This site was annexed into the City in 2015 with the intent that a grocery store and some other small retail uses would be developed on the site. That concept never came to fruition and the land remains undeveloped. McBee now seeks to construct a loop road with a connection to Salem Drive providing access to 39 duplex buildings containing 78 dwelling units.
Buildings - Each residential building will contain two adjoining identical two-story units constructed on a slab foundation. The first floor will feature about 700 square feet with a living room, dining room, ½ bath and a single car garage. The second floor will contain roughly 800 SF divided into three bedrooms and two bathrooms. Exterior building materials will consist of Hardie Board siding with veneer cultured stone on the front elevation, all in a light grey color. Asphalt composite shingles in a dark grey/black color will be used on all roofs. All buildings will be rental units owned and maintained by the developer. Expected monthly rental will be $1,400, not including utilities.
Site Improvements – All buildings will be accessed by a looped public street connecting to Salem Drive. Two stormwater detention basins are being created: one central to the site on Lot 2; the other in its northwest corner on Lot 1. A walking trailing is shown looping south from the new street to the right-of-way of Old Lexington Road (pending the vacation of the right-of-way) before turning north then reconnecting to the street. A monument subdivision sign is positioned at the northwest corner of Salem Drive and the loop road. Staff has recommended another project amenity be included in the development to enhance the open space area.
The Proposal’s Consistency with Independence for All, Strategic Plan:
This rezoning could contribute to the Strategic Plan by building new housing units to fill a market need.
Comprehensive Plan Guiding Land Use Principles for the Current Designation:
In conjunction with this rezoning application, the City Comprehensive Plan is being amended to reflect this land use. One of the Comprehensive Plan Guiding Principles is to “Protect and enhance the viability, livability and affordability of the City’s residential neighborhoods while integrating multi-family development throughout the community.”
In addition, the City-Wide Housing Study outlined five complementary strategies to meet the broad range of housing needs in Independence. One of these strategies is to be proactive about new development. New development is critical to accommodating future growth for Independence. Whether it is having new and diverse housing stock to meet the needs of changing demographics of the City’s current population or having the right stock and amenities to attract new residents from around the region and beyond, it is important for the City to encourage a diversity of market-supported development in specific locations throughout the City.
Public Facilities:
Both water and sanitary services are in the general area and will be extended to serve this site.
Recommendations and decisions for proposed planned unit development rezoning and its associated preliminary development plan must be based on consideration of the criteria listed in Section 14-703-05-H:
1. The consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. In conjunction with this rezoning application, the City Comprehensive Plan is being amended to reflect this land use and will “Protect and enhance the viability, livability and affordability of the City’s residential neighborhoods while integrating multi-family development throughout the community.”
2. The consistency with the PUD standards of Section 14-902, including the statement of purpose.
Section 14-902 is intended to allow design flexibility that results in greater public benefit than would be achieved using conventional zoning regulations; this project is in conformance with that standard.
3. The nature and extent of Common Open Space in the PUD.
The project’s open space is primarily contained within the two planned detention basins with an area of over nine acres.
4. The reliability of the proposals for maintenance and conservation of Common Open Space.
McBee states that it will construct, manage, and maintain the property; it has no intent to sell any units or buildings.
5. The adequacy or inadequacy of the amount and function of Common Open Space in terms of the densities and dwelling types proposed in the plan.
The two detention basins, containing over nine acres, is being provided by the project. Staff is recommending that an additional amenity feature be added, something to enhance the open space areas.
6. The extent to which the proposed use will adversely affect the capacity of safety portions of the street network or present parking problems in the vicinity of the property. Whether adequate provision for public services, provides adequate control over vehicular traffic, and furthers the amenities of light and air, recreation, and visual enjoyment.
This proposed project is not expected to adversely affect the street network in the vicinity of the project. Jackson County is requiring a construction permit for the project’s connection with Salem Drive and has been involved early on with the project.
7. The extent to which the proposed use will have a substantially adverse effect on adjacent property and the development or conservation of the neighborhood area.
In some regards, this project can be considered a self-contained development with limited impacts on adjacent development. To the south/southeast are two gas/convenience stores, with the residential properties to the north and west backing up to this site. Only one street connection is planned, it will be directly across Salem Drive from an existing street. Two detention basins manage stormwater; utilities will be extended to serve the site and have adequate capacity.
8. Whether potential adverse impacts have been mitigated to the maximum practical extent. Mitigation efforts have been planned by the developer to reduce impacts to the area. This will be managed by limiting access to a single connection, providing adequate stormwater management, and extending the existing public utilities throughout the site.
9. Whether the Preliminary Development Plan represents such a unique development proposal that it could not have accomplished through use of (non-PUD) conventional zoning regulations.
Due to the project’s design and all the buildings being on two parcels, its not possible to develop the project through any means other than through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process.
10. The sufficiency of the terms and conditions proposed to protect the interest of the public and the residents of the PUD in the case of a plan that proposes development over a period of years.
This project will be constructed in a single phase and the entire development is proposed to be under one ownership.
Draft Planning Commission minutes:
"Case 22-125-01 – Rezoning – Salem Drive and US 24 Highway
Staff Presentation
Stuart Borders presented the case. Mr. Borders presented the Commission with a vicinity map, noting the area and surrounding zoning. He presented the Commission with an aerial map indicating the project area and explained the surrounding land uses. Mr. Borders outlined the following conditions:
1. The properties must be properly replatted through the final plat process in conjunction with approval of the engineering plans for the public improvements.
2. The front setback of the buildings shall utilize varying setbacks of 20 feet, 25 feet and 30 feet with a maximum of three building in a row using the same setback. These setbacks must be shown on the final development plan.
