MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY DECEMBER 12, 2005
PRESENT: Mayor
Carol Rudi
Mayor
Pro Tem Bill Cross
Councilman Les Smith
Councilman
Wayne Beer
City Manager Kirk Davis
City Counselor David Ramsay
City Clerk Cathy Swenson
ABSENT: Councilman Joe Evans
Mayor Carol Rudi opened the Regular December 12, 2005, City Council Meeting at 7:30 PM in the Gladstone City Council Chambers.
Item 3. on the Agenda. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
Mayor Carol Rudi led the Pledge of Allegiance, in
which all joined.
Item 4. on the Agenda. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 28, 2005, CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES CONVENING THE CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION.
Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross moved to approve the
November 28, 2005, City Council Meeting Minutes Convening the Closed Executive
Session as presented. Councilman Wayne
Beer seconded the motion.
The vote: “Aye” – Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, Mayor Carol Rudi. (4-0).
Item 4a. on the Agenda. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 28, 2005, REGULAR CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES.
Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross moved to approve the
November 28, 2005, Regular City Council Meeting Minutes as presented. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded the
motion.
The vote: “Aye” – Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, Mayor Carol Rudi. (4-0).
Item 4b. on the Agenda. SPECIAL PRESENTATION by the Ford Motor Company to
the Gladstone Economic Betterment Council for 2005 support of a lighting
project for Gladstone Theatre in the Park.
Bill Reynolds, representing the Ford Motor Company, began
by saying the Ford Motor Company has a large number of employees and retirees
who live in Gladstone, and certainly a lot of people in Gladstone drive Ford
and Lincoln Mercury automobiles. Mr.
Reynolds stated the Ford Motor Company has been very interested this year in
Mayor Rudi stated this contribution is very much appreciated. It is wonderful to have community involvement in our community theatre.
Item 5. on the Agenda. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE.
There were no communications from the audience.
Item 6. on the Agenda. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.
Councilman Les
Smith had no comments at this time.
Councilman Wayne Beer had no comments at this
time.
Mayor Pro Tem
Bill Cross thanked the City administration and the citizens of
Mayor Carol Rudi stated that unless there is an emergency
meeting, this will be the last City Council meeting for this year. Mayor Rudi wished everyone wonderful, happy
and safe holidays.
Item 7. on the Agenda. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE CITY MANAGER.
City Manager Kirk
Item
8. on the Agenda. BOARD AND
COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
AND REAPPOINTMENTS.
Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross moved to approve the
following Boards and Commissions appointments:
PLANNING
COMMISSION TERM EXPIRATION
Reappointment Anne Alexander December 2009
Reappointment Dave Reynolds (one year) December 2006
New
Appointment Carol Suter December 2009
Reappointment Pete Hall December 2008
Reappointment Beverly Johnson December 2008
Reappointment Bill Turnage December 2008
CODE BOARD
OF APPEALS
Vacant
(plumbing)
Vacant
(electrical)
Reappointment Tim Presko December 2011
New Appointment Jenny Giar December 2007
PARKS AND
RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
Reappointment Teresa Farley December 2008
Reappointment Donald Harper December 2008
Reappointment Scott Peper December 2008
CABLE TV
ADVISORY BOARD
Reappointment Paul Degenhardt December 2008
Reappointment Dianne Smith December 2008
Reappointment Donna Eisenbarth December 2008
New
Appointment LaVonne Boor December 2008
Councilman Wayne Beer seconded.
Mayor Rudi thanked all who serve on the City’s
Boards and Commissions and for the good work they do for the City.
The vote: “Aye” – Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, Mayor Carol Rudi. (4-0).
Mayor Rudi explained the Mayor appoints the Chairman for three Boards: Capital Improvements Committee, Code Board of Appeals, and Recycling and Solid Waste.
Mayor Rudi appointed Pete Hall as Chairman of the
Capital Improvements Committee; Chuck Logan as Chairman of the Code Board of
Appeals; and Burt Comstock as Chairman of the Recycling and Solid Waste
Committee.
Item 9. on the Agenda. RESOLUTION R-05-93, amending Resolution R-05-91, adopting a Mission Statement and Goals for the City of Gladstone, Missouri for 2005-2006.
City Manager Davis reported at the last City Council meeting Council approved the goals and objectives for 2004. This action is for the 2005-2006 objectives, which inadvertently were not included in the previous Council packet.
Councilman Wayne Beer moved to approve RESOLUTION R-05-93, amending Resolution R-05-91, adopting a Mission Statement and Goals for the City of Gladstone, Missouri for 2005-2006. Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, Mayor Carol Rudi. (4-0).
Item 10. on the Agenda. RESOLUTION R-05-94, authorizing acceptance of work under contract with Reddi Services, Incorporated for the 2005 Sanitary Sewer Cleaning – Mill Creek; and authorizing final payment in the amount of $28,079.45 for Project CP0685.
Councilman Les Smith moved to approve RESOLUTION R-05-94, authorizing acceptance of work under contract with Reddi Services, Incorporated for the 2005 Sanitary Sewer Cleaning – Mill Creek; and authorizing final payment in the amount of $28,079.45 for Project CP0685. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded. The vote: “Aye” – Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, Mayor Carol Rudi. (4-0).
