DOC

LEES SUMMIT PLANNING COMMISSION

By Brittany Hill,2014-06-17 01:13
7 views 0
LEES SUMMIT PLANNING COMMISSION ...

    LEE’S SUMMIT PLANNING COMMISSION

    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.

OPENING ROLL CALL:

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

    Secretary.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

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.

    1. APPROVAL OF CONSENT 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

    obtained.)

    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

    obtained.)

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

    building.

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.

PLANNING COMMISSION 3 January 8, 2008

    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

    reassessed”.

    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

PLANNING COMMISSION 4 January 8, 2008

    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.

PLANNING COMMISSION 5 January 8, 2008

    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 testimony that they could not do much to improve this situation. At this point, Chairperson Christopher did not even support requiring a traffic study.

Hearing no further discussion Chairperson Christopher called for a motion.

    Mr. Fristoe made a motion to recommend approval of continued Application 2007-216, Preliminary Development Plan; Bank Midwest, 301 SE M-291 Hwy.; Williams, Spurgeon, Kuhl, & Freshnock, applicant; subject to staff‟s letter of January 2, 2008, specifically Recommendation

    Items 1 through 4. Mr. Reece seconded.

Chairperson Christopher asked if there was any discussion of the motion.

    The Planning Commission members voted by voice vote of four no” (Chairperson Christopher, Mr. Mosby, Ms. Rosenquist and Mr. Gray) and two “yes” (Mr. Fristoe and Mr. Reece) and the motion did not pass.

    Chairperson Christopher said his reason for voting “no” was that he did not want the traffic study required. He would support a motion that would recommend approval without it.

    Ms. Rosenquist remarked to Chairperson Christopher that at the last hearing he had been in favor of a traffic study and now was saying he was opposed. She asked what had changed. Chairperson Christopher answered that he had looked at the situation and did not believe they would gain anything by it.

    Ms. Rosenquist commented that the traffic study would cover an area that was being redeveloped. No traffic study had been done in that area in a long time and with the addition of the more intense use proposed for that property, a traffic study would give the City a baseline view of what would happen with potential redevelopment of that area.

    Chairperson Christopher answered that the heartbreak he had with it was that there was a single-lot developer with one building. He had taken an existing building and was redoing it and not adding a lot of new traffic. Chairperson Christopher acknowledged the 50-car figure but did not consider this a significant traffic increase. He was not sure that the City would gain anything

PLANNING COMMISSION 6 January 8, 2008

    other than what the traffic engineer had already provided. Chairperson Christopher added that

    a traffic study was probably needed in the area but did not think it was within the scope of what

    the developer should provide.

Ms. Rosenquist noted that the Commission had made similar requirements of developers on

    other small properties, and added that in terms of traffic this area was a nightmare. It was as

    bad or worse than Chipman Road used to be. Chairperson Christopher responded that he

    would support a traffic study if he thought it would provide a magic answer, but he did not think it

    would.

Mr. Fristoe then made a motion to recommend approval of continued Application 2007-216,

    Preliminary Development Plan; Bank Midwest, 301 SE M-291 Hwy.; Williams, Spurgeon, Kuhl,

    & Freshnock, applicant; subject to staff‟s letter of January 2, 2008, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 4; with Item 2 corrected to read “recessed” instead of “reassessed”, and Item 4

    deleted. Mr. Reece seconded.

Hearing no further discussion, Chairperson Christopher called for a vote.

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

    voted by roll call vote of three “yes” (Mr. Fristoe, Chairperson Christopher and Mr. Reece) and

    three “no” (Mr. Gray, Mr. Mosby and Ms. Rosenquist), to recommend APPROVAL of continued

    Application 2007-216, Preliminary Development Plan; Bank Midwest, 301 SE M-291 Hwy.;

    Williams, Spurgeon, Kuhl, & Freshnock, applicant; subject to staff‟s letter of January 2, 2008, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 4, with Items 2 and 4 corrected and deleted as

    noted.

