Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] like to call to order the City of Belton Planning Commission session for Tuesday, June 17, 2025. Could we have the roll call, please? Chairman McFerson here. Mayor Larkkey here. Council member Bryan here. Commissioner Christensen here. Commissioner Crate here. Commissioner Mcdana here. Commissioner Rugles, Commissioner Shut here, Commissioner Walton here. Thank you. Uh first item that we have this evening will be the approval of minutes. We do have two sets of minutes to uh review. The first being from May 6th, 2025 session and the second being from the June 3rd, 2025 session. both distributed in the packets over. Are there any additions, corrections, subtractions? I make a motion to approve both the May 6th and the June 3 meeting minutes. I'll second it. Thank you. Motion and second. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Good. Moving on to new business this evening. First item we have is a public hearing and so we will call that to order. Uh this is RZ25-00001. A request from KC Compost to approve a reszoning from a Agricultural to BP Business Park. This is zoning for a 57.06 plus or minus acres located at 20008

East 171st Street. And we will ask the development director. Yeah, thank you chair. Um before this evening is a request to reszone property um at the northwest corner of 58 highway and the CPKC railroad tracks at 2008 2008 East 171st Street. Um as the map shows on the screen, the applicant is requesting to add 20 acres to an existing composting facility which would grow the current facility that's 37 acres to 57 acres. Um the first request this evening is to reszone the entire 57 acres from a agriculture to BP business park zoning. Um the recent UDC land use updates allow composting facilities with a special use permit um in the BP zoning district. Um this also aligns the um BP zoning district that's proposed also aligns with the future land use map um that's in the 2050 comprehensive plan. Um based on the review criteria in the UDC for resonings um staff believes that the requested resoning is consistent with the character of the area uh which includes a mix of agricultural and business park uses that specialize in the production, processing and selling of natural resources and materials. Um and as I mentioned, the resoning also matches the land use plan designation for the property. Um staff recommends approval of the resoning and I'll review the special use permit request in more detail with the second public hearing. Is there anyone here like Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to the request? opposition.

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and uh commission. Are there any questions or comments that any of you have for staff? I'm curious as to that northern boundary. Why is it so jagged? Um the applicant is here this evening. That is the what they were able to come to terms with with the seller. The seller is the Benjam You mentioned the future land use. Uh next to it would be business park. So this would not be anything that would in any way interfere with that uh future development of that area. Correct. The map on the screen shows the future land use map. So pretty much all of the land on the other tracks areas to the north are shown as resial detail based on the existing against the railroad. Even though it's out, we think the true subdivisions up in this area that would likely be to the west of this.

Oh, sorry. I don't know if that say all that again. I don't know if that came through or not. No, we got to go back and start all over. We'll call the meeting to order. Any other questions, comments from anyone? Entertain motion. Mr. Chair, I'd make a motion to rep approve the resoning request RZ25- Z001 as I'll second it. Right. Motion and a second. Any last comments? None. Could we have the roll call, please? Council member Bryan. I. Mayor Larkkey. Yes. Christensen. Yes. Shut. Yes. Mcdana. Hi. Walton. Yes. Chairman McFerson. I. AndRate. I. All right. So the second item then is and we will call another public hearing into session. Uh this is for SUP25001 request from Casey Compost to approve a special use permit for the expansion of a composting facility on 57.06 plus or minus acres located at 208 East 171st Street. Director. All right. Thank you, chair. My mic is on. Um before this evening is a special use permit request for 57 acres um located at 2008 East 171st Street for a composting facility. Um a special use permit was first approved in 2005 and renewed in 2006 and 2009 for the existing composting facility at this site. Um the special use permit lapsed in 2014 as it was not renewed. However, it has continued to operate without any

issues or of significance during that time. Um, it should be noted, as I noted in the staff report, that both city staff and the operator has changed since 2014. Um, so the lapse of approval was not known to either party until the operator contacted staff in April to discuss these expansion plans. Um, recent UDC updates uh require composting facil facilities to obtain a special use permit for operating in the business park zoning district. Um, there are four special use standards which are included in the staff report um for the operation of composting facilities. Um due to existing and anticipated future conditions, uh modifications to some of these standards are requested. Um the first item is related to standard A, which requires that composting facilities be located at least 500 feet from any residential zoning district or planned residential area, residential area on the future land use map. Um there is not any existing residential within 500 feet um that is zoned currently residential. Everything is zoned agriculture. Um, however, as I mentioned, um, at the as part of the reasonzoning, the land here to the north is identified as low density residential. However, um, based on the existing and anticipated f future conditions and topography, um staff believes that it is unlikely that the area to the in this north area is likely to develop um as residential due to the horse racing track and the proximity to the railroad. Uh we do anticipate um that there's additional residential development potential here should there be any further subdivision of the residential frontage there along Holmes Road. Um but the nearest existing residential parcel that's being used as residential is over 1100 ft to the northwest of this site. Um standard B requires paved access within 250 ft of the property line. Um, the only access drive for this property

