9

PLANNING COMMISSION July12, 2005

LEE’S SUMMIT PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of Tuesday, July 12, 2005

The Tuesday, July 12, 2005, Lee’s Summit Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Trainer, at 6:02 p.m., at Arnold Hall, 123 SE 3rd Street.

OPENING ROLL CALL:

Chairperson Trainer Present Mr. Christopher Absent

Ms. Rosenquist Present Ms. Funk Present

Mr. Reece Present Mr. Pycior Present

Mr. Atcheson Present Mr. Gray Present

Mr. Fristoe Present

Also present were Linda Tyrrel, Assistant Director, Planning and Development Department; Rich Wood, Deputy City Attorney; Michael Gorecki, Senior Planner, Kent Monter, Development Engineering Manager, Jeff McKerrow, Senior Staff Engineer, Pam Fortun, Staff Engineer; Jim Eden, Battalion Chief, Fire Department; and Kim Brennan, Administrative Secretary.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Chairperson Trainer announced that Item 6 (Application 2005-192) had been continued, at the applicant’s request. asked if there were additions or corrections to the agenda. Also, Item 8 (Application 2005-199) and Item 9 (Application 2005-200) were being moved up to immediately follow Item 4. On motion of Ms. Rosenquist, seconded by Mr. Fristoe, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to APPROVE the amended agenda.

1.  APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA

A.  Application #2005-044 – FINAL PLAT – Villas of Parkwood, 2nd Plat, Lots 46-79 and Tracts G-I; Stoney Creek Development, applicant

B.  Minutes of the June 14, 2005 Planning Commission meeting

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

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

2.  Public Hearing: Application #2005-076 – REZONING from PI-1 to BP and Application #2005-077 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 31 acres east of Independence Avenue between Hagan Road and Jones Industrial Drive (proposed I-470 Business and Technology Center, Lots 1-22), Wilgate Development, , applicant

Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 6:03 p.m. and announced that Applications 2005-076 and 2005-077 were being continued to July 26, 2005 at staff’s request. She then closed the

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

3.  Public Hearing - Application #2005-162 – REZONING from R-1, RP-2, PRO, CP-1, CP-2, CBD and PI-1 to TNZ – generally located in the first ring of blocks surrounding the central business district, east of Jefferson Street, south of Maple Street and First Street, west of Grand Avenue, and north of Fifth and Sixth Streets; City of Lee’s Summit, applicant

Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 6:04 p.m. and announced that Application 2005-162 was being continued to August 9, 2005 at staff’s request. She then closed the hearing.

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

6.  Public Hearing: Application #2005-192 – VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY – portion of old Blackwell Road north and south of Scruggs Road, west of Blackwell Parkway; City of Lee’s Summit, applicant

Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 6:04 p.m. and announced that Application 2005-192 was being continued to July 26, 2005 at the applicant’s request. She then closed the hearing.

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

7.  Application #2005-078 – PRELIMINARY PLAT – I-470 Business and Technology Center, Lots 1-22; Wilgate Development, applicant

Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 6:04 p.m. and announced that Application 2005-078 was being continued to July 26, 2005 at staff’s request. She then closed the hearing.

(Mr. Atcheson left the table.)

4.  Public Hearing - Application #2005-179 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN – SE corner Ward and M-150, Raintree Lake Village; RACH, LLC, applicant

Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 6:05 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in by the court reporter.

Mr. Joe Bauer of Archer Engineers, 3741 NE Troon Drive in Lee’s Summit, first described the project. It was on the southeast corner of Ward Road at the intersection of M-150 Highway. A previous preliminary development plan had been approved in December 2003; however, in the pre-application meeting staff had requested that the applicant revise it. This was due to the difference in planned uses and building square footage. The primary difference in the new plan was an approximate 30,000 square foot reduction in area and some change in uses. A convenience store in the earlier plan was being replaced with a fast-food restaurant. The current plan, like the original had six lots. Lot 1 would have a pharmacy, offices in Lot 2, a bank for Lot 3, fast-food restaurants in Lots 4 and 5 and a strip shopping center with restaurant and coffee shop in Lot 6. The applicant agreed with staff’s five Recommendation Items.

