Seth Veld seeks to rezone the properties at 2610 and 2612 S. Lee’s Summit Road from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and R-6 (Single-Family Residential) to R-18/PUD (Moderate Density Residential/Planned Unit Development) and approve a Preliminary Development Plan.
Property History:
This property is actual two tracts similar in size lying adjacent and abutting the Lee’s Summit Road right-of-way. The northern of the two contains a small, old farmhouse with an accessory structure west in the rear yard. The seven-acre tract has had some form of single-family residential designation since 1965 and its use as been single-family residential through that entire period. The southern six-acre tract has been undeveloped field over the same time period. In earlier times, it had agricultural uses, but today it is an underutilized field. In 1980, it was given a CP-1 zoning designation, a change from its earlier single-family zoning designation. However, nothing ever came of that neighborhood commercial zoning opportunity. The properties have been owned by Englewood Assembly of God for 35 years and had been envisioned as a location for a new church. They have been marketed for sale off and on since the early 2000’s.
Physical Characteristics of Property:
The property is the site of a small, old farmhouse and a never developed field. The tracts are fairly flat and featureless, except for stands of trees around the perimeter. The property is neither in a flood plain or near a stream requiring accompanying stream buffer zones.
Characteristics of the Area:
The surrounding neighborhood is largely residential in nature. Although Glendale Elementary lies across Lee’s Summit Road, the immediate vicinity largely consist of single-family homes. The Mansion Apartments lie almost three blocks to the southeast. Although most nearby residences are of fairly good quality and condition, the newest developments in the neighborhood, The Mansion and Drum Farm, are of an architectural quality that staff believes should be reflected in this new townhome community. Thus, conditions for the Final Development Plan include improvement to the building elevations, particularly higher wainscots and extensions that should wrap around the sides of the buildings and cover all right-of-way facing façades.
Proposal:
Summit Living Townhomes will be an age restricted (50+) community with 123 units on 13 acres. The applicant indicates in his narrative that, “the purpose of Summit Living Townhomes is to help older adults remain in the community, as well as remain independent.”
The zoning proposed R-18/PUD would permit up to 18-units per acre. The applicant needs it only to be able to accommodate his proposal for a development with 10-units per acre.
Provided amenities will include a dog park and community building. Sidewalks will be provided on both sides of the rights-of-way and around the perimeters of the parking lots.
The applicant’s intention is to create a development similar in design and concept to Parkway Villas in Blue Springs. It consists of eight, 5-unit buildings and one, 4-unit building on 3.86-acres (a density of 11.39-units per acre). In Independence, the applicant proposes twenty-eight 4-unit buildings with 112-units, three 3-unit buildings with 9-units and one 2-unit building with 2-units. Nine of the 4-unit buildings and two of the 3-unit buildings will have one-story units without garages. The remainder of the buildings will have two-story units with garages. The two-story units will be along public rights-of-way and those that are one-story will be arranged around one of two parking lots.
Consistency with Independence for All, Strategic Plan:
The proposal relates to the Goal “Achieve livability, choice, access, health and safety through a quality, built environment through building new housing units to fill a market need.”
Comprehensive Plan Guiding Land Use Principles:
The Imagine Independence 2040 Comprehensive Plan designated this site for “Residential Neighborhoods,” which envisions new neighborhoods with a walkable layout with streets that connect in a logical manner throughout the neighborhood and to adjacent developments for seamless transitions. The Comprehensive Plan Guiding Principles most relevant to the proposed development are, “Provide a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods”, “Facilitate the development of connected neighborhoods where appropriate,” and “Neighborhoods and housing should be designed to be inclusive of the needs of the wide span of mobility.”
Zoning:
The applicant proposes R-18/PUD zoning. District R-18/PUD allows; multiple-family housing, home based daycare, government facilities, churches, schools, utilities, cemeteries, crops and gardening. The existing districts for the two tracts allow the following uses. District C-1 allows; residential above the first floor and in 50-percent of the first-floor area, retail sales, government facilities, churches, schools, utilities, artist workspaces, employment and business support services, restaurants, small venues, banks, medical services, offices, parking, personal improvement services, artisan uses, crops and gardening. District R-6 allows: single-family housing, home based daycare, government facilities, churches, schools, utilities, cemeteries, crops and gardening.
Historic and Archeological Sites:
There are no apparent historic/archeological issues with this property.
Public Utilities:
Water, sewer and electrical services are available to the property.
Environmental, Storm Water and Stream Buffer:
The property is the site of a small, old farmhouse and a never developed field. There is not any reason to believe that the property has experienced environmental degradation.