is located off of 171st Street and that access drive is about 350 feet in length that's paved for the usage of customers accessing the site. So, that standard's been met. Um, condition C requires that collection and processing piles be set back at least 50 feet from any property line. Um, on the existing site, they're at about 20 to 25 ft, uh, which would be just a legal non-conforming situation. any new expansion piles on the expanded area uh is required to meet that 50 foot um setback requirement from the property lines and then standard D uh requires screening from adjacent properties. Um the existing site has uh vegetation that will be maintained along the north and the east property lines. Um so the only place where they will need to add vegetation is along the west property line where they have proposed and included on their site plan a row of evergreen trees that are spaced approximately 20 ft. So roughly 34 evergreens will be planted along that west property line and as those grow those will create the um those the buffer that's required there. Um, aside from the exceptions to the setback from the planned residential areas on the land use map, the expansion area meets all other special use standards, um, the site also meets all site design and parking design standards with a couple of the pre-existing nonconformities noted. Um, one of those is, um, includes that there are some prop some of the outbuildings that were built even before the composting facility went in are likely less than 30 ft from the front property line. Um, and then we don't really have a well- definfined parking count for this. So, if you look at what the actual parking count is, it amounts to about 1,200 parking spaces,

which I think everyone would agree is unnecessary. So really the the parking um that they have can accommodate their current employees and um some additional employees if they add more in the future. So as long as they're maintaining that they are staff believes that the parking is acceptable as is. Um the site plan that has been provided um shows that they will be expanding the gravel road um closer to the north property line. They will have some outdoor um storage areas for concrete, mulch, and brush, and then some dirt banks over here on the west side. The only new uh physical building that's being built is a roughly 8,200 square foot hoop barn that will be used to provide some um covered um storage areas. Um staff leads that the proposed expansion is appropriate and will allow an existing business to continue to grow in Belton. Um, this facility provides a service that many communities do not have access to, uh, which brings non-residents and businesses into the community for yard waste drop off and retail sales. Um, therefore, staff recommends approval of the special use permit with four conditions and based on the current facility operating without issue for the past 20 years. Um, staff is not recommending any time limit on the special use permit. Um, the UDC does include a process for the revocation of a special use permit if certain conditions of approval are not met. So, we have that if there's any issues, but based on the way that they've been operating over the last several years, we don't anticipate needing to go down that road. Since this is again public hearing, we will ask, is there anyone here to speak either in favor or in opposition to the special use permit? Anyone to speak in favor or in opposition?

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. Just one. Did anyone check with the railroad to see if they're concerned with the noise of mulching operations? That's a joke. You don't have to answer that. I have uh one question. I I think if I recall several years ago when the trash and uh recycling, yard waste, everything was being discussed. Um there had been some discussion that this would be who handled the yard waste for the city as far as processing. Is that this is just a curious question. It doesn't matter, but uh is is that the case? Are they the ones that our yard waste goes to for processing? Um, I might ask the applicant. I don't know if they work with any of the local like GFL or any of the other trash haulers on yard waste pickup. Um, I know they get a lot of um business drop offs here. Um, but I don't know about trash haulers. If do receive from GFL, I would say and I think they've got the contract for the city. Correct. U that's I I remembered some discussion at that time that u trying to keep it local and and have one of our local businesses uh benefit from that if we could. Just curious. Any other questions, comments? Yeah, I do. Um so I know you talked about the there was there was uh possible revocation of the special use permit if certain conditions weren't met. like I'm assuming the trees being planted. Would that be a condition of that or um it would be any of the items in the staff report the conditions. Now

the trees being planted that would be something that would need to happen essentially when the hoop house goes up. So that that would be an early improvement that we would have been looking for. Um everything else is is essentially just making sure that the the sites essentially kept up um they're in compliance with any MD MDNR requirements in terms of storm water erosion control, anything anything like that. Um and then just general property maintenance items. Sure. Okay. Thank you. else. Is there a motion regarding the special use permit? I'll make a motion to approve SUP25- Z001 as presented. Second. Second. Final call for any comments, questions. Seeing none, could we have the roll call, please? Chairman McFerson, I. Walton, I. Mcdana. Hi. Mayor Larkkey. Yes. Shut. I crate. I Christensen. Yes. Council member Bryan. Hi. Thank you. And then the final item. Uh this there were three on the agenda that all were pertaining to this same project, but this is the plat uh final plat request. Uh PLAT25-00004 request from KC Compost to approve a final plat for Casey Compost, a one lot commercial subdivision on 57.06 plus or minus acres located 20008 East 171st Street. director. Anything additional we need to know? Uh the only thing I'll add on this is that based on the size, use, and location of the property, um there's no additional rightway needs um or easements needed to accommodate the