Item 11. on the Agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: on a request to
rezone from C-2 (General Business District), C-1 (Neighborhood Business), and
R-1 (Residential) to CP-3 (Planned Commercial District) and a site plan
revision at 5720 North Oak Trafficway. Applicant/Owner: Donald D. Perry II. (File #1265)
Mayor Carol Rudi opened the Public Hearing and explained the hearing process that City Staff would 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 stated there were some procedural differences in this application compared to most zoning applications. Mr. Wingerson pointed out that Council members had at their seats two versions of the same protest petition. One version was prepared and presented by Mr. Galen Neill, and the second version was prepared and presented by Mr. David Naylor. They are the same protest petition; they just have different names in the body of the petition, and different notarized signatures at the end of the petition.
Mr. Wingerson explained that when a protest petition is filed, Staff analyzes the request to see if the signatures on the petition meet the threshold to increase the City Council’s burden for voting on the application. Mr. Wingerson showed City Council members a map indicating the subject property; property owners contained in the protest petition; and those property owners included in the protest petition, who do not reside within the 185-foot boundary. Mr. Wingerson explained what is being looked at is a ratio of property ownership to the subject property itself. It is required that 30 percent of the land area within a 185-foot boundary of the subject property must be included in the petition for it to be valid. Mr. Wingerson stated in this particular case, excluding the subject property, it is approximately 33 percent. Mr Wingerson said that although the protest petition was just received this afternoon, it is believed to be valid, and what that means to the City Council is that rather than a simple majority vote, a 3-2 vote, a super majority vote, or 4 votes, is necessary to move this application forward.
Mr. Wingerson continued by saying the applicant is requesting two actions from the City Council. The first action is a zoning change from the current classification of C-2, where the existing BP Amoco Station is located; C-1, the vacant property directly to the west and south of the existing development; and R-1, which is a small strip of land that connects to North Grand. Mr. Wingerson stated these three classifications are being requested to change to CP-3. The project proposes the removal of the existing BP Amoco building, the service pumps, the existing car wash, the existing service bays, and the removal of the existing retail building on 58th Street. All of those actions are proposed to create a single development parcel.
Mr. Wingerson explained the application tonight involves a 3,200 square foot convenience store together with gasoline pumps, and a canopy covering six pump islands, which are generally located on the northeastern quadrant of the property. To the west of these improvements is a proposed single bay automated car wash, exiting on to 58th Street, and accessory to the car wash are two outdoor vacuum islands. Mr. Wingerson said the proposal contains a 9,750 square foot automobile service and repair building. The primary access to the building is from the east, and a secure parking area is located to the west. Mr. Wingerson stated the application is designed to request approval of both the zoning change and site plan in the most cost effective manner. To that end, a storm water study has not been performed, however there is a condition concerning how that moves forward through the City process. Mr. Wingerson reported a complete landscape plan has not been submitted, but there are recommended conditions in the site plan Ordinance, and there will be testimony from the applicant about his landscaping intentions.
Mr. Wingerson reported a complete signage plan has not been completed, however, the applicant will provide that information at a future time. Mr. Wingerson said given the existing development and the volume of the existing traffic on North Oak Trafficway, a significant traffic impact is not anticipated, so a traffic study was not required. Mr. Wingerson continued by saying that before the Planning Commission Public Hearings, there appeared to be two issues that rose to the surface; the first was what to do with the small strip of land that accesses this property from the west and North Grand further to the west, and the vehicle storage lot in the original application encroached into the required 35 foot buffer area. During the Planning Commission process, the applicant agreed not to use the small strip for any construction activity or business activity.
Mr. Wingerson reported the vehicle storage lot site plan has been changed to comply with the 35-foot setback on the west and the south. Mr. Wingerson said Staff was concerned about the number of curb cuts on 58th Street. Those have been reduced by one, so there are now three instead of four. The Planning Commission added a condition that is Number 15., that says the proposed fence around the storage lot will be eight feet tall around the entire perimeter. Mr. Wingerson stated that in terms of the site plan Ordinance, Staff is recommending a host of conditions: including that a landscape plan be submitted with a requisite height and size of all the plantings; that tractor/trailer overnight parking is prohibited; all speakers used in the development contain adjustable volume controls and all noise shall be significantly imperceptible at the property lines; a 35-foot buffer will be maintained at the west and south property lines adjacent to the fenced lot; the fenced lot shall be accessed from the developed property; the western most curb cut and drive shall be eliminated; and the buffer area shall be landscaped in accordance with an approved plan.
Mr. Wingerson stated Condition Number 9. on the site plan Ordinance requires that a stormwater study to be performed by the developer and approved by the City; the approved plan shall be implemented by the developer. Mr. Wingerson said Condition Number 11. restricts access to North Grand and says it shall not be improved for any business usage or construction activity. Mr. Wingerson said Condition Number 15. says the privacy fence shown on the site plan shall be eight feet in height, constructed finished side out and maintained in perpetuity.
Mr. Wingerson reported the Planning Commission is recommending approval of both of these requests by a vote of 8 yes, 1 no, and 1 abstention due to a conflict.
Mayor Rudi asked if the strip of property between the two residential areas is included in the rezoning.
Mr. Wingerson replied it is included in the rezoning, but the site plan Ordinance restricts its use to no business or construction activity.
Councilman Wayne Beer stated, in regard to the same strip of property, there was a comment made at one point by the applicant that he would be amenable to removing that strip of land from the proposal.
Mr. Wingerson stated he believed that was correct, based on the applicant’s comments at the site visit, and subsequent to that. Mr. Wingerson said he believed Mr. Perry would support that portion of the land remaining at the current zoning of R-1, if that is Council’s desire.
Councilman Beer said he believed the applicant said that strip of property could be given or deeded to the adjoining property owners.
