LEE’S SUMMIT PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of Tuesday, December 14, 2010
The Tuesday, December 14, 2010, Lee’s Summit Planning Commission meeting was called to
order by Chairperson Fristoe at 5:00 p.m., at City Council Chambers, 220 SE Green Street,
Lee’s Summit, Missouri.
OPENING ROLL CALL:
Chairperson Daren Fristoe
Mr. Fred Delibero
Mr. Steven Hilger
Mr. Jason Norbury
Ms. Cecily Pickering
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Absent
Mr. Kurt Pycior
Mr. John Reece
Ms. Colene Roberts
Ms. Kathy Smith
Present
Present
Present
Present
Also present were Robert McKay, Director, Planning and Development Department; Linda
Tyrrel, Deputy Director, Planning and Development Department; Chris Hughey, Staff Planner;
Hector Soto, Senior Planner; Christina Alexander, Staff Planner; Kent Monter, Development
Engineering Manager; John Mautino, Deputy City Attorney; Michael Park, City Traffic Engineer;
and Kim Brennan, Administrative Assistant.
1.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
A.
Minutes of the November 23, 2010 Planning Commission meeting
B.
Application #PL2010-011 – SIGN APPLICATION for monument sign – Lee’s
Summit Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram, 1051 SE Oldham Pkwy.; Acme Sign,
applicant
On the motion of Mr. Reece, seconded by Ms. Smith, the Planning Commission voted
unanimously by voice vote to APPROVE the Consent Agenda, Item 1A-B as published.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Chairperson Fristoe announced that for administrative purposes, Item 7 under “Other Agenda
Items”, Application 2010-062, would be moved to follow Item 2 as it concerned the same
project. On the motion of Mr. Reece, seconded by Ms. Smith, the Planning Commission voted
unanimously by voice vote to APPROVE the agenda as modified.
PLANNING COMMISSION
1
DECEMBER 14, 2010
2.
PUBLIC HEARING - Continued Application #2010-060 – PRELIMINARY
DEVELOPMENT PLAN – Benton House Senior Housing, 2160 SE Blue Parkway;
Principal Senior Living Group, applicant, and CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN –
Magnolia Place; Richard Link, applicant; and Application #2010-061 – SPECIAL USE
PERMIT for retirement home (assisted living) in CP-2 – Benton House Senior Housing,
2160 SE Blue Parkway; Principal Senior Living Group, applicant
Chairperson Fristoe opened the hearing at 5:03 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or
provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in.
Mr. Kyle Deikmann of Principal Senior Living Group gave his address as 1728 Blue Heron Drive
in Lee’s Summit. He and his business partner together had over 60 years of experience in the
senior living industry and had been involved with over 200 facilities across the United States.
They were proposing a 59-unit assisted living facility. “Assisted living” was defined as living
arrangements for older adults who needed some assistance with daily living but did not need
the level of medical assistance provided by a nursing home. Mr. Deikmann displayed Power
Point slides with his presentation.
The proposed location was next to the Lee’s Summit Medical Center to the east, facing Blue
Parkway. It was 3.86 acres. The building was a prototype that they had developed over the
years, and it had been very successful. A slide showed the exterior of a similar project recently
completed in Georgia. It had an upscale appearance, avoiding the image of a step down from
where a resident had been living previously; and a residential atmosphere. Mr. Deikmann
pointed out some of the distinctive features including a ‘rocking chair porch’ on the front. The
design had a fairly small footprint and was one story. The main common areas were down the
center, keeping the distance from apartments to the common areas at less than 100 feet. Mr.
Deikmann then pointed out a lavender colored section of the floor plan at the top left, identifying
this as the “Memory Care” section for residents with Alzheimer’s and other memory
impairments.
In common areas, as with the rest of the development, they aimed for an upscale, residential
atmosphere rather than an institutional environment. The following slides displayed the lobby
that visitors saw when first entering, a kitchen that would be available to residents for their use,
and a dining room that served three meals a day. A private dining room could be reserved by
residents to host family or friends. Other common area was the media room, where people
could gather to watch movies or sports events. Two inside courtyards were landscaped with
fountains and small patios opening up to the courtyard.
Mr. Deikmann then displayed examples of living units, noting that residents brought their own
furnishings. Four different floor plans were available, for both studios and one-bedroom
apartments. Another slide showed examples of living units in the Memory Care section, and Mr.
