LEE’S SUMMIT PLANNING COMMISSION - …colscf.cityofls.net/meetingminutes/05-24-05.doc · Web...

LEE’S SUMMIT PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of Tuesday, May 24, 2005

The Tuesday, March 24, 2005, Lee’s Summit Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Trainer, at 6:05 p.m., at Arnold Hall, 123 SE 3rd Street.

OPENING ROLL CALL:

Chairperson Trainer Present Mr. Christopher PresentMs. Rosenquist Present Ms. Funk PresentMr. Reece Present Mr. Pycior PresentMr. Atcheson Present Mr. Grey PresentMr. Fristoe Present

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

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Chairperson Trainer announced that some of the items on tonight’s agenda would be moved. Application 2005-075 (Item 16) would be moved to directly follow Application 2005-074 (Item 9), as it was a preliminary plat for the same project. For the same reason, Application 2005-107 (Item 17) would directly follow Application 2005-100 (Item 10). She added that she would be making some changes to continued applications 2005-079 (Item 6) and 2005-081 (Item 7). Chairperson Trainer then asked if there were further additions or corrections to the agenda. There were none. On motion of Ms. Funk, seconded by Mr. Fristoe, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to APPROVE the agenda as amended.

1. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA

A. Minutes of the April 12 and April 26, 2005 Planning Commission meetings

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

On motion of Ms. Rosenquist, seconded by Mr. Atcheson, the Planning Commission voted unanimously by voice vote to APPROVE Consent Agenda Item 1A.

Chairperson Trainer announced that she would continue Items 2 through 7.

2. Public Hearing: Application #2005-090 – REZONING from AG to R-1, south of Woods Chapel Road, east of Savanna Ridge, proposed Savanna Woods; Gary Bromley for Savanna Ridge Dev. LLC, applicant

PLANNING COMMISSION May 24, 2005

Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 6:08 p.m. and announced that Application 2005-090 was being continued to June 14, 2005, at staff’s request. She then closed the hearing.

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

3. Application #2005-119 – REZONING from AG to PMIX and Application #2005-120 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, Park Ridge, 1700 NE Woods Chapel Rd; ACH, LLC, applicant

Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 6:08 p.m. and announced that Applications 2005-119 and 2005-120 were being continued to June 14, 2005, at staff’s request. She then closed the hearing.


4. Application #2005-121 - VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY of unnamed and unconstructed street, proposed Park Ridge, vicinity of 1700 NE Woods Chapel Rd; ACH, LLC, applicant



5. Continued Application #2005-053 – VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY – Blackwell Road Right-of-Way, G&R Development, applicant street, proposed Park Ridge, vicinity of 1700 NE Woods Chapel Rd; ACH, LLC, applicant



6. Application #2005-079- REZONING from RP-2 to CP-2 and #2005-080 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN - Big Tex Trailers, 107 SE 9th St; Duff Motor Co., Inc., applicant

Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 6:09 p.m. and announced that Applications 2005-0079 and 2005-080 were withdrawn by the applicant. She then closed the hearing.


7. Application #2005-081 – SPECIAL USE PERMIT for trailer sales in CP-2, Big Tex Trailers, 107 SE 9th St; Duff Motor Co., Inc., applicant

Chairperson Trainer opened the hearing at 6:08 p.m. and announced that Application 2005-081 was being withdrawn by the applicant. She then closed the hearing.

2



13. Application #2005-182 – AMENDMENT #13 to the UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO); City of Lee’s Summit, applicant



14. Application #2005-091 – PRELIMINARY PLAT – Savanna Woods, Lots 1-84; Gary Bromley for Savanna Ridge Dev. LLC, applicant

Chairperson Trainer announced that Application 2005-091 was being continued to June 14, 2005, at staff’s request.

15. Application #2005-138 – PRELIMINARY PLAT – Park Ridge, Lots 1-434; ACH, LLC, applicant

Chairperson Trainer announced that Application 2005-138 was being continued to June 14, 2005, at staff’s request.

8. Continued Application #2005-058 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN – American Legion Post 189 Building, 820 SE Vista Drive; American Legion Post 189, 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. Terry Chapman, architect, gave his address as 2412 West 71st Street in Prairie Village, Kansas and stated that he was representing the American Legion Post 189. They wanted to built a new post building, and had read staff’s letter and recommendations. The applicants agreed to the Recommendation Items 1 and 2.

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

Mr. Gorecki entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-18 into the record and stated that staff recommended approval of the preliminary development plan. He read the two proposed UDO modifications in the Recommendation Items. One modification was to the requirement for a six-foot vinyl fence ten feet from the north property line. There would be a line of shrubs along the north side of the fence, and trees on the south side. This was in lieu of combination landscaping on both sides, because of the presence of a ten-foot utility easement in that location. The second modification would allow a 20-foot setback from the road instead of the required 50 feet.

Following Mr. Gorecki’s comments, Chairperson Trainer asked if there was anyone else present wishing to give testimony, either for or in opposition to the application. Seeing none, she asked

3


if the Commission had questions for the applicant or staff. As there were none, Chairperson Trainer closed the public hearing at 6:13 p.m. and asked for discussion or for a motion.

Ms. Funk made a motion to recommend approval of continued Application 2005-058, Preliminary Development Plan, American Legion Post 189 Building, 820 SE Vista Drive; American Legion Post 189, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of May 20, 2005, specifically Recommendation Items 1 and 2. Mr. Fristoe seconded.

Chairperson Trainer asked if there was any discussion of the motion. Hearing none, she called for a vote.

On motion of Ms. Funk, seconded by Mr. Fristoe, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of continued Application 2005-058, Preliminary Development Plan, American Legion Post 189 Building, 820 SE Vista Drive; American Legion Post 189, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of May 20, 2005, specifically Recommendation Items 1 and 2.


9. Application #2005-074 – REZONING from AG to R-1 – 85 acres located north of Savannah Ridge, east of Lake Ridge Meadows, proposed Dalton’s Ridge; Roy Allen for Dalton’s Ridge Development Company, applicant


Mr. Roy Allen gave his address as 3516 NW Winding Woods Drive in Lee’s Summit and stated that he was the attorney for Dalton’s Ridge Development Company, the applicant. He passed out aerial photographs to the Commissioners and introduced the developer, Mr. Dana Zander, who was present. Mr. Allen particularly commended Mr. McKerrow and Mr. Scannell for their assistance in working with staff. He described the project as a single-family subdivision with 176 homes, similar to the Timber Hills development. The adjacency compatibility report, showed that it would be compatible with the two adjacent existing subdivisions: Savannah Ridge and Lake Ridge Meadows.

Mr. Allen continued that about two weeks before, the three developers hosted an open house and public forum for adjacent homeowners, explaining details of the development and answering questions. The primary concern expressed at that meeting was traffic going through their neighborhoods. He was, consequently, focusing on details of that issue particularly. Referring to the aerial photograph, Mr. Allen described Dalton’s Ridge with Savannah Ridge on the south, Lake Ridge Meadows to the west, and Blue Springs Lake Park on the east and north. An undeveloped farm was also to the north and west, with the proposed Park Ridge subdivision toward the east. Woods Chapel Road was about 1,500 feet south of Dalton’s Ridge, which was basically behind Lake Ridge Meadows and Savannah Ridge. It had no direct access to Woods Chapel Road nor to Lakewood Way. Currently, the only two points of access were Georgian Drive through Savannah Ridge and Kenwood Drive through Lake Ridge Meadows. During these subdivisions’ development, the City had required the two stub streets for future access when the subject property was developed. They had also required that Georgian Drive be designed and constructed as a collector street. The two stub streets had been on a set of

4


preliminary plats that the City had approved for each of the two subdivisions, since 1993. Most of the adjacent homeowners either knew about these street stubs when they bought the homes; or at any rate, the public records could be found at City Hall showing the stub streets were approved for future development. Mr. Allen remarked that the developers of Savannah Ridge or Lake Ridge Meadows could just as easily have been bringing in applications to just continue their own subdivision development onto the subject property. If that had been the case, they would have used the same access streets that the applicants were proposing.

