Lee’s summit planning commission


Download 106 Kb.
Size106 Kb.


Minutes of Tuesday, June 12, 2012

The Tuesday, June 12, 2012, Lee’s Summit Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Fristoe at 5:00 p.m., at City Council Chambers, 220 SE Green Street, Lee’s Summit, Missouri.

Chairperson Daren Fristoe Present Mr. Kurt Pycior Present

Mr. Fred Delibero Present Mr. John Reece Present

Mr. Steven Hilger Present Ms. Colene Roberts Absent

Mr. Jason Norbury Present Ms. Kathy Smith Present

Mr. Fred DeMoro Present
Also present were Brian Scott, Deputy City Administrator; Linda Tyrrel, Deputy Director, Planning and Development Department; Jennifer Thompson, Staff Planner; Hector Soto, Senior Planner; Wade Sanner, Planning Intern; Joe Piccinini, Police Chief; Major Scott Lyons, Police Major II; Greg Foss, Director of Development; John Mautino, Deputy City Attorney; Kent Monter, Development Engineering Manager; Jim Eden, Assistant Fire Chief I, Fire Department; and Kim Brennan, Administrative Assistant.


  1. Application #PL2012-081 – VACATION OF EASEMENT 220 NW Commerce Court; Lone Summit Bank, applicant

  2. Application #PL2012-016 – FINAL PLAT – Wilshire Hills, 2nd Plat, Lots 3 and 4, & Tract B; Jeffrey E. Smith Investment Company, applicant

  3. Application #PL2012-041 – VACATION OF EASEMENT – Chapel Ridge Business Park, 3530 NE Akin Blvd.; Chapel Ridge Multifamily LLC, applicant

  4. RESOLUTION 2012-05 – A Resolution Adopting a Bicycle Transportation Plan as an Amendment to the City of Lee’s Summit’s Comprehensive Plan (Application #PL2012-052

On the motion of Mr. Reece, seconded by Ms. Smith, the Planning Commission voted unanimously by voice vote to APPROVE the Consent Agenda, Items 1A-D as published.

Chairperson Fristoe announced that Item 4, Application PL2012-045, would be moved up to follow Item 2, Application PL2012-046, as they were related applications. He then asked for a motion to approve. On the motion of Mr. Reece, seconded by Ms. Smith, the Planning Commission voted unanimously by voice vote to APPROVE the agenda.

  1. Application #PL2012-046 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN – Hearthview at New Longview Apartments; Brookview Properties II, LLC, applicant

Chairperson Fristoe opened the hearing at 5:03 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in.

Mr. Jim Thomas stated that he was co-founder and managing principal of Hearthview Residential and provided some background. Before being associated with Hearthview, he had been responsible for development for the AMLI Public Real Estate Investment Trust. He had been involved in the development of AMLI Summit Ridge and AMLI New Longview. He and Mr. David Gale had a long history, going back to his parents purchasing a home from Mr. Gale. He had since been responsible for oversight on the New Longview development.

Mr. Thomas displayed a Site Context Overview of New Longview. The master plan had incorporated the New Urbanism principles, such as a mix of both uses and housing types. An overlay in yellow showed the site plan. Longview Community College was at the left side of the image. The two T-shaped structures were the two historic barns awaiting redevelopment. Mr. Thomas pointed out the school and the single-family residential neighborhood across Longview Road.

Mr. Thomas then gave a summary of the principles involved in the site plan. Wherever possible buildings were oriented to the street, in keeping with the New Urbanism approach. Mr. Thomas acknowledged that since these were mixed uses and some were commercial lots, there was some variation. Parking was in the rear, with buildings reinforcing the streetscape and parking courts and attached garages kept in the interior of the lots. The doors directly accessed the sidewalks, in contrast to other New Longview buildings that had open breezeways. These were enclosed corridors, but buildings typically had connections to the sidewalk at three different points.

The plan maintained a major buffer at the south end. The development would be about 275 feet from the right-of-way and about 300 feet from the single-family housing to the south. That buffer was continued all the way to the property's east boundary. It would be a landscaped, park-like setting. In order to achieve that, Tower Park Drive would have a curve, which would be aesthetically pleasing, providing a view of a gentle curve and the street trees.

Mr. Thomas emphasized that the applicants were aware of the historical significance of the calf and dairy barns and were addressing that in the plan. Concerning the chapel, they had intentionally kept the footprint for that apartment building small so that it would fit into that setting. It would have a residential look in terms of design, scale and massing, and was intentionally located near the chapel. The buildings to be located near the calf and dairy barns also had small footprints. Some of the buildings would have two stories and others three. At the site’s northwest corner they were proposing “stepped” buildings, which would have the appearance of two-story buildings at the approach but step down to three stories on the interior of the parking court. Kessler, the main drive, would have three-story buildings to the north in order to close off the block that AMLI had started.

The applicants intended to maintain the street grid, including internally. Accordingly, they would install a cross-block access street, which they were keeping a private street at the City’s request.
Mr. Thomas displayed a computer rendering of a “Type 3” building. These would be at the southern and western edge of the property. The design emphasized high-quality, low-maintenance materials, and had attached garages for a significant portion of the units
In respect to recent rumors that this was a plan for subsidized low-income housing, Mr. Thomas clarified that the applicants had held meetings with the New Longview Homeowners Association as well as representatives of Longview College and the chapel and had assured them that this would be at the very highest end of the rental apartment market. One bedroom apartments would start at $800 a month, two bedrooms at $1,000 a month and three bedrooms at $1,300. The market would be people who were renting as a “lock and leave,” lower maintenance lifestyle choice and not out of necessity. Mr. Thomas remarked that AMLI projects attracted well-off consumers, and that he saw more expensive cars like Mercedes in AMLI neighborhoods than in others.
Mr. Thomas displayed a breakdown of demographics for a similar community to Lee’s Summit, adding that Hearthview at New Longview would have 50% one-bedroom units as opposed to the comparable community’s 43%. However, the comparable demographics showed a number of residents close to the number of units. It did not have a high density and most of the residents were adults, about half of them single. The employment breakdown showed 71% self-identified as being in the “professional” sector.

A displayed sample floor plan showed the package offered in the site plan. The slide showed the dining and kitchen area in a two-bedroom apartment. Other photos showed a representative view of the bathroom and a view of the living room from the kitchen. Mr. Thomas pointed out amenities such as granite counter tops and hardwood flooring.

