CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2000
Mayor Art Hammen called the Regular March 13, 2000 City Council Meeting to order in the City Council Chambers at 7:30 p.m.
City Manager Kirk Davis
Item 3. on the Agenda. Pledge of Allegiance.
Mayor Art Hammen led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag in which all joined.
Item 4. on the Agenda. Approval of Minutes.
Councilman Norris moved to approve the Regular Monday, March 13, 2000 City Council Meeting Minutes as submitted. Councilman Nodler seconded. The vote: "aye" - Bishop, Nodler, Norris, Hammen. (4-0)
Item 5. on the Agenda. CONSENT AGENDA.
Following the Clerk's reading, Councilman George Nodler moved to approve the Consent Agenda as listed. Councilman Roger Norris seconded. The vote: All "aye" - Bishop, Nodler, Norris, Hammen. (4-0)
CONSENT AGENDA DETAIL:
Councilman George Nodler moved to adopt RESOLUTION R-00-18, authorizing acceptance of work under contract with G.C. Construction, Inc. for the Prospect Plaza Public Improvements, and authorizing final payment in the amount of $4,300.87 from the Capital Improvements Sales Tax Fund. Councilman Roger Norris seconded. The vote: All "aye" - Bishop, Nodler, Norris, Hammen. (4-0)
Councilman George Nodler moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. R-00-19, authorizing acceptance of work under contract with William White & Sons for the 1999 Street Rehabilitation & Reconstruction Program, Intermediate Maintenance Program, ADA Curb Cut/Sidewalk Program, and the Arterial Sidewalk Program. Revised Contract Amount: $1,357,656,15. Final payment due from the Transportation Sales Tax Fund: $1,357.66. Councilman Roger Norris seconded. The vote: All "aye" - Bishop, Nodler, Norris, Hammen. (4-0)
Councilman George Nodler moved for APPROVAL OF A LIMITED ONE DAY BEER & WINE LICENSE to St. Charles Borromeo Church, 804 Shady Lane Drive, for a parish event on Saturday, April 29, 2000. Hours: 6:00 PM - 11:00 PM. Managing Officer: Mr. Paul G. Danaher. Councilman Roger Norris seconded. The vote: All "aye" - Bishop, Nodler, Norris, Hammen. (4-0)
Item 6. on the Agenda. Communications from the Audience.
Gary Livingston, 5962 N Kansas, said he is a board member of The Trails at Kendallwood Homeowner's Association, and asked when N Kansas Street in that area will be paved. He said last summer, Kendallwood Parkway, 59th Street, 59th Terrace, 60th Street and N Chestnut were paved. He assumed N Kansas was also buy it did not get paved.
Mayor Hammen asked Community Development Director Scott Wingerson to address the question. Mr. Wingerson said he would check the listing of streets on the program, and agreed to get back to Mr. Livingston tomorrow morning.
Item 7. on the Agenda. Communications from the City Council.
Councilmembers wished Council Roger Norris a Happy 40th Birthday.
Item 8. on the Agenda. Communications from the City Manager.
City Manager Kirk Davis announced that the street sweeping program budgeted last year will begin on April 17th. He also advised that the Bond Election Committee will meet at Fairview Christian Church at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday evening; and that "Gladstone Night at the Blades" will be held on March 24th and tickets are being sold at city hall.
Mr. Davis asked the City Council's consideration of adding Resolution R-00-20 to the Agenda authorizing the filing of an application with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources for a storm water loam or grant under Section 37(e) and/or Section 37(h) of Article III of the Constitution of the State of Missouri and Chapters 640 and/or 644, RSMo.
He advised that the City has been awarded several grants from the State for storm water improvements and one of the requirements to receive the grant is passage of this resolution. We just received notification that the resolution was needed and apologize for late notice. Although it is a ministerial matter it does allow us to receive over $200,000 in storm water grants this year. Councilman Roger Norris moved to adopt Resolution R-00-20; Councilman George Nodler seconded.
Councilman Norris said as City Manager Davis just mentioned, it should be emphasized this grant will certainly be helpful in getting our storm water program going and going well The vote: All "aye " - Bishop, Nodler, Norris, Hammen. (4-0)
Item 9. on the Agenda. SECOND READING: Bill 99-11, revoking a Special Use Permit issued to Robert Bledsoe and Dennis Foutch for operation of Cripple Creek Rock Co., Inc. on property located at 5616-18 N Antioch Road. (File #1082) (Tabled from 11/22/99 City Council Meeting).
