Notice was given of a closed session to be held by the City Council for the City of Lee’s Summit, Missouri, on Thursday, March 10, 2005, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Arnold Hall, 123 SE Third Street.





Councilmember Jim Hallam                Present  Councilmember Christine Bushyhead        Present

Councilmember Randall Rhoads        Present  Councilmember Ron Williams              Present

Councilmember Joseph Spallo           Present  Councilmember Ed Cockrell                 Present

Councilmember James Freeman III   Present  Councilmember Tess Hurley                     Absent


On motion of Councilmember Bushyhead, second by Councilmember Williams, the Council voted by roll call vote to hold a CLOSED SESSION pursuant to Section 610.021(14) Records which are protected from disclosure by law; AND, pursuant to Section 610.021(2) of the Revised Statutes of the State of Missouri pertaining to the leasing, purchase or sale of real estate by a public governmental body where public knowledge of the transaction might adversely affect the legal consideration therefore; AND, pursuant to Section 610.021(9) of the Revised Statutes of the State of Missouri pertaining to preparation, including any discussions or work product, on behalf of a public governmental body or its representatives for negotiations with employee group.

       ROLL CALL:

          Councilmember Hallam              Aye             Councilmember Bushyhead       Aye

          Councilmember Rhoads        Aye             Councilmember Williams           Aye

          Councilmember Spallo           Aye             Councilmember Cockrell            Aye

          Councilmember Freeman      Aye             Councilmember Hurley                   Absent   



Mayor Messerli called Regular Session No. 33 of the City Council for the City of Lee’s Summit, Missouri, to order at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 10, 2005, in the Council Chambers of Arnold Hall, 123 SE Third Street.  Councilmember Williams offered the invocation, which was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.  City Administrator Steve Lewis and City Attorney Robert Handley were also present.





Councilmember Hallam               Present                         Councilmember Bushyhead       Present

Councilmember Rhoads        Present                         Councilmember Williams           Present

Councilmember Spallo          Present                         Councilmember Cockrell            Present

Councilmember Freeman           Present                         Councilmember Hurley               Absent





Mayor Messerli mentioned that Application 2004-170 would be continued to May 12, 2005 at the applicant’s request.  On motion of Councilmember Freeman, second by Councilmember Hallam, the Council voted unanimously (Councilmember Hurley “absent”) to approve the agenda as updated.



There were no public comments.




Mayor Messerli recognized guests from Boy Scout Troop No. 220, Lee’s Summit Christian Church, who were working on communications badges.  She particularly commended Mr. Michael Lebig and Mr. Alex Hansen.




Mayor Messerli read the proclamation.  Ms. Barbara Poole, Acting Purchasing Manager, thanked the Council and Mayor for the proclamation, adding that the Division was sponsoring a fund-raiser for Hope House during March.




On motion of Councilmember Hallam, second by Councilmember Bushyhead, the Council voted 6 “yes”, 0 “no”, 1 “abstain” (Councilmember Spallo) and 1 “absent” (Councilmember Hurley)  to approve the Consent Agenda A and B as follows:


A.       CITY CLERK: Approval of minutes from the July 8, August 12, October 14 and October 21, 2004 City Council Regular Sessions

B.       POLICE DEPARTMENT: Approval of types G3 and K-Temporary liquor license application for Sorano’s Mexican Food, 419 SW Ward Road.


BILL NO. 05-47


Councilmember Freeman read the bill for the first time.  On motion of Councilmember Freeman, second by Councilmember Hallam, the Council voted unanimously (Councilmember Hurley “absent”) for a second reading and motion passed.  The bill was read for the second time by Councilmember Freeman, who moved for adoption; motion was seconded by Councilmember Hallam.

       ROLL CALL:

          Councilmember Hallam              Aye                       Councilmember Bushyhead       Aye

          Councilmember Rhoads        Aye                       Councilmember Williams           Aye

          Councilmember Spallo           Aye                       Councilmember Cockrell            Aye

          Councilmember Freeman      Aye                       Councilmember Hurley               Absent

Motion passed to adopt Bill No. 05-47 which was numbered Ordinance No. 5912.




PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN: In District RP-3. Delta Park, Lot 3; Darron Properties, applicant. (Appl. #04-170)

(NOTE: This public hearing was continued from the December 16, 2004, City Council meeting at the applicant's request and continued at the January 20, 2005 meeting pending submittal of additional information from the applicant. A continuance has been requested to the May 12, 2005, City Council meeting)

Mayor Messerli closed the regular session, opened the public hearing at 6:45 p.m., and asked for a motion to continue Application 2004-170 to a date certain of May 12, 2005.  


On the motion of Councilmember Rhoads, second by Councilmember Hallam, the Council voted unanimously to CONTINUE the public hearing to MAY 12, 2005.




REZONING: From District RP-2 to District R-1. Downtown Neighborhood Generally South of Chipman Rd., East of Douglas, West of Grand Ave.; and North of Elm St.; City of Lee's Summit, applicant. (Appl. #04-309)

Due to the number of people present, Mayor Messerli announced this item was being moved up on the agenda.  She closed the regular session, opened the public hearing at 6:47 p.m., and asked all those who wished to speak to be sworn in by the court reporter.


Mr. McKay entered Exhibits 1-29 into the record, adding additional petitions in favor of rezoning (Exhibits 30 and 31); an aerial map (Exhibit 32), and a letter from Mr. Jerry Hoffman (Exhibit 33).  He gave a brief history of the rezoning effort, with a citizen petition submitted on October 25, 2004.  In December, Staff proceeded with City-initiated rezoning at the Council’s direction.  Resolution 04-17’s administrative delay for any building permits for new two-family dwellings or converting single-family dwellings would expire March 17, 2005.  The petition originally included a larger area, with some PRO zoning, but these would be taken up at a later date.  Properties marked with colored tacks on the map were either on the original petition or added later by amendment.  except for five properties, all  had been verified as to ownership.  Mr. McKay also pointed out four properties to be removed from the petition.