Mr. Allen said that he understood their concerns about the traffic impact; and the applicants were committed to doing whatever they could to minimize that. The subdivision had only one builder, which generally gave the developer more control than usual. The builder did use fines on subcontractors who did not comply with City ordinances. These violations would include mud left in the street. Mr. Allen believed this was an improved scenario for controlling the impact on the two neighboring subdivisions. He also urged any homeowners who had concerns to communicate them to the Codes Enforcement department and the police, especially if they believed that subcontractors were not following City ordinances.

Mr. Allen continued that the two stub streets would not be the only access points. There would actually be five, four of which were collector roads. He pointed out the color-coded neighboring features on the map: Lake Ridge Meadows, indicated in orange, to the west; the undeveloped farm indicated in brown, to the north; Blue Springs Lake Park indicated in green; yellow to the east for Park Ridge and Savannah Ridge in blue, to the south. Four individual lots that were not incorporated into any plat were shown in purple. Mr. Allen then pointed out the collector roads to be utilized, shown in red. They comprised about 3,000-3,500 linear feet of collector roads. Georgian Drive to the south, where the development would start, and Kenwood Drive to the northwest would be two. The latter was the only one of the five access points that was not a collector. The third access point was Dalton Ridge Drive, going out to the east. It would be constructed by the developer of Park Ridge, who had included it in the first phase and planned to finish the road by the end of summer 2006. Staff’s letter specified that Dalton’s Ridge could not exceed 50 homes until that road was finished. If it did not get finished, the developer would have to complete it all the way out.

The fourth and fifth access points would be the north and south ends of Gateway Drive. It was a major corridor designed by the City as part of the Transportation Plan. The developer was going to construct the 2,100 feet of Gateway Drive that would go through Dalton’s Ridge. Gateway would eventually connect with Bowlin Road on the north and Woods Chapel on the south. When that connection was made, it would likely eliminate most of the traffic going through Lake Ridge Meadows and Savannah Ridge. That was, however, dependent on future development.

Mr. Allen concluded that the applicants did understand the homeowners’ concerns, and had discussed those with them. They were committed to doing what they could to minimize the traffic impact to surrounding neighborhoods; and had a plan for road access and transportation that was workable. Staff’s letter indicated that their plan complied with the UDO, the Access Management Code and the approved transportation plan for this particular area.

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

Mr. Scannell entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-18 into the record. He stated that the property to be rezoned was about 85 acres behind Savannah Ridge and Lake Ridge Meadows. The 2005 Comprehensive Plan showed the recommended land use for this area as low-density

5


residential. The applicant was proposing a development substantially similar to what was currently in the area in terms of density, which was 2.28 units per acre excluding common areas. This would be the first development of three along Woods Chapel Road, and so a comprehensive traffic study had been done. The developers of these three projects had been working with the City concerning improvements to Woods Chapel Road, which was currently to be done by the County beginning next year. A deposit agreement had been drafted and was now being reviewed by the parties involved.

Concerning the access issues, Mr. Scannell confirmed that staff had set a condition for the development that no more than 50 lots could have building permits until a second access was provided. Options for that included constructing an access to Kenwood Drive or Park Ridge out to Woods Chapel Road. When Savannah Ridge had been approved in 1993, some discussions had taken place about whether Delta School Road would go through it as a second access. They had eventually decided against that, because of concerns about industrial traffic cutting through. Consequently, the 112 lots of Savannah Ridge only had a single access, namely Georgian Drive. Georgian Drive was a collector street and designed to handle heavy traffic; and staff believed that the condition of 50 lots would result in this initial development not being an undue burden on it.

Mr. Scannell concluded that staff recommended approval, subject to the three Recommendation Items. The first referred to the deposit agreement, specifically for turn lanes; the second recommended creating a Community Improvement District for a low pressure sewer system for about 12 lots; and Item 3 specified the limit of 50 building permits until a second access existed.

Following Mr. Scannell’s comments, Chairperson Trainer asked for a show of hands of anyone present wishing to give testimony, either for or in opposition to the application.

Mr. Dennis Henson of 4117 NE Georgian Drive in Savannah Ridge was opposed to the development. His house was the fourth down from the intersection, and when they had purchased the property it was their understanding that Georgian Drive would service only the Savannah Ridge neighborhood. They had young children, as did many of their near neighbors; and they did not want the construction traffic to Dalton’s Ridge going past their house. Additionally, when the first 50 homes were being built, Park Ridge would also being constructing so there would likely not be anything to stop construction traffic from going through Georgian Drive. The residents felt that as construction continued in Park Ridge, they were already going to have a tremendous amount of heavy equipment going through. This would tear up Georgian Drive and would pose dangers and annoyance to nearby homeowners. Mr. Henson recommended that the applicant be required either to build their own access road or to work with Park Ridge to develop the access road first through Park Ridge.

Mr. Larry Jakes of 4413 NE Blue Jay Drive told the Commission that on the map he was displaying, his lot would be #289. He did not specifically object to a new subdivision, nor to connecting the feeder routes. However, he did suggest another alternative. Mr. Jakes pointed out the proposed new street on the map, commenting that Delta School Road to the east was a commercial road. He proposed that they make the connection to Delta School Road and turn back to the west. That was a 60-foot-wide street designed to handle commercial traffic and could carry the construction traffic. They could still open the other stubs Mr. Allen had mentioned. Mr. Jakes also pointed out his own lot and provided photographs and pointed out to the Commissioners that the surrounding hills and ridges behind his lot ran in all directions. He was concerned about how the developer was going to deal with the water runoff. A cul-de-sac in Lake Ridge Meadows had a storm sewer whose water flowed toward his lot. Mr. Jakes was

6


concerned about his lot becoming a kind of dumping ground for runoff. The plan for a storm sewer did not yet address the water in that particular location, and he suggested a smaller drain pipe with a catch basin.

Ms. Joan Bargstrom of 909 Kenwood Drive in Lake Ridge Meadows urged the Commissioners to consider the quality of life there. She had lived in Lee’s Summit since 1970 and had watched its growth, with a pattern of moving more and more people in without taking into account the reality of all these people having vehicles that would make the roads more crowded. Ms. Bargstrom noted that her neighborhood had had fatal accidents on the outer road, and the basic cause was too many cars on the two-lane road. She could see increased potential danger on the surrounding roads and while she agreed that “you can’t stop progress “, she nevertheless had a problem with a developer using her neighborhood for access and gain from it. She also had a problem with developers deciding for the residents how the quality of their lives would be affected over the next few years. Ms. Bargstrom also asked what “R-1” zoning meant. She had noted some lots on the map being considerably smaller than others, and was not sure if that reflected various kinds of housing going in.

Mr. Michael Strom of 4209 NE Kennesaw Ridge spoke as the president of the Homeowners Association in Savannah Ridge. He noted that Mr. Allen’s remarks had reflected the fact that access to the development was the main issue. His neighborhood’s development was almost complete, with the exception of perhaps three or four lots; and the residents had all been looking forward to the end of construction traffic going through. They had known that Georgian Drive was a feeder street and that there would be another development to the north; however, they had hoped to have a little peace and quiet between the completion of their development and the start of another.