Councilman Norris moved to accept the First Reading of Bill 99-11 and place the Bill on Second and Final Reading; Councilman Nodler seconded.
Councilman Norris referred to a memorandum dated March 10th from Director Scott Wingerson together with a letter from Mr. Robert Bledsoe. In his letter, dated March 9, 2000, Mr. Robert Bledsoe states "Unfortunately, due to the following circumstances, it has become economically imprudent and ill advised to follow through on Cripple Creeks commitment to construct the proposed log cabin sales office from Battle Creek Log Homes. The supplier of the structure is in default of our original agreement and has created an un-workable business environment. These actions also represent a financial loss to the extent of our $2,000.00 down payment that would now appear to be lost, short of legal action. As well as my architectural drawings in which I have spent over $2,500.00. "
Councilman Norris said what they talked most about at the last meeting in tabling the Bill to this date, was specifically the construction of the log cabin. Because clearly it is not going to happen whether because of some fault or no fault on the part of Mr. Bledsoe, and obviously without that building the special use permit will have to be changed. He believes it would be in our best interests as a City to send this ongoing project back to the Planning Commission where it can be addressed and given a fresh by the new commissioners. Then let the recommendations come forth, rather than just bringing the hammer down on Mr. Bledsoe tonight based on some things that are really out of his control. He asked if his fellow Council would be agreeable to his suggestion.
Councilman Bishop said he would like to hear what staff recommends and Councilman Nodler said he would like to hear alternatives to the log cabin for shielding the view.
Director Scott Wingerson advised that in terms of alternatives the main reason for building the log cabin, shed, or whatever term is used, was to screen the storage area for the rocks and materials used in the business from Antioch Road. There are numerous alternatives for revising screening plans that may be much more feasible and ultimately make it a better project.
Mr. Wingerson said on the second page of the original memorandum dated March 8, 2000, it states that staff believes that the applicant desires to remove the log cabin from the approved plan. If this is the case, staff believes that alternative would be a major revision and require a new public hearing on the special use permit by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Mr. Wingerson clarified that the site plan is referenced by the special use permit so it would be appropriate for a change in the site plan to go back through the public hearing process.
Councilman Norris asked how we dispose of the second reading. City Counselor Nancy Thompson replied that the best way to proceed would be to require the applicant to file for a revision to the special use permit, which would also require him to revise the site plan attached to that special use permit. Until that is on file, there would be no requirement for the applicant to modify the site plan for that special use permit in any fashion. Staff recommends that occur prior to disposing of this Bill to revoke the special use permit.
Councilman Bishop said so it would require coming back and addressing this issue again at the next Council Meeting and at that time determining whether the requested amendment has been made, and if so disposing of the bill at that time. Ms. Thompson agreed.
Mayor Hammen asked how much time staff feels is appropriate for submission of a new site plan.
Counselor Thompson said unfortunately, this Council actually needs to deal with Bill 99-11 prior to any change over in the City Council. Because the majority of this Council heard the testimony under the public hearing, this Council actually needs to make a decision on this matter prior to the April 4th election.
Mayor Hammen said so by the next Council Meeting, the site plan needs to be submitted or Council needs to take other action. Ms. Thompson said yes, if it is Council's requirement that Mr. Bledsoe come forward with that revision, then Council needs to take action at that time. The Mayor said so this item could be continued for one more meeting until March 27th and action taken at that time. Counselor Thompson said yes.
Motion to Table: Councilman Norris moved to table the Second Reading of Bill 99-11 until March 27, 2000 and require Mr. Bledsoe to supply the City with a special use permit revision application prior to the City Council meeting on March 27th which begins at 7:30 p.m. Councilman Norris said based on comments of City Counselor Thompson, the Bill will be disposed of in some fashion that night.
City Counselor Thompson noted packets to Council Members do go out on the Thursday prior to the Council Meeting, so any information that needs to be provided to the Council needs to be to staff prior to Thursday, March 23rd. Mayor Hammen asked Mr. Bledsoe if he had any questions or comments.
Robert Bledsoe, 5618 North Antioch Road, said he will be make his submission to the City Council for the March 27th meeting. He has provided his report to the City Council on what happened and he thanks the City Council for working with him and believes Council will not be disappointed.
Mayor Hammen asked Mr. Bledsoe if he is clear on what the Council needs from him before they meet again on March 27th. Mr. Bledsoe said he was.