The second phase would put in the common area amenities. The displayed photos showed an infinity-edge salt water pool, a cyber-café and a computer room. The common area was at the northeast corner of the site, which was the southwest corner of Kessler and Tower Park Drive.
On a more detailed slide of the site plan, Mr. Thomas pointed out the building on the north side of Kessler Drive, the leasing office at the site’s northeast corner. Heavy yellow lines indicated retaining walls near the buildings that were two stories on the outside and three stories facing the interior. Mr. Thomas pointed out a house-sized building that was across the street from the historic chapel, as well as other residential scale buildings on the east side of the cross drive near the calf and dairy barn entrances. The engineering plan that was overlaid in other maps was part of the site plan and had been filed with it.
Mr. Thomas stated that this community’s character and its density were entirely consistent with what had always been planned for New Longview in terms of numbers of rental units. It was 70% of the density of the community immediately to the north, so it was less dense than what was already there. It would be a very upscale development and an improvement in every way over AMLI's previous project. New Longview was now full; so there was no issue as to whether the project would serve a demand and the rental market was now very healthy. It would provide substantial tax and utility revenues to Lee's Summit. He would install all the water lines, and would be paying $200,000 to the City in tap fees.
Following Mr. Thomas' presentation, Chairperson Fristoe asked for staff comments.

Mr. Soto entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-20 into the record. He described the application as the preliminary development plan for an apartment complex on about 14.6 acres. The 15 buildings would have 260 units, plus a leasing office. Access would be provided by a private drive off the existing Longview Road on the west and the future Tower Park expansion on the east. Most traffic was expected to go north from this site, with the access points about 600 feet north of the adjoining residential neighborhood. Less traffic was expected toward the residential neighborhood south of the development. The density would be 18.3 units per acre, much lower than New Longview Luxury Apartments, the existing AMLI development to the north. The table on page 4 provided a comparison between the two projects.

Mr. Soto then gave an overview of the conceptual plan for the 266-acre New Longview development that was approved in 2002. Its purpose was to provide a basis for rezoning, the road network, proposed phasing and general land uses. Like a comprehensive plan, it served as a general framework and guide to future development. Both the UDO and the ordinance that had approved the conceptual plan stipulated that the individual phases would have to be approved via separate preliminary development plans, in order to take a closer look at specific parts of the land area and make decisions on a case-by-case basis. This included aspects that would also affect both future and existing developments nearby.

The table on page 3 of staff's letter provided a breakdown of the nine phases in respect to single-family units, multi-family units, and totals. New Longview was to have 567 multi-family dwelling units altogether. The existing 206 units at the New Longview Luxury Apartments plus the proposed 268 for Hearthview would total 474 units for these two phases. This was under the proposed total amount; and the totals for previous phases would be considered in all future development.

Staff had three Recommendation Items. The property was zoned PMIX; and in considering a PMIX development, aspects such as density, design standards and lot area were evaluated on an individual basis as part of the preliminary development plan. The chart on page 5 compared the development standards for Hearthview to those for an RP-4 district development. An RP-4 district lot would require a substantially bigger lot size for the proposed development; however, New Longview was envisioned as a traditional neighborhood-type development; and traditional neighborhoods were usually more compact with higher density. Staff considered it consistent with New Longview's identity and concepts. The chart also compared building setbacks, building separation and percentage of impervious coverage. Concerning building setbacks, traditional neighborhood developments put buildings very close to the street; providing a better scale at a pedestrian level. This was the reasoning behind the reduced setbacks. Lot 1 did have a 225-foot setback on the south; however, this contained the large spatial buffer to be placed between the proposed apartment buildings and the single-family residences on the south side of Longview Road. When the right-of-way and an existing detention tract were added, this was actually a 300-foot buffer.

Mr. Soto then summarized the parking plan. Article 12 of the UDO required a total 542 parking spaces. The applicants were proposing 509. The UDO did allow alternate parking plans when documentation was provided indicating conditions or similar situations indicating that the lower number of spaces could meet the expected demand. Lot 2 did have one building with a parking lot to the east that was indicated on the plan as having space for additional parking if needed in the future. The lot had available space for about 38 potential parking spaces that was currently considered open space and would be landscaped. The addition of these potential spaces would provide parking that exceeded UDO requirements; however, based on experience with similar developments, the applicant did not believe they would be needed at present. Staff supported the alternate parking plan as proposed, and recommended approval of the preliminary development plan subject to Recommendation Items 1 through 3.
Following Mr. Soto’s comments, Chairperson Fristoe asked for a show of hands of anyone present wishing to give testimony, either in support for or opposition to the application. Mr. Pycior requested to ask a question first.

Mr. Pycior noted that the Commissioners had received information regarding Longview Farm's Tax Increment Financing Plan [TIF]. He asked staff why they had received this, and how the Commission's purview might be affected if at all. Typically the Commission did not consider TIF plans. Mr. Mautino confirmed that TIF financing was not within the Planning Commission's purview. The information was provided to the Commissioners because the TIF contract between the City and the developer mandated providing the statement to both the Commission and the City Council whenever a preliminary development plan application was being considered. This was a way for staff to make sure that the preliminary development plan would not impact conditions imposed by the TIF contract, such as limitations in a redevelopment schedule on square footage. Receiving the report did not impose any responsibility on the Commission.

Mr. Pycior asked if it was correct that the statement was just being in compliance with the requirements of the TIF contract and that the Commission should make its decision tonight on the basis of testimony and staff's report. Mr. Mautino said that was correct, adding that if staff spotted a problem they would have called the developer. It was both a courtesy and a safeguard.
Ms. Smith asked if questions regarding the TIF would be in order in this hearing. Mr. Mautino replied that the TIF application for this property and the way it was administered was within the City Council's purview. He could not give an opinion on a question without hearing it; but could not think of a circumstance where a question about the TIF would be pertinent to tonight's application. Ms. Smith commented that her question had to do with the historic structures on the property, and asked if this was something the Council would address. Mr. Mautino answered that limitations had been put on how much development could occur before the scheduled rehabilitations were completed. That was actively tracked by staff. Last December some amendments were made to the redevelopment contract in anticipation of this project, but that had no impact on tonight's application.
Ms. Smith noted that some things were crossed out, and that the update was in February. That was a concern to her as someone with a commitment to historic preservation. She had always thought that the TIF was contingent on the restoration of the historic elements of Longview. Mr. Mautino replied that the attachment the Commissioners had received was a copy of an amendment to the TIF plan. The cross-outs did not mean removing a historic structure from the plan but were an indication that a change was made to the existing redevelopment schedule. They had shifted the timing and some numbers.