Mr. Wingerson said Mr. Perry did talk about that at the Planning Commission site visit, and he would ask Mr. Perry to talk about that in his presentation.
Applicant Presentation
Donald D. Perry II, 6913 North Pennsylvania Avenue, began by saying he has lived in this area since 1975. He attended schools in the North Kansas City School District, and after high school, he acquired a job at North Oak Amoco. Since then he has married and has two children. Mr. Perry said in May 2003, his family purchased the North Oak BP, and now they have the opportunity to purchase the vacant commercial property around the existing business. Mr. Perry said he had with him a few of his colleagues that have volunteered to present to Council the vision of North Oak BP.
Erin Lindall stated he is the service rider at North Oak BP, and has been there for 4 years. Mr. Lindall reported there are currently two service bays and eight fuel pumps, 4 of which are full service pumps. There is a small convenience store, a single tow truck, and 21 employees. The company is built on its reputation. The company first opened the summer of 1959, and has only had a few owners. The business maintains a high level of service, with professional affiliations, including ASE Certified Technicians. The business has a AAA approved shop. Mr. Lindall stated only one of three shops that apply for AAA status actually achieve that status. Mr. Lindall continued by saying the business offers a full service island that is staffed five nights and seven day per week.
Mr. Lindall said the business is very proud of its customer service and considers it a high priority, taking care of customers, as they would like their families treated. The business offers rides back and forth for people who leave their vehicles, going over and above what most facilities offer. This is a long-standing tradition. Assistance is also available for people with special needs.
Andrew Killen stated he works as a “drive guy” at North Oak BP and feels the future vision for North Oak BP will include a modern convenience store, which will be much larger than the one currently on site. It will include what most convenience stores offer. The larger shop with ten bays will allow for more tasks in a timely manner. The employee numbers will grow to 30+, and there will be a possibility of a future Public Safety towing contract with Gladstone. Customer service will be preserved, while attracting new customers. There will be less congestion in the traffic and fueling areas with the planned proposal of 16 pumps or so, which will eliminate some of the slow-downs during rush periods. Mr. Killen said the plan also allows for express oil changes and express tire changes.
Ryan Henchcliff, stated he is the evening technician, and reported some of the benefits seen from an expansion is that the building will become more aesthetically pleasing. The architecture is going to be done by the Warman design group. There will be safer entry and exit points. Currently when one pulls into the lot, they are in the middle of the traffic flow by the pumps. The improvements will slow down the congestion during the rush time. Mr. Henchcliff said this plan fits within the Gladstone plan for the North Oak corridor. Mr. Henchcliff stated the BP Corporation is the fifth largest company traded on the New York Stock Exchange, and has about $41 billion dollars in assets locked in the United States, with about $231 billion dollars in assets worldwide. Standards and quality is high for all the BP service stations. Mr. Henchcliff said BP is consistently rated the top fuel in the country by consumer surveys, so much so that Ford Motor Company now recommends BP fuels in all new Ford vehicles. Mr. Henchcliff shared with Council members copies of the source of some of his information.
Kathleen Warman, Warman Design Group Architects, said she would like to talk about the site plan and perhaps a little bit about the architecture. Ms. Warman stated what is proposed is a new convenience store and six islands, which would constitute fueling positions. Ms. Warman pointed out on a rendering the location of the curb cuts and how the traffic flow would be improved by the proposal. Ms. Warman discussed the layout of the buildings and how they would improve the traffic flow.
Ms. Warman continued by saying there is concern about the vehicle lot, and in an effort to address concerns of the people that live in nearby homes, the plan has been modified to maintain the 35-foot buffer, and discussed potential landscaping scenarios including the use of coniferous evergreen trees that would provide year round greenery and a screen from the proposed vehicle lot. Ms. Warman stated this is not a retail parking lot, where people are coming and going all the time. It would be a controlled situation with a gated fence type parking lot, with a eight-foot fence surrounding it.
Ms. Warman pointed out that proposed is a newer style service building that will not have multiple overhead doors facing the street. It will be a climate-controlled building with controlled points of entry.
Councilman Beer stated Ms. Warman mentioned the building would be climate controlled, and one of the issues he would have were that not the case would be noise, especially for the neighbors to the west. Councilman Beer said the noise in the building will still be there, and asked if there was assurance that if this application is approved, that those west doors will be kept closed at all times, except when cars are going in and out.
Ms. Warman replied with the climate controlled situation, the owners would not want it any other way, or they would be heating and cooling the outside world. Ms. Warman stated her firm has just completed a large project for Aristocrat Motors in Merriam, Kansas, and they have a very large service building that her firm designed in the same fashion, with very limited overhead doors. Ms. Warman said that particular building is a concrete building, where one can stand outside the building and not hear anything from inside the building. That building is not very close to any single-family residence, but security is very important. The outside parking to that particular service building has a large fence around it, not to buffer anyone, but to protect the cars and property of those car owners that are leaving a vehicle overnight or while they are at work during the day when the car is being serviced. Ms. Warman said her firm is very familiar with these issues and has been successful in addressing them. The limited number of doors will keep the noise contained.
Councilman Beer asked if this project would utilize tip-up precast.
Ms. Warman replied she has not gotten that far yet. BP has some very specific aesthetic standards and requirements for their projects, and the development will have to be sure to meet the International Building Code. Ms. Warman said there are requirements for the type of construction and the materials used for these types of buildings, and that is something she needs to work out with the owners. There are a number of different types of materials and combinations that could be used.