A well-attended public open house was held last December, and the Planning Commission held a work session and public hearing at their February 22nd meeting.  Staff provided a description of the area, origin of the request, and explained the process and potential impacts.  Some existing duplex developments or multi-family (RP-3 zoning) in the northern part were excluded; and, if the rezoning was approved, all existing two-family dwellings would be legal nonconforming uses.  The UDO would allow their rebuilding to the same standards if they were destroyed by accident or natural disaster, commenced within 12 months, and did not increase the degree of nonconformity.  If voluntarily demolished or condemned, they could be replaced only with a conforming use.  Existing vacant lots would conform to the new R-1 zoning.


In reviewing the numbers, Staff excluded letters from people outside the subject area, as well as those on both sides asking to be removed, and the blue-dotted properties whose signatures did not match those on the property ownership list.  The result was 271 lots in the subject area, with 158 in favor of rezoning (58.3 percent), 32 opposed (11.8 percent) and 5 vacant lots.  Of the vacant lots, one whose owner had applied for a permit was going through the process and two had duplex permits already granted.  The area had 25 duplexes, shown in yellow on the Exhibit 32 map.  On January 25, 2005, the Planning Commission continued this application to February 22, 2005, and at that time voted for approval by a vote of 4-3.  Staff recommended approval.  At Councilmember Bushyhead’s request, Mr. McKay reviewed the numbers, adding that owners of the remaining 29.9 percent of the 271 lots had not responded.  The owners of the duplex lots had not been opposed to the rezoning.  Staff had not heard from some of them; and, one signed in favor of the rezoning. Of the 190 verified signatures, the 158 in favor had all signed the petition. 


Mayor Messerli then asked for public testimony.  Mr. Christopher Johnson of 506 NE Beacon stated he was in favor of the rezoning.  His concern was adding more users to the neighborhood’s infrastructure, as it was antiquated.  The power system was very vulnerable to bad weather, especially ice.  The power company had not shown any willing-ness to upgrade the electrical system.  The neighborhood also had no storm drainage, with the original drains under the driveways having long since disintegrated.  Most of the streets were in disrepair, with some of them almost gravel, and the phone system was antiquated as well.  This was one of the concerns about passive investors buying up homes in the neighborhood and turning them into multi-family dwellings.  It would automatically mean more road, water, power and sewer users.


Mr. William Hansen of 301 NE Forest Avenue related after all the meetings, many of the neighbors could not take any more time off but they wanted the Council to know that the rezoning had widespread support.  It would maintain property values as well as the neighbor-hood’s character.  Residents did not want it turning into a transient neighborhood, along with the higher crime rates, noise and traffic that generally went with that.  Since the petition had started, several developers wanted to build in the neighborhood, essentially ignoring both the residents and the UDO.  They proposed structures that were out of character with the rest of the neighborhood in terms of style and size, and ignored UDO requirements for preliminary development plans.  Some bought lots whose size or shape were inappropriate for the intended use and then applied for variances.  The rezoning proponents were residents of the neighborhood whose interest was in living there peacefully and quietly, as well as protecting their property values. 


Ms. Christa Cohen of 107 NE Forest related that when she decided to buy her own home, many of the newer homes were out of her reach in price.  She and her neighbors were average Americans who did not make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, but that did not mean this was not a good neighborhood, and a close-knit one.  Duplexes, on the other hand, meant people moving in and out all the time, which worked against building a sense of community.  People who lived and invested in the neighborhood since the 1950s wanted to live in this historic part of downtown and take pride in knowing they contributed to preservation of downtown.


Ms. Paula Logan, of 313 NE Short, passed out some materials, which Mr. McKay added as Exhibit 34.  She noted the streets in her neighborhood all needed repair.  The lay of the land was also being changed to accommodate duplexes, which had aggravated water runoff and drainage problems.  Several developers found the vacant lot located behind her house cost-prohibitive to develop as two City sewer systems run down the middle.  Several years ago when the sewer had backed up into her basement, the City never corrected the problem because they could not find records of the sewer line.  She ended up paying to clean up the line down the whole block.  It happened again just a few years later but this time Public Works located the line.  All this caused her a concern that the sewer system was right in back of her house and the City didn’t seem sure where all the lines were.  Additionally, the vacant lot, whose prospective developer subdivided the lot into four parts, now had an estimated additional 20 feet of dirt from a church’s new addition, all of which was now on top of the sewer line.


Ms. Logan continued that these lots were surrounded by private homes.  The current prospective developer wanting to build over City sewer lines, when others had given up, which made her suspect his practices and motives.  She asked the Council’s help in maintaining the balance of small single-family homes in this area.  They were among the few that were affordable for first time buyers, seniors and people who did not have the means for new houses but wanted to live in a quiet area with a small-town atmosphere. It was imperative that Lee’s Summit have an area of affordable homes like this; and if what was left of these homes was not preserved, downtown Lee’s Summit would not be what the city leaders wanted.  The community was already seeing some deterioration from rental properties whose owners were not maintaining them. 


Ms. Linda Yamashiro gave her address as 313 NE Beacon.  She read the content of Mr. Hoffman’s letter, submitted as an exhibit, into the record:

 “This letter is in regards to the public hearing scheduled before you on March 10, 2005 concerning the rezoning of the neighborhood north of Downtown from RP-2 to R-1.  I was planning to be personally present my thoughts and to request your support for this application.  However, business commitments make that impossible and I am therefore submitting this letter in support of the application for your consideration.

 My wife and I purchased our home in this neighborhood in 1975 and have lived here for the last 30 years.  We chose this neighborhood to raise our family.  It was a good decision then, and it is a good decision for families making those same decisions today.  We are concerned, however, the over the past few years there has been a trend developing that threatens the viability of this neighborhood: the prospect of a growing number of duplex co-mingled with the predominant single-family homes.  We ask your support for our neighborhood rezoning this neighbor-hood to District R-1 as the right thing to do because (1) the majority of the land-owners in the neighborhood want R-1 zoning; (2) the majority of the residents in the neighborhood want R-1 zoning; (3) R-1 zoning is the best and highest use for this neighborhood; (4) R-1 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; (5) R-1 zoning is consistent with the Uniform Development Ordinance.

