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

 

 

 


††††

†††††††††††††††††† PUBLIC HEARING

ITEM 1:

MAYOR BEER: Itís nearly 7:30.If we could please be seated and weíll take a few more seconds here before we commence.Okay.If we could call the meeting to order for the Gladstone City Council Meeting, regularly scheduled tonight, the 28th of February of 2005.

†† ITEM 2:

†† MAYOR BEER: Madame Clerk, would you please note that all Council Members are present.

†† ITEM 3:

†† MAYOR BEER: Would you all please rise and join me in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

(Wherein the Pledge of Allegiance was said)

†† ITEM 4:

MAYOR BEER: Item number 4 on the agenda is Approval of the Regular February 14, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes.

COUNCILMAN CROSS: Mayor Beer.

MAYOR BEER: Councilman Cross.

COUNCILMAN CROSS: I move to approve the Regular February 14, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes.

COUNCILMAN EVANS: Second.


MAYOR BEER: Motion is made and seconded to approve the meeting minutes as presented.Is there any discussion?All those, then, in favor please say aye?

(Wherein all members said aye)

MAYOR BEER: Opposed?

(Wherein there was no response)

MAYOR BEER: The meeting minutes are approved as presented.

†† ITEM 4A:


†† MAYOR BEER: Item number 4A is an issue that I find great pleasure in doing and thatís a couple of recognitions I would like to make.And would Dick Davis, would you please join me at the podium?This plaque Iím about to present to Dick Davis is in recognition to his leadership role that he took with regards to the first phases of putting together a tax campaign, which was equally successfully passed by the citizens of Gladstone.Dick Davis was one of the two co-chairs on a group of citizens, which at one time or another numbered approximately 100 people.It was a group that was called Gladstone on the Move/Citizens Making a Difference and their mission was to take a look at where Gladstone is and envision where they, the citizens, these 100 people, envisioned the City to be in 15, 10, 15, 20 years time.And this was a process that started about a year and a half ago and these folks, Dick and Nancy Thompson were the two co-chairs, put together an outstanding effort and envisioned where they believe Gladstone needs to be in 15 years.And this plaque, then, is presented to Dick, as Co-Chairman of Gladstone on the Move/Citizens Making a Difference, in sincere appreciation of your leadership and commitment to success of the community based strategic planning process, which resulted in the 2005-2020 community plan, presented this 14th day of February of 2005 by the Gladstone City Council, Wayne Beer, Mayor, Council Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi and Councilman Bill Cross, Councilman Les Smith and Councilman Joe Evans.


MR. DAVIS: Mr. Mayor, two things.First of all, when you co-chair an effort like this, the chair gets too much of the credit and the other 98 get too little.It took a lot of hard work by the 100 people and I get more recognition than I deserve for it.The other thing I want to say is, as you know, it resulted in the package of a tax increase and a tax extension with a big majority and I think, Mr. Mayor, itís something that you as Mayor, every member of the City Council, every member of the Administration Staff, should be proud of because what that election really represented is the great confidence of the people in this City to think Gladstone is just one of the best when it comes to responsiveness and listens to its people and thatís why the election passed and I think we all should be proud of that and Iím proud to be part of it.Thank you.


MAYOR BEER: It was a difficult thing, I know, for the group Citizens Gladstone on the Move to suggest that the Council raise our taxes.That had to be very difficult for them to say and to suggest.I know that everyone in this room was thinking to himself just a year ago, gee, I wonder if we could maybe do something here to raise my taxes.Well, weíve found a way and we believe that we found that way because of this group and then the succeeding group, which Iím just about to recognize, people in this room and, in fact, the entire City of Gladstone saw the merits in the tax increase request and itís now up to us to follow through with the things that we promised to do and thatís something that this City has always done in its past and itís one of the reasons I believe that this City had faith in passing this tax this time because they knew, because of Gladstoneís history, that this will, that we will still follow through as we always have in the past.

†† ITEM 4b:


†† MAYOR BEER: Don Horton, would you please come forward?Gladstone on the Move/Citizens Making a Difference, after Gladstone on the Move/Citizens Making a Difference had made their recommendations to Council and the Council then adopted, by resolution, that we move forward, then, with this tax process.Dick and Nancy handed off the reins of the group to two other individuals who then became responsible for putting together the tax campaign, the actual tax campaign itself, Don Horton and Jeanne Moore.And we were, again we, two weeks ago we were able to honor Jeanne Moore.Don, I guess, he felt like he needed to be elsewhere, and so we let him do that.Well, Don was one of the co-chairs, then, of Gladstone on the Move/Citizens Making a Difference, and this is in sincere appreciation of your leadership and commitment to the success of the community based strategic planning process, which resulted in the 2005-2020 community plan implementation, presented on this 14th day, February, 2005, Gladstone City Council, Mayor and Council.Thank you very much for the leadership that you took in putting this thing together and making it happen.Recognizing people for fine things is just so much fun.

†† ITEM 5:

†† MAYOR BEER: Item number 5 is the Consent Agenda.Madame Clerk, would you please explain and read the consent agenda?


MS. SWENSON: Yes, sir.A consent agenda allows the City Council to consider and approve routine items of business without discussion.Any member of the City Council, the City Staff, or the public may request removal of any item from the consent agenda and request that it be considered under the regular agenda if discussion or debate of the item is desired.Items not removed from the consent agenda will stand approved upon motion by any Council Member, second, and unanimous vote to approve the consent agenda as published or modified.The consent agenda is as follows: Resolution R-05-21, adopting changes to the structure and allowing enhancements of the benefits of the City of Gladstone, Missouri Flexible Benefits Plan.Approval of a new Class A & B 7-day liquor by the drink license for Dominicís Pizza & Pasta, Inc. at 6300 North Oak Trafficway.Managing officer, Dominic Carl Spino.And approval of the financial reports for January, 2005.

COUNCILMAN CROSS: Mayor Beer.

MAYOR BEER: Councilman Cross.

COUNCILMAN CROSS: I move to approve the consent agenda.

COUNCILMAN EVANS: Second.

MAYOR BEER: Motion is made to approve the consent agenda as presented.All those in favor, please say aye?

COUNCILMAN CROSS: Removal.

MAYOR BEER: My mistake.Thank you very much.Point of order here is that one of the provisions of the consent agenda is that anyone in the audience may seek to have an item removed from the consent agenda for separate consideration.Is there anyone in the audience who would like to see a consent agenda item removed?

(Wherein there was no response)

MAYOR BEER: Council?

COUNCIL: No.

MAYOR BEER: Staff?


STAFF: No, sir.

MAYOR BEER: Now, then, motion is made and seconded to approve the consent agenda.All those in favor please say aye?

(Wherein all said aye)

MAYOR BEER: Opposed?

(Wherein there was no response)

MAYOR BEER: The consent agenda is approved as presented.

†† ITEM 6:

†† Mayor beer: Item number 6 is Communications from the Audience.We would take, if there is anyone who is in the audience who would like to address the City Council on any item which is not on the agenda, please come forward, state your name and address and say your peace.Seeing none.

†† ITEM 7:

†† MAYOR BEER: Communications from the City Council.Let me start with Councilman Evans.

COUNCILMAN EVANS: I have nothing this evening, Mayor Beer.

MAYOR BEER: Councilman Smith.


COUNCILMAN SMITH: Iím thinking, Mayor, I would just like to echo your sentiments to former Mayor Dick Davis, as a matter of fact, and to Don Horton.Tax campaigns are tough.And Dick had hair and Donís was dark black when they started this, but thank you very much for what you did in helping move our community forward.And thereís a person, I believe, in the audience, she is here, who, you know, we had in our Boards and Commissions banquet Friday night, we had about a half a dozen former Mayors who are still actively involved in the City.And one of those who really stood up without being asked and took a leadership role in this campaign is former Mayor Anita Newsom, and I would like to commend her and thank her for her efforts in this as well.Please pass along to everyone who worked, both on the Gladstone on the Move and on the tax campaign, our thanks.And it should be from all the residents of Gladstone.

MAYOR BEER: Councilman Cross.


COUNCILMAN CROSS: Yes, sir.I would like to add to some of the things that they said, but also to the fact that we had, last Friday night, over 130 people on the different Boards and Commissions volunteers that have worked with the City of Gladstone over the past year.We certainly appreciate the 130 that did show up and we hope we can do this quite often.I think it is something very, very worthwhile.Also, I would like to thank the City Administration, and actually the State of Missouri, for giving us the opportunity to go to Jeff City last week.We did a little lobbying.We met with a few of our Representatives and Senators and let them know exactly how we felt, in Jeff City, what we thought we needed in Gladstone and we thought they believed what we had to say and we hope that we can get these things passed in Jeff City, but we would like to thank them for the opportunity to being able to do that.

MAYOR BEER: Mayor Pro Tem Rudi.


MS. RUDI: Actually, I have just two things tonight.First of all, I was not able to attend Friday nightís Board and Commission dinner.Much to my regret, I had to work that night.And I would like to thank everyone who has served on Boards and Commissions for us in the last couple of years.So for all your time and effort, I really do appreciate all the work youíve done.And secondly, Iíve got a publication thatís just recently come out from the Parks and Rec. Department.I would like to say thank you very much, another nice piece of work, Director Lillis.

MAYOR BEER: I think everythingís just about been said, so I have nothing more.

†† ITEM 8:

†† MAYOR BEER: Item number 8 is Communications from the City Manager.

MR. DAVIS: I have nothing tonight, sir.

†† ITEM 9:

MAYOR BEER: Item number 9 is a Continued Public Hearing for consideration of a request to rezone from RCH-1 (Cluster Housing) to CP-1 (Commercial Planned Local Business) and a Site Plan revision at property generally located at 64th Street and North Prospect Avenue.The applicant is Northlander Properties, LLC.The owner, Curry Investment Company.And this is file number 1242.And the public hearing is now reopened and the conduct of the public hearing will be that we will hear first from Staff with regards to this project, who then will, we will then hear from the applicant.It would be followed by those who are in favor of the project and those, then, who are opposed to the project.Mr. Wingerson.


