|
MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 12, 2001 Mayor Dan Bishop called the Regular March 12, 2001 City Council Meeting to order in the City Council Chambers at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: City Manager Kirk Davis ABSENT: Councilman George Nodler Item 3. on the Agenda. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. Mayor Bishop led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag in which all joined. Item 4. on the Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Councilman Anita Newsom moved to approve the Regular February 26, 2001 City Council Meeting Minutes as written; Councilman Bill Cross seconded. The vote: All “Aye”: Smith, Newsom, Cross, Bishop. (4-0) Item 4a. on the Agenda. PRESENTATIONS/RECOGNITIONS Mayor Bishop presented an Appreciation Plaque to Beverly Johnson for service on the Capital Improvements Program Committee from January 1998 - February 2001. Beverly Johnson thanked the members of the City Council who appointed her to this committee which included Anita Newsom, George Nodler, Art Hammen, Dave Fricke and Roger Norris, and she also thanked the City Staff for answering all of her questions. Proclamation: Mayor Dan Bishop read proclamation recognizing Clay County Circuit Clerk Rita Fuller who has ably served the Clay County Judicial System and residents of Clay County in various capacities for over twenty-three years. Mrs. Fuller thanked Mayor Bishop and told the City Council that she was honored to receive this recognition and has always been proud to be a resident of our city. Recognition of area High School Student Body Presidents: Thao Nguyen, North Kansas City Nelson Muller, Oak Park, Shea Swoboda, Winnetonka. Mayor Bishop said he has wanted to recognize High School Student Body Presidents for some time and noted that when he was at Oak Park High School he was the Student Body President his senior year. He thinks the involvement in student government is such an important activity and such good training for later in life. In STUCCO one learns how to interact with other people, how to organize a meeting, and how to be a leader. We are fortunate to have the Student Body President from one of the three area high schools that serve the Gladstone area here with us tonight. Nelson Muller, Student Body President at Oak Park High School for 2000-2001 is here and Mayor Bishop said he takes this opportunity to recognize Nelson and commend him for his good work this year in that capacity. The Mayor presented him with a Gladstone City Key Pin and City Logo Coaster and invited him to discuss some of the activities the Student Council had been involved in this year at Oak Park. Mr. Muller said their activities focus on serving the community and recognizing teachers and students. He noted a great success this year was the canned food drive which yielded 13,000 cans of food for the Northland Christmas Store. Item 5. on the Agenda. CONSENT AGENDA -- No Items. Item 6. on the Agenda. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE. Mr. Don McLaughlin, 6313 North Bales, Gladstone, Missouri, said the Council will be familiar with the subject matter of his comments because they were provided with the same information he requested of the City during the last week or two. Mr. McLaughlin said he had a couple of calls from people in his old neighborhood where he lived prior to a year ago in the 2600-2700 block of NE 69th Terrace. They had been promised for years that their street would be resurfaced. That street hasn’t had a single coat of oil on it in over 28 years. He had a couple of calls from the west side of the city asking the same type of questions and they related it to the property at the southeast corner of Englewood Court and Old Pike and wondered why the City would be investing money in curb, gutter, and widening the street in front of a vacant house and a vacant lot when we have other streets in urgent need of repair. So he asked for quite a bit of information from the City and Assistant City Manager for Development Scott Wingerson who is not present this evening, but he thanks him for providing everything he asked for without fail. Mr. McLaughlin said he thinks it would be informative so he will review the history of that property, and then he has a couple of questions. Back in October of 1996, the Federal Employees Credit Union came before the City asking for permission to build their building on the corner of Englewood & Old Pike Road. Why he does not know, but we asked them to not only make a cut and entry way into their property off of Old Englewood Road, and we demanded that they put curb and gutter the full length of their property on Englewood Court on the north side adjacent to their property, and we asked them to put curb and gutter on the south side where they had no interest whatsoever. They didn’t do that but there was an agreement reached with the City a year later that we would ask them to escrow $5,000 toward the improvement of the south side of Englewood Court. They escrowed the money and the escrow says that if the City did not do that work within twelve years then they would get their money back. That relates to the fact that in early 1998 we got