19

PLANNING COMMISSION January 27, 2004

LEE’S SUMMIT PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of Tuesday, January 27, 2004

The Tuesday, January 27, 2004, Lee’s Summit Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Trainer, at 6:02 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. Fristoe Present Mr. Pycior Present

Mr. Atcheson Present Mr. Tranchilla Present

Also present were Linda Tyrrel, Assistant Director, Planning and Development Department; Michael Gorecki, Senior Planner; Tom Scannell, Senior Planner; Hector Soto, Planner; Rich Wood, Assistant City Attorney; Kent Monter, Development Engineering Manager; Tom Peterson, Senior Staff Engineer; and Suzan Seay, Administrative Secretary.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

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

1.  APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA

A.  Application #2003-304 – VACATION OF EASEMENT - Revised Plat of Villas at Summit Ridge; Reveda Development, LLC, applicant

B.  Minutes of the January 13, 2004 Planning Commission meeting

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

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

As the applicant for Item 2, Application 2003-197 and 2003-198 was not present, Chairperson Trainer stated that the other applications would be heard first.

3.  Public Hearing - Application #2003-261 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 3410 NE Ralph Powell Road, Chapel Ridge Business Park, Lot 4-G; Sharon Oldham for Lakewood Skin Care Clinic & Spa, applicant

Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 6:04 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in by the court reporter.

Mr. David Greer of Greer Architecture gave his address as 5711 Cottonwood in Shawnee, Kansas and stated that he was present on behalf of the applicant, Sharon Oldham. The new building would be approximately 5,300 square feet and would house a spa occupying 3,800 square feet with the balance being leasable tenant space. The current design had stone wainscoting on the exterior with cementboard siding and a composition shingle roof. Referring to the building and roofing materials mentioned in Recommendation Item 1, Mr. Greer indicated that the applicant was willing to change the materials to stucco, which would look like EIFS. However, EIFS did have problems including mold buildup. Mr. Greer commented that many contractors had trouble getting insurance to cover it; consequently, they preferred to use stucco. He confirmed with Chairperson Trainer that his remarks referred to Item 1.

Concerning the roofing material, Mr. Greer read an excerpt from the design guidelines:

“(Article 3) D. The roof materials and roofline composition shall be consistent and compatible with the development design and comprise an integral part of the individual building design. The following are acceptable roof materials: earth tone colored wood, cedar shakes, clay tile, concrete tile, slate or other composition approved.”

Mr. Greer interpreted this as meaning that the material was acceptable if it matched that used on other roofs within the development. Two of these buildings had composition shingle roofs, the Comfort Inn and the Golf Course Clubhouse. He also pointed out that there was no statement that composition roofs were not allowed. Mr. Greer added that this would not be a cheap shingle roof but a Timberline style with an appearance similar to shakes, and with a 40-year life expectancy.

Referring to the screening in Recommendation Item 2, Mr. Greer pointed out that the plan showed a 2.5-foot berm around the parking lot with landscaping on top of it. He assured the Commission that the applicant would provide the appropriate height for the junipers around the mechanical equipment as indicated in Item 3.

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

Mr. Scannell related that changing the building material to EIFS would be acceptable to staff. He explained that in 1999 when the rezoning was done, the Design Criteria Handbook’s chapter on business park design specified that concrete tile was the only acceptable roofing material. This was predominant throughout that subdivision, despite the exceptions Mr. Greer had mentioned. Mr. Scannell then entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-15 into the record.

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 for staff.

Ms. Funk asked Mr. Scannell if the Design Handbook had been amended to allow composition roofs. Mr. Scannell explained that he was referring to the Handbook that was submitted as part of the rezoning packet in 1999. Concerning the Golf Course Clubhouse and the Comfort Inn, he was not sure why their roof materials were an exception. Ms. Funk then asked about the applicant’s objections to EIFS, although it was acceptable to staff; and Mr. Scannell said that stucco was fine.

Following up on Ms. Funk’s roof material question, Mr. Pycior asked if all the subdivision lots were rezoned in 1999. Mr. Scannell answered that they submitted a rezoning and site plan for the second phase of Chapel Ridge. That was basically everything south of Custer Court, the cul-de-sac on the west side of Ralph Powell Road. The property from Custer to Strother Road was rezoned C-P. The applicants had provided a handbook listing the criteria for building materials including roofing materials and items such as landscaping. Mr. Pycior asked if that rezoning included the Clubhouse and Comfort Inn, and Mr. Scannell answered that they were built before that.

Chairperson Trainer closed the public hearing, at 6:13 p.m. However, as Mr. Greer asked to make further comments, she re-opened it.

Mr. Greer stated that his copy of the Design Criteria Handbook was dated October 14, 2002, pointing out that this was more up to date than Mr. Scannell’s copy. It was stamped from the Director of Records in Jackson County. Mr. Wood stated that if amendments occurred in the handbook, which was approved by ordinance in 1999, they were apparently not approved by ordinance; consequently, the 1999 version was the only one approved by ordinance. Mr. Greer asked if that could be done, since it was amended by the County. Mr. Wood said that, apparently, the document the applicant had was a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCRs). That was quite separate from what staff was referring to, which was the Chapel Ridge Business Park Development Criteria Handbook.

Mr. Pycior asked if this meant that the Commission did not consider the CCRs at all. Mr. Wood answered that they could, if they considered it relevant to the application. Mr. Pycior remarked that it seemed extremely relevant. Ms. Tyrrel added that staff did not have a copy of those covenants.