MR. WINGERSON: Mayor Beer and members of the Council, thank you very much.I would like to start by explaining some of the information thatís 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 weíll talk about more in just a second and then all of the development plan and the history of the development plan and the issue thatís 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, youíll see graphically in just a minute, is currently zoned CP-1, the western half is currently zoned RCH-1.Itís only the western portion that is the subject of the zoning change.The zoning change is also subject to a protest petition thatís in effect.Itís 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, itís 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 thatís pretty overall on a site which is just short of 8 acres.And thereís 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 64th Street and Antioch Road.You can see 72nd Street as an arterial to the north.Englewood Road is an arterial to the south.64th Street and Pleasant Valley road leading to 435 on the east and 64th 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, 64th 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 64th Street is currently zoned CP-1.The green portion is the area in discussion for the zoning change.Currently, itís 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.Itís 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 64th Street in the form of the extension of North Wabash.These uses are restaurant, bank and retail strip that are proposed here.Itís 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 Councilís memory.You can see, again, full access driveway on North Prospect, full access driveway on 64th 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.Itís anticipated the site would be subdivided into 4 lots.Thereís 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.Thereís 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.Thereís been an awful lot of discussion about the specific uses, specifically relating to these 3 areas.At this point, those arenít 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 64th Street just west of the intersection at 64th 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, itís very directional and intended to light only what itís 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, thereís 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 thatís 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, itís 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 64th 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 64th 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 64th Street before proceeding to the east toward the single lane intersection.One of the issues weíve continued to wrestle with just a little bit is significant hump, as a technical term, on 64th Street.What the developer has proposed is to reduce the height of the vertical curve in 64th 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 64th Street, Waldron and Park, and for pedestrians.This would also include the provision of sidewalks on the south side of 64th 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.Theyíre all contained in your draft bill.As usual, weíre requiring for appropriate storm water and traffic studies, will require MODOT approval; however, Iíll 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 64th 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.Weíre 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 whatís 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 64th, 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, whatís 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 64th 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, Iím sure, will do a good job explaining to you how they came to the conclusions that Iíve 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.Thatís 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 donít fit into any one really good category.The neighborhood raised the issue of increased speed on 64th 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.Thereís 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 whatís the detention basin at 68th 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 72nd 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 64th 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 itís 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 thatís about it.At this point, Iíd 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. WINGERSON: Correct.

MAYOR BEER: And maybe I misunderstood what I was reading, but in the Council Minutes of the January the 3rd Meeting, I believe I read in the notes that it was to a 25 year event.

MR. WINGERSON: Yeah.I think, I think in total, when you read that, that provision, I think the engineer was making a point about the different point and used 25 years as an example.This request certainly complies with the Cityís policy as it relates to storm water accommodating the 10, 15, 25, 50 and 100 year storm, so Iím sure the engineer will clarify that for you during their presentation.

MAYOR BEER: Is there anyone else on the Council who has a question, at this point?

(Wherein there was no response)

MAYOR BEER: Thank you, Mr. Wingerson.Is there anyone here from or representing the applicant?


MS. WHEELER: Mayor and City Council, my name is Bonnie Wheeler.My husband and I reside at 11201 Northeast Reinking, Kansas City, Missouri.We are the potential developers for this property located at 64th and Prospect.I feel we, my husband and myself and our team of experts, have put together a great deal of time and effort and came up with a very appealing design for the City of Gladstone and for this piece of property.I hope after hearing your presentation, you will feel the same.We were here to answer any questions that you have for us, so I would like to introduce to you our team of professional people.Our first one is Joe McAfee of McAfee, Henderson & Strick, Leavenworth, Kansas.Also an associate of Joeís is Pete Oppermann, heís our land designer and architect.Heís not able to be here tonight.And our architect is Steve Cantrell of Stephen Jay Cantrell & Associates.Each will take a few moments to show you what we have put together.So thank you for your time.


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 30th 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.Iíve 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 weíve 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 couldnít 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, thatís 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, weíve put together an internal graphs routing system with two drives that weíve 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 64th Street, to make this work to MODOTís 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 64th 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 Beerís 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 itís a bigger system.It costs more.It gives more safety.But thatís the 25 year question that you had, Mayor Beer.The 100 year, and itís more than just a 100 year, thereís 2 retention or detention ponds on this site and I donít know if you, you may not be able to see it if you havenít studied the plan that much, but basically every bit of impervious area on this site is directed to those 2 detention areas.Itís 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, itís 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 itís being a higher peak than what it was before we can get in and develop it.When the 10 year comes, it wonít be - when the 25 comes, and so on, the 50, the 100, so itís not just a 100 year protection, itís 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 thatís in the backyard, weíve taken away the water routing that used to just fall over the hill.And if youíve been by the site, it is a massive hill, itís 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 Iím trying to say is, thatís all going to be taken away because weíre 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.Iíve 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 canít say that in a lot of developments, I dare to mention.The last thing, one of the last turns the project went through, weíve 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 64th 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 donít 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 64th Street.So, thatís 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 weíre trying to show is, that weíre 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.


MAYOR PRO TEM RUDI: I have one.You talked about leaving, the water leaving the site will be no worse than it is right now, however, one of the issues that was brought up is that since that land has been cleared, that there seems to be more water leaving that site than previously.Will you be able to adjust this, so that the water that leaves it goes back to the time when the vegetation was still there?Does that make sense?

MR. MCAFEE: Yes.It does.

MAYOR PRO TEM RUDI: Okay.


MR. MCAFEE: From a technical aspect, typically a timber area will have more runoff than a grass area.It has to do with the grass canít grow because itís being shaded, so you have a lot of dirt cover on the ground.You do have some debris from the trees.I would have thought, and if the citizens that live by there are saying itís worse, then obviously theyíre going to know it better than me, but I would have thought that by clearing that land and grassing that land, the runoff would have decreased.What we are required to take it back to when we design by APWA standards, they talked about impermia ability ratios.Asphalt or concrete would be one, which means everything is going to run off.What they asked us to design to alleviate the run off, the APWA requirements for the lowest impermiability, or the highest impermiability rate there is and thatís .3, which they classify as turf and grass.So I can tell you that thatís what we will meet.I will, I guess Iíll wonder a little bit if a lot of that runoff isnít being caused because maybe it didnít get seeded properly.When we were out there, it was a lot of snow cover and itís in the winter, so itís hard to tell if it has a really good standing grass.I would say just the controlled access and taking this water straight to that concrete flume area, itís going to be a remarkable improvement over anything theyíve experienced.

MAYOR PRO TEM RUDI: Thank you.

MAYOR BEER: Is there anyone else on Council that might have questions?

COUNCILMAN SMITH: Mayor Beer.

MAYOR BEER: Councilman Smith.

COUNCILMAN SMITH: I just want to clarify that you, I believe, stated, or attempted to state unequivocally, that youíre willing to agree to the fact there will be no more than 1 drive-thru eating establishment on this property.Is that correct?


MR. MCAFEE: That is absolutely correct.

COUNCILMAN SMITH: And by approval process, by deed restriction, whatever it takes to tie it down to the greatest plan, we can?

MR. MCAFEE: Yes.Actually, you have the leverage in the traffic study if thereís any revision to this plan that doesnít meet that traffic study criteria, MODOT will not accept it, nor would the City of Gladstone.Yes, unequivocally, that is where weíre at.

COUNCILMAN SMITH: Thanks.

MAYOR BEER: Okay.Thank you, Mr. McAfee.Okay.


MR. CANTRELL: Mr. Mayor, Council.My name is Steve Cantrell.Iím with the architectural group of Stephen Jay Cantrell & Associates, 6002 Northwest Highway 9, Suite B, Parkville, Missouri.Iím 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, thatís the building thatís, of the larger of the 2, obviously, thatís 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, theyíre 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.Iím sure weíre all familiar with that.That is colorized to match the remaining metal that is on the buildings.As you can see, thereís, in both cases, 2 masses at the end that are of standing single type roofing, so weíre 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 thatís 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 itís very typical to the scale that you would see of a retail center that weíre all familiar within the Northland.Signage, as you can see, thereís 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: Itís not our intent to having illuminated signage, in fact, weíre trying to decrease the illumination on the rear and it will be basically task oriented wherever itís 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: Thatís all.Thank you.

MAYOR PRO TEM RUDI: Mayor Beer.

MAYOR BEER: Mayor Pro Tem.


MAYOR PRO TEM RUDI: The rear, itís going to have the same materials and colors and everything all the way around.Will there be only doors back there, no windows?

MR. CANTRELL: Yes, maíam.

MAYOR PRO TEM RUDI: Thank you.

MR. CANTRELL: One pedestrian door per unit.

MAYOR BEER: Mr. Cantrell, you had made mention of a pedestrian sidewalk to the rear and I believe that that was a similar situation, as I read in the previous, or the January 3rd Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, one of the issues that comes to my mind would have to do with fire safety and access.Is there, are we looking at an area here that would permit emergency vehicle access?


MR. CANTRELL: No, sir.Weíve worked with the fire department to make sure our hydrants are in such a location that all parts of the building can be reached with normal procedures, however, there is a case in the building codes that requires certain square footages, depending on how the makeup of the building would be put together, either 2 exits, sometimes 3, depending on what the particular function is, but in most cases, 2.So that is strictly, itís an egress.It is for purposes of public welfare, but we find it, because of the way that weíve done our hydrant locations, not necessary to be able to get vehicular traffic of emergency character behind.

MAYOR BEER: Any other questions from Council at this time?

