LEE’S SUMMIT PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of Tuesday, June 25, 2013
The Tuesday, June 25, 2013, Lee’s Summit Planning Commission meeting was called to order
by Chairperson Jason Norbury at 5:00 p.m., at City Council Chambers, 220 SE Green Street,
Lee’s Summit, Missouri.
OPENING ROLL CALL:
Chairperson Jason Norbury
Mr. Fred Delibero
Mr. Steven Hilger
Mr. Fred DeMoro
Mr. Frank White III
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Mr. Kurt Pycior
Mr. John Reece
Ms. Colene Roberts
Ms. Kathy Smith
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Also present were Robert McKay, Director, Planning and Development Department; Linda
Tyrrel, Deputy Director, Planning and Development Department; Chris Hughey, Staff Planner;
Hector Soto, Senior Planner; Jennifer Thompson, Staff Planner; John Mautino, Deputy City
Attorney; Kent Monter, Development Engineering Manager; Michael Park, City Traffic Engineer;
Jim Eden, Assistant Fire Chief I, Fire Department; and Kim Brennan, Administrative Assistant.
1.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
A.
Application #PL2013-059 - FINAL PLAT - Park Ridge, 3rd Plat, Lots 206 - 217
and Tract A3; ACH Development, LLC, applicant
B.
Application #PL2013-060 - FINAL PLAT - Park Ridge, 4th Plat, Lots 218 - 243
and Tracts A4 and B4; ACH Development, LLC, applicant
C.
Application #PL2013-079 – SIGN APPLICATION – Summit Custom Homes;
monument sign, 120 SE 30th Street; LTD Signs and Graphics LLC, applicant
D.
Application #PL2013-081 - VACATION OF EASEMENT - 2101 & 2151 NE
Independence Avenue; Davidson Architecture & Engineering, applicant
On the motion of Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Pycior, the Planning Commission voted by voice
vote of six “yes” and one “abstain” (Mr. Delibero) to APPROVE the Consent Agenda, Item 1A-D
as published.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Chairperson Norbury announced that there were no changes to the agenda, and asked for a
motion to approve. On the motion of Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Pycior, the Planning
Commission voted by voice vote of six “yes” and one “abstain” (Mr. Delibero) to APPROVE the
agenda as published.
PLANNING COMMISSION
1
JUNE 25, 2013
2.
Application #PL2013-052 and #PL2013-053 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
and SPECIAL USE PERMIT for auto sales and major automotive repair – Volkswagen
of Lee's Summit, 2225 NE Independence Ave.; New Concepts Construction, Inc.,
applicant
Chairperson Norbury opened the hearing at 5:03 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or
provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in.
Mr. Tom Watkins, the applicant and prospective dealer for Volkswagen, introduced Mr. Kevin
Hunt, the general contractor. He had been involved in selling cars from the age of 17. In his
college years in Utah, he had started buying and reselling cars on his own. He then took a job
at a dealership in Salt Lake City and became manager. There he had met his wife, who would
be a partner in the business. They had bought their first dealership in 1989, and several after
that. One of these was a Volkswagen dealership, and management had told them to close the
store and move south into the suburbs. Southtown Volkswagen, in South Jordan, near Salt
Lake City, had the fifth largest volume of 805 Volkswagen dealerships in the US. It was the only
Volkswagen store in the US that was the largest dealership of any make of car in its state.
Regarding customer service, Mr. Watkins remarked that it was easy to either sell a few cars and
make a few people happy or sell a lot of cars and make no one happy. To sell a lot of cars and
make a lot of people happy was more difficult. Their operation was extremely profitable.
Volkswagen had asked them if they wanted to open another dealership, but they were smaller
operations in the Western states. They had wanted a market of 500,000 people that was a
direct flight away, and Volkswagen had suggested Kansas City. Kansas City had been a
problem for them, in that they seemed to be the only car dealership that did not make money
there. Volkswagen had 3 dealers for about 2 million people in the metro area. Mr. Watkins and
his wife had looked at the demographics and looked at real estate and decided this would be a
great opportunity.