detailed plans from a professional engineering company on the 55th Terrace & Old Pike Road improvement. That improvement is from just south of 55th Terrace to the intersection of Englewood Court. Then in June of 1999, for reasons that seem strange to him, Mr. McLaughlin said the City staff prepared detailed engineering plans in-house to widen and install curb and gutter on the south side of Englewood Court. The rationale given him by Mr. Wingerson was that we wanted to use that $5,000 from the Federal Employees Credit Union. Mr. McLaughlin said why that would become a priority before all the other street needs, he does not know. Then we progress to June 12, 2000, when the City Council approved a bid award on the 55th Terrace & Old Pike Road project, and on July 10th we told the Contractor to go to work. Mr. McLaughlin said interestingly enough, six weeks later Art Hammen and the Eagle River Investment Company requested commercial zoning to build a two level office building on property then owned by the Gould Family Trust on that southeast corner of Englewood Court and Old Pike. It is interesting that curb and gutter was already contracted for. On October 3rd the Planning Commission had a meeting on the Eagle River Investment Company application on the staff recommendations and there were no staff recommendations on public improvements. We did not ask the Eagle River Investment Company to contribute to the widening project on the south side of Englewood Court, even though that project was bid in not at $5,000 but $21,077. There was a $15,000 deficit that came out of City funds and again could have been used on 69th Terrace or some of these other streets that are in terrible condition. Mr. McLaughlin said so he has questions. Why did the south side of Englewood Court have such priority when we had 12-15 years to spend those escrowed funds. The property had commercial real estate signs listing it for sale and the potential for developer contributions to that road widening and curb and gutter work was obviously there for some later date. Why was Eagle River Investment Company not asked to participate in the cost of the Englewood Court street improvements which was in front of their property and was not actually a part of the 55th Terrace & Old Pike project. Again, we spent $21,077 to widen the street in front of those two lots and some of the neighboring lots and build retaining walls but that company was never asked to participate. He asked some folks who work for the city and some elected officials who the Eagle River Investment Company was. Mr. Hammen quoted himself as a representative. He went to the Secretary of State and found that company is a limited liability corporation with two general partners, former Mayor Art Hammen and the Chairman of the Planning Commission Les Smith. Mr. McLaughlin said we may have missed this in some presentations of the Planning Commission and Mr. Smith was not at the meeting when the zoning on this piece of property was discussed. However, our Handbook for Board and Commission members covering conflicts of interest says that a member of the Commission/Board who is slated to vote on an issue involving a business owned in whole or in part by himself must do three things: he must abstain from any discussion, he must abstain from voting on the matter, and he must disclose his ownership interest to the rest of the Commission. There is nothing in the minutes of that meeting indicating that there was disclosure that Mr. Smith was a partner in that business. He may have done that at some other point, Mr. McLaughlin said he is just telling us that at the point where it was discussed, the members were no told that. Mr. McLaughlin said so his real question is why was that project a priority, why was it not even suggested to Eagle River Investment Company that they contribute to those street improvements in front of their property. These are two “why” questions that he would like to have the answers to. Les Smith, 6813 North Jason Smith Court, Gladstone, Missouri, said for a minute there he thought Mr. McLaughlin was going to continue the smokescreen and not call this a political issue. He said he is sorry you have to deal with this on this evening. The facts of the matter are, as Mr. McLaughlin stated them, that everything was in place prior to their applying for rezoning of the property and prior to their closing on that property. There is one factual misstatement made by Mr. McLaughlin and that is on the $21,000 figure; the fact of the matter is that had the developers come along prior to this project being planned and approved by the City, at most they would have been required to install curb, gutter and a new concrete approach along the frontage of their property. The concrete portion of that $21,000 was only $5,000 and that far extended beyond the boundaries of their property. He understands what Mr. McLaughlin is insinuating and he understands that Mr. McLaughlin is on the campaign committee for his opponent and he is really sorry that we have to deal with this in a public forum. We have wonderful things going on in the city like the Luzika/Reinschmidt dance studio at 64th & N. Antioch on the agenda tonight. Those