LEE`S SUMMIT PLANNING COMMISSION

LEE’S SUMMIT PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of Tuesday, January 8, 2013

The Tuesday, January 11, 2013 , Lee’s Summit Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Fristoe at 5:02 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

Mr. Fred DeMoro

Present

Absent

Present

Present

Present

Mr. Kurt Pycior

Mr. John Reece

Absent

Present

Ms. Colene Roberts Present

Ms. Kathy Smith Present

Also present were Brian Scott, Deputy City Manager; Robert McKay, Director, Planning and

Development Department; Linda Tyrrel, Deputy Director, Planning and Development

Department; Chris Hughey, Staff Planner; Hector Soto, Senior Planner; Kent Monter,

Development Engineering Manager; Michael Park, City Traffic Engineer; Greg Foss, Director of

Development; Jim Eden, Assistant Fire Chief I, Fire Department; and Kim Brennan,

Administrative Assistant.

1. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA

A. Application #PL2012-149 - FINAL PLAT – Winterset Valley, Lots 1245A-1248A,

1250A-1253A, and Tract H4A; Gale Communities, Inc., applicant

B. Application #PL2012-151 - VACATION OF EASEMENT – 100 NE Saint Luke’s

Blvd., St. Luke’s East Hospital; St. Luke’s East Hospital, applicant

C. Minutes of the November 27 and December 11, 2012, Planning Commission meetings

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-C as published.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Chairperson Fristoe announced that there were no changes to the agenda, and asked for a motion to approve. On the motion of Mr. Reece, seconded by Ms. Smith, the Planning

Commission voted unanimously by voice vote to APPROVE the agenda as published.

2. Application #PL2012-139 - REZONING and PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN – rezoning from AG and CP-1 to CP-2 – proposed Walmart Super Center, 3410 SW

Market Street; Mitchell, Kristl & Lieber, applicant

PLANNING COMMISSION 1 JANUARY 8, 2013

Chairperson Fristoe opened the hearing at 5:05 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in.

Ms. Christine Bushyhead, representing the applicant Mitchell, Kristl and Lieber as land use counsel, gave her business address as 1220 Washington in Kansas City, MO. She introduced the project team: Mr. Jeff Clayton of JMC Realty, Mr. Elliott Reed of Cochran Engineering, Mr.

Bill Boyden of BRR Architecture and the applicants' traffic engineer, Mr. Ernie Peters of Peters and Associates.

The rezoning the applicants were requesting was from AG and CP-1 to CP-2. Part of the property already had CP-2 zoning, so it was not for the whole parcel. The Walmart Supercenter was in the northwest quadrant of M-291 and M-150 highways, and would include a garden center, drive-through pharmacy and auto service. The site was outlined on the preliminary development plan, as well as other commercial entities in the area. The applicants had reviewed staff's report, particularly the parts pertaining to traffic. Staff's report included 13

Recommendation Items, and the applicants were agreeable with most of them. They asked for some further discussion about pole heights and monument sign sizes. Concerning the signs, they also wanted more clarification.

The total site covered 24.58 acres and the Supercenter would be a total 161,842 square feet covering 21 acres. Two outlots were also included. Ms. Bushyhead then noted the

Recommendation Items that the applicants were asking to discuss. In Item 9, a modification for the maximum area for a monument sign, they agreed with the 16-foot height, but needed to keep the 22.2foot width. This monument sign was referenced under “Monument” in the table on pages 5 and 6 of staff's report. The sign area listed was within a range that the applicant could be comfortable with. Chairperson Fristoe asked if they were requesting some clarifying language in Item 9. Ms. Bushyhead answered that they wanted to add a sentence specifying that the monument sign would have a 22.2-foot width.

The applicants requested a modification concerning the parking lot light poles (Item 5). They preferred to have the 42-foot light poles, from an aesthetic and environmental standpoint.

Staff's discussion regarding that modification could be found on pages 4 and 5 of the report.

Mr. Elliott Reed could provide some details about why this was advisable.

Mr. Elliott Reed of Cochran Engineering gave his address as 530A East Independence Drive in

Union, Missouri. He explained that the taller poles were typical on large-scale developments like this one. The 28-foot poles were for smaller stores and supermarkets. If they used the taller height they would need one-third fewer poles, needing them every third row rather than every other row; so this had an a esthetic advantage, avoiding a “field of poles” visual effect.

Further, 28 feet was close to the height of the top of the building, and this would create another visual effect, especially for drivers coming from the south on the M-291 overpass. Mr. Reed further explained that the poles would be LED, which was a new technology for lighting poles.

They would have full cutoffs, and the LED diodes themselves were recessed into the light fixture; they provided good direction that minimized light spillage, although there was no residential property nearby.

Regarding Recommendation Item 13, which related to the Traffic Impact Analysis, Ms.

Bushyhead noted that this involved three conditions in this item. They agreed to the


responsibility of the traffic study's recommendation for item 1 of those conditions, for the specified improvements on SW Market, as well as item 3 for the median closure and improvements to the M-291 and SW Hook intersection. The latter pertained to safety issues as well as traffic flow. However, the second item required constructing an “additional southbound left-turn lane at the intersection of M-150 Highway and SW Market Street, ” and they did not believe that this represented an impact that the development would have. It rather reflected a situation that would exist later at full buildout of the surrounding area and the applicants were being asked to assume what the traffic patterns would be years after the Walmart opened.

Their own traffic study had noted this intersection as one that needed to be monitored closely; however, building any kind of improvement at this time was not warranted. They suggested that a follow-up study be conducted as further development occurred.

Ms. Bushyhead stated the UDO required preliminary building elevations for all sides, and these had to show the general style, size, color schedule and exterior construction materials. They had provided this information. Along with these they had also submitted a list of sustainable features of the project, in line with the sustainability requirements of the M-150 Corridor Overlay

District. Ms. Bushyhead noted that the Overlay District had not been enacted as an ordinance yet, but they understood that this was an important value for the community. Mr. Bill Boyden would give details about the building itself and some of the sustainable features. To understand the area, the nearby businesses included the QuikTrip near Market Street, the Price Chopper supermarket and nearby shops in that center, the Arby's, Taco Bell and McDonald's on M-150 and the banks and Methodist church nearby.

Mr. Bill Boyden of BRR Architecture stated that BRR was the architectural firm of record for this project. He displayed a front elevation for the building, which faced south. The front would have two entries. The building would be constructed of precast concrete panels with an aggregate finish, and the applicants had supplied a sample. The appendages on the building, including vestibules, would be a Quick Brick type material, and there would be no paint on the building.

The colors were all integral to the precast panels used. This approach would keep the structure looking for years like it did when it was first finished.

A slide displayed a close-up of the “Market” vestibule, one of the two front entrances. Mr.

Boyden pointed out that the materials and windows were all on a human scale and level. This was consistent with an approach of putting the premium materials down where people could see them well. The identification wall shown to the right included 5'X10' panels made of Trespa material. These were spaced 3/8 inch apart from the main structural wall, which provided a three-dimensional look. The pharmacy drive-through was on the far left side. The elevation showed this feature having an overlay of the Quick Brick material plus a canopy over the pickup station. The rendering also showed the accent landscaping on either side and on a curbed bump-out. It also showed the precast panels, which were 8 inches thick and 8 feet wide.

The auto center was on the right side toward the rear. This also had the Quick Brick and integral block defining the space. This also featured some glazing. According to codes, all the exterior doors were a painted material that would blend with the surrounding walls. The center itself primarily emphasized routine maintenance procedures such as lubes and oil changes, as well as selling and installing tires. Mr. Boyden commented that the elevations overall established a pleasing visual rhythm in earth tone colors, and was consistent with the other structures in the general area. They were also utilizing cornices and wainscot details to distinguish the base, wall and top of the building.


The garden center would be on the left side, opposite from the auto center on the right. It was fully screened with landscaping and decorative fencing, with shade cloth behind it. In the openair portion, they were using a masonry wainscot and column effect that gave a visual impression of a picket fence. The top elevation in the packets showed the garden center on the left.

The next slide displayed the signage. They had originally proposed a taller monument sign, and

Mr. Boyden explained that if they lowered the sign, they would reduce the size of the base, the sign face area and the two panels below. They preferred that this remain the same size.

Mr. Boyden then remarked that nowadays people were asked to be more responsible in use of resources, and that this was reflected in sustainability requirements. The store that they were proposing tonight was not the same as the one that they had previously proposed for this part of town. He listed and explained some of the measures that Walmart took and were proposing to take in this project [pages 13 of “Sustainable Features Provided”]. Some of these were very new, and in fact some were still being developed, to be ready in time for construction.

The applicants had incorporated Livable Streets elements into their plan. They proposed to accommodate bicycles with 14-foot wide lanes within the adjacent street drives. They would also provide bicycle parking near each of the customer entrances. They had voluntarily lowered the parking ratio from 5.0 to 4.5, limited turf to no more than 30% of the landscape area and increased the amount of landscaping to 30% above what the UDO required. Native and drought-tolerant landscaping would be used in all required landscape areas.