Councilman Beer stated the reason he asked that question also had to do with noise concerns. Construction materials can have a great deal to do with noise attenuation.
Ms. Warman agreed and said that would be considered.
Councilman Beer stated one of the recommended conditions by the Planning Commission was to do with increasing the fence height to eight feet, and he believed the Planning Commission subcommittee report indicated the space where the parking is proposed is at an elevation higher than the adjoining residences. Councilman Beer said he presumes there will have to be some elevation reduction, and inquired into that issue.
Ms. Warman stated what does need to be completed in a storm drainage study is a survey indicating the grades. Right now there is a kind of crest and it does slope down as it comes toward the neighbor’s property. Ms. Warman said to some degree that is an advantage because with a six-foot or an eight-foot fence, a car will not be seen, as the elevation will be higher than the neighbor. Ms. Warman continued by saying there will probably have to be a bit of the top of the hill removed and leveled a bit more, which will probably serve to pull another area up a bit so that a 3 to 1 slope or something less than that type of slope is maintained. The fence would be on the high side and the landscaping between. Ms. Warman discussed different elevations near the parking lot.
Councilman Beer inquired into security lighting and light spillage, and asked if the fence becomes an eight-foot fence and has a grade elevation increase, that perhaps the lighting could be incorporated with part of the fence.
Ms. Warman replied that would be considered. The owners will want security and some level of illumination in the parking lot. Ms. Warman said her firm deals with other cities that have very specific Ordinances that mandate that foot candle levels at the property line be zero. Ms. Warman said Councilman Beer’s comment is something she would like to explore in terms of maintaining the security. Ms. Warman said of all the things that potentially could occur as concerns of the neighbors, the lighting could be something that would have an effect, and she would want to do something extra special to keep that from happening. Noise should not have an effect, however, lighting issues are something that will have to be handled very carefully and with sensitivity to the neighbors.
Councilman Beer said he counted 85 parking spaces, and asked if 85 parking spaces are necessary for the operation of the business.
Ms. Warman replied they are necessary. Ms. Warman said her firm has completed two service centers very recently – Master Tech Automotive in Riverside and a project for Jaguar/Landrover in Merriam for Aristocrat Motors. Aristocrat Motors had 14 service bays and 120 parking spaces. Master Tech Automotive had 9 service bays and 60 parking spaces. Ms. Warman said with the 2 existing bays, there has been as many as 42 cars they tried to accommodate, because their service business demands that. The inability to keep cars behind a fence and out of sight is very detrimental. The parking spaces are really used; it is not just extraneous concrete.
Councilman Beer asked Mr. Wingerson if this application is in line with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Wingerson replied that question was asked in the Planning Commission’s Public Hearing, and he replied yes at that time. Another Commissioner brought to Mr. Wingerson’s attention that part of his answer was incorrect. The 1993 Comprehensive Plan indicates this area as a mixed use area, but it is a very large geographic area from Englewood Road to approximately 60th Street and North Oak to approximately North Broadway. Mr. Wingerson stated the North Oak Corridor Study indicated from a land use perspective that office development would be the most appropriate use here, and Council will remember in the discussions on the Corridor Study the need to increase office square footages to increase the day time population to support some of the other land uses that are desirable, such as restaurants and so forth. Mr. Wingerson said his answer was incorrect as it related specifically to land use, however, the North Oak Corridor Study talks about a lot more issues than land use. It talks about improved traffic safety by reducing the number of curb cuts on North Oak. It talks about increased streetscape attention, which this plan does. It talks about increasing commercial depth, which is what this plan does. Mr. Wingerson said from the land use perspective, he was incorrect in his answer to the Planning Commission, but from a technical sense it is in compliance with the Corridor Study.
Ms. Warman stated that over the years she has done a lot of projects in the City of Gladstone, and many times a client, even with good intentions, will come to her to help them lay out a plan, or engineer a site, and they don’t meet a setback; they need a variance; they can’t get that 30 foot of green up front; or they can’t get the required 35 feet of buffer in the back; so she works to provide a viable business plan for them, even with the shortcomings. It does, however, make it difficult to come before the Council or Planning Commission and have to say the project is short in some area. Ms. Warman said when Mr. Perry came to her, she thought how refreshing that someone is trying to acquire enough property to do the project, and it was a very well thought out plan. Ms. Warman continued by saying, in regard to office use, this may not apply as this is not a new business coming in; they are trying to expand an existing business.
Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross asked if the business owns all of the land.
Ms. Warman replied it is something they have the option to purchase.
Mr. Perry stated his family has not yet purchased the property. One of the contingencies on the purchase of the property is the site plan and rezoning of the property in order to expand the business. Currently his family owns the business on the property. Mr. Perry said his family pays Carter Energy and Carter Energy pays the landowner, and he would like to eliminate Carter Energy from the middle.
Mr. Perry stated to answer Councilman Beer’s question about the strip of land, he would be willing to do whatever necessary, whether leave it zoned as it is, and deed it over to the neighboring residents, or maintain it as a residential piece of property.
Councilman Beer asked Mr. Perry if he were in agreement with all the recommended conditions.
Mr. Perry replied, absolutely.
Councilman Beer asked if there would be a noise buffering of the car wash to the west.
