Planning Commission Agendas

Planning Commission AGENDA Monday June 11, 2018 6:30 p.m. HOWARD L. BROWN PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 1100 SW SMITH STREET City of Blue Springs  PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY If you will require special accommodations to allow your participation in this meeting, please call 228-0207 (voice) or 228-0250 (TDD) 1. The Chairman will open the public hearing and call for exhibits from the City Attorney. 2. Staff comments 3. Applicant will make a presentation (See time limits on next page) 4. Witnesses in favor of the petition will be called to speak. (See time limits on next page) If you wish to testify, please raise your hand to be recognized. When you are called upon by the Chairman, please come forward to the microphone at the podium to be sworn in by the Public Stenographer. State your name and your address clearly, and make your comments to the Commission. Please refrain from repeating points made by others. 5. Witnesses opposed to the petition will be called to speak. (See time limits on next page) If you wish to testify, please raise your hand to be recognized. When you are called upon by the Chairman, please come forward to the microphone at the podium to be sworn in by the Public Stenographer. State your name and your address clearly, and make your comments to the Commission. Please refrain from repeating points made by others. 6. Questions and General Discussion 7. The Chairman will close the public hearing, and the Commission will consider the facts and approve or deny the request.  A recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for their review and action.  City of Blue Springs PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MANAGEMENT CRITERIA  Introduction – Open Public Hearing - Introduce Items – Call for Exhibits  Staff Presentation – No more than 10 minutes  Questions from Commission – No time limit  Applicant (petitioner) presentation – No more than 15 minutes  Questions from Commission – No time limit  Proponents – each – No more than 5 minutes (No Redundancy)  Questions from Commission – No time limit  Opponents (if using a spokesperson) – No more than 15 minutes  Questions from the Commission – No time limit  Opponents (each) – No more than 5 minutes (No Redundancy)  Questions from Commission – No time limit  Commission discussion  Close Public Hearing  New items will not be started after 10:00 p.m. unless decided by the Planning Commission. Special Meetings will be called when necessary with the recommendation of Staff and the Chairperson. ###  Howard L. Brown Public Safety Building – 1100 SW Smith Street PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Monday, June 11, 2018 - 6:30 p.m. Planning Commissioners please call 228-0207 if unable to attend 1 CALL TO ORDER – PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - CONSENT AGENDA (All items under Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.) a) MINUTES May 14, 2018 2 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAN & SITE PLAN/DESIGN REVIEW / PUDS-05-18- 6407 / “Sunset Plaza” / 746-802 SW Eastbound US 40 Highway 3 OTHER BUSINESS – The next scheduled meeting is Monday, June 25, 2018. 4 ADJOURN If special accommodations are required for citizen participation in this meeting, PLEASE CALL 228-0207 (VOICE) OR 228-0250 (TDD) Posted at the Municipal Annex Building located at 1304 W Main Street and on the City’s website. http://www.bluespringsgov.com/AgendaCenter June 5, 2018 Karen Findora, Administrative Assistant Community Development 06.11.2018 Page 1 of 1 kf  City of Blue Springs 903 Main Blue Springs, Missouri 64015 Planning Commission MINUTES Monday, May 14, 2018 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Blue Springs was held in the Howard L. Brown Public Safety Building located at 1100 SW Smith Street on Monday, May 14, 2018 with the following members, guests and staff in attendance: ATTENDANCE Ken Billups Jr. Chad Sanderson Jackie Fairbanks Scott Casey Vacant Travis Graham Joe Haney, Vice-Chairman Mitchell Peil Lynn Banks, Chairman Mike Mallon, Acting Community Development Director Matt Wright, Senior Planner Chris Sandie, Director, Public Works Jackie Sommer, City Attorney Susan Culpepper, Councilman – District 3 (Mayor Pro-Tem) Karen Findora, Planning Commission Liaison Jim Leacock, Public Stenographer ABSENT Planning Commissioner Byron Craddolph Planning Commissioner Ginger Duhon CALL TO ORDER Chairman Banks called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with a request that everyone stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Banks requested action on the Consent Agenda with a motion by APPROVAL Commissioner Mitchell Peil, a second from Commissioner Jackie Fairbanks, and a unanimous vote, the Minutes of April 23, 2018, were approved as submitted. AGENDA ITEM 2 The public hearing for Agenda Item 2 was opened at 6:32 p.m. with a request PUBLIC HEARING for exhibits from the City Attorney. Ms. Jackie Sommer noted on the public DE-ANNEXATION/ record that this property was involuntarily annexed into the City in 1974. The DEAX-04-18-6359/ P.C. Minutes – 05.14.2018 Page 1 of 6 kf/mk “William & Linda Dunning” / City had intent to provide service to this property, but sewer service was 1750 E Pink Hill Rd. never established, violating a court order. She further introduced Exhibits 1 through 8 for Agenda Item 2 into the public record on behalf of the applicant. Exhibits: 1. Staff Report with attachments 2. Affidavit of Publication in The Examiner on April 28, 2018 3. Application with attachments 4. 