Mr. Pycior asked if anything had been changed in the original TIF plan. Mr. Mautino answered that the redevelopment plan had been amended.

Chairperson Fristoe then opened the hearing for comments from anyone wishing to give testimony, either in support for or opposition to the application. He asked those who were present representing Homeowners Associations to identify them.
Mr. Kevin Oldham gave his home address as 917 Loula Drive in Lee's Summit and stated that he had a Power Point presentation. He introduced a neighbor, Mr. Ryan LeCluyse, who lived on 3233 SW Longview Road. They were part of a recently-formed organization called “NLV Cares.” A slide identified the group as “a collaborative effort of dedicated New Longview residents that have a vested interest in addressing a number of concerns regarding the scope, location, pre-construction process and lack of collaboration surrounding this proposed project to date.” They had formed in May, and Mr. Oldham displayed a slide with links to its petitions and Facebook page. The group also included residents of some surrounding communities.
Mr. Oldham emphasized that the NLV members were strong supporters of the continued growth of New Longview, and of the conceptual master plan referenced for the majority of residents when they had bought their homes, as well as supporting “strategic investments in the community that benefit all.” They liked the traditional neighborhood design approach, and he was willing to commute to work 45 miles a day in order to enjoy this lifestyle. They were also aware of the PMIX zoning classification and the flexibility it provided a developer.

However, the group was strongly opposed to this application, as well as shifting project 5 to 5A. Mr. Oldham displayed a list of bills that the NLV also opposed. Displaying a timeline of events, Mr. Oldham related that the group had first heard of this project in November of 2011. At a subsequent meeting the developer had briefly mentioned interest in expanding the apartment complex development; and when the NLV subsequently performed due diligence they learned that an amendment to the TIF plan had been prepared, and the bills the NLV had opposed were approved at the January 19th City Council meeting.

In February, the developer had hosted a “Community West Side” meeting, and another member of the group had attended. Attendees met with the builder and got an introduction to the apartments, plus a presentation about light rail. However, no documentation was available to people who had not attended. In May, residents within 185 feet of the project received certified letters about a public hearing. Mr. Oldham remarked that in the past there had been a lot of collaboration between the developer and the residents; however, in this case it was a $25 million project and it had come as a surprise to most of the nearby residents. He displayed a list of the issues.
Reallocation of multi-family units: the remainder of the multi-family units would be taken from the later phases where they had been scheduled and all consolidated in Phase 5. Mr. Oldham acknowledged that the conceptual plan was flexible; but this was an increase in the number of multi-family units from 64 to 276: about twice as many households as all the single-family homes currently in New Longview; and all on a 13-acre tract.
Target audience, competition and barns: Mr. Oldham remarked that the target group Mr. Thomas had mentioned was in the mid-60s age range like himself. A boom in apartment construction could result in a financial bubble, just as residential development had done; and Lee's Summit already had John Knox Village, a very large development for 60-plus residents. This was a master planned community with apartment complexes and the planned Forest Lake. One of the concerns was that an oversupply could lead to a price war and deterioration of properties.

The group also wanted to know how this development would specifically aid in the development of the historic barns. These were planned for office space; and if a high percentage of the apartment residents were over 60, it was questionable how many of them would be employed at the restored barns’ office space.

Placement, future development and construction phasing: The developer had claimed at the City Council meeting of January 26th that one reason for the placement was ‘the beautiful vistas of Longview Lake’. However, no views of the lake were visible from the road as they were blocked by a church and a treeline. Further, no one had addressed the future view of walls of balconies that the other residents would have. Concerning future development, the residents had no assurance that even more of the New Longview property would not be more apartments. Mr. Oldham commented that comparisons had been made between New Longview and Arborwalk; but he had moved to New Longview because he had not liked the lifestyle at Arborwalk, and that was partially due to the rental units. Consequently, the NLV residents were asking if rezoning could be done in order to prevent the rest of New Longview from turning into an apartment community.
Mr. Oldham displayed a map of nearby Madison Park with vacant lots or parking lots shown in yellow and pointed out the project area as well as his own neighborhood. He summarized some of the general concerns people had about adjacent development: depreciation, privacy, enrollment, crime, noise and traffic; and added that the vacant lots shown might attract blight since they would likely be considered undesirable lots.

Mr. Oldham acknowledged that the residents had understood that they were buying in a PMIX zoned area, and they did love their neighborhood. However, he and his family would not have moved to this neighborhood or to that specific lot if they had known about a plan to double population density within 400 feet of his home. Concerning the plan to pay $200,000 in tap fees, he himself paid $5,000 in taxes, so a private resident might not look as profitable to the City as a builder. However, the residents were asking the City to consider the long-term interests of the area.

The residents were asking for some considerations from the Planning Commission, the first of which was to not approve tonight’s application, as they were opposed to the project’s size and scope as presented. They were suggesting increasing buffer zones for future development, including mature trees for screening. Adherence to lighting standards would be essential to minimizing light pollution. Other requests were beautification of the water retention/detention area, security patrols and lower roof lines transitioning toward the single family homes rather than two- or three-story walls that would replace residents’ views from their homes. High architectural and design standards would ensure that the high rent-by-choice rents could be maintained.
Mr. Oldham then addressed some traffic alternatives. They appreciated the developer providing some horizontal and vertical rise, and suggested moving the access at Tower Park Drive further north as well as making it a one-way road. Some additional wayfinding signage north of Longview Road would be useful.

Regarding industry opinions, Mr. Oldham remarked that most of these had been gathered via the petitioning process. Ms. Kim Jones of Prudential Alliance Realtors affirmed that single-family property could lose value if a multi-family unit went in next door. Mr. Jimmie Dean Coffey of United Country/Coffey Realty considered it both unethical and unprofessional for a planning department to allow deviation from a master plan if it affected the other property owners; and believed that the development as proposed would negatively impact nearby single-family property values. A displayed overview of Northgate Village, a traditional neighborhood development in North Kansas City, showed single-family homes separated from apartments by both landscape buffers and owner-occupied row houses, with another tier of patio homes and bungalows to the south. It was similar to the original idea for New Longview.