The tracts are fairly flat and featureless, except for stands of trees around the perimeter. The property is neither in a floodplain nor near a stream requiring accompanying stream buffer zones.
The Municipal Services environmental division will require approved plans to ensure the parking, loading and storage areas comply with Chapter 20 of the City Code.
Building Permits and Phasing:
Given the proposed development will be a rental community sited on one or two lots and constructed in two phases, permits for each structure, in a particular phase, will be submitted around the same time. In the development’s first phase, the two-story units with garages, near Lee’s Summit Road, and the one-story units in the middle of the development will be constructed. The remainder of the two-story units with garages will be constructed in the second phase. Most of the new right-of-way, the parking lots and accompanying sidewalks will be constructed in the first phase. The remainder of the public street and sidewalks will be completed in the second phase.
Elevations:
Whether they are four, three or two-unit buildings, the applicant proposes just two style of structures, two-story structures with garages and one-story structures without garages. The two-story structures will have dormers (above some of the garage doors) and covered front entries. The one-story buildings without the garages will have mission style entries from adjacent patios and gables. All the façades will be predominantly lap siding but will need to have four-foot-tall masonry wainscots (that are higher than indicated on the submitted elevations). Further, those wainscots must wrap at least two feet around the side of the buildings as well as be present on all right-of-way facing façades. The buildings will have composition shingles and the units will have two-bedrooms. None of the units will have basements.
CIP Investments
The City’s 2022-28 Capital Improvement Plan has programed the Woodbury and 25th Street stormwater project, which is located northwest of the subject property, for 2026-27. This project will address the lack of stormwater facilities in that area. The applicant’s project will not have an impact on the CIP project.
Traffic Study:
The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Study, which analyzes the traffic impacts on the surrounding roadway network for the Existing and Existing + Site traffic-volume scenarios. The Study concluded the addition of the development traffic has minimal impact on existing traffic operations. The analysis indicated that no turn lanes are warranted at the intersection of S Lee’s Summit Road & the Proposed Site Drive. However, a left turn lane into the school is currently warranted and the City’s traffic division is recommending striping of a left turn lane for the entrance to this addition as part of the first phase.
Streets, Driveways and Parking Lots:
The right-of-way with its two, appendage cul-de-sacs will be labeled and addresses as one street; a public street, build to City standards and having accompanying public sidewalks on both sides. A limited access drive, for the use of emergency vehicles, will be constructed leading from the street to the northwest corner of the property where it will connect with S. Trail Ridge Drive, but be gated. Driveways to the units accessing the right-of-way will provide parking for one car and lead to a single garage providing parking for another. The two parking lots provided for the units without garages will each provide 36 spaces (2 handicapped spaces) for 19 and 23-units. Staff believes, given the expected senior residents, more handicapped spaces should be provided than ADA requires. Lastly, a 16-space parking lot will be provided for the community building.
Landscape, Screening and Berm:
When the Final Development Plan is submitted, in addition to the street trees indicated on the Preliminary Development Plan, trees and shrubs should be provided around the parking lot perimeters and buildings as indicated in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The stands of trees abutting the west and northwest sides of the property appear to be adequate buffers. Along the southern edge of the property, where there is some thick landscaping in place, Medium-Intensity landscaping, as defined in the UDO, should be planted. Lastly, a four-foot-tall berm should be constructed along the S. Lee’s Summit Road right-of-way.
Recommendations and decisions for proposed planned unit development rezoning and its accompanying preliminary development plan must be based on consideration of the criteria listed in Section 14-703-05-H:
1. The Conformance of the requested zoning with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan envisions Residential Neighborhoods uses for this vicinity. The proposed multiple-family use, and the rezoning of the southern tract from C-1 to R-18/PUD, will be in keeping with the plan’s vision
2. Conformance of the requested zoning with any adopted neighborhood or sub-area plans in which the property is located or abuts.
There are not any subarea plans that cover the vicinity around this proposed development;
3. The compatibility of the proposed zoning with the zoning and use of nearby property, including any overlay zoning.
The proposed zoning will be most compatible with the Mansion Apartment across Lee’s Summit Road to the southeast and with the Glendale Elementary located directly across the street. The development is arguably less compatible with the adjacent and nearby single-family residential uses; however, the applicant has minimized the impact via buffering and similar architectural style;
4. The compatibility of the proposed zoning and allowed uses with the character of the neighborhood.
Although the residential uses in the immediate vicinity are largely single-family residential, there is R-18/PUD zoning 2½-blocks to the southeast containing a large apartment complex with hundreds of units. Further, the property across the street is an elementary school. The masonry façades of the proposed buildings will be somewhat reflective of the façade standard of the adjacent single-family development to the south;
5. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted under the existing zoning regulations.