The vote on the motion to Table the Second Reading of Bill 99-11 until 3/27/00: All "aye" - Bishop, Nodler, Norris, Hammen. (4-0)
Item 10. on the Agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: on a request for a Special Use Permit for operation of Stonebrooke Estates Subdivision Swimming Pool at 4109 NE 72nd Street. Applicant/owner: Stonebrooke, L.L.C. (File #1110)
Mayor Hammen opened the Public Hearing and explained the hearing process.
Mr. Jim Haug, introduced himself and said he is here representing Stonebrooke L.C. and they propose to build a cabana and pool along 72nd Street which would accommodate both Stonebrooke Estates and a part of Stonebrooke Subdivision and explained they are allowing 40 members to join the pool on the Stonebrooke side. Mr. Haug invited questions.
Councilman Norris said at the Planning Commission Meeting there was discussion about children crossing 72nd Street which eventually will be a major east-west corridor in the city. How has that been assessed and how will you address it in your planning?
Mr. Haug said for the most part people will be taking their young children to the pool if they have to cross the street. He can't see that being more of an issue than a child catching a school bus, and we are only talking about a two month period during the summer that this pool operates at a pretty high capacity. He said he believes there will be a crosswalk there because staff had recommended it, but other than that, he does not think there are any provisions being made. Mr. Haug asked what we think will be the problem. Do we think there will be a lot of traffic running back and forth across the street.
Councilman Norris said when his kids were growing up and they lived in Hamilton Heights and that pool ceased to exist, his children became members of the Gladstone Municipal Pool which required them to cross N Oak. He said most of the time he or his wife brought them to the pool by car, because of the obvious safety hazard of a 10-13 year old child running across the street even if there was sidewalk. He recalls an 8th grade school mate who was hit by a car and lost his life crossing the street at 88th & N Oak. Children are intent on getting to the pool and don't worry about the car popping the hill. While parents are careful and teach their children to look both ways the reality is that the kids are intent on getting to the other side of the street. This is a safety issue in his mind and he just wanted to hear Mr. Hague's thoughts on the subject.
Mr. Haug said they are not promoting children in the pool without adult supervision, and they will have signage up to advise parents that if their kids are at the pool, they have to be there with them. He said he does not think that should be that much of an issue and noted there was only one Planning Commission member who opposed their application because of that.
Councilman Norris asked the projected operation and maintenance expenses for the pool. Mr. Haug said probably around $10,000/year. He said it will not be a life-guarded pool but rather you will be coming at your own risk to watch your children.
Mr. Norris asked how the amount was arrived at. Mr. Haug said the costs cane from some past experience with pools that he has been involved with. That would not take care of landscaping and other parts of Stonebrooke that would also be on a maintenance program but that figure would cover the pool itself.
Cr. Norris asked at what point the Homes Association would be expected to pay for the operation of the pool. Mr. Haug said probably when it reaches about 70% which is one of the reasons they elected to allow Stonebrooke to come in. There was a lot of interest on the north side for a pool and that was why they decided to allow them to come in too because it would help with some of the expenses on the pool and also give them a place to go. It is impossible to put a pool in a subdivision without somebody crossing a street some place. He knows 72nd Street is slated to be a busy street, but he thinks the fact that staff said they would put a cross walk there as long as they would put the signage on 72nd Street for "No Parking" should alleviate concerns. He said the reason for "No Parking" was so that the kids cold not dart in and out of the parked cars and he told the City staff he would have no problem putting the signage up and the City was going to put the cross walks in.
Councilman Norris said the North Kansas City School District would not allow children to walk to school if they had to cross an arterial street of four lanes or more, they would send a bus for the child. He would guess that the child would probably have a little bit more intrepidation about going to school rather than going to the pool.
Mr. Norris said on the analysis section of the staff report, it states that membership must be limited to the number of proposed parking stalls. He asked if the proposed parking is inadequate for this use. Mr. Haug said he does not think it is. They had a pool architect draw it up, and he felt what they were putting in would accommodate. Not always, but most all the time there would be ample parking.
Councilman Norris asked if the pool could support use by more families if pedestrian access was provided along the property lines of lots 25 and 26 or 35-36 to reduce the vehicular traffic.
Mr. Haug responded that it is not being built to do that. It is being built for the approximate number of people that would be using the pool which is roughly 75 households. That is the amount of parking that the cabana, the pool area and all that was designed around.