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

Mr. Gorecki entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-19 into the record and stated that staff recommended approval of the preliminary development plan. He summarized the five Recommendation Items. Item 1 required “a mutually satisfactory development agreement” addressing road improvements, before approval of the preliminary development plan. Item 2 allowed for a modification allowing for a medium impact screen instead of a high-impact screen, between the commercial development and adjacent residential uses. Item 3 would allow a conditional material called “Hardi-Board” lap siding. Item 4 required all roof top mechanical units to be screened by parapet walls. Item 5 required free standing light fixtures to have a total height of no more than 20 feet, because of the residential development nearby.

Following Mr. Gorecki’s comments, Chairperson Trainer asked if there was anyone else present wishing to give testimony, either for or in opposition to the application.

Ms. Rochelle Vandiver of 963 NE Devon Drive stated that she was representing the Raintree Lake Property Owners Association’s Board of Directors. She read a letter that had been faxed to staff that afternoon into the record:

“This letter is our response to the proposed Raintree Lake Village development, Application 2005-179, Application 2005-199 and Application 2005-200; on the southeast corner of Missouri Highway 150 and Ward Road. The Raintree Property Owners Association Board of Directors and residents have identified concerns with the proposed development plan that must be addressed. The Board is very concerned because the current applicant, RACH L.L.C., has not approached the RLPOA about this project beyond a simple letter to adjacent residents to comply with the requisite 185-foot notification. Many of the following concerns might have already been addressed had the applicant approached the RLPOA in advance. Furthermore, because the RLPOA had such limited notice of this development, there may be concerns not addressed in this letter that may become apparent as this proceeds. It is truly unfortunate for all the parties that these concerns have to be addressed here.

The Board and residents have identified concerns regarding screening, traffic, construction and the Raintree Lake watershed. Details of these concerns follow.

(1) So that unpleasant odors, noise, light and other factors which may adversely affect quality of life may be abated, there should be sufficient screening of a minimum 10 feet in elevation between the development and all residential lots. Examples: berms, brick walls, mixed landscaping including mature, deciduous and evergreen trees. There is particular concern of parking lot street lights shining into the homes on Lots 44, 45 and 46. So that the residential nature of Windjammer can be maintained, the green space between the commercial buildings and residential homes should be much greater than 20 feet, and ideally 200 feet.

(2) There should be sufficient parking for businesses. Thirty spaces for a 9,000 square-foot building appears insufficient, and parking should not be visible from residential properties.

(3) Due to residents’ concerns about the safety of young children in residential areas, the applicant/developer must restrict pedestrian access to residential homes from the parking lots of the commercial development. Due to the nature of the fast-food industry requiring predawn unloading of large delivery trucks they are very concerned about the prospect of fast-food establishments in this commercial zone. The current placement is unacceptable. However, if a fast-food establishment must exist, an acceptable plan might be to switch the bank site with the easternmost fast-food pad site; and/or switch the retail pharmacy site with the easternmost fast-food pad site.

(4) The commercial applicant/developer should provide sufficient security for the area such that loitering does not become a problem during or after construction. Residents feel that safety would best be served with attempts to minimize traffic entering the commercial zone off Vordaya, and instead have all traffic enter from Missouri 150 and Ward Road. It is a residential street and may not be able to safely handle the increased traffic typical of commercial development. Again, preservation of residential character in this area is of paramount importance to residents.

(5) The southernmost eastbound lane of Missouri Highway 150 should be extended to provide a dedicated turn lane into Regatta. The City should coordinate with MoDOT that the applicant/developer install a traffic signal at Missouri Highway 150 and Regatta. There should be a dedicated construction entrance from Missouri 150 to ensure that the existing roads remain safe for travel from either. Residents are particularly sensitive about not wanting construction traffic entering and exiting off Ward Road or Regatta. No construction traffic should be allowed before 7:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m., with additional limitations on weekends.