development. So, it's a pretty straightforward plat. They're basically just adding the additional 20 acres and planning it all as one lot. Um and staff recommends approval of the final plat with one condition. Questions, comments, or motions? I'd make a motion to approve plat 25-004 as presented. Second. Thank you. Motion and second. Call for questions. Seeing none. Can we have the roll call, please? Crate. I. Shut. I. Council member Pryan. I. Walton. I. Chairman McFerson. I. Mayor Larkkey. Yes. Christensen. Yes. Mcdana. Hi. you. We do have one additional public hearing scheduled for this evening and we will call that public hearing to session. Uh, this is for UDCT25- Z003 request from the community development staff for unified development code text amendments to section 26-5 concerning residential driveways to expand driveway configurations, access points, and pavement options for residential driveways. Director. Yep. Thank you, chair. Um, before you this evening are UDC text amendments to section 26-5 for residential driveways. I think this is probably the section of the code that we've amended the most over the last several years. Um, this is the fifth amendment and a lot of it's just because we continue to run into a lot of questions, concerns from from residents and builders of the driveway limitations that we have in order to accommodate additional off- streetet parking. Um on the first page of the

staff report is a rundown of some of those previous amendments. Um and there's a couple of those that um kind of take some of these changes either backwards or add on to those. Um the main some of the main changes currently there's just multiple items that are laid out in the section. We are consolidating them into three sections. um because essentially driveways co the all of those standards cover access size and coverage and paving material. So we've uh made those we've cleared those up into just having three subsections rather than just kind of having a running list of of items that sometimes get a little confusing. Um so the first section is related to driveway openings. Um some of the changes that we are proposing um would be to we're maintaining the same restriction on having a single access point for street frontages um except uh for agriculture and the large lot residential lots that are over one acre in size. We are adding double frontage lots um that essentially have the same standard as corner lots. A double frontage lot is a lot that either backs up to a street or an alley. Um so they have that same standard as a corner lot. Essentially, you would you're allowed to have a driveway on the front of your property, but then you potentially, if there's no access restrictions, can have one on the rear of the property as well. Um, most double frontage lots that back up to a street um in Belton typically back up to a collector or arterial street where those wouldn't be permitted. So, this really is more covering alleys um than any other kind of road type in the city. And then we've also added an exception um for horseshoe or circle driveways on lots that have a frontage over 125 ft. Um so currently you'd have to be zoned agriculture or the large lot residential and be over an acre. Um but we have a number of of properties in the city that

are over that are under an acre that may be zoned R1 single family that could take advantage of that. Um that could be potentially helpful especially on busier streets where people may have a hard time backing out onto the street. So the circle driveway gives them a safer um way out of their um property. Um on udc section 2652 which is related the driveway sizes and the coverage limited uh limits uh we're maintaining the minimum 12 foot wide driveway requirement and the maximum 25 foot width of the rideway. So none of the rightway is impacted by these changes. Um but we are proposing to increase the maximum coverage from 35% to 50% for all lots regardless of the culde-sac location. So that was one of the change previous changes in 2017 was cul-de-sac lots were having a difficult time. we were going through a bunch of variances um to accommodate specifically three car garages on culacs um and so the change was made to 50% for culde-sacs um but it was 35% for everywhere else uh we did modify that again in 2022 to it was 50% if you were coming directly out of a garage um but that does not ac accommodate if you're trying to put in a wing king driveway on the side of your garage or a driveway to access your rear yard if you're putting in a either an additional garage on the back that's detached or attached to your um garage, your front garage. So, um we've continued to run into a lot of issues with that and so we're proposing to change that to 50% for all lots regardless of culac location or whether or not it's accessing the garage. Um, we're clarifying that driveways shall be five feet from the property line if it's in the right of way. Uh, and that's been our standard in the past