185ft. Notification Map 5. Names/addresses of property owners within 185ft. of site 6. Copy of letter sent to said property owners 7. Title IV, Land Use Section – Blue Springs Code of Ordinances (by reference) 8. 2014 Comprehensive Plan (by reference) Mike Mallon, Acting Community Development Director, stated that before the Planning Commission is a request for a recommendation for approval of a De-Annexation for property located at 1750 NE Pink Hill Rd. The property is approximately one (1) acre in size and is zoned “RE” (Residential Estate). The applicants own the property to the north, abutting NE Pink Hill Road within Jackson County, that contains a single-family detached house. The property to be De-Annexed has been a part of the City since 1974, and has not had any development on it thus far. The property is served by Independence water and has a septic system for sewer. The applicants have desire to build an accessory structure/barn on their property, and when they inquired at the County level, they were told there was a 50ft. setback to the County property line that they had to adhere to. Building this structure on the County property would be difficult, if not impossible due to the location of their house and the setback demanded by the County. This request is to bring both properties into the same jurisdiction, and allow for the building of their desired accessory structure. Staff finds that the proposed De-Annexation request does not have any negative impacts with regards to the Comprehensive Plan, and is appropriate in nature. The subject property is rural in location, along the outer edge of the City limits, and does not front any public right-of-way. Since this property is adjacent to County property, a De-Annexation would not create a gap/enclave in the City boundaries. Staff recommends approval of the De-Annexation request, and it will be heard by City Council on May 21st. APPLICANT William & Linda Dunning, Homeowners 1750 E Pink Hill Rd. Grain Valley, MO 64029 QUESTIONS Commissioner Fairbanks inquired how long the applicants have owned the property, and if they made the purchase of both parcels. Mr. Dunning stated that he and his wife purchased the property four (4) years ago and were unaware that their property was two separate parcels. Commissioner Billups asked how the parcels are grouped for tax purposes. Chairman Banks noted that both parcels could be titled together, only if they are underneath the same jurisdiction, if the homeowners choose to. P.C. Minutes – 05.14.2018 Page 2 of 6 kf/mk  Commissioner Fairbanks inquired if the applicants could construct the barn in the SE corner of their Jackson County parcel, and meet the 50ft. setback and avoid De-Annexation. Mr. Dunning noted that the SE corner would not be favorable for building, and it would be a considerable distance from their access drive and their house. The barn may be entirely within the County parcel, but the 50ft. setback would be applied to the City parcel instead, with De-Annexation. Commissioner Casey asked if Annexation of the County parcel would be an option. Mr. Dunning said it could, but receiving City services would be too costly and would likely take a considerable amount of time. Ms. Dunning noted that they requested to build the barn entirely within the City parcel, but were denied as it has no street access or utilities. WITNESSES None. IN FAVOR WITNESSES None. OPPOSED HEARING CLOSED With no further discussion, Chairman Banks closed the public hearing at 6:51 p.m. MOTION Commissioner Ken Billups Jr. recommended the approval of De-Annexation AGENDA ITEM 2 / DEAX-04-18-6359 / “William & Linda Dunning.” PUBLIC HEARING DE-ANNEXATION/ DEAX-04-18-6359/ “William & Linda Dunning” 1750 E Pink Hill Rd. SECOND Seconded by Commissioner Joe Haney. VOTE Ken Billups Jr. – Aye Jackie Fairbanks – Aye Chad Sanderson – Aye Mitchell Peil - Aye Ginger Duhon – Absent Byron Craddolph – Absent Travis Graham – Aye Scott Casey – Aye Joe Haney, Vice Chairman - Aye Vacant Lynn Banks, Chairman – Aye (APPROVED 8-Aye, 0-No) AGENDA ITEM 3 Matt Wright, Senior Planner, Community Development, stated that before MASTER/ALTERNATIVE the Planning Commission is a request for approval of a Master/Alternative SIGN PLAN / ASP-03-18- Sign Plan for Sports & Luxury Auto, located at 1928 NW Woods Chapel Rd., 6308 / “Sports & Luxury fronting I-70. This property is zoned “LI” (Light Industrial) and received a Auto, LLC” / 1928 NW Conditional Use Permit in February 2017 to allow for, “Outdoor Sales & Woods Chapel Rd. Service - Equipment and Vehicle Repair, Limited”. This sign plan is to remove the existing pole sign and install a new one 30ft to the northwest. This existing pole sign exceeds the maximum 35ft. height requirement and the sign overhangs into the public right-of-way, where all portions of the sign would need to be located within the property. Pole signs are allowed along the I-70 right-of-way through the Master/Alternative Sign Plan process; and P.C. Minutes – 05.14.2018 Page 3 of 6 kf/mk  the proposed pole sign will meet the 35ft. height requirement, and will be located at least 20ft. from the I-70 right-of-way. This sign plan calls for two signs bearing the same “Sports & Luxury Auto” logo; one mounted on the proposed pole sign at 160sq. ft., and the other is a wall sign facing NW Woods Chapel Rd. at 32sq. ft. The combined 192sq. ft. sign area is well below the total allowed sign area by code, of 714sq. ft. Staff recommends