Get documents about "First Page of the Taco Bell Job Application
Description
First Page of the Taco Bell Job Application document sample
Document Sample
LEE’S SUMMIT PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of Tuesday, September 27, 2005
The Tuesday, September 27, 2005, Lee‟s Summit Planning Commission was called to order by
Chairperson Trainer, at 6:07 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 Absent Mr. Gray Present
Mr. Fristoe Absent
Also present were Linda Tyrrel, Assistant Director, Planning and Development Department;
Jennifer Orr, Assistant City Attorney; Tom Scannell, Senior Planner, Jeff McKerrow, Senior Staff
Engineer; Pam Fortun, Staff Engineer; Keith Martin, Assistant Fire Chief, Fire Department; and
Kim Brennan, Administrative Secretary.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Chairperson Trainer recommended moving up the New Beginnings Church hearing (Application
2005-240) to be heard first. On motion of Ms. Funk, seconded by Mr. Pycior, the Planning
Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to APPROVE the agenda as amended.
1. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
A. Application #2005-237 – FINAL PLAT – Mill Creek of Summit Mill, 2nd Plat, Lots 42-86
& Tracts K-CC Lake Ridge LLC, applicant
B. Application #2005-261 – FINAL PLAT - Brooks Farm 2nd Plat, Lots 51-120; Huff
Development Co., Inc., applicant
C. Application #2005-303 – FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN – for sign package for
Citizen‟s State Bank, 300 SW Longview Blvd.; Mid-America Sign, applicant
D. Minutes of the August 9 Planning Commission meeting
Chairperson Trainer called for a motion to approve the Consent Agenda.
On motion of Mr. Reece, seconded by Ms. Funk, the Planning Commission voted unanimously
by voice vote to APPROVE Consent Agenda Items 1A through 1D.
2. Public Hearing: Application #2005-269 – VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY – Cambridge
Drive cul-de-sac within Lot 9-A, Rollins Meadows, Legacy Ridge Corporate Centre; Grand
Street Company, LLC, applicant
Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 6:07 p.m. and announced that Application 2005-269
was continued indefinitely at the applicant‟s request. She then closed the hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION 2 September 27, 2005
(The foregoing is a digest of the secretary‟s notes of the public hearing. The transcript may be
obtained.)
3. Public Hearing: Continued Application #2005-192 – VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY –
portion of old Blackwell Road south of Scruggs Road, west of Blackwell Parkway; City of
Lee‟s Summit, applicant
Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 6:08 p.m. and announced that Application 2005-192
was continued indefinitely 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.)
4. Public Hearing: Continued Application #2005-247 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT
PLAN – South Summit Christian Church, 1121 SW Hook Rd; Guenther Mills Keating
Architects, applicant
Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 6:09 p.m. and announced that Application 2005-247
was continued to a date certain of October 11, 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.)
6. Public Hearing - Application #2005-240 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN – New
Beginnings Church Addition, 601 NW Libby Lane; New Beginnings Church, applicant
Chairperson Trainer 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.
Mr. Bob Hedberg of Summit Survey, 526 SW Third Street, stated that he was present as the
applicant‟s designer. He stated that the applicant agreed with staff‟s recommendations. The
only thing still lacking at this point was a Department of Natural Resources permit application
and a preliminary plat. Both were already in process; and the latter was not normally done at
this stage in any event. They had made the corrections that staff had requested. Mr. Hedberg
added that Mr. Ben Cerra, a member of the church who served on the construction committee,
was present and could answer questions.
Following Mr. Hedberg‟s remarks, Chairperson Trainer asked for staff comments.
Ms. Tyrrel entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-19 into the record and stated that the preliminary
development plan was for a fairly large building addition. It was larger than the existing church,
which was why it was going through the public hearing process. Ms. Tyrrel pointed out that
staff‟s five Recommendation Items included three modifications. In Item 1, the requirement for
access to a church over 10,000 square feet to be off an arterial street was recommended to be
modified since the church was only a block from Chipman Road, which is an arterial.
Concerning the modification to the screening requirement in Item 2, the site had an existing
wood fence and a fairly significant hedgerow with a number of trees. These already provided a
PLANNING COMMISSION 3 September 27, 2005
fairly opaque existing screen. The condition stated if the church removed any of this during
construction or at another time, they would have to replace it.
The modification to the requirements for internal drive aisles in the parking lot to be 25 feet (Item
4) was consistent with other projects which had been granted modifications for as little as 20
feet. That was the minimum for access aisles within a parking lot where no spaces back up to
the aisle. They were requiring the 28-foot back-to-back width at the entrance to the street.
Concerning the shared parking in Item 5, the church had an agreement to share parking spaces
with Bob Sight Ford to the west and north of the property. This was a Recommendation Item as
it was not yet on a form acceptable to the City attorneys, and this would have to be done and
filed at the County recorder‟s office.
Following Ms. Tyrrel‟s comments, Chairperson Trainer asked if there was anyone else present
wishing to give testimony, either for or in opposition to the application.
Ms. Angie Gonzales of 622 NW Village lived just east of the proposed expansion. She stated
she was not opposed to the expansion but wanted to be sure that the water drainage and rain
runoff would not affect the property owners to the east. When the church was built about five
years before, some issues were verbally addressed individually but the neighbors were not
aware of other residents having problems. Many people had to make provisions such as
purchasing sump pumps at their own expense. They had addressed them only individually and
not in writing. Also, when Penny Lane had been put in, some sewer drainage was added but
during heavy rains the backup water ran down to this part of Village Fair. Ms. Gonzales
emphasized that the nearby residents did want to be good neighbors but they also wanted their
homes protected from any further water damage. Ms. Gonzales provided the Commission with
a copy some photos.
Ms. Becky J. Fulghum of 612 NW Village also had problems with the existing water runoff.
There had been grade issues since the church had been built in 1997; and the minister of the
church had been out four times and had walked over her property. She believed they had
submitted a sketched grading plan to Public Works in 1999, and had talked with Public Works
today to find out where the construction drawings were. When the church was built, they had
elevated the property, with the result that the church now had a view down to her property and
the water all ran off to the east. She understood that this application included a detention or
retention pond that was supposed to address these issues; but she was concerned about
whether or not they acknowledged that there was currently a problem. Adding a paved parking
lot would add to the problem by creating more runoff. In short, while like Ms. Gonzales she
wanted to be a good neighbor, there were existing problems and she was not sure whether
Codes or some other department would have the initial topographic maps on record. Public
Works did not. However, she‟d had the City out and had notes in her own file. Additionally, she
had a registered letter that was also in a file Ms. Fortun had brought.
Additionally, Ms. Fulghum said the County had assessed property values in 2003, and
estimated her home at $85,000. She had protested, with documentation that this value was
based on an exterior walkaround of the property; but as far as the County was concerned, it was
now at $60,000 because of the water problems including the runoff into her walkout basement.
The basement door had not been usable since the church went in, because of water runoff
between her property and 610 Village to the south. This neighbor‟s basement and walkout
garage had also been flooded.
PLANNING COMMISSION 4 September 27, 2005
In summary, Ms. Fulghum felt the City had not addressed these important issues to date. She
added that when the dump trucks went in to raise the grade from five to eight feet behind her
property, they had verbal permission by the City to level the property. It was not level to begin
with, so the increased grade only increased runoff and there was an unmaintained silt fence
there. The 1999 sketch showed a ditch between the properties, but this did not exist. Nor was
the fence opaque as had been stated.