Ms. Warman replied the building would be a masonry building block or something similar. There are no openings to the west. The noisiest thing on a single bay, automatic accessory use car wash is the dryer, and that is at the exit end of the car wash. In the winter the door stays down and that helps mitigate the noise. In the summer the doors are up, and at the exit end of the car wash the dryer can be heard. The car wash and dryer equipment has become much more sophisticated so they are not as noisy as they used to be. Ms. Warman stated the west end faces public right-of-way and commercial property, so there would be no noise sent in the direction of anything other than pubic right-of-way. To the south is an entrance door, but it is abutting the building, so would not be an issue.
Mr. Perry said if the noise became an issue in the evening time, he would limit the hours of operation of the car wash to conform with the Noise Ordinance of Gladstone.
Comments from those in Favor of the Application
Jim Thomas said he lives in Gladstone and represents Carter Energy and BP brand, and represents 42 sites. Mr. Thomas said he had built and operated hundreds of convenience stores. One thing he has learned is that if businesses are willing to invest in their sites to help improve the market area, it needs to be done as soon as possible, as down the road competition moves in and the volumes of the stores begin going down. Mr. Thomas said he had known Mr. Perry for about a year, and he handles his customers quite well and does care about the market area. Mr. Thomas said Mr. Perry asked Carter Energy if he would be allowed out of his lease, and Carter Energy said yes, and they would continue selling him the BP brand. Mr. Thomas said Carter Energy wishes they had more people like Mr. Perry running businesses for them.
Comments from those in Opposition to the
Application
Galen Neill, 6010 North Wyandotte, stated he is opposed to the rezoning request, and mentioned an article in the Kansas City Star newspaper regarding a tow lot site. Mr. Neill said the article says for several years Kansas City officials have been looking for new tow lot sites, which is kind of like looking for a place to put a junk yard. Mr. Neill said he agrees with this, and has contacted homeowners of our community, and in some cases they are retirees, senior citizens, and some in this area are handicapped. Mr. Neill stated members of our community are attempting to establish a system where our seniors can live in their homes even if they are handicapped, and have the proper help from Social Security and Medicare, and similar services. Mr. Neill said this past year a fund was passed where people are taken care of in their homes, and asked Council to take this into consideration. Mr. Neill said he and others have filed a protest petition today with the City of Gladstone. Mr. Neill read the protest petition.
Note: Please
see the attached copy of the petition.
Mr. Neill said 16 members of the community, who are going to be affected by this zoning change if it is approved, have signed this petition. Mr. Neill said he heard Mr. Wingerson say there are some people who are not within the 185 feet of the development, and what Mr. Wingerson is referring to is that there are people on East Creek. Nothing is known about this area now, as there has not been a drainage study. It can be seen how the water will run; it will run towards East Creek. The water will go underneath a culvert on Grand Avenue, out into a ditch, and then ultimately go into East Creek. Mr. Neill said those people not within the 185 feet are in that East Creek area, and asked Council to take that into consideration. Mr. Neill asked Council to vote against the C-3 zoning.
David Naylor, 5711 North Grand, stated as having lived the longest next to this property, it is his and his wife’s opinion that passing this proposal would be a detriment to his property and their neighbors’ property due to the noise factor. Mr. Naylor said Mr. Perry has a good business and they appreciate him being a neighbor, but let’s keep his business on North Oak, instead of encroaching on the City’s bedroom community like this plan proposes. Mr. Naylor said the noise factor could not be realized, as well as the lighting. No one wants a bright light shining through their bedroom window all night, and this is what would happen in this situation. Mr. Naylor said a towing business increased from what it is now will have cars parked there for no telling how long, because of money problems or cars tied up in court, which is not good for the community. We have a bedroom community. Mr. Naylor said he feels this proposal is encroaching on the neighbors’ rights as a bedroom community. Mr. Naylor asked Council to please turn down this proposal.
Buffy Shank, 5709 North Grand, stated she was in the field when the development was discussed, and her concerns are the noise, runoff water, lighting, and the traffic. Ms. Shank said there are a lot of issues here that have not been fully addressed and answers have not been heard that this will be a good development in the neighbors’ backyards. As far as a climate control facility, the bays will be open in the spring and fall, so that will be a noise factor in those months. The noise should not be as bad in the winter and summer. There will be more traffic along the streets, and with a car wash facility, there may be ice dumped onto 58th Street.
Ms. Shank said she has heard this will be an improvement for the homeowners as far as the runoff, but she does not believe that. The owners say there will be containment for the runoff on the south side, and it will be funneled onto the north side. The north side is a street, and it has not been resolved as to where the runoff is going. Ms. Shank said the hill itself slopes east to west, and even if the top of the hill is slightly shaved off, there will still be quite an inclination and the runoff water will go into the neighbors’ backyards. Ms. Shank said using the easement for runoff water concerns her if there would be a ditch put on the property, or it will be left alone, or what the development will truly entail from what is planned versus what it will be when it is done. Ms. Shank said she does not want to see a tow lot in her backyard, and feels it will devalue her and her neighbors’ property. Ms. Shank pointed out that when Mr. Perry said he put a lot of hard work and effort into his business, the neighbors have done the same in their own homes. Ms. Shank concluded by saying she hopes Council members vote no to this proposal.
Ron Coleman, 5717 North Grand, said when the road was recently widened and the sidewalks installed, four more drains were installed for the runoff. His neighbor’s basement is still flooded. When the water runs off, it runs hard. Mr. Coleman said he puts grass clippings in his backyard to keep his yard from being flooded, and it still gets saturated. It is that way for three or four days after a big rain. Mr. Coleman said beer bottles are thrown in his yard and driveway, and there is noise and music. Traffic is bad in this area, and that is without this development. Mr. Coleman said he believes the business should stay on North Oak and let the neighbors have their peace.