Deikmann stated that they had worked with geriatric physicians to create an optimal living
environment. Residents had their own courtyard.
The development would provide a bus for residents to get around town, as few residents in
assisted living drove their own cars.
PLANNING COMMISSION
2
DECEMBER 14, 2010
Mr. Deikmann summarized that the development was very low-impact, had clean-looking,
attractive landscaping and very little traffic. The largest staff was 12 people; and the
development had little to no impact on schools, transportation or police service. Additionally, it
would create 25 to 30 new jobs, and the project would reflect about $8 million being invested in
the community at large.
Next, Mr. Dave Meyer of Heise-Meyer Real Estate stated that they represented Mr. and Mrs.
Richard and Deb Link, the sellers and applicants. They had been working with Mr. Deikmann
and City staff for about six months in developing a conceptual plan that would work well for the
area and complement the hospital nearby. This property had formerly been considered a retail
site; an assisted living project would fit in well with the hospital development and it now had less
potential value for retail. Mr. Meyer then summarized the current proposed uses for the
property. They were planning garden-style office buildings at the upper left corner at the
northwest part of the property, and an independent living project at the northeast corner. There
would be additional offices in the southeast corner. Over the past six months, the applicants
had also attended a City Council work session that the neighbors had attended at which they
expressed concerns about traffic along Shenandoah. He and Mr. Deikmann had met with the
neighbors and showed them their plans, and they felt that they did have neighborhood support,
although there were still concerns over traffic. They intended to minimize the amount of traffic
created by having a good mix with the nearby hospital project; and it would have a low impact in
terms of density.
Finally, Mr. Richard Link gave his address as 416 NE Bittercreek Road in Lee's Summit, and
addressed staff's ten Recommendation Items. Concerning Items 2 and 6, they preferred to
name the street going through the project from Blue Parkway to Shenandoah Drive to “SE Pine
Drive,” and keep its identity. Staff had recommended a change from “SE Pine Drive” to “Battery
Drive”, and Battery was a short residential street about 800 feet long that crossed Shenandoah
Drive. Concerning Item 7, they did not have a problem with the setback along Shenandoah, as
the plan showed the buildings set back about 50 feet.
Mr. Link stated the applicants had an issue with removal of the western driveway along
Shenandoah Drive (Item 8). They had already met with a medical office developer interested in
pursuing that concept, though they were not in a position to move forward immediately due to
the present climate of uncertain financing. As with most offices, medical office development
required pre-sales and pre-lease commitment for about 90 percent of the space before
financing. The potential developer had told them that this second access at the west would be
critical for parking. Mr. Link pointed out this area at the top northwest corner of the displayed
plan. They originally had three outlets onto Shenandoah Drive and these had met the City's
access requirements for separation. They were limiting the accesses to two, at staff's request.
However, they felt that keeping that secondary drive was critical for this project. Mr. Link added
that SE Pine Drive was a city street and would meet all the requirements for that. The
applicants had no other problems with staff's Recommendation Items.
Following this presentation, Chairperson Fristoe asked for staff comments.
Ms. Alexander entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-20 into the record. She related that the
application was a preliminary development plan and Special Use Permit (SUP) for the Benton
House assisted living facility. The preliminary development plan showed two phases. The plan
they had just presented, at 38,820 square feet, was Phase 1; and Phase 2 would add 18 beds
PLANNING COMMISSION
3
DECEMBER 14, 2010
for the memory care unit, with 10,000 square feet. Noting the modification to parking
requirements in Recommendation Item 3, Ms. Alexander explained that the requirement was for
one space for every two residential units and one per employee at the maximum shift level. For
this development that would total 60 spaces. However, that went down to 42 spaces when the
number of memory care patients, who would not be driving, was factored in. Staff had taken
this into consideration as well as the applicants' expertise in previous developments.
Ms. Alexander then explained that the conceptual development plan for Magnolia Place at
Charleston Park was in compliance with the requirement to give an overview of how the
remaining vacant property could be developed. The entire site had formerly had a development
plan; however, with the hospital and other subsequent developments it was no longer suitable.
The conceptual plan would provide a larger picture of what the whole property would look like in
future years. At that point, a preliminary development plan would have to be approved.
Ms. Alexander then read the ten Recommendation Items. Concerning Item 2 (and Item 6) Ms.
