Mr. Pycior Present

Mr. Atcheson Absent Mr. Tranchilla Present

Mr. Reece Present

Also present were Linda Tyrrel, Assistant Director, Planning and Development Department; Rich Wood, Deputy City Attorney; Michael Gorecki, Senior Planner; Hector Soto, Planner; Kent Monter, Development Engineering Manager; Jim Eden, Battalion Chief, Fire Department; and Kim Brennan, Administrative Secretary.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Vice Chair Christopher recommended that Item 6, Application 2004-215, be heard immediately after Item 3. Item 5, Application 2004-205 would immediately follow Item 4, Application 2004-206. Ms. Tyrrel stated that a change to Application 2004-214 (Item 3) had been emailed to the Commissioners the day before, and staff had extra copies of the paperwork. On both Brookfield applications (2004-206 and 2004-205), Page Two had been omitted, and the missing page was being handed out. Vice Chair Christopher then asked for a motion to approve the agenda. On motion of Ms. Funk, seconded by Mr. Pycior, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to APPROVE the agenda as amended.

1.  APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA

A.  Application #2004-259 – FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN for Sign – 10 NE Skyline Drive, PDI Custom; PRO Distributors, applicant

B.  Minutes of the October 12, 2004 and October19, 2004 Planning Commission meetings

Vice Chair Christopher called for a motion to approve the Consent Agenda.

On motion of Mr. Reece, seconded by Mr. Pycior, the Planning Commission voted unanimously by voice vote to APPROVE Consent Agenda Items 1A and 1B.

2.  Public Hearing: Continued Application #2004-198 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 651-661 SE Bailey Road, Bailey Center, Hirst & Associates, applicant

Vice Chair Christopher opened the hearing at 6:05 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in by the court reporter.

Mr. Charles (Skip) Hirst of Hirst & Associates Architects gave his address as 621 NE Woods Chapel Road in Lee’s Summit. He described the project as a 7,800-square-foot office/retail project; a small, infill project that would be a strip design. It would be leased to neighborhood service businesses, and was on property zoned CP-1. Adjacent properties were CP-1 for the next block to the west; PI-1 (office/warehouse) to the north and RP-3, multi-family residential with four-plex structures (Newberry Commons) to the south and east. He had met with staff about the placement of the building as well as the traffic pattern; and agreed with the two Recommendation Items for a 10-foot setback on the east side yard instead of 50 feet and for the height of the light fixtures not exceeding 20 feet. The east side yard already had a 40-foot bermed landscape cover and the applicant would just be adding some more bushes and trees. Mr. Hirst added that the parking had been based on all retail occupancy, which was five spaces per 1,000 square feet; however, he anticipated that some of the space would have office use.

The site had two accesses, one off Broadway on the west in the center of the block; and the other off 13th Street on the south side. Broadway was not a long block and the City required a certain separation from both corners for the access. Currently, no driveways faced 13th Street on either side of the street; although the 13th Street entrance would face the sides of two of the four-plex units.

Businesses planned for the project would be neighborhood service types such as dry cleaners and insurance agencies. Because of the zoning, there would be no sit-down restaurants although the project could include a coffee or doughnut shop. The applicant had held a meeting with the Homeowners Association from Newberry Commons, and had made a few changes to alleviate some concerns; one of which had just changed. Because of the exit on 13th Street, cars’ headlights would face one of the neighboring building’s windows, he had obtained permission to do some additional planting on their property for screening. However, another neighbor had been concerned about privacy on her patio with the additional traffic, so the applicant then proposed putting in a privacy fence from the back of that building to the back of the next building. Newberry would subsequently maintain the fence as it would be on their property, and the fence would be put up in lieu of the additional landscape screening.

Following Mr. Hirst’s remarks, Vice Chair Christopher asked for staff comments.

Mr. Gorecki entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-14 into the record and reviewed staff’s two Recommendation Items. They recommended a UDO modification to allow for the 10-foot side setback, as well as the free standing light fixtures not exceed 20 feet in height from ground level to the highest point.

Vice Chair Christopher then asked if there was anyone else present wishing to give testimony, either for or in opposition to the application.

Ms. Christine Founts gave her address as 1337 SE Lexington Avenue in Newberry Commons, adding that she was also a member of the Board of Directors for their Homeowners Association and was present representing them. They had petitions that they would be presenting to the City Council. The residents’ concerns were lowering of property values, increased traffic, safety for children, a loss of community appeal, a perception of having been deceived as to the nature of the business to be located on the property, noise and inadequate roads for the additional traffic. One of their specific issues was the 13th Street entry, which faced directly onto one of the buildings and toward a large backyard common area that was a favorite play area for children. Ms. Founts noted that the City Council had recently approved parking on the south side of 13th Street, and the neighbors did not believe the street to be wide enough to accommodate both south side parking and two-way traffic. Increased traffic had also generated concerns about children’s safety, with the access being so close to their play area; specifically south of 13th Street between Broadway and Norwood. Regarding the lighting, Ms. Founts stated that there was more than enough, and they were asking changes be made to that, specifically dimming the lights by 50 percent between 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.

The homeowners were requesting that no entrance be on 13th Street; and were asking why the businesses to the north on Bailey Road were allowed to have entrance on that road but the proposed Bailey Center would not. Businesses in that neighborhood typically had main entrances on the main road, not the side road; and Lee’s Summit businesses often abutted residential areas from the back, with the side nearest the residences having a privacy fence and being used for loading and other non-public uses.