Mr. Ryan LeCluyse, also representing NLV Cares, focused on the timeline, pre-construction process and overall lack of communication. One question was about the timeline. Mr. Gale had sought approval for the project in January and presented a ‘glossed over’ version to the residents at the February meeting. Mr. Gale had recently admitted to Mr. LeCluyse that he had intended to present more details, but the presentation on the same night about the possible future light rail system ran too long. In any event, the only supporting documents or details the residents had received were the legal notice from Hearthview’s attorney and the signs up advertising tonight’s meeting. The residents had tried to file a legal protest. Further, the only reason the New Longview Cares group had formed was this project getting so far along with so little information given to Longview residents, some of whom still did not know about it. The project had flown under the radar for months.
Mr. LeCluyse gave some examples of previous neighborhood projects involving residents including a pool shade, a neighborhood garden project, a neighborhood pool project and policy for accessing the Pergola grounds. A number of families had worked with Gale Communities as well as New Longview Elementary on projects that would further the community’s best interests. These precedents made it especially troubling that a project of this size had proceeded with so little communication or community involvement. They did not expect to have direct control of the development; but they did expect to be included in a capacity that would allow them to protect their investment in New Longview. The residents in NLV Cares requested that the Commission did not approve the application due to the scope and location of the project.

Mr. Ted Mitchell gave his address as 3217 SW Longview Road. His home was right off the roundabout and the development would be adjacent to his property. When he and his wife Allison had moved in, they were promised a 100-foot setback, which would now be changed to a 40-foot setback with an 8-foot berm, and they would lose some good views from their house as well. They had previously lived in a development on the other side of Lee’s Summit that they had called a “garage” community, where people came home, drove into their garages and never saw their neighbors. They had bought in New Longview on the basis of the master plan, which had not turned out as they expected. Residents had been told they would live in a community with green spaces and a good quality of life; and now New Longview faced the prospect of a solid border-to-border development, which was little different from those everyone had seen in Johnson County, Kansas. New Longview was unique in the Kansas City area, and he and his neighbors had worked very hard to live there; and this project needed more discussion and a great deal more thought.

Mr. John Ivey gave his address as 209 Juniper, in Lee’s Summit and stated that he was in favor of the project. He had lived in Lee’s Summit a number of years and was at the point in life when he was looking for something smaller as an alternative to a house. The market had changed, and developers and builders had to make changes along with it; and this was the closest thing to a 'walking' community he had found in the area. Moreover, he did not want to be segregated from other age groups in a community like John Knox. He acknowledged that it was “resist change and one's neighbors”, but he hoped that the Commission would let the application go forward.
Mr. David Gale gave his address as 900 SW Redbuck. He commented that clearly there was a lot of heart and soul and passion in the Longview residents; and that he could have spent more time on information about the project. He had a history of holding himself to a very high standard and had spent 40 years in the development business. New Longview was unlike any other neighborhood in the Kansas City area other than Brookside, which was the work of three different developers.

Mr. Gale summarized the changes that had occurred since 2002, when the conceptual plan and preliminary development plan for New Longview were approved. The roundabout at Kessler and 3rd Street would now be a signal-controlled intersection. An arts center that would have been between the two historic barns was relocated and the commercial development east of the roundabout had been expanded. The plans for duplexes had changed along with the economy since 2002 and three “neighborhood” lots had been changed to “cottage” lots. He emphasized that much of the planned multi-family development had been relocated. As part of the low-to-high density transition that was dealt with at the December and January City Council hearings, the multi-family development had been moved about 200 feet to the north and northwest. The master plan had multi-family development going all the way out to the street across from the Mitchells' home, and within 75 feet of Mr. LeCluyse's home. Regarding Mr. Mitchell's testimony regarding a berm and 40-foot right-of-way, the contract with the developer currently in place for the barns would now require that amount of separation. Mr. Gale commented that he had worked with Mr. Thomas for some time, and Mr. Thomas was a developer with whom he could be comfortable with a handshake deal. Mr. Thomas was Chair of the Indiana chapter of the Urban Land Institute, a highly respected development organization.

Concerning the detention/retention area and the green space, Mr. Gale defined “detention” as a water feature that would hold water from a significant rainfall and gradually release it downstream. “Retention” referred to a pond or lake, and examples were abundant all over the Kansas City region including Arborwalk and New Longview, which had a 20-acre lake. What the testimony had referred to was a retention pond. Several hundred trees were planned, all 3-inch caliper. He did not plant any trees under 1.5-inch caliper, due to the high casualty rate of trees that small. There had been a significant investment in green space, adding about 1.5 acres of parkland to the buffer east of the pond. This property was previously designated single-family housing with an alley and two streets.
Mr. Gale acknowledged that the controversy had been rather a surprise. He had previously been the chair of John Knox Village's strategic planning committee, and had voted against the Forest Lake project due to the state of the economy. He knew their numbers and demographics. However, this was not a comparable product. He did not know where the figure of an average over-60 resident had come from, but many people past their mid-40s, especially people whose children were grown, were interested in a “lock and leave” lifestyle.

Concerning the green space, Mr. Gale emphasized that Hearthview was paying for it and that the parkland buffer would be accessible to the residents. Their experiences with Manor Homes at Arborwalk and AMLI at New Longview [Longview Luxury Apartments] indicated that this would be good for the neighborhood. His sons lived in older homes in Longview, which provided a good idea of how older homes in Longview could be transitioned. He lived on a heavily traveled road, and had recently imagined how the neighborhood would look in a few decades. The young trees would be mature; and what the Mitchells would have at that point would be a berm with a small forest. He understood that there were different perspectives, but he was convinced that this was an alternative to tract housing that had character and potential. He gave examples of a mix of homes with varying prices as opposed to conventional subdivisions. The materials being used were natural stone and Hardiboard, with interior finishes that included granite counters and hardwood floors.

As this concluded the testimony, Chairperson Fristoe announced a break at 6:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 6:36 p.m. Chairperson Fristoe opened the meeting for questions for the applicant or staff.
Mr. Thomas addressed some of the questioned that were raised. Concerning the TIF, he emphasized that TIF proceeds were not involved in the development; nor were people taxed to pay for it. Rather, the resident base that the project would create would fuel the commercial development along Third Street and would support it.
Mentioning the separation between buildings, Mr. Thomas stated that they would have full fire protection sprinkler systems. Concerning the historical buildings, they were providing funds for the shared road that was necessary for the redevelopment of the calf and dairy barns. That would be in a subsequent phase. The construction period for Phase One was not three years but rather 15 months and they anticipated the construction period for the upcoming phase to be 15 to 18 months. The units that had been ‘moved’ to Phase Five were being relocated across the street and further away from other residents. He understood that there were varying opinions on the project but did not like to hear apartment dwellers denigrated because they did not live in an owner-occupied single-family home. The mix of uses, including the proposed project, had always been part of the overall plan for New Longview; and they planned to develop in the highest quality and had the experience to do that.