Alexander displayed a slide of the surrounding streets and pointed out on a displayed slide
where Battery Drive was located, noting a few jogs here and there. City staff, including Fire and
Police, preferred to keep the name consistent in the interest of emergency vehicles finding it
easily. Concerning Item 8 (for the Conceptual Development Plan), this reflected a concern
about traffic along Shenandoah.
Following Ms. Alexander’s comments, Chairperson Fristoe asked if there was anyone present
wishing to give testimony, either in support for or opposition to the application. Seeing none, he
then opened the hearing for questions for the applicant or staff.
Mr. Norbury asked if the 20-foot setback in Item 7 was a minimum setback, and Ms. Alexander
answered that it was, for the CP-2 zoning district.
Mr. Pycior asked how the City would enforce the parking provisions as indicated by the
modification to allow 45 spaces. He was concerned about the situation should the use
eventually change, especially when the conceptual plan went through. Ms. Alexander
acknowledged that she could only go by the current plan; however, should the development
plan change staff would need to re-evaluate the parking in terms of proposed use. If more
parking spaces were needed, about 66 feet was available from the property line to the edge of
the building on the western side. Any change in use would have to come back through Planning
and Development for approval.
Concerning the western drive, Mr. Reece asked for some details about why it should be
removed. He remarked that once the office complex was built, a single driveway would have a
lot of traffic. Mr. Michael Park acknowledged that the applicant's proposed location would
comply with Access Management Code requirements. The Recommendation Item reflected
concerns expressed by residents to the north of Shenandoah Drive. Closing the driveway
would reduce the amount of traffic directed to that road. Mr. Reece asked how drivers would
get in and out once the rest of the property was developed. Mr. Park answered that the access
would be from the proposed new public street between Shenandoah Drive and Blue Parkway.
Mr. Reece then asked for some details about sewer improvements. Mr. Monter related that the
sanitary sewer was located in the upper part of the watershed. Further downstream, where the
system's capacity could be strained by major rain events, was a 400-foot section of pipe that the
PLANNING COMMISSION
4
DECEMBER 14, 2010
developer was required to replace as part of the first phase. City staff was interested in
discussing with them the possibility of upgrading the pipe to maximum size.
Mr. Norbury asked Mr. Park for some details about what difference removing the western
driveway would make for traffic flow. While he understood the citizens' concerns with traffic flow
in and out of multiple accesses, a driver approaching the development from Shenandoah was
approaching it from that particular street regardless of the entrance they used. Mr. Park
acknowledged that there might not be a significant difference. However, there was still the
perception of individuals living across the road as to whether the headlights were coming out of
that driveway or other, multiple locations. He believed that this was a factor in the Planning
Department's recommendation.
Mr. Pycior asked where else an applicant had done a conceptual development plan and then
pieced in the preliminary development plan. Ms. Linda Tyrrel answered that to the best of her
knowledge the only other example was New Longview. This was a massive development, and
they were not ready to do a preliminary development plan on the whole thing at once so they
had submitted a conceptual development plan. This had been followed by preliminary
development plans for each phase. The UDO required a preliminary development plan for a
rezoning, and many developers over the past decade had wanted to get commercial zoning for
their property but were not really ready to submit a plan. In these cases, they often turned in
plans that were not very realistic. The provision for a conceptual development plan allowed City
staff to take a look at basic elements such as street layout and maximum square footage. The
Planning Commission would still be able to look at the details during the public hearing process,
and with a conceptual plan an applicant could get the needed zoning and get their project
moving. With tonight's conceptual plan, the City had not required a traffic study; however, when
the preliminary development plan came through for the next phase there would be enough
square footage to require such a study.
Mr. Pycior asked if it was correct that any changes to the plan for the still-undeveloped portion
of the property would have to be approved by staff and the Planning Commission. Ms. Tyrrel
answered that it would have to go through the public hearing process even if there were no
changes.
Ms. Smith observed that this was a heavily-used area, with a lot of children playing or bikes.
That was one of the residents' concerns about the extra driveway.
Chairperson Fristoe asked if there were further questions for the applicant or staff. Hearing
none, he closed the public hearing at 5:32 p.m. and asked for discussion among the
Commission members, or for a motion.