(Wherein, no questions were posed)

MAYOR BEER: Thank you, Mr. Cantrell.Staff have any additions?

MR. WINGERSON: I would be glad to answer any questions.

MAYOR BEER: Questions of Staff?

(Wherein no questions were posed)

MAYOR BEER: Okay.At this time, then, we would entertain comments from the audience, from those who are in favor of this project.If there is anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor of the project, please step forward.Name and address for the record, please.And let me also mention that our public testimony will be limited to 5 minutes per person and that we would ask that you direct any comments or questions to the Council.What I donít want to have happen here is to get into a debate or argument between audience members and our applicants.


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 thatís 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.Iíve 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.Iíll 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, itís 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 Councilís 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 64th 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 Iíve 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, Iím being asked if we can take just a real quick short recess.Iím thinking that maybe we need to, at least two of us, need a little bit of a break.Letís take, letís recess for, until, yes, 8:40.We will reconvene at 8:40.

(Off the record)

MAYOR BEER: Okay.Letís see if we canít 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)


MAYOR BEER: Okay.With that in mind, then, we would now go into the opposition testimony phase.And before we begin with that, I just would like to remind you that we would like you to confine your, or to limit your comments to 5 minutes and that also we would like to remind you that please, if you have questions that you have in your mind, that you direct the questions to the Council table and that Staff will be taking notes and we will give the, we will give opportunity, then, for Staff to respond.If we need clarification to respond from the developer, weíll ask at that time, as well.With that, is there anyone in the audience in opposition to this project?If there is, would you please come forward and state your name and address for the record, please?




MR. OHSIEK: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council.My name is David Ohsiek.Iím 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 Iíd 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, thatís just up the street on 64th Street, just west of the proposed development.This kind of shopping center will cause heavier traffic on 64th 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 64th 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 wouldnít want that kind of lighting in a residential area. They would be very visible.This kind of a development will devaluate our property.Thereís 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 individualís property should be 27-1/2 percent more valuable than it was in the year 2000.And itís only, heís been told itís only 12-1/2.Well, thatís less than half the depreciation he should have expected and we attribute that to the retail development thatís 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 itís just continued to go downhill.Thereís a strip mall at 60th and Antioch that used to have a Bobís IGA restaurant, which went out of business.Itís been taken over by Ace Hardware, which is fine, but it also had 2 restaurants that have failed.Thereís an existing shopping center at 64th and Prospect to the east of the proposed development.Weíve 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 heís gone by the wayside.I donít 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 canít, they canít, they canít manage to, they canít 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 donít 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 thatís being proposed here now, youíre going to devalue the residential property around it, youíre going to drive residents away from the area, I think youíre going to see a decline in the quality of your residential area and with the loss of people from the area, youíre going to further jeopardize the existing businesses that you now have.Thereís other comments Iíd like to, I think I could make, I donít think I have the time, I think Iíve run out of time already, about the storm drainage, things that Iíve heard mentioned tonight.I probably needed some more information, but if thereís 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 itís very important for all of us here, property owners, anyway.And Iím 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 youíre familiar with him, heís worked for the City before, an older gentleman whoís 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.Heís been a professional independent fee appraiser since 1959 and actually goes back to 1949 when he first started taking some of the courses.Iím 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 Gladstoneís master plan concerning Prospect Place, a subdivision in the southeast corner of the section, fronting Prospect Avenue and Northeast 64th 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, itís kind of what weíve 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 64th 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 Cityís 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, weíve 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, Iím not against, I think I speak, I know, for my wife and weíve talked about this and even considered moving.I donít want to move.I like Gladstone, but Iíll be honest with you, Iím not too crazy about, and I would probably bet my next couple of paychecks, that a fast food restaurantís going to go back here.I donít see very well and I donít hear very well, but Iíve got a very sensitive nose and I donít care to smell that stuff in the middle of the night.And the traffic, itís going to be opened until midnight.I am sensitive to that.Iíve got about a 35-foot buffer there and thatís whatís going to be in my backyard.We really like it here in Gladstone, but you drive around and youíre starting to see more and more, I call them undesirable places, but pawn shops, that kind of stuff, I just donít know if this is the right thing to do.So thatís 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 thatís what we talked about earlier and you recognized a few folks, one of them being focusing on neighborhood preservation.And Iíll leave you with that because I think thatís 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.Iím sorry to disrupt your--

MS. LIMPIC: Oh, thatís okay.Itís kind of nerve racking.


MAYOR BEER: Yes.I understand.I do understand.


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.Iím not as articulate as my husband.Itís 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 thatís why Iím 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 theyíre talking about, the control of the channel of water, will be controlled toward my backyard.Now, theyíre saying that theyíre not going to disturb the vegetation because it makes a buffer.In the summer, thatís 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 64th Street right through my area, so we will have a clear view of the development there.Is it proper to show you closer what Iím talking about, the channel that runs into the creek in my backyard?Itís 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 donít know what that backhoe is going to take while itís 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 Iíve 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 itís 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 donít know why Curry didnít build that.Thatís good.Letís build it and letís be on, letís 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, thatís now CP-1, less intense, so we donít have the intensity of the retail in an area that is surrounded by homes.Youíve heard it once, youíve 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.Weíve 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 64th should be improved whether or not this development goes in.Those rumors that we have a tax increase, that youíre asking for a tax on the November ballot, Iíd 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 Iíll 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 arenít 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.Itís the first time I heard tonight, this evening, that itís only going to be valid for the RC-1 zoning change.Iíd like to know why thatís 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.Itís been an uphill battle trying to get a hold of people at City Hall.Not so much Mr. Wingerson, heís 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, Iím always using strategy and Iím a bit suspicious, and I thought why are they holding on, you know, theyíre not giving me a reason.And I said, okay, thatís all right.I started a second one, just in case the first one wasnít valid, I have a second one, because I couldnít 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, Iím not sure, I think I forgot to write it down, I think Mr. Wingerson said 79 percent, so weíve 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 thatís next door.The right in, the right out heads all the traffic toward the school.Youíre competing with the school buses.Youíre competing with the parents that are picking up their children.Theyíre competing with the kids that walk with backpacks across the street.Youíre competing, youíre bringing all this traffic into a residential area.I know that thereís change, but you have to take into consideration where youíre 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 itís 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 donít 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 wonít be 2 restaurants?And why does it have to be fast food drive-thru?Why canít 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.Weíre 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 Commissionerís statements at the meeting that they donít have a bank.And the bank now, that they can build a two-story on the bank for turret parking and I thought itís just getting bigger and bigger and bigger.So once they get approval, itís going to get even bigger than that.We wonít be able to have any say so once itís in.Whatís 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 thatís RCH-1?Why donít we be proud of the City?Why donít you be proud as a Council Member?Put a memorial there.Have - you campaigned for taxes.Letís campaign for a memorial with a fountain.Dedicate it to Dan Bishop.Spear some civic leader spearhead--

MAYOR BEER: Mrs.--


MS. LIMPIC: --a private and local funds through the government.Get the funding through the conservation parks and recreation department.Yes?

MAYOR BEER: Weíre out of time, Mrs. Limpic, if I may.

MS. LIMPIC: I didnít know we had a time limit.

MAYOR BEER: 5 minutes.

MS. LIMPIC: Oh, Iím sorry.Okay, thank you.

MAYOR BEER: Thank you for your comments.


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, weíve already heard a promise there would only be 1.Weíll 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: Thatís right.


MR. ROMMEL: A Hen House.A high Hen House has been replaced by a Price Chopper.Now, we have heard some good news, however, folks.The third largest space in that development is now going to be leased to a thrift store less than 5 years after this property, 10 million dollars was put into this property to develop high end quality commercial property.And not to mention that a half mile down the road, and I know itís not in Gladstone, Antioch Shopping Center is dead, and a mile or two the other way, Metro North is on life support.Now, Gladstone is widely known and prides itself as being a sleepy bedroom community.And my bedroom and my wifeís bedroom and my daughterís bedroom will approximate the open at 6:00 a.m., close at 12 midnight, hustle and bustle and noise pollution and light pollution and sight pollution of a commercial development that cuts deeper to the west in Gladstone than any existing commercial development does.If this zoning change is approved, youíll be giving to those of us bordering this property, an entire new meaning to the phrase, sleepy bedroom community.Council Members, would you do this to your families?Then why would you do it to ours?We urge you to wave the magic wand for the citizens of Gladstone.

MS. UMPHENOUR: My name is Laura Umphenour.I live at 6513 North Park.I do not live adjacent to this property, at all, but when they had brought to me what was going on and what was happening, Deloresí passion about this, I went out and personally, I hope you guys saw this, 5 pages of signatures of the people in the North Haven East Division.Did you guys see all that?

MAYOR BEER: Yes.We have that.


MS. UMPHENOUR: Those people are all voters.I donít know if anybodyís up for the new position, but I just want to say that I took my video camcorder and I went up to Metro North Shopping Center and saw a recycling center that had been put in the backyards of people that never probably had expected a recycling center to be put - had you guys seen that recycling center up in Metro North?It was at Antioch Shopping Center and then they moved it up to the Metro North, where the movie houses are and the movie house has now reopened and they asked them to shift it up.Well, they shifted it up in the backyard.Those kinds of things 20, 30 years down the road is what can happen when new Council people have come in, et cetera.And so I went up and video taped that.I also video taped the gentleman who puts the trash there.And he even, he said, oh, the people are very unhappy about this, but what can they do.I wanted to know, personally, because I went and collected all these signatures and I promised these people that I would also follow up with them, is it public knowledge who of you guys, and on the Planning and Zoning, who votes for these things, so who is going to be pro and who is going to be con.Is that going to be public knowledge, so I can also go to these same people and say, this one voted this way and so on?

MAYOR BEER: Well, of course, yes.

MS. UMPHENOUR: How about on the Planning and Zoning, because it was 8 for and 2 against. Can I find out the names of the people who voted for it?