They would be using a relatively new, low-volume irrigation system. It included an ET-based evaporation control system that would reduce water demand and long-term maintenance. The low-volume drip and micro-spray would eliminate the waste of water often seen when sprays only 'watered' sidewalks and parking lots. The micro-spray heads delivered water to the root system of plants, where it would benefit the growth and root development, making them more drought-tolerant.

They would utilize a 'cool' roof system, with a solar reflectance equal to or more than 78. This would reduce the 'heat island' effect that a store that size tended to have. They would use local source construction materials whenever this was economically feasible. The block and Quick

Brick materials, along with a number of other materials and systems, would all be produced locally. That would be a standard feature in Supercenter construction from now on. The contractor would be separating hazardous from non-hazardous construction debris for recycling and salvaging. About 75% of construction debris on Walmart construction sites was successfully diverted from landfills.

They planned to incorporate a recycling/re-use facility for waste reduction in the store's operation, plus an on-site composting station that would be available to the public for use. The restrooms would use sensor-activated faucets and high-efficiency flush toilets and urinals to increase efficiency of water use. This measure alone would reduce the store's water use by

17% compared to a 2005 baseline, which would be the store they had previously proposed to build in the M-291/M-150 area. It represented a savings of 530,000 gallons.

Cement manufacturing required the chemical conversion of limestone, which created greenhouse gases in addition to requiring high kiln temperatures. Fly ash, which was a


byproduct of coal-fired electrical generation and slag, a byproduct of steel manufacturing, would replace a percentage of cement in concrete mixes, with an average 15% to 20% replacement with fly ash, or 25% to 30% replacement with slag. This would both conserve limestone as a resource and reduce greenhouse gases.

Walmart's cabinets and countertops would be particle board and medium-density fiberboard, comprised of waste products from sawmills. The base material for walls would incorporate recycled unused diapers; and the base material itself could be recycled. Walmart used nonreinforced thermoplastic resin (NPR) in lieu of fiber reinforced plastic sheets (FPR) on the walls of kitchen areas. He explained that FPR contained fiberglass and could not be recycled, unlike

NPR which could be. It also had better impact resistance and was easier to clean.

Walmart had reduced the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) of exterior and interior paints by about 40% by using better-performing paint products with lower VOC levels. It purchased paint in 55- and 275-gallon containers, reducing the number of containers needed. Additionally, low

VOC paints had less objectionable odor, which was an advantage when stores were refurbished.

Walmart used exposed concrete flooring in order to reduce surface supply flooring materials, which would also eliminate the use of most chemical cleaners, wax strippers and fuel for buffing.

Release agents were environmentally friendly ones, and they generally used plant-based rather than petroleum-based oils.

The store would have about 220 skylights for “daylight harvesting.” This was expected to reduce the electricity use by 75% during daylight hours, for a yearly total of 800,000 kilowatt hours per year. Additionally, occupancy sensors in restrooms, offices and other non-sales areas would automatically turn lights off when these areas were not occupied. Walmart would be using LED illumination for exterior lighting, which reduced parking lot energy consumption by

51%, an amount that would supply about 73 single-family homes for a year.

Walmart's Energy Management System (EMS) monitored all heating, air conditioning, refrigeration and lighting for all stores. That enabled Walmart to observe, monitor and control energy usage in general, refrigeration temperatures, HVAC and lighting. This enabled a centralized system to detect right away when any aspect of an operation was not working well; for example, a rooftop unit that was failing. They could be proactive and order a service call immediately. Walmart kept the humidity in its stores low, which allowed refrigeration systems to work more efficiently and minimized condensation while creating a more comfortable environment. The refrigerants that Walmart used were non-ozone depleting. The equipment was usually roof mounted in order to get the equipment closer to the refrigerated cases and to reduce the amount of copper piping and refrigerant charge used.

Mr. Boyden remarked that BRR did work for national retailers across the country, and none of them they had seen had this extensive a program.

Ms. Bushyhead concluded that the applicants requested approval of the rezoning and preliminary development plan. They were in agreement with most of staff's conditions, but asked for clarification regarding the width of a monument sign (Item 9). They also asked for a modification to Recommendation Item 5 concerning light pole heights. Regarding the road improvements referenced in Item 13, the applicants did not believe that their impact would


necessitate the construction of an additional southbound left-turn lane at M-150 and SW Market.

They were more in favor of monitoring that particular intersection.

Following the applicant’s presentation, Chairperson Fristoe asked for staff comments.

Mr. Soto entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-18 into the record. He stated that the difference between the total 24 acres and the 21 acres that the store covered was due to the existence of two outlots. One was along the street frontage on Market and the other was on the west boundary. This application did not include preliminary development plans for either of these parcels. These would be submitted and approved separately when the lots were developed.

This was a common practice in large retail developments with separate retail pads or lots.

The application also included a rezoning from AG and CP-1 to CP-2. About 12 acres of the site, the northern half, was AG and a one-acre piece that included a detention pond was CP-1. The existing CP-2 was south of the main drive that ran east-west along the south side of the building.

Mr. Soto summarized and discussed the modifications that the applicants were requesting.

Provision of a landscape buffer or screen was an issue that often came up with the development of property adjacent to undeveloped property. The UDO called for a high-impact buffer between

CP-2 zoning use and agricultural property. However, the ordinance did also include language that allowed for waiving or reducing the buffer. That depended on what long-range recommended land uses the Comprehensive Plan called for. In this case, the property was currently zoned agricultural but the long-range plan was for commercial use. No buffer was required between two commercial uses; however, in this case staff proposed a low-impact buffer since no one knew yet exactly what development would go on the adjacent property.

Regarding the parking ratio that Mr. Boyden had mentioned, Mr. Soto related that the standard for retail development was 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Walmart was proposing 4.5 spaces per 1,000, and the UDO included language that enabled the City to make allowances for an applicant's past history or experience. This could be the case in respect to the parking ratio that was a little less than what the UDO called for. Specifically, Walmart had over 4,000 stores so they certainly had a good idea what their parking needs were. It did increase the amount of open space and decreased the impervious coverage.

Mr. Soto then addressed the number of signs proposed. The UDO allowed a maximum of three wall signs in CP-2 zoning, although the Planning Commission could decide to allow more. It was not unusual for a large building with multiple services to ask for more signs, and sometimes the City did approve more than three. The grocery store at Todd George and Blue Parkway was a recent example. In the context of aesthetic value related to the amount of wall space, the table on pages 5 and 6 showed that the total square footage of signage would comprise less than 5%. The UDO allowed a maximum of 10%. The east and west elevations had less than

2%. Staff supported the total number of signs for the building (Recommendation Item 7).

The packets included an elevation of the monument sign addressed in Recommendation Item 9.

This showed dimensions of 22' 2” wide and an overall height of just under 26 feet, a large, imposing sign. Staff recommended reducing the size to something more comparable with other types of signs recently approved, as indicated on page 7 of staff's report. In the years 2010 through 2012, the following signs larger than 72 square feet were approved: the CVS sign in


2011, (145 square feet), O'Reilly in 2012 (108 square feet), Lighthouse in 2011 (114 square feet) and Lee's Summit Chrysler/Dodge in 2010 (101 square feet). These were all single users, while this project would have two additional tenants. It would make sense for the design to allow for panels to accommodate those tenants. Staff had recommended 250 square feet in

Recommendation Item 9, and Ms. Bushyhead had proposed that they be allowed to keep the width while dropping the height to 16 feet. That would result in an area of 355.2 square feet.

In Recommendation Item 5, the parking lot pole heights proposed were 1.5 times the maximum height that the UDO allowed. They were closer to the 40-foot height of lights illuminating outdoor athletic fields. Recommendation Item 5 proposed to reduce the heights to 28 feet.

While they might be able to reduce the number of poles by increasing the height, other developments of similar or larger sizes, including major shopping centers, such as Summit

Crossing and Summit Fair, had been required to maintain the 28-foot maximum.

Mr. Soto added that Mr. Park would be able to answer questions about the improvements covered by Recommendation Item 13. Staff recommended approval of the application, subject to Recommendation Items 1 through 13. Staff agreed with Item 9 being changed to allow a maximum sign structure area of 355 square feet.

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.

Mr. Ken Gillespie gave his address as 210 SW M-150. He owned property just west of the subject property. He was in favor of the project, and also in favor of staff's recommendation to put a roadway through his property to M-150, connecting with Summit Crest Drive. He had a copy of Walmart's exhibit A showing the roadway. The traffic circulation was important not only for Walmart's customers but also for any future development that might occur on his property. It would avoid a bottleneck traffic situation. He believed that the Walmart project would help economic development in that area and supported the application.

Mr. John Cochran stated that he lived at 8500 Johnson Drive in Merriam, KS. His property was just west of Mr. Gillespie's, including 16 acres that he was selling to Walmart. He was also in favor of the project. Mr. Cochran related that his mother was raised just a mile north of the site on Stuart Road, and he had worked on a farm nearby for awhile. He had looked at Walmart's

Supercenter stores in the region and noted that in the adjacent developments, they had tenants like Lowe's, Subway, McDonald's, Community American Bank, Radio Shack, Mattress Hub,

Great Clips and UPS. Other single users were dentists, cell phone stores and nail salons. He had also noted a number of other major retailers in the vicinity of these stores. Their parking lots were full on Saturdays. He felt that the community would benefit from a project like this.