Ms. Fortun stated that she was informed about this issue and the residents‟ concerns earlier
today, although another engineer had actually spoken with Ms. Fulghum. According to the plan
that had been submitted, the church was providing detention on their property and that was in
accordance with the new Design and Construction Manual. The manual‟s standards were much
more stringent than previously. She was not aware of the problems just described, as she was
not with the City at the time the church was originally built. Staff had looked and had not seen
the problems just described.
Chairperson Trainer asked if Ms. Fortun had acknowledged there was a current situation and if
the applicant was going to get it fixed. Ms. Fortun answered that they were addressing the
problem; but she was not aware of any current drainage issues until this morning. Chairperson
Trainer then asked Mr. Hedberg if he was aware of a current issue, and if it was being
addressed. Mr. Hedberg returned to the podium and stated that they were not aware of any
current situation other than the fact that the road the citizens were talking about was built as a
City-initiated project [Penny Lane]. The City had built a storm drainage swale and he was not
sure how much detention it effectively did. However, the applicant was not involved with it.
Their plan had addressed anything that would drain off the new project, as it would all go to a
detention basin. He added that they had not yet gone through the entire report with Ms. Fortun,
as that was another thing they normally did after a Planning Commission hearing, after they got
a sense of where they were going. Nor was he sure that the City currently had any staff
members who were there when it was designed. He added that Penny Lane was the one that
went by McDonald‟s, with all the water going off that street continuing to the south. He did have
some reduced drawing copies showing their system.
Mr. Reece asked what was the storm year design on the detention basin, and Mr. Hedberg
replied that it was whatever the current rules demanded. Ms. Fortun stated it was 100-year.
Mr. Hedberg remarked that standards had changed a couple of times just in the last few
months, and it was getting tougher every time his company came in for a hearing.
Mr. Pycior remarked that the Commission had heard testimony that a nearby resident had storm
water problems in a walkout basement during the past few years; and while the applicant could
address what needed to be addressed on the new construction, he did not believe they should
be allowed to add to an already existing problem. Mr. Hedberg answered that he was not the
party to tell the Commission what had happened seven or eight years ago.
Mr. Ben Cerra of 533 Shoreline Drive, speaking for New Beginnings Church, related that when
they had first started this project in 1996 or 1997, they were not aware of any drainage problems
on the property. The church owned two lots, and a drainage ditch ran through these two lots.
The runoff came from the Taco Bell and McDonald‟s on Chipman, running off their parking lots
on the upper ground through Penny Lane and into the ditch. The church had been told that this
ditch silting in was what caused problems for the neighbors in the back. Representatives of the
church had met with Public Works several times, and found that the problem was because of
the ditch being designed to go west and under Libby Lane. It also went by Bob Sight‟s body
shop, and that part also would get clogged up. Mr. Cerra stated that the church had done its
PLANNING COMMISSION 5 September 27, 2005
best to follow the guidelines they had been given by the City to address that issue. That had
included grading and cleaning it several times. However, the two restaurants plus Bob Sight
Ford, which had bought the car wash, would not meet with them. The church had previously
given the City the property to put in Penny Lane, and in turn the City had put in and designed
the drainage system to take care of the water from the two restaurants. That was a piped
system. The swale did catch some of the church‟s runoff water from the rear parking lot, but
that parking lot also had an inlet on the southeast corner where the water from the back was
retained. The rest was designed to go out to the front and out to Libby Lane, as per the design
required by the City when they had applied for a building permit.
Also, at staff‟s request, they had gone to as many of the homeowners as they were able to
contact. They had asked the questions about any problems and told them about the situation
with the landscaping and fencing, and had signed forms from neighbors who had approved the
landscaping plan. One of the church members had found out about Ms. Gonzales‟ situation just
a few days ago, and they were not aware how water could get to her house from the church
property. If it was a problem they were generating, they would be glad to take care of it and
address anything necessary; but he did think that the new plan would divert all the water down
to the storm sewer between the houses. The rear parking lot would not exist anymore after the
addition went in.
Mr. Pycior asked if the water at the south end of Penny Lane, where it met the church property,
would now be retained on site and Mr. Cerra answered that this was correct. That would be
from the north part of the church parking lot, with the south lot having its own detention system.
The new section was likely to help any existing problems. He added that the church also had
some severe water problems, and this was water coming from the north. They had spent a
number of weekends cleaning out the tube under Libby Lane, as it was too small to handle that
volume of water, and had opened up the ditch to make it 12 feet wide and shallower. That was
after meeting with Public Works, who had helped them design a new ditch before Penny Lane
was constructed. The water had backed up on both the church and the homeowners.
Mr. Pycior then asked Ms. Fortun how staff could make sure between this hearing and the
Council meeting whether this was a City or church problem. He did not want to hold up an
applicant if they had truly done what they were supposed to do; but he also would not feel
comfortable moving the application along if there were still things that could be done on site.
Ms. Fortun did not reply.
Mr. Cerra stated that any water that might be going to the neighbors‟ property now from the rear
or north parking lot would not be going from the parking lot with the addition, as a building would
be on the site. The rules required the church to keep the drive going down the east side of the
new building 30 feet from the property line. That 30 feet was the only space that could have any
water. Mr. Pycior remarked that one of the concerns seemed to be that it could come south
down Penny Lane. Mr. Cerra replied that Public Works had designed the storm sewer to handle
all that water and he assumed that they had done that job and were processing the water
through the tube to take it away from the homes. He did not believe that water would go
through that rear swale during hard rains.
Ms. Tyrrel stated that the Engineering Department could look at the plans for Penny Lane
between now and the Council meeting. They could determine what was designed and whether
or not changes needed to be made in working with the applicant. Chairperson Trainer asked if
that would include the two neighbors who had spoken this evening, and Ms. Tyrrel requested
the two neighbors to provide their names and contact information by the end of the meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION 6 September 27, 2005
Ms. Rosenquist asked how many letters had gone out to adjacent property owners, and Ms.
Tyrrel counted about 27. Ms. Rosenquist then asked Ms. Gonzales if she‟d had problems
before the construction. Ms. Gonzales answered they had not, adding that they had lived on the
property for ten years. It was after the church was built that they had noticed a problem, and
had fixed it with a sump pump. The concern was that they would not be able to handle any
additional and increased water problems without considerably more expense. She confirmed
that the water runoff also went to the property of some older neighbors who had been there for
30 years. It was her understanding that overflow from the back went through their yard. The
neighbor had brought it to the City‟s attention, but everything had been on a verbal basis. Ms.
Gonzales added that this was why she had put this in the form of a letter.
Ms. Rosenquist noted to Ms. Tyrrel and Ms. Fortun that Village Fair had always been a „river‟
during rains. She had been in that particular area a few weeks ago during the heavy rain and
could not even drive through because of the standing water. She had heard the assurances
that runoff would be dispersed into the current storm sewer system, but wanted to know if that
system could handle the additional water given the current situation. Ms. Fortun acknowledged
that it was an older system; however, she would have to look at the plans to get an answer. Ms.
Rosenquist asked where this area was regarding CIP improvement, and Ms. Fortun replied that
she had not seen it on the schedule as far as stormwater was concerned.
Mr. Cerra added that there was an inlet box on the church property for the swale to empty into;
and the City had told them that the pipe size was adequate to handle all the water. The culvert
just carried the runoff from Taco Bell, McDonald‟s and Bob Sight‟s detail shop.