I do not believe the opponent of this application can show any compelling evidence to dispute any of the above reasons why this application should be approved.  Contrary to the picture painted by the opponent of a neighborhood in decline, many of us have spent tens of thousands of dollars on our homes to protect our investment and our neighborhood.  The homes in this neighborhood sell quickly, and there is no evidence to suggest that is likely to change.  Please support the request of the residents of this vibrant neighborhood.  Please approve Application 04-309. (Gary Hoffman, 613 NE Applewood)

Ms. Sue Smart of 115 NE Green was also representing her sister, Ms. Anne Gray, of 203 NE Green who could not attend the meetings due to business commitments.  She mentioned the impact on the educational system of not only having more families in the neighborhood because of multi-family housing but also having a more transient population.


Ms. Kathy Hoffman of 303 NE Forest stated that an elderly neighbor, Mr. Norman Tapscott (311 NE Forest), could not attend because of health problems.  She read a letter he had dictated:

“Norman Tapscott and his wife Anita have lived in their home for 30 years. This house was built by his dad in 1959.  It is very well-maintained despite its age.  They have enjoyed the huge backyard as they watch their grandchildren play and grow up.  But with the new duplexes that have been built, the feeling of security has gone down, especially being elderly and not in good health.  They want no more duplexes.  They feel it runs down the neighborhood with the increase in traffic and on-street parking around the duplexes.  (Norman Tapscott, 311 NE Forest)


Ms. Hoffman continued that when they made the rounds with the petition, they found most of the neighbors were unaware the zoning was RP-2, nor were they aware of what that zoning meant.  The rezoning had happened in 1962 but, until three or four years ago, very few duplexes had gone in.  On Forest alone, there were now 9 duplexes and one multi-family home.  Ms. Hoffman thanked the Council and Staff for their assistance with this issue.


Mr. Joe Willerth gave his office address as 221 W. Lexington in Independence, and stated he was appearing as attorney on behalf of Mr. Dan Spurck and Darron Properties, specifically the four lots called “Maple Court”, plus the 40 owners who executed letters of opposition.  He referred the Council to his presentation to the Planning Commission, remarking that those he represented owned properties and had relied on the zoning that had been present since the 1960s, allowing for either R-1 or R-2 uses.


Mr. Willerth asserted this was not a traditional rezoning application brought by the owners of a particular property but rather brought by the City on behalf of the entire area.  The 40 people he represented had not been consulted.  Mr. Willerth acknowledged a show of support by numerous owners, but stated it was still unclear whether it was 113 or 150.  He noted during the Planning Commission hearing that the two blocks to the north, Applewood and Maplewood, looked like a logical R-1 rezoning but this area already had numerous existing R-2 and R-3 uses.  Regarding economic feasibility, Mr. Willerth commented that many of the homes in the subject area were 1950s ranch houses which were coming to the end of their economic time and the current zoning gave the option of rebuilding for either single-family or multi-family use.  A single-family starter home was difficult to build for under $175,000-$200,000, and this area had numerous attractive duplexes where both sides could be sold for about $135,000 or rented for up to $900 a month. He referred the Councilmembers to Mr. Plummer’s and Mr. Westhead’s testimony at the Planning Commission, that they had relied on, and invested in property, based on the assumption of R-2 use.  Taking it down to R-1 or lesser use at this point without compensation constituted an inverse condemnation.


Mr. Willerth then addressed Mr. McKay’s testimony about the existing duplexes becoming legal non-conforming uses.  They could not be rebuilt by their owners if condemned or voluntarily demolished; and, if destroyed, they would have to be rebuilt within 12 months.  Similarly, R-1 zoning required 8,400 square feet and 70-foot width and many of the existing lots in this area would be non-conforming single-family lots.  A rezoning to R-1P would require only 6,600 square feet.  Respecting proper planning, the rezoning would remove a buffer zone. 


Concerning Maple Court, Mr. Willerth related after Staff was consulted, this property and Ash Court were “X”-ed out on the map.  Mr. Spurck then sent out a large mailing to all the people in the area, resulting in the 40 letters of opposition.  In analyzing the petitions that had been executed, Mr. Spurck was of the opinion there were only 113 or fewer valid signatures.  Mr. Willerth added it was possible they were somewhat higher on the amended petition. 


Concerning the historical impact, the subject area had few historical homes, with most of them being 1950s homes that would require high remodeling costs.  Regarding infrastructure issues, the duplexes would not make a significant change.  On page 20 of the Planning Commission minutes, Mr. McKay said the current infrastructure was adequate for the current zoning.  The general area did have a higher crime rate but that was not in the subject area.  In the past year, there were only four major calls, none of which involved very serious crimes. Mr. Willerth suggested that concerns about crime were an emotional reaction and not based in fact.  Adding that the opposing property owners were a forward-thinking group, he suggested an R-2H zoning as a compromise, which would allow either R-1 or R-2 to be constructed under proper guidelines so the valid concerns about runoff or inconsistency could be addressed.  Finally, Mr. Willerth referred to Mr. Christopher’s remarks at the Planning Commission hearing that the idea needed more thought and  work between the two groups.  Instead of an emotional reaction which would make one group happy, he wanted both groups to work together to find a compromise zone that would meet the needs of both.


Ms. Berniece Smart of 201 NE Green stated they purchased their house in 1959, with R-1 zoning in place at the time.  They were surprised to find it was RP-2 a few years later.  They raised their family in the neighborhood but now had to lock their doors even when they were home because of the increase in the crime rate.  Their house was about 100 years old, they had a family history there, including family who now lived nearby, and she did not want to move.  The location close to downtown was one of the reasons they bought this house.  She attributed the change in crime rate to the proliferation of duplexes and rental properties.


Returning to the podium, Ms. Yamashero disputed the statement that crime rate in this particular area had not increased.  Last month, houses both across the street from her and next door had both been broken into and less than six months ago a young man she knew had his car stolen.  She did not recall anything like this in the neighborhood before.