approve of this Master/Alternative Sign Plan with one (1) staff condition. APPLICANT Ellis Gorden, Sports & Luxury Auto 1928 NW Woods Chapel Rd Blue Springs, MO 64015 QUESTIONS None. MOTION Commissioner Ken Billups Jr. moved to approve the Master/Alternative Sign AGENDA ITEM 3 Plan / ASP-03-18-6308 / “Sports & Luxury Auto, LLC” with one (1) staff PUBLIC HEARING condition. MASTER/ALTERNATIVE SIGN PLAN / ASP-03-18- 6308 / “Sports & Luxury Auto, LLC” / 1928 NW Woods Chapel Rd. SECOND Seconded by Commissioner Travis Graham. VOTE Ken Billups Jr. – Aye Jackie Fairbanks – Aye Chad Sanderson - Aye Mitchell Peil - No Ginger Duhon – Absent Byron Craddolph – Absent Travis Graham – Aye Scott Casey – Aye Joe Haney, Vice Chairman - Aye Vacant Lynn Banks, Chairman – Aye (APPROVED 7-Aye, 1-No,) STAFF CONDITIONS 1. Upon approval of this Master/Alternative Sign Plan, all sign permits and building permits must be obtained prior to installation of signage, electrical, and lighting improvements. AGENDA ITEM 6 ELECTION OF OFFICERS MOTION Commissioner Jackie Fairbanks made a motion to elect Commissioner Lynn PLANNING COMMISSION Banks as Planning Commission Chair. CHAIR Seconded by Commissioner Travis Graham. (APPROVED 8-Aye, 0-No) Commissioner Mitchell Peil made a motion to elect Commissioner Ken MOTION Billups Jr. as Planning Commission Vice-Chair. PLANNING COMMISSION Seconded by Commissioner Travis Graham. VICE-CHAIR (APPROVED 8-Aye, 0-No) P.C. Minutes – 05.14.2018 Page 4 of 6 kf/mk MOTION Commissioner Mitchell Peil made a motion to elect Commissioner Ginger BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Duhon as Board of Adjustment Liaison. LIAISON Seconded by Commissioner Jackie Fairbanks. (APPROVED 8-Aye, 0-No) MOTION Commissioner Ken Billups Jr. made a motion to elect Commissioner Travis BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Graham as Board of Adjustment Alternate Liaison. ALT. LIAISON Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell Peil. (APPROVED 8-Aye, 0-No) MOTION Commissioner Jackie Fairbanks made a motion to elect Commissioner DEVELOPMENT Mitchell Peil as Development Advisory Commission Representative and ADVISORY COMMISSION Chairman. REP. & CHAIRMAN Seconded by Commissioner Travis Graham. (APPROVED 8-Aye, 0-No) DOWNTOWN REVIEW Pending the Monday, May 21, 2018 City Council meeting: BOARD REP.1 Commissioner Ken Billups Jr. DOWNTOWN REVIEW Pending the Monday, May 21, 2018 City Council meeting: BOARD REP. 2 Commissioner Joe Haney DOWNTOWN REVIEW Pending the Monday, May 21, 2018 City Council meeting: BOARD ALT. REP. Commissioner Jackie Fairbanks MOTION Commissioner Lynn Banks made a motion to elect Commissioner Ken HISTORIC Billups Jr. as Historic Preservation Representative. PRESERVATION REP. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell Peil. (APPROVED 8-Aye, 0-No) MOTION Commissioner Scott Casey made a motion to elect Commissioner Byron SOLID WASTE Craddolph as Solid Waste Management Commission Liaison. MANAGEMENT Seconded by Commissioner Travis Graham. COMMISSION LIAISON (APPROVED 8-Aye, 0-No) MOTION Commissioner Ken Billups Jr. made a motion to elect Commissioner Chad TECHNICAL REVIEW Sanderson as Technical Review Committee Representative. COMMITTEE REP. Seconded by Commissioner Travis Graham. (APPROVED 8-Aye, 0-No) OTHER BUSINESS The Tuesday, May 29, 2018 Planning Commission meeting has been cancelled due to lack of agenda items. Commissioner Peil shared details about his experience attending the annual APA Conference, and provided a report to each of the Commissioners. MEETING ADJOURN With no further discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Mitchell Peil to adjourn at 7:13 p.m. Seconded by Commissioner Jackie Fairbanks. P.C. Minutes – 05.14.2018 Page 5 of 6 kf/mk MEDIA LINK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HRbmw4orUk ____________________________________ Respectfully Submitted by Karen Findora, Recording Secretary ____________________________________ __________________________ Lynn Banks, Chairman Date P.C. Minutes – 05.14.2018 Page 6 of 6 kf/mk  PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: June 11, 2018 Agenda Item: 2 Case File Number: PUDS-05-18-6407 Project Name: Sunset Plaza Type of Application: PUD Final Plan & Site Plan Design Review Request: Approval of PUD Final Plan and Site Plan / Design Review for a minor amendment to the Sunset Plaza PUD. Applicant: Chris Hafner / Davidson Architecture & Engineering Property Owner: Justin Kauffman / Enterprises Sunset Plaza LLC Project Lead: Chris Hafner / Davidson Architecture & Engineering Developer: Justin Kauffman / Enterprises Sunset Plaza LLC Engineer: Paul Miller / Davidson Architecture & Engineering Architect: Chris Hafner / Davidson Architecture & Engineering Landscape Architect: Kevin Vogt / VerdiGris Studio Midwest Surveyor Timothy Blair Wiswell / Olsson Associates Attorney Evan F. Fitts / Polsinelli Location (Address): 746-802 SW Eastbound U.S. 40 Highway General Location: 500’ west of 7 Highway, between 40 Highway & Sunset Ave Area: 4.556 +/- acres Lots: 3 existing lots Existing Zoning: “GB/PUD” (General Business / Planned Unit Development) Existing Land Use: Existing General Commercial Buildings Comprehensive Plan Designation: Distinct Destination & Light Industrial Attachments:  Site Plan  Building Elevations  Landscape Plan  Photometric Plan Planning Commission: June 11, 2018 City Council: N/A Planner: Nathan Jurey, Associate Planner Page 1 of 10  Project: Sunset Plaza Case: PUDS-05-18-6407 BACKGROUND