Mr. Norris asked what he thinks the practical capacity of the pool is. Mr. Haug said probably 40-50 people. Usually at least half of the people are not in the pool but are there to watch the children, or sitting in the sun, or doing anything but getting in the water, The design of the pool is such that it should accommodate the number of people they have slated for. They have taken that into consideration in designing the pool.
Mr. Norris asked what the membership dues will be and asked how that is going to compete with the Gladstone Public Swimming Pool. He said he phrased it that way because he used to be a member of Hamilton Heights Country Club and when its prices continued to increase well in excess of the Gladstone municipal pool, the Country Club's membership declined dramatically. This put the city in the position of having a six acre tract of land deteriorating before our very eyes, and becoming a danger to the public which then cost the City of Gladstone some $700,000 to purchase and ultimately make it into a park that was then safe for use by the public. He asked Mr. Haug how they can put the City in the un-comfortable position knowing that in the future they may have a significant financial liability on the city's hands.
Mr. Haug said he was around when Hamilton Heights Pool and the lake were in operation and there was a huge area to maintain. The bigger the pool, the more expense they are to maintain. This is a small pool but a little bit bigger than a residential pool. Knowing the expenses of a residential pool is part of how they arrived at their estimated costs. This is an upscale neighborhood and is something that is being done in a lot of neighborhoods, where they are putting a nice area cabana pool in for the homeowners. The initial cost will be $250.00/year per member so that gives them roughly $10,000 on the south side of the street and also if you have 40 on the other side, that is an additional $10,000 that should cover not only the pool but the landscaping, and it can go up because it is in the covenants and restrictions that it can be increased 15% a year. If it is not making its way, then it can be increased.
Councilman Norris said there becomes a point of diminishing return because increasing the price does not ensure increased revenue.
Mr. Haug said the dues are very meager compared to a lot of areas. You could conceivably double that $250.00 in five years and that is still not real expensive for a subdivision. With the quality of homes going in there, those people will want to maintain it and take care of the area. They are getting a lot of positive interest. People are coming in and building 4,000 and 5,000 sq. ft. homes and a lot of them could have their own pool, and if they did, they would be paying $1,000 - $1,2000 a year on maintenance. So if the maintenance goes to $500-$600 a year on this pool, he would think they are going to be happy to pay that.
Councilman Bishop said he understands there will be a homeowners association in the new development on the south side of 72nd Street but membership in the pool is not going to be part of the privileges of belong to the homeowners association. Mr. Haug said it is one and the same. On the Estate side, those homeowners will be members of the pool automatically. It is not optional to belong to the homeowners association.
Councilman Bishop said so when you join, the covenants and restrictions require you to pay $250.00 for the first year and it can go up 15% every year thereafter and the folks on the south side must pay that or there will be a lien on their property. Mr. Bishop said he felt better about that because he is aware of a situation in Gladstone where a developer built a neighborhood pool and turned it over to a non profit corporation which did not have means to put liens on the properties in the subdivision. As the subdivision aged, they are now in a situation where they really don't have any way to get the funds necessary for needed repairs to the pool which have come about through old age. In this case it looks like there is going to be a certain and ever increasing opportunity for revenue coming from homeowners association dues on the south side, and then you are also providing for 40 memberships a year from the north side. Mr. Haug said that is not mandatory, Stonebrooke subdivision has the right to join up to 40 members. Mr. Bishop said but there is no way to assess a lien on those homeowners properties if they did not pay it because it is not in their covenants. Mr. Haug said he believes Mr. Bishop is correct.
Mr. Haug said Stonebrooke (north side) members would be paying around $1500 to join the club which is optional and it transfers with the home to the next owner, like an asset or increased value to the home. So the membership goes with the home and they have to pay the $250.00. If the number drops below 40 they can pick up somebody else who has moved into the neighborhood and wants to become a member of the pool . He clarified there are 37 homes on the south side (Stonebrooke Estates) and 68 on the north (Stonebrooke).
Mr. Bishop said Councilman Norris makes a good point that if you keep raising the dues you cold lose the 40 members on the north side so he needs to feel comfortable that the 37 homes on the south side are going to be able to support this pool in the future so we don't get into a situation where it is not kept up and becomes dilapidated. We are looking long term, thirty years or whatever.
Mr. Haug said they will do a gunite pool which has greater longevity than a liner pool. They do have to have some maintenance but the shell of the pool is good for 20 years.