Ms. Fulghum returned to the podium and stated that the inlet under Libby Lane was not
adequate. She emphasized that Libby being a private road and not City-maintained might be
part of the problem. Ms. Fulghum also took exception to the reference in Recommendation Item
1, since Libby was a substandard street.
Following these comments, Chairperson Trainer asked if the Commission had questions for the
applicant or for staff. She remarked that sending both staff and applicant back to resolve these
questions before the Council meeting could be an option.
Mr. Pycior was comfortable with moving it forward as long as it was clear that the applicant and
staff should figure out the source of the problems before the Council hearing. Mr. Reece,
however, considered the application to have too many stormwater issues. He did not think the
Commission would be doing the City Council a favor by neglecting its responsibility and just
sending the application on to them. Staff, the property owners and the church needed to have
meetings first to identify and work out the problems. It was imperative that the project be done
properly and to stop the direction of water off the church property and onto the neighbors.
Ms. Rosenquist was in favor of bringing the application back, noting that the stormwater
problems had increased with time. This area had older sewers and there was a good deal of
commercial development going close to residential. She also noted that Village Drive was
designed years ago to carry water and had done that well; however, as the area developed;
there was now a history of water problems severe enough to make it impossible to drive through
there because of standing water. She also did not agree with the modification to the screening
requirement. At just the last meeting, the Commission had required an applicant to put in
appropriate screening and she did not see a good reason for following that up with a
modification. Screening might be particularly important to residents if the church was now
PLANNING COMMISSION 7 September 27, 2005
above their property. Except for some of the historic districts, the residential area was one of
the oldest subdivisions in Lee‟s Summit and they should have some protection.
Chairperson Trainer remarked that this was a fine line between the new supposedly fixing the
old, and whose word the Commission was going to take for it. She added that the Commission
was not a compliance committee; that was staff‟s job and it should not be in front of the
Commission tonight. She instructed the Commissioners to not be voting as a compliance body,
adding that if they believed that the new construction would solve the problem then the issue
would go away.
Mr. Pycior read Recommendation Item 2 somewhat differently. He believed the modification
was to allow the existing tree line to remain. Compliance with the ordinance would probably not
be the preference of either the church or the neighbors, because they might have to take out the
existing tree line as well as the existing fence in order to be in compliance, so the modification
might be to the benefit of both parties.
Ms. Funk was concerned about the stormwater issues; however, she also thought the
Commission had heard a great deal of new information tonight and wanted staff to have the
opportunity to work with the applicant and the neighbors. Hopefully they would come up with
something they could move forward to the City Council. If they could not, she did not believe it
would go forward but did not think the Commission should hold up the application, as she was
confident that staff could work successfully with the applicant and the neighbors for a resolution.
Chairperson Trainer then closed the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. and called for a motion.
Mr. Pycior made a motion to recommend approval of Application 2005-240, Preliminary
Development Plan, New Beginnings Church Addition, 601 NW Libby Lane; New Beginnings
Church, applicant, subject to staff‟s letter of September 23, 2005, specifically Recommendation
Items 1 through 5. Ms. Funk seconded, adding the recommendation that staff work with the
applicant and the neighbors to come up with a solution.
Chairperson Trainer asked if there was any discussion of the motion. Hearing none, she called
for a vote.
On motion of Mr. Pycior, seconded by Ms. Funk, the Planning Commission members voted by
voice vote of four “yes” (Chairperson Trainer, Mr. Pycior, Ms. Funk and Mr. Gray) and two “no”
(Ms. Rosenquist and Mr. Reece) to recommend APPROVAL of Application 2005-240,
Preliminary Development Plan, New Beginnings Church Addition, 601 NW Libby Lane; New
Beginnings Church, applicant, subject to staff‟s letter of September 23, 2005, specifically
Recommendation Items 1 through 5 with recommendation added as noted.
(The foregoing is a digest of the secretary‟s notes of the public hearing. The transcript may be
obtained.)
5. Public Hearing - Continued Application #2005-195 – REZONING from PI-1, CP-2, RP-2
and R-1 to PMIX and Application #2005-196 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN –
south of U.S. 50, both sides of M-291, south to Persels Road and just south of 16th Street,
proposed CityWalk/The Village; Greenpoint Dev., LLC and City of Lee‟s Summit (applicant
on 12 parcels), co-applicants
PLANNING COMMISSION 8 September 27, 2005
Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 6:45 p.m. She then told the citizens present that Mr.
Pycior, who had not been present for the last hearing on this application, had been given all the
information and had done a thorough job of reading through it and asking questions. It would
not be necessary for people who had testified before to give testimony again; however, anyone
not speaking before would be given an opportunity. The applicant had been asked to review
and respond to a list of questions from the previous hearing; and it would not be necessary for
the applicant to go through the presentation again either. In short, she was looking for new
testimony and answers to the specific questions. Chairperson Trainer then asked those wishing
to speak, or provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in by the court reporter.
Mr. Aaron March, attorney for Greenpoint Development LLC, with the Black, Goss law firm,
gave his address as 4510 Belleview in Kansas City, Missouri. He stated that a number of
participants were present to answer questions, including Mr. Mike Walstead from TranSystems
who could answer questions about traffic. Mr. March then addressed the questions raised
about the project at the last hearing.
Internal circulation. A number of questions last time had focused on the quality of the internal
circulation within the project. Displaying a rendering of the circulation plan, Mr. March described
it as a very easy pattern, with primary internal traffic roads indicated in yellow and the secondary
lanes through parking lots shown in purple. The large parking areas were fairly parallel and
easily connected, with more than one terminus, with secondary traffic lanes. Drivers would go
either right or left without an island or curbs, and the major traffic roads provided easy exits.
The only place the pattern was not largely self-explanatory was the part within the boutique
retail portion toward the middle of City Walk. However, even this had a loop system and parking
in front of the stores, as this part emphasized pedestrian traffic.
Signage. The Commissioners‟ packets included copies of pages from the architectural design
guidelines setting out specific types of signage, as well as three maps for the Calmar, City Walk
and Village tracts. The latter identified the locations of signs by sign type. The City Walk map,
for example, showed one marquee sign and a major monument sign. The large signs were
adjacent to the highway and major intersections, and gateway features were at major entry
points; with smaller signs more internal to the project and closer to the nearby neighborhoods.
The table on page 8 of staff‟s report cited exact locations, types, number and descriptions of the
signs. Mr. March described the signage generally as being as much architectural elements as
advertising, and as being intended to create a feeling of entering an important area of town.
Building sizes. Regarding the maximum number, the applicant had asked in the architectural
design guidelines to have up to eight stories. At one time, the design had included a performing
arts center with a hotel above it, for an eight-story total. They had removed this from the
project; and to date the site plan had no eight-story structure. The tallest structure, namely the
baseball stadium, was five stories at the highest point with the others being two or three stories.
However, the applicant still wanted some flexibility on that in case the citizen task force decided
that this was the right place for a performing arts center. In that event they would bring back an
amended plan and might generally want to consider an eight-story building later.
Impact on existing retail/viability. Mr. March considered these valid questions and said that he
had answered them to some degree. However, he stated, under Missouri law the viability of
projects and impact of competition were not valid issues to be considered in deciding on a
zoning change. Because they were dealing with these exact questions via the MODESA
authority, he was willing to share the answers and information but asked the Commission to put
these aside in looking at the land use questions.