INFORMATION/SUMMARY: The Sunset Plaza Planned Unit Development (PUD) Final Plan was originally approved in 1987. It was later modified in 1988 and 1995, as properties developed. Currently, all four (4) lots have been developed in some form. Lot 1 includes a 41,941-sq. ft. multi-tenant, commercial building. An approximate 4,300-sq. ft. Fazoli’s restaurant is located on Lot 2. A 3,588-sq. ft. commercial building with Pancho’s restaurant and Advance America Cash Advance is located on Lot 3. An ATM drive-through is located on Lot 4. The developer, Enterprise Sunset Plaza LLC, requests to amend the PUD Final Plan to remove the ATM from Lot 4 and construct a 3,100-sq. ft. fast-food restaurant; demolish a portion of the commercial building on Lot 1 to connect 40 Highway and Sunset Avenue with a private drive; and re-façade the existing buildings with an updated design. Lot 2 (Fazoli’s) is not included in this PUD Final Plan request. While the Sunset Plaza PUD was originally approved under the 1995 Unified Development Code (UDC) provisions, new buildings must meet current UDC requirements. Thus, staff reviewed this project under the current UDC requirements for Planned Developments (PD), instead of the 1995 PUD requirements. Planning Commission must review this proposal because it changes the approved building and use on Lot 4 from an ATM drive-through to a fast-food restaurant. While major deviations require amendment to the Concept Plan, staff believes this proposal meets the “minor deviation” criteria that only warrants an amended Final Plan. The proposal meets the “minor deviation” criteria because it decreases the total building area and has limited impact on public roads and infrastructure. PREVIOUS ACTIONS/APPROVALS:  On September 8, 1987, City Council approved the PUD Final Plan / Plat (PUD-5-1987) for four (4) buildings on Lots 1-4 of Sunset Plaza PUD, encompassing 5.934 +\- acres (Ord. 1668).  On August 1, 1988, City Council approved a revised PUD Final Plan / Plat (PUD-8-1988) for two (2) general commercial buildings on Lots 1 and 3 of Sunset Plaza PUD, encompassing 3.989 +\- acres (Ord. 1771).  On October 2, 1995, City Council approved a revised PUD Final Plan (PUD-5-1995) for an ATM facility on Lot 4 of Sunset Plaza PUD, encompassing 0.54 +\- acres (Ord. 2614).  On November 6, 1995, City Council approved a revised PUD Final Plan (PUD-7-1995) for Fazoli’s restaurant on Lot 2 of Sunset Plaza PUD, encompassing 1.37 +\- acres (Ord. 2624). FUTURE APPLICATIONS/REVIEWS ANTICIPATED OR REQUIRED: The applicable construction and sign permits must be obtained prior to installation. ABUTTING ZONING AND LAND USES: Direction Current Zoning Surrounding Land Uses North: Right-of-Way Arterial (40 Hwy.) South: Right-of-Way Local Street (SW Sunset Ave.) East: “GB” (General Business) Bank & Retail Building West: “GB / PUD” (General Business / Restaurant Planned Unit Development) Page 2 of 10  Project: Sunset Plaza Case: PUDS-05-18-6407 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this application with six (6) conditions. SITE PLAN/DESIGN REVIEW Phasing: The first phase will remove a portion of the existing building on Lot 1, renovate buildings on Lots 1 & 3, and update the site lighting and landscaping. Phase 2 involves the removal of the existing ATM facility and the development of a fast- food restaurant on Lot 4. Building Mass & Setbacks: The proposal removes a portion of the existing commercial building on Lot 1, leaving two separate buildings. Additionally, the proposal adds a 3,100-sq. ft. fast- food restaurant building on Lot 4, replacing the existing drive-through ATM machine. A revised Final Plan may be approved if it does not increase the total building area by more than five (5%) percent. The proposed buildings reduce the total building area by 2,881 sq. ft. Thus, this is an allowed change in building mass. EXISTING PROPOSED NET +/- Lot 1 41,941 sq. ft. Building 1: 26,563 sq. ft. - 5,981 sq. ft. Building 2: 9,397 sq. ft. Lot 3 3,588 sq. ft. 3,588 sq. ft. -- Lot 4 ATM Facility 3,100 sq. ft. + 3,100 sq. ft. TOTAL - 2,881 sq. ft. The chart below details the setback requirements for only the new building – the Pad Site Building on Lot 4. Buildings on Lots 1 & 3 were originally approved and constructed as part of the Sunset Plaza PUD. Thus, the building footprint on Lots 1 & 3 may remain as approved by the Sunset Plaza PUD or be reduced as proposed. Pad Site Building on Lot 4 Item Zoning / Frontage Requirement Proposed Building GB/PUD 65% max. 13.1% Coverage: Building 15 ft to 30 ft, up GB/PUD 22.6 ft. Height: to 2 stories. North Setback GB/PUD 15’ or 25’ 22.75 ft. (Front): Adjacent to 40 Hwy (Buffer B) South GB/PUD Setback 20 ft > 30 ft. Adjacent to GB/PUD (Rear): East Setback GB/PUD 10 ft > 60 ft. (Side): Adjacent to GB West Setback GB/PUD 10 ft > 75 ft. (Side): Adjacent to GB/PUD Page 3 of 10  Project: Sunset Plaza Case: PUDS-05-18-6407 Vehicle Access & Traffic: The proposal retains all existing access drives in their current locations (2 on 40 Highway and 3 on Sunset Avenue), except for moving the easternmost truck entrance further west to align the private drive connection from 40 Highway to Sunset Avenue with White Oak Marketplace to the south. The City is not requiring a traffic study because the proposal decreases the building area and the new traffic alignment between Sunset Avenue and 40 Highway will not significantly impact the public road network, since the only impacted private driveway is a right-in/right-out access drive on 40 Highway. Additionally, this