Mr. Danial Spurck of Darron Properties, 225 SE Douglas, gave his residential address as 318 SE Douglas.  He had been involved in the area in and around downtown for many years, moving to Lee’s Summit in 1954 and starting a business here in 1975.  He displayed a chart that his staff compiled before the February 22nd Planning Commission meeting, with color coding indicating either petition signers owning properties in the subject area or renters.  It also indicated those who sent letters of opposition.  The Darron staff compiled both the map and a spreadsheet, sorting them alphabetically by name and street.  For the petition signatures, they obtained information from County tax rolls and found an inter-mixing of petition signers and petition properties.  They came up with 141 properties in support, with 23 of these not in the subject area.  He noted that Mr. McKay had also mentioned a few people wanting their names removed, so less than 50 percent of property owners in the subject area wanted the rezoning.  He added that Staff’s 158 number represented some items with two signatures on one property.


Concerning the remarks about crime in the area, Mr. Spurck added that feelings were not facts.  He gave the Commission a copy of a police report, which Mayor Messerli stated was Exhibit 35.  The report indicated a very high number of police calls in Beat #6, where the subject area was located.  Beat 6 had about 15,000 calls in the last year; however, in the subject area there had been only 33 calls with officers dispatched and only four required further action.  These four were all in the 200-300 blocks of Beacon, with none of the Beacon properties being duplexes. 


Mr. Spurck related that when he went to the open house, he thought the moratorium had been going on for months.  At a pre-application in late 2003, he received permission to proceed with the Maple Court development, which was a subdivision of four duplexes and two houses.  They proposed to re-align the road and through Mace Engineering they knew where the sewer lines were.  However, they now could not get the permit because of the City’s moratorium and he took exception to not being included in the process.  While the petition was well meant, it had been fast-tracked for the wrong reason, namely emotions from the Council, and it would have been on a January meeting with the assumption that an great majority wanted the rezoning had he not sent out the mailing. 


Mr. Spurck wanted to know from Staff if the 25 duplexes they counted included the single families which were now being occupied as two-family dwellings.  Mr. McKay answered that he believed so.  Mr. Spurck continued that 270 properties represented less than 10 percent of the properties.  If the area had only five vacant lots, including his subdivided four in Maple Court, he was not sure why anyone was in such a rush to rezone.  He and Mr. Willerth thought it was for historical purposes and they would cooperate with the Old Homes Group and Historic Preservation Commission, making the duplexes look like old homes. The infrastructure referenced in the packets was deemed to be adequate, and there would not be a rush of 50 duplex applications, as there would not be 50 houses in a state of repair that anyone would want to make them duplexes.  He urged the Council to reconsider the moratorium and have Planning set up workshops between the property owners who wanted the rezoning and those who wanted to retain the RP-2 zoning.  They might come up with a plan to make the duplexes look like houses.


In view of the length of Mr. Spurck’s remarks, Mr. William Hansen asked for and received permission to speak again.  He considered the opposition’s recitation of numbers to be misleading and intended to give the impression there was little support for the rezoning.  Ms. Hoffman and her assistant had personally gone to all these properties and they knew quite well that over 50 percent were in support. Mr. Hansen also denied this was an emotional issue.  The neighbors did not have numbers indicating a higher crime rate, but they knew the more people in the neighborhood, which multi-family housing would accomplish, would make the crime rate go higher, as any number of studies on the connection between crime rates and population density would confirm.  He trusted Mr. McKay’s research indicating over 50 percent was accurate. 


Mr. Hansen added the rezoning process had in fact included an open house.  There were plenty of opportunities for input and discussion for anyone who was interested. The proponents believed rezoning to be in the neighborhood’s best interest, and adding more duplexes would be only in the interest of those who wanted to sell or rent them for profit.  The residents wanted the neighborhood to retain its character and they wanted houses, not duplexes with transients moving in and out all the time.  They would feel the same way about too many rental houses in the neighborhood.  They were also, as testimony indicated, concerned about the impact of duplexes on the infrastructure.  Residents did know what they were talking about and they would pursue the issue as far as necessary.  He formerly lived on a street full of duplexes and knew what happened when a neighborhood had nothing but transients.


Ms. Wilma Lauper, 505 Applewood, had lived in the neighborhood since 1972.  There was a very big difference between being a property owner only and also being a full-time resident.  The comments made this evening represented families who made a long-term commitment and connection to the neighborhood.  Regarding the impact on schools, she also remarked that Lee’s Summit Elementary did not have much potential to handle an increase of students.


Ms. Hoffman clarified that the rezoning effort had started with a meeting in her home last August.  She went door-to-door over seven months and knew who owned the property.  They were a true neighborhood, and that neighborhood wanted the blanket rezoning to single-family.


Mr. Don Tierney of 600 NE Green stated general agreement with the rezoning.  He was across the street from two R-3 buildings and they did have a problem with parking, especially with the narrow streets and no curbs or sidewalks.


Ms. Connie Savage of 506 NE Magnolia disagreed with the opposition’s comments about ‘emotion,’ in that a decision of where to live was not based exclusively on economic factors and emotion was certainly a valid consideration.


Councilmember Bushyhead asked for clarification on why the RP-3 was deleted, as well as confirmation that the Downtown Master Plan process was started in 2002.  Mr. McKay explained that the petition specifically requested the RP-2 zoning be changed, and Council-member Cockrell stated that 2002 was correct.


Councilmember Freeman asked how this area became RP-2.  Mr. McKay answered that before 1962 Lee’s Summit had only three zones, “A”, “B” and “C”.  Zone “A” allowed for any kind of residential, and in 1962 it was changed to R-2 (two-family) zoning.  In November 2001, after the UDO adoption, R-2 shifted over to RP-2.  He was not sure why the R-2 designation was chosen in 1962.  Councilmember Bushyhead asked about the suggestion for R-1P zoning because of setback considerations.  Mr. McKay stated the single-family lots under the UDO minimum size were still legitimate single-family lots as long as they met the setbacks.  They were non-conforming but predated the UDO, so were grandfathered in.


Councilmember Williams asked if R-1 had different infrastructure requirements, and if the duplexes could currently meet setback requirements.  Mr. McKay stated the major difference for single lots would be in Building Code requirements.  He was not sure about setbacks.  The minimum size was fairly small, about 750 square feet.  If the rezoning was approved, individual property owners could still apply at any time although with the area being downzoned it might be more difficult.