Mr. Pycior noted that Hearthview at New Longview was cited as the applicant and not Mr. Gale. He remarked that he had been observing Mr. Gale’s career as a developer for over ten years and knew that both PMIX and New Urbanism could be confusing. He admitted that he found it confusing at this point. Mr. Gale had done a good job in developing New Longview, but the timetable this project had followed so far was unlike what he had previously seen. Mr. Pycior suggested that the application be continued so that the applicant could meet with the residents and clear up some of this confusion and lack of clarity.

Mr. Thomas answered that this would cause significant problems. They were now at the cusp of the building season, and needed to start the project by fall. A delay might be a delay until next spring. He emphasized that he was not trying to rezone any property and was following the overall plan for New Longview; they were asking only for approval on the site plan. Some of the concerns had involved traffic, an additional burden on area schools and low-income housing; and none of this would be a factor with Hearthview. He had heard some distress about process and dissatisfaction with the governing body’s prior actions. Mr. Pycior asserted that process was very important in Lee’s Summit and important to the Planning Commission. They had been consistent over time in emphasizing the process and its importance, including meeting with neighbors and making sure they had all the necessary information.
Ms. Smith agreed that as this was such a major project, having citizens’ input was especially important. She had been in the same position of the people who had testified; and knew from experience how a project could be improved by the developer and the neighbors communicating and working together.
Mr. Norbury remarked that although the applicant had spoken in terms of all nine of the phases, concentrating on multi-family for two of them did look like a change from the conceptual plan. The idea had been to spread out the mix of residential densities throughout the entire development. He read figures of 50 units in phase four, 64 units in phase five and 98 units each in phases six and seven. The densities in the conceptual plan had not been so extremely concentrated; and this looked like a significant change. Mr. Thomas stated that this was not the proposal he was bringing tonight; it was rather already established in the TIF amended phasing plan. They could theoretically build about 276 units under the TIF plan.

Mr. Norbury said he was not asking why the number was changed or if there was a net increase, but rather noting shift from an even disbursement of multi-family throughout New Longview to such a concentration in one area. He asked Mr. Soto if the total number of units had changed; and Mr. Soto replied that it had not. Mr. Norbury stated that the increased concentration that he had noticed would change the nature of the development overall. It would not be just the section they were discussing tonight but the other phases as well. He wanted to know why this shift had occurred.

Mr. Gale remarked that in the past year he had often used the expression ‘bob and weave’ and had been advised to say ‘adjust to market conditions’ instead. Some transitions had occurred in the housing business over the past decade. During the mid-1980s, the housing market had experienced a similar downturn and Mr. Dean Goodman could have and probably should have torn these old buildings down. It would have shocked the market but would have been his right. The buildings had not had any business occupying them since the early 1970s. Mr. Gale remarked that had any consultant, knowing what would happen to the market in the past five years, would not have advised him to take the actions he had taken. Now he had a high-quality, proven developer who had already done a good job as the executive vice president of AMLI; and the density of this project would be about 70% of the existing AMLI project. He considered that a major consideration.

When the project had started about ten years ago, many people would have preferred that he use one uniform design standard: the ‘Greco-Craftsman” type of architecture of Mr. Hoyt, the architect Mr. Long had hired. However, he had not wanted that uniformity but rather the eclectic mixtures of neighborhoods like Brookside. He was aware of the criticism of the CVS store; and acknowledged that in a perfect world it could have had more red brick and would have been more attractive. However, the architectural interest in the development as a whole would depend on the variety that was Brookside’s key characteristic. He did not know of a better standard than the one Mr. Nichols had used in that neighborhood. He had seen six-story apartments there that had added a lot of vitality to the mix. It did not have a 300-foot buffer to the residential neighborhood and did not have three-inch caliper trees outside it; nor with the developer building the park. They were not staying with the townhome/row-home/single/family mix that the conceptual plan currently showed. The only townhomes being built now were in the “crackerjack” price range of $75,000-$100,000. These were not in a price conformance that would allow for a transitional model with stone or masonry and Hardiboard. He had stuck with this project despite the downturn in the market.

Mr. Gale emphasized that he had chaired the annual meeting in November and had staged the February 20th meeting at significant cost. Mr. Jim Terry had given a presentation about the trail and connecting bus routes, and his presentation was about matters that would have significantly more impact on the residents than what they were discussing tonight. Mr. Gale recalled that after that meeting, Mr. LeCluyse had asked him some questions and he had thought that everything had been made clear to the attendees. He respected the fact that New Longview had a number of residents who were successful in their own careers; but he would put his reputation up against anyone's when it came to this particular product.

Mr. Norbury wanted to know how this would impact future development at New Longview. He again stated that much of the multi-family housing had been moved away from the areas where it was originally planned and he wanted to know how that would impact the overall concept of New Longview. Mr. Gale answered that unless townhomes and row homes became popular again he would not be building them. He explained that although some had thought he'd “shut down the Pergola,” the situation had involved neighbors alerting him about people partying there and he had put into place the same process used previously at Winterset, where the bottom of Cedar Creek was a magnet for people with ATVs. That process included putting up “No Trespassing” signs and tempered chain; and charging people for access which was what he was doing with the Pergola. It was shut down, getting ready for the next phase. The master plan had indicated row housing, and in 2002 he had envisioned the kind that the Country Club Plaza had. However, the market would not currently support that, so the single-family count in the community as a whole had been reduced.

Mr. Gale emphasized that sustaining the historic buildings was a major priority; but they could only do that with a commercial TIF, and the commercial count was critical to the plan. Reducing single-family product would not have much impact, but reducing commercial would.
Mr. Norbury noted that the impervious coverage seemed high; and asked if that would be an issue or a problem. Mr. Monter replied that according to the information submitted, as far as what had previously been determined on this project and the presence of the detention pond to handle runoff, he did not consider the impervious coverage a potential problem.
Noting the applicants' remarks about the TIF, Mr. Pycior asked if this was the TIF that was amended through the City Council. Mr. Mautino answered that it was. Mr. Pycior remarked that the TIF was not the Commission's purview. Mr. Pycior then asked Mr. Soto how long PMIX had been an official zoning designation and what was the first PMIX development in Lee's Summit. Mr. Soto replied that it had been in place since the UDO's adoption in November 2001, and that New Longview had been the first. Mr. Pycior observed that PMIX was designed to give options for developers' decisions, reflecting the new planning style at that time. It was new to the planners and the Commission; and they were still learning how to use it. Mr. Soto said this was a fair statement. PMIX had been used in developments that did not quite fit just one zoning district. Mr. Pycior remarked that while it was true that this was not a rezoning application, one advantage of PMIX was precisely that using it would avoid going through rezoning every time. However, it was also designed so that in the case of a significant change, it would come back through the hearing process. In his opinion, this was a significant change.