proposal did not warrant a traffic study for MoDOT either. Parking: To calculate parking requirements according to UDC Section 407.010, the proposed uses must be known. In this case, all the uses on Lot 1 are not known. In similar past situations, staff has calculated the parking requirement for entire shopping centers based on the entire building being a retail use because the required parking for retail is between restaurant and office. With that, Lot 1 has 20 more parking spaces than required and Lot 4 has nine (9) less than required for fast-food restaurants. To meet parking requirements, the developer proposes to share nine (9) extra spaces from Lot 1 with Lot 4. Prior to building permit issuance for Lot 4, a shared parking agreement between Lots 1 & 4 must be submitted to Community Development. The agreement must be a recorded document at Jackson County that meets UDC parking requirements. Existing Required Proposed Lot 1 187 166 spaces = 186 spaces (- 9 spaces ((36,460 sf - 25,000 sf) / 250 sf) + shared w/ Lot 4) ((25,000 sf - 2,000 sf) / 200 sf) + (2,000 sf / 400 sf) Lot 3 20 18 spaces = 20 spaces spaces ((1,794 sf x 0.5) / 75 sf for fast-food) + (1,794 sf / 300 sf for office) Lot 4 30 21 spaces = 12 spaces (+ 9 spaces ((3,100 sf x 0.5) / 75 sf for fast-food) shared w/ Lot 1) & 2 bike spaces (21 x 10%) & 3 bike spaces TOTAL 237 spaces Bicycle parking is required at a rate of ten (10%) percent of the required vehicle parking for retail or office use within 1,000 feet of a designated bicycle route, such as 40 Highway. However, this only applies to the new development located on Lot 4. Thus, Lot 4 is required two (2) bicycle parking spaces; three (3) inverted-U bike spaces are shown near the main entrance of the fast-food restaurant. Pedestrian Access: Public sidewalk is required along the 40 Highway frontage of Lot 4 and the connection to the public sidewalk on the south side of Sunset Avenue. Prior to issuance of occupancy for Lot 4, the public sidewalk on 40 Highway must be completed. Prior to building permit issuance for Lot 1, the sidewalk connection to Sunset Avenue must be moved to the demolition area between the two buildings on Lot 1, unless the grading will not comply with ADA Page 4 of 10  Project: Sunset Plaza Case: PUDS-05-18-6407 requirements. Prior to issuance of occupancy for Lot 1, the private sidewalk connection to Sunset Avenue must be installed. Internal to the site, sidewalks must connect parking areas to buildings. Additionally, sidewalk adjacent to any parking with vehicle overhang must be a minimum of eight (8) feet wide. These standards are met where new sidewalks are proposed. Open Space & Landscaping: The proposed Landscape Plan for Lot 4 meets the required landscaping. Additionally, the developer proposes to install additional landscaping on Lots 1 & 3, even though these lots are already developed and do not require additional landscaping. Thus, the table below provides a calculation of only the required landscaping on Lot 4. Landscape Plant Units (PUs) Plant Units Net Plant Types Required Proposed Units (+/-) Buffer Edge Continuous Buffer & Continuous Buffer & N/A (40 Hwy.) 3 Large Trees 3 Large Trees = 225.5’ / 75’ Buffer “B” 101 PUs 116 PUs + 15 PUs (40 Hwy.) = 225.5’ x 0.45 PUs Parking Lot 24 PUs 25 PUs + 1 PU = 12 spaces x 2 PUs Open Space 47 PUs 113 PUs + 66 PUs = 23,570 sf / 500 sf Totals: 172 PUs 254 PUs + 82 PUs However, Buffer “B” is required along 40 Highway. Buffer “B” may be 15-feet wide with 45 plant units per 100 feet or 25-feet wide with 40 plant units per 100 feet. However, this requirement takes over fourteen (14%) percent of the entire property (front 15’ of 104.5’ deep property). The Planning Commission has the authority to reduce or eliminate this buffer requirement, but in doing so they may also require additional measures to mitigate any concerns. The developer is proposing a 10-foot wide landscape buffer and a little over 50 plant units per 100 linear feet of frontage. Lighting: The proposed lighting plan includes thirteen (13) ground mounted light poles. The proposed lighting meets the UDC lighting standards according to the photometric plan. As required by the UDC, any new outdoor lighting or alterations to existing lighting must be submitted and approved through the building permit process. Signage: There are two (2) large existing free-standing signs located on Lot 3: 1 monument sign (for the strip mall) and 1 pole sign (Pancho’s). Any non-conforming signage may remain until it loses its non-conforming status as specified by the UDC and Sign Code, such as by redevelopment of the property or abandoning the use of the sign, property, or business. It does not appear that the developer plans to increase the building area or abandon the use of Lot 3 at any time during the construction process. Additionally, the proposal also shows menu boards for the fast-food restaurant on Lot 4 and wall signs for each building on Lots 1, 3, & 4. The UDC requires multi- Page 5 of 10  Project: Sunset Plaza Case: PUDS-05-18-6407 tenant buildings to obtain Master Sign Plan approval since more signage is typically allowed on a per tenant basis (10% of building façade) than allowed for the entire shopping center (2 sq. ft. per linear foot of street frontage). This can create a situation where several tenants could max out the allowed sign area for the entire shopping center and leave no allowed sign area remaining for future tenants. Thus, prior to Sign Permit issuance, a Master Sign Plan must be approved