MAYOR BEER: Uh-huh.



MS. UMPHENOUR: Okay.Okay.You guys were talking about the in and out thing.I was walking my dogs one night and we had had a beautiful snowfall, it was one of our largest snowfalls, and I heard this noise going on and I picked my dogs up and I ran up the hill on the school lawn and I observed, at night, kids speeding across 64th Street, coming off a side street, jumping the curb and going into the school yard and doing donuts in the school yard.I called the police, you know, and whatever, but in the meantime, theyíre just going back and forth and theyíre jumping that curb and theyíre going over the school yard.People are going to do what people want to do.And if people want to go east, theyíre going to go east, then theyíre going to jump the curb to go east.Okay.I just wanted to tell you that.People do what they want to do.I also, if you guys decide to put this in, one thing that was talked about was MODOT could not agree on putting lights so close together at the corner of 64th Street.There could be no lights at this one and then we have the fire station with lights.Okay.Because it is a Missouri Highway or something like that.I would like to know how did the Renaissance, that new development up there on Missouri Highway, how come their developers had a lot more pull with MODOT?They got a light in right there at 80th Street.

MAYOR BEER: That one I think I can answer.MODOT told them they will have the lights there.


MS. UMPHENOUR: Okay.And then thereís one at 83rd, which is real close by.And then thereís 2 in and off of 152.So thereís 4 sets of lights, boom, boom, boom, boom.And then, of course, we know why Wal-Mart got some lights in, because Wal-Martís got a lot of pull, but if you guys end up voting this in, I mean, we can hardly get out of our housing addition the way it is.We really have a hard time, so I think, you know, you guys ought to really - if you decide not to listen to the voters of Gladstone, and I hope that you do listen to the voters of Gladstone who have voted you into office to represent their desires and their wishes, I hope that it weighs on your decisions not to approve this development, but to honor what was promised to them when they purchased their homes.Originally, it was promised to them that it was R-1.And again, you know, as everything slowly seeps in, you know, these developers, you see the huge signs around where land is being taken away from people.Well, these people were originally promised when they moved in that that was going to be residential back there, then it went to CP-1, then it went to RCH-1.You know, it just keeps on seeping in and I know those people didnít intend on purchasing their homes and developing their landscaping like Dr. Rommel and then did just to have people to come in to try to make money.So, thank you for listening to me.

MAYOR BEER: Thank you.


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 65th 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. Rommelís 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 youíre willing to take, could you perhaps question the success of the development.Are there going to be other areas where the price youíre willing to pay is not commensurate with the value that youíre 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 residentsí 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.Itís aggregious to ask the residents to take the downside while the developer takes the upside.And furthermore, while itís impossible to quantify with any degree of accuracy the negative impact on the adjacent property values.Weíve 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 restrictionís 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 4th, 2005 edition.Itís called fat food.ďKids 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.ĒThank you, but no thank you for your concern for our childrenís 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 wonít have 2 drive-thruís, but, you know, if theyíre on the plan, I donít know whether that means weíll have 2 or whether it means we wonít have any, but we, in the past, weíve 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 3rd, itís 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 oneís 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.



MR. VALENCIANO: Good evening, Mayor and City Council.My name is Jesse Valenciano and I own a piece of property, pretty much smack dab in the middle of adjacent to the property there.Iíve got a few concerns about putting a retail center on this piece of property when every retail center in Gladstone has vacancies.The only ones that are fully occupied are professional, not retail centers, but the buildings that are fully occupied are professional centers, medical centers, office centers.I would suggest to you to probably address that issue with the Charles Curry Company.Make them be a little more aggressive.Rather than waiting on someone to come to that would buy the property, go out and find someone that would put up a financial center, a medical center or an office center.Every center that Iíve just mentioned to you, in the City of Gladstone, is very well maintained, fully occupied and itís not a disgrace to the City.Where there are a lot of retail centers that are a disgrace and I donít know if you all have seen pictures that Iíve submitted, but in the event that you havenít, I have some here.And as you look at those, I would like for you to keep in mind that this is your City.Tattoo shops, pawn shops, title loan places, cash advance places, I think I counted about probably 10 places that you can get short term loans at a very high rate.They donít like to refer to it as interest, but itís about the next thing to a loan shark.And we are helping people get in the hole with these types of establishments.One other issue that Iím concerned about too is the credibility into our Planning Commission.And one of the biggest eyesores in Gladstone is in these pictures and heís on the Planning Commission.I really have a problem accepting how he votes.And I just cannot put any credibility on that, whatsoever.Another issue I have with the Planning Commission is we have a lot of bobble heads.They donít ask questions.Thereís only about 3 people on that Commission that asks questions.

MAYOR BEER: Mr. Valenciano.

MR. VALENCIANO: Yes, sir.

MAYOR BEER: I would hope that you would not continue with the personal remarks.

MR. VALENCIANO: Okay.Well, itís a concern to me as a resident of Gladstone.I mean, I just am concerned and I would hope that you all would be concerned.

COUNCILMAN SMITH: Mr. Mayor.

MR. VALENCIANO: The reason we--

MAYOR BEER: Councilman Smith.

COUNCILMAN SMITH: Excuse me.I am not concerned with the integrity of any person that sits on that Planning Commission.

MR. VALENCIANO: Youíre not concerned?


COUNCILMAN SMITH: No, Iím not.And Iíve been a part of appointing every single one of them.Now, Mr. Valenciano, that, you make very good points and the neighborhood has very good points, but to attack the Planning Commissioners, it isnít necessary.Itís not going to help very much.

MR. VALENCIANO: Okay.But I am concerned how they vote.Okay.

COUNCILMAN SMITH: Certainly.


MR. VALENCIANO: I know thereís City codes for residents and thereís City codes for businesses and I think they should be upheld.Now, the reason we have a lot of these vacancies and retail spots in Gladstone is because we have continued to approve retail centers in Gladstone throughout these years.Thatís why we have so many of them now and so many of them are failing.You take the Prospect Plaza Center.Stone Canyon Pizza is closed.The finance company has moved out.There was a mobile phone business that moved out.Now, I understand that Fashion Bug dress shop is moving out.I would think theyíre setting someone up for failure by approving another retail center.Iím concerned about the way things are going in Gladstone and I canít honestly tell you that I could be proud of the way that Gladstone, the North Oak quarter is looking, the way that Antioch Road is looking.Itís a big concern to me.I love Gladstone and Iíve been in Gladstone going on 17 years.Iíve been in the Northland for 45 years and I love it out here, but I just, I would also tell you Iím not opposed to the development on 64th and North Prospect.I bought there knowing that it was going to be developed someday, but the biggest factor involved in my decision making was the fact that Charles Curry Company owned it.Everything theyíve ever done was a nice property.They developed it nice and maintained it well and thatís why I went ahead and bought, but now itís being sold and we have no idea whatís really going to go in there.And yes, they say 1 fast food restaurant, but when push comes to shove, if they canít rent, theyíre going to be here asking you to rezone it for more fast food restaurants, and thatís all we have now and theyíre all vacant.Very few of them have been a tremendous success, other than McDonaldís.

MAYOR BEER: Okay.Mr. Valenciano--


MR. VALENCIANO: I would ask that you keep the community in mind when you vote and keep in mind that this is the last prime piece of property in Gladstone and I think we should make it a showplace and a tremendous success for Gladstone thatís going to continue bringing in the tax dollars for years to come.

MAYOR BEER: Thank you, Mr. Valenciano.Is there anyone else?I would also, as youíre coming forward, I would just please remind you to refrain from making personal attacks.


MR. CLAYTON: Good evening and thank you for the opportunity for me to be here this evening to state my opposition along with these other fine folks.My name is Tom Clayton and along with my wife, Kelly, we lived at 2501 Northeast 66th Street.And you all received a letter that was placed in your packet, that I trust that youíve had the opportunity to read, I had thought that I would read it out loud publicly, but Iím not going to waste my 5 minutes doing that.I would like to read a couple of paragraphs.Before I start, though, I would clearly state that neither Kelly nor I are emotionally attached to this piece of property.We are emotionally attached to our community, though.Starting in paragraph 3, we, Kelly and I, would probably be some of the first to welcome an appropriate development on the northwest corner of Northeast 64th and North Prospect.That this proposal simply is not the type of development currently needed in Gladstone nor is it the type of development this intersection and the surrounding streets and infrastructure can accommodate.The lack of a left turn lane on North Prospect, Northeast 64th, currently makes access to and from our home thus tricky and occasionally terrifying.And Iím not exaggerating there one bit.This proposed development will only compound traffic congestion for us, our neighbors, and numerous other residents that use Northeast 66th Street as access to and from North Prospect.The developers have indicated that they are planning for 2 drive-thru eating establishments, and like others, I will retract that to 1, maybe more, who knows.Within a very short distance of this intersection, there are at least 5 other fast food drive-thru establishments, not to mention at least the same number of sit down eating establishments.And this does not include eating outlets in nearby grocery stores, convenient stores, bars and Wal-Mart.Plus, there are at least 2 eating establishments that have shut down within about 3 blocks of this intersection.Additionally, the developers are proposing a bank with drive-thru facilities.Within a short distance of this intersection, North Antioch and Prospect is amply served by at least 6 other banking facilities, plus ATMís at various other locations.Further, it is our understanding that the proposed development includes a number of store fronts to be housed by, as yet, unnamed tenants.There are already store fronts aplenty within a very short distance of this intersection and some are currently unoccupied.With this in mind, we feel confident in saying that what the developers are proposing is nothing new, unique or even needed by the City, and more we already have plenty of.Itís not likely to attract additional, for any nonresidents to come into our City to shop and dine.Mayor, Council, what this proposed up here, again, as others have said, it looks nice, but weíve got it.Weíve got lots of it, plenty of it up and down North Antioch and Prospect and North Oak and just beyond our City limits.More of what weíve already got is a hoping game.Weíve also got a number of commercial properties within our City limits that for the last several years have gone begging for redevelopment, and in some cases, demolition.The resources, time and energy proposed for this would be much better served, not just for the developer, but for our entire City, by redeveloping some of the stuff that weíve already got, not development simply for the sake of development.With that said, I will just close by respectively asking that each of you vote against this proposed rezoning and development.Thanks.


