PLANNING COMMISSION 6 October 23, 2007

LEE’S SUMMIT PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of Tuesday, October 23, 2007

The Tuesday, October 23, 2007, Lee’s Summit Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Christopher at 5:00 p.m., at City Council Chambers, 220 SE Green Street, Lee’s Summit, Missouri.

OPENING ROLL CALL:

Chairperson Stan Christopher Present Mr. Daren Fristoe Absent

Ms. Marcia Rosenquist Present Ms. Kathy Smith Present

Mr. John Reece Present Mr. Kurt Pycior Present

Mr. Michael Atcheson Present Mr. Allan Gray Present

Mr. Dave Mosby Present

Also present were Linda Tyrrel, Deputy Director, Planning and Development Department; Tom Scannell, Current Planning Division Manager; Christina Alexander, Staff Planner; Chris Hughey, Planning Technician; Jennifer Baird, Assistant City Attorney; Kent Monter, Development Engineering Manager; Michael Park, Senior Staff Engineer; and Kim Brennan, Administrative Secretary.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Chairperson Christopher asked for a motion to approve the agenda. On the motion of Ms. Rosenquist, seconded by Mr. Gray, the Planning Commission voted unanimously by voice vote to APPROVE the agenda.

1.  APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA

A.  Application #2007-196 – FINAL PLAT – Trails of Park Ridge, 1st Plat, Blocks 1-7 & Tracts A-1 – C-1; Trails of Park Ridge, LLC, applicant

B.  Minutes of the September 25, 2007 Planning Commission meeting

On the motion of Mr. Gray, seconded by Ms. Rosenquist, the Planning Commission voted by voice vote of seven “yes” and one “abstain” (Mr. Atcheson) to APPROVE the Consent Agenda, Item 1A-B as published.

2.  Application #2007-215 – SIGN APPLICATION – CVS New Longview, 3350 SW 3rd Street; Cedarwood Development, applicant

Mr. Doug Merritt gave his address as 632 North Mason Street in Mishawacka, Indiana. He related that CVS operated about 6,200 stores in 38 US states. This represented more than 40 years of CVS’ presence in the pharmacy industry, and pharmacy portion of the business accounted for about 68% of their revenue. CVS also offered amenities such as a drive-up windows, photo centers, a food shop and the new “minute clinic.” Some facilities had expanded hours, including 24-hour operations. CVS was expanding, both here and across the US, by both acquisition of existing stores and new construction.

Mr. Merritt displayed a slide of the original elevation detail of the sign that was originally proposed by Gale Communities earlier this year. He related that CVS gave careful consideration in planning a sign proposal for each respective store location. Assuring clear, legible, well-designed and well-placed signage was essential. The next slide showed the revised elevation detail shown in the Commissioners’ packets. It had been modified from what Gale Communities had originally shown the City, as CVS had selected this store as a Minute Clinic site.

This was a new component that CVS had introduced, as had a number of other stores. They were staffed by people who were able to diagnose and to write prescriptions when appropriate for a variety of common illnesses, for people from 18 months old on up. CVS had researched both markets and brand development, and so amenities were specific to sites. Both the drive-through pharmacy were to be offered at this locations, although they were not at all CVS stores. They wanted to work with the Commission to provide the best signage information for the facility. That included not only upgrades to the elevation details, but also a custom-ground sign that they did not have in any other location.

Following Mr. Merritt’s presentation, Chairperson Christopher asked for staff comments.