by the Planning Commission. Public Improvement: The only required public sidewalk improvement is on the south side of 40 Highway for the length of Lot 4. Additionally, a private sidewalk will connect to the public sidewalk on Sunset Avenue. Utilities: All public utilities are accessible. Erosion & Stormwater Drainage: No stormwater study is required because the proposal does not significantly increase the amount of impervious surface over what already exists. The existing stormwater detention area will remain in the southeast corner of the site. The existing chain link fence will remain that encloses the detention area. NON-RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The non-residential design standards of Section 407.090 shall apply in "NB" (Neighborhood Business) and more intensive zoning districts to any new development, building addition or exterior renovation that requires a building permit from the City of Blue Springs. Review for compliance with these standards shall be conducted in accordance with the Site Plan and Design Review Procedures of Section 403.070: A. Prohibited Materials. The following materials shall not be used as exterior building materials and shall be prohibited on all exterior walls: 1. Concrete finishes or precast concrete panels (tilt wall) that are not exposed aggregate, hammered, sandblasted or covered with a cement-based acrylic coating shall be prohibited; 2. Metal panels with a depth of less than one (1) inch or a thickness less than U.S. Standard 26 gauge shall be prohibited; and 3. Mirrored glass with a reflectance greater than forty percent (40%) shall be prohibited from covering more than forty percent (40%) of the exterior walls of any building. B. Preferred Materials. The use of substantial amounts of masonry materials (face brick, stucco, stone) is encouraged. The use of aluminum siding and metal ribbed panels is strongly discouraged. Evaluation of building materials shall be based on the quality of its design and relationship and compatibility to building materials in the immediate neighborhood. C. Form, Scale And Proportion. The form and proportion of buildings shall be consistent with the scale, form and proportion of existing development in the immediate area. D. Masses And Voids. The rhythm of structural mass to voids, such as windows and glass doors, of a front facade shall relate to the rhythms established in adjacent buildings. E. Front And Street Side Exterior Walls. Front and street side exterior walls, excluding windows, doors and overhead doors, consisting of a single undifferentiated plane with a single texture or color shall be prohibited. Visual interest may be accomplished through variations in building plane, materials, colors, entrance canopies, and other design features. F. Visual Interest. Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects shall be avoided. Variation of detail, form, and siting shall be used to provide visual interest. The use of different textures, complementary colors, shadow lines and contrasting shapes may also be used to provide visual interest. Page 6 of 10  Project: Sunset Plaza Case: PUDS-05-18-6407 G. Screening Of Equipment. 1. Roof-mounted equipment. Roof mounted equipment, including ventilators and satellite dishes shall be completely screened from view (one hundred percent (100%) opacity) or isolated so as not to be visible from any public right-of-way or residential zoning district within three hundred (300) feet of the subject lot. Roof-mounted equipment shall be screened entirely from view using parapet walls at the same height as the mechanical units. For additions to existing buildings that do not meet this standard, individual screens may be permitted with the design subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. Parapet walls, and any other approved individual screens, shall be coordinated with the building to maintain a unified appearance. 2. Equipment at ground level. All electrical and mechanical equipment located at ground level shall be screened from view (one hundred percent (100%) opacity) or isolated so as not to be visible from the right-of-way of an arterial street or residential zoning district within three hundred (300) feet of the subject lot. Such screens and enclosures, when used, shall be coordinated with the building to maintain a unified appearance. H. Security And Crime Prevention. Site planning should integrate the principles of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) to the maximum extent practicable. Applicants are encouraged to consult with the Blue Springs Police Department and the Community Development Department regarding implementation of CPTED principles. Applicant participation will be noted on the staff reports delivered to the Planning Commission and to City Council. These principles include: 1. Territoriality. Space within the development and along the edges should be well defined and delineated to create a sense of ownership, such that intruders and strangers stand out. This may be accomplished through the use of pavement treatments, landscaping, art, signage, screening, fencing and similar techniques. 2. Natural surveillance. An environment should be created where it is possible for people engaged in their normal behavior to observe the spaces around them. Space visibility should be maximized through thoughtful design of building orientation, window placement, entrances and exits, landscaping of trees and shrubs and other physical obstructions. Nighttime illumination of parking lots, walkways, entrances, stairwells and related areas should be utilized to promote an environment in which natural surveillance is possible. 