Chairperson Christopher asked if the 3-3 split meant that the motion had failed. Ms. Baird

    clarified that under the UDO this would be considered a “failure to recommend,” so could not be

    considered either a denial nor approval. However, it could still be sent on to the Council, along

    with the minutes of the meeting and discussion.

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

    obtained.)

5. Continued Application #2007-227 PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN and

    Application #2007-248 SPECIAL USE PERMIT for major automotive repair Classic thBuilding, 21 SE 30 Street; S&P Commercial Properties, LLC, applicant

Chairperson Christopher opened the hearing at 5:40 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or

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

Mr. Matt Schlicht of Engineering Solutions, stated that he was present representing S&P

    Commercial Properties as applicant. They were proposing an automotive repair center for a

    business that needed a new facility and wanted to locate it south of the existing Pickard

    Automotive to the north of Shamrock Golf Course. It would be an 11,000 square foot facility in a

    business park zone. The applicant was in agreement with staff‟s comments. They were asking for a Special Use Permit as this was required for automotive repair businesses in commercial

    areas.

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

PLANNING COMMISSION 7 January 8, 2008

    Mr. Hector Soto entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-14 into the record. He confirmed Mr. Schlicht‟s description of the project. The business would be automotive repair and restoration, and a Special Use Permit was required due to certain activities that were proposed including painting and straightening of auto body parts. Adjacent uses were office/warehouse to the north and east; existing Pickard Motors to the north and west and Bledsoe‟s rental facility further to

    the northwest. The applicant had requested a 10-year period for the SUP and staff supported that.

    Staff was recommending additional landscaping along the south property line (Recommendation Item 4). This was due to the visibility of the parking lot from the south and west, from Shamrock Hills Golf Course to the due south and from M-291 and its outer road. Regarding building design, staff had also recommended additional architectural elements to break up some of the large expanses of wall. That could include pilasters or rough-textured materials such as split-faced block. What they were proposing was the fiberboard generally known as Hardiboard, with lap siding similar to that used at nearby Pickard Motors. That would provide some compatibility and transition in terms of materials.

Following Mr. Soto‟s comments, Chairperson Christopher asked if there was anyone else

    present wishing to give testimony, either in support for or opposition to the application. Seeing none, he then asked if the Commission had questions for the applicant or staff.

    Chairperson Christopher asked Mr. Soto if the property had sewer access, and Mr. Soto replied that it did.

    Concerning Recommendation Item 7, Ms. Rosenquist asked where the business would be storing inoperable vehicles. Mr. Soto answered that any inoperable vehicles would be stored inside the facility. Ms. Rosenquist asked what the definition of “inoperable” was, remarking that vehicles that were being repaired could be said to be inoperable. Mr. Soto answered that the purpose of Item 7 was to prohibit outside storage. Vehicles, either those being repaired or salvage vehicles, would have to be stored inside after business hours.

    Chairperson Christopher asked if there were further questions for the applicant or staff. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing at 5:50 p.m. and asked for discussion among the Commission members.

    Ms. Rosenquist remarked that there were probably not any automotive repair businesses of this caliber in planned districts. She asked if the Commission would want to start that, pointing out that this would eventually be a high-profile area. Chairperson Christopher noted that it was not close to the Croft business, and Ms. Rosenquist said that it was further down close to Raintree and a little north of Shamrock Hills. It would be in a commercial services district; however, office/warehouse was the most common use in this zoning district and this property in particular fronted directly on old M-291.

    Chairperson Christopher acknowledged that it was on a major thoroughfare. It was basically a question of what the City wanted this area to look like. It was also a fact that the property was next door to a new car dealership as well as MGE. The same questions had been raised before, but the Council had approved those projects.

    Ms. Rosenquist pointed out that there was CP on the frontage and AG on both sides to the north and south with light industrial to the west. She had thought the City had planned to

PLANNING COMMISSION 8 January 8, 2008

    provide layering types of development, to screen industrial uses from the major thoroughfare. Chairperson Christopher noted that it was already a fact that major car dealerships were allowed along major thoroughfares. The question was how that was going to be applied to auxiliary businesses like this one.