Mr. Delibero noted that staff had requested to reduce the number of parking spaces required by the UDO to 509 spaces. However, it looked like the plan could provide enough spaces to comply with the UDO requirement, and he wanted to know why staff recommended the modification. Mr. Soto explained that staff tried to prevent additional impervious coverage whenever possible. The 65% coverage was higher than what was required for the RP-4 district; and, in this case, the applicant believed they could meet the parking demand with a lower number; and they would be able to meet the UDO requirement if necessary. Mr. Delibero said that his concern was the amount of on-street parking that might result.

Mr. Delibero then asked for some clarification as to whether the pond to the south was a detention or retention pond, noting that he had heard Mr. Gale use both terms in referring to it. Mr. Thomas responded that there was no change in the pond's function. Mr. Delibero then asked if there was any conceptual plan for landscaping around the pond; and Mr. Thomas answered that there was not, other than the additional 1.5 acre to the east which would be incorporated into it. He referred to the pond as a detention basin. Mr. Delibero asked how Mr. Thomas envisioned this area to look, and if there would be park amenities such as benches, trails or a playground. Mr. Thomas answered that it was passive green space. It could be used for things like informal soccer practice. Portions of the detention basin, especially the eastern half, could be enhanced with edge plantings and trails might go through the area.
Mr. Delibero suggested following up with Mr. Pycior's suggestion that more time be spent discussing the project with other Longview residents. It was an opportunity to create something special that the community could get behind. Mr. Thomas answered that he would welcome that. However, there were financial and contractual inputs and the challenge would be providing a quality development while satisfying these constituencies.
Mr. Pycior noted that when he had brought up the subject, he was told that a time crunch was the problem with further meetings; and now it appeared that Mr. Thomas was saying it was something else. Mr. Thomas answered that there were a lot of plates spinning. Mr. Pycior remarked that the remarks implied that financial considerations were important as well, and Mr. Thomas said there were many other things factored in.

Mr. Hilger noted Mr. Thomas' reference to contributing $200,000 to Lee's Summit. Mr. Thomas responded that there was more than one context for that. He had made a reference in his testimony to water tap fees, and he would be installing the water line down the east side and there were no public water mains involved. He had to run private lines from existing buildings out to the public mains. He paid $200,000 in tap fees. There was also a commitment of several hundred thousand dollars to the redevelopment of the historic barns; and constructing Tower Park Drive was essential to that project. Additionally, the City would collect additional property taxes from residents. Mr. Hilger asked if any of the money spent went toward the required fire hydrants, and Mr. Thomas said he was installing the hydrants. Everything on his property would be private, with the water mains being outside the property boundaries.

Mr. Hilger remarked that some things were more clear after hearing the testimony. However, in other ways, the more the applicants talked the more confusing some things became. He asked if there was any reason other than an oversight that there had not been more community involvement and communication. Mr. Thomas answered that he had been at the Homeowners Association meeting and four people had talked with him afterward and their comments were all positive. None of the people who had testified tonight had come up to him and expressed any concern. Everyone he had talked to had been extremely positive; and he had not known about any negative feedback until the three petitions had been sent to the Planning Commission.
Mr. DeMoro asked if Mr. Thomas and Mr. Gale had received any direct, individual communication about the plan, such as phone calls or office visits, other than the community meetings they had mentioned. Mr. Thomas answered that he'd had one email from an individual, followed up by a phone call. The caller had asked for additional information.

Mr. Gale said that in addition to the meeting he had mentioned, a postcard was mailed out to all residents plus an email message. In many households, one person might get the email and not pass it on to other household members; so some lack of response could be attributed to a breakdown in internal communications. Curry Management, their property management company, had sent out a notification to every dues-paying member of the HOA. He knew that a number of people had made a special trip for the meeting. The meeting had covered other projects, including one at the intersection of I-470 and View High that was not going forward. He had received two or three emails; and about two weeks ago he had heard about some neighbors who were dissatisfied about the project and he'd been sent a copy of an email that was sent to one of the City Council members. He'd received a request for a private meeting at about that time but he did not do private meetings for people who have a challenge, as he wanted to do that in public hearings. He had scheduled one meeting; however, he did get another email that was personally insulting and that meeting was subsequently canceled. He had instead put together a letter that went out as an email on June 4th with exhibits, and a copy to the Planning staff, making it clear what the project was and trying to clear up any misconceptions, including those about crime, property values and traffic.

Mr. Gale continued that the Civic Roundtable Marketing Committee had met this afternoon. They were discussing the general marketing of Lee's Summit, and one of the significant advantages Lee's Summit had over many other municipalities was health care, with three hospitals plus the facilities at John Knox. The marketing director for St. Luke's East had observed that with this level of health care, people did not have to leave. That was what this product would achieve. It would attract people who might otherwise move to Overland Park or Liberty. At present, people who wanted luxury apartments could find few in Lee's Summit.
Mr. DeMoro then asked if any of the existing homes west of Loula and west of Ovation faced north, and Mr. Gale answered that some did. Mr. DeMoro asked if it was correct that the view from these homes would be the apartments and the detention facility, and Mr. Gale answered that it was. The current view was a line of 'swamp oaks' planted about five years ago. He had been fortunate enough as a developer to secure large acreages that could support regional stormwater detention. Other uses for the lower-elevation area included a half size soccer field for children.
Mr. DeMoro asked what the actual elevation was in that area, and Mr. Gale answered that the depression was about 6 to 7 feet deep and the edge was 30 feet north of the right-of-way. That provided a significant landscape buffer.

Ms. Smith noted that 'empty nesters' were often seniors, and asked if the buildings would have elevators. Mr. Thomas said he considered the 'empty nesters' demographic to be a misnomer. About 30% of the units would have no more than a 2% grade into the units and many would be walk-in, with only the top floors needing any stair climbing. He added that most of the AMLI residents overall were under the age of 50, with many single households. That was why a slight majority of the units would have one bedroom. These residents would be out enjoying the cultural amenities and spending money; and they were supporting the restaurants and services. That would be what would drive the commercial development. He added that he had an apartment project in Overland Park where he was putting in elevators; however, that was a four-story building.