are wonderful kinds of things going on in our city. Mr. Smith said he has never been contacted by Mr. McLaughlin, never been contacted at all about the facts, how they might stand on that property. He is more than willing to discuss it, it is all a matter of record, and basically the person Mr. McLaughlin is really pointing at in this is Mr. Scott Wingerson, and he thinks we would all agree that Mr. Wingerson acts far above and beyond reproach in everything he does with the City. Mr. Smith said insinuations are fine, innuendoes are fine, but the facts of the matter are that they are not there. Mr. Smith addressed Mayor Bishop and said he believes he was sitting on the Capital Improvements Program Committee when this project was approved to be done way back in 1997-1998, and also as Mayor he approved their project and commended them on what a nice addition to that neighborhood it would be. The neighbors down there are ecstatic, there is an old dilapidated house that will be demolished and they will be putting up a really nice office building, and the neighbors came out in support of the project. So there is nothing hidden here, it has all been out on the table. There were three other commercial developers who knew that the City was going to make the improvements and also that the project was available to be purchased. They are three names you would recognize but he does not feel at liberty to discuss those, they passed on the property, Mr. Smith said we did not. It is all above board and on the table and he will be happy to answer any questions about it. Terri Hoppenthaler, 2706 NE 57th Terrace, Gladstone, Missouri, said she is a little confused as to why people are suddenly calling Mr. McLaughlin about street improvements instead of the City. So she wonders why he is even doing this. She said she was told by Mayor Bishop when she interviewed for the Planning Commission in December that he only wanted to appoint people who had good communications with the Mayor, Council and other Boards. Being a newly appointed Capital Improvements Committee member she thinks Mr. McLaughlin has gotten off to a very poor start. He should also know as a newly appointed Capital Improvements Board Member that all Board and Commissions members are encouraged to be very careful about any impropriety, there are so many positive things going on in the City. She encourages Mr. McLaughlin to focus his negativity on something positive for a change, this is no place for his politics, or yours. Art Hammen, 7117 N Norton, Gladstone, Missouri, said isn’t the First Amendment a wonderful thing. The First Amendment allows anyone to write anonymous letters to the newspapers, to twist and distort the facts, to say just about anything they want to stir up the public. The First Amendment allows anyone to come before a public forum and twist and distort the facts and stir folks up, cast dispersions and do just about anything they want to. Mr. Hammen said he has been in service to this City for more than thirteen years, and when Mr. McLaughlin besmirches his good name and that of Les Smith, he draws the line. There is absolutely no truth to the accusations being made tonight. Each of the Council sat there the night in October when there was a public forum and a public hearing on this project and he can’t believe that Mr. McLaughlin would think so little of the Council as to believe that if they had any concerns at all about any impropriety that they would not have raised it during that public forum, which Council did not. Mr. Hammen quoted two things from the minutes of that meeting. During the first reading for the rezoning of that property, Councilman Newsom said “it looks like an excellent improvement to that corner, Councilman Nodler and Mr. Bishop also agreed that it was a major improvement and a very nice looking building”. Following the approval for the site plan, “Mayor Bishop congratulated Mr. Hammen on approval of the project and wished him good luck”. Mr. Hammen asked if that sounds like any impropriety, he does not think so. He can’t believe that Mr. McLaughlin would think so little of the Council to think that they would pass on an opportunity to raise an issue, if in fact there was a real issue. He is very disappointed tonight. He and Mr. Smith have been business partners for more than a decade and he can tell us with absolute certainty that during that time they have never engaged in anything that wasn’t above board and straight arrow. He thinks the First Amendment is a wonderful thing for folks like Mr. McLaughlin, and you can see why tonight. He thanked the Council for their time. Bonnie Mitchem, 6300 North Antioch Road said she has lived at that location since 1959 and is the original owner of that house. She would like to see the City zone the whole block instead of just spot zoning as has been done. There were six houses involved, three are now commercial. Of the other three, two are rental properties where we have had problems with a drug house, police visits for domestic problems and problems with teenagers, and an arrest was made there. She said she has come before the City two or three times trying to get them to take a look at this. She even got