    Mr. Reece said that if all the vehicles were stored inside, people would likely not know what the business was other than by looking at the sign. This part of M-291 already had businesses like Croft Trailer, and he did not see that the proposed business was substantially different from these. However, Ms. Rosenquist remarked, she could not imagine inoperable cars being moved in and out of the building on a daily basis. Mr. Gray asked if „inoperable‟ meant that the engine would not start or if the car could not be pushed or rolled. If a car could not be moved easily, the stipulation to have them inside every night was not very realistic.

    Chairperson Christopher then re-opened the public hearing. He asked Mr. Soto to give the Commission an assessment of the aesthetic aspects.

First, Ms. Tyrrel offered a definition of inoperable. The nuisance ordinance, which was the

    charge of the Codes department, defined inoperable as a car that was either not licensed or in some other way was not legally street-worthy.

    Chairperson Christopher remarked that he did not know if they had really good aesthetics based on the elevations the Commission had with their packets. He was looking for some confirmation that staff had looked over this carefully including looking at material samples. He acknowledged that Ms. Rosenquist had made a good point about this being an industrial-type use along M-291. Even though there was already industrial use in the area, the buildings right on the highway presented the first-tier view. They needed to be held to a slightly higher standard than buildings behind them that were less visible.

    Concerning the materials, Mr. Soto stated that all the materials proposed for the front of the building were approved for commercial districts. The plans showed brick wainscoting along the north, south and west building elevations. Staff did not have a sample of the Hardiboard material mentioned; but they had approved it for other projects including the Pickard Motors building. He had seen it up close, and it was allowed by the UDO in commercial districts. Additionally, pitched roofs were not something often seen in industrial building designs and this particular building did have a pitched roof to complement the existing Pickard building to the west. It would provide a common visual theme and help make a transition to the rough-textured metal buildings further to the east.

    Mr. Schlicht commented that the Bledsoe rental business, which had just been to the north, was a rather large two-story concrete façade building. Rental materials would sit outside year-round. Pickard Automotive housed 20 or 30 cars that sat outside. A welding shop was to the east and MGE was down at the end of the subdivision. The applicants‟ proposed building would be set on the M-291 side and would shield the parking lot from view on the highway. That and the landscaping required would also shield the south side. He added that the lot was difficult to build on due to its shape, and it was basically a business/industrial park setting. They had done everything they could to make it work. Mr. Schlicht added that this would be one of a number of similar type uses in the area.

    Mr. Reece asked Mr. Soto what was the difference in elevation between the new M-291 and the floor slab of the proposed building. It looked to him like it was set much higher than the current roadway, so the view from M-291 would be minimal at best. Mr. Soto said the building would be

PLANNING COMMISSION 9 January 8, 2008

    more visible from the outer road than M-291. Mr. Schlicht confirmed that it was 20 or 30 feet.

    His office was in the business park and it was well shielded from M-291.

Chairperson Christopher closed the hearing at 6:05 p.m. and asked for discussion or for a

    motion.

Mr. Reece made a motion to recommend approval of continued Application 2007-227,

    Preliminary Development Plan and Application 2007-248, Special Use Permit for major thautomotive repair; Classic Building, 21 SE 30 Street; S&P Commercial Properties, LLC, applicant; subject to staff‟s letter of January 2, 2008, specifically Recommendation Items 1

    through 7. Mr. Fristoe seconded.

Chairperson Christopher asked if there was any discussion of the motion. Hearing none, he

    called for a vote.

The Planning Commission members voted by roll call vote of three “yes” (Mr. Fristoe,

    Chairperson Christopher and Mr. Reece) and three “no” (Mr. Gray, Mr. Mosby and Ms.

    Rosenquist). The motion was not approved.

Ms. Rosenquist asked if the Commission could send a Special Use Permit application forward

    without a recommendation. Ms. Baird stated that the UDO addressed only an application, and

    did not specify what kind of application. Her opinion was that the Commission could still move it

    forward with the same “failure to recommend” caveat. They could also entertain another motion.