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

Mr. Norbury asked if the 42-foot pole heights would involve any visibility issues on M-291 or

Market Street. Mr. Soto answered that all parking lot lights were required to have the shoe box fixtures, and the lenses had to be flush or recessed into the fixture. Nothing should be directly visible. Mr. Norbury explained that his concern was the possibility that the difference in elevation between the top of the poles and the roadway might result in stretches were drivers were actually below the light fixtures.


Mr. Reed explained that the new LED lights were recessed and not even flush with the bottom of the light fixtures. They did punch lists on the sites and ensured that someone within 30 feet of the light itself looking directly up at it would find it hard to tell whether it was on or not. With the new LED lights it was very unlikely they could be seen from either M-291 or Market Street.

Mr. Norbury noted in Recommendation Item 6 that it allowed for a larger aggregate wattage on a single pole. He asked if the change to pole height would change their wattage requirements per pole. Mr. Reed said that the higher poles would have higher wattage to spread the light out.

With the 28-foot poles, they were more likely to need 600-800 watt fixtures than 1000 watts or more. Mr. Norbury then asked Mr. Soto what was the size of the monument sign the

Commission had approved in the Summit Place preliminary development plan. Mr. Soto recalled that they'd had two monument signs, and staff had recommended the 16-foot height and 72 square foot area for the one at the Blue Pkwy/Ward Road main entrance. The second sign at the north end of the property was oriented toward I-470 and was much taller, 53 feet overall. The overall square footage was about 1,034. Mr. Soto explained that in this case, the sign was located about 300 feet away from the nearest travel lanes on I-470, plus there was a significant elevation difference between I-470 and the site.

Mr. Norbury noted to Ms. Bushyhead that the request for the road improvements was that they not do the construction right away but that the City “monitor” it. That sounded to him like the applicant was asking the City to wait until enough time had passed that it would be difficult to get Walmart to fund or contribute to the improvements at whatever time down the road they became necessary. Ms. Bushyhead directed the Commissioners to page 3 of the Cochran traffic study, and specifically to the bullet point recommending that “ the traffic operations at the intersection of M-150 Highway and Market Street be monitored as traffic volume increase in the future to possibly optimize the traffic signal timing and to possibly construct the addition of another southbound left-turn lane on Market Street at M-150 Highway .” Staff's report had stated that they did not want to wait for the monitoring period but rather for the applicants to build the turn lane now. This was also repeated in the Traffic Impact Analysis.

Mr. Ernest Peters of Peters and Associates Engineers gave his address as 5507 Ranch Drive in

Little Rock, Arkansas. They had done a comprehensive traffic study for the site and staff had given their report a thorough review. Mr. Peters explained their general approach. They had done traffic counts on surrounding intersections and used these to make an assessment of the existing traffic conditions. They had then looked at the development plan, including the Walmart

Supercenter and both of the outlots. They had assumed likely uses for these two outlots: a gas station for the one closest to Market Street and 20,000 square feet of strip retail development for the site on the west. In themselves, these two added about 20% to the total site-generated traffic. They would come before the Commission at a later date when the specific uses were known. In the meantime, the traffic level would be considerably less than it would be when the development was completed.

At the City's request, they had then looked at the projections for 20 years in the future, using the

City's input and based on their traffic model, and estimated what traffic volumes would be at these intersections. Their study had determined that for the initial buildout of the Walmart development, each of the intersections operated at acceptable levels of service. Not until 20 years out, with non-related development in the area, would there be a need for the southbound turn lane. The report did point out, and staff had recognized, that this lane was not a capacity issue. That would relate to queuing distance on M-150 at Market Street. Market's width was


such that the width of the length of the left-turn lane could be re-marked, and keep the operation at an acceptable level. However, it did go back as far as Summit Crest Drive and the improvement was a future need.

Ms. Bushyhead summarized that because the applicants were entering into a development agreement pertaining to road improvements, Mr. Norbury was suggesting that Walmart make a contribution of some kind now, perhaps for a future traffic study. She could not commit anything tonight regarding any additional costs to this project's bottom line; however, they might be able to work something out between monitoring on one hand and construction on the other. Mr.

Norbury said his concern was that a plan to monitor something like that over a period of years often amounted to putting off necessary actions or not doing them at all. A similar phenomenon frequently happened with the sidewalks that were supposed to go in with development but which the City Council often allowed to be put off. The result was that these would be built eventually; however, they would likely be paid for by the City and not by the developer who had been allowed to delay them years ago. He wanted to avoid that happening here.

Ms. Bushyhead stated that she had been involved with a project where they made a contribution, which was then put in escrow to pay for a future traffic study. That would directly relate to monitoring; however they did not want to be involved in constructing a road that they were not creating the traffic generation for. Noting that Mr. Peters had mentioned a 20% likely traffic increase, Mr. Norbury asked Mr. Park if they could condition approval on the basis of what happened at full development.

Mr. Park stated that Mr. Norbury's concern was the reason for not taking the approach of contributing toward public improvements incrementally. There was a tendency to either not getting to the improvements at all or to not accumulate enough funds to finance them. There was about 270 feet between Summit Crest Drive and M-150, with a QuikTrip driveway in the middle. At present there was a short left-turn lane that had the capacity to manage existing traffic. Their study had been done on the basis of full buildout, and not in phases involving the outlots; and it indicated that the queuing went to 380 feet. This was much beyond what this lane had the capacity to manage; and that was the basis for the need to put in the left-turn lane. The approach was to mitigate the impact before it actually occurred, which was the reason for requiring the improvements to be done before building permits were issued.

Mr. Park added that these improvements were all on State right-of-way. Staff had not yet received MoDOT's final recommendation, but they had generally concurred with staff's recommendations. The State requirements for their right-of-way could not be waived.

Chairperson Fristoe asked Mr. Park about Mr. Peters' comment concerning remarking the roadway for queuing of traffic. Mr. Park answered that remarking could be done to some extent.

However, it would not be possible to contain and manage the queue in the space between intersections and they tried to avoid having vehicles stacked through intersections as much as possible. Two left-turn lanes would have a capacity about 400 feet.

Mr. DeMoro said he had been planning to ask about what MoDOT had to say about the State highway intersection, and asked if they were studying the impact. Mr. Park responded that

MoDOT was reviewing it, but they had been on a very short schedule to review this application and the traffic study in time for the meeting. They generally concurred but had requested a


more detailed analysis in order to do a thorough review. Mr. DeMoro noted that there was already enough queuing on that left-turn lane to make it difficult to get out of the QuikTrip.

Ms. Smith noted a paragraph on page 6 of the applicants' traffic study that “ Walmart does not have an access easement with the existing shopping center to the south ” and an understanding that Walmart would try to work out a shared access arrangement. Mr. Park pointed out on the displayed rendering where the south part of the property was that this referred to. The City expected that they would get some cooperation with the neighboring property owner for shared access. Ms. Bushyhead stated that they had not yet contacted the property owner, but Walmart was open to developing the cross-access. It was a matter of whether the property owner to the south was interested in being involved. However, that particular location was not a problem.

Mr. Reece commented that of the 13 Recommendation Items, 9 were requested modifications to the UDO. Mr. Soto had done a good job of summarizing these, and the UDO did authorize some modifications. However, he was concerned that the City had a UDO that was to be a definitive guide and a proposed development asked for this much modification. The UDO was there for a reason and it was not fair for Walmart or any other developer to request this much in order to accommodate them. Utilities such as water lines and sewer lines were built with future use in mind, and so were roads. On this basis, he asserted that this extra lane requested by the

City should be built now. These were improvements that would be needed down the road and monitoring would not get them done. He did not see the purpose of doing studies and monitoring and then tearing up the road to put in an improvement that everyone had known would need to be done in the first place.

Mr. Reece also noted Mr. Boyden's mention of on-site composting, and asked for some details; in particular whether this would be in-vessel or open composting and what would happen to composted material. He pointed out that composting was not a quick process and the pile had to be turned and monitored. Mr. Boyden replied that the organic part of the composting was a closed, loop system in stainless steel containers at the rear of the building. A licensed contractor would visit the site on a regular schedule. The finished compost would be taken offsite to a separate facility. The composting bins were emptied on an as-needed basis. He clarified that the collection would be done on site but the composting itself would be done at a separate facility. He agreed that it was essential to operate and maintain this part carefully.

Mr. Reece then asked Mr. Soto if the large monument sign would have sign panels for additional tenants in the Walmart facility. Mr. Soto answered that there would not be, but if they did add any panels the overall structure would have to remain the same size. Ms. Bushyhead clarified that the reserved sign spaces were for the tenants in the outlots when they were developed, not for tenants inside the Walmart building.

Ms. Roberts had a number of questions about the architecture. She asked what the expected life span of the building was, and Mr. Boyden answered that the building's main structural component consisted of precast panels, which were 8 inches thick and made of reinforced concrete with an aggregate finish. Their life expectancy could be measured in scores of years, and could last a century or more. Ms. Roberts then asked about re-use should Walmart ever move out of the building, and Mr. Boyden answered that any building was re-usable if it was structurally sound. Ms. Roberts asked in what capacity this building might be re-used, and Mr.