everyone’s name on a petition here about 10-15 years ago all the way around the block, everyone was for it. Every time she came before the City they always said they would think about it and when we do it (rezone) we are going to do the whole block, Mrs. Mitchem said she is not against the dance studio, not at all, she is just suggesting we rezone it all, and stop the spot zoning. Mayor Bishop said he had spoken with Mrs. Mitchem on Saturday evening and did talk with the City Manager today about the concerns she raised. He is sure the City Manager will have someone be in contact to talk about some different options that might be available to her. Ms. Mitchem said the City would be getting more tax money if that was commercial than residential and she is sure willing to sell. The Mayor thanked Mrs. Mitchem for her comments. Item 7. on the Agenda. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL. Councilman Shirley Smith said Rita Fuller, Clay County Circuit Clerk, who was honored tonight is a long time friend of hers and a great representative of our County as an elected official. She also worked for her for eight years and found her to be a great boss. Rita Fuller, her husband Tom and their family and home represent what Gladstone is all about, and Councilman Smith said she is happy that we recognized her this evening. Councilman Anita Newsom said she was thrilled to see the idea of the Youth Academy at Antioch Middle School. She does not know if the idea started with our School Resource Officer Ronn Shatswell or not, but it is a great idea and she hopes it is very successful. If there is anything she can do to help out as a retired educator, she is happy to do so. Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross said he certainly concurs with the compliments paid Rita Fuller on her thirty-two years of service to the County. He also thanked Beverly Johnson for her service and told her to keep asking questions because we appreciate it when people ask questions because that means they are interested. He also agrees that the Youth Academy is a wonderful program and offers his assistance as well. Mayor Dan Bishop welcomed newly appointed City Counselor Dave Ramsay to his first Council Meeting and invited anyone who has not met him to stop by and say hello. He said Mr. Ramsay will be here in City Hall full time and we are glad to have him on board. Mayor Bishop said he would also touch on some things that were talked about earlier during the Comments from the Audience. He said Mr. Smith made reference to the fact that he (Mr. Bishop) sat on the Capital Improvements Program Committee at the time the 55th & Old Pike project was approved by the Capital Improvements Committee, and that’s true. As Mr. McLaughlin made reference to, the Council was provided with the majority of the information in their packet last week that Mr. McLaughlin was provided and referenced in his presentation tonight. The Mayor said when he went back and looked at the minutes of that Capital Improvement Program Committee Meeting, true enough he voted for the 55th & Old Pike project but at that time, the 55th & Old Pike project was just that, it was limited to Old Pike south of 55th Street and did not include Englewood Court improvements. That was added at a later date as he understands it, and he did not vote for that. That did not come back for a vote before the CIP Committee as he understands it. And yes, he as well as the other Council members did vote for the change in zoning last October. The Mayor said he thinks that Mr. McLaughlin raises some questions. They are very serious in nature and need to be answered. He told City Manager Kirk Davis that if he would pursue answering these questions and have some responses in the next week, he would appreciate it. Q. When was the decision made to do the Englewood Court project, that is to say when was the 55th & Old Pike Project expanded to include the Englewood Road Court improvements. Q. Who decided to expand the 55th & Old Pike project, who made that decision. And why was that decision made. Q. Why did this project have priority, it is true there are many areas in our city that don’t even have curbs and guttering, He knows the Neighborhood Preservation Task Force has looked at Old Linden and some of our older parts of the City where residents have wanted curbs and gutters for 50 years and they don’t have them. Q. Why was this Englewood Court Project given the priority to be widened and get the infrastructure improvements. Q. Why not wait until a developer came along who could be tapped to contribute to those improvements on the south side of Englewood Court. Once we completed the 55th & Old Pike project and leveled that hill and expanded it, that site was more prime than ever for commercial development as is evidenced by the fact that that is exactly what is happening there now. Q. Why did we not wait until a developer came along who could be asked to contribute to those improvements on the south side of Englewood Court. Q. I know there was $5,000 escrowed from the Mazuma Credit Union. Where did the other $16,000 come from that paid for the improvements and is there any chance of recouping any of that money from the developers. He said Mr. Smith points out that they would have been required to contribute about $5,000. Clearly those improvements were already contracted for, but is there any opportunity to recoup some of that taxpayer money. Mayor Bishop said he knows that is a lot but he thinks those are good questions to a serious issue and it would be appropriate to answer them. City Manager Davis responded that we will appropriately research those questions and provide the City Council with all of the information requested. Item 8. on the Agenda. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE CITY MANAGER. The City Manager had no communications at this time. Item 9. on the Agenda. RESOLUTION NO. R-01-20, authorizing execution of a contract with Commercial Waterproofing, Inc. for the 2001 Gladstone Municipal Swimming Pool Painting Project in an amount not to exceed $44,280.00 from the Municipal Pool Fund. Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross moved to adopt Resolution R-01-20 and commented that the pool needs painting badly; Councilman Newsom seconded. The vote: All “aye” - Councilman Smith, Councilman Newsom, Mayor Pro Tem Cross, Mayor Bishop. (4-0) Item 10. on the Agenda. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING on a request to rezone from RP-3 to RP-4, property north of Englewood Road between N. Broadway and N. Main. Applicant: Nolte & Associates. Owner: Herman Scharhag. (#1143) Mayor Dan Bishop opened the public hearing and announced that at the request of the Applicant and the City this hearing is continued to the March 26, 2001 City Council Meeting. Item 11. on the Agenda. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to rezone property at 5800 N Oak from C-2, General Business District to CP-3, Commercial District-Planned. Applicant/Owner: Auto Trend, Inc. (#1148) Mayor Dan Bishop opened the public hearing and announced that at the request of the Applicant this hearing is continued to the April 9, 2001 City Council Meeting. Item 12. on the Agenda. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to rezone property at the southwest corner of NE 64th Street and N. Prospect from R-1, Single Family Dwelling District to CP-2, General Business District-Planned. Applicant: Jantsch Slaggie Architects. Owners: Laura Reinschmidt and William G. Reinschmidt. (File #1146) Mayor Bishop opened the Public Hearing and explained the hearing process that the Applicants will make their presentation, followed comments from those in Favor and those Opposed, and lastly, the City Staff will make their presentation. The Applicant’s representative, Scott Slaggie, Jantsch Slaggie Architects, 208 Delaware, Kansas City, Missouri thanked the City Council for the opportunity to visit with them this evening about a very exciting project at a very important intersection in Gladstone. He is excited to be associated with the Classical Ballet School and Ballet School North. As you may be aware they have been in operation for quite a few years. In 1993 they were incorporated as a ballet school and a non-profit operation called Ballet North which is promoting performing arts in this region. It is wonderful to note that all three students from their summer program this year have been placed in very prestigious schools around the nation including the Boston Ballet and the American Ballet Theater in New York City. This has been an exciting project for them because they believe this will be a welcome sight to a very important intersection for Gladstone and he will be walking us through the three phases of his presentation: the site plan, the elevations and images, and thirdly the materials they hope to use which, in their opinion, will add a lot of consistency and harmony to a very important intersection with the improvements that were done to the Hen House, and the Commerce Bank renovation being done at this time. Tonight they ask for consideration of rezoning of property located at 64th & N Prospect, from R-1 to CP-2, Planned Commercial and approval of the Site Plan and the images they will display. He pointed out the existing building and indicated they are adding a building directly to the north comprised of four studios which are 40 x 40 foot with a communicating hallway or great hall which in essence is a spacer between the existing building and the new building. They also want to be very cognizant of the terrain, because there is a significant terrain change from south to north. So they created the same elevation with the existing building for the first level of studios and therefore also carving into existing landscape to mitigate the impact of the new building as it attaches to the existing building. It is their intent that the new and old mesh together so it looks as if it is all one building. One thing that has been important to the Reinschmidt’s and important to the City Council has been the traffic flow for this development. They have solicited the help of civil engineers, Cook, Flatt and Strobel to do a very at-length traffic study for this development and they are proud to say that it came back with no impact to this location. After working very closely with staff we want to make the traffic flow as easy as possible