The site was located off Independence Avenue. It was almost 11 acres and had expressway
frontage with good access. It was currently occupied by a boat dealership with a large pond,
which they would need to drain. They had all the permits from the Army Corps of Engineers
relating to wetlands. A slide displayed the proposed layout. The dealership would have an
inventory of about 400 new cars and 150 used cars. The parking looked extensive but it would
be needed for the approximate 50 employees and for wholesale cars and other vehicles. Mr.
Watkins showed an aerial photograph of the site with its current development, followed by a
west-facing conceptual photo of the 44,000 square-foot Volkswagen dealership. The service
department would be on the right and the showroom on the left was a slightly elevated glass
structure, with glass on three sides. This showroom would light up like a lantern at night. The
large green space shown on another photo would be additional parking. It had been considered
for a future retention pond; however, that was now planned for the other side of the property. In
one shot of a building with glass walls, Mr. Watkins pointed out how the upper levels of the room
were not attached to the walls and appeared to 'float'. That floating second level was what
would cause the building to light up at night.
PLANNING COMMISSION
2
JUNE 25, 2013
Mr. Watkins then displayed a floor plan and pointed out the service department on the right and
the showroom on the left. Cars would be lined along the perimeter of the showroom. The 12
sales offices would be in clusters of four; and picnic tables would be distributed near the space
for additional meeting space with customers. The parts department and service area would be
in the back. The second levels would have space for accounting, training and business
development.
The next few photo showed Volkswagen's architectural branding in various existing dealerships.
A series of interior shots showed what the design features would look like, as well as colors and
materials typically used; and another showed a parts and accessories department and a
customer lounge and waiting room, and a greeter's desk. Mr. Watkins pointed out the
showroom in one picture
Chairperson Norbury noted that staff had listed 10 Recommendation Items, and asked if the
applicant agreed with them. Mr. Watkins asked if the roundabout was a make-or-break feature.
It was included in Recommendation Item 9.
After Mr. Watkins' presentation, Mr. Kevin Hunt of New Concepts Construction gave his address
as 31 W. Gregson Avenue in Salt Lake City, Utah. Regarding the screening for roof-mounted
mechanical equipment (Recommendation Item 1), the shop at the dealership would have
parapet walls extended four feet to create the screen. The sales floor area had an eave height
of 26.5 feet; and the architectural plans were drawn with the screening wall pulled back within
the storefront's vertical line. This would serve as the mechanical screening. An exterior shot
showed the white aluminum composite panels that Volkswagen wanted for the design, noting
that they were a little over 2 feet all the way around the perimeter. They would have to extend
the parapet wall by about 4.5 feet for screening; but they hoped to pull the screen wall inward.
The screening would reach the equipment height, but it would be further in from the roof's edge.
The applicants had some concerns about the appearance of the architectural corrugated metal
siding (Item 2). Volkswagen's guidelines allowed for an EIFS material as an alternative. They
would apply on both the screen wall and the existing shop. The applicants agreed with the
architectural aluminum paneling being approved as shown on the June 4 elevations (Item 3)
and on a maximum of 7 wall signs (Item 4). Regarding the limits on monument signs (Item 5),
he had observed the signage around Lee's Summit and so would not oppose it, nor the
prohibition on pole signs (Item 6). They would comply with the 16-foot maximum height (Item 7)
and use a 15.5-foot monument sign, and change that item on the site plan. The monument sign
on the south side of the driveway was already in compliance with the maximum area allowed
(Item 8).
Regarding the dedication of the right-of-way at Independence Avenue and Town Centre
Boulevard (Item 9), Mr. Hunt asked if the City normally tied approval of a product to dedication
of ground. Chairperson Norbury advised that staff would address that in their presentation. Mr.
Hunt then stated that the applicants agreed with the 20-year limit on the SUP (Item 10).
Following the applicants' presentation, Chairperson Norbury asked for staff comments.
Mr. Soto entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-18 into the record. He concurred with the
overview of the sign that Mr. Watkins and Mr. Hunt had given. This was fairly large site, just
under 11 acres; and the proposed building would be a little over 41,000 square feet. That
PLANNING COMMISSION
3
JUNE 25, 2013
included the currently existing 19,000 square-foot building plus the glass and metal addition,
which was about 13,600 square feet.