Boyden replied that he did not anticipate Walmart leaving the building. Ms. Roberts noted that at one time in its history, Walmart had an average building occupancy of about 7 years. Mr.


Boyden said that he did not know about those figures, but Walmart was spending more than

$25 million in developing this property. Ms. Roberts asked if Walmart would make that amount back within 7 years, and Mr. Boyden replied that he did not know. He did not know what

Walmart's average occupancy time currently was.

Mr. Norbury asked why the property needed two detention areas. He understood the need to detain stormwater, but most of the developments seemed to need only one. Instead of creating a second detention area, there might be an opportunity on this site to use some more porous materials to help manage stormwater. Mr. Reed answered that it was related to the topography.

The site currently had two defined tributary areas. This represented a split in the center of the site defined by a treeline and a ridge. Everything to the south of that treeline would go into the south detention basin and the runoff on the other side would go into the basin on the east side by Market Street and be routed north. Mr. Norbury asked if they planned any significant use of porous materials, remarking that he generally wanted to see more of that and less reliance on detention areas.

Concerning the signs, Mr. Norbury noted that typically when an applicant came in with a sign package they asked for a few extra signs and sometimes a larger monument sign. What the

Commission rarely saw was an applicant who asked for 14 signs, one of which about 7 times as la rge as the UDO allowed; and then offer a “compromise” that included reducing the size to only

5 times as large as the UDO allowed. That was definitely excessive. He was not at all comfortable with approving this application with this sheer volume of signage, adding that the

UDO was insufficient in the area of monument signs. He would not argue that a 355-squarefoot monument sign would not be out of proportion with a 160,000 square-foot building; but the applicants were asking for this plus 14 signs. Mr. Norbury stated that he did not like that and would not vote for approval of that many signs. He wanted to see the Commission do better than that.

Mr. Norbury then asked Mr. Soto what was the functional difference between a low-impact buffer and a high-impact one. Mr. Soto explained that the high-impact buffer included a 6-foot masonry or vinyl fence flanked by low-impact landscaping, and a low-impact buffer had no fence. Mr. Norbury asked what kind of trees would be added according to the landscape plan, and if any of the existing trees on the site would be retained. Mr. Reed pointed out the treeline at the edge of the rendering and stated that it would remain. The trees interior to the site would be removed. Most of the trees at the east and north property lines would be removed as well, since grading of the site would be necessary. Mr. Norbury asked if they were being replaced and if so, what kind of trees would replace them. Mr. Reed answered that he would have to check the landscape plan for details, but they would be 2- to 3-inch caliper with mature heights from 10 to 20 feet.

Mr. Hilger agreed with Mr. Reece and Mr. DeMoro about the traffic volume, and shared their concerns; and also agreed about the 14 wall signs being excessive. He asked if both the applicant and staff were agreeable to the modification to the monument sign area detailed in

Recommendation Item 9. Mr. Soto answered that staff would be comfortable with 355 square feet if the Commission approved it, although they would prefer the original 250 square feet figure. Ms. Bushyhead stated that the applicant was agreeable to the 355 square feet.

Mr. Reece asked if the UDO specified 250 square feet as the maximum area and Mr. Soto answered that it did not. The maximum area for a monument sign was 72 square feet. Mr.


Reece remarked that the 250 square-foot figure represented a sign that was 3 times the size of the maximum the UDO allowed, and Mr. Soto said that was correct.

Mr. Norbury asked if the UDO specifically allowed for the Planning Commission granting modifications for larger signs, and Mr. Soto answered that it did allow the Commission to approve additional height and area for monument signs and the number of wall signs.

Mr. Hilger asked if there was a history of approving monument signs as large as 355 square feet. Mr. Soto could not think of any other than the sign for Summit Place that was mentioned earlier. Some for institutional use, such as St. Luke's, had larger signs, as did Summit

Technology. Staff did take scale and proportion into consideration.

Ms. Bushyhead acknowledged that the number of signs was large. However, these numbers of signs were nothing unusual for Walmart and in fact the store used somewhat fewer than before.

The brand wall included the nam e and the starburst symbol, with the “Market” sign over the grocery side entrance and “Pharmacy” at the drive through. The numbers sounded more extreme than they were considering that the building would have two sides accessible from public roads. That meant the same signs had to be in place on more than one wall. The signs were helpful in directing customers where to park and enter, and would even increase safety since people would not be driving around the parking lot looking for the right entrance. She did not think the signs were intrusive on such a large building. She added that this would be an interstate location and they needed to attract the attention of people driving at high speeds down M-291 highway, not the traffic on Market Street which was more comparable to the traffic around Summit Fair.

Ms. Kathy Kem of BRR Architecture stated that ten of the wall signs were the ones shown on the building renderings. Three of them were smaller signs that would be used for tenants in the future.

Chairperson Fristoe asked if there were further questions for the applicant or staff. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. and asked for discussion among the

Commission members.

Chairperson Fristoe stated that the challenge for him was with the UDO as it related to the number of signs for the scope of this project as well as the size of the monument sign. They had fallen into a pattern of modifying the UDO requirements in contexts of large buildings and large projects. He did not have a problem with what the applicant was asking for concerning signs but did with the issue of road improvements and traffic queuing issues along M-150. Both the Commissioners and the applicants knew that Walmart's building was a project that would attract a number of people to the area and traffic was already a challenge in that part of town.

Anything that could be done proactively to address the increased traffic that a Walmart would attract should be done.

Mr. Hilger remarked that everyone knew what Walmart was, and while certain access points might change he still considered the proposed signage excessive. He had heard that Walmart intended to attract the traffic traveling on M-291, but at the same time had heard that they did not want to do any road improvements because it was on a street that did not show much in the way of traffic, and these did not go together.


Regarding the numerous modifications to the UDO, Mr. DeMoro stated that he had a problem with the traffic queuing at M-150 and Market Street. That was already a substantial intersection and he agreed with Mr. Reece that the City needed to look to building for the future instead of right now. As it was, the problem did exist right now, although it was not yet a severe problem.

Mr. DeMoro had been through this intersection and without some improvements it would be a nightmare with Walmart plus two outlots there. He considered it important that the turn lane be built with the project without any delay.

Ms. Roberts commented that over the last few decades, the US had somehow decided that bad design and bad architecture were acceptable. She wanted better than that for Lee's Summit, and wanted to see good urban design and good architecture; and this project had neither qualities. At present there was nothing in the UDO to prevent the City from allowing streets lined with nothing but tire stores or pizza restaurants, and when these projects came through the Commission and the Council had a responsibility to make decisions about whether the use and location were appropriate. She did not think this project fit the location, and considered CP-

1 zoning to be a better zoning designation. It would match better with the plans for the M-150 corridor overlay that already existed. This plan had set a priority on mixed use including residential, retail and office; and Walmart did not fit that description. She had doubts as to how long this store would last; and if it did, some other area stores like Price Chopper might not.

Moreover, she saw no investment in the community on Walmart's part, and while they did have a long list of sustainability initiatives, most of these were financially beneficial to them. They were not making much of a real investment in sustainable options but rather had looked for the lowest-cost sustainability initiatives.

Ms. Roberts recalled that when Walmart first came to Lee's Summit, it was located at Third and

Ward; and also remembered how long that large building had sat empty when they moved across town. This particular applicant was planning to locate on M-291 and it would actually be between another Walmart on M-291 in Harrisonville and a second one to the north on M-291 in

Lee's Summit. There was a third Walmart still further north on M-291, in Independence. That would be four Walmart stores on the same stretch of highway, and something was bound to give. Since Lee's Summit was in the middle, it would most likely be one of theirs. She did not want to see another large, vacant retail building like the old Sears/K Mart that now sat empty in the middle of town. This one would be even larger, and it was uncertain who would occupy the building if that store closed. In addition, the applicant was asking for more than 8 modifications to the UDO, indicating that they were unwilling to make the investment in the community implied in following the development ordinance. They had further expressed unwillingness to build a turn lane, even with the drastic traffic increase that was bound to occur, although they had cited concern over safety in the parking lot in support of having 14 signs. They had indicated tonight that they planned to take out mature trees and replace them with some that were 2- to 3-inch caliper, which did not sound very sustainable in terms of environment. Ms. Roberts summarized her objections as the zoning and location being inappropriate, and the lack of investment in the local community.

Mr. Norbury concurred with some of Ms. Roberts' remarks. He did not think the problem was with the UDO, although he did not think it handled monument signs well. The Planning

Commission had gotten into the habit of granting a lot of signs, to the overall detriment of the aesthetics of buildings. He might be willing to vote for the large monument sign, but not that many wall signs. Second, he agreed with the importance of keeping the requirement for traffic improvements. He did not know if the Commission had yet given a modification for the taller


pole signs and did not see a reason for doing so tonight. These were make or break items for him in terms of voting.

Mr. Reece said he'd talked with some of the residents in the Raintree area just to the south and they were very concerned about the volume of traffic. It was already a problem, and the people he had talked with had asked him to not support this project.

Chairperson Fristoe remarked that this was a better project than the last Walmart proposed for the area. It was better construction, a better look and feel, and Walmart was an economic engine and this was an opportunity for Lee's Summit. He complimented the applicants on improving their product over the last time they had been before this Commission.