PLANNING COMMISSION 9 September 27, 2005
Mr. March then read a paragraph from a study, which he emphasized was not final and had not
been published, but had been done by a consultant hired by the City to analyze the MODESA
application:
“Lee’s Summit is currently severely under retailed, and despite a recent surge in
new retail construction continues to suffer from considerable retail sales leakage.
The estimated retail leakage in Lee’s Summit is $291.7 million a year. That leakage
is adequate to support 1.3 million square feet of retail space today. . . By the year
2010, Lee’s Summit is forecast to support an additional $1.04 billion in additional
retail sales and 4.1 million square feet of additional retail space. Therefore,
sufficient pent-up retail space demand exists to accommodate feasible development
of the City Walk and Village sites.”
Mr. March stated that they were proposing 1.2 million square feet of retail in the project, and the
applicant considered that there was enough demand in terms of what business was being taken
outside the community. He emphasized that although it was not official, published or final, the
report gave independent corroboration that this project would absorb sales currently leaving the
community and would not be competitive sales impacting existing facilities. He added that this
particular retail center would be close to Downtown as opposed to the edges of the community.
Regarding competition with existing big-box stores in Lee‟s Summit, the City‟s consultant had
pointed out that there were other big-box stores looking for sites that did not have stores here.
Costco and Sam‟s Club had been cited as examples. Mr. March emphasized that if a store shut
down to move to this site, they could not count the State or local sales tax for MODESA
purposes. He added that quality of design, building materials and architecture were what he
regarded as significant for sustainability. Ebbs and flows were a fact of life in the economy; but
quality projects designed and built right tended to survived the low periods.
The applicant believed they had an exciting design and building materials. They were investing
in front-end quality, and someone doing that had to wait for the market to catch back up. Mr.
March pointed out that Country Club Plaza had a lot of vacancies over the years, with Saks Fifth
Avenue closed. However, the Plaza was still a vibrant place. Independence Center, while a
different kind of retail project from the Plaza, had gone through a low period but now was
dynamic again. A quality product did not just get torn down, and the applicant considered the
quality of architecture, design, building materials, pedestrian character and generally how the
project worked to be elements of this project.
Finally, there had been questions about the teams playing the baseball facility, and Mr. March
pointed out that this facility was not a factor in terms of whether bigger teams stayed or moved
out. It was part of the concept of having a retail facility having an entertainment draw, with the
Pavilion for concerts and exhibitions also being an element. The sports facility could also be
used by the community as a venue for events like concerts and inter-school competitions.
Baseball would be the „anchor‟ but that would be 46 games a year and Lee‟s Summit could use
it as an outdoor community space generally.
There was no staff presentation. Chairperson Trainer asked if there was anyone else present
wishing to give testimony, either for or in opposition to the application.
Mr. Elliott Threatt of 12202 Washington Court in Kansas City, Missouri stated that he owned the
GNC at 975 NE Rice Road. He stated that local ownership was a most significant aspect of this
project. The history of such developments in Kansas City indicated that there was a lack of
PLANNING COMMISSION 10 September 27, 2005
accountability when the ownership shifted out people out of state. He also considered it
important that they were making an outreach to get minority businesses like his into City Walk.
He had asked them about relocating to City Walk from a store in that area and they had told him
“no relocations.” That indicated some integrity, as it was not desirable for the community
generally to be closing down storefronts. For this reason, he felt the City should give the project
strong consideration.
Mr. Delbert Miller of 1015 Allendale Boulevard was concerned about what would be behind his
back yard in terms of the new street running by the project. He particularly wanted to know
what the grade of the land running from his property line up to that street and what would be in
between. Chairperson Trainer told him they would get an answer to that question.
Mr. Michael Swisher of 914 SW Lakeview displayed some maps that he referred to during his
presentation. He first stated that he and his wife Mary Anne had experienced a number of
problems with flood control planning in their neighborhood. They and many of the neighbors
they had talked with felt that this would be an excellent project for the community but there were
some concerns. Traffic control was one of them. Another was that they did not see a
connection between the community and the surrounding subdivisions and Downtown for
pedestrian and bicycle traffic, particularly the Hinsdale subdivision to the west, and those to the
south. There also did not seem to be much connection between the three elements of the City
Walk, the Village and “Retail A” for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Also, while the City pool, high
school and Downtown were all to the north, there was no pedestrian or bicycle access across
the 50 Highway bridge. That was an area they wanted the Commission and Council to take a
look at.
Second, the Cedar Creek stormwater projects were a concern. The proposed three sites would
involve a large expanse of proposed retail roofs that would be collecting rainwater, and
approximately 223 acres of land that would collect water. Mr. Swisher referred the
Commissioners to the map of the Stormwater Master Plan for the Cedar Creek watershed,
pointing out M-291, 50 Highway, the Oldham Parkway access road and Persels. “Retail A”, and
part of the Village fell within the Cedar Creek flood control area and City Walk was directly
within the Cedar Creek watershed and that was where the water would flow. The runoff from an
area where thousands of cars would park would all flow through the watershed, as would all the
water from the paved areas. He did not see anything in staff‟s current recommendations
requiring either the City or the developer correcting any of the master plan‟s noted storm sewer
deficiencies; all of which were denoted on the maps by numbers and marks. There were about
16, either within the Village project itself or downstream near Lakeview Boulevard. Unless
MODESA or other funding mechanism was used to correct these problem areas, they would not
be corrected. About nine of them even fell directly within City Walk. Taking those project sites
off the master plan would not necessarily be a bad thing, as he had discovered that under the
CIPs for the next five years, there were only two projects for stormwater improvements and
neither of these were in the affected areas. In fact, under the City‟s CIP for the next five years
for water utilities and sewer construction, none of those projects were in that area either.
Consequently, he did not know where the needed improvements would come from as there was
currently no funding for them. Because MODESA funds were available and the developer was
willing to work with the City, he felt the Commission could make these projects and corrections
happen at this point in the development plan.
Mr. Swisher commended Mr. March and the development team for their willingness to provide
additional information. However, the undersized sanitary sewers flowing to the west for over
three miles from this project were currently from 100 to 500 percent capacity during a storm.
PLANNING COMMISSION 11 September 27, 2005
The studies were using either a 3-inch rain in 24 hours or a 7.7-inch rain (100-year flood) as
models and this area regularly had rains of 1-2 inches in one hour. Also, the Archer study said
that with flows up to two times the existing capacity, and with insufficient line capacity according
to the 1998 Cedar Creek Watershed Study, this extended further downstream completely to the
City limits to the west. In short, the lack of connections to adjacent neighborhoods and bicycle
and pedestrian traffic and the lack of flood control and sanitary sewer planning for this size
project were two major concerns. The developer and City needed to get together and get these
projects taken care of.
Ms. Jane Pritchett of 413 SW Stratford was concerned about the increased congestion on
Oldham. With the closing of the Oldham/M-291 intersection and having to go through the new
development to get to Persels, getting in and out of their neighborhood in Hinsdale would be
difficult with the congestion on Oldham. The other entrance to Oldham at Third and Ward would
also become more congested. Another issue concerned water and storm drainage. Stratford
tended to flood during rains and the creek behind her home went over its banks. Ms. Pritchett
had photographs showing the creek overflowing into backyards, as well as pictures of Stratford
when its storm drainage could not handle the rain and water was standing in the street. If these
drainage issues were not addressed, the new development could only make them worse.