Noting the testimony about the modification for parking, Mr. Hilger asked if there was any particular number that would trigger a necessity to add more parking. Mr. Soto said that it would be determined by need, and Mr. Hilger asked what standard would be used to determine if the need indicated more parking. Mr. Thomas stated that the Lee's Summit parking ordinance was oriented toward visitor spaces and the average number of non-visitor cars would be 1.7 per unit. He confirmed that the possibility of reducing impervious coverage and using the increased green space for the small park had been the purpose. The trigger would be if parking was an issue for potential renters.
Mr. Hilger observed that nevertheless, he had seen situations where people were assured that parking would not be an issue and that drivers would not park on the streets and in the end it was difficult to find a house where a car was not parked at the curb. Mr. Thomas remarked that he was not saving money by reducing the parking; rather it had just seemed wasteful environmentally.
Chairperson Fristoe asked if there were further questions for the applicant or staff. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. and asked for discussion among the Commission members.
Chairperson Fristoe commented that Mr. Gale, while not the applicant, had done a significant amount of work for Lee's Summit and he could not recall seeing so much directed opposition to any of Mr. Gale's projects. While he appreciated the exigencies of construction season and contracts, the community embraced what someone did only in terms of what was given back. Chairperson Fristoe felt that the input from the residents tonight resonated and was significant.

Mr. Hilger commended the residents who had come to support their neighborhood, remarking that they had done so in a professional manner. He had been to Longview and his child had attended Longview Elementary for awhile, and he knew that the neighbors had something of real value. His major concern over the project was the evident lack of communication and collaboration. The plan was very well thought out, so he doubted that this was a case of being short of time and not being able to both put the plan together and hold meetings.

Ms. Smith agreed, remarking that Mr. Gale was very active in the community and had done a great deal for it. However, she also was not sure what had happened in terms of the lack of communication. She wanted to see the parties come together and work something out.
Mr. Norbury observed that although there had been extensive discussion and testimony tonight about process, it did not seem that as much attention was paid to the project itself. He asked if any Commission members had a problem with elements such as construction, materials and use of space. This was just the kind of project that would fit in that location and support the commercial development there. If the Commissioners did not have any concerns about the project itself, there was no reason to not vote accordingly.
Mr. Hilger noted that much of the discussion had centered around responding to various questions that came up. Mr. Pycior was not sure he had reached a conclusion considering the amount of time he'd had and the limited information in the packet; although he definitely did not dislike the project. However, he had not come to a conclusion after hearing the testimony and accordingly he wanted to make a motion for a denial in order to move the application forward.
Mr. Pycior made a motion to recommend denial of Application PL2012-046, Preliminary Development Plan: Hearthview at New Longview Apartments; Brookview Properties II, LLC, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of June 8, 2012, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 3. Mr. Hilger seconded.
Chairperson Fristoe asked if there was any discussion of the motion. Mr. Norbury again noted that he had not heard anyone raising specific objections to the project; and he was not sure that denial was the appropriate action.

Mr. Thomas stated that he'd been told that the City Council meeting of July 19th had been moved back a week. He asked about a two-week continuance. Mr. Mautino explained the original timeline for this was to not proceed to the City Council until July 19th. Continuing the application until the next Planning Commission meeting on June 26th should not impact that goal. Chairperson Fristoe re-opened the hearing.

Mr. Pycior stated that since this new information indicated the application was on schedule, he wondered if the applicant would like a continuance.
Mr. Norbury wanted to know what the applicants would accomplish in the two additional weeks. Mr. Thomas said he assumed that citizen meetings would occur during that time. They would have to agree to disagree if the requested change was to remove the additional 64 units and go back to a multi-family distribution of 30 units in 6 places. Mr. Pycior clarified that this was not a direction to the applicant to agree with what had been said in the hearing. He then withdrew his motion for denial. Mr. Hilger withdrew his second.
Chairperson Fristoe then closed the hearing, and called for a motion.
Mr. Pycior made a motion to continue Application PL2012-046, Preliminary Development Plan: Hearthview at New Longview Apartments; Brookview Properties II, LLC, applicant, to a date certain of June 26, 2012. Mr. Hilger seconded.
Chairperson Fristoe stated to the people attending that the opportunity was there for future input; and that the Commission appreciated their participation tonight. He urged them to meet with the applicant and see what could be worked out. He then called for a vote.
On the motion of Mr. Pycior, seconded by Mr. Hilger, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to CONTINUE Application PL2012-046, Preliminary Development Plan: Hearthview at New Longview Apartments; Brookview Properties II, LLC, applicant, to a date certain of June 26, 2012.
(The foregoing is a digest of the secretary’s notes of the public hearing. The transcript may be obtained.)

4. Application #PL2012-045 – PRELIMINARY PLAT – Hearthview at New Longview Apartments; Brookview Properties II, LLC, applicant

Chairperson Fristoe stated that Application PL2012-045 would be continued to a date certain of June 26, 2012, per the prior action on Application PL2012-046.
3. Application #PL2012-067 and Application #2012-068 – PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN and SPECIAL USE PERMIT -- Police Station Telecommunication Tower, 10 NE Tudor Road; City of Lee’s Summit Police Department, applicant
Chairperson Fristoe opened the hearing at 7:42 p.m. and asked those wishing to speak, or provide testimony, to stand and be sworn in.
Chief Joe Piccinini related that the Police Department had commissioned a study of its radio system in 2009. They knew that the existing system was not good enough and needed improvement; and the Federal Communications Commission was about to change them to narrow band. The consultant had come up with two options: to upgrade the current system for about $2 million or install a digital system for $10 to $12 million. They had decided to go with the upgrade, and had requested a no-tax-increase bond, which was approved in 2010. This was for the Fire Department as well as the Police Department, as well as a radio system for all City departments including Public Works.

Next, Major Lyons related that the study had identified one of the City radio system's key vulnerable areas as the fact that it used the telephone lines. This system used a microwave ring. Major Lyons then explained the basic components of the system that made the tower necessary. The microwave ring would result in more reliable communications via a bypass that would automatically reroute the traffic if one tower went out of service. A slide showed a sample microwave dish, and Major Lyons pointed out that it was white in color and about 2.6 feet in diameter. It had an 11-gigahertz (11 GHz) capacity. They were licensed and were public safety grade rather than the somewhat less durable public use devices. These would be mounted on top of water towers.