Hearing no further discussion, Chairperson Fristoe called for a motion.

Mr. Norbury made a motion to recommend approval of Application PL2012-139, Rezoning and

Preliminary Development Plan: rezoning from AG and CP-1 to CP-2; proposed Walmart Super

Center, 3410 SW Market Street; Mitchell, Kristl & Lieber, applicant subject to staff’s letter of

January 4, 2013, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 6 and 8 through 13, striking

Recommendation Item 7. Ms. Smith seconded the motion.

Mr. Soto clarified that if Recommendation Item 7 was struck, the UDO regulations concerning signage would automatically apply.

Chairperson Fristoe stated that the challenge with the number of wall signs was the way the

UDO was written would not be sufficient for directional purposes, considering the size of the building. Mr. Norbury replied that he did not know what the right number was, and this would be something for the applicant and staff to consider before the application went to the City Council.

He was not sure that a big Walmart sign on the building's east elevation was needed if they were to have a large monument sign. There could be something worked out that did not offend anyone's sensibilities; however, he was willing to draw the line on approving so many additional signs.

Chairperson Fristoe asked Mr. Soto how many wall signs were granted to the recent Price

Chopper project, and Mr. Soto did not recall. Mr. Monter thought there were six, and Mr.

Norbury added that there would have been more that would be on the outlot development. He then stated that he was withdrawing his motion in order to amend it, and Ms. Smith withdrew her second.

Mr. Norbury stated that the motion was subject to staff’s letter of January 4, 2013, specifically

Recommendation Items 1 through 6 and 8 through 13, striking Recommendation Item 7 and modifying Recommendation Item 9 to limit the maximum monument sign structure area to 356 square feet. Ms. Smith seconded.

Mr. Norbury stated that at the most recent Community and Economic Development Committee, some concerns had been expressed about the sign ordinance being inadequate, as indicated by the number of modifications regarding signs. Mr. Norbury then read the amended motion.

Mr. Norbury and Ms. Smith confirmed for Mr. Reece that the original motion had been struck, and they had made and seconded a new amended motion.


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

On the motion of Mr. Norbury, seconded by Ms. Smith, the Planning Commission members voted by roll call vote of five “yes” and two “no” (Mr. Reece and Ms. Roberts) to recommend

APPROVAL of Application PL2012-139, Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan: rezoning from AG and CP-1 to CP-2; proposed Walmart Super Center, 3410 SW Market Street; Mitchell,

Kristl & Lieber, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of January 4, 2013, specifically

Recommendation Items 1 through 6 and 8 through 13, striking Recommendation Item 7 and modifying Recommendation Item 9 as stated.

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

Chairperson Fristoe announced a break at 7:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:09 p.m.

3. Application #PL2012-143 - SPECIAL USE PERMIT renewal and upgrade to digital for a billboard sign, 4225 NE Lakewood Way; CBS Outdoor, Inc., applicant

Chairperson Fristoe opened the hearing at 7:09 p.m. and stated that Application PL2012-143 was being continued to a date certain of January 22, 2012, at the applicant's request. He then closed the hearing.


4. Application #PL2012-146 - Amendment #45 to the UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT

ORDINANCE (UDO) – Article 7, Design Standards, to establish design standards for the

Downtown Core Area; Downtown Lee’s Summit Main Street, applicant


Ms. Christine Bushyhead gave her address as 513 SE Miller in Lee's Summit, and stated that she was a Lee's Summit citizen and a member of the Board of Directors of Downtown Lee's

Summit Main Street, as well as a member of the Design Committee. This committee had been working with staff for about two years in developing these standards. Downtown Main Street had filed an application requesting a text amendment to the UDO. Ms. Bushyhead used Power

Point slides to illustrate her presentation.

Downtown Lee's Summit Main Street's mission was “ to promote and strengthen its economically strong and diverse Downtown Core.” It followed the National Trust Main Street Center's fourpoint approach to revitalizing commercial districts. These four points, called focus areas, were

“ design, economic restructuring, organization and promotions .” Each of these focus areas had its own committee; and the Design Committee had been working on the design standards. The

Board had periodically approved the Committee's progress as it went forward.


The Design Committee focused and took leadership roles on design issues related to both building rehabs and in-fill development, as well as Downtown's appearance and ambiance.

Downtown Lee's Summit Main Street in general embraced a responsibility to be Downtown's conservators. They put an emphasis on “ Downtown resources, such as historic buildings and community activities ” and focused on “ creating a dynamic atmosphere through window displays, signage, and sidewalk character ”.

A displayed slide showed a time line of the design standards project. The Planning Commission had adopted the Downtown Master Plan in May 2005. This was part of the City's

Comprehensive Plan. In June 2006 the City and Thomason and Associates drafted the “Lee's

Summit Design Guidelines Manual for the Downtown Area”, which was then approved by the

Historic Preservation Committee. These guidelines focused on development occurring on

National Register properties and were voluntary in nature.

Downtown Lee's Summit Main Street had presented its first draft of the guidelines, which, by its title, “Lee's Summit Design Standards for the Downtown Core Area, Transitional Neighborhood

Zone and Gateway Streets”, indicated that they wanted the standards to extend out to the surrounding TNZ zoning areas and gateway streets. Since then they had been more selective about goals, and after consultation with staff, the part about gateway streets had been dropped.

They had proposed the text amendment to the UDO in November of 2012.

Design standards had a number of purposes. One was to “ promote development and redevelopment that are complementary and consistent with the character of existing structures.”

This development and redevelopment required investment, and facilitating that investment was another purpose. The design standards should “ provide site plan and architectural standards to foster sustainable development, with an appreciation for the elements of scale and character of the historic buildings.

”

Downtown Lee's Summit Main Street also wanted to use the design standards in implementing the earlier Old Lee's Summit Development Master Plan that was part of the City's

Comprehensive Plan. This should include recommendations pertaining to the Downtown Core.

An implementation plan was one of the products of the 2005 master planning process. Ms.

Bushyhead clarified that it was important to distinguish between design standards and guidelines, since standards were mandatory.

In terms of benefits of the design standards, Lee's Summit Downtown Main Street believed that they would help stabilize property values, enhance the Downtown Core's character, and make development and redevelopment more predictable. Their Statement of Intent and Purpose was that “ design standards provide parameters for the physical appearance, structure and placement of commercial, mixed-use and residential buildings.

”

Ms. Bushyhead then displayed a map of the Downtown Core and explained that the standards were in two parts, one applying to the Downtown Core and the other to the adjacent transition area. The character and existing development in these two areas were sufficiently distinct from each other to have two sets of standards.

Ms. Bushyhead illustrated and discussed some of the design standards for the Downtown Core.

In terms of visual space, they wanted to avoid the large vacant spots that parking lots created between buildings. Two of the displayed slides showed low walls parallel to the street, which


narrowed the visual space and the third showed this being achieved with landscaping around the edge of the lot. Mechanical equipment in service areas could be screened with a fence or wall, or with closely spaced landscaping.

Consistency of design was one of the principles dictating placement on parcels of property, especially in the Downtown Commercial Core where a lot of infill development was likely. The design of the infill needed to be consistent with the existing surroundings. A slide displayed a rendering of an infill building placed much further back from the street from the adjacent buildings. Architectural features also needed to be consistent. Ms. Bushyhead explained that in Downtown Lee's Summit particularly, the buildings were visually segmented. Often one building had vertical divisions that suggested several buildings from the outside, with a line of smaller individual buildings next to it. For the buildings to be consistent, it was important for elements like doors and windows, including upstairs windows, to look similar. Another slide showed examples of these segments, or vertical divisions. The next slide showed the contrast between existing and infill buildings with similar-looking windows and doors and those with the newer infill building having doors and windows that did not match.

Rooflines were another element needing consistency. The steepest slope that most Downtown buildings had was one that was sufficient to drain off rainwater. They did not typically have a steep pitch. The diagram showing degrees for various pitches was also in Article 7 on page 12 under “Building Form and Roofline”. Paragraph (G) specified that “ simple rectangular building forms” and “ flat roof forms” were preferred. Ms. Bushyhead pointed out that the following subparagraphs (b) and (c) explained how that was defined. A flat roof had a 3/12 pitch [14 degrees on the chart] or less, with anything more being called a pitched roof. The latter was prohibited.

“Building Entrances” (H) gave some direction about corner buildings. An illustration showed a corner building with angled entrances at the corner and awnings or canopies on each side.

Recessed entries [H (2)] were allowed and encouraged for new storefronts. Upper story decks and balconies were included in (M), “Outdoor Spaces”, and two drawings gave examples of both acceptable and unacceptable approaches. Although the restored Vogue Theater building had balconies projecting out from the building, this style was not consistent with the look of

Lee's Summit's Downtown and the guidelines specified recessed balconies only. Ms.

Bushyhead emphasized that this was a concern over preserving the historic look of Downtown and not a judgment on any particular type of design.

Ms. Bushyhead remarked that the illustrations of sites in the transition area also showed the site design regulation challenges. This area had both semi-public and private spaces, and a variety in existing placement of garages, in addition to the way the homes were oriented to the streets.

