4
PLANNING COMMISSION February 10, 2004
LEE’S SUMMIT PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of Tuesday, February 10, 2004
The Tuesday, February 10, 2004, Lee’s Summit Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Trainer, at 6:04 p.m., at Arnold Hall, 123 SE 3rd Street.
OPENING ROLL CALL:
Chairperson Trainer Present Mr. Christopher Present
Ms. Rosenquist Present Ms. Funk Absent
Mr. Fristoe Absent Mr. Pycior Present
Mr. Atcheson Present Mr. Tranchilla Present
Also present were Rich Wood, Assistant City Attorney; Steve Arbo, Assistant City Administrator; Bob McKay, Director, Planning and Development Department; Linda Tyrrel, Assistant Director, Planning and Development Department; Michael Gorecki, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Department; Tom Scannell, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Department, Heiping Zhan, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Department, Kent Monter, Development Engineering Manager, Tom Peterson, Senior Staff Engineer, Public Works; and Suzan Seay, Administrative Secretary.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Chairperson Trainer announced that several items on the agenda were being moved. Item 7, Application 2003-222 (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) would be first, followed by the other applications pertaining to Hook Farm: Item 6 (Application 2003-221/223, Preliminary Development Plan and Rezoning) and Item 10 (Application 2003-224, Preliminary Plat). These would be followed by the two applications pertaining to New Longview: Item 9 (Application 2003-292, Preliminary Development Plan) and Item 11 (Application 2003-293, Preliminary Plat). The last item to be heard was Item 8 the Downtown Master Plan (Application 2003-271).
On motion of Mr. Tranchilla, seconded by Mr. Atcheson, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to APPROVE the agenda as amended
1. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Chairperson Trainer announced that there were no consent items.
7. Public Hearing – Continued Application #2003-222 – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT for Hook Farm Development at NW corner of Hook & Pryor Roads; Hunt Midwest, applicant
Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 6:11 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in by the court reporter.
Mr. Jim Bowers, attorney with Wycoff, Bowers, Schulte and Weisenfeld, gave his business address at 4510 Belleview in Kansas City, Missouri. He was appearing on behalf of Hunt Midwest. Mr. Bowers introduced Mr. David Mathews, Land Planner with Lutjen and Associates; Mr. Paul Bertrand, Traffic Engineer with George Butler Associates; and Mr. Lee Darrell and Ms. Ora Reynolds of Hunt Midwest. He related that the project was a result of work the applicant was doing on the adjacent Eagle Creek development at the northwest corner of Hook and Pryor. Prior to the Eagle Creek project, Hunt Midwest had made a development agreement with the City and other developers for road improvements that would accommodate the traffic generated by the increase in single-family residential properties. These had been substantially completed. Before expanding Eagle Creek and starting on the Hook Farm development, the applicant had looked into what additional improvements and infrastructure expansion would be needed for the traffic increase. Last fall, they had approached the City Council about an amendment to the current development agreement. This was to precede their current applications to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone the property for Hook Farm. They now had a draft of a City-development agreement regarding road improvements for Hook and Pryor.
The Hook Farm project was on about 150 acres and would have about 333 single-family units plus a small commercial project. Mr. David Mathews would be making a presentation on the project. Mr. Bowers asked if he should do so during this application. Chairperson Trainer answered that anything presented in this application applying to the other two related applications could be stated. Mr. Bowers said that the presentation related to all three.
Mr. David Mathews of John Lutjen Associates gave his business address as 8350 N. St. Clair Avenue in Kansas City, Missouri. Referring the Commissioners to renderings of the conceptual land use plan, Mr. Mathews pointed out the northwest corner of Hook and Pryor Roads. The land use plan showed the entire intersection as Commercial-Dominant Mixed Use. However, when Hunt Midwest began looking at the project and the area, they found a number of reasons to modify this. A creek ran through the middle of the area as well as across the north side; and there was a significant grade change in the topography. In addition to what made the most sense for the market in that part of town, they had considered preserving the natural features and making the best use of the land; and 120 acres for commercially-dominant development seemed quite large considering the amount of commercial development occurring around M-150. Accordingly, the applicant had made a decision to focus on a development more neighborhood-oriented in scale. That would include some office components, with businesses and offices that would tend to serve the local neighborhood. With the support of staff, they were reducing the commercial-development area. Mr. Mathews then displayed a map showing the change in land use for the acreage at that corner.
Mr. Mathews pointed out the part of the acreage that would have commercial development and the part that would include the 333 residential units as well as a greenway around the creek. The applicant considered this a logical use and a change that made sense, while still keeping some commercial uses. One of these anticipated uses would be a day care center, which would be a logical service to the neighborhood considering that it would be across from the elementary school.
Following this presentation, Chairperson Trainer asked for staff comments.
Mr. Scannell entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-15 into the record and explained that the amendment would reduce the amount of commercial-dominant mixed use shown on the Comprehensive Plan. This particular property presented some development difficulties, particularly the grade changes and the amount of property that was a flood plain. For this reason, staff recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Following Mr. Scannell’s comments, Chairperson Trainer asked if there was anyone else present wishing to give testimony, either for or in opposition to the application. Seeing none, she then asked if the Commission had questions for the applicant or for staff.