Already the water got bad enough that temporary “rivers” often ran between the houses. That
raised some concerns about her home, her parents‟ home nearby and the neighborhood
generally. She remarked that she was not sure if expanding and this part of the creek as other
parts had been would be helpful. Ms. Pritchett provided the Commissioners with copies of the
photographs, which Chairperson Trainer stated would be marked as exhibits.
Ms. Michelle Riffe, Development Director for the Lee‟s Summit Community Christian School,
gave the school address as 1450 SW Jefferson. City Walk would be a close neighbor to the
school, which had 700 K-12 students; so they had taken an interest in this project. The school‟s
officials had reviewed the use restrictions for the project, as what retailers went in so close to a
school was a concern. They were satisfied that the usages would be appropriate, and also
thought it would stabilize the area for years to come. The proposed road improvements would
also create more access points for the school.
Ms. Karen Holman of 1111 SW Mission Place was also concerned about water and storm
drainage, as well as the amount of traffic generated on Persels Road. Mission Ridge, where
she lived, had three entrances and she wondered if traffic would be cutting through the
neighborhood. She was also concerned about the view through the wooded area behind her
house, as she did currently see the auto auction place during the winter when there were no
leaves on the trees. It appeared from the plan that the new development would be very close to
her back door, and that created a concern about the effect on her property values.
Mr. Craig Harris gave his business address as 20 SW Persels Road, which would be within the
proposed development. When the developers had first contacted him about relocating the
business, he and his wife had been initially skeptical. However, Mr. Ballew and Mr. Smith had
kept in contact with them, had been forthcoming with answers to questions and information and
had kept them informed on the plans as the project developed. They supported the
development and felt it would be good for Lee‟s Summit as well as being a good use for the
land.
Mr. Fred Bouldecheken gave his address as 607 SW Elwood Drive, right behind the elementary
school. He was also concerned about the traffic on Persels. At present, buses came down
Oldham from Lee‟s Summit High School and then went over to the junior high school. With the
PLANNING COMMISSION 12 September 27, 2005
new development, they would all go down Persels Road. He wanted to know about any plans
for improving Persels.
Ms. Kay Ford of 414 NW Timberbrook Road commented that the developer had some new
ideas and was willing to take chances in using them. Because of its growth, Lee‟s Summit was
ready for such a new and different development.
Mr. Art Jones of 406 SW Persels stated that after reviewing this project including the applicant‟s
presentation he believed this would be a good thing for the city. He owned lots 9 and 10 on the
west side of the subject property and knew that Lot 10 would become part of the development.
Chairperson Trainer then adjourned the meeting for a break at 7:25 p.m. The meeting re-
convened at 7:30 p.m.
In response to the questions raised, Mr. Ray Smalling came to the podium and gave his
address as 1314 NE Troon Drive. He stated that the applicant had taken notes on the City‟s
master drainage study and incorporated those notes into their own storm drainage report dated
August 5th. They agreed that the existing conditions allowed for uncontrolled release of
stormwater downstream at Cedar Creek as well as to the south. The improved situation would
route all the stormwater through a controlled stormwater detention basin. That would enable
regulating the flow so the existing downstream system could carry the discharge from the site
for a 100-year event. It would generally improve the situation.
Chairperson Trainer then asked Mr. Smalling to address the concerns raised by Ms. Pritchett
and Ms. Holman. Mr. Smalling stated that Cedar Creek, was a watershed running to the west.
Chairperson Trainer asked if his testimony applied to these citizens‟ situation and issues also;
and Mr. Smalling answered that the testimony applied to the stormwater that fell on the City
Walk site, basically the rear lot lines east. They were not proposing improvements to the
conveyance system on Mission Place or Allendale themselves; however, what they did propose
was to reduce the flow running off the site by using a stormwater detention basin. That was
shown on the drawings in orange, and the collection system shown as orange lines. They
planned to remove all the stormwater pipes currently on the site, as they were inadequate and
in bad shape. They would then put in new stormwater pipe, adequately sized, to carry the water
runoff to the detention basin shown on the map in orange at the lowest point of the site. That
would regulate the stormwater flow off the site and not overtax the downstream system. They
would go through the same process on the southeast side, at Sixteenth and Bailey.
Mr. Gray asked Mr. Smalling if the nine points of concern on the City Walk property that Mr.
Swisher had mentioned had been addressed. Mr. Smalling answered that they had, with the
stormwater piping they were putting in having a capacity well above the APWA standard. That
standard was for a ten-year capacity and their piping would be 100-year capacity. Mr. Reece
remarked that when the detention pond filled up in a heavy rain, it would need to be a controlled
release of water. Mr. Smalling assured him that it would have a concrete release structure for
the flow. It would be within the capacity of the downstream storm sewers, specifically the
Lakeview Boulevard culvert.
Ms. Funk asked if it was accurate that the applicant would replace all the existing piping and
drainage on the 223 acres to be developed; and that this replacement would help the flooding
problems in the surrounding area, particularly with the pipe being correctly sized. Mr. Smalling
replied that this was correct. Ms. Funk also asked staff if any of the existing City CIPs were
scheduled to address any of these issues in the surrounding neighborhoods, and Ms. Fortun
PLANNING COMMISSION 13 September 27, 2005
answered that there were not any that she knew of. Ms. Funk asked if staff was nevertheless
comfortable that this plan would not add to any existing problems, and Ms. Fortun said that they
were. She added that staff had mentioned the issues in the Cedar Creek watershed when this
project was first brought in.
Next, Mr. McKerrow came to the podium to answer questions about traffic issues. He first
stated that a number of improvements were being made on Persels. The intersection of Persels
and Jefferson was projected to be operating at level of service “C”, and staff had identified the
necessary improvements. They were getting bids on the intersection of Ward and Persels, and
the improvements there should improve level of service standards. Regarding the school
buses, he pointed out that these were rarely operating around the peak activity of a nearby retail
center. The early-hours peak activity was well after buses arrived at school; and the later retail
peak was about 4:00 p.m. and after. Concerning pedestrian and bicycle access, the City‟s
standard was to have sidewalks or a combination of sidewalks and multi-use trails on roadway.
That would continue; and they would be working with MoDOT to make sure the new Highway
50/M-291 bridge had these side aisles as well.
Chairperson Trainer wanted to know how this project aligned with what MARCIT and MoDOT
showed by circa 2020 concerning traffic and construction. Mr. McKerrow referred her to page 2
of the Transportation Impact memo. The US 50 corridor study was the document they used
today for guidance on long-range plans. This was, however, a long-range vision and was not
currently funded from any public source. He pointed out that this project actually did not comply
with the projection in the corridor study in terms of an interchange at 50 Highway and south M-
291. The plan had projected M-291 being shifted to the east, going through the property where
the Village would be. One of the conditions staff was recommending for the Village was for the
applicant to work with the City and MoDOT to identify a long-range solution. That was
specifically referenced in Recommendation Item 7. Chairperson Trainer remarked that this
application, and probably anything in the future anywhere near this size, would also have
MoDOT issues as far as the 2020 plan was concerned. Mr. McKerrow responded that staff had
been working with MoDOT extensively on this project, as well as others.
Ms. Rosenquist asked if they would be inhibiting any possible solutions in Phase 3 via the uses
being put on the property in Phase 1 and Phase 2. Mr. McKerrow replied that any time this
much construction was done, there would need to be some improvements to public infra-
structure. The City would have to weigh issues such as cost of right-of-way acquisition. That
did not, however, mean that Phase 3‟s existence would inhibit finding solutions.