Mr. Haug said in Stonebrooke on the north side, homeowners pay $100/year to the homeowners association. They maintain the common grounds and pay the water and electric for the waterfall, and they have been able to maintain the area very well. Mr. Haug clarified there will be no lifeguard expense and said most of these types of pools do not have lifeguards. They put signs up cautioning that members must take care of their own children and are responsible for their own actions.
Mr. Bishop said the trick for the homeowners association would be to raise the fees along the way so there is a cushion for the time when there are more expenses for maintenance needs. Mr. Haug said about a third of the homes are now sold in Stonebrooke Estates, and he looks for the pool to be turned over to a homes association in about two years. They will l have their own meetings and raise their own dues. He said they have gone to a great deal of expense to put in stone pillars, wrought iron, special lighting, and other things to the entrance; and he thinks there will be a pride there that those people will want to maintain this as well as everything else, and he thinks it will be a special place in Gladstone.
Councilman Nodler asked Mr. Wingerson if Public Safety has reviewed safety concerns on 72nd Street. Mr. Wingerson said as part of the review process of the Special Use Permit, the Public Safety Department did review it and did not have any objection.
There were no other persons to speak for or against this application and the Mayor asked Director Scott Wingerson to make staff comments.
Community Development Director Scott Wingerson said he would draw Council's attention to the fact that the term of the special use permit is proposed for five years because of the capital expense required by the applicant to install the pool. Also, he notes Condition #1 which allows the Special Use Permit to transfer from the Applicant, Stonebrooke, LLC to the Stonebrooke Estates Homeowner's Association. If the request were to be approved, and the association did take control of the subdivision, the special use permit would transfer automatically and not require the neighborhood to come before the City Council for an extension. He noted the Planning Commission recommended approval by an 11-1 vote.
Councilman Norris asked Mr. Wingerson to define the term "membership requirements which will adequately provide for future maintenance and upkeep of the property" in condition #9 of the Special Use Permit Conditions. Mr. Wingerson responded that the condition #9 requires that they (the City) review a copy of the homeowner covenants and the purpose is to confirm what the applicant has stated in this public hearing and in Planning Commission hearing.
Councilman Norris said then it is important that the City feel comfortable with the financial aspects of the proposal because if the homes association cannot pay the maintenance and upkeep of the property it would ultimately become a burden to the City. If a special use permit is approved and if for some reason in five years the homeowners association chooses not to renew it, then what do we do. Mr. Wingerson replied that staff would go forward with the homeowners association to demand compliance with those who are in violation.
Mr. Norris said he hates to keep referring back to Hamilton Heights, but he recalls that when he was growing up, doctors and bank Presidents lived in that subdivision; it was not 40 year old homes that could not support a pool anymore. It was the upper echelon of Gladstone at the time and then larger houses were built elsewhere. Forty years changes all things and he is trying to figure out what safe actions we can take step by step, to make sure that the City is not held liable at some point. As an ex-lifeguard he can tell us that signage does not save kids. One problem there with the signs, and the membership will dwindle to none, and the insurance would be incredibly high. He is bothered by that.
Director Wingerson said basically all he can say is that staff raised that concern in the Staff Report, as did the Planning Commission in their public hearing.
Councilman Bishop asked Councilman Norris if you were a member of Hamilton Heights Country Club just by virtue of living in that subdivision. Councilman Norris responded that in the very beginning you were a member just by living in Hamilton Heights and you had to live north of 64th Street between Broadway & Oak and South of 72nd Street to become a member. Your first year, the dues were paid automatically because the homes association was active in the late 50's through early 60's. In fact they had enough income to go from a 25 yard pool to an L-shaped 25 meter pool with diving boards, high dives, club houses, and all that. As the cost increased and people were no longer made to join, it just became un-viable as a neighborhood pool.
Councilman Bishop said the only difference he sees with this application is that membership in this pool will not be optional, because at the point you buy the house you buy the membership hook, line and sinker; and you can't get out if you decide not to pay your dues. Then the homeowners association has the opportunity to place a lien on your real estate which is a pretty good incentive to pay your dues. So they are not going to lose members. He said the covenants and restrictions stay in place as long as you own the real estate.
Councilman Norris said they stay in place, but they don't have to be enforced unless the homeowners association enforces them and if they are not viable five years or choose as a homeowners association not to renew the special use permit is what he feels might be a problem. He agrees that the deeds and restriction go right along with the property unless a court action removes them.