Mr. Hughey first stated that the applicant had done a thorough job in summarizing CVS and what the company was about. They were proposing a total of 19 signs for this building; consisting of one monument sign, 11 wall signs and 7 directional signs. This was the general pattern of most CVS developments throughout the Kansas City metro area. According to the UDO, the Planning Commission could grant modifications to the signage ordinance. Staff supported the application in practice and in principle; however, they would support only 13 of the proposed signs. These included the monument sign, 7 of the wall signs, and only 5 of the directional signs. They recommended approval of the application, provided that it included only the signs shown on the submittal of September 14th. These included signs B and B4A on the north elevation, B, B4 and B3 on the west elevation, the drive-through canopy sign B6 and only the exit portion of sign B7. Staff would be willing to allow this one to go up to 6 square feet as a directional sign. The directional signs that staff would approve included the entrance and exit signs (C1 and C2) at both entrance points and the C3 sign at the western entrance only, as well as the monument sign A1. Mr. Hughey referred the Commissioners to the renderings of each sign on page 2, as well as the information about square footage and locations.

Chairperson Christopher then opened the hearing to questions from the Commissioners.

Ms. Rosenquist asked how many signs were typically used for pharmacy businesses in the area. Mr. Hughey recalled one that had roughly 9 wall signs. Ms. Rosenquist then asked what the change was from the previous request, and Mr. Hughey answered that the number had increased slightly from the preliminary development plan. The monument sign had also been moved slightly, in order to incorporate it into the look of the parking lot screen wall. The directional signs had not been shown on the original preliminary development plan, but staff had stated in that letter that all signs must conform to UDO requirements.

Ms. Rosenquist recalled another business in the same project had requested additional wall signs and the Commission had denied them, and they were not nearly as excessive as the current application’s. She wanted to know what the Commission typically did. Mr. Hughey said that most other businesses had been following the UDO standard of three signs. Ms. Rosenquist noted that in that case, this should be viewed as a modification to the UDO. Mr. Hughey said that it would rather be approval of the application with modifications. Ms. Rosenquist believed that if they were going to allow more signs than the UDO indicated, it would be a modification rather than approval of the package, and Mr. Scannell explained that the way the UDO was set up, it was not a modification but Commission approval of the number of signs. The UDO had a provision for the Commission approving a sign package, and in this context it would not be considered a modification.

Mr. Pycior asked what business Ms. Rosenquist had been referring to with the earlier application, and Mr. Gray thought it was State Farm Insurance. Ms. Rosenquist recalled that the Commission had approved some of those signs, but not all. Mr. Monter stated that according to Ms. Tyrrel, they had approved them all. Nevertheless, Ms. Rosenquist pointed out, it was not this many. Mr. Scannell recalled it was four or five signs. They had emblems and the State Farm logo, and there was a sign in the back parking lot directing customers to the front of the store.

Mr. Pycior recalled that staff had recommended denial of that application, and Mr. Scannell recalled staff had wanted to deny the two additional signs. They were all right with three, but not five. Mr. Pycior asked why, in that case, they were all right with 13. Mr. Hughey answered that technically, under the UDO an applicant was allowed as many directional signs as were needed. Staff thought the monument sign incorporated the look and materials into its surroundings very well, and the additional wall signs were a general practice of this particular business. He had not been on the City staff for the previous application, but assumed that this many signs was the standard practice of this particular company. He acknowledged that a second look probably would have been in order.

Mr. Scannell added that what made this application different from the State Farm application was that even though this was one business, it had multiple sub-businesses within the same building. Staff had looked at it in that light, and felt there was a need for additional signs although not the number the applicant was asking for.

Mr. Atcheson commented that the standard language in business districts other than PMIX indicated a maximum square footage for wall signs that were not to exceed more than 10% of the façade’s square footage. He was more concerned about that, remarking that there was nothing wrong with several wall signs if they fit and the percentage was given as 7%. That meant they were not exceeding what was done in any other district in that regard, and since this was a PMIX district the Commission had a great deal of latitude. Chairperson Christopher asked him if that meant he agreed with staff’s recommendation, and Mr. Atcheson answered that he did.