Ms. Rosenquist remarked that staff typically went with design criteria; and then asked how the additional controls would relate to the I-470 corridor. Mr. Scannell replied that in Article 7 of the UDO, the design standards regulated only exterior building materials and did not address roofing materials. Consequently, what was provided in the handbook was more extensive than what the ordinance specified.

Mr. Christopher asked if it was correct that the Commission could override the design handbook with the CCR specifications. Mr. Wood responded that the Commission could recommend that the City Council amend its previous ordinance to either do away with the regulations or change them as they applied to this property. Mr. Christopher remarked that to do that, the Commissioners would have to see the ordinance and handbook; and Mr. Scannell explained that the copies he made for this hearing were not a complete set. They contained only the portions relevant to building and roofing materials.

Ms. Rosenquist remarked that the City had stayed with more restrictive guidelines with I-470 and other major highway corridors. The Clubhouse that Mr. Greer had mentioned was far enough from I-470 that it could not be seen from that highway.

Mr. Pycior asked if staff’s recommendations might be different if they had the CCR on file and had reviewed it. Mr. Scannell acknowledged that they might be. However, as they did not, they had used the handbook as the standard. Mr. Greer returned to the podium and commented that the proposed development did not abut I-470 either. It was on the west side of Ralph Powell Road; and other buildings blocked the view from I-470. Factory Direct, a very sizable building, was directly across the street.

Ms. Tyrrel added that the City had an ordinance granting the zoning, to which the handbook was attached. Staff had an obligation to uphold that previous ordinance, regardless of what changes had been made to the covenants, unless the applicants made a request during meetings to change those restrictions on all the lots. It made less sense to change them on one lot. Mr. Wood added that the 1999 ordinance said, “the property shall be developed in accordance with the handbook” [italics added], so at this point, all that staff could do was to ensure that the development conformed to that.

Chairperson Trainer asked if there were further questions for applicant or staff. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing at 6:22 p.m. and asked if there was discussion among the Commission members.

Mr. Pycior said that he was not comfortable with changing staff’s recommendation. Things might have changed from the pre-application meeting till the present if staff had the ability to look at the CCRs. He did believe that staff needed to do some research on whether the outcome would be different before the City Council meeting. If it was, this was relevant and needed to be addressed. Chairperson Trainer agreed.

Ms. Rosenquist also agreed with Mr. Pycior’s statement. She recalled that it was partially the handbook that secured the zoning. Ms. Rosenquist also noted in paragraph two of the Analysis (pg. 2) the statement that the materials did not comply with the handbook or the UDO. That would mean a major modification.

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

Ms. Funk made a motion to recommend approval of Application 2003-261, Preliminary Development Plan, 3410 NE Ralph Powell Road, Chapel Ridge Business Park, Lot 4-G; Sharon Oldham for Lakewood Skin Care Clinic & Spa, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of January 23, 2004, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 3. Ms. Rosenquist 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 Ms. Rosenquist, the Planning Commission members voted by voice vote of seven “yes” (Chairperson Trainer, Ms. Rosenquist, Mr. Fristoe, Mr. Atcheson, Ms. Funk, Mr. Pycior and Mr. Tranchilla) and one “abstain” (Mr. Christopher) to recommend APPROVAL of Application 2003-261, Preliminary Development Plan, 3410 NE Ralph Powell Road, Chapel Ridge Business Park, Lot 4-G; Sharon Oldham for Lakewood Skin Care Clinic & Spa, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of January 23, 2004, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 3.

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

4.  Public Hearing - Application #2003-279 - REZONING from BP to PI-1 and Application #2003-280 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 3025 SE Clover Dr., Shamrock Park, Lot 7; Missouri Gas Energy, applicant

Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 6:27 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in by the court reporter.

Mr. Terry Chapman of 2412 71st Street, in Prairie Village, Kansas, was representing Missouri Gas Energy (MGE). He explained that MGE proposed to move its operating maintenance facility to the subject tract. Mr. Chapman had been given an additional Recommendation Item 6, reading:

“The use of the property shall be limited to the use as a utility office/service facility as shown on the preliminary development plan. Any redevelopment or change in use of the property shall require approval of a revised preliminary development plan with full public hearings before the Planning Commission and City. Council.”

He stated that neither he nor MGE had any problem agreeing to that recommendation. Chairperson Trainer asked if he agreed with Recommendation Items 1 through 5 and he replied that he did.

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

Mr. Gorecki entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-18 into the record and stated that staff recommended approval of the rezoning and preliminary development plan subject to the original five and one added Recommendation Items. The UDO modification in Item 1 would allow a ribbed metal panel wall on the east rear building side and would allow the existing natural vegetation on the south and east property line to serve in lieu of the required buffer screen. If channeling the runoff from Lot 7 of Shamrock Park modified this buffer, a high-impact landscape buffer screen would need to be installed. Item 2 provided that a low impact landscape buffer screen be provided along the north property line. Item 3 said that all roofs would be standing seam metal and Item 4 required either a final plat for Shamrock Park 2nd plat or minor plat for the subject lot would be submitted and recorded for a building permit to be issued. Item 5 mandated constructing Clover Drive to the north plat boundary. The added item 6 restricted the property use to that on the current preliminary development plan. Any change in use would require another preliminary development plan.