Councilman Norris said those were his particular concerns. He does not think it is a problem to have a pool there, it is just what happens at the end of five years or at the end of twenty years when the pool lining wears out and the replacement costs are great and maybe they say "we just don't need this". Then what does the City do; because this happened with a thirty year old pool just a couple of years ago.
Councilman Bishop said the Hamilton Heights Country Club was its own nonprofit corporation where in this instance the property is going to be owned by the collective homeowners association, and therefore, the association could decide to sell the property and sub-divide it. Of course they will always have to be cognizant of the impact of a blighted condition on their property values, and their property values are not cheap properties. Councilman Norris said he would argue the other direction too that the huge expense mandated in the deeds and restrictions certainly can't help property values. He said of course he is speculating on the future, ut they are valid concerns.
There were no further comments or persons desiring to speak for or against this proposal and Mayor Hammen closed the public hearing.
Item 10a. on the Agenda. FIRST READING BILL 2000-06, granting a Special Use Permit subject to certain conditions to Stonebrooke, L.L.C. to operate a Subdivision Swimming Pool at 4109 NE 72nd Street. Applicant: Applicant/owner: Stonebrooke LLC. (File #1110)
Councilman Norris moved to place Bill 00-06 on First Reading; Councilman Nodler seconded.
Councilman Norris said he really only has two small concerns. He thinks this is great for kids but he would like to see a more in-depth traffic study of what 72nd Street traffic will be, because they are opening membership up to 40 memberships on the other side of 72nd Street. He thinks it would be prudent to take every step to reduce the liability on our end.
Secondly, he would like to give our staff the chance to answer some questions that Mr. Bishop had about what is actually in the covenant restrictions, and how those will be mandated to those folks who are going to be mandatory members of this pool.
Councilman Nodler said he would have no problem with Councilman Norris' request. .
Councilman Bishop said this is on the east side of Antioch Road and clearly a major construction project is underway right now on the west side of Antioch Road to widen 72nd Street. What is the long range plan for 72nd Street east of Antioch Road. Is that going to become four lanes at some time also. Is that envisioned going all the way through to Brighton.
Director Wingerson said basically our east city limits is the east side of Stonebrooke Estates. So any improvements to 72nd Street east of Stonebrooke Estates would be in Kansas City, Missouri. It is staff's understanding that the current plan for Kansas City is two fold. First, through development of large tracts of land to the east of Stonebrooke, the developers would be required to rebuild 72nd Street similar to the way these developers rebuilt the Stonebrooke portion of 72nd Street. The other way is that Kansas City is currently underway with their North Brighton corridor study and that may be another alternative on the far east end where it intersects with 72nd Street to see some improvements. But it certainly is an arterial in the Kansas City street plan, as it is in Gladstone.
Councilman Norris said in the early 90's when he was the Clay County representative to the total Transportation Policy Committee of MARC, there were long range plans looking at those arterial streets in fact that is how they secured several million dollars from the State in ISTEA funds for the 72nd Street project. They envisioned 72nd Street cutting past North Brighton and lining up with the bridge that is north of Pleasant Valley (Shoal Creek) so it is obvious the planners were anticipating that. So the long range plan was to make 72nd Street four lane at least to Brighton and over to the Shoal Creek Bridge.
Councilman Bishop said thinking of it becoming a four lane does cause him concern. He recalls working at the Gladstone Pool for seven summers and so many children came with no adult supervision and found their own way to the pool somehow by bicycle or walking. He thinks realistically children in the summer oftentimes don't have adult supervision and they will find themselves getting to the pool and across 72nd Street on their own. That causes him concern.
Councilman Norris said he does not want to kill this Bill but sees the need for a more in-depth traffic study of 72nd Street and also review of the deed restrictions.
City Manager Davis suggested that a first reading be given with the idea that the second reading is on the agenda in two weeks. March 27th).
The Mayor asked Councilman Norris if as part of his motion for first reading, he is suggesting that the City require the traffic study to be done. Councilman Norris said yes.
The vote on First Reading: "Aye" - Bishop, Nodler, Norris. Mr. Art Hammen advised he will "Abstain" because his company is building a house in this subdivision Councilman Newsom was Absent. (3-0-1) The Clerk read the Bill.
* * *
There were no questions from the news media or further business to come before the March 13, 2000 Gladstone City Council Meeting and Mayor Art Hammen adjourned the Regular Meeting.
Marilyn F. Ahnefeld, City Clerk