The transition area was intended for mixed use, which it had at present. For example, on Green

Street a tax service located in someone's home was right next to a residence. Also on Green

Street, north of 2nd Street, was a row of single-family residences that now had office uses but their character was still consistent. It was important for people to be confident that if they invested in Downtown they could be assured that this same kind of design will be required of their neighbors; and the standards if approved could give them that assurance. Most of the investors in Downtown and transition properties would be small businesses and they would be especially concerned about their investment being protected.


Concerning “Mass and Scale” (page 21), people wanting to invest in small bungalows was a positive step; however, modern families often liked a little more elbow room and this had caused some anomalies. The displayed illustration gave an example of an appropriately sized addition.

In some parts of Downtown, additions had been put in that were almost bigger than the original home they were attached to.

Yesterday the Design Committee had met with the Legal Department, and they planned to do some tweaking to the approval process. Basically, new development and redevelopment in the

Downtown Core's commercial and mixed-use areas would be required to have a preliminary development plan and final development plan. However, they also wanted a mechanism that would protect properties from inappropriate exterior renovations, such as changing the facade from brick to wood or cutting large window spaces in half. A requirement for an exterior renovation permit would ensure that the City be informed about what was planned so that the standards could be applied. At the same time, it was important to not have this be such a cumbersome process as to be cost-prohibitive, especially since most of these were small business investments.

However, during the vetting process they had also met with people in the transition area who had expressed some concerns about the permit idea. Many were owners of single-family residences, and their perspective was that the affected buildings were their homes and they did not want to have to get a renovation permit every time they needed to replace a broken window or make some other necessary repair. Accordingly, they were putting in an exception for singlefamily and two-family residences that currently had residential use. The property would have to be occupied by the owner or a tenant to be exempt from the requirement.

Regarding demolition (page 27), the Legal Department had indicated in the meeting that they would have to change some of the language. They had additional drafting and revisions to do, with direction from Legal. They were also revising the restriction of vinyl siding to “ the rear and sides of buildings, or to upper floors, or as a percentage of a facade, or only permitted as an incidental or accent material.

” [paragraph (I)(3)]. Again, in the transition area many private homes had vinyl siding, and if this was damaged, insurance companies might not want to put it just on three sides. They intended to add language to make this exemption clear. They would also add a provision about landscaping, since the transition area had both residential and commercial uses, and two commercial uses together would not have to provide any landscaping. With the mix of uses, it was important to determine what needed to be provided as a buffer. These were all issues that had come up recently and needed to be resolved in the amendment. However, they'd held meetings with residents, and had sent out notices for this meeting as well as the upcoming City Council meeting. Their meetings had included property owners in the Downtown Core and developers who'd worked on projects there.

Chairperson Fristoe disclosed for the record that he was on the Board of Directors for

Downtown Lee's Summit Main Street, so he would abstain from voting on this application. He then asked for staff comments.

( Ms. Roberts left the meeting at 7:30 p.m.

)

Mr. Hughey entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-12 into the record. He remarked that the current UDO standards were fairly general in scope and did not really address Downtown's unique character. Downtown Lee's Summit Main Street had taken on this project in order to


ensure that future development and redevelopment were consistent and maintained that unique character. Staff's report had summarized the events, meetings and actions that had led up to this draft amendment. Staff had not listed any Recommendation Items, and Mr. Hughey explained that staff's letter had been finished before the revisions Ms. Bushyhead had described had come up, which was why they were not addressed. Staff was in agreement with the changes, particularly those pertaining to single-family and two-family residential uses. Staff's report included the sections of the minutes from the Community and Economic Development

Committee meetings where this amendment was discussed. Staff had done their best to bring as many people into the discussion as possible.

Following Mr. Hugh ey’s comments, Chairperson Fristoe asked if there was anyone present wishing to give testimony, either in support for or opposition to the application.

Mr. Daniel Van Petten gave his address as 400 SW Market Street. He was one of the property owners in the Downtown Commercial Core. The City of Lee's Summit's Historical Preservation

Commission had Market Street between 4th and 5th Streets put on the National Register of

Historic Places. There were quite a few historic buildings and historic districts that were within the Downtown Core as well as the transition area. Mr. Van Petten wanted to address some of the issues that Ms. Bushyhead had referred to.

Market Street in particular was between CP-2 zoning in one direction and CBD in the other. To the east of Market, properties with CBD zoning had zero setbacks, sidewalks and no landscaping. The planned commercial district on the other side had a completely different atmosphere. One stretch between 3rd and 4th Streets had historic homes with broad lawns, but only one was a residence, and the rest were occupied by offices. He approved of this kind of re-use, and had lived there long enough to see a lot of changes. However, in the next block of

Market there were only four properties that were in the Downtown Commercial Core and they were all residences, with the rest being the transitional zone. It was important that the

Commercial Core designation and design standards encourage the redevelopment of viable commercial and office residential streetscapes.

The concern was that the Commercial Core designation might morph into a zoning district. This would then change the zoning for his and other properties in the Commercial Core, which had four different zoning classifications in it. In June 2011 the Design Committee had discussed changing the entire Commercial Core to the CBD zoning district. While no action had been taken, the suggestion was out there and it was a possibility and could change his neighborhood's entire character. When commercial development went in, people always got assurances about landscape screening and buffering, but Article 7 was to specify that landscaping could be minimal, and the structures could come all the way up to the property line.

Article 14 of the UDO, however, did specify and landscape buffer and setback, so he was not sure which of these would apply.

Mr. Van Petten remarked that streetscape improvements had been part of the Vision of the

Heart process, and that Downtown had always been remarkably dynamic. In the years he had been there, a lot of changes had occurred and many businesses had come and gone; but it had always maintained some vitality. They should be taking the opportunity to make the sidewalks wider, put in more landscape buffers and make streets treelined again. Streetscape improvements had not been made in most of the areas identified as the Downtown Commercial


Core and virtually none in the transition area. What was typically seen in the transition area was grass, trees and front yards.

Mr. Van Petten recalled a brief mention of Section 14 of the UDO in the previous hearing that was related to landscaping and screening. The UDO did allow the Planning Director or his designee to waive or minimize those requirements if planned development was to take place, so

Mr. Van Petten wondered if new landscaping would be required if the whole Commercial Core was being targeted for redevelopment and new development. He also did not know who would be the designee, but wondered if that would be a Downtown Main Street committee. All the

Downtown Core and the transition area would be undergoing development in the next few years, and how they developed was important to its long-term residents. They did not want the zoning to result in situations where a commercial building with no landscaping or setback could be built next to a residence. They wanted to ensure that existing properties maintained their stability and value.

Mr. Rob Lund gave his address as 407 SE Grand Avenue. He owned a piece of property in the transition zone and he was requesting a tweaking of the document presented tonight. He had an engineering background and education and had been a developer; and had seen various methods of construction and wanted to express his concerns. Page 18 showed an example of a private residence with parking spaces in the back, and the caption mentioned a detached garage. While a detached garage might already be there in some cases, about six months ago detached garages were tied to lot size. Families now typically had two cars, and with the way the codes were currently written there were few lots that could have a detached two-car garage.

This would have to be addressed, especially in view of the fact that a residence having a garage that was not large enough encouraged off-street parking.

Page 19 required that “ accessible ramps shall be integrated with the landscape and architecture ” [paragraph (D)(3)], but no examples were given in any of the illustrations and people needed some direction on how that could work. It would be helpful to include an example with the illustrations of primary entrances on page 24. Further, if a building had a raised elevation from the ground of 30 inches, it would need a 30-foot ramp since the standard was one foot for every inch off the ground; and this was not always practical. The lot across the street from the lot he owned had a house that would need a ramp that long and it would be impossible to put in with the appearance that the paragraph specified. He suggested that they consider allowing houses closer to the ground, which would especially make sense for an older population.

On the same page, subparagraph (j) required “ the use of paved ribbons or strips, or pervious pavement methods is encouraged for driveways and parking surfaces .” Mr. Lund remarked that it was fortunate that “encouraged” was included, since his house had these ribbons before he had moved there and the previous owner had found them a nuisance. He felt that this subparagraph could be taken out. On page 20, the caption mentioned a detached garage for the drawing labeled “acceptable”, with the drawing labeled “unacceptable” showing an attached garage. The latter referred to the driveway location and front yard parking and he agreed with that; however, the current codes did allow an attached garage and a large one at that. He personally liked attached garages and was a “car guy”; his long range plan was to build a 1,500 square foot house with a seven-car attached garage. He also noticed that the house in the

“acceptable” illustration was low to the ground, about one step up. Again, he liked the word

“preferred” in the reference to raised foundations on page 23 [paragraph (F)(1)(c)]. The


paragraph continued that “ finished floor heights should be within the range typically seen in the neighborhood ”, and in his own neighborhood some were low to the ground and some as much as 3 feet off the ground so it was hard to determine what was typical.

Regarding the references to vinyl siding, Mr. Lund remarked that vinyl siding was used everywhere. It would make more economic sense, and keep maintenance down, to have it on new homes. In paragraph (J)(2) on page 25, he did not think that wood should be included in the list of permitted roof materials. If it was going to be included, some kind of fire treatment should be required, although in California the code requirements for fire treatment had virtually taken wood roofs out of the picture. He had seen a house fire burn this kind of roof off completely, and in a neighborhood with houses close together the fire could easily jump from one house to neighboring houses.