Mr. Soto specifically addressed the issues of materials and signage. The applicants had
originally shown staff the corrugated metal, but were willing to use another material. Mr. Soto
passed around samples of the metal material. It was similar to materials used on other car
dealerships. It was an aluminum composite metal that both the Commission and the City
Council had seen before. Staff supported its use on the glass and metal portion.
Staff would consider the use of EIFS or stucco to cover the existing building, as well as a
combination with metal, specifically the composite metal the Commissioners were looking at.
Mr. Soto was not sure they could pin down specifics such as maximum percentages of
coverage at this early stage.
Mr. Soto then referred the Commissioners to the tables showing the applicants' signage
proposal on pages 4 and 5 of their packets. They had proposed a total of 12 signs, with 7 being
wall signs plus one monument sign and 4 pole signs. Staff supported the 7 wall signs, 4 of
which identified entrances and exits for their service and service express. The other signs were
medallions with the dealer logo and the Lee's Summit dealer name. Of the 4 proposed pole
signs, 3 were along the I-470 frontage. One was 40 feet high and two were 20 feet. The fourth
15-foot pole sign would be on the Independence Avenue frontage. The monument sign would
be on the south side of the drive, and it already was within the height maximum for CP-2 zoning
but was slightly over the allowed square footage. Staff supported the monument sign but pole
signs had not been allowed by the UDO since 2001 and staff recommended that monument
signs be used instead. They suggested one freestanding sign on Independence Avenue and
two on the I-470 frontage. It was a large site, with about 660 feet of highway frontage. A recent
ten-year SUP for Instant Auto; but that was a used car business. For new vehicle sales, 20
years was the standard practice.
The 20-year term for the Special Use Permit was consistent with other similar SUPs.
Mr. Soto stated that staff recommended approval of the application subject to Recommendation
Items 1 through 10. Item 2 could be deleted, since they were no longer proposing the
corrugated metal material.
Mr. Park addressed the issue of the issue of a right-of-way in Item 9. He confirmed that right-ofway dedication as part of a preliminary development plan was a typical procedure for the City.
Whenever the City identified a need in that area, be it as part of a thoroughfare master plan
project or for planned public improvements, the expectation was that anyone seeking approval
for developing adjacent property dedicate the necessary right-of-way.
Following staff's presentation, Chairperson Norbury 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. Pycior noted Mr. Watkins' reference to the building lighting up like a lantern at night, and
remarked that was actually something that the City had tried to avoid; and in fact the light
situation with current car dealerships was far from ideal. He had not seen any reference to it in
staff's report, and wanted to know if this was just a comment by the applicant about the building
PLANNING COMMISSION
4
JUNE 25, 2013
and if the applicants had submitted a photoelectric plan. Mr. Soto answered that they had, and
it did meet UDO requirements. He speculated that Mr. Watkins' comment was a reference to
the interior architecture being more open in terms of visibility and letting in a lot of light. Mr.
Pycior responded that he would be satisfied with that as long as the design did not cause that
kind of problem. He then asked if staff was agreeable to striking Recommendation Item 2, and
Mr. Soto confirmed that they were. Concerning the signs, Mr. Pycior asked if it was correct that
the plan was for a total of 10 signs. Mr. Soto answered that staff was recommending 10,
including 7 wall signs and 3 monument signs. The applicant had requested 12.
Mr. Pycior asked if the applicant considered that the issue of the roundabout had been
answered, and if this had been part of a right-of-way issue. Mr. Watkins said that he had been
asking if that would be a deal-breaker with the staff, as it would be for the applicant. The rightof-way would be for the roundabout. It was at an intersection; and he considered that by
definition an intersection had four quadrants. But there were only two people who would be
giving away property for that and he would be one of them. He did not consider that this was
warranted.
Ms. Roberts noted that the plan the Commission just saw on the screen was very different from
the one she was looking at in the packet, and asked which parking lot was the one they were
planning to build. Mr. Soto answered that the one included in the packet was what was being
proposed. The other design they had seen was an earlier version.