3. Access control. Access control should be planned and implemented to restrict criminal intrusion, especially in areas where activity cannot be easily observed. Access control may include but is not limited to use of fences, walls, landscaping and lighting to prevent or discourage public access to or from dark or unmonitored areas. In addition, sidewalks, pavement, lighting and landscaping areas should be used to guide the public to and from primary development entrances and exits. 4. Activity support. Activity support should be implemented by placing new or existing activities in an area so that individuals engaged in a particular activity become part of the natural surveillance of other areas. For example, picnic areas may be located next to tot lots, not away from such areas, to assist in observation of children at play. Additionally, playground fixtures should not be built near ponds or detention basins or near streets. 5. Maintenance. Landscaping, lighting fixtures and other features should be maintained to facilitate the principles of CPTED, territorial reinforcement, natural surveillance and access control. NON-RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS REVIEW Building Design: The proposed building design conforms to the UDC Non-Residential Design guidelines. The proposed development will utilize red (brick), brown, and tan as the main color palette. The existing building on Lot 1 will remain largely the same, except for the demolition area. The demolished walls will be rebuilt mainly with concrete blocks painted to match the existing concrete block. The only variation in material of the new walls is some glass on the east façade of the western building (i.e. the west side of the demolition area). The existing EIFS sign band will either be replaced or Page 7 of 10  Project: Sunset Plaza Case: PUDS-05-18-6407 repaired & painted. The existing building on Lot 3 will also remain much the same, with only the replacement and repair of existing EIFS, new awnings, and a new coat of paint. The new building on Lot 4 is comprised mainly of brick, stone, and glass. Awnings and a patio canopy over the front entrance and restaurant seating area provide some relief from the mass of the building. The building is approximately 3,100 sq. Ft. in area and 22.5 feet tall, including the parapet wall. Additionally, Pad-Site Buildings require thirty (30%) percent transparency at street level. The proposed design only provides 30.6% percent transparency at ground level (0 to 12’ high) on the façade facing 40 Highway. The three street-facing windows cover approximately 268.5 sq. ft. (171, 85.5, & 12 sq. ft.) of the 876-sq. ft. of the ground level wall facing 40 Highway. Screening: Ground-mounted equipment must be screened with landscaping. Any wall- mounted utilities must be hidden from public view. Roof-mounted equipment appears to be adequately screened by a parapet wall that is designed as part of the building. Screening for the trash receptacle will be provided with a split-face concrete masonry unit wall to match or complement the main building. Doors for the enclosure will be metal that should be painted to complement main building. As required by the UDC, screening of all utilities and equipment must be submitted and approved through the building permit process. Security & Crime Prevention: Security and crime prevention principles are integrated into the proposal. The proposed landscaping clearly defines the site boundaries and helps control access. Natural surveillance occurs in the front of the buildings with window transparency. However, the rear of the building on Lot 1 has limited natural surveillance via window transparency. However, the existing light poles and wall mounted light fixtures will help provide some visibility to darker areas. ACTION BY PLANNING COMMISSION The purpose of the Final Plan / Site Plan & Design Review process is to give the Planning Commission an opportunity to review site plans for conformance with adopted standards, or to approve modifications from these standards where the Code specifically authorizes the Planning Commission to act with discretion. The Planning Commission also determines if the use of materials and design of the building, or addition, provides a harmonious relationship with the other buildings in the vicinity, and the character and quality of materials does not detract from existing structures. The Planning Commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with modifications, or deny the application. Action of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. Section 403.070.B of the UDC states a Site Plan & Design Review shall be reviewed according to the following criteria: 1. Compliance with the requirements of this Development Code. 2. The application is consistent with any approved specific plans, overlay districts, concept plans, or other specific design and development policies or standards applicable to the site. Page 8 of 10  Project: Sunset Plaza Case: PUDS-05-18-6407 3. Whether any additional site-specific conditions are necessary to meet the intent and design objectives of any of the applicable development standards. 4. The application meets the criteria for all other reviews needed to build the project as proposed. 