Dan Boone, 5800 North Grand, said he has lived at this address for 42 ˝ years. Mr. Boone said he is concerned with the traffic problem. As it exists now, one is practically taking their life in their hands to try to turn left on North Oak at most times of the day. Mr. Boone said when he talked with the applicant, he said the entrance and exit would be on North Oak Trafficway. Mr. Boone said when he attended the on site meeting, he found out that had been shifted to 58th Street, which is directly in front of the apartments. This will only aggravate the traffic problem that already exists. There are school children and school busses in front of the apartments. Mr. Boone said he is in sympathy with his neighbors to the south, and fully supports their opposition to the petition.
Linda Naylor, 5711 North Grand, said the parking area for this proposed development would be in her backyard. What concerns her is the noise and the lights, and she does not want to look out to an eight-foot fence, because she would not know what was on the other side of the fence. Ms. Naylor said she has an elderly mother for whom they built a room on the back of the house. She would be closer to the noise and lights. Ms. Naylor said she would like Mr. Perry to improve his business, but does not want the neighbors to suffer.
Mayor Rudi closed the Public Hearing.
Item 11a. on the Agenda. FIRST READING BILL 05-39, 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. Applicant/Owner: Donald D. Perry II. (File #1265)
Councilman Les Smith moved to place Bill 05-39 on First Reading. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded.
Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross said many of the citizens are concerned with the water runoff, and asked if anything is known for sure about this.
Mr. Wingerson replied the applicant has not yet performed a stormwater study, however, as part of their plan they reserve the south edge of the development for stormwater retention. One of the requirements in the draft site plan Ordinance states a stormwater study shall be performed by the developer and approved by the City. The approved plan shall be implemented by the developer. Mr. Wingerson said the applicant is trying to get through the approval process and then if successful, move forward into the full engineering study for stormwater and meet the City’s requirements in that fashion rather than doing it up front.
Councilman Beer said, in his opinion, this is exactly the way that this Council and this City has desired to see a project along North Oak put together for some time. The problem the City has had with North Oak development has to do with the fact that in the early days of Gladstone’s development, properties fronting North Oak were very shallow properties, and it makes it very difficult for a proposed project to accumulate property of such an area that would permit good development. Councilman Beer said, in his opinion, Mr. Perry has done exactly the kind of property acquisitions that provides for a good, well-developed project. Councilman Beer said he believes from what he has heard tonight, that the proposal appears to be generally in conformance with the North Oak Corridor Study, and to be generally in compliance with our Comprehensive Plan.
Councilman Beer said issues have been brought up that have to do with noise generation and its buffering. Councilman Beer said based on everything he has heard tonight, it appears to him those issues have been addressed and satisfied. Light pollution has also been a concern, and is always a concern with any type of commercial development. Councilman Beer said based on everything he has heard tonight, it appears to him the light spillage has been satisfactorily addressed. It can be done in such a way in this project that there would be no light spillage from this project. Councilman Beer said while there has not been a stormwater study on this project, he has every confidence in the City’s Community Development staff and in the City’s Ordinances that there will be proper stormwater control. Traffic in the neighborhood will be for all intents and purposes “zero” in terms of increased traffic. Any traffic into and off of this property is going to travel from North Oak and will return to North Oak. There will be no reason for traffic to leave this property and go into the neighborhoods, except for those people who are customers in the neighborhoods. Councilman Beer said because of everything he has heard tonight, he believes this is a project with great merit and he expects to be voting in favor of it, if Council is able to go into a second hearing tonight.
Councilman Les Smith stated the number one issue he heard was the storage lot being used for the storage of junk cars, and asked Mr. Wingerson how this can be addressed. The intent is not for this to be a body shop, which would lead to wrecked vehicles being stored in the parking lot, but it does seem to be a concern of the neighbors. Councilman Smith said there was a situation like that at Gil’s Body Shop, as an example. There have been complaints from neighbors due to the vehicles parked there. Councilman Smith asked how this can be addressed in this proposal.
Mr. Wingerson replied Council may want to consider defining the types of automobile service and a condition can be crafted that talks about that. It may be one way to address that concern. In other words list the appropriate automobile services or types of services, and thereby exclude those services that would be inappropriate.
Councilman Smith asked Mr. Perry what typically would be the longest term a vehicle would be stored on the lot.
Mr. Perry replied two to three weeks is the longest right now. The vehicles are recycled if the owner is unable to be contacted or if the owner accepts the $50 to eliminate the car off the lot. Mr. Perry said this is monitored everyday by his crew as far as to what cars are still on the lot. The main issue that he is hearing is that it is going to be a towing lot. Mr. Perry stated if this is going to be an issue with the neighbors, he would not pursue a towing contract with the City of Gladstone. Mr. Perry said he gets a letter every one or two years from the City asking him to bid on the contract for the City towing, and in order to do that, he would have to have a fenced lot. Mr. Perry continued by saying he was anticipating a 15 to 20 percent usage on his lot for the City of Gladstone, but if that becomes an issue, he would not use the lot for that purpose, but only for disabled vehicles.
Councilman Smith said 85 parking spaces seem like a lot of parking spaces.
Mr. Perry replied it does seem like a lot, but in the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Larry Whitton indicated he had 12 bays and had approximately 50 cars on the lot, and it appears he could utilize some more space if it were available. The lot will not be 100 percent utilized all of the time. Mr. Perry said this is going to allow him a little freedom to move the cars in and out. The 85 spots are not always going to be full, but at the beginning of the week to the middle of the week, it could be. It seems to lighten up into the weekends.