Mr. Pycior made a motion to recommend approval of continued Application 2010-060,
Preliminary Development Plan, Benton House Senior Housing, 2160 SE Blue Parkway;
Principal Senior Living Group, applicant and Conceptual Development Plan, Magnolia Place;
Richard Link, applicant; and Application 2010-061, Special Use Permit for retirement home
(assisted living) in CP-2: Benton House Senior Housing, 2160 SE Blue Parkway; Principal
Senior Living Group, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of December 10, 2010, specifically
Recommendation Items 1 through 10; with Item 3 being modified to read “a modification shall be
granted to the number of parking spaces to allow for 45 instead of the required 60 spaces; given
PLANNING COMMISSION
5
DECEMBER 14, 2010
that the use of the development stays consistent and the Special Use Permit is in effect.” Ms.
Smith seconded.
Chairperson Fristoe asked if there was any discussion of the motion. Hearing none, he called
for a vote.
On the motion of Mr. Pycior, seconded by Ms. Smith, the Planning Commission members voted
unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of continued Application 2010-060,
Preliminary Development Plan, Benton House Senior Housing, 2160 SE Blue Parkway;
Principal Senior Living Group, applicant and Conceptual Development Plan, Magnolia Place;
Richard Link, applicant; and Application 2010-061, Special Use Permit for retirement home
(assisted living) in CP-2: Benton House Senior Housing, 2160 SE Blue Parkway; Principal
Senior Living Group, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of December 10, 2010, specifically
Recommendation Items 1 through 10, with Item 3 modified as stated.
(The foregoing is a digest of the secretary’s notes of the public hearing. The transcript may be
obtained.)
7.
Application #2010-062 – PRELIMINARY PLAT – Magnolia Place at Charleston Park,
Lots 1-9 & Tracts A & B; Richard Link, applicant
Mr. Richard Link, whose address was 416 NE Bittercreek Drive, stated that his testimony in the
previous hearing applied to the Preliminary Plat.
Ms. Alexander stated that this application was the preliminary plat for the nine lots and two
tracts pertaining to the conceptual development plan for Magnolia Place. Staff recommended
approval, subject to the two Recommendation Items in their December 10, 2010 letter.
Hearing no discussion, Chairperson Fristoe called for a motion.
Mr. Pycior made a motion to recommend approval of Application 2010-062, Preliminary Plat,
Magnolia Place at Charleston Park, Lots 1-9 & Tracts A & B; Richard Link, applicant; subject to
staff’s letter of December 10, 2010, Recommendation Items 1 and 2. Mr. Reece seconded.
Chairperson Fristoe asked if there was any discussion of the motion. Hearing none, he called
for a vote.
On the motion of Mr. Pycior, seconded by Mr. Reece, the Planning Commission members voted
unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application 2010-062, Preliminary
Plat, Magnolia Place at Charleston Park, Lots 1-9 & Tracts A & B; Richard Link, applicant;
subject to staff’s letter of December 10, 2010, Recommendation Items 1 and 2.
PLANNING COMMISSION
6
DECEMBER 14, 2010
3.
PUBLIC HEARING - Application #2010-063 – SPECIAL USE PERMIT renewal for
asphalt plant – Superior Asphalt Company, 2400 NW Quarry Park Road; Superior
Asphalt Company, applicant
Chairperson Fristoe opened the hearing at 5:35 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or
provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in.
Mr. Pete Heaven, of the Lathrop and Gage law firm, gave his address as 10851 Mastin
Boulevard in Overland Park, Kansas. He represented the applicant, Superior Asphalt
Company, which was a subsidiary of Clarkston Construction Company. The asphalt plant had
been doing business in Lee's Summit for about 40 years. It was about 2/3 of a mile west of M350 and just north of I-470 (about 1/5 mile). Tonight's application was for renewal of the Special
Use Permit originally granted in 1970. It would expire in 2013, but they wanted to use the new
technology available to make some modifications to their operation, and for that reason wanted
a 20-year extension. They anticipated capital expenditures of over $5 million; and they wanted
the extended time in order to get financing. Mr. Heaven pointed out that the company had a 40year history at the location, during which they had been willing to work closely with neighbors.
During the hearings for the SUP's 10-year renewal in 2003, some citizens had expressed
concerns and the company had addressed all of those. They'd had no complaints over the
past 7 years. They were requesting a renewal of 20 years.
Following Mr. Heaven’s presentation, Chairperson Fristoe asked for staff comments.