Displaying a diagram of the microwave ring, Major Lyons pointed out an existing tower on the north side of town. It was off Lakewood Way and could be seen up on a bluff from northbound I-470 north of Lakewood Boulevard. The City would lease space on this tower, which would transmit to the Woods Chapel water tower. The diagram showed transmission connections to Fire and Police headquarters, then south to Scherer, Ranson and Hook Roads.
The proposed system would lease the antenna and equipment at Lakewood Way. They would improve the portable and mobile talkback in the Lakewood area, which had been a problem for some time. The whole developed area on US 40 at I-470 had been difficult, and the leased tower would improve police and fire transmissions there as well.
Due to the FCC's narrow banding requirement, the radio system had to simulcast transmissions from two different tower sites. This had to be timed. The Woods Chapel and Ranson Road water towers were perfectly located, due to the city's configuration and topography. The Woods Chapel tower sat on a summit that dropped off in the direction of Cass County to the south. Both towers would have emergency generators to ensure transmissions despite a power shortage, weather emergency or natural disaster. After discussions with the Development Review Committee, they were recommending natural gas as a fuel, with propane as a temporary backup if needed. Since these were simulcast sites, it was essential that they have power available all the time. The receive-only sites would have back-up capability powered by batteries. Fencing would be provided around the generators. The Ranson Road tower already had some telecommunications buildings and fencing around it and one of the buildings had a generator on the outside.

Major Lyons then explained why they were proposing to use water towers. One was the fact that the towers were in ideal locations for this purpose. They were built to withstand winds up to 140 mph. An extremely hard wind or microburst might rip the antennas or microwave dishes off the tower but would not affect the tower itself, so getting back online after an emergency would take much less time and work and involve much less infrastructure damage. After the change, a number of radio sites would be abandoned including the Woods Chapel tower behind Fire Station #4 and the tower near Fire Station #5 off US-50 Highway. The latter had not been installed by the City, but had been supplied by a telecommunications firm.

The applicants were asking for a Special Use Permit to build a radio tower at Police headquarters. This would be an 80-foot lattice tower located near the southwest corner of the building, extending about 40 feet above the roof; and would have two microwave dishes. Due to a berm nearby, only about half of it would be visible from the street. The tower would allow Police and Fire to be redundant in terms of dispatching facilities. If the facilities for the Police Department failed in an emergency situation, they could pick up from Fire and vice versa. The tower height had been calculated to allow for transmission above the highest treetops. They had secured all necessary FCC licensing for the tower including the aviation study due to the proximity of the Airport. Security around the tower would include a 6-foot fence at the base with a locked gate, and an anti-climbing device. In keeping the FCC regulations, a sign would be posted prohibiting climbing the tower and warning of high voltage.
Major Lyons displayed an aerial photograph of Police and Municipal Court headquarters, pointing out the tower's location at the southwest, and the locations of the emergency generator. He then stated that the Police Department had expanded the dispatching by adding 4 positions. They were also upgrading the grounding and lightning protection, which had been a problem in the past. The changes at Fire headquarters were less drastic, limited to replacing antennas and cabling in addition to fixing some grounding issues related to the building itself. Dispatch at Fire Headquarters would be upgraded in order to be redundant with Police.

The Scherer and Hook Road water towers would become receive-only sites. Scherer Road would have new antennas plus microwave dishes. The sites would have 12 hours of battery backup power. The Hook Road tower was not currently used and did not have telephone lines to it. However, it was usable with microwave technology and actually had better reception for south Lee's Summit near M-150.

Following this presentation, Chairperson Fristoe asked for staff comments.
Mr. Soto entered Exhibit (A), list of exhibits 1-18 into the record. He stated that what the Commission would be approving would be the 80-foot lattice tower for Police Headquarters. The other sites would go through the normal administrative review process. He referred the Commissioners to the photo in their packets, noting that the photo was taken looking toward the alley. Mr. Soto pointed out the location of the building to the north and a retaining wall to the south and east. The tower would be set in a depression with only half extending above the building.
Staff had included three Recommendation Items, two of which addressed modifications. The UDO required telecommunications towers to be painted a neutral color to minimize visual impact; but they were requesting a modification so that the tower could have a galvanized steel finish. The Commission and Council had already approved this kind of modification for the new tower south of the new CVS site, on the grounds that the finish would be no more visually distracting and would prevent future maintenance problems due to flaking paint. Item 2 addressed the landscaping requirement intended to ensure screening off the base of a tower, and most of these sites were at grade with the nearest road. In this case, the tower's base was essentially in a hole and had 12-foot retaining walls on the side. The base and equipment would already be significantly screened; and the surrounding surfaces were already paved. Item 3 granted the SUP for a period of 15 years, which was consistent with other similar applications.
No one was present to give additional testimony; and Chairperson Fristoe then asked if the Commission had questions for the applicant or staff.

Ms. Smith asked what would happen with the two towers that would be abandoned. Major Lyons replied that Police staff was talking with Administration. They would decommission the old equipment, and would decide at that point what to do with the towers. Ms. Smith remarked that she had concerns about abandoned cell towers left standing after they were no longer used; and Major Lyons clarified that the two towers did have cell providers using them.

Chairperson Fristoe asked if there were further questions for the applicant or staff. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. and asked for discussion among the Commission members.
Mr. Norbury asked if the City could consider amending the UDO requirement for painting, since the practice now appeared to be to leave the galvanized finish unpainted. Mr. Hilger noted that galvanized equipment did rust, and paint did offer a barrier. Ms. Smith recalled a discussion about the Langsford Road tower and its appearance, and agreed with Mr. Hilger's comment.
Hearing no further discussion, Chairperson Fristoe called for a motion.
Mr. Norbury made a motion to recommend approval of Application PL2012-067 and Application PL2012-068, Preliminary Development Plan and Special Use Permit: Police Station Telecommunication Tower, 10 NE Tudor Road; City of Lee’s Summit Police Department, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of June 8, 2012, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 3. Mr. Delibero seconded.
Chairperson Fristoe asked if there was any discussion of the motion. Hearing none, he called for a vote.
On the motion of Mr. Norbury, seconded by Mr. Delibero, the Planning Commission members voted unanimously by voice vote to recommend APPROVAL of Application PL2012-067 and Application PL2012-068, Preliminary Development Plan and Special Use Permit: Police Station Telecommunication Tower, 10 NE Tudor Road; City of Lee’s Summit Police Department, applicant; subject to staff’s letter of June 8, 2012, specifically Recommendation Items 1 through 3.
(The foregoing is a digest of the secretary’s notes of the public hearing. The transcript may be obtained.)


There were no public comments at the meeting.


Mr. DeMoro said that tonight's discussion had been educational. Chairperson Fristoe commented that the first hearing was an example of the process working the way it should; and Mr. Norbury agreed about needing more details about the project itself.


There being no further business, Chairperson Fristoe adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m.

PC 061212


Share with your friends:

The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2019
send message

    Main page