Regarding the “dueling maps”, Mr. McKay referred the Council to the color coding on Staff’s map.  Each page of the petition showed the corresponding signatures in that specific color.  Staff also compared these to the County records and prepared the best map they could as they took this petition very seriously.

Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Messerli closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. and reconvened the regular session.


Councilmember Hallam remarked that few issues had generated this much public input and noted the current duplex owners would be able to keep them.  He did take issue for the maximum of 12 months after a disaster, suggesting that 18 to 24 months might be more realistic.  Some insurance policies did give 24 months.  The owner of 207 Douglas had spoken with him, and he believed it might eventually need a zoning change given the size of the lot and the location.  With these exceptions, he supported the rezoning.


Councilmember Bushyhead also did not think this process had rushed.  Regarding Mr. Willerth’s describing the opposition as forward-thinking, such forward-thinking people had begun looking at the downtown area in 2002.  Realizing that the planning ideas of the 1960s should be revisited; they had included professional consultants in putting together a Master Plan.  That plan gave clear guidance on what the land use should be in this area; and the current application was completely consistent.  This was actually an opportunity to prevent an adverse impact of development on an area before it went too far, including the infrastructure and density issues.  Moreover, historical character was not confined to 100-year-old large houses but did also include these homes, which were now more than 50 years old. 


Recalling the 1962 change, Councilmember Cockrell recalled that his family had in fact moved because they knew what the zoning would do to a neighborhood and this was a chance to make some corrections to mistakes of the past.


Councilmember Bushyhead moved that the Council direct staff to DRAFT AN ORDINANCE approving rezoning from District RP-2 to District R-1; Downtown neighborhood generally south of Chipman Rd., east of Douglas, west of Grand Ave.; and north of Elm St.; City of Lee's Summit, applicant.  The motion was seconded by Councilmember Hallam.


Councilmember Williams was in favor of a one-year grace period for property owners wanting to change their zoning back.  Councilmember Freeman did not want to give anyone false hope, although he was voting against the original motion on the basis of vested property rights.


On motion of Councilmember Bushyhead, second by Councilmember Hallam, the Council voted by voice vote of 6 “aye”, 1” no” (Councilmember Freeman), 1 “absent” (Councilmember Hurley) to direct Staff to DRAFT AN ORDINANCE granting rezoning from District RP-2 to District R-1; Downtown neighborhood generally south of Chipman Rd., east of Douglas, west of Grand Ave.; and north of Elm St.; City of Lee's Summit, applicant (Application #04-309).


(The preceding is a digest of the City Clerk's notes.  A transcript may be obtained.)



Mayor Messerli thanked the participants, and then adjourned the meeting for a break at 8:10 p.m.  The Council re-convened at 8:20 p.m.





CONTINUED REZONING from AG to R-1, ten-acre tract west of Blackwell Road, north of Woodland Shores; Jim Wright for G&R Development LLC, applicant (Appl. #04-248)

(NOTE: This public hearing was continued from the February 3, February 17, and March 3, 2005, City Council meetings per Staff’s request.)

Mayor Messerli closed the regular session, opened the public hearing at 8:20 p.m., and asked all those who wished to speak to be sworn in by the court reporter.


Mr. Jack Beale of Archer Engineers gave his address as 100 West Tenth Street in Higginsville.  He described the project, pointing out the existing Woodland Shores development which had already been rezoned.  The applicant added another tract.  Mr. Beale displayed a sketch of the preliminary plan, relating that they had agreed to put in emergency access for the cul-de-sac since Staff expressed concern about that.  It was on property that G&R already owned.


Mr. McKay entered Exhibits 1-14 into the record.  He confirmed that this tract was part of an additional phase of Woodland Shores, namely the northern portion of the 24.67 acres.  The rest was already zoned R-1.  On January 11th, the Planning Commission voted unanimously for approval, and Staff recommended approval as well.


Councilmember Bushyhead asked how compatible the new lots would be with the existing ones, and also if the entrance off Blackwell was where a structure was going across the right-of-way.  Mr. Jim Riffe, 450 Winnebago Drive in Lake Winnebago, stated the subdivision offered standard lots (85x135 feet), “estate” lots (100x150 feet) and “villa” lots.  He pointed out where standard and estate lots would be on the addition.  Mr. McKay said there were two entrances off Blackwell, and the one she was asking about was to the south.


Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Messerli closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened the regular session.


On motion of Councilmember Freeman, second by Councilmember Hallam, the Council voted unanimously to direct staff to DRAFT AN ORDINANCE approving rezoning from AG to R-1, ten-acre tract west of Blackwell Road, north of Woodland Shores; Jim Riffe for G&R Development LLC, applicant.


(The preceding is a digest of the City Clerk's notes.  A transcript may be obtained.)




CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT NO. 10 to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) amending Article 2, Nursery School definition; Article 3, clarification of appeal procedures; Articles 4 and 10, provisions pertaining to protest petitions; Article 5, provisions regarding garage setbacks; and, Sec. 12.060.C.3. & 4. regarding downtown parking. City of Lee's Summit, applicant.  (Appl. #04-307)

(Note: This public hearing was continued from the February 17. 2005. City Council meeting.)

Mayor Messerli closed the regular session, opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m., and asked all those who wished to speak to be sworn in by the court reporter.

Mr. McKay entered Exhibits 1-10 into the record.  He related that Amendment 10 moved the Special Use requirements back to the Special Use section, plus addressing the parking issue (Sec. 12.060.C.3-4).  If approved, this would come back as an ordinance this Thursday, so Staff might be able to remove one of the administrative delays.  The Planning Commission heard these items on January 25th and March 8th, and had unanimously voted for approval. 


Councilmember Bushyhead confirmed with Mr. McKay that the reference to capacity being based on an inventory “conducted within 12 months” was any 12 months and not a calendar year, and suggested that a reference to a “rolling” 12 months should be added to make that clear.  She also asked what happened to the concept of “in lieu” payments in the event of not enough parking spaces.  Mr. Arbo answered they discarded the idea after further review by the Law Department, who concluded that the payment would have to reflect very specific costs and that would become too complex.  At the same time, it would not be a significant amount of money and the City would have to document it being invested in a specific structure.  If it did not generate enough to make a difference in supply, the fee’s legitimacy could be challenged.  It could also tend to turn people away from building downtown.