Mr. Strom emphasized that the residents’ concerns were for the safety and comfort of their families. He noted that the construction of improvements on Woods Chapel would already cause a good deal of destruction in the area. The Savannah Ridge entrance would be lowered seven feet, and Georgian Drive itself cut back 30 or 40 feet to alter the grade where it met Woods Chapel. The entrance currently had an attractive stone monument sign, which would also be destroyed and rebuilt. The Dalton’s Ridge construction would add construction traffic at the same time, which was not good timing. The mud and dirt carried in by all the construction would especially be a problem; and the residents’ experience with construction and development in their own neighborhood was that traffic laws including speed limits were often ignored. Mr. Strom noted that Savannah Ridge did have a single entry, with construction traffic and later increased traffic from the new residents. He emphasized that they did not want to stop the project necessarily, but felt that construction of an alternative entrance was a reasonable request.

Mr. George Batmer of 4409 NE Blue Jay Drive noted that he was Mr. Jakes’ next door neighbor. He did not want to object to someone making a legitimate use of their land, although he noted that everyone in the area would prefer to see the trees stay where they were and the land remain the way it was. However, he was sure that was not going to happen. Mr. Batmer agreed with the concerns about the construction access and that there might be alternatives; but he was particularly concerned about water problems. Mr. Batmer noted that around his lot, water runoff converged from four directions. He remarked that the open area left in his neighborhood was due to it being a watershed, that fed the “marina” fork of Blue Springs Lake. During a heavy rain, there was a great deal of water. He noted that the applicant’s plan had four proposed houses sitting right in the middle of a flash-flood prone area. The more engineering that had to be done to deal with that, the more damage would have to be done to the property. Mr. Batmer urged the Commission to pay particular attention to the engineering

7


that might be done on the site, and the way that water would be moved into the storm sewer system and down the hill toward Blue Springs Lake. The homeowners in Dalton’s Ridge would have the same kind of stormwater problems.

Mr. Tim Zubb of 4133 NE Georgian in Savannah Ridge commented that the water pressure in Savannah Ridge varied from “almost good” to “tolerable”. Whenever someone called the City about water pressure, they were told that the variable pressure was due to their being so many people already on the system. His wife had called Public Works about it a few weeks before, and had been told by Public Works that they were also concerned about water pressure when all these additional houses went in. They had come and tested at the Zubbs’ house but they had not heard the results yet. Water pressure in the event of a fire emergency was a particular concern.

Mr. Eddie Garcia of 913 NE Kenwood Drive stated that he was current president of the Lake Ridge Meadows Homeowners Association. They opposed the zoning change, as well as the opening of Kenwood Drive to construction traffic. He asked the Commissioners to consider how they would want to live on a road with multi-ton vehicles going by all day, especially if they had children. He noted that the applicant had referred to the stubbing out of Kenwood Drive as if that gave carte blanche to use the thoroughfares through the neighborhood as construction roads, which he considered ludicrous. Every neighborhood had stub streets that had not been developed. Mr. Garcia asked the Commission to rather consider rezoning the property to Planned Development, and not R-1. He noted that residential did not pay its own way; and any additional property taxes, most of which would go to the School District, would not benefit the Lake Ridge Meadows residents. The development would represent a tremendous additional drain on the City’s resources, and he expected another bond issue to build another police station, fire station and pumpers to come up soon if the development were built. That did not even take wear and tear on the roads into consideration.

Mr. Garcia agreed with the concerns over water pressure, also mentioning sanitary sewers as an infrastructure concern; and he noted that these would not be paid for by the developer. He also speculated that if the developer was not successful and sold the property, the neighbors might see 1,200-square-foot “crackerboxes” and once the zoning was in place there was not much the City could do about it. Mr. Garcia then read the content of a petition into the record:

“To the Planning Commission of the City of Lee’s Summit, Missouri: This petition of certain residents of Lee’s Summit, Missouri, specifically the members of Lake Ridge Meadows Homeowners Association draws to the attention of the Planning Commission the Association’s concern about traffic safety with regard to the proposed Dalton’s Ridge subdivision. Furthermore, we oppose the zoning change from Agricultural to R-1. City services are already stretched beyond reasonable response time. Should rezoning occur, our concerns notwithstanding, we prefer PD with more controls afforded to local government. We the undersigned oppose the opening of Kenwood Drive to through traffic. We ask the Planning Commission to deny the flow of construction and any subsequent traffic through our neighborhood, on Kenwood Drive or any other streets through the Lake Ridge Meadows subdivision.”

Mr. Garcia stated that the petition had 221 signatures.

Mr. Brandon Odinis of 1100 NE Kenwood Drive stated that he was the Director of the Lake Ridge Meadows Homeowners Association. The homeowners were opposed to the plan being approved as is. He noted that Mr. Allen had mentioned putting in a road on the north side;

8


however, Mr. Odinis had talked with the owner of that property and the owner was emphatic that there would not be a road going through that property in his lifetime. The homeowners were asking that the application not be approved until a new entrance was put in on the south side for all the construction traffic. He had talked with Mr. Allen at the last meeting and they had discussed the issue of the roads being torn up. Mr. Allen had indicated that the City would replace and repair the roads in the existing subdivision; however, it would take about three years to build out Dalton’s Ridge. Mr. Odinis urged the Commissioners to drive down Kenwood Drive and see what direction all the construction and increased residential traffic would take. He noted that in the petition Mr. Garcia had read, it had taken only four days to collect 221 signatures in opposition to the application.

Mr. Darrell Henna of 1036 NE Kenwood Court agreed with the concerns of the previous testimony. He considered the previously-used verbiage “tucked in behind the existing subdivision” to be descriptive, as the property was in fact wedged against the two existing subdivisions. Mr. Henna said that he had a two-year-old they liked to take for walks and children were everywhere in the neighborhood. That made the traffic a particular concern. He added that he had a personal goal of being more active in the community this year, and the neighborhood had a good community spirit. He was concerned about the pedestrians and people on bicycles in the neighborhood in addition to children, noting that typically construction crews worked whenever they could, so there was no assurance they would not be working into the evenings. This would particularly impact neighbors in the summer when they would be out enjoying the weather. Mr. Henna agreed with the suggestion that the zoning rather be changed to Planned Development. The roads that the construction traffic would use were hilly; and it was not likely that trucks would slow down once they picked up speed on the hills, which was another traffic and safety concern. Regarding the applicant’s suggestion that residents notify the City about violations, Mr. Henna noted that the trucks in violation would be long gone before the police got there. It would be likely that complaining neighbors would be asked to identify the offending crews, so neighbors keeping the problem under control by calling the police or the City would be ineffectual.

Mr. Mark Hartfield of 1009 NE Kenwood Drive stated that he was also a director of the Home-owners Association. He agreed with the concerns about traffic, especially construction traffic, including the substantial damage it would do to the roads. He wanted to know who would be maintaining those roads over the course of the construction. Mr. Hartfield also shared the concerns about children in the neighborhood and their safety. He did not think it would be effective to call the police about trucks, especially if a child was injured and the call was after the fact. He wanted an access road dedicated to supporting construction traffic if the plan went forward.

Mr. Joe Stodenger of 4321 NE Blue Jay Circle in Lake Ridge Meadows stated he had two major concerns. He pointed out his own lot on the displayed map, stating it was in a cul-de-sac where they were planning to put in an access road to lead to Woods Chapel. He asked why the new developer would want to tie into Delta School Road when Savannah Ridge did not. It was an industrial corridor, which had been the concern for Savannah Ridge residents. Mr. Stodenger was not sure how such an access road would get through to Woods Chapel, due to the industrial development already there in addition to the water tower and church. The corridor was also land-locked, with the private residence there shaded in purple. He was not sure that the owner of that residence was even willing to sell. His other issue was that his house was the first in Lake Ridge Meadows’ third phase. Then the plot plan was developed, the road did not have a drain for stormwater and it was supposed to be put on his property line. The drain now in front of his house emptied into the property behind, and he had been told that whoever

9


developed that property would have to tie into that drain and carry the stormwater out. He was concerned that if they did put in a collection basin behind his house, mosquitoes and trash buildup would be a problem. Mr. Stodenger noted that in other neighborhoods where this had been done, the collection areas did not get cleaned out very well and such a feature would reduce his property value.