Mr. Soto entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-16 into the record. He confirmed that the Special
Use Permit renewal was for the asphalt plant, which had originally been granted an SUP about
40 years ago. The use of the property had stayed the same and they were not planning any
expansion. However, they were now planning some significant capital investments, which was
the reason for the early application for renewal. Usually staff would recommend a ten-year
period; but in previous applications involving significant investments they had supported longer
periods. In similar SUP applications, the Planning Commission and City Council had also
supported longer periods. Staff recommended (Recommendation Item 1) that the 20-year SUP
not go into effect until the current one had expired on April 17, 2013.
Following Mr. Soto’s comments, Chairperson Fristoe asked if there was anyone present wishing
to give testimony, either in support for or opposition to the application. Seeing none, he then
asked if the Commission had questions for the applicant or staff.
Ms. Smith asked what the improvements were. Mr. Heaven replied that they were planning a
new plant, which would cost most of the $5 million, although they would also be making some
site improvements around it. They would be taking advantage of technology that had not been
available 10 or 15 years ago.
Mr. Reece asked if the project would increase production capabilities at the plant; and Mr.
Heaven answered that it would not. The intensity of the use for the property would not increase.
Mr. Pycior noted that including the delay in starting the new 20-year SUP, the business would
essentially have a 23-year permit. He asked what the reasoning behind that approach was. Mr.
PLANNING COMMISSION
7
DECEMBER 14, 2010
Soto replied that one thing staff had considered was that the applicants’ previous permit did
allow them to operate until it expired in another three years, and they did not have a problem
renewing the SUP in advance and letting the current one expire on schedule. However, the
Commission could choose to amend that and set the expiration date for 20 years from now,
should the City Council approve the renewal. Mr. Heaven related that the new plant would take
considerable advanced planning, so they wanted to get an edge on the expiration date of the
current permit. That was about the date they would expect the new plant to be online.
Mr. Reece asked Mr. Soto if the business would be prohibited from making the changes under
the current Special Use Permit. Mr. Soto answered that they would not, although in an
expansion of the facility they would have to apply for a new permit. Mr. Reece stated that the
current permit would not hinder them from starting the improvements, and Mr. Soto said this
was correct.
Chairperson Fristoe asked if there were further questions for the applicant or staff. Hearing
none, he closed the public hearing at 5:42 p.m. and asked for discussion among the
Commission members, or for a motion.
Mr. Pycior made a motion to recommend approval of Application 2010-063, Special Use Permit
renewal for asphalt plant, Superior Asphalt Company, 2400 NW Quarry Park Road; Superior
Asphalt Company applicant; subject to staff’s letter of December 10, 2010, specifically
Recommendation Item 1, allowing for a 20-year Special Use Permit for the period April 17, 2013
to April 17, 2033. Mr. Delibero seconded.
Chairperson Fristoe asked if there was any discussion of the motion. Hearing none, he called
for a vote.
On the motion of Mr. Pycior, seconded by Mr. Delibero, the Planning Commission members
voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application 2010-063, Special
Use Permit renewal for asphalt plant: Superior Asphalt Company, 2400 NW Quarry Park Road;
Superior Asphalt Company applicant; subject to staff’s letter of December 10, 2010, specifically
Recommendation Item 1 as stated.
(The foregoing is a digest of the secretary’s notes of the public hearing. The transcript may be
obtained.)
4.
Application #2010-069 – REZONING from PI to CP-2 and Application #2010-070 –
PRELIMINARY DEVEVELOPMENT PLAN – Strother Crossing, SW corner M-291 &
Strother Road; LBC Development Corp., applicant
Chairperson Fristoe opened the hearing at 5:35 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or
provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in.
Mr. Jay Birchfield, principal with LBC Development Corp., related that Strother Crossing was the
third and final phase in changing what had been the Lakewood Business Center from allindustrial use to a mixed office and industrial park. They had begun the first of these phases in
2007 on the remaining piece of vacant ground, with phase 2 starting in 2008. Since then, the
Strother Interchange had been completed and the Lakewood project was down to the last 17
acres near the interchange’s southwest corner. These 17 acres were divided into 9 lots, with
PLANNING COMMISSION
8
DECEMBER 14, 2010
mixed use of commercial service such as banking, casual restaurants, hotel, retail or
convenience stores. They had a variety of uses under consideration and would adapt the uses
based on interest and demand. The applicants agreed with the five Recommendation Items.
Mr. Birchfield then introduced the architect, Mr. Justin Bridges, who would be available to
answer technical questions.
Following Mr. Birchfield’s presentation, Chairperson Fristoe asked for staff comments.