Councilmember Cockrell understood the logic but the City was spending a lot of money on parking facilities.  He did not think it would be impractical to put money aside in a separate fund or escrow.  The same anxiety about people not building downtown had come up with the Water Tap Fee and that had not materialized.  It was important to keep economic sustainability downtown, treating it as an economic entity, and not keep asking all the taxpayers to subsidize it.  He wanted the parking payment idea to be discussed again sometime in the future.


Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Messerli closed the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened the regular session.


Councilmember Bushyhead stated that with the deletion of the sentence “Special Use Permit applications are not subject to protest petitions”, staff would later come back with additional provisions regarding protest petition. 


On motion of Councilmember Bushyhead, second by Councilmember Cockrell, the Council voted unanimously to direct Staff to DRAFT AN ORDINANCE approving Amendment No. 10 to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) amending Article 2, Nursery School definition; Article 3, clarification of appeal procedures; Articles 4 and 10, provisions pertaining to protest petitions; Article 5, provisions regarding garage setbacks; and, Sec. 12.060.C.3. & 4. regarding downtown parking. City of Lee's Summit, applicant (Application #04-307), with two amendments.  (1) In section 12.060.3, changing the phrase “a recent (conducted within 12 months) inventory” to read “a rolling 12 month inventory” and (2) striking Section 10.040.C regarding protest petitions.  The motion was seconded by Councilmember Cockrell for discussion.



PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED 2006-2010 Capital Improvements Program


Mr. Gary Bradley, Assistant to the City Administrator, gave a Power Point presentation[1] and noted that this would be on the City’s web site on Monday.  He listed the goals and benefits of the CIP and the sources of funding, noting that there was a lot of voter input, making it essential to prioritize projects early.  A slide summarizing the revenue sources had columns denoting years.  The water tap fee had $2 million programmed in out years, with the total for the CIP $233,562.00.  The expenditures were divided into eight different categories for the five years covered plus the $2-million in the out years.  The CIP had a total 101 projects including $10 million for the Airport and $138-million for 34 bridge, street and signal projects.  The City Hall project changed to $12-million from $15 million last year, to reflect construction costs that were bid.  However, $6.1-million was added for the parking structure.  As that was the high end of a range, it could be amended later to a minimum of $5.5 million.


Last year’s CIP had six projects completed, seven added and eight changed.  In some cases, the changes involved combining some things and others reflected changes in numbers.  The changes were all highlighted individually in the Council packet as well as on separate sheets in another packet.  There were no changes to the Airport.  New projects added were the arterial street light program, Douglas Street improvements, a signal at Third and Murray, roadway underdrain systems and, Chipman to View High had an added $150,000.00 for an alignment study.  Mr. Bradley remarked that the latter could save considerable more money in the long run.


Regarding schedule changes, the City Council changed Third Street within the last few weeks to accelerate it.  The Facilities part was not completed yet but would be before moving into the next budget, including Fire Station headquarters.  The City Hall parking structure was added and construction costs for the City Hall complex was lowered.


Mr. Bradley listed some changes, additions and deletions relating to water and sewer.  The sanitary sewer line on McClendon had a line on Peggy Circle as part of the sanitary sewer rehabilitation program.  Merritt and Eighth was combined with the South Lee Drive project into a “South Lee Addition” project, because of their proximity to each other.  At Middle Big Creek, the previous CIP inadvertently omitted an interceptor going from M-150 to the overflow basin, which was scheduled as part of the Phase 1 improvements and the funding was available.  Some of Phase 2 for the Scruggs Road Pump Station was being clarified.  The NW Forest and access to a holding basin city-wide was completed, and deleted, as staff had identified the projects that would go.  Construction for West Prairie Lee Phase 2 was deferred from 2006 to 2007 in the plan. 


The Ranson Road elevated tank was complete.  The Third Street/ View High to Pryor water relocates had to be included in association with that road project and the upsizing of the water line on Pryor Road from Longview to Hook was delayed until 2007.


The proposed CIP would come back to the Council next week in a resolution.


Councilmember Williams asked for a total estimate of unfunded projects.  Mr. Bradley answered that he would have to get back to him on that as this was not part of the CIP adoption.  They included storm sewers, some Parks and Recreation projects and others.  He added that Staff was currently identifying these, with a large majority being in Stormwater.  They would be putting together a list of projects and identifying different funding sources and most of the stormwater projects would be brought back.  Councilmember Williams remarked that there would always more of these projects coming forward, and Mr. Bradley answered that Stormwater Utility was a good example of where they would find funding.  If that became a reality, these items would find their way to the CIP.  Should the Parks and Recreation tax be adopted, the Senior Center, Aquatic Center and some other items would be included in a CIP.  He agreed with Mayor Messerli that unfunded items involved a large number of variables. 


Councilmember Bushyhead remarked that it would be helpful during discussion to have the booklet listing unfunded projects along with the CIP.  She noted that the answer to the same question last year was that additions to the CIP came from the unfunded portion, which comprised a kind of waiting list.  Staff and the Council were not just indiscriminately picking out things to add to the CIP every year, and that made it important for councilmembers to have both documents for reference. They could refer to it for projects they wanted to move up to funded or to get an idea of how close to that it might be.  The Chipman Road alignment mentioned was a good example. 


Mr. Bradley answered that because of the way the CIP was compiled, many of the road projects came from the ten-year Road Plan and many Parks projects were part of a ballot initiative.  Most of the items represented commitments the City had made to the voters, with not much room to move something up four or five years into the process.  However, they could be some-what prioritized as the City did long-range planning including developing the Thoroughfare Master Plan and put together initiatives like the Parks and Recreation sales tax.  Councilmember Bushyhead remarked that a five-year funded CIP and an unfunded CIP would give a full picture of the community’s infrastructure.  The funded projects were only part of the picture.


Councilmember Freeman said that he received e-mails about the Langsford Road widening, which  was “suddenly” placed on the plan because there was an economic development opportunity and the City had ‘found’ the money to do it.  However, the record clearly reflected that this project became part of the 1997 Road Sales and Excise Tax program and was planned a long time before.  This was a good illustration of the length of time required to move a project to the top of a list.  Councilmember Bushyhead added that having a CIP was not necessarily routine in all communities, and Lee’s Summit not only having a CIP but also having a separate list of prospective projects that were unfunded should be commended and recognized.  It reflected well on the community.