so that when folks first come to the facility, they are able to readily find their way. So upon the City’s recommendation the entrance at North Prospect will be a right-in only, and on 64th Street it is right-out only. By doing so, as folks come to the facility if they are new, will have signs located at two locations that will help them know where they can come in and where they can’t. Secondly, by doing so, we will have one-way traffic that runs through the facility. The way they designed the building they wanted to try and route parking at the most important locations around the building therefore, they provided five parking stalls for the employees. When they are in full operation with all four studios they anticipate five full-time employees working at the facility. They also have a major entrance at the lower level at the same elevation as the existing studio where they have grouped about 19 parking stalls and it also becomes easy for dropping off and picking up students. As the grades move up there is a second bank of parking at the upper level for those same reasons. It operates as a low impact school because most of the students who participate in the program are underage and can’t drive so they are dependent on their parents to bring them to the school and it is typically a drop off and pick up scenario. Many of the parents drop their children off and do some shopping because in that hour and a half time period they have time to get some things done before they come back to pick up the students. The school discourages parents from watching the students during their practice sessions therefore there is not a whole lot for the parents to do, except when they are dropping off or picking up their children. With that in mind we find that there are parents who drive as far as Lathrop to come to school so this school has the kind of draw right now where parents come from as far as 50 miles away and that allows time for those parents to get some things done while their students are in school. So in terms of parking they felt they had maximized the parking without providing ten pounds in a five pound sack. They wanted to make sure there was enough parking for the school to operate properly but also being cognizant and sensitive to the existing residential neighborhood that is around it. They will improve the existing site plan, as suggested by City Staff and the Planning Commission, by adding a 6’ fence which is in addition to the landscaping they are showing now, coniferous or year-round trees, and there is also a 6’ wood fence to separate this property from the existing residential. There is a significant grade change up to the existing residential which, in their estimation, is a good thing because during night-time use when it becomes dusk or at night, car lights won’t shine into the back yards of those houses. They have augmented that by providing some keystone type retaining walls in that location and also providing some landscaping opportunities there. On the landscaping, they propose to go beyond their property line which is different than the Reinschmidt’s thought it was but MODOT had taken the right-of-way to make improvements along 64th Street. The Reinschmidt’s are committed to improving that right-of-way which is a pretty significant drop right there and providing some landscaping opportunities to beautify that corner along with the other corners of this intersection. They are in the process of getting a letter of approval from MODOT for that to occur. The only thing the site plan does not show which was a staff recommendation and the owners have consented to do, is to place a sidewalk along both N. Prospect and 64th Street which is also part of the plan for whatever will be developed directly to the north. He said he thinks Commerce Bank is also putting in a new sidewalk so that will tie in for pedestrian access at this intersection. They want to be very sensitive to the screening elements around the site so that they are good corporate neighbors and he believes the Reinschmidt’s have been exemplary in terms of their interaction with the existing residents around them and they want to continue in good faith that kind of relationship. They ask for Council’s guidance in suggesting if there is something more that Council would like to see. In addition, they will have some pole lighting for safety reasons to provide ample lighting. They are discouraging anything like wall packs on the building that could create unnecessary glare. Their approach from a design standpoint is to have cut off light fixtures, where the photo-metrics of those poles would be such that anything past the property line would be akin to moonlight with a full moon. The change in grade and the fences will also help to cut off that light from spraying into the existing neighborhood. As mentioned, there will be way-finding signs proposed at two locations and they will have the Classical Ballet logo on them as well as providing entry and exit communication. Mr. Slaggie displayed the elevations and described the orientation. The existing building which is outlined on the plans would be re-clad with a staccato, stucco-type finish that will match the proposed