for the ride ofway. And that just essentially allows that any aprons um or the wings at the the driveway at the street are fully on your property. And then it has to be 2 feet from the property line. Um, and that is referenced elsewhere in the code. So, we're just making that clear in this section. So when people are coming in for a driveway permit or want to expand something, all the information they need is in this one section. So they're not having to pull information elsewhere. Um we're still maintaining driveway widths or driveway depths of 20 ft from any garage or parking space from the rightway. And then adding a minimum depth for driveway accessing a garage along an alley to 5T. Uh lastly on the paving materials we are at the paving materials are staying the same. So they still have to be concrete asphalt or some kind of pavers. Um gravel there are still legal non-conforming gravel um driveways throughout the city and those are allowed to be maintained. They just can't be expanded. Um we are adding an exception for ribbon driveways um in the interior side and rear yards uh with concrete or pa blocks. Um, this has been an ongoing discussion with the code enforcement advisory committee. Um, they've brought this up multiple times with wanting to add an exception to this. Um, and uh, sort of the staff had some concerns about the aesthetics of what that would look like in the front yard. Um, and so we've come to kind of a middle ground where we are comfortable with aligning them in the side and rear yard because they're less visible, but they also are a more coste effective way of adding pavement um for vehicles that may not be utilized as regularly. So, a lot of people have requested this for boats, RVs, trailers, things like that. It's also a less expensive way if you're having to build a garage in the backyard to have an

access point um from the main driveway that will be fully paved. We are adding an exception for driveways longer than 200 feet in agricultural zoning districts provided the front 50 feet be paved and at least the 20t at the end of the of the gravel driveway is paved if it's accessing a garage. So essentially all the area in between can be gravel. Main purpose for that is we have a lot of properties that may have eight five 800 feet long driveways. Trying to get that paved as a as a huge expense. And really the removal of the gravel driveways um accessing the street back in 2021 was um came as part of an of a change to the code that required that the access of the driveway had to be concrete instead of asphalt. And so the concerns were kicking gravel in the street. Um, and with this, having 50 foot of pavement between the street and the gravel will help reduce the amount of gravel, if any, that's going to get kicked in based on that uh distance. Um, I did include some photos um in the staff report just to help illustrate some of the uh items that we're trying to accommodate here. Um, so ribbon driveways, there's a few different examples there of what that would look like. This image in the upper left or really both of these images show an example of it's a solid concrete driveway until you get to the side of the house and then it can transition to that ribbon driveway. Um, they are required to have um turf grass or some other low growing um grass or vegetation growing between there. So, we're not allowing rock or gravel or anything else in between those. um parking expansions. These are a couple of different examples of the requests that we've received that are

going to exceed the 35% limit that we have now, but um can stay within that 50% or right at that 50%. So, here's an example of a twocar garage where they have a third uh car wing that they've added. And then here's an example in Belton of where there's a third car garage um that added a parking for a camper. Um their neighbor also did it. This is one of the situations um that also prompt us to look at this is that we've had a number of people over the years that have added these without any kind of approvals. They've not been an issue. They've been there for several years and then a neighbor comes to us and asks to do the same thing. And because they asked, we have to give them what the current code is. Um, but let them know, you know, there's always a variance process, but because it is such a frequent thing, it makes sense to just modify the code um to try to accommodate those situations. This helps pull, like I said, RVs, boats, trailers, um, out of the driveways um, and especially keeps um, cars off the street so they can park in the driveway. We know a lot of people utilize their garages for storage or if they are parking in the garage and they can't fit an RV in there, they're essentially it's it's creating a situation where that garage can no longer be used because you're always going to have something permanently kind of parked out front. Um, corner lot driveways. Um, this is kind of already addressed, but we're we're making it a little bit more clear of some of what you can do. So, this is an example of a corner lot um in Lee Summit where um essentially you're allowed to have kind of that horseshoe driveway, but they're allowed on the corner lots. And then this is um a a wider lot that has the horseshoe driveway, circle driveway. So, these are probably more what we we would likely

see, but there are some corner lots already in Belton that have this. Um, but it allows just some additional driveway options for corner lots. Um, and maybe the design of of new homes that can be more angled towards the corners to take advantage of that. Um, the code enforcement advisory committee, as I mentioned, um, they've had a lot of interest in this. So, we did take these uh, amendments to them for their review back on May 22nd, and they unanimously recommended approval of those. and um staff recommends approval of the code amendments and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. This is a public hearing so we'll ask if there's anyone that would like to speak in favor or an opposition attendance this evening. Speak in favor or opposition? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing commission. Any questions, comments you all have with director on the ribbon driveway, it starts at the side of the house, wherever the front corner of the house is. Correct. It could start. Correct. And I saw there was a width requirement for ribbon driveways. Is there a length requirement? There is no length requirement, although our standard parking space is 20 feet. So if they are trying to use it for parking, it would at least need to be that 20. So would they be able to put like one block in each of the where each of the four tires are and say that's my ribbon driveway? No, it has to be a solid surface along the entire wheel track. Um and yeah, the dimensions are in there. Um and those are dimensions that we when we researched ribbon driveways and other communities, that was kind of the standard. Um, it also we we kept it at 8 feet as the minimum. Um, and the main reason for that is our standard R1 setback is 10 feet. So, it would still