Ms. Rosenquist asked Mr. McKerrow if he had any preliminary ideas or speculation as to the
solution for the interchange location. She remarked that access to M-291 was limited to two
places at present, which was a great deal of traffic coming off Highway 50; and this project
would generate even more. Mr. McKerrow stated that when the US 50 corridor study was done,
it identified three or four different alternatives for the interchange. All were potentially feasible,
one involving directional ramps. For various reasons, these plans were not the preferred
choices but some solutions had been identified. Ms. Rosenquist asked if it would be possible to
take a look at some of these options before the Council hearing and see how feasible they
were. Mr. McKerrow answered that this was always possible; however, getting a clear picture
on that would involve a significant amount of engineering study. Moreover, the US 50 corridor
study was in fact just a corridor study and blueprint and not a clearly defined project. The
projects and improvements were not currently funded. What staff did see with this current
project was some solutions to certain existing problems. Ms. Rosenquist asked if those
solutions included plans for dealing with all the traffic generated by the development, and Mr.
PLANNING COMMISSION 14 September 27, 2005
McKerrow answered that with the off-site improvements that staff was recommending, some
intersections might actually operate better.
Ms. Rosenquist observed that at the last hearing, she had asked about the impact of the
realignment of Oldham and John Smith Parkway [Jefferson], particularly on neighboring
residents who used it to get out to Highway 350 and what effect it would have on Ward Road
and Oldham. Mr. McKerrow replied that the residents would have further to drive. However, he
pointed out, there were other projects that would benefit residents north of Persels and east of
Ward Road. The Persels/Ward intersection would have a signal that would provide better
access for a south route on Ward. That would be a longer trip to 50 Highway, but because of
some of the intersection design issues that would be corrected would make it a safer trip and
possibly more efficient. Also, intersection improvements now under design where Longview
Road was being relocated a little to the north would include signalized access to the east side of
Ward. However, he acknowledged, some people would have a further distance to drive.
Chairperson Trainer asked for details about the pedestrian/bicycle connection for the Downtown
area, and how pedestrian/bicycle traffic did or did not work for neighborhoods surrounding the
subject property. Mr. Gray also wanted to hear an answer to Ms. Holman‟s question about the
view from the back of her property.
Mr. March first stated that the sidewalks they were proposing to construct when they widened
the 50 Highway bridge were the main pedestrian links they would be putting in for Downtown.
There was not a good way to connect the Village to City Walk, as the intersection would be a
major highway intersection although it would be signalized. It was not the type of intersection
that people would be crossing on foot regularly. They had looked at pedestrian bridges but
concluded that people in most communities did not want to walk across major highway inter-
sections. City staff had, however, asked them to provide for a future connection road coming
down the southeast quadrant of “Retail A.” In the future, if the north part of the current Pfizer
property was developed it would have a road connection with sidewalks connecting the northern
and southern parts of the project. He showed on the map where the public road would end with
a turnaround, the future potential connection with a road to “Retail A”. He was not sure if people
would walk back and forth, but sidewalks would be there on both sides of the street.
Mr. March continued that in the three meetings they‟d had with neighborhood groups to the
west, they had discovered the residents were actually split about having a pedestrian
connection through their neighborhood. Consequently, they did not want to make that decision
for the neighborhood to the east but it could potentially happen there. Mr. March pointed out the
city park north of the creek, which would be close to grade at the street. Over time, the
residents might want the connection. Regarding the views from backyards of property owners
along the western boundaries, they currently looked into asphalt and an electrified security
fence. In some lots, these went all the way up to the property lines. The City Walk project, in
contrast, would have a mandated six-foot fence, plus significant landscaping on the City Walk
side. They had made an offer to property owners who had approached them to put the fence on
the property line for them to use. Some neighbors had asked about a berm and landscaping on
top of it, and Mr. March assured the Commission that they wanted their final plan to include that
at the west side. The only problem that might involve would be that they would not want to
create an impediment should there be an east-west pedestrian connection. Mr. March added
that one resident had told them “I will sell my property if you keep my 100-year-old oak tree”
there and they had been able to do that. He emphasized that the developer had
accommodated neighbors whenever they could and that included landscaping. Mr. Miller and
PLANNING COMMISSION 15 September 27, 2005
Ms. Holman were both welcome to talk with them after the meeting about how their yards were
situated.
Ms. Rosenquist asked Mr. March if he‟d had any more input on the overpass to Bailey Road.
Mr. March answered that today TranSystems had contacted Union Pacific. They had said that
while there were better locations for an overpass to cross a railroad bridge and it would not be
the cheapest crossing; however, as it was a private project and developer-driven they would
prefer that it get going as soon as possible and saw nothing to prevent it from going forward.
Ms. Rosenquist asked if this would be a cost of development rather than to the City, and Mr.
March answered that the Bailey Road extension was an obligation of the developer. They were
asking in their MODESA application that it be funded through that project. They would be the
applicant working with Union-Pacific, although coordinating with City staff.
Referring to the signage chart on page 8 of staff‟s letter, Ms. Funk asked Mr. Scannell to give a
review of how this differed from what was currently allowed. Mr. Scannell related that any kind
of signage would have to come before the Commission, which would have to use its discretion
on what to grant. The signage they were proposing for this project was mostly to identify the
development, while Summit Woods Crossing nearby had three signs to identify the
development. That included two along Pryor and one along Chipman. This project was
significantly different, however. It was primarily geared toward US 50 and M-291. Speeds
along 50 Highway were greater than they were along Chipman or Pryor. Also, many of the
signs functioned more as architectural features that just happened to say “Village” or “City
Walk.” Staff had worked with the applicant to limit the amount of signage for pad sites to
internal private drives, so that drivers along M-291 and 50 Highway would mainly just see the
signs for the development as a whole. Ms. Funk asked what the current maximum signage
was, and Mr. Scannell replied that the maximum was 16 feet for a monument sign. One of the
signs the applicant was proposing was 20 feet and another 40 feet tall.
Chairperson Trainer remarked that staff should know what the Commission would do regarding
signage: if they set a precedent they were going to keep it. As a body, they were not going to
be picking and choosing; so staff should be sure they liked the precedent they set. There were
plenty of developments with lots of acreage coming to the Commission, and mostly on major
thoroughfares; and a precedent could influence the Commission if another applicant came in
and wanted larger signs. She strongly emphasized that the staff had better love the guidance
they gave; and everyone in the audience had better love it to; as they were going to see it again.
Mr. Scannell replied that one of staff‟s points was the benefit to the city as well. They would be
more of a feature that created a sense of place rather than just wanting bigger signs.
Chairperson Trainer answered that she understood; however, staff needed to understand her
earlier comment as well as it would come back again.
Ms. Rosenquist noted that each of the large projects alluded to have unique situations of some
kind that the Commission had made exceptions to. However, looking at the number of signs
and their sizes, she wondered if this was the final total of signage that would be brought
forward. Considering the uses and acreage for each of the phases, she wanted to know if this
current total overshot or undershot the amount of signage the applicants might need. Mr.