The more northern tract, being zoned R-6, is in keeping with the surrounding zonings. The southern tract less so without some aesthetic standards;
6. The length of time the subject property has remained vacant as zoned.
The southern property has never been developed. The northern property has a residence;
7. The extent to which approving the rezoning will detrimentally affect nearby properties.
With the medium intensity landscape screening prescribed by the UDO, detrimental effects could be mitigated;
8. The gain, if any, to the public health, safety and welfare due to denial of the application, as compared to the hardship imposed upon the landowner, if any, as a result of denial of the application.
If the rezoning is denied, the developer will not be able to build at the density he wishes. If approved, proposed use will advance the Guiding Principle of creating a diversity of housing and thus the welfare of the community.
Draft Planning Commission minutes:
"Case 22-125-08 – Rezoning – 2610 and 2612 S. Lee’s Summit Road
Staff Presentation
Brian Harker presented the case. Mr. Harker 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. Harker outlined the following conditions:
1) For the Final Development Plan, create a denser landscaped buffer along the southern edge of the property. Create a Medium-Intensity landscape buffer per the landscaping section of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO);
2) Provide a four-foot high berm along Lee’s Summit Road. Submit a cross-section elevation with the Final Development Plan;
3) All sidewalks provided must be 5-foot wide to meet ADA requirements;
4) Provide parking lot parameter trees and shrubs, and shrubs around the buildings (the exact number of plantings worked out with staff for the Final Development Plan);
5) The Final Development Plan should provide an elevation of a entry sign/feature;
6) Stripe a left-turn lane at the entrance to the proposed development;
7) The Masonry façades on the front elevations of the buildings must be carried for at least two feet onto the adjacent side elevations and across all right-of-way facing façades;
8) On the Final Development Plan, label the new public right-of-way, “E. 26th Terrace Court S.” The units will be addressed on the Final Development Plan as well;
9) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a replat of the property shall be approved.
Applicant Comments
Bill Moore, attorney with Rouse Frets White Goss Gentile Rhodes, 4510 Belview Ave, Kansas City, stated he represents the applicants. Mr. Moore stated this is a unique project between a church and a private developer. His applicants would like to provide housing options to senior citizens. Mr. Moore stated he does have a couple of question for staff. The first question is the request for medium density landscaping in addition to the fence or in lieu of the fence. The second question is pertaining to the width of the sidewalks requested by staff.
Joseph O’Loughlin, 3601 S. Marshall Drive, stated he has a background in aging services and property development. He said this development would create housing for independent living for senior citizens. The units would be wheelchair accessible and create an important community for those residents. Mr. O’Loughlin provided an overview of the floorplan and noted all of the units will have two bedroom and two bathrooms. There will be units with and without garages.
Bryan Rahn, High Point Design Studio, 1000 NW High Point Drive, Lee’s Summit, stated this project meets a need of the community. Mr. Rahn reviewed the plans and noted they took rising construction costs into consideration on this plan.
Mr. O’Loughlin reviewed the conditions outlined by staff and stated they are okay with the conditions. He stated they held a neighborhood meeting on April 14, 2022, to talk about this project with surrounding property owners. He said they incorporated some changes into their plans after talking with neighbors. Mr. O’Loughlin reviewed some of the numbers from the Traffic Impact Study.
Brandon Watkiss, Englewood Assembly of God Church, 717 SW 40th Street, Blue Springs, stated he is the pastor of the church. He said the church originally wished to put a school and/or a new church on this property. Since it is not a viable option currently, they seek to work with Mr. O’Loughlin to create this development. Mr. Watkiss stated they believe this meets a housing need for the City of Independence.
In response to Mr. Moore’s questions, Mr. Harker stated the fence is rod-iron and the medium density landscaping would create a better buffer. In response to the sidewalk width question, Mr. Arroyo stated the ADA requirement for a sidewalk is 5-feet to allow two wheelchairs side by side.
Public Comments
Jim Wallen, 4710 Mayview Terrace Court, Blue Springs, stated he wishes this project would have been completed several years ago. He said when he and his wife needed somewhere to go after having major surgery, they had issues finding a good place to go. Mr. Wallen stated the places he could find were out of their price range.
JC Ganote, 2804 NW Nutall Court, Lee’s Summit, stated he agrees that this is a good project. He said something has to happen with the property, whether it’s a commercial use as it’s zoned now, or housing as proposed. He believes this type of housing is needed in Independence.