5. The recommendations of professional staff. Section 403.040.G of The UDC states a Final Plan shall be reviewed according to the following criteria: 1. The final plan is in substantial compliance with the approved concept plan. 2. Minor deviations may only be approved if they meet or exceed the approved concept plan. Minor deviations shall be: a. An increase in the proposed building footprints of less than five percent (5%). b. An increase in the intensity of the project - less than ten percent (10%) of floor area for non-residential projects and less than five percent (5%) density for residential projects. c. An increase in impervious surfaces such that storm water detention and storm water quality as defined by KCAPWA 5600 are not required. d. An increase in building heights of less than five (5) feet. e. A rearrangement of buildings that does not impact any setback standard, or decreases setbacks by less than five percent (5%). f. A decrease in landscape areas by less than ten percent (10%), provided there is no impact on the performance of stormwater or screening functions from the approved concept plan. g. A decrease in any civic open space or frontage areas by less than five percent (5%), or any similar adjustments to the general location of streets, common areas or other components of the community character plan, provided there is no impact on the performance, screening or urban design functions of the approved concept plan. h. Adjustments to building elevations that do not change the character or relationships of buildings to the public realm and adjacent property. i. Adjustments in proposed building types or uses that do not significantly change the character of the project; a change of ten percent (10%) or more of any building type (by quantity) or any specific use category (by land area or building square footage) will be assumed significant, unless the context of the project and concept plan clearly demonstrate otherwise. j. Changes in ownership patterns, stages of construction or phasing that have no impact on the timing and function of public facilities and that do not alter the delivery of private, common, or public amenities in the concept plan. Any modification that, in the sole discretion of the Director of Community Development, negatively affects or impacts use, investments, or design of public facilities beyond the particular project and site may not be considered a minor change. Any change that violates a condition of approval in the concept plan, or alters the findings of any technical study that supports the approved concept plan, may not be considered a minor change. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed application subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval by the Planning Commission is based on the representations of any drawings presented as part of this application and does not waive any requirement or development standard contained in the UDC nor any condition required by the Planning Commission as part of this approval. 2. The Landscape Buffer Type “B” is reduced from fifteen (15) feet to ten (10) feet with the plant unit requirement of 50 plant units per 100 linear feet of frontage instead of 45 plant units per 100 linear feet. Page 9 of 10  Project: Sunset Plaza Case: PUDS-05-18-6407 3. Prior to building permit issuance for Lot 4, a shared parking agreement between Lots 1 & 4 must be submitted to Community Development. The agreement must be a recorded document at Jackson County that meets UDC parking requirements. 4. Prior to issuance of occupancy for Lot 4, the public sidewalk on 40 Highway must be completed. 5. Prior to building permit issuance for Lot 1, the sidewalk connection to Sunset Avenue must be moved to the demolition area between the two buildings on Lot 1, unless the grading will not comply with ADA requirements. Prior to issuance of occupancy for Lot 1, the private sidewalk connection to Sunset Avenue must be installed. 6. Prior to Sign Permit issuance, a Master Sign Plan must be approved by the Planning Commission. Page 10 of 10  SW 7th Street Ter SW Moore SW SW Moore S St SW 6t h General Zoning Downtown e SW Moor St District Zoning District SW Chicago St 11th St T3 S t et T RE CS SW 13th St SW 4th St SW re SF-12 T3 SW 5th St Chicago er SF-7 T4 SW Moore C St TF T5 MF-10 SW 12th St T3 GB TF MF-14 Overlay Districts SW Chicago St GB MF-18 ADP-O SW 6th St MF-20 H-O TF SW 6th NB SO PR-O R-O SW South Ave Street SW 5th SW Conservation District PLOS SW South Ave Ter St 4th St PUD Concept Plan GB SW 8th St Planned Development CB T5 LI RC LI HI LI SW Eugene SW 10th St ¬ « 7 COUNTY AG RE-C GB-C SF-7 LI LI LI-C HI-C GB GB GB GB £ ¤ 40 SW Jaguar Ln SW Kings Cross Rd SW Sunset Ave SW W SW SITE in ds M SW Skyline Dr GB or SW Luttrell Rd ni Ct or s id e GB SW Consumer ng Dr SW Azure St TF Dr ct or SF-7 SE Vi ard SW SW SW Earl's wy SW Ct Pk th SW 14th Ter 13 Rainbow SW Victor Dr r Ln Ln Te n 's MF-14 GB/ SF-7 Qu ee SW SW Speas Dr SW Tw R-O SW i lig SW m ht Ha SW Horizon Dr Ln Es let SW Sunrise Dr x se Dr Ci r SW Clark Rd RC/R-O SW Westminister Rd SW Clark Ln TF TF SW 11th St SW 13th St RE SW Angelia Ct SW Joy Ct SW Castlerock MF-14 Ct PUDS-05-18-6407 SUNSET PLAZA 746-802 SW EASTBOUND US 40 HWY SITE LOCATION MAP 0 300 ± 600 1,200 Feet  SW 9th SW 6th St SW 6th W South Ave Street Ter SW South Ave SW 8th St SW Eugene SW 10th St ¬ «7 £ ¤ 40 SW Luttrell Rd SITE W or SW Skyline Dr M ning SW Consumer side Dr SW Azure St SW SW Earl's Ct th SW 13 Rainbow SW Victor Dr r Ln Te SW Tw SW ilig ht PUDS-05-18-6407 ml Ln Ha D SUNSET PLAZA et ± r 746-802 SW EASTBOUND US 40 HWY SITE LOCATION AERIAL MAP 0 200 400 800 Feet