Ms. Roberts then asked the applicant if the detention basin would have vegetation, noting that
she had not seen it on the landscape plan. Mr. Watkins answered that it would. Ms. Roberts
asked if that would be turf grass, as she would prefer to see native plants with deeper roots. Mr.
Watkins remarked that he was new to this, and Ms. Roberts told him that deeper routes would
result in better infiltration.
Mr. Brent Sells, of Davidson Architecture and Engineering, stated that they were familiar with
the site and had worked on other local auto dealerships. Their plans included a ten foot wide
infiltration trench that intercepted the flow before it got to the detention basin. They would
consider whether using native vegetation was appropriate.
Mr. Monter referred the Commissioners to drawing 3C.1, which included a note addressing this
issue. Staff had worked with the applicants and their engineer, and they had provided a
stormwater report. Staff had made them aware of the detention requirements, which was one of
the reasons for the infiltration trench. They would be meeting the requirements in terms of both
best management practices and water quality.
Mr. Pycior asked if Mr. Park could give some details about the roundabout, noting that Item 9
reflected common practice. Mr. Park emphasized that the requirement for dedication of a rightof-way for improvements was a standard City practice. The roundabout had been moved to the
south due to the existence of a wetland area at the north property line. The location also
avoided some significant utility relocations.
Concerning Recommendation Item 1, addressing the screening for roof-mounted mechanical
equipment, the applicant intended to make the screening of mechanical units a part of the
design of the building itself, and integral to the building, rather than something that would be
PLANNING COMMISSION
5
JUNE 25, 2013
added. Mr. Pycior asked if staff would be satisfied with the wording “the roof-mounted
equipment shall be screened from view,” and Mr. Soto said that this would be sufficient.
Chairperson Norbury asked if there were further questions for the applicant or staff. Hearing
none, he closed the public hearing at 5:35 p.m. and asked for discussion among the
Commission members.
Regarding Recommendation Item 1, Chairperson Norbury stated that he would be comfortable
with striking the wording about extending the parapet. Mr. Pycior said he would be satisfied with
a statement that generally required screening the equipment, in the absence of a final set of
plans at this point.
Hearing no further discussion, Chairperson Norbury called for a motion.
Mr. Pycior made a motion to recommend approval of Application PL2013-052 and PL2013-053,
Preliminary Development Plan and Special Use Permit for auto sales and major automotive
repair; Volkswagen of Lee's Summit, 2225 NE Independence Ave.; New Concepts Construction,
Inc., applicant; subject to staff’s letter of June 21, 2013, with Recommendation Item 1 amended
to read “the roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view,” striking
Recommendation Item 2 and leaving Recommendation Items 3 through 10 as is. Mr. Delibero
seconded.
Chairperson Norbury asked if there was any discussion of the motion. Hearing none, he called
for a vote.
On the motion of Mr. Pycior, seconded by Mr. Delibero, the Planning Commission members
voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application PL2013-052 and
PL2013-053, Preliminary Development Plan and Special Use Permit for auto sales and major
automotive repair; Volkswagen of Lee's Summit, 2225 NE Independence Ave.; New Concepts
Construction, Inc., applicant; subject to staff’s letter of June 21, 2013, with Recommendation
Items 1 through 10 amended as stated.
(The foregoing is a digest of the secretary’s notes of the public hearing. The transcript may be
obtained.)
3.
Application #PL2013-157 – SPECIAL USE PERMIT renewal for the Raintree Lake
Maintenance Facility building, 504 SW 163rd St.; Raintree Lake Property Owners
Association, applicant
Chairperson Norbury opened the hearing at 5:40 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or
provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in.
Ms. Rachelle Vandiver, general manager of the Raintree Lake Property Owners Association,
gave her address as 825 SW Raintree Drive. They were requesting the renewal of their Special
Use Permit for the maintenance facility, for an additional 10 years. They agreed with staff's
comments and did not intend to make any changes.