Scannell answered that staff had wanted to make sure they were not all along the highway
frontage. The applicant had rather worked well to space them out. The Village, for example,
had two gateway signs, one off the Bailey Road extension and the other off Sixteenth Street,
both of which were the major entrances for the stadium area. They also had two or three signs
along M-291. In the City Walk, the one major entrance off M-291 had a gateway arch. The
PLANNING COMMISSION 16 September 27, 2005
other signs were at the key intersections in City Walk. When staff had looked at the signage
plan, they saw that the signs were spaced some distance apart and were more a feature to the
project than just signs. Technically, they had words saying “City Walk”, “Village” or “Retail A” so
they had to be included as signs. Staff leaned toward there being more in the realm of features
that created a sense of place for the development.
Mr. Gray asked which sign, if any, would have information regarding retailers. Mr. Scannell
answered that it would be the marquee signs and one labeled “monument”. Mr. Gray asked if
they were interior signs, and Mr. Scannell responded that they were part of the development‟s
signage. The marquee was the 40-foot sign. Mr. Gray pointed out that the Village monument
sign in the chart gave the location as the entrances. Mr. Reece remarked that it would not be
possible to drive through the columned marquee sign shown on the drawing; and Mr. Scannell
confirmed that it would not.
Mr. Gray continued that traditionally in retail, a sign somewhere on the property listed and
directed people to retailers. He wanted to know if this development would have this kind of sign.
Mr. Scannell answered that only the pad sites were allowed a freestanding signs, and these
“Monument B” signs to a small overall height of four feet. They were to be located only along
the private internal driveways. All the tenant signs would comply with the UDO in terms of area
and height; it was only the special signs identifying the zones that varied from the UDO.
Mr. Gray remarked that as a retailer, he would want some external signage to draw customers
into the complex, and Mr. Scannell said that they could still have this. Mr. Gray asked if that
signage would be visible from the street and Mr. Scannell said they would be allowed to have
wall signs.
Mr. Reece said he understood the gateway sign, but wanted to see on the plan where the
marquee and monument signs would be. Mr. Scannell pointed them out.
Chairperson Trainer stated that land use and how property would be used was the purview of
the Planning Commission. She would not ask the applicants to name tenants, but would give
names and asked them to respond on an approximate percentage basis. The Commission had
a legitimate reason to ask what kind or quality of tenant would fill this property. If the
Commission voted either yes or no tonight but did not get this one question answered, they
would have failed. Regardless of how many studies the city had done, it would be the city‟s last
hurrah as far as quality of tenants was concerned.
Chairperson Trainer identified six areas on the entire built-out property, Phases 1 through 3,
emphasizing that any specific stores she named would be just illustrations of type. She wanted
to know what percentages would be (1) eateries, whether fast-food or sit-down restaurants; (2)
department stores like Dillard‟s or Nordstrom‟s; (3) stores like Costco; (4) stores like Sear‟s or
Penney‟s or (5) boutique shops like currently see in Downtown Lee‟s Summit. She asked for an
approximate percentage basis, adding that she would give the applicants some time to
determine that.
Mr. March responded that all the eateries were full-service restaurants, and would be about
70,000 square feet or about 4 percent. Except for Dillard‟s all the stores Chairperson Trainer
had mentioned were interested in the project.
Chairperson Trainer again explained that she was not asking about specific names but was
using the stores‟ to identify a general category of vendors. She wanted to know the
PLANNING COMMISSION 17 September 27, 2005
percentages of “similar in kind” stores. Mr. March answered that tenants like those mentioned,
other than Nordstrom‟s, were tenants that had expressed a very strong interest. Chairperson
Trainer asked what percentage were more like Costco than like Dillard‟s. Mr. March answered
that there was only one big-box store in the same class as Costco or Sam‟s; and that was in
“Retail A”. The other stores were more like the other tenants she had mentioned. Mr. March did
not give percentages.
Chairperson Trainer asked for a breakdown of the „boutique‟ stores. Mr. March related that
these would be situated in the middle of the project, representing a smaller percentage of
overall square footage. None would be similar to the Downtown Lee‟s Summit stores. He
added that he was not comfortable talking about tenants specifically. It involved economic
decisions, not land use decisions; and involved some degree of confidentiality. Chairperson
Trainer responded that for this very reason she had not asked him for specific tenant names but
rather gave him scenarios and asked him to respond to them. Moreover, if the Commission
approved the application it was in fact a land use issue. If the Commission did not ask these
questions, they would in effect share the blame if the tenants were a poor choice and that
impacted the project‟s success.
Mr. Reece noted that some of the buildings on the plan were labeled “Restaurant/Retail”. That
suggested that they could be restaurants; however, the figures he had given suggested that this
would not happen. Moreover, Mr. March had just said that all the restaurants would be full
service; but the plan indicated a fast-food restaurant at the middle entrance off M-291. Mr.
March answered that in the preliminary development plan with the PMIX, they had purposely
provided some flexibility. This was not set; and staff would consider intensity of use and parking
if they brought in proposal for a fast-food restaurant with drive-through. If staff did not consider
that the fast-food restaurant met the criteria, they would have to amend the preliminary plan.
Ms. Rosenquist remarked that the applicants had been enthusiastic about the amphitheater last
time, and asked why it had been pulled. Mr. March answered that the amphitheater was still in
the project. What was pulled was the performing arts facility. In the earlier meetings, Mayor
Messerli had suggested that this project would be a good location for a performing arts center.
Their first design had included that, and then they had added a four-story hotel and conference
center on top of that. Since then, the Mayor had appointed a task force to determine where the
best location for a performance arts center would be as well as its feasibility for Lee‟s Summit.
For them to process the zoning and MODESA applications with the arts center there would
short-circuit that public process by pre-judging the best location. Consequently, they had been
requested to withdraw it, in order to allow the task force to do its job. The arts center might well
end up being located in this project. They would have time to amend their plan and bring it
back. They were reserving funding in the MODESA application for the performing arts center,
regardless of where it was located.
Chairperson Trainer asked if there were further questions for applicant or staff. Hearing none,
she closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. and asked if there was discussion among the
Commission members. She stated that this had been thoroughly covered and she considered
all of her questions to be answered.
Ms. Rosenquist noted that this was a very large acreage and while her questions had been
answered, she still had some issues about internal traffic flow, particularly in City Walk as well
as entrances and exits to M-291. She had looked at internal traffic flow and access to arterials
at similarly sized developments around the metro area, and recalled the traffic jams around
Summit Woods during the last holiday season. She was not opposed to the project but felt that
PLANNING COMMISSION 18 September 27, 2005
these concerns still needed to be dealt with. Ms. Rosenquist also noted, however, that the
guidance given via MODESA did give her some degree of comfort level about the land use. Her
particular area of positive interest was the Village, as it was an excellent area to bring in a
needed multi-cultural and multi-dimensional attraction to Lee‟s Summit. While not close to
Legacy Park, it could be a similar kind of asset.
Ms. Funk stated that over the last two Planning Commission meetings, the Commission had
about two dozen people testify. She was impressed by the positive remarks and support, with
even those expressing concerns not being generally opposed to the development. She also
praised the applicant and City for meeting with the neighbors and communicating with them. In
looking over her packet last Friday, she had looked to see if the general questions were
answered and they had been. She was still concerned about traffic in the long term, both
internal traffic flows and in the general surrounding area, although she appreciated the clarity
the color-coding had added. In looking at the 15 points involving common good for rezoning,
she felt that the development might actually help with some of the problems including water
problems. Ms. Funk also liked the fact that the developer was a local one and not one who was
going to finish the project and move on. Considering that it was overall a good plan and both
the City and neighbors supported it, she was generally in favor.
Chairperson Trainer asked if there was any further discussion. Hearing none, she called for a
motion.