(Seeing no one else wanting to testify, Chairperson Trainer then adjourned the meeting for a break at 7:00 p.m. The meeting re-convened at 7:10 p.m.)

Following these comments, Chairperson Trainer reviewed several of the questions and issues that the citizens testifying had brought up. She first asked why Delta School Road could not be used as a main access, instead of going through two neighborhoods.

Mr. McKerrow came to the podium and outlined some issues with the road that would make this difficult. It would be necessary to reconstruct a sharp bend, so that vehicles could move through it. As Delta School Road was currently only about 12 to 14 feet wide, it would be very difficult get construction traffic through there. That portion was about 400 feet running east-west and another 400 feet north-south. Additionally, the portion of right-of-way adjacent to the subject property was narrow, 20 feet in width instead of the usual minimum of 50 feet. The difficulties with the road would mean limiting to one-way traffic.

Chairperson Trainer asked how much time it would probably take to complete the first 50 homes. Mr. Allen estimated 12 to 15 months. Chairperson Trainer then asked Mr. McKerrow if the CIP had any designated improvements to Delta School Road and Mr. McKerrow replied that to the best of his knowledge there were not. Chairperson Trainer then asked Mr. Allen what the expected trip count would be for the 15 months he mentioned and Mr. Allen estimated 500 per day, on the basis of 50 homes and ten trips per day. Chairperson Trainer asked if this figure meant that he was proposing starting all 50 homes at the same time, and Mr. Allen answered that the roads for 50 homes and the development for those homes would be constructed at the same time. The builder would perhaps not build all 50 at once but a number of homes.

Chairperson Trainer asked why the applicants were not considering creating their own access, at their own cost, noting that this was one of the issues brought up by the residents. She added that the already-constructed streets were public access streets, and residents did not own them. Mr. Allen answered that the only possible alternative for getting out to Woods Chapel Road, considering the property’s location, was the one that he had already explained would be constructed. The Park Ridge developer was including that in the first phase. Mr. Allen pointed out that they could not go through the farm to the north without the owner’s permission, and there was no other way to get to Woods Chapel. He added that the applicants had spent a considerable amount of time coordinating the construction of this particular road with the adjacent developer. Chairperson Trainer asked if he had ever talked with the City about Delta School Road, as the construction of that and the lack of maintenance was the City’s issue. Mr. Allen said that he had, and that the applicants had considered that. However, it was not viable unless the City were to rebuilt the road. But as Mr. McKerrow had pointed out, the two 90-degree turns would be a serious problem. They would also be constructing 800 feet of road for that particular development, and the comparison between the cost of that and using what was already there was significant.

Chairperson Trainer then brought up the water control and water flow issues. Mr. Allen related that due to the topography between Lake Ridge Meadows and Dalton’s Ridge, the water came off Lake Ridge Meadows all along the border. Their engineers would address that runoff, as

10


they were required to by ordinance. They would include it in their engineering plans, and staff would review them. The plan was not in place as yet; but it was not supposed to be at this point in the process. The engineers were aware of the detention basin, the stormwater outfall pipe coming out of Lake Ridge Meadows, the topography and the other issues.

Chairperson Trainer then asked Mr. Allen to address the question of what “R-1” meant and what types of homes would be going in. Mr. Allen explained that “R-1” meant single-family residential housing. The City’s ordinances required adjacency compatibility; so they had done an analysis concerning the size of the homes, density and price range in the nearby subdivisions. That information was in the staff report and in the packets. The density was slightly more than Savannah Ridge: 2.25 lots per acre vs. just over two per acre in Savannah Ridge. Lake Ridge Meadows was denser, with over 3.25 lots per acre. Prices in Dalton’s Ridge range from $275,000 to $425,000. This was in line with homes in Savannah Ridge, although Savannah Ridge had some that were higher-priced. They would be $50,000 to $100,000 more than homes in Lake Ridge.

Chairperson Trainer then asked about the contractors’ plans for maintenance and cleaning during the project. She noted that Mr. Allen had mentioned establishing fines, but wanted to know if the project would be inspected on a regular basis. Mr. Allen related that the developer would have a Bobcat on site at all times to do cleanup of streets as they went along. He acknowledged that there would inevitably be dirt and mud on the street at times; however, they did have on-site equipment to keep it under control. The developer and the builder were at their projects every day, with an ‘on-site and hands-on’ approach.

Chairperson Trainer asked Mr. McKerrow for any comments about the issues of safety in the surrounding area. Mr. McKerrow said that Georgian Drive had a 25 mph speed limit, and most of the local streets had low speed limits as well. They had posted speed limit signs, but actually keeping people from speeding was an enforcement issue. He noted that one street was 36 feet from back of curb to back of curb, which provided room for two full lanes plus room for parked vehicles. Generally, these were wider streets designed to carry fairly high volumes of traffic. Unfortunately, however, wider streets did tend to have traffic with higher speeds and this was typical of collectors. Finally, Chairperson Trainer asked how the expansion of Woods Chapel Road would align with this project. Mr. McKerrow answered that the project would commence next summer with an 18-24 month construction period, and be completed probably in 2007 and 2008. The project would be about the same time as the Dalton’s Ridge development.

Mr. Reece recalled a question at a recent meeting about a development with a single entrance. He asked what the ordinance would permit in a single-entrance development on a collector road, particularly the number of homes. In the previous discussion the standard was 50 homes per entrance. Mr. Scannell replied that the ordinance did not distinguish between the classifications of streets in this regard. The 50-unit rule was based on safety issues. In this case, Georgian Drive as a collector street could handle more traffic than the multiple roads typical in a single-family subdivision. Mr. Reece remarked that he would not anticipate many drivers using the north road. They would rather tend to come out south on Georgian Drive to Woods Chapel. Mr. Reece was of the opinion that the number of homes the applicant was proposing to put on a single collector street out to Woods Chapel would exceed what the roads could safely handle. Mr. Scannell answered that the traffic had indicated about 40 percent of the traffic would go through Lake Ridge Meadows out to Lakewood Way.

Mr. McKerrow added that most collector streets could handle more traffic than most people thought. They could accommodate about 5,000 and possibly up to 8,000 cars per day and still

11


be under capacity. The 5,000 figure would equate to about 500 homes. The traffic going through Georgian Drive as a primary access would still operate under capacity.

Mr. Christopher noted that while Georgian Drive was a collector street, it was not limited-access; and that Mr. Allen had presented the main collector branching to the west rather than to the east. Mr. McKerrow replied that this somewhat reflected what the Comprehensive Plan showed for the area, with a collector road tying in with the eventually relocated Lakewood Way. It would go down to Lakewood Way. Mr. Christopher observed that he had heard testimony from some of the residents that it would be difficult to construct that collector on the west boundary of Savannah Ridge, and asked if Mr. McKerrow agreed with that. Mr. McKerrow acknowledged that there would be some difficulty. Not all the property was available and some of it was partially developed. There would be some right-of-way acquisition in order to make the connection. Mr. Christopher asked if that would happen or if it was more likely that Georgian Way would be the southern leg of the future collector. Mr. McKerrow answered that this was difficult to say; but Lee’s Summit had several portions of collector roads that filled in various gaps. He hoped they would eventually be finished but could not give an exact date for that.