Mr. Gray asked how this compared to the number of signs put up in similar districts. Mr. Merritt replied that he had reviewed the sign program at 1901 Langford and the signage at Walgreen’s out at Langford and Todd George. It was somewhat similar in that there was more than one wall sign per façade. However, the CVS at that intersection was a conversion of a building that had been an Osco. The new project at Longview represented a much larger investment and would be a new store with increased aesthetic appeal. It would also be the only CVS with a Minute Clinic. He emphasized that it was important to them to be able to get in the drive-through pharmacy and Minute Clinic in the new building. There would be increased traffic coming in specifically for these services, and this was the prototypical sign program they were using across the country.

Ms. Rosenquist agreed with Mr. Atcheson’s remarks about the 10% rule, and commented that the two signs showing “CVS” and “Pharmacy” looked good. There were two entry and two exit signs, and that seemed appropriate. There were two Minute Clinic signs on two different sides, but then there were four that all pointed to the drive-through. She asked if they needed four directional signs for something that was already sticking out of the building with a drive-through window on it. Mr. Hughey replied that the Minute Clinic was a fairly new sub-business. They agreed with the façade sides but did think the drive-through pharmacy signs were a bit overused. In two locations, the drive-through pharmacy window was quite visible from the location of the sign. Staff did support one directional sign for the drive-through pharmacy that was at a location where the drive-through was not visible from the roadway.

Ms. Rosenquist then listed the signs: two Minute Clinic signs, four drive-through signs, two for the pharmacy and one for the photo service, two entrance signs and two exit signs. She asked if in addition to all these signs they still needed four signs for the pharmacy drive-through on that one site.

Mr. Merritt returned to the podium and stated that CVS wanted to be a good corporate citizen. He remarked that he did have the opportunity to talk directly to CVS about the number of pharmacy signs. He was given some latitude, and they were mainly focused on the façade and the main elevation. He emphasized that the height of the sign near the drive-through at the rear of the building made it more a directional sign than an advertisement, but he did not oppose striking it from the plan.

Chairperson Christopher asked if how close they were to agreement with staff’s report and recommendation, and Mr. Merritt answered they were fairly close, but there were some issues that he wanted to bring up. The drive-through pharmacy sign on the north Third Street elevation (B2A) and the drive-through pharmacy sign on the Longview Boulevard side (B2), both wall signs, were something CVS specifically wanted to keep.

Ms. Rosenquist remarked that he was wanting to keep two signs that staff had recommended not to approve. Chairperson Christopher said there were two “B2” signs, one on the west and one on the south. Mr. Merritt said they did not have a problem eliminating the one on the south. Chairperson Christopher listed sign B2 on the south, B5 on the east side, and the two directional signs and Mr. Merritt agreed that these were the ones they had no objection to eliminating.

Mr. Reece noted that directional signs, especially entrance and exit signs, were a safety aspect; and asked if staff had taken that into consideration. Mr. Hughey said that staff did see the entrance/exit signs as a good directional aid to ensure people being clear about keeping on the right in entering and exiting. This was a common practice so staff was very amenable to those.

Mr. Atcheson thought staff had done a good job on working their way through this application, although he thought it rather silly to put “drive through pharmacy” up on the building itself. He could not think of a new pharmacy nowadays that did not have a drive-through so they weren’t something people would not think to look for. He was in favor of going with what staff had recommended.

Mr. Hughey added that Mr. Park had informed him that traffic would be all right with the entrance/exit sign taken out. A two-way entrance and exit did not necessarily need signs posted to identify it; and staff did not see a practical reason to add to the sign clutter there. They did not want it to look like a “sign corridor” leading in and out of a business; and further, extraneous signs could be a distraction from the attention-getting properties of more essential ones.

Chairperson Christopher asked Mr. Merritt which of the drive-through pharmacy signs he would rather have, and Mr. Merritt answered that they would prefer to keep the bigger ones. Chairperson Christopher reminded him that the one on the north façade would get close to the 10% limit but that might be the most important one. Mr. Merritt confirmed that if they were going to keep just one, it would be that one on the north elevation.