MAYOR BEER: Thank you, Mr. Clayton.Before I ask for any further comments, let me just make note, if I may.We have a significant amount of concern regarding storm water and we have significant amount of concern regarding traffic counts and traffic congestion, primarily, internally and on 64th Street.We have concerns about light pollution, other forms of traffic safety and thereís also some concern regarding a perceived high rate of business failures in Gladstone, retail business failures in Gladstone.What I would ask, before we have any further comment, that we have heard a significant amount of these concerns and if you have, if thereís anyone who has new concerns, we would be really happy to hear those things, but I donít think weíre, I donít think anyoneís interests right now are being served by a repetition of the same concerns.With that in mind, I still would entertain further opposition, but I still would ask that that opposition be confined to new concerns, please.


MR. MARTIN: My name is Paul Martin and I live at 2503 Northeast 64th.Now, youíve heard a lot of comments from people whose backyards back up to this, but I am in the front yard.Iím directly across the street, and what Iím concerned about, more concerned about than you realized, is the traffic and the children that go up and down that street.I donít think thereís anybody here that can be more closely concerned about the children that are going up and down the street than I am, because I live right there and I see them.Now, you gentleman make up your mind about what youíre going to do, but you should remember that Antioch School up there and those kids, when they come down that street.And the traffic is terrible now certain times of the hour of the day.Itís going to be horrendous later on if you put this thing through.Like the gentleman said earlier, this is the last prime piece of property and it certainly would be, in my opinion, and I think most everybody elseís, used to a better end than what this is right here.Thank you.



MS. MACKEN: Good evening.My name is Amy Macken.I live at 6507 North Olive.My place of residence does back up into this proposed zoning change.We are adjacent to the property.Thereís a newspaper article in the Kansas City Star, December 5th, 2004, and the newspaper article reads, itís about walkers in Kansas City.And Kansas City area is ranked the 15th most dangerous area for pedestrians.On January, or excuse me, on September 6, 2004, my daughter would be here in behalf of speaking on behalf of herself, but sheís sick this evening, so I decided to take her place, but on September 6th, she was a statistic in this most dangerous for pedestrians.She was hit on Antioch by a car taking a right-hand turn off of North Bales.This site plan proposes a right hand turn only.And what happens when people pull out to the right when youíre going toward the school and toward pedestrians walking if they look to the left to see if cars are coming and when they see that thereís no traffic coming, like the girl that hit my daughter, will pull out and take their right.And thatís exactly what happened and I think that will propose a big danger to the kids walking from the middle school and even the grade school.I mean, nobodyís mentioned Meadowbrook.Meadowbrook has children that are 5th grade, you know, starting at 8 years old, they can walk home by themselves.I think that a retail area would also be a distraction for these kids.I donít think that, you know, some of these walkers instead of going straight home, you know, this is going to be a big distraction for them, and I just donít think itís in the best interest of this community.I have two concerns about the rezoning from RCH-1 to CP-1.And the biggest one is, well, my two concerns and I think they, being a mom of 3 children and 2 of them go to either Antioch or Meadowbrook, my two concerns are, and they lay equally, as far as Iím concerned, is the decreased property value that this CP-1 rezoning will put on our residence.Youíre considering a rezoning and a development against the wishes of the community that put you in office.And Iím saddened by the choice and the possibility of this rezoning.My husband and I, when we bought our piece of property, we trusted the City of Gladstone and we did look at the master plan and saw that this was RCH-1 and CP-1 and we trusted the Gladstone City Council that that would remain that way.The second concern that I have is the increased risk to our children.I have a 5 year old who, in 3 years, will be walking home from school from Meadowbrook school.And it just scares me to think that he could be walking through this property with this rezoning and these commercial properties.Thank you.

MAYOR BEER: Thank you, Ms. Macken.


MR. WEICKERT: Iím Jim Weickert from 2515 Northeast 66th.My property does not back up to any of this, but I will say this on behalf of the people that is there, that when I had bought my lot before building the house, it was a 2-lane road, Missouri 1 was.And then it came through and was 4 lane and went to 72nd Street. When the taxes came in and I had an appraisal and the appraisal was a lot less than what the county charged me in taxes because of the high traffic area.And so itís a fact they reduced my taxes after having to have gone to Liberty.Then it went from 72nd on up to 152 and I got my tax bill and I had an appraiser again appraise my house and he said, well, you know, thereís more traffic now, so we got to them so they will have your appeals up there and reduce some taxes.So my concern is, when you do take this buffer zone, that portion over to it, and I do think these people will suffer on their property values because I did as I watched the 2 lane go to 4 lane, then go 4 lane even further north on that.The other thing too, though, that was not addressed by the developer here, I think when I cross the street and up 1 block on Northeast 66th Street and the fire department and ambulance service is there.Theyíre very courteous.Iíve talked to them at the Gladfest, and I think Mr. King Iíve talked to.And they donít blow their sirens unless necessary from like 11:00 until 5:00 in the morning or so.I get a good nightís sleep.But they did put in a plan that those ambulances and the fire trucks hook up to their exhaust, so they can leave them running over there, which thereís no bother, except when they go flying out the door and it jerks off and thereís some kind of a sensor.It probably is in that building.I donít know.But, there is a very high shrilled fan, that I went around behind that fire station, that is sitting up there and when that thing kicks in at 2:00 in morning, that takes you out of bed.So something that the developer hadnít thought of and I was thinking, if you put this over to the west and rezone that, put air conditioners, which he said they were going to put them on there, hide them behind some kind of a facade, so they didnít show, but what those air conditioners, heaters, or whatever sound like when it goes to those peopleís bedrooms at 35 foot away from it, because I know that the back of the fire station across, the ambulances, the fire trucks wake me up because theyíve got big motors, but what does keep me awake is the last 10 minutes that that thing runs until it clears the smoke out of that firehouse over there and it automatically shuts off.And I think, Iím not a, you know, Iím not approving that, but that is a factor about noise pollution that we havenít talked about.Weíve talked about all the light pollution.Thank you for your time.

MAYOR BEER: The last person who spoke.Would you state your name again, please?What was your name, please?

MR. WEICKERT: Jim Weickert.

MAYOR BEER: Weickert.

MR. WEICKERT: Yes, sir.


MAYOR BEER: Okay.Thank you.Thank you very much, Mr. Weickert.Is there any other opposition to come before the Council?

(Wherein there was no response)

MAYOR BEER: Letís see.I guess maybe we probably need to have some questions answered here.And Mr. Wingerson, could you address those questions?


MR. WINGERSON: Thank you very much.This Council is certainly familiar with all of the information tonight. I think I took pretty good notes and I would like to just talk about a few quick things.Delores Limpic, Ms. Limpic, raised the question on a legal protest petition on the zoning and the site plan and why, and on the sub-part to that was why does it take so long to make that decision.The legal protest petition applies to cases where an amendment or a revision to the zoning coordinates it is in effect.So in this case, the zoning change is what amends or revises the zoning coordinates by changing the zoning district, if you were inclined to do that.The site plan, on the other hand, is just a general development tool.Certainly the petition holds weight, as the petition from Ms. Umphenour holds weight, as it gages neighborhood perspective and neighborhood opinion, but in terms of the protest petition, it applies to the zoning change specifically.So, Iíll apologize to Ms. Limpic for not making that more clear in the numerous discussions we had about the protest petition.Ms. Umphenour asked about the traffic signal basically at the driveway from the proposed development and Prospect Plaza and whether or not that would be appropriate.I am certainly not an expert on Department of Transportation policies and requirements as it relates to a traffic signal, but Iím relatively sure that 300 feet is much to close to allow traffic signals back to back that close together at 64th Street, then the development.The next traffic signal to the north, of course, is the fire station.Itís only in use when necessary to allow the emergency vehicles to exit, so that would enter into it.And then finally, the last speaker, Mr. Weickert, I believe, talked about the fan at Station 2 and weíll look at that this week and see if thereís anything that can be done about that.I would be glad to answer any of your questions if you have anything you want to talk about.


MS. LIMPIC: Since he addressed one of my questions, can I ask, can the fire station light be changed to a stoplight?I mean, thereís 1 stoplight at 80th and 1 at 83rd.Thatís only 2 blocks away from the center.

MAYOR BEER: Iím not sure that either of us can answer that question right at this time, but I would say likely that MODOT probably would not permit that.

MR. WINGERSON: Weíll certainly check, and that was for the record, Ms. Umphenour asking about the traffic signal at Station 2 and whether or not that could be a functioning traffic signal.


MAYOR BEER: But as a general rule, any of the traffic lights that are placed on Antioch, Prospect and 1 are all subject to MODOT rules and regulations.And all we can do is make requests.MODOT makes the determination.As an example, I would like to use just as a personal example, I walk every morning and I cross M-1 at 73rd Terrace, the light thatís at Wal-Mart just north of 72nd Street.That also is a light that was mandated by MODOT.I, as I started to mention, though, as I walk, I cross M-1.The M-1 light is so short, when it does activate east and west, that Iím only able to walk halfway across the road and it begins changing again.And I have asked a number of times that that light sequencing be changed and to no avail.

UNKNOWN: Just take up jogging instead of walking.

MAYOR BEER: Sometimes, I do.So Iím not trying to pass off our responsibilities here, but there are just some things that are outside of our control and thatís one of them.There were, let me find all my notes again.While Iím looking for my notes, Mr. Smith, I believe, had some questions.