3. The minimum rear setback for buildings around the perimeter of the property shall be 20 feet; there’s no required rear yard setback for building’s interior to the circle drive. The rear building line must be eliminated. The minimum distance between buildings shall be at least 12 feet.
4. In addition to the walking trail on the south part of the site, provide another project amenity, such as a picnic area or park amenities.
5. The applicant must work with the City and Jackson County to ensure that the existing stormwater management system, including detention basins, meet both entities requirements.
6. Between Buildings 17 and 18, provide a small, pull-in parking lot of three or four spaces to be used for temporary parking to reduce parking on the street.
7. With the final development plan, provide a tree preservation/landscape plan for the project showing new plantings and how the existing tree lines along the north and east sides of the site with be retained or improved. A landscape feature must be added around the central detention basin, show on the plans.
8. The street names and addresses will be assigned during the final development stage.
Applicant Comments
Steve McBee, 1203 E. US 24 Highway, stated this will be a private, maintenance free development. He stated his company will retain ownership and will provide maintenance to help keep property values up and to keep the neighborhood looking nice. Mr. McBee said they’ve been talking with City staff, including the Fire Department, to ensure it is up to City standards and safe for fire trucks to access the development. He stated there is currently a lot of trash dumped in the area and he believes this will improve the area. Mr. McBee said the homes will have good curb appeal.
In response to Commissioner Preston’s questions, Mr. McBee stated they don’t have any plans to sell off the properties. He stated his company has a succession plan and they hope to grow their portfolio. Mr. McBee stated the plot is one large lot.
Commissioner Michell asked for more detail on the landscape plan. Mr. Borders stated landscaping on the northwest could be added as a condition, it was omitted by error.
Commissioner Michell asked if additional amenities would be added. Mr. McBee stated they would include a dog park with a playground in the dry detention basin.
In response to Commissioner Nesbitt’s question, Mr. McBee stated the units would be rented for $1,400 a unit. He noted the utilities will be the responsibility of the occupant.
Commissioner Nesbitt questioned if the street will be wide enough for street parking on both sides of the street. Mr. Borders stated the street is planned to be the standard 28 feet. Mr. Borders stated the Fire Department did not express any concerns on the plan.
Public Comments
Sandra Hall, 2022 Grove Circle, stated she lives in the housing development nearby. She stated she is concerned that there could be an additional 156 vehicles going in and out of the area, if two drivers live at each unit. Ms. Hall stated the other duplexes in the area already look bad and she believes this will hurt her property value. She said if these were single family homes, she would be in favor of this development.
Jennifer Burk, 1916 N. Concord Road, stated she is opposed to this development. She stated she and her neighbors are concerned about traffic, property values and questioned if this development will be serviced by the City or County for emergency services. Ms. Burk also asked if a tornado shelter would be required for the residents.
Mike Pollard, 1817 N. Dover Street, stated he believes it is a good development because it will help the dumping issue. Mr. Pollard reviewed the past proposed uses of this property. He said he is in favor of residential use, but he is not in favor of duplexes.
Mr. McBee stated he appreciates the concerns of the surrounding property owners. He said he believes this will increase property values. There will no longer be trash and brush dumped on the vacant land. Mr. McBee stated these properties will look good and will be constructed with high end materials.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Michell asked if the City could require the duplexes to have different color variants to increase curb appeal. Mr. Borders stated a condition could be added to the motion.
In response to the earlier question from the public, Mr. Borders confirmed the City of Independence Police and Fire would respond to these properties.
In response to Commissioner Michell’s question, Mr. Borders stated basements are not required for subdivisions of this type.
Commissioner Michell asked if a traffic study was done for this project. Mr. Borders stated the main intersection is in the County. He stated Jackson County did not require a traffic study and their requirements were incorporated in this plan.
Commissioner Nesbitt asked if the driveways could be widened to allow for two vehicles. Mr. McBee clarified that two cars can park at each unit. One can park inside the garage and one in the driveway. Mr. McBee noted if an additional spot was added to each driveway to allow a third vehicle, the subdivision would lose curb appeal and greenspace.
Robert Walquist, 821 NE Columbus, Lee’s Summit, stated the units are 30 feet off the curb. He stated it would be difficult to add an additional park stall for each unit. Mr. McBee noted there is additional parking included in the City’s condition number 6, between buildings 17 and 18.
City Attorney Joe Lauber reviewed the following changes Commissioners requested to the conditions as stated by staff:
- Number four should be amended to read: In addition to the walking trail on the south part of the site, provide another project amenity, such as a picnic area or park amenities with dedicated access.
- Number seven should be amended to read: With the final development plan, provide a tree preservation/landscape plan for the project showing new plantings and how the existing tree lines along the north and east sides of the site with be retained or improved. A landscape feature must be added around the central and northwest detention basins, shown on the plans.
- Number nine should be added: Modify the color palette and accoutrements to create visual distinction in the final development plan.
Commissioner Nesbitt stated he would like to see a change to number six and the number of available parking spots for the units. After additional discussion, Mr. Lauber reviewed this additional change:
- Number six should be amended to read: Between Buildings 1 and 25, 8 and 9, and 17 and 18, provide a small, pull-in parking lot of three or four spaces to be used for temporary parking to reduce parking on the street. Parking should also be limited to one side of the street.
Motion
Commissioner Michell made a motion to approve Case 22-125-01 – Rezoning – Salem Drive and US 24 Highway, with conditions as outlined by staff and the changes as outlined by Mr. Lauber. Commissioner Preston seconded the motion. The motion passed with six affirmative votes."