Mr. Soto entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-14 into the record. He stated that the plan, with its
9 lots on the 17 acres, had some alternate layouts as well as varying sizes and potential uses.
Consequently the potential square footage ranged from about 88,000 to 120,000 square feet.
Market changes in the near future would likely dictate what kinds of uses the sites would have.
The alternate plans covered about three lots, with one having the option of a three-story hotel
(about 38,000 square feet) or a 15,000 square foot office/retail building. Concerning parking,
determination of parking requirements varied according to the type of use. However, the plan
provided for enough parking for each use.
The applicants were requesting three modifications. One was to the parking lot setback
requirement of 20 feet for a number of lots, particularly those along Independence Avenue, with
additional lots along Strother Road and I-470. [Recommendation Item 1] That road had a rightof-way of varying widths that would be dedicated as part of the plan, and approved at the final
plat stage. The right-of-way would make adding 20 feet for the parking lot setback difficult on
some lots. Staff supported the modification given the fact that this right-of-way was being given
up for road improvements and considering the difficulties it added for the project. For Strother
Road and I-470, there was more than enough right-of-way and considerable separation of green
space between the pavements and the parking lots, so staff also supported these modifications.
The modification to the 80% maximum for impervious coverage on Lot 7 (Recommendation Item
2) would be for one of the alternate plans for this lot. The smaller building for the other option
would meet the impervious coverage requirement. Mr. Soto added that in considering this
modification, staff had looked at the development as a whole, and the overall impervious
coverage was not more than 67 percent.
Recommendation Item 3 was a modification to the required medium-impact landscape screen
between the two lots on the west side of Independence Avenue and the adjacent industrial
uses. A MoDOT facility bordered them to the west, and a large office/warehouse building to the
south. The medium-impact screen was intended for a buffer between two uses with markedly
different intensity. In this case, the applicant was proposing the less intense use; and they
believed that the landscaping they proposed would be adequate to mitigate any negative impact
on them from the adjacent use. With that in mind, staff supported this modification request.
Following Mr. Soto’s comments, Chairperson Fristoe asked if there was anyone present wishing
to give testimony, either in support for or opposition to the application. Seeing none, he then
asked if the Commission had questions for the applicant or staff.
Mr. Reece noted the reference in the application description to Strother Road and “M-291”, and
asked if that should read “I-470”. Mr. Soto said that it could read “I-470/M-291”, and Mr. Reece
remarked that M-291 did not resume until north of I-70. Mr. Soto said he would change the
reference.
PLANNING COMMISSION
9
DECEMBER 14, 2010
Ms. Roberts asked if there would be other landscaping changes or if the requested modification
was only the screening that he had described. Mr. Soto confirmed that this was correct, and that
all the other landscaping requirements would be met.
Chairperson Fristoe asked if there were further questions for the applicant or staff. Hearing
none, he closed the public hearing at 5:53 p.m. and asked for discussion among the
Commission members, or for a motion.
Ms. Smith made a motion to recommend approval of Application 2010-069, Rezoning from PI to
CP-2 and Application 2010-070, Preliminary Development Plan, Strother Crossing, SW corner
of I-470 & Strother Road; LBC Development Corp., applicant; subject to staff’s letter of
December 10, 2010, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 5. Mr. Reece seconded.
Chairperson Fristoe asked if there was any discussion of the motion. Hearing none, he called
for a vote.
On the motion of Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Reece, the Planning Commission members voted
unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application 2010-069, Rezoning from
PI to CP-2 and Application 2010-070, Preliminary Development Plan, Strother Crossing, SW
corner of I-470 & Strother Road; LBC Development Corp., applicant; subject to staff’s letter of
December 10, 2010, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 5.
(The foregoing is a digest of the secretary’s notes of the public hearing. The transcript may be
obtained.)
8.
Application #2010-071 – PRELIMINARY PLAT – Strother Crossing, Lots 1-9, LBC
Development Corp., applicant
Mr. Jay Birchfield, principal with LBC Development Corp., stated that his testimony in the
previous application applied to this preliminary plat application.
Mr. Soto stated that his testimony in the previous application applied to this application. Staff
recommended approval of the preliminary plat.
Hearing no questions or discussion from the Commission, Chairperson Fristoe then called for a
motion.
Mr. Delibero made a motion to recommend APPROVAL of Application 2010-071, Preliminary
Plat, Strother Crossing, Lots 1-9, LBC Development Corp., applicant; subject to staff’s letter of
December 10, 2010. Mr. Reece seconded.