Mr. Christopher stated that some other major collectors in Lee’s Summit carried more traffic and served more homes than in the Savannah Ridge area. He wanted to know, however, if any of them did that with this extent of driveway access. Mr. Scannell and Mr. McKerrow mentioned Lake Drive and Vista Drive. Mr. Christopher remarked that there was some driveway access to collectors in Hawks Ridge and other neighborhoods south of 50 Highway. Ms. Tyrrel related that in the mid-90s, the City had developed some design guidelines setting some objective criteria on how many trips per day local residential streets should have, including both collectors and sub-collectors. That was when the City started requiring limited access collectors.

Mr. Christopher then asked Mr. Monter if he had looked at the water pressure problem mentioned earlier, and also asked if a gravity sewer system was possible rather than grinder pumps. Mr. Monter replied that the Analysis of Rezoning portion of staff’s letter did contain a section about water pressure [pages 3 and 4]. The City had tested the fire hydrants and the flows were above the minimum fire flow requirements for residential. Regarding a low-pressure sewer system, they had looked at some areas that could possibly be served by grinder pump systems or low-pressure sewer systems. Park Ridge was one of those areas; however, others were impossible to serve any way other than through a grinder pump system. Mr. Monter added that the applicant had done more detailed work on that.

Mr. Christopher asked if there was adequate water pressure available as well as volume. Mr. Monter replied that the flow test was at 20 psi, which was what the Fire Department required. Mr. Christopher asked if there had been any contact with the citizen who had complained about the water pressure, and Mr. Monter answered that there had not. He had received an email from one of the other residents, and they had done the additional research accordingly. Along with the Woods Chapel improvements, there was an additional CIP project for a new water line that would connect to the water tower. That would increase water pressure and alleviate some concerns about water volumes. Also, the developer would be required to loop all the systems with the adjacent subdivisions, which would improve the system.

Mr. Christopher asked Mr. Allen if there was any opportunity to serve the development’s sewer by gravity rather than grinder pump. Mr. Allen pointed out 14 lots and related that they had tried to come up with a plan to use gravity, including connecting to the sanitary sewer main they were constructing or to the one being constructed by the Park Ridge developer. However, they had not been able to find a solution to make that work. Mr. Christopher asked if he had a problem

12


with staff’s recommendation for a Community Improvement District. Mr. Allen replied that they had held discussions with staff; and planned to make a presentation to the City Council about an alternative. They would have only 14 homes on the referenced system, rather than an entire subdivision.

Mr. Reece asked if there was any way that the City could require the applicant to build the street through Park Ridge before they started building, and limit access to Georgian Drive by construction traffic, including putting up “No Construction Traffic” signs. Mr. Wood answered that they could place limitations on construction traffic as a condition of the rezoning.

Mr. Pycior noted that Lake Ridge Meadows developed in several phases, and asked if the first 50 homes were followed by subsequent phases. Mr. Scannell recalled that this development had started on the west side and worked to the east and north. Mr. Pycior asked if it was reasonable to assume that construction traffic had gone through Lake Ridge Meadows through those phases and Mr. Scannell answered that it was. He confirmed for Mr. Pycior that Lake Ridge had about 290 lots and Savannah Ridge had 112. Mr. Pycior asked if Dalton’s Ridge and Savannah Ridge considered together would have somewhat lower density, and Mr. Scannell said that was correct.

Mr. Pycior also noted that when Savannah Ridge was built, Lee’s Summit had more lots developed with one access, and asked if that would be allowed at present. Mr. Scannell agreed with Ms. Tyrrel’s comments about more stringent access requirements being added in the mid-1990s. Referring to the comments about trips per day, Mr. Pycior asked if ten trips per day was used to estimate for residential, and Mr. Scannell answered that it was. Mr. Pycior then asked if 50 lots in Dalton’s Ridge would generate any different trips per day than Savannah Ridge or Lake Ridge Meadows, and Mr. McKerrow answered that they would not. The calculations were the same for all single-family homes and did not distinguish between various sizes of single-family homes. They did distinguish between single-family homes and townhomes or apartments. The ten trips per day was a rough average. A “trip” was one-way, so a resident leaving and coming back home would be two trips.

Ms. Rosenquist asked Mr. Scannell about the hearing for Park Ridge and Mr. Scannell replied that it was scheduled for the June 14th Planning Commission meeting. Their first phase would be from Woods Chapel over to Dalton’s Ridge.

Chairperson Trainer asked if there were further questions for applicant or staff. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. and asked if there was discussion among the Commission members.

Ms. Rosenquist commented that several years back, the Commission had considered a project near Pryor Road with basically the same situation; and this had worked although it was not ideal. She noted that there would eventually be a second access, and so she did not see how the Commission could hold up the development on traffic issues.

Chairperson Trainer asked if there was any further discussion. Hearing none, she called for a motion.

Ms. Rosenquist made a motion to recommend approval of Application 2005-074, Rezoning from AG to R-1 – 85 acres located north of Savannah Ridge, east of Lake Ridge Meadows, proposed Dalton’s Ridge; Roy Allen for Dalton’s Ridge Development Company, applicant, subject to

13


staff’s letter of May 20, 2005, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 3. Mr. Pycior seconded.


On motion of Ms. Rosenquist, seconded by Mr. Pycior, the Planning Commission members voted by voice vote of eight “yes” (Chairperson Trainer, Ms. Rosenquist, Mr. Grey, Mr. Atcheson, Mr. Fristoe, Mr. Christopher, Ms. Funk and Mr. Pycior ) and one “no” (Mr. Reece) to recommend APPROVAL of Application 2005-074, Rezoning from AG to R-1 – 85 acres located north of Savannah Ridge, east of Lake Ridge Meadows, proposed Dalton’s Ridge; Roy Allen for Dalton’s Ridge Development Company, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of May 20, 2005, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 3.


16. Application #2005-075 – PRELIMINARY PLAT – Dalton’s Ridge, Lots 1-193 and Tracts A-G; Roy Allen for Dalton’s Ridge Development Company, applicant

Mr. Allen stated that the issues had been thoroughly addressed in the last hearing, and the testimony applied to the Preliminary Plat. Chairperson Trainer asked if he agreed with staff’s seven Recommendation Items. Mr. Allen replied that he did, with the qualification mentioned earlier about discussing an alternative to a Community Improvement District with the City Council.

Chairperson Trainer then asked for staff comments.

Mr. Scannell pointed out that Recommendation Item 6 reflected the applicant’s request for a modification to the 500-foot maximum for cul-de-sac length. Staff had wanted the cul-de-sacs to be connected or looped in some fashion, but the applicant had not wanted to disturb the drainage swale. Consequently, staff supported the modification. One would be 635 feet and the other about 537 feet. Staff believed that preserving the open space and some trees was a good tradeoff. Chairperson Trainer asked if staff was being consistent regarding the cul-de-sac standards on the other subdivision, and Mr. Scannell answered that they were. Because of the features of this particular property, the applicant could not meet the requirement without stripping out the trees and that was not what either the City or the developer wanted to see.

Mr. Christopher asked if Public Works agreed with the sewer and parking specifications in Items 4 and 5 of the Code and Ordinance Requirements section [Public Works]. Mr. Monter conferred with Mr. Wood, and Mr. Wood explained that the concern was that these conditions might be making a condition of approval on actions of a third party, which the applicant would not have control over. Item 4 specifically mentioned an action by the Little Blue Valley Sewer District. He suggested rewording the condition to focus on what the developer would have to do. Ms. Tyrrel explained that staff put things that were technical in nature in the Code and Ordinance section to say that there might be more than one solution; but as long as the applicant met the code staff could approve it. Something in a Recommendation Item list specified a particular way to address an issue.