(6) Trash must be contained and prevented from blowing around the community. Trash receptacles must be screened from adjacent residences and trash collection must occur during normal business hours. After development, there should be one trash receptacle for all tenants, they should be fully enclosed with a roof and doors and be similar in outward design to the surrounding commercial buildings.

(7) Businesses must not be 24-hour establishments, and ideally close by 11:00 p.m.

(8) The applicant has not approached the RLPOA regarding the project. The applicant must understand that Raintree Lake is a community with covenants and restrictions on such items as, but not limited to, buildings, signs and assessments. All architectural review procedures must be adhered to, and each building should have four-sided architecture.

(9) Siltation and erosion control measures must be in place and vigilantly enforced. The applicant/developer must clean up the basin in Tract A, in order to accommodate the anticipated stormwater runoff from Raintree Lake Village. We believe that the basin is insufficient to contain the stormwater runoff upon full buildout, and is barely sufficient to manage current stormwater runoff.

The RLPOA Board appreciates the time and effort of the members of the Planning Commission and their consideration on matters that affect the quality of life for the residents.

Ms. Connie Smith of 752 SW Windsong Circle stated that she was also relaying written comments from Mr. Tom Kurtz of 745 SW Windsong Circle. Ms. Smith emphasized that she was not saying “not in my back yard” with her concerns, and did not want to repeat the points that the Raintree POA had just presented. Referring the Commissioners to their drawings, Ms. Smith stated that her home was #8. She remarked that the latest drawing was left in her door on July 6th, and she had not been able to look at the plan, and verified the location of the proposed restaurant. Ms. Smith agreed with the Raintree POA that the restaurants should be moved a little further away from the residences.

Ms. Smith explained that Mr. Kurtz could not be present due to being involved in a program at the Presidential Library in Independence. Mr. Kurtz’ home was also one that would be directly impacted by the Raintree Lake Village project. The families near the property had been told, while building their homes, that the subject property would be a commercial center in the future. They were not opposed to the idea; but did have strong reservations about this plan, as it would essentially establish a mini-mall in their back yard.

Mr. Kurtz wanted to know if any of the Commissioners had counted the 272 parking spaces and 22 retail and office tenants located on the back half of the subject property. Ms. Smith remarked that this was a very dense development. It was near a heavily-traveled residential street, and rather than adding the additional traffic to the entrance-exit, Mr. Kurtz was asking if the entrances should be located only on M-150 and on Ward Road.

Ms. Smith agreed with the POA letter that the bank and pharmacy locations would be switched with the fast-food locations, to minimize noise and traffic congestion for the adjacent residential area. The fast-food restaurants would be less disruptive closer to the M-150/Ward intersection. She asked that the applicant build a traffic wall on the back side, remarking that she and other residents did not want to look out their windows onto a view of trash bins and crates.

Chairperson Trainer then asked if the Commission had questions for the applicant or for staff. She remarked that she had made a list of the questions and concerns, listing screening concerns, traffic and parking. The question on parking note was whether there was enough, and traffic issues included access to the neighborhood streets, turn lane issues, and whether a signal was needed. Chairperson Trainer also asked the applicant and staff to review for the Commissioners what they had approved a year ago. She wanted particularly to know about density, whether the buildings were any closer to the homes and, generally, anything that was significantly different. After getting some answers about these issues, she then wanted to address the other questions including security, four-sided architecture, and water runoff.

Mr. Bauer first explained that the applicant had proposed a medium-density screen along the south property line. A high-impact screen had previously been listed as a requirement; however, the adjacent property owners had not wanted to see an opaque vinyl fence there. The 20-foot landscape easement was within the requirements of the City. Mr. Bauer emphasized that this would be dense landscaping. He added that the applicant was also proposing a trail running east-west along the south property line, which had been requested by property owners.