allow somebody who only has a 10-ft sideyard to try to accommodate this and stay 2 feet off. Um, I will also mention, I didn't mention in the presentation, but we are having the unified development code update. So, I anticipate that we will this is a a section that the consultants will take a look at and maybe make some additional modifications to to try to accommodate various parking um situations. Anything else? Motion. Make a motion we approve the UDCT25- Z003 as presented. Second. Second. Thank you. Any final? We have the roll call, please. Mayor Larkkey, yes. Christensen, yes. Mcdana, hi. Chairman McFerson. Irate. I. Walton. I. Shut. Hi. Council member Bryan. I. Director. Do you have anything for report this evening? Uh, a few things. Um, the last planning commission we had the um training with our city attorney. Um, I did send that out. Um, and so hope everybody had a chance to take a look at that. For those that weren't able to be here, I know that a a couple of the commissioners um asked me a question after our UDC kickoff meeting. Um and so I wanted to share I talked with the city attorney about that question. So I wanted to share that with the entire commission. So there there was a question brought up in terms of the review criteria for resonings and development plans and um you know how do how should the commission respond when

they receive questions um from the public about the developer character um and maybe any any concerns regarding that. Um and and the question is that is typically that in that situation we should look to the review criteria. Um and so the the best way to handle that is for the the chair to just step in and say that's not part of the review criteria that we can take into consideration. Um there are limited exceptions whereas if it is a situation where maybe this is a developer that has developed in the city in the past and they made promises um as or had approvals in the past that they did not follow through on and if it's something related to one of those items that they're bringing forward again and and that is I think a fair question or concern is that you know this developer said that they promised this with this last development velment we approve them they didn't do this and now they're asking for the same thing again you know how can we grant that so those are fair questions to make um but still holistically it's best to look at the review criteria but that is always something that can be taken into consideration and and the developer can be questioned about that and why they didn't do it then and why we should believe that they'll do it this time um we also um As I mentioned, we had the UDC kickoff meeting um back on June 5th. Um and the UDC consultant um took the feedback that was received. They are currently going through the diagnosis process of the current code. And so we'll probably have some more information on kind of that report. Um I believe later in July is when we'll have that. Um and then we do have upcoming meetings. Um Tuesday, July 1st, we will have a meeting. We do have a final

development plan that's in review um for Cinco de Mayo. Um so they have acquired 404 East North Avenue which is um the singlestory brown building that is in between the dentist office there at the corner of 58 and Y. So kind of across from CVS was an orthodontist office for for many many years. Um, so they are going to be making some improvements to the site, um, and adding a few additions to accommodate an a larger grocery store and restaurant um, from their North Scott location. Um, and then July 15th, we also are anticipating getting another final development plan for a new business um, that's coming into town. We should be getting that this week. There's a number of other final development plans we're we're waiting on that I don't believe we'll have for then. But I definitely think we'll have some August and September meetings for those. And that is it. So in other words, keep your calendars open. Yeah. Over the next few months because there's lots coming. Uh I would mention and uh this is not necessarily something for planning commission but there is a uh study group that is going on or a study that is going on right now uh concerning safe streets and roads for all in Belton and uh trying to develop a transportation safety plan. and they have met a couple of times uh looking at where are some of the bad areas in town that that have a lot of accidents and and things like that and uh taking a look at at is there anything that can be done to help improve that. And so there is a link and I just wanted

to make everyone aware of this. If you go to the city website and go down, uh after you go to the website and go down, uh one of the items that is on there is called safe streets. And if you go into that, there is a survey that you can take and have input. Uh, and I say this as well for anyone that that might be watching the uh, presentation online. Uh, but you can go in and give input as to uh, any concerns and things like that. Uh, I think it took me five maybe 10 minutes to complete the survey. Not long at all. Uh just wanted to make you aware of that and uh had good input. Uh it's been a couple of meetings and very I feel very productive and uh one more scheduled meeting but this is a way that you can get your input added. You aware of that. Anything else this evening? Motion to second. Motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. I.................... Any opposed. We are journed.