14


Mr. Monter added that meeting these requirements would be evaluated based on the Design and Construction Manual, which had been accepted by ordinance; so its placement was more appropriate than in the Recommendation Items. Mr. Christopher asked if they might want to add a Recommendation Item about the applicant needing to get the appropriate approvals. Mr. Wood replied that they would be required to do that in any event, so that would not be necessary.

Chairperson Trainer stated that if the Commission approved, that would include Recommendation Item 4 and if that subsequently changed, it would not be with the Commission’s approval. Mr. Scannell said that modifications had to be granted by the City Council, so in this case the Commission was essentially making a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Wood added that Recommendation Item 1 made approval of the plat subject to approval of the rezoning as well.

Chairperson Trainer asked if there was any further discussion. Hearing none, she called for a motion.

Mr. Fristoe made a motion to recommend approval of Application 2005-075, Preliminary Plat, Dalton’s Ridge, Lots 1-193 and Tracts A-G; Roy Allen for Dalton’s Ridge Development Company, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of May 20, 2005, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 7. Ms. Rosenquist seconded.


On motion of Mr. Fristoe, seconded by Ms. Rosenquist, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application 2005-075, Preliminary Plat, Dalton’s Ridge, Lots 1-193 and Tracts A-G; Roy Allen for Dalton’s Ridge Development Company, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of May 20, 2005, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 7.

(Chairperson Trainer then adjourned the meeting for a break at 8:03 p.m. The meeting re-convened at 8:10 p.m.)

10. Application #2005-100 – REZONING from AG to R-1, north of Tudor Road at Country Lane (proposed Fritchie’s Bluff); Duane Fritchie for Fritchie’s Bluff Dev. LLC, applicant


Mr. Matt Schlicht of Engineering Solutions [317 SW Market Street] stated that he was representing the applicant. Chairperson Trainer reminded him that the testimony in this application would apply to the subsequent Preliminary Plat application. He related that the project involved 14 acres on the north side of Tudor Road. Deer Valley Estates was to the west; Valley Forge was to the east; and Amber Hills was to the north. The property had been in the family for about 50 years; and four brothers had inherited it. One of them lived in Valley Forge, and had an interest in keeping the home sizes and costs similar to those in the adjacent subdivisions. Mr. Schlicht related that one builder had offered to buy them out. The lots varied in size, partly because there was a 100-foot utility easement that would be in the main part of the subdivision. One power pole on the site had lines running east and west. Accordingly,

15


some of the building lots would have bigger yards. The property also had a 60-foot bluff on the north side, and the lots backing up to the top of that bluff would be the prime lots, because of their view. There was also a drop of about 20 feet between the subject property and Valley Forge to the east. The main entrance would be at the existing driveway, and they would provide an additional five feet of right-of-way to the City. That would expand the right-of-way from 25 to 30 feet, with a total of 60 feet right-of-way on Tudor, and would allow room for sidewalks.

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

Mr. Soto entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-15 into the record and related that the 14 acres would be developed as 37 lots. He confirmed that the development would be comparable to the adjacent ones that Mr. Schlicht had mentioned, as well as Emerald View to the south across Tudor. It also conformed to the comprehensive land use plan. Mr. Soto also mentioned the disparity in size among the lots. The UDO required a low-density landscape buffer for differences in lots between R-1 developments, and the applicant had agreed to provide that. On the north side of the property was a large stand of mature trees as well as a creek bed, and the applicants had agreed to keep those features to provide the buffer. They were also required to provide a buffer on the east side; and Recommendation Item 2 for the preliminary plat required a landscaping plan.

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

Mr. Jim Herman of 1301 NE Deer Valley Drive expressed a concern about water runoff. When Deer Valley had gone in, buyers were told that the builder would take care of storm drain runoff from Tudor Road and a storm drain from Tudor at the back corner of his lot initially had discharged stormwater directly into his yard. The builder had extended that drain to empty onto the subject property, on a slope that went toward the homes in Deer Valley. It ran straight behind their lots. Mr. Herman was concerned about the homes and paved streets that would replace the hayfield generating too much additional stormwater. He guessed that the other side of the land would have problems, as the land sloped steeply down to both the east and west at some points.

Mr. Tom Windsor did not give an address, but stated that he was a lot owner in Deer Valley. He shared Mr. Herman’s concerns about the stormwater, and also noted that the Planning Commission heard issues about stormwater runoff from new developments over and over, on a regular basis. The drain Mr. Herman had mentioned came right down to the back of his lot and it essentially turned his back yard into a dry creek bed that he tried to landscape around. He also anticipated digging mud out of the boulders that he used for that landscaping if silt fences at the construction site should break. Mr. Windsor asked for some additional protection from the runoff and construction debris.

Mr. Jim Eba gave his address as 1313 NE Deer Valley Drive. They had the largest of the lots abutting the subject property, and he and his wife were also concerned about the water runoff coming down the slope. Mr. Eba mentioned that they had put in underground pipes that handled the water well at present; but he had not heard any information about what they were planning to do about drainage on the west side.

Following these comments, Chairperson Trainer asked if the Commission had questions for the applicant or for staff.

16


Mr. Monter stated that a drainage swale ran along the west side into Deer Valley. Staff could discuss that with the engineer and request a swale along the back side of the lots on the subject property, to ensure that the stormwater was directed away from neighboring lots. Additionally, a road that would be going in would collect a good deal of the runoff, leaving only one lot that would discharge water toward Deer Valley.

Chairperson Trainer asked Mr. Schlicht if he had anything to add to that. Mr. Schlicht stated that he was aware of the storm piping that Mr. Eba had through his back yard and that they could put in piping or a swale to divert the water. He noted that in both Deer Valley and the proposed development, streets were built up with backyards dropping off. At the back of the subject property there would be a low-lying area that they would look at to keep as dry as they could. Mr. Schlicht agreed with Mr. Monter’s comment about the streets, as they would cut through a hill and take the stormwater toward the north.

Mr. Reece asked Mr. Schlicht what was the difference in elevation between the road and the back of the lots along the west side. He noted that the applicant was proposing walkout basements. Mr. Schlicht was not sure about the elevation difference. He did know that on the west the land did drop off by about eight feet, and it flattened out toward the north. The walkout basements would be around lots 19-22. Mr. Reece remarked that he had previously served on the Stormwater Task Force, and they’d had major concerns about homes with walkout basements. He urged the applicant to take a careful look at the stormwater issues, especially in view of the tendency of walkout basements to flood.

Chairperson Trainer asked if there were further questions for applicant or staff. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. and asked for discussion or a motion.

Mr. Reece made a motion to recommend approval of Application 2005-100, Rezoning from AG to R-1, north of Tudor Road at Country Lane (proposed Fritchie’s Bluff); Duane Fritchie for Fritchie’s Bluff Dev. LLC, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of May 20, 2005. Mr. Atcheson seconded.


On motion of Mr. Reece, seconded by Mr. Atcheson, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application 2005-100, Rezoning from AG to R-1, north of Tudor Road at Country Lane (proposed Fritchie’s Bluff); Duane Fritchie for Fritchie’s Bluff Dev. LLC, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of May 20, 2005.


17. Application #2005-102 – PRELIMINARY PLAT – Fritchie’s Bluff, Lots 1-37; Fritchie’s Bluff Development, LLC, applicant

Mr. Schlicht of Engineering Solutions at 317 SW Market stated that his previous testimony applied to this preliminary plat application. Chairperson Trainer asked for staff comments.

Mr. Soto stated that his previous testimony applied to this application. Staff recommended approval of the plat, subject to Recommendation Items 1 through 3.

17


Following these comments, Chairperson Trainer asked if the Commission had questions for the applicant or for staff.

Mr. Christopher asked if the low-impact buffer required in Recommendation Item 1 included only the stand of trees and other natural features would satisfy the requirements of the buffer? Mr. Soto replied that it did.