cladding for the new addition and Mr. Slaggie displayed the proposed finishes for Council’s viewing. Because other buildings at this intersection are using predominantly stucco, they felt that using that same type of materials would create harmony and consistency with this entire intersection. It is their hope and intent to create elements that set this building apart from the other buildings. The owners wanted a little bit of frivolity and interest in the building and wanted to create a focal point with a tower which is somewhat reminiscent of a French Normandy theme and they decided to put in a permanent pole with a metal flag that tends to provide that folly they are looking for. They also wanted to do something that speaks to what they do inside because a Classical Ballet School has a romantic theme and they have embellished that by creating lattice work along the top edge of the roof line which carries all the way around on the mass of the building. They tried to locate the parking around the building instead of in front of the building so that the building is really the focal point not the parking. They provided a big wall sign on the east elevation and their intent to back illuminate using reverse channel letter, so it is not something that glares but has a nice glow to it. It also provides the icon logo which is quite nice. He displayed the elevation of the tower facing directly north. They think the great hall is going to be a great feature. There is a staircase that goes to the upper level with a balcony that overlooks the hall. They will utilize existing stained glass that the owners have on the westerly location that will allow some nice refractive light to come into the space. The landscaping will hug around the building. The Reinschmidts are quite proud of their green thumb and are going to embellish the landscaping even more from what you are seeing today. The line detailing shown on the draft will go all the way around the roof line of the building and will tie the architecture together to make it a common theme on all four sides of the architecture. Mr. Slaggie continued to discuss the elevation. The way-finding sign proposed is a 3 x 3 foot sign, pretty low to the ground, but easily seen from vehicles. The icon set for the tower element will include the same icon they use for the Cinderella performance each year. It is Cinderella’s carriage and will be on display inside the tower and illuminated at night so everyone can see it. It is an important program for them and creates some focus not only on the east elevation, but also the north elevation. Mr. Slaggie stated that he appreciates the help that was provided by Mr. Wingerson and his staff to this point. The owners are very happy about the prospects of this project. Mayor Bishop asked if there were any questions for Mr. Slaggie. Councilman Newsom asked a question that carries over from the Planning Commission. There was some discussion about the size of the building in ratio to the parking space. After working all these years with kids, she understands the drop-off concept, but thinks that the annual one-time per year mass rehearsal may cause traffic or parking concern at that time. There was some discussion at that time about a developer’s agreement to secure parking permission from Antioch Middle School or some other business concern around there. Has there been any movement on this. Are we moving forward on that. Mr. Slaggie stated that Mr. Wingerson was going to draft that development agreement in advance of tonight’s meeting, but was not able to get it done before he went out of town. The agreement will more or less say that an annual review of the parking would take place to make sure it was still within reason or would need to provide additional parking. They have talked with the school and they have consented to help, but only if the City would find at some point that there were some problems with parking. His understanding is that Mr. Wingerson would make that available to Council for their review and before issuing a permit, the owners would have to sign off on that concept. Mr. Cross asked how many students attend the dance studio. Mr. Slaggie commented that per studio there are only 15, they stagger classes every 15 minutes so there is not a great impact on the parking at any given time. If all five studios were in operation at the same time, there would be 75 students. There were no others who desired to speak in Favor or in Opposition to this proposal. Staff Comments. City Manager Kirk Davis stated that all the conditions have been agreed to, the ordinances have been met with the exception of the parking as Councilman Newsom suggested. The development agreement is forthcoming prior to the building permit. He said we look forward to having this addition to our community. Mayor Pro Tem Cross asked Ms. Mitchem, who spoke earlier, how many houses there were between her home and the studio. She replied that her home is at the end of the block; four houses from hers. Mr. Cross asked if these three were all rental properties. Ms. Mitchem advised the property next to the studio is an accounting firm, the others are rental property, then her house. Mr. Cross asked