Chairperson Fristoe asked if there was any discussion of the motion. Hearing none, he called
for a vote.
On the motion of Mr. Delibero, seconded by Mr. Reece, the Planning Commission members
voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application 2010-071,
PLANNING COMMISSION
10
DECEMBER 14, 2010
Preliminary Plat, Strother Crossing, Lots 1-9, LBC Development Corp., applicant; subject to
staff’s letter of December 10, 2010.
Chairperson Fristoe than adjourned the meeting for a break at 5:55 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 6:00 p.m.
5.
PUBLIC HEARING - Application #2010-072 – SPECIAL USE PERMIT for
telecommunications tower – Southside Plaza Telecommunication Tower, 400 SW Nichols
Road; American Tower Corp., applicant
Chairperson Fristoe opened the hearing at 6:00 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or
provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in.
Mr. Mark Epstein, attorney with the law firm of Roe and Epstein at 920 Main Street, Kansas City
(MO), stated that he represented the applicant, American Tower Corp. They were applying for a
Special Use Permit for a cell tower. This was actually a replacement for a tower that currently
existed about 80 feet away to the west. That existing tower was owned by Verizon, and would
be taken down. AdGen Telecom Group had reviewed their plans and recommended that they
be approved. City staff was also recommending approval subject to eight Recommendation
Items, and the applicant agreed with these.
Following Mr. Epstein’s presentation, Chairperson Fristoe asked for staff comments.
Mr. Hughey entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-16 into the record. He stated that earlier today
staff had received a letter containing additional information, and they needed additional time to
evaluate that information. They requested a continuance to the next meeting of January 11,
2011.
Hearing no objections or discussion, Chairperson Fristoe then closed the public hearing at 6:03
p.m. and asked for a motion to continue.
Mr. Pycior made a motion to continue Application 2010-072, Special Use Permit for
telecommunications tower, Southside Plaza Telecommunication Tower, 400 SW Nichols Road;
American Tower Corp., applicant; to a date certain of January 11, 2011. Mr. Reece seconded.
Chairperson Fristoe asked if there was any discussion of the motion. Hearing none, he called
for a vote.
On the motion of Mr. Pycior, seconded by Mr. Reece, the Planning Commission members voted
unanimously by voice vote to CONTINUE Application 2010-072, Special Use Permit for
telecommunications tower, Southside Plaza Telecommunication Tower, 400 SW Nichols Road;
American Tower Corp., applicant; to a date certain of January 11, 2011.
(The foregoing is a digest of the secretary’s notes of the public hearing. The transcript may be
obtained.)
PLANNING COMMISSION
11
DECEMBER 14, 2010
6.
PUBLIC HEARING - Application #2010-057 – Amendment #38-C to the UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) – Article 8, Accessory Uses, detached garage
size; City of Lee’s Summit, applicant
Chairperson Fristoe opened the hearing at 6:05 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or
provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in.
Ms. Linda Tyrrel entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-10 into the record. She stated that the
amendment was specifically to Article 8, ”Accessory Uses,” in respect to permitted garage sizes
in residential areas. Several residents had wanted to build garages larger than the 1,000 square
foot maximum currently permitted. The Community Development Committee (CDC) had
discussed this amendment several times in an effort to get the right balance between allowing
larger units without letting detached garages get too large. Lee’s Summit had a number of larger
size residential properties that were five, ten or even 20 or 30 acres. In the agricultural district
no restriction on sizes or number of outbuildings existed; however, the properties she had just
mentioned had residential zoning. Staff had made the distinction clear in the ordinance,
specifically in Table 8-1. They had added a section for detached garages in AG.
Detached garages in residential zoning (including R-1, RDR, RLL, duplex and multi-family)
would have a ratio of 250 square feet for each 5,000 square feet of lot area, with a cap of 2,500
square feet for lots less than 3 acres. Lots of 3 acres or more would have a cap of 3,000 square
feet. This provision reflected the recommendation of the CDC.
Following Ms. Tyrrel’s comments, Chairperson Fristoe asked if there was anyone present
wishing to give testimony, either in support for or opposition to the application. Seeing none, he
then opened the hearing for question.
Ms. Smith asked how the change would affect the historic neighborhoods. Ms. Tyrrel replied
that some of them were in areas with a Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay (NSO). These areas
had an additional layer of review required, with a property owner having to demonstrate that the
building would fit into the character of the neighborhood. The amendment might or might not
affect these, although if a residential block did not have any garages of comparable size, the
additional review might mean that the owner would not be able to build the maximum allowed by
the amendment.