Mr. Atcheson asked Mr. Heiping Zhan if consideration had been given to the property’s topography, specifically its potential for commercial vs. residential development, when the Comprehensive Plan was being put together. Mr. Zhan explained that in conducting the Central/South area Comprehensive Plan update, the City had not looked closely at these aspects. They had rather started with a general land use plan and then identified areas; particularly key intersections to accommodate future commercial and office-related uses. Highway corridors and major intersections had been the focus. One of the key principles of allocating land uses was that commercial and office uses be located close to major highways, arterial roads and major intersections. This intersection in particular was recognized not as a primary intersection but one with a potential for attracting some retail activities. There was general agreement that it was more of a neighborhood-type commercial area. The Pryor-M150 intersection was the primary location nearby for major commercial and retail development. The planners had not looked closely at specific factors such as topography near that intersection while putting the Comprehensive Plan together.
Chairperson Trainer asked if there were further questions for applicant or staff. Mr. Christopher remarked that he would have questions relating to the other applications; and Chairperson Trainer pointed out that if approving this application would affect questions he would ask in the others; it would be better to ask them now. Mr. Christopher said that the questions could wait.
Ms. Rosenquist asked if the Commissioners would need to vote on the amendment now, or hear the other related applications first. Mr. Wood did not see any problem with closing the current hearing, covering the next related ones, and re-open the current application hearing for further questions and voting.
Mr. Christopher remarked that he would like to hear from the applicant and Mr. Zhan about the site plan; particularly concerning the amount of commercial and office development proposed compared with that allocated to this intersection in the Comprehensive Plan. The residential development could make an easy connection with that to the north and west; but he wanted to hear some testimony why the isolated piece of residential development on the plan would be more suitable than commercial and office use on that corner.
Mr. Bowers returned to the podium and pointed out that the area currently shown Commercial-Dominant Mixed Use comprised about 120 acres. That was a considerable amount of property for that kind of land use at that corner, especially with Arborwalk and a major commercial area to the south at the M-150 corridor. For comparison purposes, he pointed out that the Summit Woods Crossing shopping center covered about 80 acres. Subtracting the land occupied by the school; this was about the same acreage as the shopping center. While the applicant had been concerned about the terrain and topography, they had also been looking at what would be realistic from the market standpoint in the long run. The conclusion was that the amount of commercial development originally proposed might not be viable in that area. Mr. Bowers added that Hunt Midwest was in the business of developing commercial, industrial and residential property and had made a decision about the value to be obtained from the property. That value was generally higher for commercial; consequently, Hunt Midwest had given that very careful consideration.
Mr. Christopher remarked that his question had involved specifically the piece surrounded by the floodplain, adding that he did see a natural compatibility to the neighboring residential neighborhoods to the north and west. However, he had wondered if the applicant had considered at least part of the southeast corner as being commercial, especially since the floodplain provided it with a kind of natural buffer. Mr. Bowers replied that they had looked at that and come up with several concepts and scenarios. However, there were a number of physical constraints to developing that corner as commercial property; and they had combined that consideration with the market-driven decisions they had made about its viability as a commercial section. He added that they had discussed these aspects with staff and after looking at the site and the concepts, they were in agreement with the applicant’s plan.
Mr. Pycior asked Mr. Zhan what his opinion of how this fit into the Comprehensive Plan; also asking if the Commission would be hearing from homeowners along Hook Road wondering why the developer was doing commercial building across the street if they were not rezoning the whole corner. He also wanted to know if the planners saw commercial moving off that intersection generally. Mr. Zhan answered that in theory, such an intersection would serve two primary functions. One would be providing for neighborhood related services; and the inter-section would provide easy access. The other function would be keeping residential off the busy intersections with the attendant traffic and noise. Because of the drainage and topography in this case, however, he did perceive a difficulty providing the amount of retail and office to serve that function. Mr. Zhan added that while he agreed that the residential development so close to the intersection would probably impact the retail development to the south, he did not believe it would create an incompatibility problem. In many cases, communities would use a road as the natural barrier between different uses. He did not consider it ideal for single-family residential to be too close to major road frontage; however, there were several other important considerations involved.
Mr. Pycior stated that the property to the southeast was not zoned; and he could anticipate homeowners a few years out opposing commercial rezoning to the south despite what the Comprehensive Plan dictated. Decisions made on this property could impact decisions nearby later. Mr. Zhan believed it would have an impact. Situations occurred regularly where new residents moved in and did not want traffic-generating businesses close to their homes.
Ms. Ora Reynolds came to the podium and identified herself as Hunt Midwest Vice President and General Manager, at 8300 NE Underground Drive. She pointed out on the map the nearby properties and stated that they were owned by the same person, Mr. Harold Hook of Houston. He did not want to sell the south piece, feeling there was a commercial use for it down the road. When the applicants had initially met with staff, they had concluded that since the two pieces both on the south corners are fairly flat, they were easier to develop for retail. The option would be to move the commercial development to those corners instead of it taking up all the acreage. She pointed out where on the subject property the flood plain was; and pointed out where bridges would be needed with commercial development. It was not very economically feasible with that small an area. Ms. Reynolds also pointed out the acreage proposed for commercial, explaining that it was on higher ground and the applicant intended to put in a berm and left a good deal of buffer. She added that the school being nearby limited some of the retail uses, including convenience stores selling liquor. The applicants were willing to explore the idea of putting in some kind of restriction on opposing commercial across the street; they had never done this, but had heard of it being done by others.