if the people in the accounting firm lived in the house. She stated no, it is a business and they park in back of the building. Her concern is that the lights that come on at night will not shine into her bedroom. The lights from the bank on the other side of her shone into her house and she talked with them about the problem. It lit up two bedrooms and the living room. Mr. Cross stated that there should not be extra light coming from the dance studio. There were no further comments and Mayor Bishop closed the Public Hearing. Item 12a. on the Agenda. FIRST READING BILL 01-09, rezoning property at the southwest corner of NE 64th Street & N Prospect from R-1, Single Family Dwelling District to CP-2, General Business District-Planned Applicant: Jantsch Slaggie Architects. Owners: Laura Reinschmidt and William G. Reinschmidt. (File #1146) Councilman Newsom moved to place Bill 01-09 on First Reading; Councilman Cross seconded. Discussion. Councilman Newsom stated that she was on the Council when Laura Luzicka came to get her first special use permit. The studio has come a long way and every time she has come back she hears the story of commercial development taking more than one parcel. The applicant has really gone to school on this and has put together a great package. Mayor Bishop agreed with Councilman Newsom and said he thought it would be a real asset to that corner. The vote: All “aye” - Councilman Shirley Smith, Councilman Anita Newsom, Mayor Pro Tem Cross, Mayor Dan Bishop. (4-0) The Clerk read the Bill. Councilman Newsom moved to accept the First Reading and place Bill 01-09 on Second and Final Reading; Councilman Cross seconded. The vote: All “aye” - Councilman Shirley Smith, Councilman Anita Newsom, Mayor Pro Tem Cross, Mayor Dan Bishop. (4-0) The Clerk read the Bill. Councilman Newsom moved to accept the Second and Final Reading of Bill 01-09 and enact the Bill as Ordinance No. 3.784; Councilman Cross seconded. The vote: All “aye” - Councilman Shirley Smith, Councilman Anita Newsom, Mayor Pro Tem Cross, Mayor Dan Bishop. (4-0) Item 12b. on the Agenda. FIRST READING: BILL 01-10, approving a Site Plan Revision in conjunction with rezoning of property at 6308/6310 N Prospect. Owners: Laura Reinschmidt and William G. Reinschmidt (File #1146) Councilman Cross moved to place Bill 01-10 on First Reading; Councilman Newsom seconded. No Discussion. The vote: All “aye” - Councilman Shirley Smith, Councilman Anita Newsom, Mayor Pro Tem Cross, Mayor Dan Bishop. (4-0) The Clerk read the Bill. Councilman Cross moved to accept the First Reading of Bill 01-10, Waive the Rule and place Bill 01-10 on Second and Final Reading; Councilman Newsom seconded. The vote: All “aye” - Councilman Shirley Smith, Councilman Anita Newsom, Mayor Pro Tem Cross, Mayor Dan Bishop. (4-0) The Clerk read the Bill. Councilman Cross moved to accept the Second and Final Reading of Bill 01-10 and enact the Bill as Ordinance No. 3.785; Councilman Newsom seconded. The vote: All “aye” - Councilman Shirley Smith, Councilman Anita Newsom, Mayor Pro Tem Cross, Mayor Dan Bishop. (4-0) Final Discussion. Councilman Newsom and Mayor Bishop both wished the Reinschmidts good luck on their project. Mayor Pro Tem Cross asked how soon they would be finished. The response from the Reinschmidts was September 1st, with construction starting this month. Item 13. on the Agenda. FIRST READING BILL 01-11, approving the “REPLAT OF LOTS 25, 36, 37 & 38 FIRST REPLAT OF STONEBROOK ESTATES”. (File #1150) Councilman Cross moved to place Bill 01-11 on First Reading; Councilman Newsom seconded. Discussion: None The vote: All “aye” - Councilman Shirley Smith, Councilman Anita Newsom, Mayor Pro Tem Cross, Mayor Dan Bishop. (4-0) The Clerk read the Bill. Councilman Cross moved to accept the First Reading of Bill 01-11, Waive the Rule and place Bill 01-11 on Second and Final Reading; Councilman Newsom seconded. The vote: All “aye” - Councilman Shirley Smith, Councilman Anita Newsom, Mayor Pro Tem Cross, Mayor Dan Bishop. (4-0) The Clerk read the Bill. Councilman Cross moved to accept the Second and Final Reading of Bill 01-11 and enact the Bill as Ordinance No. 3.786; Councilman Newsom seconded. The vote: All “aye” - Councilman Shirley Smith, Councilman Anita Newsom, Mayor Pro Tem Cross, Mayor Dan Bishop. (4-0) * * * There were no communications from the News Media or further business to come before the March 12, 2001 Gladstone City Council Meeting, and Mayor Dan Bishop adjourned the Regular Meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN TO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION. Councilman Newsom moved to adjourn to Closed Executive Session pursuant to Missouri Open Meeting Act Exemption 610.021(3) for Personnel Discussion as posted on March 8, 2001; and pursuant to Exemption 610.021(1) for Privileged Communications with Legal Counsel as posted on March 12, 2001, concerning a legal matter the City received notice of on March 12, 2001. Councilman Bill Cross seconded. Roll Call Vote: All “aye” - Councilman Shirley Smith, Councilman Anita Newsom, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, Mayor Dan Bishop. (4-0) Respectfully submitted: Marilyn F. Ahnefeld, City Clerk
|