Following Ms. Vandiver’s presentation, Chairperson Norbury asked for staff comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION
6
JUNE 25, 2013
Ms. Thompson entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-15 into the record. She stated that the
maintenance facility was located at 504 SW 163rd Street. There was no evidence of impact on
surrounding uses, and staff supported the application. Ms. Thompson then reviewed staff's
three Recommendation Items. The SUP would be for a 10-year term (Item 1); no outdoor
storage would be allowed (Item 2), and all landscaping and fencing had to be maintained and
replaced as necessary (Item 3). Staff recommended approval of the application.
Following Ms. Thompson’s comments, Chairperson Norbury asked if there was anyone present
wishing to give testimony, either in support for or opposition to the application.
Mr. Dan Dempsey gave his mailing address as P.O. Box 652 in Lee's Summit. He owned the
property immediately adjacent to the west, on 163rd Street. The property had not been fully
developed, but he intended to do that at some point. The access to the facility was on the same
side as his property, so he was directly affected by its use. The POA had been good neighbors
but he did have some concerns. First, he had noticed an increase in traffic over the past
decade, due to an increased number of employees as well as additional equipment. Mr.
Dempsey acknowledged that it was not overly intrusive, since it was only for part of the year and
only from about 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Nevertheless, he'd approached a supervisor at that
location about concerns he and other neighbors had about inappropriate outdoor storage of
materials. The supervisor had said they were not prohibited from that type of use, although this
was corrected later.
Mr. Dempsey asked that the conditions about both storage and maintenance be strengthened.
The fence in particular was not consistent with what had originally been required. It was
supposed to be opaque and impossible to see through; but he had taken a picture after it was
installed and had shown it to two Commission members. They both acknowledged that it did
not meet the requirements. His own concern was that the intent of a six-foot fence was to
provide screening; and that would have happened if it was installed close to the paved surface.
However, it was located about 12 meet distant, and due to the difference in grade, the screening
was not effective. The Commission members he had talked to had suggested some kind of
living screening, such as a hedge. However, that was not done.
Mr. Dempsey also wanted to prohibition on outdoor storage of equipment or materials
strengthened. The prohibition had not specifically included vehicles, and a concern over that
had been raised at the time. A Councilmember had asked staff if the prohibition would cover
vehicles and staff had assured that it did. Mr. Dempsey asked that the phrase “overnight
storage of equipment, materials, supplies or vehicles” be substituted in Item 2. The individuals
involved had been good neighbors, but these two omissions concerned him.
Ms. Thompson clarified that the original approval had specified a six-foot white vinyl fence along
the west property boundary. To her knowledge, that was what was built.
Mr. Brian Whitley gave his address as 4544 SW Gull Point Drive in Raintree. He had been
president of the POA between 2004 and 2008, during the final construction phase and the first
few years the facility was in operation. The Association had made an effort to make the facility
blend in with its residential surroundings, including using a building that looked like a house. It
was a practical asset for the community.
PLANNING COMMISSION
7
JUNE 25, 2013
Mr. Pycior remarked to Mr. Mautino that he did not recall someone testifying at a Commission
meeting giving a P.O. box as an address, and asked if that fell within the boundaries of what the
Commission could expect of people testifying in public hearings. Mr. Mautino replied that this
area was not specifically covered by either the ordinance or State law. Giving name and
address was done for having the identification on record. If a person was claiming the action
would affect their property, they did need to give the address. Mr. Pycior noted that this was in
fact a case of someone saying that the activity in question impacted their own property. Mr.
Mautino noted that Mr. Dempsey had testified that he owned property adjacent to the facility;
however, he had not claimed in the testimony to be living there. Ms. Pycior remarked that it
appeared the Commission and staff did not know what the protocol was. Mr. Mautino answered
that it was customary but not an definite requirement.
Mr. Pycior then observed that when the SUP had been granted 10 years ago, the property was
in bad condition; and the current facility was a major improvement. He did also recall a number
of residents nearby complaining about the upkeep and lack of maintenance; and they were not
hearing these complaints tonight. Ms. Thompson confirmed for Mr. Pycior that the fence had
been built at the west property line.