Gigi Yates, 16303 E. Ellison Way, stated she’s recently been homeless. She stated she believes housing like this is needed in Independence and is in favor of this application.
At Vice-Chair Preston’s request, Mr. O’Loughlin spoke about the results of the neighborhood meetings. Mr. O’Loughlin stated they met with the Drumm Farm Homeowner Association who stated they would like to see the property remain vacant; however, they understood that it couldn’t remain that way forever. He said they were okay with the plans he submitted. In April, they held a meeting at the Midwest Genealogy Library. Several residents were concerned about their property values declining. Mr. O’Loughlin stated neighbors requested more buffering, which was added to the plans. He noted the homes will have a variety of gables so it will look like a nice neighborhood.
Curt George, 2701 Breckenridge Drive, questioned if the cottonwood tree behind his residence would be cut down.
John Olivarez, 2525 S. Lee’s Summit Road, stated he believes this type of development is needed for the city, but does not believe this is a good location. He said surrounding residents have a lot of issues already. Mr. Olivarez stated they have a lot of traffic from schools and from I-70. He would like to see single family houses at this location. Mr. Olivarez said the duplexes in the area are unsightly. He noted emergency vehicles fly down Lee’s Summit Road, and he noted he would like to see ambulances use 291 instead. Mr. Olivarez stated he never got a notification about the neighborhood meeting.
Kent Maune, 2507 S. Lee’s Summit Road, stated he also did not get notification of the meetings. He said his main concern is traffic in the area and doesn’t believe the traffic study is correct. Mr. Maune described several traffic issues he’s seen in the area and said a traffic light should be required if this development goes in.
George Kapke, 15800 E. 27th Street, stated he attended a neighborhood meeting and stated it was not as described by Mr. Loughlin. He said neighbors brought up a lot of concerns about this project. Mr. Kapke said this proposal is too dense in this single-family residential area. He stated the neighboring properties will see a decline in property values. Mr. Kapke stated he is concerned about the lack of buffering from the south side of this development and the north side of Drumm Farm. He expressed concern about the traffic and parking availability for the development. Mr. Kapke said the City cannot guarantee that this will be used for only senior citizens. He said as soon as there is a vacancy, the developer will take the first available tenant, regardless of age. Mr. Kapke said there is not room for the denser landscaping.
James Psaras, 2713 S. Woodbury Drive, stated he is not in favor of this project due to the density and traffic concerns. He said he’s also concerned about the water runoff from this project.
Ted Sikora, 2816 S. Woodbury Drive, stated the development plan shows a dog park and community house along Lee’s Summit Road. He questioned the berm location and if there would still be room for the dog park.
Steve Weller, 15804 E. 27th Street, stated he is concerned that the City can’t guarantee this will remain housing for only senior citizens. He stated he believed all of the units should have garages, if the developer is concerned about the safety of the seniors. Mr. Weller said when he purchased the property he was told the vacant lot would be a school or church. He stated he would not have purchased the property if he’d know multi-unit housing could go in the lot. Mr. Weller stated he believes Independence has enough senior housing. He noted at the neighborhood meeting he felt the applicant was being threatening, stating that if this development isn’t approved, worse things could go in the current zoning. He said they were threatened with baseball fields and shipping containers.
John Darst, 2741 S. Breckenridge, stated he agrees with those comments made by those in opposition of this project. He said he is concerned about two large parking lots planned.
Pam Nickerson, 2420 S. Lee’s Summit Road, stated she agrees with those comments made by those in opposition of this project. She asked if the Independence School District is okay with this project being right across the street from an elementary school. Ms. Nickerson expressed concern about the proposed sidewalks. She asked if the church would retain ownership of the property and questioned if the church could use it for homeless or less fortunate citizens.
Patricia Moore, 2705 S. Haden Court, stated she believes this could be a good development, but does not believe this is the right place for it. Ms. Moore expressed concerns over traffic and discussed the number of accidents she and her neighbors see. She stated she’s also worried about large trees being planted right under power lines.
Mr. Moore stated the Traffic Impact Study was done using the city parameters and was reviewed by the City’s traffic engineer. He noted the additional striping was at the City’s suggestion. He stated the location was the drive was selected in consultation with City staff.
In response to Commissioner Nesbitt’s question, Mr. Moore stated the drive would like up with the entrance of the Glendale Elementary School. Mr. Moore noted there would be one entrance and one exit, like Drumm Farm Villas. He stated there is an emergency exit drive for emergency vehicles.
Mr. Moore stated this development can be restricted for senior housing and there are certain requirements that have to be met. He said if the requirements aren’t met, it would be a violation of the Fair Housing Law. He described the process to put age restrictions in place, including creating restrictive covenants that will bind the property to those regulations. He noted removing covenants would not be an easy process.