The neighbors also were asking that the City Council change the policy and allow no parking on 13th Street. They also preferred that a fence be added to the south side of the sidewalk, which Mr. Hirst had already agreed to do.

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

Ms. Funk asked if the applicant or staff could first address the concerns Ms. Founts had listed. She asked why the project would not have an entrance on Bailey Road. Referring to Mr. Jeff McKerrow’s Transportation Impact memo, Mr. Monter read the recommendation that “Access to the site should be provided off of the local streets in lieu of a direct connection to the collector”, namely Bailey Road. The trip generation for the site was estimated to be about 15 to 20 at peak hours. Ms. Funk then asked if it was accurate that allowing or not allowing on-street parking for 13th Street was not under the Planning Commission’s authority. Ms. Tyrrel answered that none of the staff present tonight was familiar with the on-street parking issue.

Vice Chair Christopher asked Mr. Monter if he had any concerns with the driveway being so close to Norwood. Mr. Monter replied that the application had been submitted before the Access Management Code was adopted, so the City could not require the plan to adhere to it. The access was based on the previous requirements in the UDO; and it met these requirements for distance from adjacent streets.

Vice Chair Christopher then asked if the proposed use was appropriate for the CP-1 zoning, and Mr. Gorecki answered that it was. The zoning was intended for neighborhood-type commercial uses. The zoning on the property had been changed from AG to CB on February 17, 2000, with the CB zoning designation being subsequently changed to CP-1 when the UDO was passed. Vice Chair Christopher asked if this was before or after the residential construction. Ms. Tyrrel answered that the sequence of commercial, multi-family and single-family (R-1) was approp-riate. Regarding the question about driveway spacing, she referred to Article 12 of the UDO on collector streets, which specified the distance as 100 feet. There would not be enough room on Bailey for that. On the local street (13th Street), the required distance was 20 feet between driveways and the spacing was adequate for that.

Vice Chair Christopher asked if there were further questions for applicant or staff. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing at 6:21 p.m. and asked for discussion among the Commission members, or for a motion.

Mr. Pycior made a motion to recommend approval of Application 2004-198, Preliminary Development Plan, 651-661 SE Bailey Road, Bailey Center, Hirst & Associates, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of November 5, 2004, specifically Recommendation Items 1 and 2. Ms. Funk seconded.

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

On motion of Mr. Pycior, seconded by Ms. Funk, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application 2004-198, Preliminary Development Plan, 651-661 SE Bailey Road, Bailey Center, Hirst & Associates, applic, subject to staff’s letter of November 5, 2004, specifically Recommendation Items 1 and 2.

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

3.  Public Hearing - Application #2004-214 – REZONING from PRO to PO and Application #2004-213 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, Reed Health Care Associates, 601 NW O’Brien Road; Hirst & Associates, applicant

Vice Chair Christopher opened the hearing at 6:23 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in by the court reporter.

Mr. Charles (Skip) Hirst, 621 NE Woods Chapel Road in Lee’s Summit, explained that this was part of Parkway Plaza, an ongoing project. It had been set up for office/retail and the complex went from Hwy. 50’s outer road over to O’Brien. Of the lots originally available there were only three not developed: one which faced O’Brien and two behind it to the south. The project would be a chiropractic office plus an additional rental space. This would be Phase 1; and Phase 2 would be a second building in the back part of the lot. Phase 2, however, was not part of the current application.

The rezoning, currently PRO, was actually being done at the City’s request. Mr. Hirst pointed out that the reference in “Project Information” to this being single-family residential was in error; “PRO” was Planned Residential/Office. The proposed “PO” zoning designation was actually Planned Office. Staff believed that PO would be a better fit with the UDO, and the applicant agreed that the proposed use would be a good fit as well. He had attempted to get the owner of the other two lots to also rezone; however, this owner had passed on; so that rezoning would have to be at a future time.

The only access was the driveway coming out on O’Brien. The property had an unusual number of easements going through it; some of them incorrectly designated and one of which the applicant was asking to be vacated. A sanitary sewer easement went diagonally across the property northeast-southwest from O’Brien; however the sewer was not actually in the ease-ment. The applicant had developed a building that would fit within the “envelope” created by the three different easements. He was asking to vacate the easement on the south side, which had nothing in it.

Regarding the Preliminary Development Plan, Mr. Hirst addressed the two Recommendation Items. The modification reducing the mandated 50-foot setback on the east to 20 feet mandated adding a medium-impact landscape buffer, which Mr. Hirst had agreed to do. This was shown on the plan. The second Recommendation Item granted a modification to the 100-foot curb cut distance between the driveway and Village Drive, reducing it to 35 feet. Village Drive did not come in at a place where a parking entrance could go without creating an S-curve into the area. This street had a rather limited access, going from the back of Pappi’s Pizza through the overpass over to John Knox Village.

Mr. Hirst emphasized that the project was appropriate for the City-proposed zoning and was well within the requirements for floor area ratio, impervious coverage and open space. The adjoining properties were R-1 north across O’Brien; PRO to the south in Parkway Plaza, PRO to the west with an office building on the property and R-1 to the east. He described the style of the building as the prairie-style design similar to what Hirst & Associates had done on Ralph Powell Road. A of the other buildings in Parkway had similar architecture.