Chairperson Trainer asked if there were further questions for applicant or staff. Hearing none, she asked if there was discussion among the Commission members. As there was none she called for a motion.

Ms. Funk made a motion to recommend approval of Application 2005-102, Preliminary Plat, Fritchie’s Bluff, Lots 1-37; Fritchie’s Bluff Development, LLC, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of May 20, 2005, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 3. Mr. Fristoe seconded.


On motion of Ms. Funk, seconded by Mr. Fristoe, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application 2005-102, Preliminary Plat, Fritchie’s Bluff, Lots 1-37; Fritchie’s Bluff Development, LLC, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of May 20, 2005, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 3.

11. Public Hearing – Continued Application #2005-117 – SPECIAL USE PERMIT – Pet Chiropractor, 601 NW O’Brien; Hirst & Associates, applicant


Mr. Charles (Skip) Hirst, Hirst and Associates Architects, gave his address as 621 NE Woods Chapel Road. He reviewed that recently he had brought an application for Reed Health Care Center, which had been approved as part of Parkway Plaza but not yet started construction. It was a 4,327-square-foot building; and the current Special Use Permit application was for a tenant in that building. Dr. Pat Perkins with Canine Performance Medicine had a unique practice of chiropractic, acupuncture and Chinese herbal remedies for show dogs and high-performance dogs. About 35 percent of her practice was out of town, as Dr. Perkins often traveled to dog shows and other events. Staff had determined after discussing the application that there was nothing in the UDO addressing this kind of practice. The applicant was in agreement with the six Recommendation Items, with the exception of the wording “No practice of veterinary medicine shall be permitted” in Item 4. Dr. Perkins’ training, education and licensing was as a veterinarian; and she was requesting to change the wording to “No additional practice of veterinary medicine shall be permitted” [note-italicized word added].

Mr. Hirst showed the plan for the office and pointed out that there were no runs or grooming equipment; which would normally be found in a veterinarian’s office. Dr. Perkins referred clients needing those services to other veterinarians. He added that Dr. Perkins was present to answer any questions.

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

18


Mr. Soto entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-15 into the record. He related that the UDO did not have any provision for a pet chiropractor, nor did staff find anything in the UDO that it really corresponded to including other pet-related uses. It was a specialized and unique use, and so staff was treating it as such and requiring a Special Use Permit. A chiropractor for human beings was treated as a medical related use; and staff had followed that in terms of whether this was allowed in the zoning district as a medical use. The Recommendation Items precluded overnight stays, runs and kennels, grooming and training. These uses, which were listed in the UDO, were not allowed in a PO district. Staff had considered that pet chiropractic practice was a form of veterinary medicine but was not a traditional, medically-invasive type of medicine associated with that. He asked if adding the word “traditional” instead and not equating it with veterinary use would be acceptable to the applicant. Staff recommended approval of the Special Use Permit, subject to the six Recommendation Items.

Following Mr. Soto’s comments, Chairperson Trainer asked if there was anyone else present wishing to give testimony, either for or in opposition to the application. Seeing none, she then asked if the Commission had questions for the applicant or for staff, remarking that one of the questions to be dealt with was the question of what was “traditional” veterinary medicine. She asked Dr. Perkins if she could give some information that would be of assistance.

Dr. Pat Perkins gave her address as 423 Oakwood Lane in Grain Valley. She explained that a practitioner had to be a veterinarian in order to be trained in veterinary chiropractic. The practice of acupuncture and chiropractic did not use the same treatments and skills, however. Dr. Perkins added that she was licensed in Nebraska, Missouri and Kansas to work on show dogs. Her patients were typically medically healthy dogs, many of them agility dogs with minor muscular-skeletal issues that were being addressed with acupuncture and chiropractic to help them maintain their performance. She wanted to have an office in Lee’s Summit to be able to work on dogs in this area as well.

Mr. Reece asked if Dr. Perkins issued prescriptions in the course of her practice. Dr. Perkins replied that she did not prescribe medications, but did prescribe some Chinese herbs.

Ms. Rosenquist asked how many dogs Dr. Perkins expected to have in her office at any one time, and Dr. Perkins estimated that typically there would be no more than two. Ms. Rosenquist asked where the dogs not being worked on at the moment were kept, and Dr. Perkins answered that the owner would bring the dog. The only way she would be treating more than one at a time was if the first dog was relaxed with acupuncture needles, and the owner stayed with it while she treated the second dog.

Mr. Reece asked if Dr. Perkins thought the current wording of Recommendation Item 4 would limit her treatment of the animals. Dr. Perkins replied that she did not; however, it was a technical issue in light of the fact that the State license for veterinary medicine did consider chiropractic for animals to be veterinary medicine. That was why a pet chiropractor had to be a licensed veterinarian. Mr. Reece asked if she would prefer that Recommendation Item 4 be eliminated. Dr. Perkins answered that she would not, as she did not feel it would limit her practice.

Ms. Rosenquist asked what other uses would be in the building. Mr. Hirst answered that Dr. Reed and his wife owned the building. Dr. Reed was a chiropractor and Mrs. Reed was a massage therapist. The building currently had two chiropractors and three massage therapists.

19


Chairperson Trainer asked if there were further questions for applicant or staff. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. and asked if there was discussion among the Commission members.

Mr. Fristoe was not comfortable with adding the word “traditional” in Recommendation Item 4, in view of the fact that chiropractic for pets fell under the category of veterinary medicine. Ms. Rosenquist stated that chiropractic for humans was a traditional and yet non-traditional form of medicine. Her concern was other Special Use Permits that might be requested in office districts, considering that other types of districts would work equally well.

Mr. Christopher doubted that the Commission would be seeing many more applications from pet chiropractors. Ms. Rosenquist answered that she was nevertheless concerned about this kind of use allowed in an office district and the precedent it would set. Mr. Christopher replied that he did not consider that a significant issue. He suggested that if the wording of the Recommendation Item was changed, it might be a positive statement saying that the practice be limited to chiropractic, acupuncture and herbal medicine. Ms. Rosenquist asked how that would be enforced, and Mr. Christopher pointed out that the office was not being set up to have typical veterinary office facilities. The applicant would have to get another permit for that.

Mr. Christopher asked if Mr. Hirst could list the services offered, and Chairperson Trainer re-opened the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. Mr. Hirst replied that the three areas were chiropractic, acupuncture and Chinese herbal remedies. He added that there would be annual Fire Department inspections that would see if there were features like runs and operating rooms, which would provide some accountability.

Chairperson Trainer then closed the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. and asked for further discussion, or for a motion.

Mr. Atcheson made a motion to recommend approval of continued Application 2005-117, Special Use Permit, Pet Chiropractor, 601 NW O’Brien; Hirst & Associates, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of May 20, 2005, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 6; with Recommendation Item 4 changed to read that “no practice of veterinary medicine shall be permitted other than chiropractic, acupuncture and Chinese herbal remedies”. Mr. Fristoe seconded.


On motion of Mr. Atcheson, seconded by Mr. Fristoe, the Planning Commission members voted by voice vote of seven “yes” (Chairperson Trainer, Mr. Grey, Mr. Atcheson, Mr. Fristoe, Mr. Christopher, Ms. Funk and Mr. Pycior ) and two “no” (Ms. Rosenquist and Mr. Reece) to recommend APPROVAL of continued Application 2005-117, Special Use Permit, Pet Chiropractor, 601 NW O’Brien; Hirst & Associates, applicant, subject to staff’s letter of May 20, 2005, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 6, with Recommendation Item 4 modified as stated.


20


12. Continued Application #2005-130 – REZONING from AG to RDR – 4250 SW Pryor Road, proposed Silver Fern Farm; Paul Jones, applicant


Mr. Paul Jones gave his address as 1513 SE Princeton Circle in Lee’s Summit. He owned about ten acres on Pryor Road, and wanted to sell a three-acre lot in the front. The remainder would be one large lot which he planned to build on eventually.