Councilman Smith reminded the Council that as there is a legal protest petition, there is required a super majority, which means it will take four of the five members to vote “yes”. Councilman Smith questioned whether Council would want to wait to take this Bill beyond the first reading to when there is a full Council present.
The vote: All “aye” – Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, and Mayor Carol Rudi. (4-0). The Clerk read the Bill.
Councilman Beer recommended not moving to the second reading on this Bill tonight, as was requested by Councilman Smith, and that the second reading be delayed until the next Council meeting.
Mayor Rudi said as there is not a motion to move this item forward, this Bill will be considered at the January 9, 2006, City Council meeting.
Item 11b. on the Agenda. FIRST READING BILL 05-40, approving a Site Plan in
conjunction with a rezoning for property at 5720 North Oak Trafficway. Applicant/Owner: Donald D. Perry II. (File #1265)
Councilman Les Smith moved to place Bill 05-40 on First Reading. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded.
Mayor Rudi asked if Council would like to consider removing the 35-foot strip that is between the two residential properties from the site plan.
Councilman Beer stated he is agreeable, should this action pass, to let Mr. Perry work out the best agreement between him and his neighbors as to whether he retains the property as an R-1 zoning, or whether adjoining neighbors would like to split the strip of property, or one neighbor take the entire strip to become their maintenance issue. Councilman Beer said he saw no reason for Council to deal with this, unless this item is removed from the proposal altogether, and still that would become Mr. Perry’s problem.
Mr. Wingerson stated that issue may be subject to the first reading of the previous Bill, because it would be part of the Zoning Ordinance, so Staff will correct that before the second reading on January 9th. Relating to the Site Plan Ordinance, Council has talked about conditions concerning overflow lighting, acceptable construction materials, and conformance of City standards, and the most effective noise reduction equipment possible for the service building and the car wash. Mr. Wingerson said he would anticipate adding conditions that address those issues prior to Council’s next action.
Councilman Beer stated all of his remarks regarding the rezoning would be applicable to the site plan.
The vote: All “aye” – Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, and Mayor Carol Rudi. (4-0). The Clerk read the Bill.
Mayor Rudi announced that this Bill will be considered at the January 9, 2006, City Council meeting.
Item 12. on the Agenda. FIRST READING BILL 05-41, amending Ordinance Number
3.947 by adding two new chapters concerning “Portable Storage Units and
Dumpsters” and “Erosion and Sediment Control” to the “Building and Construction
Ordinance” of the City of Gladstone, Missouri.
Councilman Bill Cross moved
to place Bill 05-41 on first reading.
Councilman Wayne Beer seconded.
Councilman Beer referenced
page 2200-11, Item b. Required Inspections, and stated there are seven
inspections that are required. Item 6.
states that there is an inspection required at the close of the construction
season, and Item 7. states there is a required inspection at the completion of
final landscaping. Councilman Beer asked
if it would be inappropriate to include a required inspection after Item 6.
that basically would deal with an inspection that would be required in the
interim of the close of the construction season and the commencement of the
succeeding new construction season. It
is possible that during the time after final grade, and before final
landscaping, that off-season erosion control measures could be severely damaged
or destroyed. Before another inspection
is required, there could be some significant erosion before the completion of
final landscaping. Councilman Beer asked
if it would be inappropriate to add another required inspection at the
beginning of the next construction season.
Building Official Alan
Napoli replied another inspection could be added. It may not be necessary to add one, as these
are seven inspections during the construction season that may or may not be
completed due to the close of construction season, as in the winter months,
when construction is shut down. A
project may go through a spring, summer, and fall period, and never have to
worry about closing down. The
inspections listed are the ones required, but there will still be times when
Staff will go out after storms to check on erosion control to make sure it is
being maintained or if there is a problem to let the developer or builder know
they need to maintain erosion control.
There will still be some of those interim inspections, especially after
a rainy season or a snowstorm, to make sure that the erosion control is still
in place.
Councilman Beer said he is
looking for assurance that inspection will occur, not trying to cast aspersions
on Mr. Napoli’s department, but he is looking for something where the onus is
upon the developer/contractor to call the City to say he needs another
inspection. If he fails to do that,
there can be some remediation.
Mr. Napoli stated these are
the standard inspections that would be done on a job, however, he could put in
a clause stating that any other inspections the Building Official feels needs
to be done, shall be done, so if there is a situation where it is felt that
because the project stopped, and Staff wanted to re-inspect the site before
work starts, that could be added.
Councilman Beer stated he is
looking for something that would cover the City following the close of a
construction season, realizing that not all projects continue through a
non-construction season, where the project is stopped, and recommenced at the
beginning of the next construction season.
Councilman Beer stated he is looking for assurance that where there is a
project that does have to shut down for the winter, for instance, and starts
again, the City is assured that the erosion control measures are still in place
and in good repair.
Mr. Napoli stated on Item 6.
he could add language so it would read “Close of the construction season and
at the restart of the construction season.”
Councilman Beer stated that would be fine and thanked Mr. Napoli.
Councilman Les Smith asked
in regard to the dumpsters and portable storage units, the section under permit
conditions, page 2100-5, states a permit is required for each portable storage
unit or dumpster, with a maximum of two permits per address location per
calendar year. Councilman Smith said he
believed it was discussed that there would not be two consecutive permits.