Ms. Smith anticipated a problem with increasing garage sizes in some of the historic areas,
especially those that did not have an NSO. She asked if staff could take a look at the National
Register districts. Ms. Tyrrel answered that if the Commission wanted staff to do some
additional research in those areas, they could do that. According to the chart, any lot of a half
acre or less would have a maximum allowed garage size of 1,000 square feet. That might make
it unlikely that many of the historic properties could have a garage larger than that. Ms. Smith
requested that staff bring back more information on the historic areas.
Mr. Norbury asked how many lots in the historic areas would likely be impacted by the change.
He also wanted to know if adding a detached garage would require a Special Use Permit. Ms.
Tyrrel replied that this would be staff approval via a building permit process, as long as the
ordinance requirements were met. She was not sure how many properties would be impacted,
but added that Lee’s Summit did not have any local historic districts, and Ms. Smith had been
referring to properties on the National Register. Staff could identify those based on previous
PLANNING COMMISSION
12
DECEMBER 14, 2010
National Register nominations. However, since they were not in a local district she was not sure
how the City could enforce that.
Ms. Roberts asked if the amendment would restrict the number of garages on a residential lot,
or if a property owner could put up a number of small garages. Ms. Tyrrel answered that the City
did not currently limit the number of accessory structures; however, they were proposing that
only one garage structure be permitted, as additional language. The number of accessory
structures in general was not limited because some homeowners might want something like a
pool, shed and garage.
Ms. Smith recalled some confusion and discussion a while back about someone building a
garage that had living quarters. Ms. Tyrrel stated that a specific UDO amendment had
addressed loft units over garages, though she did not remember the details. She recalled that
the lot had to be a certain minimum size.
Mr. Reece asked if it was correct that the garage could not be taller than the house. Mr. McKay
said that he did not know, but could look up the provision. He recalled that loft dwellings were
allowed but did not have the specific information at hand.
Chairperson Fristoe asked if there were further questions for the applicant or staff. Hearing
none, he closed the public hearing at 6:15 p.m. and asked for discussion among the
Commission members.
Hearing no further discussion, Chairperson Fristoe called for a motion.
Ms. Smith made a motion to recommend approval of Application 2010-057, Amendment #38-C
to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), Article 8, Accessory Uses, detached garage size;
City of Lee’s Summit, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of December 10, 2010, with a request
that another column be added to Table 8-1 regarding residential properties in National Register
districts. Mr. Reece seconded.
Chairperson Fristoe asked if there was any discussion of the motion.
Mr. Reece asked Ms. Smith what the procedure for complying with the request would be. Ms.
Smith was not sure, but was confident that the Commission could rely on staff’s expertise. She
considered it important that the City include National Register properties in the analysis of the
amendment and was concerned about the new standards resulting in an oversized garage
being built on a historic property. Mr. Pycior asked if this should be stated as an amendment or
as direction to staff. Mr. Norbury suggested that the amendment be moved forward and staff
could bring the information back to the Commission, adding that staff would be giving such
applications some review in any case. He asked Mr. McKay what the procedure would be.
Mr. McKay explained that at present the properties covered by an NSO were in the old Lee’s
Summit area bounded by Chipman Road, US 50 Highway and M-291. That was where these
older residences and historic properties were usually located. In the case of such an application
for an NSO area, staff would go out and review the property plus those on all sides of it to make
sure that the addition would be consistent with the other properties on the block.
Ms. Smith then withdrew her motion.
PLANNING COMMISSION
13
DECEMBER 14, 2010
Ms. Smith made a motion to recommend approval of Application 2010-057, Amendment #38-C
to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), Article 8, Accessory Uses, detached garage size;
City of Lee’s Summit, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of December 10, 2010, with a direction to
staff to bring back information about historic residential properties as related to Table 8-1. Mr.
Reece seconded.
On the motion of Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Reece, the Planning Commission members voted
unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application 2010-057, Amendment
#38-C to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), Article 8, Accessory Uses, detached
garage size; City of Lee’s Summit, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of December 10, 2010.
(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 Fristoe announced that there would be no Planning Commission meeting on
December 28th.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chairperson Fristoe adjourned the meeting at 6:25 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION
14
DECEMBER 14, 2010