COUNCILMAN SMITH: Sure.First of all, and I kind of what to apologize to you, Jesse, I probably just lost a good lunch customer today, but our Planning Commissioners, you know, we get paid the big bucks, we get paid a hundred bucks a year, but they work for free, so they really do volunteer their time and I think they do the best that they can, so I apologize a little bit for getting agitated with that.

MR. VALENCIANO: No problem.

COUNCILMAN SMITH: Mr. Wingerson, has there been a traffic study performed on this and who performed it?


MR. WINGERSON: Yes, sir.And if itís okay with you, I would like the project engineer to address the whoís and whatís.

COUNCILMAN SMITH: That would be great because the follow-up question to that is more importantly did it address the potential impact on 64th Street, especially with the admit of the right out only.


MR. MCAFEE: Yes.Our traffic study was completed by members of our Staff.Weíre submitting to MODOT for a consensual approval.Basically, we did not have the initial layout that we put together for this project. Did not have a right in, right out on the westernmost 64th Street intersection and then on the easternmost.When that was staffed, they had some concern over trying to get the traffic coming out southbound or coming out the northeast bound, closer to that intersection, so we met with Steve Holiday with MODOT and basically changes were prompted to make the right in, right out to the west, turn to the west.As far as funneling traffic to the school, the 2 entrances along the 64th Street, since the western intersection was going to move you to the west, has very little use in the traffic study.We go through a trip generation and it doesnít really matter whether thereís a - we basically look at where people are heading in the main for, in the main thoroughfare layout of your City.And basically, what we found through the traffic study, that was approved by MODOT, is people that are going to go north out of this development are going to use the easternmost 64th Street intersection, so they can have a signal to allow them to go north.People that are going to go south out of this intersection on Missouri 1, are going to go ahead and use that Prospect intersection because that can give them easy right out and basically head south.People that are going to go west are going to use that right in, right out.Nobody else is looking to use that westernmost intersection, because if theyíre not going west, thereís an easier route for them to get north and south and east.Does that make sense?

COUNCILMAN SMITH: It does.At one time, you all, and weíve talked a little about improvements and, perhaps, a decel lane and a left turn northbound lane on M-1.Whether it be you or Scott, how would that be determined?


MR. MCAFEE: Okay.MODOT has what Iíve mentioned that they have given us a consensual approval.They have reviewed our traffic study and they have identified improvements that they need to see for them to accept our traffic study for them to approve it.And they were an accel and a decel lane at the entrance out onto Missouri 1.Although they do not control the right of way as far back as the western entrance on 64th Street, they still get to have some say about how you improve it.So basically, the improvements they requested were an accel/decel lane on Missouri 1.If youíre heading southbound, they wanted that acceleration lane to be continued and tied right into an existing right turn lane at the intersection.They asked us to continue, actually Staff, not MODOT, but the Staff, City Staff.Mr. Wingerson and Public Works asked that that lane be continued around 64th to create another lane of traffic coming around and going westbound.And that would serve as deceleration lane if you were pulling into the easternmost intersection.

COUNCILMAN SMITH: Okay.


MR. MCAFEE: The other improvements, the only other improvements that MODOT required, they told us they would agree and confirm that leaving the median on Missouri 1 was acceptable to allow left turning traffic to come into this development on the Missouri 1 entrance and that they would gage it over the next couple of years and that, and they made the developer very aware that if it does become an issue, then the developer would be responsible to extend the median to where left turning vehicles coming in that eastern intersection could not use it.But for right now, theyíre comfortable with it.

COUNCILMAN SMITH: And Mr. Wingerson, would that be something that we could, perhaps, require an escrow for, so that weíre assured that if that has to be done, thereís money to pay for it?

MR. WINGERSON: Yes, sir.We can certainly request an escrow for that.What sort of Staff envisions is to work in cooperation with the developer and her representatives, our Staff and the MODOT Staff to solve that problem today, and in conjunction with this development, to ensure that MODOT doesnít come back later and say you have to do something different.Our goal would be to solve it concurrently with this developer and thatís the subject of the development agreement to determine what that solution is and then implement it.


COUNCILMAN SMITH: I like that.I like that better.And how do we, and I understand that thereís a site plan issue here and, you know, we can take that up with the site plan because, quite frankly, I cannot support the site plan if it has anything that looks like multiple fast food.So how do we, though, assure that?What is the residentsí guarantee, if you will, that that, and I understand your analogy and explanation of the traffic study and MODOT and everything else, but how can we do one step better than that?

MR. WINGERSON: Well, I think, I think the traffic study thatís been talked about provides you with the documentation, if you will, necessary to make a condition.So in other words, if the Council was inclined to make a condition limiting the number of drive-thru restaurants to 1, then you make that as a condition to the ordinance in your approval process and I think thereís a great degree of assurance that ordinance didnít support it by the traffic study.So thatís really pretty solid.


MAYOR BEER: With regards, if I may interrupt here for just a moment, with regards to the traffic study, Iím not trying to sound like Iím impugning the developer or his, or his traffic study, however, by not having an independent traffic study, it kind of puts a little bit of a cloud on the possibility of just how independent this traffic study could be, so I think itís something that I would like to see considered very, very strongly, is that a traffic study be conducted by an independent, on an independent effort.Yes, Mr. McAfee.


MR. MCAFEE: In the terms of the uses on the 3 lots located on the eastern side of this, this came out of the Planning Commission and it was asked, it was asked of me why did I show drive-thruís on each one of those facilities.The bank is a given and we were looking at that use in that area.We do not have a bank.The developer does not have current client set up to come in, but when we submitted our traffic study to MODOT, a fast food restaurant is one of the highest peaking traffic situations in any traffic study in a trip generation lot.And I mentioned at the Planning Commission that weíre looking at these as 3 commercial lots.Any use for C-1 is what would be used in there.Now, whether that be a financial institution, whether that be a restaurant, whether that be another retail use, but what I mentioned is if I submitted a traffic study to MODOT that did not include one fast food situation, then they would have thought I wasnít being conservative enough.Now, in terms of the traffic study that we submitted, we followed the guidelines, but I certainly donít-

COUNCILMAN SMITH: So in effect, you used the worst case scenario.

MR. MCAFEE: You bet.

COUNCILMAN SMITH: Okay.


MAYOR BEER: And in terms of providing data to MODOT for purpose of traffic study, I can understand that, however, Iím a little bit here inclined to agree with Councilman Smith in regards to support of the project as itís presented to us with, on the site plan, a couple of pretty high intensity projects that we would have no control, so long as a project were to come along and fit that plan, that footprint, we would have no control, other than to permit a building permit to be constructed, to go through.I would be, from my standpoint, much more amenable to moving forward with this thing in that regard, if there were, if the proposals brought to us were less intense and if a project came along that required greater intensity, that that project would have to come back to the City in the form of a public hearing and the same public process weíre doing right now.

MR. MCAFEE: It is our understanding that there would be a Staff review of a pad site.I look at this as 3 pads sites.As long as they fit into that C-1 commercial zoning, then they become like a Staff review for what goes there.

MAYOR BEER: As a planned project.

MR. MCAFEE: I understand.Is it worth at least considering to strike the internal building that you see laid out for lots 1 and lots 3.We donít have the people to use it.We donít have those clients set up.What this plan was trying to dictate is, this is the internal drive system that feeds these 3 lots.This is the internal storm drainage system that makes these 3 lots buildable.We did not intend to come to this Council with the fact that the building that goes on lot 1, will be built exactly in the shape that itís built and have a drive-thru, but it will meet the-

MAYOR BEER: Thatís the purpose, basically, of a planned zoning that any significant deviation from that finding would require the public hearing process again.


MR. MCAFEE: The planned district that we followed for the City of Gladstone did not ask us to dictate what use would go on each one of those lots and we were following your regulations.

MAYOR BEER: Okay.Yes.I understand what youíre saying there.Mayor Pro Tem Rudi, do you have a question?

MR. MCAFEE: We would certainly remove anything to do with drive-thru lanes on lot 3 if itís useful.

COUNCILMAN SMITH: If I may.

MAYOR BEER: Councilman Smith.


COUNCILMAN SMITH: I understand that the neighborsí concerns, you know, the concept of a sit down restaurant is not new.In fact, in a survey that we did with our citizens a few years ago, that came back as the number one amenity that weíre lacking in the City.Iíd say that the Curry Company has, and I know in our own Economic Development Department, we have tried to secure sit down restaurants, and what weíre told, in essence, is that thereís not the lunch crowd.In other words, if you look around, thereís not the office complexes that would support a restaurant, other than about a shift and a half in the evenings.And let me tell you, weíve tried because, you know, we all eat too, but we just have not been able to secure anything.So I think we would all like that, I just donít know that itís available, available yet.Mr. Wingerson, could you tell me or Councilman Ramsay, read off for us what is allowed in a C-1 zone in ordinances, please?

MR. WINGERSON: Any use permitted in a CO, commercial office, zoning district professional offices not included in a commercial office, banks and savings and loans, barber and beauty shops, optical shops, seamstress and tailoring, interior decorating, photographer, shoe repair, post offices, utility offices, schools, shops and stores for the retail sale of notions, gifts, novelty, jewelry, prime material, flowers, tobacco, photograph equipment, artist and hobby supplies and music supplies, shops and stores for the retail sale of food and beverages, consumption of soft goods, such as clothing and shoes, drugs and cosmetics, furniture and appliances, hardware and paint, kitchenware, toys, sporting goods and antiques, eating establishment, dry cleaning, laundry and businesses providing drive-up window service, bakeries, donut shops--


MAYOR BEER: Mr. Wingerson, clarification of businesses that have drive-up windows, example?

MR. WINGERSON: Drive-thru restaurant.

MAYOR BEER: Okay.