The same photometric requirements for commercial development should apply to Downtown, and the lighting currently used Downtown was more than enough, and in fact sufficient to cause light pollution in his neighborhood. Concerning paragraph (L) about lighting, Mr. Lund observed that in commercial development, a builder had to provide Codes with a photometric of what the landscape would look like with the lighting.

Another typical requirement for commercial development was to put in landscape sprinklers. He was not in favor of using water to maintain lawns, and believed that it was time to promote the idea of more natural grass types that were better suited to the region.

Mr. Lund asked for some clarification of the word “may” as used in the draft; as this usage did not make it clear under what circumstances something would be allowed or who would decide.

He complimented the Design Committee on their work and shared their valuing of Downtown and wanting to protect it. He did think they needed to take another look at some practical issues.

Ms. Susan Van Petten gave her address as 400 SW Market. She asked for some clarification as to the authority Downtown Lee's Summit Main Street had to file this application. It was a text amendment request to the UDO and under the UDO's regulations, these could be filed only by the governing body, the City Administrator, or the Director of Planning and Development. She wanted to know if the mechanism was as a designee, or perhaps a contract. The residents did not necessarily want Downtown Lee's Summit Main Street to become their de facto

Homeowners Association.

The residents did not all feel that there had been much transparency in the process. They had first heard about this on October 3rd at a meeting held on the second floor of City Hall. After being provided with a copy of the document some of the residents had written a letter with some concerns, which were addressed. They had then received another letter about an upcoming meeting with the CEDC on November 28th. Because they had additional concerns, she and her husband had written a letter to the Design Committee and had received no reply. What the maps called the transition area was really just the TNZ zoned area, and this had formerly been a stable neighborhood of single-family homes zoned R-1. The maps themselves just showed differently tinted expanses with no detail; and it did not show some of the details, which were character assets to the neighborhood that would not be allowed under the new regulations. The beautiful landscaping at Lee's Summit Social Services that was maintained by the Lee's Summit

Garden Club was an example.


In general, Ms. Van Petten did not think that the design standards meshed with the Downtown

Master Plan that had been approved in 2005. For example, it did not consider the area north of

2nd Street and west of the railroad tracks to be good commercial property; whereas the

Downtown Master Plan considered this a good place for a new residential development. At present it was zoned CP-2, but it was in fact completely separated from Downtown by a fourlane road. This made the idea of extending Downtown to the north at this point questionable.

Ms. Van Petten stated that the Vision of the Heart, referenced in the document, was approved in

1993 and had been done by Downtown Lee's Summit Main Street for a 6-block area. That was the extent of the CBD at that time. It was not a City document and had no enforcement authority, so she was not sure of the reason for bringing it up. Ms. Van Petten noted that the first slide shown in the presentation showed sidewalks, but it also showed brick pavers. One of the slides showed trees. However, if Vision of the Heart was not enacted, the residents would not get pavers or trees but would instead get buildings built up to the property line with a sidewalk. There would no spaces for outside dining or for pedestrians to gather.

Ms. Van Petten pointed out other inconsistencies. The design standards referred to landscape requirements for the TNZ being provided as required in Article 14; while the UDO would have landscaping being approved on a per plan basis in lieu of Article 14. Front, side and rear setbacks were totally different in the UDO than those the Design Committee was proposing.

The document needed to be revised to protect the property owners and residents in the

Downtown Core.

Mr. Darren Rice gave his address as 206 SE 4th Street, and said he had bought the property in

1998 when it was zoned R-1. He also owned 204 SE 4th Street next door. When the zoning was changed to TNZ, he had been told that this would not affect any current residents.

Recently their property was almost put into the LCRA but that did not go through. He had emailed some of his concerns to the Design Committee, one of them about vinyl siding; and they had addressed that. He believed that they were overreaching by applying these standards to the residences in the neighborhood. In his neighborhood, 7 houses between Green and

Grand would be included and all had residential use. Many of his neighbors were concerned as well, especially about unclear language such as references to things such as permits that “may” be required. No homeowners outside this area would be required to get permits and approvals for changes such as a new front door. It seemed like a Homeowners Association that was being imposed by the City. He asserted that some flexibility would make sense.

Concerning garage placement, the document said that if a homeowner had an alleyway running behind the property, the garage should be at the end of the property and accessed from the alley. The length of his own property covered half the block and they were planning to put a garage in at some point; but placing it where the guidelines directed would put it at some distance from his house. It would also make it vulnerable to burglaries and vandalism, so he asked for some individual flexibility.

Mr. Brad Culbertson gave his address as 209 SW 3rd Street. He stated that he had worked with the Design Committee in developing the design standards and he was aware of the hard work that Ms. Bushyhead and other Committee members had put into them. They had not expected to end up with a perfect document, but it was a good plan to have in hand as a community development tool. He owned some Downtown commercial property and did not think that this would be a detriment to any current property owners, nor any future development.


He lived just outside the TNZ zone and wished his house was included in view of the protection it would provide.

Chairperson Fristoe asked Mr. Mautino to clarify the question raised about who the applicant should be. Mr. Mautino replied that he did not have a UDO copy in front of him. Ms.

Bushyhead stated that they had checked, and it was silent as far as text amendments were concerned. These were used in other communities, since a text amendment amounted to citizens asking a community's elected officials to consider a requested action. This could have been a City-initiated application, but there was nothing to prohibit Downtown Lee's Summit Main

Street from making it.

Mr. McKay confirmed that this was basically a joint application between two parties. Staff had been working with them on the guidelines and had been closely involved. A lot of the information had come from the initial design guidelines, which were approved by the Historic

Preservation Commission; and had put these guidelines into ordinance language. Mr. Mautino assured Chairperson Fristoe that if there was a problem with the purview of the applicant, it would be addressed before the City Council hearing. Concerning the actual language about

Visi on of the Heart, the first page of the Article 7 amendment stated that “ when design standards are applicable, the Vision of the Heart Streetscape design is encouraged with attention to consistency with what is typically seen in the applicable neighborhood ” [Section

7.440 paragraph (c)]. This paragraph had been added in response to a comment from the Van

Pettens' October 5th email. Concerning landscaping, the provision was simply a requirement to follow the code requirements. Regarding garages, they could look into some flexibility.

However, in terms of the impact on residents, they were specifically excluded from requirements for exterior permits. If an owner wanted to demolish an old house and put up a new one, the standards would come into play but nothing in the code would apply to exterior repairs to an existing home. Setbacks were the purview of zoning and were not design standards.

Ms. Bushyhead clarified that they did receive emails from the Van Pettens on October 5th and

November 28th. They had tried to respond to the issues, and had also received Mr. Lund's comments on the 28th. The Design Committee had gone over these emails at their regular meeting

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

Mr. Reece asked if the document should state that they did not apply to current residents and their homes. Ms. Bushyhead clarified that it would not impact existing residential uses. They could be more explicit, but she pointed out that on page 27, it clearly stated that the exterior renovation permit did not apply to residential homeowners. Mr. Reece remarked that nevertheless he had heard several comments expressing these concerns. Ms. Bushyhead said they could find a way to make the language more explicit.

Mr. Norbury asked Ms. Bushyhead if it was correct that the design standards would not make anyone re-design their house or business if they chose to keep it as is. Ms. Bushyhead said that was correct; there was no retroactive application that would be required. Mr. Norbury noted that the Van Pettens were concerned because they had a residential property in the Core area rather than the TNZ, and asked if the exemption would apply to both areas. Ms. Bushyhead said that the Downtown Core standards had two sets, commercial and residential so they would still be exempt.


Mr. Hilger noted that some of the standards would apply in a voluntary demolition, and asked about natural disasters. Ms. Bushyhead read from the document that “ an exterior renovation permit is not required for repair and maintenance of existing single- and two-family dwellings occupied as a residential use.” They could amend the statement to read “ general repair or casualty repair .” Mr. Hilger felt that would be more fair to homeowners. Mr. Norbury noted that paragraph (B), “Casualty Loss” (page 28), stated that “ demolition as a result of a casualty loss shall not be required to have Historic Preservation review. Codes Administration Department review will be required .” Ms. Bushyhead said that was for a demolition due to casualty. They could provide an exception for casualty loss.

Mr. Hughey stated that Article 15 had a legal nonconforming section stating that if a property was destroyed by a natural disaster it could be restored.

Ms. Smith asked if the revisions should be made and the application brought back, and Ms.

Bushyhead said that they could bring this back to the next Planning Commission meeting. She added, concerning ramps, that the language was consistent with the International Building Code and the Design Committee did not have the purview to do or advocate anything not consistent with that.

Chairperson Fristoe asked if there were further questions for the applicant or staff. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. and asked for a motion.

Ms. Smith made a motion to continue Application PL2012-146, Amendment 45 to the Unified

Development Ordinance (UDO): Article 7, Design Standards, to establish design standards for the Downtown Core Area; Dow ntown Lee’s Summit Main Street, applicant, to a date certain of

January 22, 2013. Mr. Reece seconded.

Chairperson Fristoe thanked everyone who had attended and testified tonight. As there was no discussion of the motion, he called for a vote.