Mr. Pycior did not have a problem with adding the phrase to Item 1 that Mr. Dempsey had asked
for. Ms. Thompson pointed out that it already specified both equipment and materials, and Mr.
Pycior noted that Mr. Dempsey's addition had included vehicles, specifically overnight storage.
Ms. Thompson said this could be added. Mr. DeMoro asked if they needed to be specific about
the term “overnight”. Chairperson Norbury noted that limits on storage for RVs usually said 72
hours.
Ms. Thompson was not sure if they needed to be as specific as “overnight.” Chairperson
Norbury asked Mr. Dempsey for clarification. Mr. Dempsey said that what he'd asked for was
vehicles and equipment, in addition to supplies and materials, after work was done for the day.
He had no problem with these items being outside during business hours. He had been told
specifically when he'd asked at the site that they were not prohibited from leaving things out
overnight.
Chairperson Norbury asked if there were further questions for the applicant or staff. Hearing
none, he closed the public hearing at 5:58 p.m. and asked for discussion among the
Commission members, or for a motion.
Mr. Pycior stated that the statement in staff's report was strong enough in making it clear that
there would be no outside storage after business hours.
Mr. Pycior made a motion to recommend approval of Application PL2013-157, Special Use
Permit renewal for the Raintree Lake Maintenance Facility building, 504 SW 163rd St.; Raintree
Lake Property Owners Association, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of June 21, 2013,
specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 3, with Item 2 amended to read “there shall be no
outdoor storage of equipment, materials, supplies or vehicles.” Mr. Delibero seconded.
Chairperson Norbury asked if there was any discussion of the motion. Hearing none, he called
for a vote.
PLANNING COMMISSION
8
JUNE 25, 2013
On the motion of Mr. Pycior, seconded by Mr. Delibero, the Planning Commission members
voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application PL2013-157,
Special Use Permit renewal for the Raintree Lake Maintenance Facility building, 504 SW 163rd
St.; Raintree Lake Property Owners Association, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of June 21,
2013, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 3, with Item 2 amended as stated.
(The foregoing is a digest of the secretary’s notes of the public hearing. The transcript may be
obtained.)
(Mr. Delibero left the meeting, at 6:00 p.m.)
4.
Application #PL2013-076 – SPECIAL USE PERMIT for recreation facility: YES Youth
Fitness & Sports Performance, 8 NE Skyline Dr.; YES Youth Fitness & Sports
Performance, applicant
Chairperson Norbury opened the hearing at 6:00 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or
provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in.
Mr. Michael Cardinale gave his address as 1552 Brompton Lane in Raymore. He gave an
overview of the business. It was a youth and wellness facility that addressed situations such as
childhood obesity, as well as some focus on general conditioning and sports performance.
They also had a program with physicians referrals and with non-profits. Local youth sports
teams often came in, and they held Family Fitness Days as well as a partnership with the Lee's
Summit School District. The proposed facility would not need any additional construction or
modifications to the building. Mr. Cardinale had provided a handout with other details about the
business and its goals.
Following Mr. Cardinale’s presentation, Chairperson Norbury asked for staff comments.
Mr. Soto entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-17 into the record. He stated that the applicant
operated the existing facility at 1251 NE Rice Road, just south of Deerbrook, in the building
formerly occupied by Tanner's. They wanted to move their operation to the Skyline Drive
facility, which better suited their needs.
Similar facilities had previously brought in applications for Special Use Permits in industrial
areas. The existing facility was in a CP-2 zoning district, where the use did not require an SUP.
However, that was required for a recreational use in industrial zoning, which was the reason for
tonight's public hearing. The new facility would be 7,500 square feet in an existing 19,000
square foot building. Most of the building was warehouse use and did not have a staff on site,
so the existing demand for parking was very low.
Hours of operation during the school year would be noon to 7:30 p.m. Saturday morning
classes would be added when school was not in session. The site had 29 existing parking
spaces, and the applicant would be able to use all of these most of the time. They did
occasionally host “Discovery Days”, which could attract up to 50 students; however, the
students were usually brought by bus.
Staff recommended approval, subject to
Recommendation Item 1 that specified a 10-year term for the SUP.
PLANNING COMMISSION
9
JUNE 25, 2013
Following Mr. Soto’s comments, Chairperson Norbury asked if the Commission had questions
for the applicant or staff.
Mr. Pycior asked if it was correct that the existing facility had not needed a Special Use Permit,
and Mr. Soto confirmed that it was. Mr. Pycior then asked when the applicant had moved to the
new location, and Mr. Soto answered that they had not moved as yet.
Chairperson Norbury asked if there were further questions for the applicant or staff. Hearing
none, he closed the public hearing at 6:08 p.m. and asked for discussion among the
Commission members, or for a motion.
Mr. Pycior made a motion to recommend approval of Application PL2013-076, Special Use
Permit for recreation facility: YES Youth Fitness & Sports Performance, 8 NE Skyline Dr.; YES
Youth Fitness & Sports Performance, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of June 21, 2013,
specifically Recommendation Item 1. Ms. Smith seconded.
Chairperson Norbury asked if there was any discussion of the motion. Hearing none, he called
for a vote.
On the motion of Mr. Pycior, seconded by Ms. Smith, the Planning Commission members voted
unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application PL2013-076, Special Use
Permit for recreation facility: YES Youth Fitness & Sports Performance, 8 NE Skyline Dr.; YES
Youth Fitness & Sports Performance, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of June 21, 2013,
specifically Recommendation Item 1.
(The foregoing is a digest of the secretary’s notes of the public hearing. The transcript may be
obtained.)
5.
Application #PL2013-078 – Amendment #47 to the UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE (UDO) – Article 9, Uses Permitted With Conditions, and Article 13 – Signs;
City of Lee's Summit, applicant
Chairperson Norbury opened the hearing at 6:00 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or
provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in.
Ms. Tyrrel entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-17 into the record. She related that staff
proposed to amend two sections of the UDO. The change to Article 9 was in response to some
requests staff had received regarding new bar and tavern uses in the Downtown area. Ms.
Tyrrel displayed a map of the Downtown area and explained that the black dashed line indicated
the Downtown Core area as determined by the Downtown master plan. The brown areas were
the Central Business District (CBD) and the red was CP-2 (general commercial use). Both
these districts allowed bars and taverns. CBD also allowed residential use; but bars and
taverns had to maintain a 300-foot distance from residential. This was a severe restriction on
future uses, although existing bars and taverns had been 'grandfathered' in. The proposed
amendment would eliminate the distance requirement if the residential use and the bar or tavern
were both in the CBD district.
In the CP-2 district, concerns had been raised about single-family dwellings being too close to
bars or taverns. The amendment would retain the 300-foot rule for detached dwellings;
PLANNING COMMISSION
10
JUNE 25, 2013
however, loft dwellings would be exempt. This would protect some of the CP-2 areas, such as
the neighborhoods near M-291 and US 50, where residential uses were close to commercial
ones. In the case of restaurants that served alcoholic beverages, the distance requirement was
100 feet; and the same change would apply there.
The other amendment pertained to signage. Staff had been working on the sign ordinance for a
number of years, and about a year ago Mr. Mark White, a local land use attorney, had helped
with the rewriting. Staff had brought the result to the CEDC in December, and had discussed
the idea of having representatives from the sign industry look over the draft and provide
comments. This had been done in February and the draft went back to the CEDC in May. They
had give approval for it to move forward.
Staff had looked over the applications and modifications for signs that the Planning Commission
and City Council had looked at over the past decade. A slight increase in the number of signs,
was generally approved, so the revised ordinance allowed three wall signs and a monument
sign, instead of three wall signs or two walls signs and one monument sign. Requests for
different types of signs had also been common, and Ms. Tyrrel displayed some examples. A
ground sign had air space between the bottom of the sign and the ground. This and hanging
signs were currently permitted only in TNZ. However, they tended to be small and tasteful and
were usually less expensive than large monument signs; and the amendment would allow them
in any district, with size limitations. A monument sign could be up to 72 square feet in a
commercial district; the proposed amendment would allow ground signs up to 16 square feet.
Mr. White had assisted in helping draft language that would be legally defensible. This
information was especially important in provisions for 'opinion' signs. It was legitimate to define
categories for speech, such as personal or commercial speech.
Following Ms. Tyrrel’s comments, Chairperson Norbury asked if there was anyone present
wishing to give testimony, either in support for or opposition to the application.
Mr. Matt Chubboy stated that he was territory manager for the Watchfire sign company, and
lived in St. Louis. He stated that communities had a symbiotic relationship with businesses.
Businesses were vital to a thriving community, and Lee's Summit had a number of quality
businesses. They brought money into a community. Mr. Chubboy asserted that he had never
seen anything work for signs as well as LED, so he applauded its inclusion in the ordinance.
The model for the hold time on digital off-premises signs like billboards was 8 seconds, while
signs on the business premises were typically closer to 3 or 4 seconds. This had been
determined by an industry study of how much time a driver would have to recognize and
perceive a message. At 35 mph, a car would go 100 feet every few seconds, and that time was
cut in half at 70 mph. A clear view of the sign would be at about 500 feet, so by the time the
driver was 150 feet from the sign their attention would be directed away from the sign. That left
about 350 feet for the driver to see the advertising; and at 35 mph that would be about 7
seconds. He believed that the 4 or 8-second rules worked well.
Chairperson Norbury then asked if the Commission had questions for the applicant or staff.
Concerning the distances between businesses serving alcohol and residences, Chairperson
Norbury asked if 'loft dwelling' was general enough to include apartments. These might need to
be considered for the M-150 development. Ms. Tyrrel replied that 'loft dwelling' would
PLANNING COMMISSION
11
JUNE 25, 2013
specifically be on a second story or above, so there was a distinction from apartments. She
added that the draft that staff had taken to the CEDC specified 4 seconds for an on-premise
changeable copy and 8 signs for billboards. That was the current rule. The CEDC had asked to
change the 4 seconds to 8.
Ms. Smith recalled an earlier controversy over the mural on West Main Street. She asked if
there had been any further discussion about murals. Many historic downtowns had them, and
they would fit in perfectly for Downtown. Ms. Tyrrel stated that murals were a permitted type of
sign in the CBD, but not in other districts. It was often difficult to distinguish between a mural
and a sign intended for advertising.
Chairperson Norbury asked if a consensus was needed on the 4 or 8 second rules. Ms. Tyrrel
answered that staff would like a recommendation. Ms. Roberts was in favor of keeping the
standard at 8 seconds for billboards and 4 seconds for on-premises signs.
Chairperson Norbury asked if there were further questions for the applicant or staff. Hearing
none, he closed the public hearing at 6:26 p.m. and asked for discussion among the
Commission members, or for a motion.
Mr. Pycior made a motion to recommend approval of Application PL2013-078, Amendment #47
to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO): Article 9, Uses Permitted With Conditions, and
Article 13, Signs; City of Lee's Summit, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of June 21, 2013. Ms.
Smith seconded.
Chairperson Norbury asked if there was any discussion of the motion. Hearing none, he called
for a vote.
On the motion of Mr. Pycior, seconded by Ms. Smith, the Planning Commission members voted
unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application PL2013-078, Amendment
#47 to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO): Article 9, Uses Permitted With Conditions,
and Article 13 – Signs; City of Lee's Summit, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of June 21, 2013.
(The foregoing is a digest of the secretary’s notes of the public hearing. The transcript may be
obtained.)
Other Agenda Items
6.
Election of Officers
Chairperson Norbury stated that the Commission was required under its bylaws to elect officers
every June. Mr. Mautino clarified that it was just for vice chair and secretary.
Mr. Pycior recommended approval of the current slate, and Ms. Roberts seconded.
Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to approve the motion.
The
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at the meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION
12
JUNE 25, 2013
ROUNDTABLE
Mr. Pycior apologized for missing several Planning Commission meetings, as he had been out
of town.
Ms. Roberts thanked staff for all the work they had done on the UDO amendment.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chairperson Norbury adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
PC 06-25-13
PLANNING COMMISSION
13
JUNE 25, 2013