Chairperson Christopher did not know if anything could be brought to the table tonight to change

    anyone‟s vote. They could continue it and suggest some changes.

Ms. Rosenquist said she had trouble with the site plan itself, not seeing the building and the lack

    of visual breaks on the north and south side. She was aware that the businesses Mr. Schlicht

    had mentioned had outside storage; however, the Commission had held other projects in that

    area accountable for visual aspects. The visual breaks were her major concern about the

    elevations. Ms. Rosenquist also had concerns about the definition of storage of vehicles.

Chairperson Christopher remarked that although he had voted to approve, he would like to see

    some color renderings of the elevations. Drawings on the 8.5x11 sheets provided did not give a

    very comprehensive picture. The applicant could use either a board or slide presentation.

Mr. Gray had an overall concern about the aesthetics along gateway corridors to the city. He

    understood about the similar businesses in the area, but there seemed to be a steady march of

    auto-related businesses that greeted people coming into Lee‟s Summit on a major thoroughfare.

    He was not convinced that this was a good way to go, but would be willing to consider the

    application if he saw a more detailed building design.

Chairperson Christopher noted that the concerns with the last application were over traffic. In

    this case, there was a site plan involved so he felt the best avenue was to continue and ask the

    applicant to address the concerns that were raised.

Mr. Reece noted that a question had been raised about seeing vehicles from M-291. He was

    satisfied that this would not happen due to the grading. Parking was also well away from the

    highway, so he did not share that particular concern. He did think that seeing larger and more

    detailed architectural renderings would be helpful.

PLANNING COMMISSION 10 January 8, 2008

Ms. Rosenquist made a motion to continue Application 2007-227, Preliminary Development

    Plan and Application 2007-248, Special Use Permit for major automotive repair; Classic Building, th21 SE 30 Street; S&P Commercial Properties, LLC, applicant, to a date certain of January 22, 2008 to give the applicant time to prepare and bring forward site plan renderings. Mr. Mosby

    seconded.

Hearing no further discussion, Chairperson Christopher called for a vote.

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

    voted unanimously by voice vote to CONTINUE Application 2007-227, Preliminary Development

    Plan and Application 2007-248, Special Use Permit for major automotive repair; Classic Building, th21 SE 30 Street; S&P Commercial Properties, LLC, applicant, to a date certain of January 22, 2008.

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

    obtained.)

6. Continued Application 2007-236 SPECIAL USE PERMIT Renewal for pole sign

    United Missouri Bank, 401 NE Rice Road; UMB Bank, applicant

Chairperson Christopher opened the hearing at 6:10 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or

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

Ms. Nancy Bass, gave her address as 217 NW Hemlock, and stated that she was appearing on

    behalf of UMB Bank. She remarked that the applicants understood the City‟s intention to

    address the issue of free-standing signage but they were also asking that the Commission

    consider the fact that this sign existed prior to the adoption of the UDO revisions. They took

    pride in its appearance and level of maintenance and were requesting that the Special Use

    Permit be renewed. The applicants assured that the sign would continue to get all the

    maintenance necessary to keep it structurally sound and attractive in appearance.

Following Ms. Bass‟ presentation, Chairperson Christopher asked for staff comments.

Mr. Hughey entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-15 into the record, and stated that staff was

    recommending denial of the application. That was consistent with the past handling of other

    pole sign applications that had come in. The original Special Use Permit had been granted in

    1990 for a period of ten years and had expired on October 16, 2000. Staff‟s recommendation

    was in keeping with the UDO‟s intent to promote wall and monument signage as alternatives to

    pole signs. The existing sign was 32 feet high and a total 69 square feet. If the Commission did

    decide to renew the SUP, staff recommended an expiration date of October 16, 2010; ten years

    from the expiration date of the original permit. Mr. Hughey also asked to remove Attachment 5

    from the exhibits. It was a statement asking for continued use of the pole sign, and had been

    inadvertently omitted from the packets.

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. Seeing

    none, he then opened the hearing to questions from the Commissioners.

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com