On the motion of Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Reece, the Planning Commission members voted by voice vote of five “yes” and one “abstain” (Chairperson Fristoe) to CONTINUE Application

PL2012-146, Amendment 45 to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO): Article 7, Design

Standards, to establish design standards for the Downtown Core Area; Downtown Lee’s Summit

Main Street, applicant; to a date certain of January 22, 2013.


5. Application #PL2012-154 - SPECIAL USE PERMIT – Conversion of Nonconforming

Billboard to Digital, 902 SW Oldham Parkway; Lamar Advertising, applicant


Mr. Bob Fessler, vice president and Missouri territory manager of Lamar Advertising, stated that he was also a Lee's Summit resident. He introduced Ms. Beth Hamm, real estate manager for the company's Kansas City office. Mr. Fessler related that in 2006, the City of Lee's Summit


and MoDOT had approached them about three billboard structures they owned at the intersection of 350 Highway and I-470. These were being affected by the two Pryor Road flyovers. Lamar had agreed to waive condemnation in exchange for being able to install a digital sign at I-470 and M-291 and a digital sign at US 50 and 3rd Street. They had taken down a total of three structures, amounting to four advertising spaces since two of them were single face signs. Since 2006 they had gone from a total of ten billboard faces in Lee's Summit to six, a 40% reduction.

At this point, they were requesting to convert the back side of the billboard on US 50 and 3rd to a digital format. In exchange, they would take down a back-to-back sign at US 50 a little west of

M-291.

Chairperson Fristoe asked if the applicants were in agreement with staff's five Recommendation

Items, and Ms. Hamm answered that they were. The legal nonconforming status would be retained, and they would be removing the billboard structure at 403 SE Oldham Parkway, as

Recommendation Item 3 indicated, and they did intend to do so before the new digital face was installed. The new billboard would have the same dimensions as the existing ones. Each image on the billboard would display for at least 8 seconds and there would be no scrolling, flashing or any other distracting element. Mr. Fessler added that since the sign was on a US highway, they had to comply with Federal, State and City requirements. For example, the State had specific regulations for brightness levels and how often the sign face changed.

Following this presentation, Chairperson Fristoe asked for staff comments.

Mr. Soto entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-20 into the record. He confirmed that this application was for converting the static display side of the US 50/3rd Street billboard to multiface digital format. The other side had been converted in 2006. In exchange for converting the static face they would remove the entire billboard structure on Oldham Parkway. The digital billboard would have the same dimensions of 14'x18' as the existing billboard face

(Recommendation Item 4). Mr. Soto noted that the Recommendation Items did not include the usual reference to a time period for the SUP, and explained that this was because the existing sign was a lawful nonconforming use; so its use could continue indefinitely. The sign at US 50 and 3rd Street had been approved before the City required a Special Use Permit. This was reflected in Recommendation Item 1, which stated the converted billboard would “ retain its legal nonconforming status as a billboard and shall remain subject to the regulations of Article 15 of the UDO .” Mr. Soto confirmed that they would remove the entire billboard structure at 403 SE

Oldham Parkway in exchange for upgrading the technology of the US 50 / 3rd Street structure.

Staff recommended approval subject to Recommendation Items 1 through 5.

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 opened the meeting to questions for the applicant or staff. As there were no questions, Chairperson

Fristoe closed the public hearing at 8:34 p.m. and asked for discussion among the Commission members or for a motion.

Mr. Reece made a motion to recommend approval of Application PL2012-154, Special Use

Permit, Conversion of Nonconforming Billboard to Digital, 902 SW Oldham Parkway; Lamar

Advertising, applicant ; subject to staff’s letter of January 4, 2013, specifically Recommendation

Items 1 through 5. Ms. Smith seconded.



On the motion of Mr. Reece, seconded by Ms. Smith, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application PL2012-154, Special Use

Permit, Conversion of Nonconforming Billboard to Digital, 902 SW Oldham Parkway; Lamar

Advertising, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of January 4, 2013, specifically Recommendation

Items 1 through 5.


6. Application #PL2012-157 - Amendment #46 to the UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT

ORDINANCE (UDO) – Article 6, amending regulations regarding the M-150 Corridor

Overlay District Sustainability Section; City of Lee’s Summit, applicant


Mr. McKay entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-8 into the record. He reviewed that the M-150

Corridor Study had been followed by the UDO amendment that put the sustainability point system in place. A certain number of points, awarded for various sustainability-related items had to be gained in order to locate within the corridor. The process of putting the overlay in place had already been underway. At about this time, staff received an application for a single retail use in the corridor, which resulted in taking another look at it. The corridor had been intended for development as a mixed use environment, and the point system did not correlate with the single retailer use. Out of 300 possible points, over 100 were devoted to a residential component, so it was difficult to impossible for a single retailer to be able to get to that level.

The overlay was designed to encourage sustainability practices, not a roadblock to development, which was the reason for tonight's hearing.

Staff had increased the point values. The approach was to start out with a point value of a particular item related to sustainability piece and then measure all the other sustainability points against that number. However, some items, such as building a parking structure, were very expensive and a developer who could contribute something like that should be given a substantial amount of points in order to get it done.

Mr. McKay stated that he was willing to answer questions about any details of the amendment, noting that it had gone from 303 possible points to 565. Non-residential or mixed use development would be required to have 200 of that possible 565 points. That was a level that would be feasible for a single retailer. Staff felt that this addressed the sustainability goal and was a practical approach.

Mr. Reece asked if the M-150 Corridor Committee had reviewed the proposed amendment, noting that it had disbanded about six months ago. Mr. McKay answered that he had not brought it to the Committee, although they had looked at the original. When the retailer had made the application, they had consulted the list in the UDO and made their own list of what


they could and could not do. Mr. McKay had compared this with the existing system, and found the applicant would be able to meet the point requirements. At the time the system had been put into place, however, it had not taken single retail users into consideration. The amendment would take care of the issues. The original percentage of points needed for non-residential development, with frontage on arterial or highway frontage had been reduced from 66% to 44%.

Non-residential development without this kind of frontage had been reduced from 58% to 35%.

Mr. McKay added that staff had deleted this historic provision, since there was only one historic home in the area and its owners did not intend to retain it. The house in front had been taken out when the highway was improved and the current structure was in bad shape. The owner wanted to see redevelopment on the property. Staff had also made it clear that a project utilizing a mix of two or more housing types would be awarded ten points, but had deleted the references to adding three or four types.

Following Mr. McKay’s comments, Chairperson Fristoe asked if there was anyone present wishing to give testimony, either in support for or opposition to the application. As there were none, he then asked if the Commission had questions for the applicant or staff.

Mr. Norbury remarked that he'd thought the City was trying to limit single-use retail in this area in order to encourage more mixed-use development along M-150. He asked if this change would impact that balance. Mr. McKay did not think it would. Large 'big box' retailers, such as

Walmart would most likely want to locate on the east side of M-150, probably near the southeast corner. The City was still encouraging mixed use.

Ms. Smith commented that the Robinson house had been decaying for a long time and the change was understandable, although it was sad that the historic structures on that part of M-

291 were gone.

Chairperson Fristoe asked if there were further questions for the applicant or staff. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing at 8:52 p.m. and asked for discussion among the

Commission members, or for a motion.

Ms. Smith made a motion to recommend approval of Application PL2012-157, Amendment 46 to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO): Article 6, amending regulations regarding the M-

150 Corridor Overlay District Sustainability Section; City of Lee’s Summit, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of January 4, 2013. Mr. DeMoro seconded.


On the motion of Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. DeMoro, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application PL2012-157,

Amendment 46 to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO): Article 6, amending regulations regarding the M150 Corridor Overlay District Sustainability Section; City of Lee’s Summit, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of January 4, 2013.



PUBLIC COMMENTS

There were no public comments at the meeting.

ROUNDTABLE

Mr. Delibero remarked that the Commission needed to figure out a consistent way to require businesses coming in to contribute to the community. The Walmart vote tonight had been a difficult one for him.

Ms. Smith agreed, and pointed out that the Kansas City region did have an upcoming development, Prairie Fire, that would have an extension of New York's Museum of Natural

History. While this would not be possible for every development, she wanted to see Lee's

Summit get some kind of resource related to quality of life along with development more consistently. She complimented the other Commissioners on their thorough approach during the hearing.

Chairperson Fristoe announced that the CEDC had asked the Planning Commission to join them for a workshop on Wednesday, March 20th. The focus would be on better defining the

City's economic development mission and goals.

Mr. Reece stated that he would not be able to attend the January 22nd Planning Commission meeting.

Mr. Monter stated that he needed to get some feedback on Section 1000 of the DNC manual.

Concerning the earlier remarks about pervious vs.

impervious pavements, he stated that staff did consistently discuss using some pervious pavement with applicants. The problem in the

Kansas City area was that the soil was not conducive to that. While he agreed with the idea, the technology was not really practical in Kansas City at present. The soil was clay beneath the topsoil cover. Mr. Reece noted that a consulting firm had actually hosted several seminars on constructing pervious pavements on the Kansas City area.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, Chairperson Fristoe adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m.

PC 010813


LEE`S SUMMIT PLANNING COMMISSION

Related documents

Products

Support

LEE`S SUMMIT PLANNING COMMISSION

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib