MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

GLADSTONE, MISSOURI

REGULAR MEETING

MONDAY FEBRUARY 28, 2005

PRESENT: Mayor Wayne Beer

Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi

Councilman Bill Cross

Councilman Les Smith

Councilman Joe Evans

City Manager Kirk Davis

City Counselor David Ramsay

Assistant City Manager Scott Wingerson

City Clerk Cathy Swenson

Mayor Wayne Beer opened the Regular February 28, 2005, City Council Meeting at 7:30 PM in the Gladstone City Council Chambers.

Following is a transcript of the meeting as provided by Action Court Reporters, Inc.

CITY OF GLADSTONE, MISSOURI

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING

February 28, 2005

City Hall

Gladstone, Missouri

Attendance:

City Council Members:

Mr. Wayne Beer, Mayor

Ms. Carol Rudi, Mayor Pro Tem

Mr. Joe Evans, Councilman

Mr. Bill Cross, Councilman

Mr. Les Smith, Councilman

Staff:

Mr. Scott Wingerson, Assistant City Manager

Mr. Dave Ramsay, City Attorney

Ms. Cathy Swenson, Clerk

Mr. Kirk Davis, City Manager

Ms. Janet Wimer

Certified Court Reporter

ACTION COURT REPORTERS, INC.

6 N.E. 53rd Terrace

816-454-4224 Kansas City, MO 64118 fax 816-455-4488

MR. WINGERSON: Mayor Beer and members of the Council, thank you very much. I would like to start by explaining some of the information that’s at your disposal. Attached is a packet that was provided tonight with communications from residents who called today, as well as a letter that was provided today. I just wanted to make you aware of those. Two phone messages. One from Ms. Segal(ph) and one from Ms. Rattan and then a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Clayton, available for your review. The packet that was provided last week contains a lot of information. As usual, it will be in the Staff report and, in this case, a supplemental description of the request, draft of bills for your consideration and site visit report from the Planning Commission, a Planning Commission public hearing transcripts and minutes, other resident correspondence, a petition that we’ll talk about more in just a second and then all of the development plan and the history of the development plan and the issue that’s pending before you tonight. The applicant is requesting two actions from the City Council this evening. The first is a zoning change from its current classification of RCH-1 to that of a CP-1. That contains 3.43 acres. The eastern portion of the site, you’ll see graphically in just a minute, is currently zoned CP-1, the western half is currently zoned RCH-1. It’s only the western portion that is the subject of the zoning change. The zoning change is also subject to a protest petition that’s in effect. It’s only on the zoning change and does not apply to the site plan and requires full Council votes to pass affirmatively. Of the protest petition, it’s been determined to be valid, containing approximately 79 percent of the adjacent property owners that qualify to sign the petition itself. The second action is site plan approval that’s pretty overall on a site which is just short of 8 acres. And there’s a whole host of additional action, should the Council reach a decision on this matter to move it forward, you have final plat development permits, construction permits and then the development process will start pending your decision. The site itself is generally located at the northwest corner of 64^th Street and Antioch Road. You can see 72^nd Street as an arterial to the north. Englewood Road is an arterial to the south. 64^th Street and Pleasant Valley road leading to 435 on the east and 64^th Street leading towards North Oak Trafficway to the west. The surrounding land uses to the site are for mainly single family to the north a dance studio and single family residential to the south. East is retail in the form of Prospect Plaza and west is single family residential. An aerial photograph allows you to begin to see this site itself. You can see an area of fill that will be brown in color on the screen. You can see the arterial roadway, State right of way, North Prospect, or M-1, to the east of the site and the right side of the drawing, 64^th Street to the south. You begin to see the neighborhoods and single family homes to the north, southwest, and a little bit of a dance studio to the south. You can see that this site has significant topography. You can see that primarily the west and north edges of the site are fairly heavily wooded. Graphically, the zoning looks a little bit like this. The blue area at the northwest corner of North Prospect at 64^th Street is currently zoned CP-1. The green portion is the area in discussion for the zoning change. Currently, it’s zoned to RCH-1. You can see commercial zoning to the east, a little bit to the south, and single family, as you would expect, with the surrounding lines uses to the southwest. This property has a zoning history. In May of 1978, the entire parcel was zoned R-1. In May, it was changed, the eastern portion, to CP-1. It’s the first introduction of commercial zoning on this piece of property. In June of 1990, the western portion was changed from R-1 to RCH-1. And then in March of 2000, there was a special use permit and a site plan, that was actually withdrawn by the applicant for the Green Lantern. This is a currently approved development plan. It was approved in approximately 1978 and I would like to highlight just a couple of things for you. One, you start to see commercial activity on the eastern portion, residential activity on the western portion, as you would expect with the current zoning. Please note, full access driveway is proposed on North Prospect, as well as on 64^th Street in the form of the extension of North Wabash. These uses are restaurant, bank and retail strip that are proposed here. It’s currently zoned CP-1. At this point, it would be necessary to implement this development plan to seek the appropriate building permit and construct the improvements. This is a Green Lantern plan, just to refresh the Council’s memory. You can see, again, full access driveway on North Prospect, full access driveway on 64^th Street. The Green Lantern was a convenience store, guest pump and car wash facility located mainly at the intersection. Again, you see the remainder being residential in compliance with the current zoning. The proposed land development, overall, is approximately 7.9 acres. Again, 3.4 acres is subject to the zoning change. The overall development plan includes 33,000 square feet of retail. It’s anticipated the site would be subdivided into 4 lots. There’s over 200 parking spaces. A significant use of retaining walls to mitigate grade concerns and typical accessory improvements, such as drives, trash enclosures, landscaping, lighting and things like that. This is the first view of the development plan. I would just like to highlight a couple of notes. There’s a total of 5 buildings. One on the northeast corner and 1 on the southeast corner, 1 kind of centrally located and then 2 on the western portion. The first 3, typically referred to as pad sites or free standing buildings, the back 2 buildings are more considered strip retail. The developer has provided, and will explain to you, architectural elevations for these back 2 buildings and explain to you their concepts and theories in achieving that design and style. Elevations for the front are not available, mainly because the tenant, or tenants, or occupants of those pad sites have yet to be determined. There’s been an awful lot of discussion about the specific uses, specifically relating to these 3 areas. At this point, those aren’t known; however, this is very, very normal in the planning process as the developer seeks City approval and then begins the tenant recruitment process ultimately resulting in the physical development of the property. Here is another view, a little bit closer view, of the proposed site plan. Again, if you note the access onto North Prospect, aligns with Prospect Plaza directly on the east side, full access roadway at 64^th Street just west of the intersection at 64^th and Prospect and then the proposed right in, right out only access point, it aligns generally with North Wabash. This is a very busy drawing. The main intent in here is to show the significant topography that exists on the site and how it would be mitigated with the use of retaining walls, also begins to highlight storm water concerns in the form of detention basin at the northwest corner and north centrally located on the property in accordance with City standards. During the public hearing, there was significant discussion about lighting and overflow lighting into the site. Here are some illustrative examples as provided by the developer as to what they would propose for zoning lighting. As you can see, it’s very directional and intended to light only what it’s intended to light. Site lighting guidelines are generally universal in that you only light as much as you need to light. There are different types of lighting patterns, a more general broad lighting pattern or a more directive lighting pattern. The light fixtures that are proposed by the developer are fully adjustable to achieve all of those patterns and would be utilized in a way to minimize the overflow lighting into adjacent areas. Staff, there’s a lot of retaining walls in the project. Staff, one of the Staff recommendations is to require a rough textured retaining wall. Here are 2 examples, again provided by the developer, of rough textured retaining walls. There will be more discussion of that as we get to the conditions. Grading and erosion control plan was raised at the public hearing. This drawing shows the use of silt fence with the heavy black line with circles on it. Rock filters near the proposed inlets to ensure a minimal amount of erosion and sedimentation end up downstream. You can also again begin to see very well the drainage system itself from the parking lot to the detention basins and then to the channel to the north and that’s consistent for both portions of the property, north, south, east and west. The system is designed, overall, to accommodate a 100 year storm and it is calculated to run off as calculated in its vegetative state. So it would not be any worse than that now. This is a landscape plan. Again, it’s a busy drawing with a lot of topography, but you can see an extensive use of landscape islands in the parking lots, heavy use of trees, and vegetative plantings surrounding the buildings to create an entry way from both North Prospect and Northeast 64^th Street. This is a good drawing to show that the buildings on the western portion, the strip buildings do not have any vehicular access. Originally, that was a concern due to fire protection. The developer has done a good job working with our fire division personnel in placing hydrants so that vehicular access for fire safety is not required and servicing of the buildings can be handled provided by a single person walkway. This is a detail of the proposed right in, right out intersection. As you can see, this is certainly designed to encourage travelers to go west on 64^th Street and not try to make a U-turn and go east. In fact, the U-turn requires the driver to hop the curb on 64^th Street before proceeding to the east toward the single lane intersection. One of the issues we’ve continued to wrestle with just a little bit is significant hump, as a technical term, on 64^th Street. What the developer has proposed is to reduce the height of the vertical curve in 64^th Street by filling certain areas of the roadway and cuttings some areas of the roadway. What that results is a safer roadway system, entire road network, for 64^th Street, Waldron and Park, and for pedestrians. This would also include the provision of sidewalks on the south side of 64^th Street from generally North Park to Antioch Road, from North Park to Antioch Road on the north side, as well as sidewalks heading north along the development site. This is the beginning of the recommended conditions of the Staff. Let me just highlight some of the original conditions. They’re all contained in your draft bill. As usual, we’re requiring for appropriate storm water and traffic studies, will require MODOT approval; however, I’ll tell you MODOT is currently in concurrence with this development plan, which provides an acceleration/deceleration lane on M-1 from a proposed jut to the south and a deceleration lane on 64^th Street heading west from the intersection. Of course, compliance with all public improvements and construction requirements are pretty much a normal thing. Rough textured retaining walls. You saw examples of that earlier in the presentation. We’re proposing that hours of operation be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 12 midnight. Trash pickup between 8:00 a.m and 6:00 p.m. No overnight tractor trailer storage. Rooftop equipment screened and dumpsters enclosed and that a single compliant monument sign be used. The complicated part of this overall recommendation is now communicating what’s occurred at the Planning Commission level. During the Planning Commission Public Hearing, numerous issues were raised and we tried to address most of those. The first being traffic. The main point there was access at the M-1, proposed M-1 driveway across from Prospect Plaza. Site distances on 64^th, because of the hill in that roadway and the practical functionality of ensuring the appropriate protections in the construction of the right in, right out driveway. For the first two, what’s proposed is a developing agreement that would provide generally for a northbound left turn lane into the proposed development and site, would provide for the reducing the hill at Northeast 64^th Street and the construction of those sidewalks. And then we just looked at the exhibit showing that is very, very difficult to make an eastbound turn from the right in, right out only driveway. Second issue had to do with storm water and drainage. The project engineer, I’m sure, will do a good job explaining to you how they came to the conclusions that I’ve tried to just kind of explain to you tonight. The standard requires that under any circumstances, including the 100 year event, that the rate and amount of runoff do not exceed pre-development conditions for a specified period of time. That’s very normal and typical in a requirement that we passed forth to developers on all cases like this. Again, the developer has provided a very sound erosion and sediment control plan to protect the stream bed at the north end and the west portions of the site. There are an awful lot of miscellaneous issues that don’t fit into any one really good category. The neighborhood raised the issue of increased speed on 64^th Street. That is typically an enforcement issue and not a planning and land use issue. There was comment about an exposed sanitary sewer. Our Public Works Staff, including Director Williams, investigated this issue and found very, very little evidence that that existed. However, to be on the safe side, we have recommended in condition form a condition that would require that to be repaired should it be developed or observed during the construction process. During a public hearing, there was an awful lot of discussion about the qualifications of the developer. Ms. Wheeler, the primary developer, has 8 years of residential construction and real estate experience. Mr. McAfee, the project engineer, has 13 years of engineering experience. Mr. Oppermann has over 25 years of experience in planning and landscape architecture. Mr. Cantrell has 30 years of experience in building architecture. And Mr. Mann, Bill Mann, who serves as a consultant in this project, has been a development consultant and a developer himself for over 35 years north of the river. A resident asked if property tax rates, water rates, sewer rates, and those types of things would go up because of this development. That is not the case as it relates to property owners outside of the development site. Restaurant owners was raised as a concern. A supplemental condition addresses this concern by requiring the very highest efficiency and quality filtering systems that are available and a follow-up mechanism at the end to ensure that, in fact, they are operating as designed. Light control, we talked about that. There’s also a condition relating to that. While maintenance was a concern, and again a condition to maintain that with perpetuity, structurally and aesthetically, is proposed in your draft bill. There were a lot of other concerns ranging from what’s the detention basin at 68^th Street for, why did you do the Park project or the Garfield project, the current zoning at the Northhaven Village Condos, the parking at a building on 72^nd Street, and how many zoning changes that we had in the last period of time, so we provided all of that information back to the Planning Commission and hopefully, therefore, to the public. If you have any questions about those, I would be glad to address them. Originally, there were, I believe, 22 original conditions. After the Planning Commission Meeting, additional conditions were requested. In your draft bill, I believe, they are conditions number 23 through 26. The primary condition is number 23. The developer and the City shall negotiate and enter into a development agreement that provides for improvements to M-1, designed to improve traffic safety and mitigate traffic congestion. The agreement shall also provide for reconstruction of Northeast 64^th Street at North Wabash to create safe site distances and provide curb, gutter and sidewalk. Finally, the development agreement will analyze and repair any currently exposed sanitary sewers. Condition 24 has to do with the odor producing businesses, 25 having to do with the light fixtures and 26 having to do with the retaining walls. The Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council by a vote of 8 to 2 on the zoning change and recommends approval of the site plan by a vote of 7 to 3, as recorded last Tuesday night. Council has an awful lot of options and it’s always dangerous to try and explain these options because they work in combination. In general, the Council, on the zoning change, could deny that request. If you chose to do that, then there would be no need to consider the site plan that follows on your agenda. If the Council had approved this zoning change, however, the protest petition is in effect, so that would require 4 Council votes to move that forward. In terms of the site plan, of course you could deny the site plan. You could approve the site plan as recommended or additional conditions based on testimony tonight. And that’s about it. At this point, I’d be glad to answer any questions that you have for me at this time. I know the development team is raring to go.

MAYOR BEER: Mr. Wingerson, I do have one question that kind of popped out at me. You had indicated there was a, that the storm water plan was for the 100 year event.

MR. MCAFEE: Commission, my name is Joe McAfee with McAfee, Henderson & Strick. I am the civil engineer for the project. Mr. Oppermann could not be with us this evening, but I will certainly entertain any technical questions that you may have dealing with the layout of the project as Mr. Oppermann and I have worked together closely on several development projects of this type. Mr. Wingerson did an excellent job and a thorough job of explaining several of the issues that this project has faced as we have come through with the development. And I wanted to do, I will certainly answer any technical questions that you may have. In lieu of just going over the plan and reiterating what Mr. Wingerson was saying about the layout, I would like to hit some of the key points that came across as we worked on this project. We started the project with Bonnie and Gary Wheeler, the developers, in October of 2004. And when we were hired, we were basically asked if we could put together that shows the piece of land they were looking at. They wanted us to put together a development that they could be proud of as actually retaining some of the ownership and being a long term owner of a portion of the land, but that also created some commercial lots that could be sold to try to finance the project, so it could be built that way in its entirety. When we started in October, one of the things that was important was a diversity of lot size. We had seen the original plan of the Green Lantern. The Wheelers were not interested in trying to bring another convenience store to Gladstone. They wanted a mixed type use, a mixed type use in the way of lot sizes that we could try to, basically, get a diverse listing of the businesses that are able to be placed in C-1 zoning. And they went through several iterations with the Wheelers looking in on us and showed them several renditions. And it took about 5 renditions to get to something they were truly comfortable with the lamp lighting. And then we started working with Staff. We worked with, starting with Mr. Wingerson, we had several meetings with Kirk Rome(ph), the Public Works Director, we met with the fire department, and basically we addressed these issues as they came up dealing with the storm drainage, dealing with the lighting, the potential lighting and that situation, dealing with the screening and the plan continued to get better and converge on a better plan each time we had a meeting. On November 30^th we held a meeting with the neighborhood and some of the concerns that addressed it, we tried to rank them in importance. One of them was concern for screening to the north and the west. Concern for storm drainage runoff, concerns of traffic, noise associated with a commercial development, lighting associated with a commercial development and safety for their children. Over the next month and a half, we went back to the drawing board and we worked with Staff and we worked with those specialists, we brought in a lighting specialist. Pete, Mr. Oppermann, spent time really concerned with the setback requirements and the screening that had to occur on the north and the west to make sure we were meeting the screening requirements of the citizens. The Planning Commission held a site visit as is normal for the City of Gladstone. I’ve never done that in any other city and I thought it was a great idea once we went through it, and we got to explain, the best we could, how we were addressing them. As we work through these issues, we basically went through some more revisions of the plan and what we’ve finally submitted to the Planning Commission on this last meeting, I believe is the best we could put together for trying to appease all the standards associated with this project. I want to list some of the positives that this plan has. Basically, the plan maintains a vegetative state around the entirety to the north and the west. And in some cases, exceeding the 35-foot buffer that is required by your City. The plan has a diversity in lot size, so that we can hopefully bring in different types of businesses to create more of that neighborhood business feel. There was a comment at the Planning Commission, on a vote when it was going through the plan itself, by Commissioner Newsom, and she mentioned that she couldn’t vote for this plan because each one of these sites identified a drive-thru and we took that to heart and we came back and we talked about it after the meeting. Luckily the plan still approved, was approved, but the development team wanted me to go on record, at the City Meeting, stating that the traffic study that we submitted to MODOT, that’s been approved by MODOT, only allows us to put 1 drive-thru facility restaurant area in this development. It is not our intention, it never was the intention, to fill this thing up with fast food joints, so much more, 180 degrees the other way. We want something that the Wheelers can be proud to say that they are a part of for the long haul. Some of the other positive points, we’ve put together an internal graphs routing system with two drives that we’ve labeled drive A and drive B. It became very apparent in the early goings of this project that it was going to take 3 entrances, and 2 of them being onto 64^th Street, to make this work to MODOT’s compliance, to get the traffic split up enough where no one intersection was being overloaded. And I just want to point out that, as opposed to just being a strip commercial area that just all used 64^th Street for their driveways, the developers have taken upon themselves to actually put an infrastructure system internal of the streets that will actually help people get safely from one shop to the other one. Another thing I want to point out was that it provides an erosion control system when considering the inside to the north, there was a concern and this is going to come to Mayor Beer’s question about the 25 year, there was a concern among the people to the north that if this developed, there is a swale that runs down the back of all these homeowners lots and it was going to be inundated with water. First of all, in terms of the 25 year, when an underground pipe system is placed in a commercial setting, it has to be capable of handling a 25 year event. And in respect to residential, if we were working in a residential development, that underground pipe and curb inlet system would have to handle a 10 year storm, so it’s a bigger system. It costs more. It gives more safety. But that’s the 25 year question that you had, Mayor Beer. The 100 year, and it’s more than just a 100 year, there’s 2 retention or detention ponds on this site and I don’t know if you, you may not be able to see it if you haven’t studied the plan that much, but basically every bit of impervious area on this site is directed to those 2 detention areas. It’s not directed over a hill or through another pipe, what they call routing a portion of it through your detention facility and letting the rest of it release unprotected, it’s all routed to these 2 detention areas. And what we do is we design to the American Public Works Association guidelines that says when the 5 year event comes, that it’s being a higher peak than what it was before we can get in and develop it. When the 10 year comes, it won’t be - when the 25 comes, and so on, the 50, the 100, so it’s not just a 100 year protection, it’s basically saying that when it rains in Gladstone, the outfall from these detention facilities that meter all the water coming off this site will be less or equal to what was there before we came here. By putting these detention areas in and by allowing pipes to take the water out of these detention areas strictly straight to the swale that’s in the backyard, we’ve taken away the water routing that used to just fall over the hill. And if you’ve been by the site, it is a massive hill, it’s 20 feet high, of runoff and there is some erosion back there because water has just basically been allowed to roll over it and pick up speed as it runs down to the swale. What I’m trying to say is, that’s all going to be taken away because we’re catching that water at the top of the hill and directing it into our controlled environment. So I looked at that as a positive, because I really do. I’ve walked the site and I really do feel like we are going to improve the runoff for that area over what is there right now. And you can’t say that in a lot of developments, I dare to mention. The last thing, one of the last turns the project went through, we’ve tried so hard with the right in, right out, working with MODOT and having 3 meetings with Steve Holiday with MODOT and Norm Bowers to make certain that we have a safe riding of a right out only on 64^th Street. And Mr. Wingerson showed you details where the Planning Commissioner asked us to bring back proof, because everybody seeing right in, right out said just don’t do it. And MODOT had a special one that they had found had been working, but some additional discussion with Staff basically got us to the point where we determined we needed more of a compromise if we were going to be showing that we were good neighbors, we were going to have to try to do some improvements to 64^th Street. So, that’s the last positive. This project creates the sales tax money, then in turn fixes 64th Street, which in turn puts sidewalks on the south side, which was a pedestrian issue that the homeowners there were concerned with. So what we’re trying to show is, that we’re truly trying to leave this project better than what it was when we came on board. And like I said, I will answer any technical questions from the civil engineering or the land layout. Mr. Steve Cantrell, the project architect, would like to discuss the buildings, but if you have anything, any discussion points on the technical side of the development, I would certainly listen to those and address them as best I can.

MAYOR BEER: Mayor Pro Tem Rudi looks like she has a question.

MR. CANTRELL: Mr. Mayor, Council. My name is Steve Cantrell. I’m with the architectural group of Stephen Jay Cantrell & Associates, 6002 Northwest Highway 9, Suite B, Parkville, Missouri. I’m here just to give you a brief overview of what Scott has termed as retail buildings, which are the furthest buildings on the west represented by the 2 rectangular shapes that you see on the left of the plan and also represented in elevation view over here to the right. As you can see, there are 2 footprints. One being 11,640 square feet, that’s the building that’s, of the larger of the 2, obviously, that’s running east and west and another footprint that is 9,240 square feet that runs north and south and has one step in it, in regards to following the topography that occurs with the site plan as we now have it. Both of these buildings are to be entered from the front, from the parking lot side only. They will have a pedestrian service walkway to the rear that will have access to a single door, with a single down elimination, so that deliveries, and various other functions that are necessary for a retail center, can go through the rear door and go through the front door. The buildings are essentially of 3 materials. Actually, 4 with some highlights. Primarily, they’re a stucco plaster facade that has stratification in it to form some scale to the surface, by that I mean grouping, that has a podium of brick on recessed store fronts, the store fronts being of aluminum. I’m sure we’re all familiar with that. That is colorized to match the remaining metal that is on the buildings. As you can see, there’s, in both cases, 2 masses at the end that are of standing single type roofing, so we’re coordinating all of our metals together. They are flat roof buildings with the intent to use some mechanical on the roof and have at least a 30-inch parapet wall and in some cases more than a 30-inch parapet wall. As you can see on the front, it undulates it with the site on the east/west, oh excuse me, on the north/south building and then with a physical change on the east/west building. Our intentions are to screen all the mechanical equipment on the roof, so that it can be obscured from the neighbors. In regards to, the intent is to carry the materials on all 4 sides, along with the brick inlay or the brick podium to carry it to the back to have a little more sensitivity to the scale of the building. The highest point of the building is the peak of the roofs on the two ends, and that’s 22 feet. Primarily, not in all cases, but the average height of the parapet wall is 16 feet with the store fronts being with 10 feet, so it’s very typical to the scale that you would see of a retail center that we’re all familiar within the Northland. Signage, as you can see, there’s uniform signage panels on all store fronts. Our intention is the signage to be self-contained illumination. One of the, what they call a can, internally lit sign all of uniform characteristic. I believe that a good overview of what our intentions are. I would certainly be happy to answer any questions relative to the physical dimensions or the natural aesthetics of the building.

MAYOR BEER: Council.

COUNCILMAN EVANS: Mayor Beer.

MAYOR BEER: Councilman Evans.

COUNCILMAN EVANS: With regard to the signage on the property, what about signage to the rear? Is there going to be any signage on the back side of, allowed on the back side of these buildings?

MR. CANTRELL: It’s not our intent to having illuminated signage, in fact, we’re trying to decrease the illumination on the rear and it will be basically task oriented wherever it’s necessarily functionally. There probably will be some sign identification on the door, itself, that will lead to that particular space, but it would not be illuminated.

COUNCILMAN EVANS: That’s all. Thank you.

MAYOR PRO TEM RUDI: Mayor Beer.

MAYOR BEER: Mayor Pro Tem.

MR. HALL: Mayor and members of the City Council, thank you for the opportunity to be able to speak here this evening. My name is Pete Hall. I live at 5621 Clinton Place, Gladstone. I would like to begin by disclosing that I do work for the owner of the property that’s being addressed here this evening, but I have no financial interest or will not receive any direct financial benefit from the sale of the property, no fees, or commissions, or bonuses and I will be speaking to you this evening as a citizen of Gladstone. For over 30 years, well over 30 years I might add, I have taken a very active role in this City and in this community. I’ve always worked for and supported those matters that have the greatest positive impact of the majority of those that call Gladstone home. Today is no exception to that principal. This evening you will hear comments from several people. I’ll submit to you that for most people, change is very difficult to accept. And those closest to this project, it is also a very emotional issue. I have a great deal of respect for the majority of these people. They have lots and nicely maintained area, green area, that is just beyond their backyard. Yes, it’s a very emotional issue indeed, and people often say things that are more perception than fact when it comes to these types of circumstances. Personally, if I felt very strongly about having green area around my home, I would purchase enough property in order to maintain the type of green area that I want. The project has gone through the established City development process. The developer met with the neighborhood, as requested and required, to get their input before even submitting the plan to the City. They met with City Staff to get their input, as well. Staff recommended changes for this project have been agreed to by this developer. Input from the public hearing process, planning, zoning and site visit, created additional recommended changes, which have also been agreed to by the developer. This developer has provided all of the information requested, engineering and architectural detailed drawings. They have agreed to requested public improvements and they have done everything else required or requested to them and they have done all of this in a very positive spirited cooperation. They truly have shown they want to be good neighbors to the residents and provide a service to the entire community. This City, under this Council’s leadership, has made great inroads into letting people know that we, the City of Gladstone, support quality development and redevelopment. It is extremely important to understand that there is a much greater impact on the community than the 64^th and M-1 development. The implications are much greater. If approved, this shopping center will have a positive financial impact on the City and all its residents. And because of the public improvements, there will be a much safer pedestrian and vehicular traffic situation for those that live in the area, but more importantly, it will send a powerful message to the development community, that Gladstone is what it has said it was, a quality development and redevelopment opportunity for those developers and businesses willing to invest in our City. And if not approved, there will also be a message sent to that same development and business community that is equally as strong. The Planning Commission has approved this rezoning and also the site plan. They have recommended that this City Council do the same by so submitting it to you for approval. I will close by asking that you look at this project, and this proposed development, on behalf of the entire community and not just the few that are emotionally attached to property that belongs to someone else. I will be glad to answer any question you might have pertaining to your, to the comments that I’ve made here this evening.

MAYOR BEER: Are there any questions from Council of Mr. Hall?

(Wherein no questions were posed)

MAYOR BEER: Thank you, Mr. Hall. Before we, before we move into the opposition testimony, I’m being asked if we can take just a real quick short recess. I’m thinking that maybe we need to, at least two of us, need a little bit of a break. Let’s take, let’s recess for, until, yes, 8:40. We will reconvene at 8:40.

(Off the record)

MAYOR BEER: Okay. Let’s see if we can’t get this started right on time. I just, I was a little bit presumptive that Mr. Hall was the only proponent of this project, so before we move onto the opposition, I suppose I ought to ask for any others in the audience who may be in favor of this project?

(Wherein there was no response)

MR. OHSIEK: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is David Ohsiek. I’m a resident of 6501 North Wabash. My property borders on the northeast corner of the proposed entire plaza development and I have a few objections I’d like to express to you tonight that I would like for you to consider before you approve this development. I have 2 major reasons why I think this development is incompatible with the City of Gladstone. First of all, we have a residential area on 3 sides of this proposed development. A part of this residential area is a middle school, that’s just up the street on 64^th Street, just west of the proposed development. This kind of shopping center will cause heavier traffic on 64^th Street and at the intersection of North Prospect. This will be an increased hazard to the children who are walking to and from middle school and who are riding buses to and from the middle school. There was a little girl that got up and testified in January that she was hit by a car, I think in the last year, at the intersection of North Prospect and 64^th Street. I heard for the first time tonight that the entire plaza is not planning to have a fast food restaurant in this development. Up until tonight, all I have heard was that they were expecting to have 2 fast food restaurants. I cannot imagine having a fast food restaurant without very large illuminated signs and multicolored neon signs that everyone can see for a couple of blocks away at night. We certainly wouldn’t want that kind of lighting in a residential area. They would be very visible. This kind of a development will devaluate our property. There’s a local real estate appraiser who advised us, his name is Noble Johnson, and he says you could expect an immediate 10 percent devaluation in our property if this type of development is built. A member of the Planning Commission, a week ago, said that he had a friend whose house was located next to a retail development and he had experienced 12-1/2 percent increase in his property value over the last 5 years. The normal appreciation rate in the middle west, I understand, is 5 percent a year. And at that rate in depreciation, this individual’s property should be 27-1/2 percent more valuable than it was in the year 2000. And it’s only, he’s been told it’s only 12-1/2. Well, that’s less than half the depreciation he should have expected and we attribute that to the retail development that’s right next to his property. The second main reason that I object to this development, and I think you should consider seriously, is the high potential for it to fail financially. Since I moved into this area in 1998, I have seen a continual failure of small businesses in this entire area. Antioch Center has continued to lose businesses, the doors have closed. Some of them were leased to new owners that they also failed. And it’s just continued to go downhill. There’s a strip mall at 60^th and Antioch that used to have a Bob’s IGA restaurant, which went out of business. It’s been taken over by Ace Hardware, which is fine, but it also had 2 restaurants that have failed. There’s an existing shopping center at 64^th and Prospect to the east of the proposed development. We’ve seen businesses continue to fail there. The Hen House is now being replaced by Price Chopper. There is an Oriental, there was an Oriental restaurant that has gone out of business. There was a thrift store. There was a movie theater, and I think he’s gone by the wayside. I don’t think that shopping center has ever been fully occupied. At Englewood and North Oak, a very nice shopping center and development went up there over the past several years and businesses have failed there. I understand some of the space at Metro North on Barry Road has never been, has never been completely filled. There are vacant spaces there because they just can’t, they can’t, they can’t manage to, they can’t imagine that they will make a profit. Now, if Tower Plaza fails, what would you do? Would you rezone this property to allow different types of businesses to come in? Would you allow an automobile service station? Would you allow an automobile repair shop? A bar? An exotic dancing facility? I don’t think we want any of these types of businesses in our neighborhood. I would like to conclude by saying, first of all, this property should be rezoned. We would like to see it rezoned for professional office buildings, we have no objection to that kind of development, or multiple family housing. Also, I think if you allow less compatible development, such as the kind that’s being proposed here now, you’re going to devalue the residential property around it, you’re going to drive residents away from the area, I think you’re going to see a decline in the quality of your residential area and with the loss of people from the area, you’re going to further jeopardize the existing businesses that you now have. There’s other comments I’d like to, I think I could make, I don’t think I have the time, I think I’ve run out of time already, about the storm drainage, things that I’ve heard mentioned tonight. I probably needed some more information, but if there’s time and you want to come back and do it later, I would be willing to. Thank you.

MAYOR BEER: Thank you, Mr. Ohsiek.

MR. LIMPIC: Mayor and City Council Members. My name is Mark Limpic. I live at 6500 North Wabash, property north near that one basin. Something was mentioned at the last Planning Commission Meeting last Tuesday and I want to, Mr. Ohsiek touched on it, but I want to talk about it again because I think it’s very important for all of us here, property owners, anyway. And I’m going to read you a little paragraph from the minutes, the supplement to the Staff report, concerning property values. It says here, concerns relating to property values are a matter of perspective. Some believe that adjacent commercial development is detrimental to residential property values. Conversely, some believe this condition is an attribute or neutral to residential property values. Neither the developer or the neighborhood has submitted documentation concerning this issue. It is suggested, and this is what pretty much bothered me a little bit last week, suggested that the Planning Commission not rely on property values as a major factor in deciding this. So my wife and I went out and contacted an independent appraiser to give us his assessment of this, a man named Noble Johnson, I think maybe you’re familiar with him, he’s worked for the City before, an older gentleman who’s got credentials and qualifications, I think, that make him very valid. Mr. Johnson is a designated senior real property appraiser, commercial, a residential member of the appraisal institute, State certified appraiser, and on and on. He is a qualified expert witness for court testimony and to the value of real estate in Platte, Clay, Ray, Caldwell, Cass, Andrew, and so on and so forth counties, the U.S. Federal Court, and before the Platte County, Liberty and Kansas City Zoning Boards. He’s been a professional independent fee appraiser since 1959 and actually goes back to 1949 when he first started taking some of the courses. I’m going to read you his letter to my wife and I. And bear with me just to take a few minutes. It says, Dear Mr. & Mrs. Limpic, in answer to your inquiry regarding effect on value of residential property caused by changes in Gladstone’s master plan concerning Prospect Place, a subdivision in the southeast corner of the section, fronting Prospect Avenue and Northeast 64^th Street, I will address specific issues. Number 1, pairing of comparable sales of residential properties have shown that being adjacent to, or backing up to, commercial properties, have normally a 5 to 10 percent depreciating effect on those adjacent properties. With a lower effect, with the least traffic type, such as retail and offices, an increasing proportionally with increased traffic and longer business hours, it’s kind of what we’ve been discussing here, of the property such as fast food restaurants or bars. This is, to a large extent, the same effect found for homes adjacent to interstate highways and railroads. Number 2, your home currently backs up to CP-1, commercial planned zoned land, in the parcel planned on the north side of 64^th Street between Prospect in the east and north/south ravine in the west or rear side of the remaining parcel, on the west zoned RC-1 residential. This, of course, has a depreciating, a depreciation effect on value of your residence, however, changing in the City’s master plan to a revised master plan, changing zoning of the RC-1 residential portion of this property on the west side through CP-1, will greatly increase the commercial area, which will have an increasing negative effect on the value of your land for many reasons, the increased traffic flow, noise, hours of operations, and so on, we’ve talked about, and a major effect on the value of the homes backing up to the presently RC-1 residential zoned land. Further proving his point, and a fact that City officials are aware of this problem, is that in a normal City planning, they buffer commercial areas for zoning by a belt of multiple family zoning or city park. As a mortgage banker and real estate agent, a real estate and appraiser for many, many years, I have worked on this problem for many clients ranging from cities, Gladstone among others, counties, states, to developers, lenders and individuals. Believe me, cities are aware of this problem and need to address it. You know, I’m not against, I think I speak, I know, for my wife and we’ve talked about this and even considered moving. I don’t want to move. I like Gladstone, but I’ll be honest with you, I’m not too crazy about, and I would probably bet my next couple of paychecks, that a fast food restaurant’s going to go back here. I don’t see very well and I don’t hear very well, but I’ve got a very sensitive nose and I don’t care to smell that stuff in the middle of the night. And the traffic, it’s going to be opened until midnight. I am sensitive to that. I’ve got about a 35-foot buffer there and that’s what’s going to be in my backyard. We really like it here in Gladstone, but you drive around and you’re starting to see more and more, I call them undesirable places, but pawn shops, that kind of stuff, I just don’t know if this is the right thing to do. So that’s my opinion. I have one more issue. Just before I came in here, in your Gladstone Reporter, it says, the priorities established by Gladstone on the Move, and that’s what we talked about earlier and you recognized a few folks, one of them being focusing on neighborhood preservation. And I’ll leave you with that because I think that’s an important thing that needs to be said. I appreciate it very much.

MAYOR BEER: Thank you, Mr. Limpic. Just, if I could just have one second here. Mr. Wingerson, would you take this, copy this, please?

MR. WINGERSON: Sure. Thank you.

MAYOR BEER: Thank you. Okay. Your turn. I’m sorry to disrupt your--

MS. LIMPIC: Oh, that’s okay. It’s kind of nerve racking.

MS. LIMPIC: Mayor Beer, Mayor Pro Tem Rudi, Councilman Mr. Evans, Councilman Dr. Cross and Councilman Mr. Smith. Excuse me if I waiver a little bit. I’m not as articulate as my husband. It’s a hard act to follow. Anyway, thank you for the opportunity to express my opposition to the development. My name is Delores Limpic. I live at 6500 North Wabash. I want to talk to you about the facts. I know this emotional and that’s why I’m kind of shaky in my tone, we live directly adjacent to the property. Adjacent meaning our backyards back right up to the property, so much so that when they have some of the drainage from the water, the drain, the channel that they’re talking about, the control of the channel of water, will be controlled toward my backyard. Now, they’re saying that they’re not going to disturb the vegetation because it makes a buffer. In the summer, that’s true, but right now if you go in my backyard, you can see clear across the street. I can see some of my neighbors on 64^th Street right through my area, so we will have a clear view of the development there. Is it proper to show you closer what I’m talking about, the channel that runs into the creek in my backyard? It’s a channel with like wire surrounding stone that will go in our backyard, so I can just see the backhoe going back there and I don’t know what that backhoe is going to take while it’s making the channel. Everything sounds very nice. I am very impressed with the developer and her crew of experts. It sounds like nirvana, until it finally gets in there. I come here not to fight City Hall. City Hall has been, you know, listened to us before and I feel comfortable coming before all of you. I feel like I’ve known you. I know at one time, Mr. Smith and I sat out in the rain deciding which one of us is going to leave, until we decide neither one of us was going to leave, so we left together because we both were campaigning at that point, so I have a great deal of respect for my City, the Council and of course my neighbors and friends. I want to work with you. I have no problem with the way it’s set up now. Believe me, if you could build it like it is now, it would be a godsend. A restaurant with the 2 retail shops that Mr. Wingerson said is the current plan. I don’t know why Curry didn’t build that. That’s good. Let’s build it and let’s be on, let’s get to living again. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the RCH-1 being rezoned. I feel that that is our buffer. With that being residential, it makes the commercial area, that’s now CP-1, less intense, so we don’t have the intensity of the retail in an area that is surrounded by homes. You’ve heard it once, you’ve heard it many times. But all of these people here are the adjacent properties. All these people here are the residents, and we all live in this area. We would like something done, so we can keep living. We’ve raised our children, we raised our families. We go to work every morning and therefore some in the evening to pay our taxes to Gladstone. With those taxes, we can improve this street. The street on 64^th should be improved whether or not this development goes in. Those rumors that we have a tax increase, that you’re asking for a tax on the November ballot, I’d be more than happy to pay a little bit more taxes and have a low density commercialism on the corner and get the money from us, the taxpayers, the citizens, the residents that make up Gladstone. Without people like us, you have no city, and I have a few suggestions, and I’ll give those in a minute. What disturbs me is that I feel that as residents, we are climbing a hill, you know, the people with the clout and the money aren’t here. We have come from here to get up there, not that we have such a great playing field. For example, the, I have a question about the legal protest. I put a legal protest before the City Council thinking that it was sufficient enough to vote for the one on the site plan revision and also on the rezoning. It’s the first time I heard tonight, this evening, that it’s only going to be valid for the RC-1 zoning change. I’d like to know why that’s that way, because I thought it was for both. Because it said, I, the below signatures opposed the site plan and the rezoning of RCH-1. It’s been an uphill battle trying to get a hold of people at City Hall. Not so much Mr. Wingerson, he’s been good about returning my call, but the, I submitted the site plan, the protest petition and it took a while for them to make a decision, so much so that I thought, why are you, you know, I’m always using strategy and I’m a bit suspicious, and I thought why are they holding on, you know, they’re not giving me a reason. And I said, okay, that’s all right. I started a second one, just in case the first one wasn’t valid, I have a second one, because I couldn’t wait any longer to decide whether or not that was going to be valid. When I had my last one, petition with Green Lantern, they gave me an analysis of the protest area, which showed we had 68, 68.73 percent of the total people signing the petition. This time, I’m not sure, I think I forgot to write it down, I think Mr. Wingerson said 79 percent, so we’ve gone up in the people that have signed the petition, because they care about their neighborhood. They care about where they live. They care about the school that’s next door. The right in, the right out heads all the traffic toward the school. You’re competing with the school buses. You’re competing with the parents that are picking up their children. They’re competing with the kids that walk with backpacks across the street. You’re competing, you’re bringing all this traffic into a residential area. I know that there’s change, but you have to take into consideration where you’re putting this commercial, commercialism that is now focused on this area right here. If it was going up against another commercialism like Wal-Mart or up against Westlake Hardware shopping area, I can see that, but I think these are special circumstances and it’s very hard for individuals, such as myself and some of these other folks here, to come up and speak. Public speaking is very difficult. I also see that these places here, Tower Plaza, all these places that are shown, look very pretty and nice. I don’t see the fast food place. As a matter of fact, I heard, and this is at the City Planning Commission, that there were footprints for 2 fast food restaurants. Councilman Smith said he had their promise that they will not build 2. Will they take the footprints off of the plans, so there won’t be 2 restaurants? And why does it have to be fast food drive-thru? Why can’t it be just a sit down restaurant? The bank is fine. When we first talked to Mrs. Bonnie Wheeler, the developer, she told us at a private meeting that it would be an upscale shopping center. It would be retail shops, a restaurant and a bank. Because she works with the City, she has now changed her mind. Every time she gets approval, the intensity of the development rises. We’re now at the point where we are not have just a restaurant, but a fast food restaurant. Not 1 fast food restaurant, but 2 fast food restaurants. I also noted from 1 of the Planning Commissioner’s statements at the meeting that they don’t have a bank. And the bank now, that they can build a two-story on the bank for turret parking and I thought it’s just getting bigger and bigger and bigger. So once they get approval, it’s going to get even bigger than that. We won’t be able to have any say so once it’s in. What’s my suggestion? Plan what is there now, currently, and we have a leader, a civic leader, that passed away not too long ago, his name was Dan Bishop, and he did a lot in the little bit of time that he was here. I was fortunate enough to work with one of his campaigns when he was running for Council. What did we do with that part that’s RCH-1? Why don’t we be proud of the City? Why don’t you be proud as a Council Member? Put a memorial there. Have - you campaigned for taxes. Let’s campaign for a memorial with a fountain. Dedicate it to Dan Bishop. Spear some civic leader spearhead--

MAYOR BEER: Mrs.--

MR. ROMMEL: No. I'm not Clint Eastwood and this is not the Academy Award. I'm Ron Rommel from 6501 North Park. And I am not Don Horton or Mr. Davis and I did not receive a plaque tonight, but I did receive this plaque this summer, along with 2 other residents whose property borders the part of this property that is currently zoned residential and I would like them to stand up, the Bracketts and the Gardners and proudly the plaques that they have. We were on the 2004 Artland Garden Tour. We have properties that are directly or adjacent to the property that is trying to be changed in zoning from residential to commercial. We also are honored to have been in this magazine, and this is not a Northland magazine, this is Kansas City Homes and Gardens Magazine. And you all each have a copy of it up there. And if you prefer to look through this, as opposed to listening to me talk, I wouldn't blame you, but if you look to page 94, that's where the article starts on these properties. Shared paradise, it is called. None of these pictures are anything but our property. These pictures are not the property that's going to be rezoned. But if you look at the bridge and the deck and gazebo on page 97, if you look just beyond that, what we'll have now in place of the trees, because we don't have the trees now, of course, because it's winter, is a water detention basin and the edges of 2 buildings. Okay. I'm also known in other circles as the Ronald Rommel, D.D.S., I'm a business owner, a dental practice right on Route 1 in Gladstone. I'm very proud to be a Gladstonian as a resident and a business man. 29 years in June, I will have been both of those things. Now, what is it about Gladstone, you know, everybody loves this City. I know you guys love this City. I love this City. And I know the people here, or at least the majority of them, were very happy that we just extended the sales tax and we just increased a property tax because we feel those things will benefit the community. We do, in fact, dearly deeply love this prosperous sleepy bedroom community, but I have a few questions tonight for my City. First, why would Gladstone vote in favor of rezoning a residential area, nearly doubling the size of a commercial development that is separated by only 1 residential backyard from an existing middle school property and then funnel exiting traffic directly toward that middle school? Why would the City of Gladstone today approve a plan that rezones the residential portion of this property when a few years back, there was a plan for that area that was to leave it residential and that plan was withdrawn before it could be defeated by the City, by the Council. Why would Gladstone approve a property, a plan where a commercial property cuts deeper to the west of Route 1 than any commercial property has ever cut to the west off of Route 1 in this community? In fact, you can go all the way down Route 1 to 210 in North Kansas City and there is no commercial property that cuts as far to the west as this property will do if you change the zoning from residential to commercial. Now, talk about ambushing the neighborhood. That's what I feel is happening here. And why would the City of Gladstone approve this plan of rezoning the residential portion, magically waving a wand for 2 benefactors, Charles Curry and this developer. We've been told that the Curry Company is asking too much for this piece of property to keep the portion zoned residential, remaining residential. Now, I don't know about you guys, but if I have a Chevy to sell, nobody gives me Cadillac money for it. And if Mr. Curry has a Chevy to sell, the only way he can get Cadillac money for it is for this City Council to wave the magic wand and give them Cadillac money for it. We were told repeatedly about the quality, upscale, commercial space this developer is planning. So essentially, 2 drive-thru restaurants, fast food restaurants are footprinted here. Now, we’ve already heard a promise there would only be 1. We’ll see what happens. And if there is only 1 or 2, is there any way we could get that to match the fast food restaurant that went up on Route 1, right at Kendallwood Parkway? The A&W root beer place and the Kentucky Fried Chicken place. Maybe we can get a match, twins or triplets. Why would Gladstone approve more quality commercial space when the quality upscale commercial development on the other side of Route 1 has nearly 20 percent of its store fronts empty.

UNKNOWN: That’s right.

MS. BRACKETT: Mayor and Council Members, neighbors and other interested parties. Thank you for - oh, my name is Jane Brackett. I reside at 2303 Northeast 65^th Terrace in Gladstone. Thank you for allowing me to express my strong opposition to the rezoning of the western portion of the subject parcel and to request that you vote a resounding no on the request for the rezoning. The applicant for rezoning stated that because of the high price of the subject property, that she could not make money on the project unless the zoning is changed from RCH-1 to CP-1. So I echo Mr. Rommel’s comments on the Chevy and the Cadillac situation. But further to that, if one is willing to pay a price that is the value of the property is not commensurate with the price you’re willing to take, could you perhaps question the success of the development. Are there going to be other areas where the price you’re willing to pay is not commensurate with the value that you’re getting. The request for rezoning and proposed development plan shows total disregard for the rights of the current owners of adjacent property and owners of property in the general vicinity of this subject parcel. This rezoning request asks the Council to approve the devaluation of existing Gladstone residents’ property for the personal enrichment of an inexperienced developer with no vested interest in the community. If the developer truly wants to develop the subject property, there are other options. Negotiate a better deal with the seller. Develop the property within the zoning requirements or put more on the funds, then, to where you can make it work, but do not ask the residents to take a hit on this property values. It’s aggregious to ask the residents to take the downside while the developer takes the upside. And furthermore, while it’s impossible to quantify with any degree of accuracy the negative impact on the adjacent property values. We’ve got to have details of the building design, construction and occupancy. All of these are yet to be determined. It is, however, a fact that putting up commercial buildings adjacent to residential property does, in deed, have a negative effect on the residential property values. Residents in these areas take great pride in their home ownership, which I think is evidenced by the attendance here tonight and by the 3 properties that are adjacent to this property that were participants in the 2004 Garden Tour. The writer, the magazine writer, refers to these 3 properties as shared paradise. The City Staff has stated their approval with the restriction. One restriction’s being the hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 12 midnight. So that leaves us from midnight to 6:00 a.m. to enjoy our shared paradise. It hardly seems fair. The developer proudly commented, at a meeting back in, I believe the end of November, that she would be giving the school children a place to go to lunch. Let me present a quote from the Kansas City Star, January 4^th, 2005 edition. It’s called fat food. “Kids eat 187 to 379 extra calories every time they chow down on fast food. Translation, 1 drive-thru dinner per week equals 2.8 to 5.6 extra pounds per year.” Thank you, but no thank you for your concern for our children’s access to fast food and your contribution to even greater incidents in childhood obesity. Are resident property owners expected to embrace development of such a parcel for an identified retail in the fast food businesses. I have heard tonight that we won’t have 2 drive-thru’s, but, you know, if they’re on the plan, I don’t know whether that means we’ll have 2 or whether it means we won’t have any, but we, in the past, we’ve been presented with 2. At a meeting back in November, we asked the developer about other developments that she had had and we were told that she had built some houses, but we were never given any information about a development where we could go look at the type of work that was done, the type of development. At the Commission Meeting on January 3^rd, it’s revealed that there will be a 1 story bank that can be enlarged to 2 story. Two drive-thru restaurants. Again, that seems to be influx. Translated, that means 2 fast food places. I submit that fast food drive-thru and upscale development are mutually exclusive in terms of the development of this parcel. I oppose to the request for rezoning for the following reasons. The increased traffic, the increased risk of injury to our school children, the storm water runoff, looking into the basin in the back of my yard, increased noise pollution from the operation of business, offensive odor from the fast food restaurant, rodent infestation from fast food restaurant waste, devaluation of residential property values and loss of the quiet enjoyment of one’s personal residence. I employ the City Council Members to represent the voters you were elected to represent and the City of Gladstone by voting a resounding no on the request for rezoning the western portion of subject parcel. Please vote to keep Gladstone a desired place to live. Thank you.

Item 10. on the Agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: for consideration of a request to rezone from R-3 (Garden Apartments) to R-1 (Single Family) for “The Preserve at Carriage Hill Estates” at approximately Northeast Antioch Road east of Northeast 68^th Terrace. Applicant/Owner: J.A. Peterson Enterprises, Inc. (File #1239).

Mayor Beer opened the Public Hearing and explained the Hearing process that City Staff will make their presentation, followed by a presentation by the Applicant and finally comments from those in Favor and those Opposed.

Staff Presentation

Assistant City Manager Scott Wingerson began by saying when this request went to the Planning Commission, it was in two pieces. The first piece was a zoning change from the current zoning of R-3 (Garden Apartments) to R-1 (Single Family). The Planning Commission unanimously recommends this request be approved. The second issue the Planning Commission discussed and voted upon was a preliminary plat. Preliminary plats are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and do not move forward to the City Council. City Council members review the final plat. During the preliminary plat process, the Planning Commission discussed an estate style development on the piece of property described in the agenda caption. This development would contain 44 estate style lots. Some of the proposed amenities include a traffic circle to discourage traffic through the adjoining neighborhoods, private detention basins for storm water, and a walking trail. There was a great deal of discussion at the Planning Commission Public Hearing and the site visit concerning storm water and traffic.

Mr. Wingerson said the project engineers were present at the meeting and would be happy to discuss these issues. The detention basins in this proposed project will greatly reduce the storm water going through Stonebrooke Estates. Mr. Wingerson stated Mr. Cargill represented John F. Lutgen and Associates to the Planning Commission last week and there are two representatives here tonight who can discuss storm water issues. The traffic issue is a little bit different. Members of the Stonebrooke Estates neighborhood suggested that additional traffic control devices should be installed in the roadways internal for the development. Staff response to the Planning Commission and the City Council is to point out that upon entering the development, there is a divided roadway, followed by a traffic circle. The idea is to visibly discourage vehicles from turning into the area from the arterial roadway, which is Antioch Road. This will discourage vehicles from cutting through the neighborhood. Should the property to the south of the subject property develop, it is anticipated that Staff would suggest the same type of traffic control devices in that project, so traffic does not cut through from, theoretically, Pleasant Valley Road to 72^nd Street.

Mr. Wingerson concluded by saying the request tonight is a zoning change from R-3 to R-1, and the Planning Commission is recommending approval.

Applicant Presentation

Brian McMillan, a land planner for John F. Lutjen & Associates, 8350 North St. Claire Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri, 64151, stated he was representing the applicant, J. A. Peterson Company. Mr. McMillan began by saying Mr. Wingerson provided a very thorough presentation. The subject property is roughly a 37-acre tract of ground with a 44 large estate lot type development. The basic shape of the ground includes a ridge line around the top, forming something of a horseshoe. There will be a spine road along the top of the ridge line. There is no detention basin at this time. Rainfall goes down the drainage swale and heads north. Mr. McMillan stated there is proposed a divided median that Mr. Wingerson described, which ties into the arterial of Antioch Road. There is also proposed a ‘round about’ traffic calming device to dissuade traffic from driving through the neighborhood. Mr. McMillan pointed out on a rendering where the proposed development will tie into the arterial street, Antioch Road, and said this development is similar to Stonebrooke Estates that ties into 72^nd Street.

Mr. McMillan explained the neighbors had concerns about drive through traffic, and said he wished to point out that it is good city street design to link neighborhoods together for fire safety and so forth. Much of Stonebrooke Estates have stubbed their streets out, and it is planned to do the same in this area for future development to the south. Should that development go, it is assumed they will also be tying into the arterial system. Mr. McMillan said his company has done what it could to dissuade the traffic from going through. There will be a stop sign at the “T” of the road, which should dissuade traffic from cutting through to get to 72^nd Street. Mr. McMillan said he did not feel traffic cutting through would be a concern with this development.

Mr. McMillan said two basins are proposed, a dry basin and a wet basin, so the rain that falls on the houses on the outside of the ridge will drain to the street. Mr. McMillan pointed out on the rendering the houses where the rain water will be collected in a storm sewer system and brought into the basin. The water is then detained and released at a reduced rate back in the system. Mr. McMillan introduced Chris Chancellor, who is a principal of the firm and the project manager.

Chris Chancellor stated this will be a very non-intrusive development with large lots and the houses will be in the $400,000 to $500,000 range, and it fits very well with Stonebrooke Estates. The development will alleviate some of the storm water problems that are currently there. The traffic system includes a cul-de-sac at one end and the development tying into the neighborhood to the north. The development would be stubbed out to the south and the development would tie into the arterial system to the west.

Comments from those in Favor of the Application

Andy Clippard, 4116 NE 71^st Court, Stonebrooke Estates, said he is President of his homes association. Mr. Clippard said he has heard no one who is not in favor of the zoning change. There were two primary concerns from Stonebrooke Estates homeowners, which were mentioned tonight. Mr. Clippard said his home is located on the low end of his area, by 72^nd Street and the swimming pool, where the underground network comes above ground. There is quite a lake there when it rains, but it does eventually all go away. Mr. Clippard said he was told that if this had been built in Kansas City, it would all have been underground up to 72^nd Street, rather than flowing over people’s lots. Mr. Clippard asked when the development is completed, who maintains the detention basins – the homes association?

Mayor Beer replied that generally the homeowner associations are responsible for the maintenance.

Mr. Clippard said he had a neighbor who was in a development in Raytown where it took $100,000 to fix their problem, but he did not know if the basins were the same as the ones proposed tonight. The homes association had to foot the bill. That is a concern, because if it is not fixed or maintained, his area will suffer downstream. Mr. Clippard said he wanted to be on the record to support the zoning change.

Bob Meyer, 7105 N. Norton, stated he is an officer in the Stonebrooke Estates Home Association, and everyone he has talked to is in favor of the project. The traffic issue is one concern he would like to put before the City Council. During the development stage it is intended to establish a barricade across the north side of the development so that the heavy equipment would not be going through his neighborhood, but would enter on the west side off of Antioch Road. Following the development, it was mentioned there would be signs on the north end of Stonebrooke Estates, which would discourage or prohibit the subcontractors from going through his neighborhood. Mr. Meyer said he wants to be sure these things do occur, so his neighborhood is not invaded by all types of traffic, heavy equipment and so forth, which is a safety hazard due to the small children in his area.

Mr. Meyer stated the intent is to put a ‘round about’ from the south, just like they will have on the west side. Mr. Meyer said he would be strongly in favor of that. In fact, he feels that it would be a necessity to have another ‘round about’ on the south side to discourage traffic through his neighborhood.

John Pace, 4028 NE 71^st Court, said he is concerned about the traffic. Mr. Pace said in the future when there is a cut through from Pleasant Valley Road, he would appreciate having in writing there would be some kind of deterrent from the traffic taking a “straight shot” down Norton to 72^nd Street, and 72^nd Street to Brighton and on to I-435 Highway. North Brighton Street will become very populated with apartments, housing, the theatre, and commercial use. Mr. Pace said he has seen what has happened to North Bales Street, and he would not want to live on North Bales Street, and he could see that happening in his area. He lives in a beautiful area and they would like to keep it that way.

Dick Conn, 4021 NE 71^st Court, stated he is in support of the zoning change from multi family to single-family housing. Mr. Conn asked if there would be a Public Hearing on the final plat for this development.

Mayor Beer replied, no, there is not a Public Hearing, but of course the deliberations from the Planning Commission and City Council are still public record.

Mr. Conn said he is not opposed to the development, but he sits at the bottom of the creek. Mr. Conn said if the new development’s detention pond does not hold, he will be going for a swim. Mr. Conn said he had a sump pump that did not work very well a while back and he did find the water comes up pretty quickly. Mr. Conn said he had water in his back lawn last summer, but that was the first time in three years, and it took a 3-inch rain with just the timber and no retention. It went away pretty quickly. Mr. Conn said he has a 36-inch storm sewer that goes across his back lawn, which absorbs the water coming down right now.

Comments from those Opposed to the Application

There was no one to speak in opposition to the application.

Councilman Smith said he wants to be certain the City can give Mr. Conn and other neighbors the assurance on the storm drainage.

Mayor Beer said he attended the Planning Commission meetings and feels very confident in the presentations that were made by the developer and his representatives. One of the points that were made fairly early on was that the run-off rate would be decreased. Mayor Beer said he has confidence that these engineers have metered their detention basins in such a way that the rate of release will be much less than the rate of water infiltration into the drainage system now. The pooling and ponding should be greatly reduced.

Mayor Beer closed the Public Hearing.

Item 10a. on the Agenda. FIRST READING BILL 05-13, amending Ordinance No. 2.292 and being an Ordinance relating to Zoning Ordinance Regulations and the establishment of Use Districts within the City of Gladstone, Missouri.

Councilman Bill Cross moved to place Bill No. 05-13 on First Reading. Councilman Joe Evans seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilman Joe Evans, Councilman Les Smith, Councilman Bill Cross, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, Mayor Wayne Beer. (5-0). The Clerk read the Bill.

Councilman Bill Cross moved to accept the First Reading of Bill 05-13, Waive the Rule and place the Bill on Second and Final Reading. Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilman Joe Evans, Councilman Les Smith, Councilman Bill Cross, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, Mayor Wayne Beer. (5-0). The Clerk read the Bill.

Councilman Bill Cross moved to accept the Second and Final Reading of Bill 05-13 and enact the Bill as Ordinance 3.949. Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi seconded.

Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi asked City staff to please give the necessary assurance to the neighborhood regarding the traffic and storm water concerns.

Roll Call Vote: All “aye” – Councilman Joe Evans, Councilman Les Smith, Councilman Bill Cross, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, Mayor Wayne Beer. (5-0).

Item 11. on the Agenda. RESOLUTION R-05-22, disclosing and ratifying the City Council’s prior action in purchasing the Atkins-Johnson Home Historical Site.

Councilman Les Smith moved to adopt RESOLUTION 05-22, disclosing and ratifying the City Council’s prior action in purchasing the Atkins-Johnson Home Historical Site. Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilman Joe Evans, Councilman Les Smith, Councilman Bill Cross, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, and Mayor Wayne Beer. (5-0)

Item 12. on the Agenda. OTHER BUSINESS

Councilman Bill Cross moved to appoint Hester Duisik to the Arts Council. Councilman Les Smith seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilman Joe Evans, Councilman Les Smith, Councilman Bill Cross, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, and Mayor Wayne Beer. (5-0)

Councilman Smith asked if Council needed to deal with the deannexation memo received from City Counselor Ramsay before the meeting. (Note: the subject discussed in the memorandum was the “Status of Water Plant Deannexation by Kansas City”).

City Counselor Ramsay replied the memorandum was an item of information. Guidance is needed tonight or in the next few days from Council members as to how to proceed with the insistence by the City of Kansas City that we make a permanent restriction on signage on that property.

Mayor Beer stated there has been discussion on this from time to time, and his initial thoughts were that he does not like being told by someone else that the City cannot put up a billboard, even though the City does not want to put up a billboard. However, looking at past Council’s action and this Council’s recent action in regard to that issue, Mayor Beer said he has no other than a philosophical opposition to providing that assurance to them.

Councilman Smith stated as Council does not meet for another month and because there is a desire to “strike while the iron is hot”, if these are the conditions, he suggests Council do whatever needs to be done to give that consensus to Counselor Ramsay.

Councilman Evans agreed he does not like someone else telling the City what to do. However, it is a valuable piece of property that the City does need to obtain.

Mayor Beer said the property is probably worth more to the City in the tax savings than any income that could be gained.

Councilman Bill Cross agreed to proceed.

Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi agreed to proceed.

Mayor Beer stated the consensus is to proceed and to give the City of Kansas City the assurance of a permanent restriction on signage on the Water Plant property as the City of Kansas City requires for the deannexation.

Item 13. on the Agenda. QUESTIONS FROM THE NEWS MEDIA

There were no questions from the News Media.

Item 14. on the Agenda. ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the February 28, 2005, Gladstone City Council Meeting, Mayor Wayne Beer adjourned the Regular Meeting.

Respectfully submitted:

_______________________

Cathy Swenson, City Clerk

Approved as submitted: _____

Approved as corrected/amended: _____

__________________________________

Mayor Wayne Beer