By Brittany Hill,2014-06-17 01:13
8 views 0


    Minutes of Tuesday, January 8, 2008

The Tuesday, January 8, 2008, Lee‟s Summit Planning Commission meeting was called to

    order by Chairperson Christopher at 5:10 p.m., at City Council Chambers, 220 SE Green Street,

    Lee‟s Summit, Missouri.


Chairperson Stan Christopher Present Mr. Daren Fristoe Present

    Ms. Marcia Rosenquist Present Ms. Kathy Smith Absent

    Mr. John Reece Present Mr. Kurt Pycior Absent

    Mr. Michael Atcheson Absent Mr. Allan Gray Present

    Mr. Dave Mosby Present

Also present were Linda Tyrrel, Deputy Director, Planning and Development Department; Tom

    Scannell, Current Planning Division Manager; Christina Alexander, Staff Planner; Chris Hughey,

    Planning Technician; Jennifer Thompson, Planner; Hector Soto, Planner; Jennifer Baird,

    Assistant City Attorney; Kent Monter, Development Engineering Manager; Michael Park, Senior

    Staff Engineer; Jim Eden, Battalion Chief, Fire Department, and Kim Brennan, Administrative



As there were no corrections or amendments, Chairperson Christopher asked for a motion to

    approve the agenda. On the motion of Ms. Rosenquist, seconded by Mr. Fristoe, the Planning

    Commission voted unanimously by voice vote to APPROVE the agenda.


    A. Application #2007-260 FINAL PLAT LSMC Summit Ridge Campus at John

    Knox Retirement Village, Lots 1 & 2; George Butler Associates, applicant

    B. Application 2007-283 FINAL PLAT Vogue Condominiums, Lots 1-5;

    Hartley‟s Appliances and Furniture Inc., applicant

    C. Minutes of the November 27, 2007 Planning Commission meeting.

On the motion of Mr. Reece, seconded by Mr. Fristoe, the Planning Commission voted

    unanimously by voice vote to APPROVE the Consent Agenda, Item 1A-C as published.

2. Continued Application #2007-201 SPECIAL USE PERMIT Renewal for pole sign

    Torero‟s, 508 SE M-291 Hwy.; Miguel Morales, applicant

Chairperson Christopher opened the hearing at 5:11 p.m. and announced that continued

    Application 2007-201 was being continued to February 12, 2008 at staff‟s request. He then closed the hearing.

    PLANNING COMMISSION 2 January 8, 2008 (The foregoing is a digest of the secretary‟s notes of the public hearing. The transcript may be


    3. Continued Application #2007-219 SPECIAL USE PERMIT Renewal for pole sign rdHardee‟s, 1100 SW 3 St.; Hardee‟s Food Systems, Inc., applicant

Chairperson Christopher opened the hearing at 5:11 p.m. and announced that continued

    Application 2007-219 was being continued to February 12, 2008 at the applicant‟s request. He

    then closed the hearing.

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


10. Continued Application #2007-250 REVOCATION of SPECIAL USE PERMIT for

    karate school, 825 NW Commerce Drive; City of Lee‟s Summit, applicant

Chairperson Christopher announced that continued Application 2007-250 was being continued

    to February 26, 2008 at the applicant‟s request.

    4. Continued Application #2007-216 PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN Bank

    Midwest, 301 SE M-291 Hwy.; Williams, Spurgeon, Kuhl, & Freshnock, applicant

Chairperson Christopher opened the hearing at 5:12 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or

    provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in by the court reporter.

Mr. Homer Williams stated that he was one of the principals of WSKF, the applicant; and was

    representing Bank Midwest. WSKF had been retained by the bank to renovate the existing

    restaurant into a new facility.

Mr. Williams displayed a slide of the site plan and reviewed that the existing restaurant had a

    direct access from the street to the north. At the City‟s request, the applicants agreed that this

    would be closed. The bank drive-up would be located at the south part of the property, with

    access from the middle aisle. Cars would turn in a counter-clockwise direction to go out. This

    was a remote, automatic drive-up facility. As the site plan indicated, the parking and entrance

    for the main bank building would be to the west. The only access to the property from the street

    would be from the east side. Mr. Williams then displayed north and west elevations of the bank


One of the previous requests had been for a traffic and transportation study. The applicants

    were ready to proceed with that; however, doing that study during the Christmas holiday season

    would be likely to distort the findings. Bank Midwest was agreeable to providing the study, but

    was requesting a continuance. That would give them a chance to conduct the study later in

    January, when traffic levels were more typical. That study would be provided to staff before the

    February meeting.

Mr. Williams pointed out that they were not changing any essentials; rather, if anything they

    were improving the conditions on the subject property. Problems that might occur to the north

    of it were generated by the shopping center.

    Following Mr. Williams‟ presentation, Chairperson Christopher asked for staff comments.


    Mr. Chris Hughey entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-18 into the record. He first handed out a letter from Mr. Rick Kuhl, stating a request for a continuance, in order to avoid any setbacks to the project. Staff‟s report was essentially unchanged, and staff still recommended approval subject to Recommendation Items 1 through 4. Mr. Hughey noted that Item 4 did specify that a traffic study be completed.

    Following Mr. Hughey‟s comments, Chairperson Christopher asked if there was anyone else present wishing to give testimony, either in support for or opposition to the application. As there were none, Chairperson Christopher then opened the hearing to questions from the Commissioners.