Award of RFP #34-250 for the purchase of a new Voice Mail and Phone System for City Operations to Alexander Open Systems in the amount of $324,423.51 for the ITS Division of Administration. (FSPC 3/1/05)

Mr. Randy Dickey, ITS Manager, stated the Committee had a discussion on March 1st, with some very relevant questions brought up.  They had concluded that the best approach would be to go back and add some clarifications and additional background information to the packet, which the Councilmembers had tonight.


Councilmember Bushyhead noted for the record that this was the end of a process that had been going on for quite awhile, and the Council had already looked over it in detail in previous discussions and meetings.  Staff brought forward a number of decisions to make along the way, and this was only the last of a series of decisions stretching over 24 months.  She wanted to avoid the appearance that the Council was voting for an expenditure of over $300,000.00 with little or no discussion.


On motion of Councilmember Bushyhead, second by Councilmember Cockrell, the Council voted unanimously to APPROVE the award of RFP 34-250 for the purchase of a new Voice Mail and Phone System for City Operations to Alexander Open Systems in the amount of $324,423.51, for the ITS Division of Administration.



CONTINUED DISCUSSION: Regarding CMT Preliminary Engineering Investigation and MoDOT grants concerning the Airport


Mr. Owsley stated the intent was to facilitate the Mayor’s and Council’s continued discussion of key short-term issues related to the Airport.  Members of CMT (Crawford, Murphy and Tilly) were present including Mr. Chuck Taylor, Mr. Ty Sander and Mr. Roger Finnell.  Because of pending deadlines relating to MoDOT grants accepted by the City, Staff needed some direction about a plan of action for the Airport from the Mayor and Council.  He listed the grants:

·            Council accepted a $5.9 million grant for engineering and land acquisition to would expire on June 30, 2005.  The CMT preliminary engineering contract was the engineering portion and $5.2-million of the grant remained.

·            A $3.1-million grant will expire on December 31, 2005, for land acquisition.  Late in 2004, MoDOT mentioned another $9.1-million offer and the City would have to make an application to receive the latter grant.


Since CMT presented the preliminary engineering report, Staff worked with them to finalize it.  They were also developing a draft action plan for Airport-related activities, intended to update the Council on work currently in progress, as well as provide a tentative schedule for future Airport-related agenda items.  The plan was divided into three sections: guiding principles, short-term program goals and a tentative 8-12 month timeline.


The goal in developing the action was creating a reasonable approach to developing and implementing Airport improvements, funded primarily with Federal Airport Improvement Program dollars that MoDOT administered.  Staff recognized five guiding principles that should drive this action plan.

·            Land acquisition.  The parcels shown on the Airport Layout Plan would be a priority in a proposed Airport CIP.  The acquisition would preserve the City’s flexibility for future Airport improvements.

·            Planning and construction of air traffic control tower:   Would be considered a priority.

·            Other projects that had been identified in the planning process were needed in order to meet current FAA standards or to maintain the existing Airport infrastructure.

·            Improvements to the Airport to extend the runway would be a priority following the construction necessary to bring the Airport into conformance with current standards.

·            Maximizing use of available Federal Funding:  All land acquisition, engineering and proposed construction programs should be set forth with that mind.  Engineering and construction projects should have Federal funding established prior to initiating or awarding contracts unless otherwise coordinated by the Mayor and Council.  Available Federal funding should be utilized on projects approved as part of an Airport CIP. 


Mr. Owsley listed ten short-term program goals:

(1)      Developing a detailed land acquisition plan, which would be included as part of the CMT preliminary engineering report.

(2)      Completing portions of the land acquisition plan necessary to utilize the grant funds that would expire at the end of June.  As part of their contract, CMT would update the Airport Layout Plan to show land currently owned by the City (i.e., the “Brisbane Property”) as being available for future Airport improvements.  The reimbursement for that land cost would be about 40 percent of the remaining grant, which expires at the end of June.  Staff would then meet with MoDOT and coordinate the draft preliminary engineering report and detailed land acquisition plan.

(3)      Finalizing a contract amendment with CMT, adding professional services land acquisition assistance was part of their original proposal; however, it was part of the second phase and Council had not authorized it

(4)      After CMT brought a price forward, Staff proceeded with authorization for a contract with a sub-consultant.

(5)      Finalizing the preliminary engineering support and submitting it to MoDOT as final and applying for the final reimbursement would include an updated five-year implementation scenario, part of the Airport CIP that he referenced.

(6)      Making a formal presentation to the Council for approving the five-year CIP, including recommendations for funding of the local share.

(7)      Applying to MoDOT for acquisitions and projects in the CIP.

(8)      Accepting the grant offer for additional Federal funds to implement the land acquisition and projects prioritized in the CIP.

(9)      Reporting on the progress of the land acquisition program, with a tentative date of August 1, 2005.  At that time, the appraisal process would likely be complete, some initial offers made and an estimate of the effort and time necessary for acquisition would be available.


(10)   Staff and CMT will make recommendations for adjustments in either the land acquisition plan or the CIP implementation.  Variables will include land values and progress or delays in the schedule.


Mr. Owsley added that a timeline would be another part of the action plan, basically set target dates for all the activities he listed.  He emphasized that this was a draft plan and proposal intended to start discussions and directions from the Council would result in revising it accordingly.  Staff will subsequently take the plan to MoDOT for review.


Mayor Messerli complimented Staff on pulling together such a large volume of information into a logical way to move forward.  She particularly liked the idea of a CIP plan specifically for Airport projects and wanted to make a priority those improvements necessary to keep the Airport in conformance with standards.  She asked CMT representatives present for some details on the control tower, particularly for minimizing quality of life issues associated with Airport operations whenever possible.  An example was whether a control tower would truly make it possible to control air traffic over neighborhoods and thereby address issues such as noise.