Mr. Reece made a motion to recommend approval of continued Application 2005-195, Rezoning
from PI-1, CP-2, RP-2 and R-1 to PMIX and Application 2005-196, Preliminary Development
Plan, south of U.S. 50, both sides of M-291, south to Persels Road and just south of 16th Street,
proposed City Walk/The Village; Greenpoint Development, LLC and City of Lee‟s Summit
(applicant on 12 parcels), co-applicants, subject to staff‟s letter of September 23, 2005,
specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 9. Mr. Gray seconded.
Chairperson Trainer asked if there was any discussion of the motion. Hearing none, she called
for a vote.
On motion of Mr. Reece, seconded by Mr. Gray, the Planning Commission members voted
unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of continued Application 2005-195,
Rezoning from PI-1, CP-2, RP-2 and R-1 to PMIX and Application 2005-196, Preliminary
Development Plan, south of U.S. 50, both sides of M-291, south to Persels Road and just south
of 16th Street, proposed City Walk/The Village; Greenpoint Development, LLC and City of Lee‟s
Summit (applicant on 12 parcels), co-applicants, subject to staff‟s letter of September 23, 2005,
specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 9.
(The foregoing is a digest of the secretary‟s notes of the public hearing. The transcript may be
obtained.)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no other public comments at the meeting.
ROUNDTABLE
Mr. Gray remarked that while he had voted for the applicant in the first hearing, he was troubled
that the Taco Bell and McDonald‟s were allowed to basically thumb their noses at the City. He
PLANNING COMMISSION 19 September 27, 2005
felt that the Commission and staff should not only take a stronger position but that the church
should be held accountable if they had helped create the flooding problems. Ms. Tyrrel
responded that these entities had been there a long time and stormwater ordinances had
changed over the years. They could not go back on old developments and make them conform
to new standards or correct problems. It became the City‟s problem; as the City had to decide
whether the problems would be addressed in a CIP project. Mr. Gray remarked that he‟d
understood that representatives of McDonald‟s and Taco Bell did not show up for a meeting;
and Ms. Tyrrel stated that this was rather the applicant trying to get in touch with them for a
meeting and had not been able to. There was no City requirement for them to cooperate.
Chairperson Trainer remarked that when the Commission was has handing it off, and that
otherwise there might be a court battle. Mr. Gray remarked that it was hard for him to accept
that there was a property owner on a City-owned street that was creating traffic problems as
well as water runoff and the City not taking action or addressing the issues. Mr. Reece
expressed general agreement, noting that „handing it off‟ was an appropriate phrase. He
wondered if the Commission was doing the right thing by ignoring these problems or handing
them off to the Council when they knew there were situations in the vicinity of a development
needing to be addressed.
Chairperson Trainer stated that they had addressed them tonight. They could have asked the
applicant to come back in two weeks and told them the same thing again. She stated that Legal
could not be expected to go out, get the pertinent files and essentially try a case at the hearing.
Mr. Gray stated that nevertheless, there was obviously a property owner in Lee‟s Summit who
was creating a somewhat important problem for surrounding property owners and it was not
unreasonable to ask City staff or the Legal Department how to address that. If this was not the
proper forum, he wanted to know what that was. Chairperson Trainer answered that it was not
the forum to open up an all-night discussion between a neighbor, Legal and Engineering. She
was disappointed that they did not have the facts but she was not going to take that on tonight.
She expected staff to go out and solve that, which is what they sent the applicant out to do.
Otherwise, she suggested, Mr. Gray had screwed up the vote.
Mr. Gray still wanted to know what the general approach was to address this kind of problem.
Ms. Tyrrel stated that they did not really know who was causing the problem. A stormwater task
force appointed by the Mayor had met for about a year and had come up with some
recommendations. Staff was currently in the process of amending the ordinance to strengthen
the stormwater requirements for future developments. However, they had identified a large
number of stormwater drain problems throughout the city that were unfunded so sources of
funding was one of the things the Council was looking at. If they discovered an existing storm-
water problem and a new development was being proposed in that area, the choices were to
stop development until the problem was solved or make the new user solve the problem. Those
were the issues the Planning Commission had to deal with.
Mr. Reece stated that he was on that task force and they dealt with the city as a whole and not
individual properties. It was a fact that the City did not have enough money to fix them but the
Council was looking for a resolution to them.
Mr. Pycior remarked that the Commission did not want to hold the church responsible, and did
not know for a fact that they created the problem. He had the impression that it was a private
street owned by McDonald‟s but this was apparently based on the old ordinance. Ms. Tyrrel
answered that Libby Lane was and had been a private street and it did fill up with silt and
drainage. However, the people testifying lived on the other side of the church from Libby. Mr.
PLANNING COMMISSION 20 September 27, 2005
Pycior remarked that he had not wanted to hold that development up because of the
Commission sending staff back to figure out how to fix the problem only to find out it was not the
applicant‟s doing.
Ms. Rosenquist stated that her reason for voting “no” was not based on wanting to put the
burden onto the church. She had, however, seen the change from the property being a field to
the current development, and homeowners who had been there all that time having increasing
problems. She had wanted staff and City Council to know that there was a problem, and it was
the Commission‟s purview to see the issues get solved. There were also issues with Libby
Lane, which had terrible problems. The CDC had discussed private roads within the City some
months ago, particularly three that had been problems: Melody, between the Commerce Bank
and Taco Bell off M-291, Libby, and the private road in front of K-Mart. Eventually it would have
to be decided if the City would take over these streets or if they should remain private roads with
“Maintenance Ends” signs denoting them. Her vote was to send a message that this had to be
dealt with.
Mr. Gray wanted to know that a year from now the Commission would not be dealing with the
Taco Bell problems once again. Chairperson Trainer asked if Legal had any direction,
remarking that she did not know if the citizen testifying was telling the truth or not and could only
suggest strongly that the City find a venue to solve the problem. She saw this kind of problem
at every meeting, and generally wanted Legal to take a more active role in the meetings. Ms.
Orr remarked that this was the first point where Legal would hear about these problems. So the
options as she saw it were moving the project along as the Commission had tonight, with some
opportunity to work with the participants before the Council hearing; or holding the project up.
Chairperson Trainer asked if, assuming the testimony was correct about the neighbors‟ water
problems, the Commission could be assured the problem would be dealt with. Ms. Orr asked if
“dealt with” meant that Legal would solve the problem. Chairperson Trainer responded that the
City had this neighbor‟s name and contact information and she was asking that Legal sit down
and talk with her. She could not say what Legal should decide as she did not have all the
information. However, Mr. Gray had made a good point that this would come up again,
specifically at the Council meeting.
Ms. Tyrrel stated that at every pre-application meeting, if an applicant proposed a private street
staff told them they would not support it. The general policy was that the private owner would
have to bring them up to code. Mr. Reece added that this could become a large financial issue,
as fixing these streets would be very expensive. Mr. Pycior asked if McDonald‟s could just
refuse if they were asked to fix the street and Mr. Gray suggested the City could close access to
the road. Ms. Funk remarked that the City could ask, they would say no and the Commission
would be where it was now.
Chairperson Trainer remarked that this would be a good topic for the joint meeting with the City
Council. She asked about the date, and Ms. Tyrrel answered that staff had not heard back from
the Mayor and Council about the date.
ADJOURNMENT
Having no further discussion, Chairperson Trainer adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
PC092705
Related docs
Other docs by xhw15086