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

Ms. Tyrrel entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-16 into the record. She stated that staff recommended denial of the rezoning. The property was currently AG, with ten acres being the minimum lot size allowed in agricultural zoning. Two houses were allowed on an agricultural lot, as long as the property remained under one ownership. If the property was to be sold, then it needed to be rezoned RDR, which allowed a minimum of one acre per house. That would require sewers, as RDR was generally intended to be serviced by a publicly-provided sewer system if it had lot sizes of three acres or less. Pryor Road, classified as an arterial, had an 80-foot right-of-way and was currently only 18 feet wide. Over the next few years, as part of the Kensington Farms project, it would be upgraded to interim standards. After that, it would be advisable to limit the number of driveways on that part of Pryor because of the volume of traffic anticipated. As no sanitary sewer was proposed for Silver Fern Farm, the lots would need to be on septic systems, and that generally required a minimum lot size of three acres for approval by Jackson County.

The Comprehensive Plan did show this area as low-density residential. However, staff recommended denial, for the traffic and infrastructure reasons listed. If the Commission did recommend approval, staff suggested that no more than two lots be permitted with one shared driveway for both lots.

Following Ms. Tyrrel’s comments, Chairperson Trainer noted that the members of the public present for the earlier application had left. She then asked if the Commission had questions for the applicant or for staff.

Mr. Christopher asked if the swale for rainwater on the property worked, and Mr. Jones answered that he’d had it tested four years ago when he had first bought the property. It did work, and a creek ran through the property on the north boundary as well. In the event of a very heavy rain, the water would be in the swale no more than 24 hours.

Mr. Christopher then asked if he would have a problem with a shared driveway, and Mr. Jones answered that he did. The “flag” lot in the back would go straight back and a shared driveway would involve a tight turn around a tree in the front lot to get up to the house, which would logically be on top of the hill. He pointed out that four lots up from his on Pryor Road was another flag lot and it had two separate driveways. Another tract, one lot beyond, had three entrances. He preferred to have two driveways on the property, especially as he preferred to not to have to cut down any trees. Mr. Christopher asked how far back he anticipated building the second house. Mr. Jones replied that it would be about 600 or 700 feet. He added that another lot with two entrances was the one directly across from the subject property and it was the same width.

21


Chairperson Trainer remarked that she had a shared driveway; and asked Ms. Tyrrel if the City had previously had any requirements for them. Mr. McKerrow came to the podium and stated the requirements in the Access Management Code.

Chairperson Trainer asked if staff had taken a detailed look at whether there was a way to make this work. Ms. Tyrrel replied that staff’s position was that the UDO had taken AG from a five-acre minimum to a ten-acre minimum. Before its passage in 2001, there were a number of smaller AG tracts, and the ordinance change was seen by staff as a direction from the City Council to stop suburban sprawl in the form of five-acre lots, especially flag lots. That was the reasoning for adding the RDR designation to allow some large “estate lot” subdivisions. However, there was a city-wide effort to get rid of long, skinny lots with everyone having frontage and their own driveway.

Chairperson Trainer asked if there were further questions for applicant or staff. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing at 9:10 p.m. and asked if there was discussion among the Commission members. Mr. Jones asked to make some comments, and Chairperson Trainer then re-opened the hearing.

Mr. Jones stated that if two driveways were allowed, the owners could put the driveways where they wanted and have a straighter route to the houses. In contrast, a shared driveway would result in a longer and more winding driveway.

Chairperson Trainer again closed the public hearing, at 9:12 p.m.

Ms. Rosenquist recalled a number of discussions about the UDO in CDC meetings; and every-one at the time was definite about access and lot sizes. She noted that she did not see details in the packet about where a driveway or driveways would be and what kind of access they would have to the houses, so she found it difficult to go counter to what staff recommended. Mr. Christopher stated that considering the suggested conditions of approval, the Commission would effectively be putting the desired limits on suburban sprawl. He added that the more five-acre and ten-acre lots there were in the area, the less likely the development into a more dense subdivision. Limiting the number of driveways would be likely to minimize the increase in cars on that part of the road. Considering testimony for other applications in that area, he regarded the situation as being already committed to bigger lots and the only question was what range of larger sizes would be allowed.

Ms. Rosenquist recalled that this was part of the UDO debate and that was how they came up with the acreage minimums. Mr. Christopher answered that, nevertheless, they had left an avenue for an alternative; and although he had heard testimony that this did not qualify for that zoning, what the applicant was asking for did fit into the ‘gap’ between ten-acre lots and R-1.

Mr. Reece asked where was the ordinance requirement for lots to be ten acres, and Mr. Christopher answered this was the minimum only if the zoning was left agricultural. That was the minimum lot size in AG zoning. Mr. Reece pointed out that the application was not for AG zoning but for rezoning to RDR. Ms. Funk confirmed that the minimum lot size in RDR was only one acre; and Mr. Reece remarked, in that case, the applicant met the requirements for RDR. Chairperson Trainer noted this was all in Ms. Tyrrel’s original presentation.

Mr. Christopher made a motion to recommend approval of continued Application 2005-130, Rezoning from AG to RDR, 4250 SW Pryor Road, proposed Silver Fern Farm; Paul Jones,

22


applicant. Mr. Reece seconded. Mr. Christopher subsequently amended his motion to add a condition that no more than two lots would be permitted on the tract, and Mr. Reece seconded.


On motion of Mr. Christopher, seconded by Mr. Reece, the Planning Commission members voted by voice vote of seven “yes” (Chairperson Trainer, Mr. Reece, Mr. Atcheson, Mr. Fristoe, Mr. Christopher, Ms. Funk and Mr. Pycior ) and two “no” (Ms. Rosenquist and Mr. Grey) to recommend APPROVAL of continued Application 2005-130, Rezoning from AG to RDR, 4250 SW Pryor Road, proposed Silver Fern Farm; Paul Jones, applicant, with the added condition that no more than two lots be permitted.

In response to a question about the two driveways, Mr. Monter noted that, as staff had recommended a limit of one access point, that part would have to be approved by the City Council, since two would be in violation of the Access Management Code. Chairperson Trainer told Mr. Jones that the application would have to go to the Council in any event, and so he might want to confer with Mr. Monter before that.


PUBLIC COMMENTS

There were no public comments at the meeting.

ROUNDTABLE

Mr. Grey stated that he would not be able to attend the June 28, 2005 meeting.

Ms. Rosenquist related that she had recently seen a movie titled It’s A Dog’s Life.” In the film, a man and his dog were both injured in a fall and the man was taken to a physician while the dog was taken to a vet. The film followed the contrasting ways the man and dog were treated. Mr. Grey recommended a movie titled Best of Show as being relevant to the pet chiropractor application.

Chairperson Trainer stated that she would be out of town from June 30th to July 10th, and reminded members to be sure to notify Ms. Brennan if they would not be able to make meetings. Ms. Rosenquist stated that she would also be absent on June 28th, as she would be in St. Louis. Chairperson Trainer urged the rest of the Commission members to make an effort to attend on June 28th, in order to avoid any quorum problems.

Ms. Tyrrel mentioned that there were some long agendas coming up in the next few months.

ADJOURNMENT

Having no further discussion, Chairperson Trainer adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.

PC052405

23

LEE’S SUMMIT PLANNING COMMISSION - …colscf.cityofls.net/meetingminutes/05-24-05.doc · Web...

Documents

Transcript of LEE’S SUMMIT PLANNING COMMISSION - …colscf.cityofls.net/meetingminutes/05-24-05.doc · Web...