In response to the questions about landscaping, Mr. Moore noted it will take some time for medium density landscaping to grow.
At 8:50 p.m. Vice-Chair Preston called for a 10-minute break. The meeting was called back to order at 9:00 p.m.
Mr. O’Loughlin stated if you look at similar housing developments, they do not negatively affect surrounding homes. He noted the trees would start out as small trees and would be large, beautiful trees in several years. Mr. O’Loughlin stated the church would remain a property owner and they would work together to accomplish this development. He noted it would be owned by an LLC and he and the church would be the owners. Mr. O’Loughlin stated this would be a maintenance free development, where grass and other maintenance would be provided, including changing light bulbs for residents.
In response to Commissioner Nesbitt’s question, Mr. O’Loughlin stated this type of housing is in demand and showed as under served in the City’s recent Housing Study. He clarified this will be classified as independent living. The current projected rent would be $1,250- for those units without a garage and $1,400 for garage units. He noted living space is just under 1,000 square feet. Mr. O’Loughlin stated there will be room for trees in the back yards, even though there is only 25-feet. He noted the front of the units will have large front porches for residents to enjoy.
In response to Commissioner Nesbitt’s question, Mr. Rahn stated the development is designed so vehicles will not use the sidewalks for parking. He said the garage width is approximately 12-feet and noted typical parking is 9-feet wide. Mr. Rahn stated the City has parking requirements and the two parking lots would provide 36 spots for residents and visitors to use.
Mr. O’Loughlin confirmed all units will have 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms.
In response to Commission Michell’s question, Mr. Lauber explained restrictive covenants and noted it would not be up to the City to enforce those covenants. Mr. Harker noted these units would only be on one, possibly two parcels.
In response to Commissioner Ferguson’s question, Mr. O’Loughlin confirmed there would not be steps anywhere in the development, including the sidewalks. He noted there would be gentle slopes and benches throughout. Mr. Arroyo said PROWAG (Public Right-of-way Accessibility Guidelines) outlines the slope requirements to be ADA accessible. Mr. Arroyo noted typically the developer will grade the property to ensure it can conform with those standards. Mr. Arroyo confirmed the proposed streets would be City streets.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Nesbitt expressed concern that we will require large trees under power lines that will eventually require the City to trim. Commissioner Nesbitt questioned why a streetlight would not be required. Mr. Arroyo stated Professional Traffic Operations Engineers (PTOE) use national guidelines when determining if a streetlight is needed. He noted lights usually require thousands of vehicles or a site distance issue.
Vice-Chair Preston asked if parking would be allowed on the street. Mr. Moore stated as final development plan is configured, that issue would be addressed. He said it may be a neighborhood driven issue rather than a City restriction. Mr. Moore stated they don’t anticipate a need for on-street parking.
In response to Commissioner Young’s question, Mr. O’Loughlin stated if this project doesn’t get approval, they will look at possibly building a nursing home, or a 3-story building with commercial in the basement and apartments above. He stated he believes those uses would be allowed with its current zoning. Mr. O’Loughlin said they started this project because they felt it would better fit the surrounding neighborhood.
Commissioner Nesbitt stated he believes this development to too dense and too close to surrounding properties. He said he also believes the Traffic Impact Study is wrong and a light should be required.
In response to Vice-Chair Preston’s questions, Mr. Arroyo outlined the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) process. He stated the applicant hires a licensed PTOE and they look at the total number of units and area to determine the number of possible am and pm peak vehicles. There are national standards that PTOEs use for this determination. He noted they look at the need for streetlights and turn lanes. They also look at the capacity needs of those turn lanes, if needed. After the licensed PTOE prepares the TIS for the applicant, the City’s licensed PTOE looks at the report to determine its validity. In response to Vice-Chair Preston’s question, Mr. Arroyo stated the City’s traffic engineer had no cause to question the integrity of the submitted TIS.
Commissioner Preston stated he believes this is one of the better housing developments he’s looked at. He stated he agrees this won’t stay as a vacant lot forever and believes the developer did due diligence with City staff and neighbors to bring it to this point. He said he wishes it could remain vacant but believes this would be a good use for the property.
Commissioner Wiley noted this case will still go to the City Council for a final vote.
Motion
Commissioner Wiley made a motion to approve Case 22-125-08 – Rezoning – 2610 and 2612 S. Lee’s Summit Road, with conditions as outlined by staff. Commissioner Michell seconded the motion. The motion failed to receive a majority vote, with three affirmative and three opposing votes."