Mr. Chuck Taylor explained that, in addition to aircraft approaching the Airport, the tower would also deal with aircraft passing through that air space and allow aircraft coming to the Airport to land on a straight-in approach rather than circling to observe the field as they did at present.  That minimized flying time but also reduced the amount of time aircraft were in the air in the Airport’s vicinity before landing.  A tower would also maintain the aircraft traffic in the proper patterns and altitude, avoiding people operating in different directions or areas. 


Councilmember Rhoads asked if there were penalties for a pilot who did not comply with a control tower.  Mr. Taylor answered there were some penalties but this rarely occurred.  Federal regulations mandated that pilots comply with air traffic control clearances but penalties were the purview of the FAA on a case-by-case basis.  They could vary from a counseling session to revoking the pilot’s certificate.  


Mayor Messerli liked that the plan was pro-active on the part of the City to MoDOT, as opposed to the City being more reactive. 


Councilmember Cockrell asked if a tower would likely mean fewer “hobby” pilots at the Airport.  Mr. Taylor had not seen any statistics relative to that; however, he heard much the same thing from other airports. Councilmember Cockrell remarked that his primary concern was the Airport being “pulled” into runway expansion via the City having money tossed at it with resulting surprises that were sometimes unpleasant.  An example was the 2002 funds he thought could be used for the B2 safety standards, but in reality could be used only for land acquisition that would support runway expansion.  He would have voted to accept money for a tower or B2 safety standards, even though those standards might involve some land acquisition.  Without those standards it was difficult to make a case for Airport expansion.  As the City consumed land for runway expansion, it should also run the decision through an economic/financial model to be sure of the impact.  Variables could include some of the LDS land or land on 50 Highway not being available for commercial development. To keep taking Federal money for runway expansion, the City needed some prudent financial research and even an exit strategy for grant monies.  If Lee’s Summit’s greater economic good outweighed the disadvantages for a minority, that would be acceptable but this had not to date been demonstrated.  Councilmember Cockrell was in favor of whatever the City needed to do to get a tower in and get the Airport up to the B2 safety classification.  He would not agree to runway expansion without those factors.


Mayor Messerli remarked that if the City had not done these things, it was partly due to an absence of an action plan and CIP.  This was, again, an opportunity for the City to be pro-active and be able to meet with MoDOT and FAA and show their own specific plans, timelines and priorities.  She added the City would bring any municipal facility up to safety standards. 


Councilmember Freeman asked Mr. Owsley when, or if, the Council would have to determine the City’s cost and portion in order to adopt the 8-12 month timeline or the CIP.  Mr. Owsley answered that Item 7 recommended local source funding as part of the CIP, by May 5th on the proposed timeline with Council approval of the CIP on May 12th.  Referring to Item 3, he told Mayor Messerli that staff would direct CMT to do a layout plan revision incorporating the Brisbane property, with the City then deeding the property over to the Airport and requesting reimbursement from the $5.9-million grant. This part would need to be completed by June 30th, and the revision was included in CMT’s current contract. 


Councilmember Williams disliked the idea of money being “thrown” at the City.  Both MoDOT and the FAA decided Lee’s Summit was an appropriate place to invest public monies in its Airport and the City would have to acquire property right away to preserve options.  Councilmember Williams asked how many B2 rated airports had control towers, remarking that the extended runway plus a control tower would offer maximum safety for the community as well as minimizing annoyances to neighborhoods.  Mr. Owsley responded that he would get an answer to that. 


Mayor Messerli remarked that she had never lobbied for money for the Airport without Council direction, and the grants were a result of a City Council resolution.  The Council chose to accept grants, and now needed to act before the deadlines.  Councilmember Williams recalled members of earlier Councils indulging in political posturing while professionals were making presentations at earlier meetings and this Council had an opportunity to rise above that behavior.  Councilmember Bushyhead was in favor of councilmembers having material clarifying terminology.  Councilmember Rhoads stated this was an opportunity for the City to “plan its work and then work its plan” regarding the Airport.


Councilmember Freeman made a motion to direct staff to implement an 8-12 month time line and Council action on the Airport as outlined on the last page of the material staff had provided.  Councilmember Rhoads seconded.



Councilmember Cockrell stated that he would vote against; but only because one of the guiding principles should be a clearly defined exit strategy.  Mayor Messerli confirmed that this motion would give the principals the direction they were looking for.


On motion of Councilmember Freeman, second by Councilmember Rhoads, the Council voted by five “yes” (Councilmembers Freeman, Rhoads, Hallam, Bushyhead and Williams) and two “no” (Councilmembers Cockrell and Spallo) to direct Staff to implement an 8-12 month time line and Council action on the Airport as outlined on the last page of the material staff had provided





A.            PUBLIC WORKS/SOLID WASTE COMMITTEE:  The Commission will be discussing the right-of-way mowing ordinance next week.

B.           COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:  The Committee will meet on March 17, 2005.


D.         LIAISON REPORTS:  No reports.




As the administrative delay expired on March 17th, and Councilmembers Rhoads and Bushy-head would be absent next week, the Council decided to extend the delay.  Councilmember Bushyhead made a motion to extend the administrative delay, set to expire March 17, relating to the RP-2 to R-1 rezoning, to April 8, 2005.  Councilmember Cockrell seconded ad motion passed unanimously (Councilmember Hurley “absent’).  Mr. Handley stated that it would have to be posted on the agenda next week, and Mayor Messerli directed the City Clerk to put it on next week’s agenda. 


Councilmember Hallam asked for confirmation that this would have no impact on the Council’s action tonight.  Mr. Handley answered that it would not.  Mayor Messerli asked the ordinance to be on the agenda as well, in case a continuance would be necessary.  They could read the ordinance at the end of the meeting if necessary.  Councilmember Bushyhead suggested the new law would permit a voice vote via telephone and Mr. Handley said that could be done on extending the administrative delay but ordinances must be voted on via roll call.


The Councilmembers agreed to allow a period for remarks at the beginning of meetings.




There being no further business, Mayor Messerli ADJOURNED the March 10, 2005, City Council Regular Session No. 33 at 10:15 p.m.  





Denise Chisum, MPCC                                                               Transcribed By:  Marcia E. Smith

City Clerk


[1] Power Point presentation, 2010 Capital Improvements Program