Mr. Napoli stated the intent
of the permit conditions is that if a person got two permits back-to-back for
14 days each, they are done for the year, as they have used their two permits
for the year. Mr. Napoli said something
can be added that states there must be a period of time between the two
permits.
Councilman Beer stated he
believed that was the answer to the question when this was discussed before,
and he is happy with the two permits, even if they happened to be back to back,
as sometimes a longer time period is necessary.
This provides some flexibility in that regard, but still does not permit
any additional use of dumpsters or portable storage units beyond the two
permits.
Councilman Smith stated one
of the reasons he brought the issue forward was to keep neighbors from having
to look at these dumpsters or storage units forever. In essence someone could have a portable
storage unit for 28 days and a dumpster for 60 days, which seems like a long
time, if you live next door. Councilman
Smith asked that a time frame between the two allowed permits be considered or
if there are back-to-back permits, the second permit would be for half the
time, or something of this nature.
Councilman Beer stated he
was in agreement with a shorter time period for the second permit, if they are
back-to-back. An example would be 14
days for the first portable storage unit permit and seven days for the second
back-to-back permit.
Councilman Smith asked if
the permit fee of $25 is the actual cost for the City to issue the permit,
conduct inspections, and so forth.
Mr. Napoli replied basically
that is correct. It covers Staff’s time
to fill out the permit and going out to inspect the site when the unit is
removed. There would probably be a
little over an hour of Staff’s time in the whole process, if there are no
problems.
Councilman Smith stated on
the surface that may seem expensive, however, it has been decided to try to
cover the City’s expenses. Councilman
Smith suggested perhaps Council would like to give this Bill only a first
reading at his meeting, so the language may be worked out for the length of the
permits.
Councilman Beer asked if
this first reading should be delayed until the language is in place.
City Counselor Ramsay stated
that if Council desires to amend the Ordinance, there should be a first and
second reading of the amended Ordinance.
Having a first reading tonight would be ineffectual. Counselor Ramsay stated he had made note of
language for the length of the permit if Council would like to consider it, and
suggested adding a sentence to Section 9.2100.050, Paragraph b. that would read
“A second consecutive permit may be issued for 7 days for a portable storage
unit and 15 days for a dumpster”.
Mayor Rudi suggested also
adding to Section 9.2200.070, Paragraph b., Item 6. “Close of the construction
season and at the restart of the construction season.”
Councilman Beer stated that would be his motion for amendment. Councilman Smith seconded.
Counselor Ramsay suggested
Council now vote on the amendments, and then go forward with the first and
second readings.
Mayor Rudi stated it has
been moved and seconded to amend Bill 05-41, to include restrictions on
consecutive permits for both portable storage units and dumpsters, with the
second permit for a portable storage unit issued for seven days and the second
permit for a dumpster issued for 15 days, and to amend Section 9.2200.070,
Paragraph b., Item 6. to read “Close of the construction season and at the
restart of the construction season.”
The vote: All “aye” – Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, Mayor Carol Rudi. (4-0).
Mayor Rudi stated there has
been a motion and a second to place Bill 05-41 on its First Reading and as
there was no further discussion, called for a vote.
The vote: All “aye” – Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, Mayor Carol Rudi. (4-0). The Clerk read the Bill.
Councilman Les Smith moved to accept the First Reading of Bill 05-41 as amended, Waive the Rule and place the Bill on Second and Final Reading. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, and Mayor Carol Rudi. (4-0). The Clerk read the Bill.
Councilman Les Smith moved to accept the Second and Final Reading of amended Bill 05-41 and enact the Bill as Ordinance 3.976. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded.
Roll Call Vote: “Aye” – Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, Mayor Carol Rudi. (4-0).
Item 13. on the Agenda. FIRST READING BILL 05-42, an Ordinance establishing
the membership, terms of service, and duties of the City Arts Council.
Councilman Wayne Beer moved to place Bill 05-42 on First Reading. Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, and Mayor Carol Rudi. (4-0). The Clerk read the Bill.
Councilman Wayne Beer moved to accept the First Reading of Bill 05-42, Waive the Rule and place the Bill on Second and Final Reading. Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, and Mayor Carol Rudi. (4-0). The Clerk read the Bill.
Councilman Wayne Beer moved to accept the Second and Final Reading of Bill 05-42 and enact the Bill as Ordinance 3.977. Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross seconded.
Roll Call Vote: “Aye” – Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, Mayor Carol Rudi. (4-0).
Item 13a. on the Agenda. REAPPOINTMENTS TO THE ARTS COUNCIL.
Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross moved to reappoint the following people to the Arts Council:
Reappointment Tom Clayton December 2007
Reappointment Julie Conn December 2008
Reappointment Hester Duisik December 2006
Reappointment Chris Yannitelli December 2008
Reappointment Ginny Yates December 2007
Councilman Wayne Beer seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Cross, and Mayor Carol Rudi. (4-0).
Item 14. on the Agenda. OTHER BUSINESS.
There was no other business.
Item 15. on the Agenda. QUESTIONS FROM THE NEWS MEDIA.
There were no questions from the News Media.
Item 16. on the Agenda. ADJOURNMENT.
There being no further business to come before the
December 12, 2005, Gladstone City Council Meeting, Mayor Carol Rudi adjourned
the Regular Meeting, saying it was not necessary for Council to adjourn to a
Closed Executive Session.
Respectfully submitted:
___________________________
Cathy Swenson, City Clerk
Approved
as submitted: ___
Approved
as corrected/amended: ___
______________________________
Mayor Carol A. Rudi