COUNCILMAN SMITH: Are alcohol sales allowed in C-1?

MR. WINGERSON: Yes, subject to appropriate licenses and--

COUNCILMAN SMITH: Right.Okay.Possibly last, but not least.First of all, I guess I would like a response from the developer on the 6:00 a.m. to midnight usage.Is that a must do?Can that midnight be scaled back to an 11:00 use, perhaps?

MS. WHEELER: I donít think so.

COUNCILMAN SMITH: And Mr. Wingerson, what can we do to mitigate the noise from the rooftop HVAC, other than the screening?

MR. WINGERSON: The screening is the main thing.The other factor is kind of a vertical position of those in relation to the adjoining uses.This particular site is fine compared to the north and to the west and high when compared to the south in a general rule.Theoretically, the noise would be less because we would be up above most of the homes.However, we can sure look at it.


UNKNOWN: --above my home.

UNKNOWN: Thatís not, thatís not--

MR. WINGERSON: No noise from baffling that meets the strategies.

COUNCILMAN SMITH: Okay.Thatís all I have at this point.

MAYOR BEER: Are there any other questions from Council?Mayor Pro Tem Rudi.

MAYOR PRO TEM RUDI: Mr. Wingerson or Mr. McAfee, either one, reading this diagram was kind of hard because itís kind of small.Could you tell me, is there any area where the 35 foot setback is not adhered to?


MR. MCAFEE: The 35 foot setback is all along the north boundary, all along the west boundary, along the south boundary until you reach the first intersection and then, Iím sorry, the second intersection and then basically from that southeast, from the easternmost drive that comes out onto 64th Street, around along Prospect, we were, we requested and we were placed on the plans a reduced setback next to the highways for a parking lot.Nothing to do with any building.The building still adheres to those setbacks, but for parking only, and I believe they were reduced to 25 feet.Thatís the notes from the Planning Commission.15 foot parking setback along Prospect Avenue, 20 foot parking setback along 64th Street from the eastern entrance to towards Prospect.

MAYOR BEER: One of the issues thatís been raised a number of times was noise abatement and buffering.When the deciduous trees are in full leave, of course, they offer some buffering from light pollution and noise pollution.Of course, this time of the year, they donít, or exceptionally a small amount.I believe I, if I read correctly, that there was mention by one of the developerís representatives in the January Planning Commission Meeting about enhancing that buffering with deciduous, or not deciduous, but evergreen trees.Has that still--


MR. MCAFEE: Yeah.Mr. Oppermann, who couldnít be here tonight, is a landscape architect.And basically we left a green space of approximately 10 feet between the retaining wall and the current line of the lot 1 to the northeast.And we mentioned at the site meeting, and I thought it was already a part of the record, that the developer would be placing coniferous trees, or pine trees, some type of evergreen tree, along that boundary to assist in the screening, because that was brought up at the site meeting that we were there.

MAYOR BEER: I wasnít there and the, my comment came from what I thought I had read in the minutes.

MR. MCAFEE: That should have been shown in the revised landscape plan that we submitted to Staff.

MAYOR BEER: Okay.And as I recall, there was some discussion as to 2 inch caliper versus 4 inch caliper.


MR. MCAFEE: The 2 inch versus 4 inch caliper was actually on the other shrubbery or the trees that were inferior and Mr. Oppermannís only contention was that it was his professional opinion, who did this, doing this type of work for 25 years is that a 4-inch caliper root ball tended to die versus a 2-inch caliper.And his suggestion was to maybe increase, or ask the developer to go ahead and increase plantings to where for the same money that was being spent on 4 inch calipers, you can actually get a more live brushes and trees 5 years down the road.But we were really conceding to the Staff, whatever they recommended.And it didnít look like they changed--

MAYOR BEER: Likewise, the same then would be with the coniferous trees, not caliper, but - all of a sudden, I lose my terminology.

MR. MCAFEE: We would certainly concede to the Staff any landscaping requirements.

MAYOR PRO TEM RUDI: Mayor Beer.

MAYOR BEER: Mayor Pro Tem Rudi.

MAYOR PRO TEM RUDI: A couple of more questions.Would you have objections if we placed a restriction on this to allow no drive-thru restaurants?

MR. MCAFEE: I canít answer that.The developer needs to answer that question.

MAYOR PRO TEM RUDI: And then what about a requirement that whatever drive-thru you put in there, had the same color and materials, consistency of materials, that are used on the retail buildings, so that everything on that site was consistent?


MR. CANTRELL: Mayor Pro Tem, obviously thereís no exactness to this in regards to what buildings or what solid buildings are going to be built for function, for that matter.As Joe has said, these are pads at this point, still speculation.It is our intent, however, that architectural consistency occur both in color, possibly material, signage, throughout the project.Thatís what makes it a project in lieu of a few pad sites and retail stores.So itís our intention to do that.

MAYOR PRO TEM RUDI: Iím looking for more than intention.

MR. CANTRELL: Yes.We are going to have architectural restrictions that will keep consistency and conformity throughout the development in materials, in colorization and signage.

MAYOR PRO TEM RUDI: And then my final question probably is to Wingerson, or I might have to ask someone from the audience, but can you tell me when the homes there were built?

MR. WINGERSON: It would be a better question for the neighborhood.

UNKNOWN: Iíve lived there 20 years.

UNKNOWN: Weíve been there going on 17 years.

UNKNOWN: Early 1980's.Mine was built in Ď83 and moved in in Ď84 and I think those along North Park are all pretty much the same.

MAYOR BEER: So 20, 25 years?


UNKNOWN: Yes.

UNKNOWN: For the record, all of those are high enough to look down on all these air conditioners.Youíre not going to hide them from anybody.

COUNCILMAN SMITH: I would like clarification on that.I think we have a difference in opinion with the elevation.

MAYOR BEER: Yes, we do.There are a number of unanswered questions here that I think are going to need some, some additional review, additional discussions.It needs to be looked at some more.With, well - Councilman Evans.

COUNCILMAN EVANS: If I may, Mayor, I have a couple of questions, also.

MAYOR BEER: Sure.

COUNCILMAN EVANS: And this may be to Mr. McAfee.With regard to your detention basins, Iím having a hard, Iíve had great eyesight and Iím having a hard time reading the, your dimension here for the base or the bottom of that basin.Is that 940 or 930?It goes from 960, 950, 940 in terms of how this falls.

MR. MCAFEE: The detention basin located in the northwest corner has a base elevation of approximately 935.


COUNCILMAN EVANS: Okay.So weíre falling 25 feet from 960 on the outer edge here.Is that what Iím seeing?

MR. MCAFEE: 60 on the outer edge, yeah, right here.

COUNCILMAN EVANS: This is 960; correct?

MR. MCAFEE: Thatís an existing 960.

COUNCILMAN EVANS: Okay.

MR. MCAFEE: But now, that building is labeled.

COUNCILMAN EVANS: And then weíre going to 960 up here.

MAYOR BEER: Are these 10 foot--

MR. MCAFEE: Two foot.Two foot--

COUNCILMAN EVANS: My concern there is, these detention basins work wonderfully, but when weíre, perhaps, at that 100 year flood or storm at full basin, what are we going to do to protect these kids from, perhaps, slipping down into this thing?Is there any-

MR. MCAFEE: No.Itís--

COUNCILMAN EVANS: Would we require fencing or have you proposed fencing?


MR. MCAFEE: We have not proposed fencing because fencing is typically, if you keep your detention facility below 5 foot of depth, by the American Public Works Association design, which is what Kansas City Metro Area follows.Six foot is a cutoff for putting a fence around the detention basin.We, obviously for other reasons, keep all our depths below that 6 foot region in the first place.Itís a 3 to 1 slope going into the detention basin.We, as a company, I refrain, or my firm refrains, from putting up vertical walls, retaining walls, to create the detention basin because of the safety issue.Each place where these are located, we certainly wouldnít be opposed to a fencing if Council deems thatís necessary, but by the American Public Works Association, itís not required.

COUNCILMAN EVANS: Then also, perhaps, you can help me with the issue on the retaining walls.Iíve noticed them all throughout the whole site.And we only had a couple of examples of the retaining walls that were--


MR. MCAFEE: Well, there were 2, Staff asked that we submit to 2 types of retaining wall.Iíll be honest, weíve only planned 1 type of retaining wall for this project.Thatís what they call redi-rock.It is a concrete material made under a controlled situation that appears to be a split faced rock.And the reason we were proposing redi-rock, they are the bottom of the picture that Mr. Wingerson showed here, they were the bottom one.They basically have got a 4 foot wide, 4 foot long by 2 foot tall rock, the bottom picture.And the reason we proposed these is the walls that are located on the north side of the property, are 10 to 13 foot tall.Typically, anytime we get much above an 8 foot wall, the keystone wall, which is shown above, is a lot smaller block.Itís 16 inches wide by 8 inches tall.And that block works pretty good and you can get pretty good stability up to about 8 foot.Obviously, they build them a lot taller.Given the fact that we have buildings behind these walls, we like the engineering aspects of the redi-rock, the larger gravity wall.And we think anytime youíre getting up with those taller walls, itís going to look more natural as opposed to just an 8 by 16 split face.Thereís a potential that we could use some of the keystone in some of the other retaining wall situations internal to the site.As far as the look on that backside, itís our opinion that that bottom wall looks a lot more natural than that keystone wall does.


MAYOR BEER: Are there any other questions for Council?

MAYOR PRO TEM RUDI: Mayor Beer.

MAYOR BEER: Mayor Pro Tem.

MAYOR PRO TEM RUDI: One more.Counselor Ramsay, if you would help me out here, please?Do we have any kind of ordinance that restricts the sale of alcohol within a certain distance of a school?

MS. LIMPIC: While youíre looking that up.Can I ask, how long will it take for those trees, those evergreen trees to grow, realistically?Do you guys have any idea?