    Mr. Hughey added a correction to staff‟s letter. In Recommendation Item 2, the wording should read “all accent lighting shall be recessed”, rather than the current “all accent lighting shall be


    Mr. Reece noted that Item 4 specified the traffic study being submitted before the City Council hearing, and asked when that was scheduled. Mr. Hughey answered that it would be February 7th. Mr. Reece remarked that in that case, the Commission could approve it tonight and the traffic study would still be submitted to the Council. Mr. Hughey said that was correct. Chairperson Christopher asked if the Council would be all right with this kind of procedure, and Mr. Reece noted that the usual procedure would be for the Commission to look at this kind of thing before the Council.

    Ms. Tyrrel remarked that she did not know how to answer that question; however, she assured the Commission that staff would review the study and make a recommendation to the Council. Sometimes plans underwent changes between the Planning Commission and Council hearings and at that time, staff would make a determination as to whether the application should come back to the Planning Commission or go on to the Council. Additionally, the Council always had the option to send it back to the Commission if they were not comfortable with it. Mr. Reece asked if staff had a problem with this way of sending the application forward, and Ms. Tyrrel answered that they did not.

    Noting that the Commission had discussed this thoroughly at the last meeting, Chairperson Christopher remarked that regardless of the results of the study, this appeared to be a project that would improve the site from a traffic aspect. He did not see much in the way of off-site improvements that this property owner could make and be able to control what would make much improvement. He asked Mr. Park if this situation might best be addressed when something happened with the shopping center on the north side of Third Street. Mr. Park agreed, adding that this was the reason they had not required a traffic study to begin with. A traffic volume increase might trigger one; but staff could also ask for one; and it was true that there was no improvement to be done on this site that would mitigate the traffic situation overall. At present what they had was a left-turn delay in going to the shopping center; and the only way to correct that would be to eliminate the left-turn movement. This particular application would actually be likely to improve traffic along Third by removing that driveway. In his opinion, the applicant had done what had been asked of them and a traffic study would be unnecessary.

    Chairperson Christopher asked if that would be accomplished by closing the driveway altogether or by making it right-in and right-out. Mr. Park explained that eliminating just left-turn movement would mean putting in a median, which could not be done as it would also restrict access on the other side. There were alternate ways to get out, but only one with controlled


    access to M-291. It would not be a good idea to make that controlled access harder to get to. However, there was an alternate way to get into the shopping center further to the east; so that was a possibility as any redevelopment occurred. Mr. Park added that as far as putting a signal in, MoDOT was not allowing any additional accesses to M-291 nor signalizing any additional locations nearby.

    Ms. Rosenquist remarked that one of the few purviews of the Planning Commission was to see what was going on with a project before moving it forward, especially a preliminary development plan. She had looked at the site several times as she went by there every day, and had noticed one change that might be made depending upon what the traffic study might show. There were actually two entrances across the street on the shopping center parking property, with an island in between and with one being an entrance and one an exit. She asked Mr. Park if there was a way to work with the shopping center owners to close off one of the accesses off the shopping center, pointing out that the way they were lined up, this could make a good alignment of the drives possible. Mr. Park agreed that some changes could be made; and Ms. Rosenquist agreed that they could take out the more western of the entrances. According to the site plan, there was a better alignment between the east entrance.

    Mr. Park responded that these were probably the solutions they would look at in eliminating that left turn. It would be necessary to remove that ingress movement and make it outbound only from the north side. Left turns were the problem. Whenever someone wanted to make a left turn along that part of Third, they have to wait for a gap in the traffic and that left turn was close enough to the M-291 intersection for the wait to cause delays. Moving the access down to the east would eliminate that conflict. Staff did not recommend that the burden be put on this applicant to negotiate with the property owners on the north, as they had no ownership on that side and so the situation was something completely outside their control. Being made responsible could limit their development. However, Mr. Park acknowledged, the Commission could make that a condition of approval if they chose.

    Ms. Rosenquist remarked that there was going to be more redevelopment, including the property to the south. She noted that the site plan did not really show much cross-access between the two properties. It was true that there was a cross-access provided to the property just to the south; but she was not sure what that would do to the traffic flow as this property had two sides to redevelop and it was a very tight redevelopment area. She wanted to know what kind of stipulations the Commission could impose as conditions to make this work. Mr. Park commented that he believed staff was doing that incrementally. The applicant was being asked to remove their third driveway off Third Street. At whatever time an application came in for the north side, they would work with the owner to close their access. It would have to happen when the applications came in. The last Roundtable discussion had mentioned a global plan for that area but until there was something like that, staff would have to deal with it on that incremental basis.

    Mr. Gray asked Mr. Park if this occupancy would have more vehicles moving through it than the previous tenant. Mr. Park answered that it would have, at least in the afternoon peak hours. There could be at least 100 trips more (50 cars in and 50 cars out).

    Chairperson Christopher asked if there were further questions for the applicant or staff. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing at 5:30 p.m. and asked for discussion among the Commission members.


    Ms. Rosenquist acknowledged that this plan was an improvement on the site from what was previously there. However, she did go through that intersection several times a day and while 50 cars during the afternoon peak hour might not seem like a lot, it was for anyone in that intersection. One of the few purviews the Commission had was preliminary development plans and before the plan went forward, she wanted to see what could be done to mitigate the traffic situation. She wanted to see the results of the traffic study and the Commission would not get a chance to review it if the application went straight to the Council.

    Mr. Gray had a long-range concern about how the Commission was to handle this kind of redevelopment. He did not see any clear guidelines or standards to use in making an assessment of the overall impact on the neighborhood, so he would be more in favor of looking at the traffic study first to be sure the Commission had all the facts about future impact.

    Chairperson Christopher acknowledged that this was an area where traffic could be better, and access management design had been before these standards were introduced. However, they were looking at one parcel and he felt they had done an excellent job on that parcel of laying it out and removing a more serious problem in the form of the Third Street entrance. He did not think there was anything more the developer could do and he was satisfied relying on Mr. Park‟s