MAYOR BEER: Well, thatís a good question you asked because trees donít come full grown and so while there is a period of time, the gardeners in the audience know that there is a period of time of infancy and juvenile growth, just kind of like people, until they become fully grown.

MS. LIMPIC: Weíll all probably be dead by then.

MAYOR BEER: Oh, no.

COUNCILMAN SMITH: Speak for yourself.

UNKNOWN: From my experience, these types of trees average about 1 foot of growth in height every year.It will be 20 or 30 years before they get full enough to really screen--


UNKNOWN: To do any good.

UNKNOWN: --sight or sounds.

UNKNOWN: On the topography, I might also point out that if I walk out my walkout basement door, yeah, that may be above me, but if Iím on my first floor, Iím not quite so sure.If Iím on the second floor where my bedroom is, Iíll be looking down on the project.

MAYOR BEER: I feel very confident that this will be some of the things that weíll be looking at.Are there any other questions from Staff or from Council?Unless we have new testimony, Iím going to close the public hearing.Yes, maíam.


MS. VALENCIANO: Hello, Mr. Mayor and City Council.I am Phyllis Valenciano and our property backs up to the storm retention basin thatís kind of in the middle of this site as it is planned, and there is no evergreens there.There is no retention wall.There is nothing to prevent us from having a total view of this privacy.I did the walk in January with this group of gentlemen, and I expressed this to the architects and they said thereís nothing they can do about it.Iím sorry, Iím not speaking into this.But, for the sake of our property, we had zero privacy from this.And we bought our lot where it is, knowing full well the zoning, as it is, not that it was going to be changed.We bought for natural privacy.Thatís the way North Haven East was built, was platted out, so that all the roads and houses had natural privacy and all the homes were situated away from each other.The backs are angled away from each other, so weíre not looking into everybodyís windows.And now with this rezoning, we have no natural privacy to the commercialism that would be put on this corner.And respectively, I am requesting that you vote no on this rezoning and consider, possibly, a financial center, a business center on this corner.Weíd have daytime hours, less intensity of all the types of pollutions that commercialism brings about.Save our neighborhoods for us to enjoy as we bought it, please.

MAYOR BEER: Thank you, Ms. Valenciano.

MS. LOWREY: My name is Lavina Lowrey.I live at 6502 North Olive, Gladstone.I just would want to ask a question.You all have asked questions and youíve gotten, we could do that.Well, what does, is there, we can do the that, does that mean we will do the that?


COUNCILMAN SMITH: They will do that or they wonít do anything.

MS. LOWREY: Well, whoís going to hold them to it?

COUNCILMAN SMITH: We will.Thatís the job of the Staff and everyone else.And, you know, once they, letís assume a worst case scenario, they present their plans and say theyíre going to do everything we ask them to do and then they start building it without being in accordance with those plans, we shut them down.

MS. LOWREY: Whoís keeping track?

COUNCILMAN SMITH: This guy right here.

UNKNOWN: And then thatís when the voters, thatís when the voters stand up.

MAYOR BEER: Good.Thank you.Mr. Ramsay, have you an answer regarding the liquor sales near schools?


MR. RAMSAY: Yes.Section 3.15.1 of the City Code limits intoxicating liquor sales to no closer than 100 feet to any portion of any school or church measuring from the nearest point of the enclosing wall of the premises to the nearest point of the church or school.That also applies to residential structures in R-1 to R-4 zoning.And it is extended to 200 feet to a dwelling structure that is located on a same street as the business, which probably wouldnít apply in this case.But essentially, itís 100 feet from a house or 100 feet from a school or a church.

MAYOR BEER: Any other questions from Council?With that, the Public Hearing is now closed.

†† ITEM 9a:

†† MAYOR BEER: We have two issues before us.We have item number 9A, which would be the First Reading of Bill 05-11, which amends 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 SMITH: Mayor Beer.

MAYOR BEER: Councilman Smith.

COUNCILMAN SMITH: Weíll replace Bill 05-11 on itís first reading.

COUNCILMAN EVANS: Second.

MAYOR BEER: We have a motion and a second to place Bill 05-11 on itís first reading.Is there any discussion?

COUNCILMAN SMITH: Mayor Beer. Mayor Pro Tem Rudi, go right ahead.

MAYOR PRO TEM RUDI: Okay.Mayor Beer.

MAYOR BEER: Mayor Pro Tem.


MAYOR PRO TEM RUDI: At this point, Iím not sure that I can vote in favor of this.I would be interested in putting this on its first reading and then moving this to a future meeting where we can get some of these questions answered.Things like the elevations and that kind of thing.

MAYOR BEER: This is the rezoning.

MAYOR PRO TEM RUDI: So I would be willing to vote in favor of this for a first reading, but I would rather it didnít go farther than that.

MAYOR BEER: Is there any other discussion?Councilman Smith, I believe, probably sounded like he wanted to say something.

COUNCILMAN SMITH: Just on based on what Mayor Pro Tem Rudi said, it might be good for the audienceís advocation to know that what that means is, itís almost administratively, if you will, to vote to place this on its first reading and then we will not take it any further whether we approve it or deny it and we would come back to it at our next Council Meeting.And I can live with that.If you have questions that you feel need answered, then weíd sure want to have all the information available to us before we vote.

MAYOR BEER: Councilman Cross.


COUNCILMAN CROSS: Yes.I feel the same way.

MAYOR BEER: Councilman Evans.

COUNCILMAN EVANS: I feel the same way, Mayor Beer.


MAYOR BEER: Okay.Well, I just would kind of like to, just kind of like to add to that, I guess, a little bit.Itís our responsibility as Councilmen to be advocates for the neighbors and all residents, in fact, in the City.And part of that advocacy sometimes can be distasteful for some, not distasteful for others, but nevertheless, itís an advocacy that has to take place.And part of that advocacy includes assuring that we have the best possible project that takes into account not just the immediate neighborhood, but the City as a whole.And given the information that we have tonight and given the information that I believe we still need, I believe itís necessary, also, for us to have some more, some more review, more discussions between Staff and developer.I just believe that this is necessary.And so as a result from the standpoint of basic procedure, that this Council follows, we probably do need to place this on a first reading and that it would then, it would be, I believe, our intent that there would be no second reading, no waiting of the rule for this evenings issues and for this to come back at our next Council Meeting as our - generally speaking, our Council meets every 2 weeks.Council will not be here in 2 weeks.Our next Council Meeting would be 1 month from today.Is there any other discussion?All those in favor, please say aye?

(Wherein all members said aye)

MAYOR BEER: Opposed.

(Wherein there was no response)

MAYOR BEER: Madame Clerk, would you please read the Bill?

MS. SWENSON: Yes, sir.First reading Bill 05-11, 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 SMITH: Do you have a date, specific, Madame Clerk?

MAYOR BEER: That would be the 28th.By rule, since there is no vote to waive the rule and go to the second and final reading, this matter will be taken up, the second reading will be taken up at our next Council Meeting.And with that, item number 9B becomes a moot issue until such time as the second reading is either finalized and accepted or denied.

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Mayor, if you could continue Bill 05-12 to the same date.

MAYOR BEER: Okay.Does that require a vote?A motion and vote or is that just by rule.

MR. RAMSAY: No.I think you can declare it yourself.

MAYOR BEER: Okay.Item number 9B, the First Reading of Bill 05-12, will be continued to our next Council Meeting on the 28th of March.Did that - am I correct now?

MR. RAMSAY: Yes.

MAYOR BEER: Okay.Thank you.

MR. RAMSAY: That saves any notice provisions--

MAYOR BEER: Okay, thank you.Item number 10 is a - oh, let us, itís awfully late.I think that there are probably, at least one of us, who needs a break.Let us recess until 10:45 and that will give the, that will give some opportunity for those who do not wish to remain, a chance to leave.

†† (End of Public Hearing)

 


 

 

†††††††††††††† REPORTERíS CERTIFICATE

 

I, JANET H. WIMER, Certified Court Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter, Certified Verbatim Reporter, do hereby certify that I personally appeared at the taking of the proceeding as set forth in the caption sheet hereof; that I then and there took down by use of the Stenomask closed microphone, the proceedings had at said time and that the foregoing is a full, true and correct transcript of such proceeding.

 

Janet H. Wimer, CCR-CSR-CVR

Action Court Reporters, Inc.

P.O. Box 11066

Kansas City, MO 64119

(816) 454-4224

 

 

†††††††††† Note:This concludes the transcript of the meeting as provided by Action Court Reporters, Inc.

 


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 ďThe Preserve at Carriage Hill EstatesĒ at approximately Northeast Antioch Road east of Northeast 68th 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 72nd 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 Ďround aboutí 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 72nd 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 ďTĒ of the road, which should dissuade traffic from cutting through to get to 72nd 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 71st 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 72nd 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 72nd Street, rather than flowing over peopleís lots.Mr. Clippard asked when the development is completed, who maintains the detention basins Ė 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 Ďround aboutí 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 Ďround aboutí on the south side to discourage traffic through his neighborhood.

 

John Pace, 4028 NE 71st 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 ďstraight shotĒ down Norton to 72nd Street, and 72nd 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 71st 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 developmentís 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 ďayeĒ Ė 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 ďayeĒ Ė 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 ďayeĒ Ė 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 Councilís prior action in purchasing the Atkins-Johnson Home Historical Site.

 

Councilman Les Smith moved to adopt RESOLUTION 05-22, disclosing and ratifying the City Councilís prior action in purchasing the Atkins-Johnson Home Historical Site.Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi seconded.The vote:All ďayeĒ Ė 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 ďayeĒ Ė 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 ďStatus of Water Plant Deannexation by Kansas CityĒ).

 

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 Councilís action and this Councilís 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 ďstrike while the iron is hotĒ, 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