CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2009
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PRESENT: Mayor Mark Revenaugh
Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi
Councilman Les Smith
Councilman Wayne Beer
Councilmember Carol Suter
City Manager Kirk Davis
Assistant City Manager Scott Wingerson
City Counselor David Ramsay
Mayor Mark Revenaugh opened the Regular February 9, 2009, City Council Meeting at 7:30 PM in the Gladstone City Council Chambers.
Item 2. on the Agenda. ROLL CALL
Mayor Mark Revenaugh noted that all City Council members were present.
Item 3. on the Agenda. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
Mayor Mark Revenaugh led the Pledge of Allegiance, in which all joined.
Item 4. on the Agenda. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR JANUARY 26, 2009, CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES.
Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi moved to approve the Regular January 26, 2009, City Council Meeting Minutes as presented. Councilmember Carol Suter seconded. The vote: “Aye” – Councilmember Carol Suter, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, and Mayor Mark Revenaugh. “Abstain” – CouncilmanWayne Beer
(4-0-1). Note: As Councilman Beer was absent from the last City Council meeting, he abstained from voting on the approval of that meeting’s minutes.
Item 5. on the Agenda. CONSENT AGENDA.
Following the Clerk’s reading, Councilmember Carol Suter moved to accept the Consent Agenda as presented. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilmember Carol Suter, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, and Mayor Mark Revenaugh. (5-0)
Councilmember Carol Suter moved to adopt RESOLUTION R-09-16, amending the 2009 Annual General Fund Budget for the City of Gladstone, Missouri and authorizing expenditures of funds. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilmember Carol Suter, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, and Mayor Mark Revenaugh. (5-0)
Councilmember Carol Suter moved to adopt RESOLUTION R-09-17, authorizing the destruction of certain records in accordance with RSMO Chapter 109 and applicable State Retention Schedules. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilmember Carol Suter, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, and Mayor Mark Revenaugh. (5-0)
Councilmember Carol Suter moved to adopt RESOLUTION R-09-18, authorizing execution of a contract with Fuller’s All American for the Contractual Mowing of certain City of Gladstone Parks, Facilities, and Drainage areas for the 2009 Mowing Season. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilmember Carol Suter, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, and Mayor Mark Revenaugh. (5-0)
Councilmember Carol Suter moved to adopt RESOLUTION R-09-19, authorizing execution of a contract with S & S Lawn; Fuller’s All American; and Field of Green for the Contractual Mowing of certain City of Gladstone property including Right-of-Way, Medians, Water Treatment Plant, Well Field, and Detention Basins for the 2009 Mowing Season. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilmember Carol Suter, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, and Mayor Mark Revenaugh. (5-0)
Councilmember Carol Suter moved to adopt RESOLUTION R-09-20, declaring certain City property as Surplus and authorizing the sale of such property to the highest bidder via an Online Auction. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilmember Carol Suter, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, and Mayor Mark Revenaugh. (5-0)
Councilmember Carol Suter moved to adopt RESOLUTION R-09-21, authorizing acceptance of work under the contract with Coreslab Structures (Missouri), Incorporated for the Gladstone Community Center Precast Concrete Project; and authorizing final payment in the total amount of $48,721.22. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilmember Carol Suter, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, and Mayor Mark Revenaugh. (5-0)
Councilmember Carol Suter moved to adopt RESOLUTON R-09-22, authorizing acceptance of work under the contract with Jacor Contracting, Incorporated for the Gladstone Community Center Sealants and Waterproofing Project; and authorizing final payment in the total amount of $5,810.40. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilmember Carol Suter, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, and Mayor Mark Revenaugh.
Councilmember Carol Suter moved to adopt RESOLUTION R-09-23, authorizing acceptance of work under the contract with Carroll Seating Company, Incorporated for the Gladstone Community Center Bleachers Project; and authorizing final payment in the total amount of $5,136.85. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilmember Carol Suter, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, and Mayor Mark Revenaugh. (5-0)
Councilmember Carol Suter moved to adopt RESOLUTION R-09-24, authorizing execution of a contract with Recreation Resources, Incorporated, in the total amount not to exceed $94,332.00 for the Oak Grove Park Playground Replacement Project. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilmember Carol Suter, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, and Mayor Mark Revenaugh. (5-0)
Councilmember Carol Suter moved to adopt RESOLUTION R-09-25, adopting the 2009 State Legislative Program for the City of Gladstone, Missouri. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilmember Carol Suter, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, and Mayor Mark Revenaugh. (5-0)
Councilmember Carol Suter moved to approve a LIMITED ONE-DAY LIQUOR BY THE DRINK LICENSE to Oakhill Day School, 7019 North Cherry, for the annual auction event on Saturday, March 7, 2009. Hours: 5:30 PM - 12:00 Midnight. Managing Officer: Michelle McDaniel. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilmember Carol Suter, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, and Mayor Mark Revenaugh. (5-0)
Item 6. on the Agenda. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE.
Art Hammen, 7117 North Norton Avenue, stated that he understood that the City Council would be voting on a smoking Ordinance this evening. Mr. Hammen said he had not seen the exact Ordinance, but based on an article that appeared recently in the Sun Tribune, the proposed Ordinance to him is extremely disappointing. Even though 79 percent of the general population does not smoke, this Ordinance will do very little to protect them from the damaging effects of second hand smoke. Mr. Hammen said our neighboring state of Kansas is currently considering a statewide ban on smoking in public. They estimate it will save the state over $1 million per year, by reducing the cost of treating smoking related diseases. When enacted, Kansas will become the 36th state to impose a partial or full smoking ban.
Mr. Hammen continued by asking if banning smoking in Gladstone city parks is really the best that this Council can do. Gladstone residents have repeatedly stated that they want smoking banned in restaurants. The proposed Ordinance will not restrict smoking in the many restaurants that have liquor licenses. Mr. Hammen said he could think of only two – Perkins and Oak Street Café – who will have a smoking ban. Oak Street Café may fall into the “fewer than 75” exemption. If that is the case, then Perkins becomes the sacrificial lamb. An argument has been made that allowing smoking in restaurants will save jobs. Mr. Hammen said, “will it really?” What about the large number of non-smokers who choose to eat in restaurants located in cities that have a ban, rather than eating in Gladstone. Some of the 21 percent who do smoke and live in other cities will come to Gladstone, but will that be enough to offset the migration of non-smokers to restaurants in cities with a smoking ban? Are you really willing to take that gamble?
Mr. Hammen said as our elected officials, Council members know that the majority of Gladstone residents want smoking banned in restaurants. Mr. Hammen said it is the right thing to do, but if Council members cannot bring themselves to do that, then at least please consider one of these options: limit smoking in restaurants until after 9:00 PM, like Kansas City, or require smoking areas to be totally segregated from non-smoking areas, and be separately ventilated. Mr. Hammen said if nothing else is done, then please put a two-year sunset on the restaurant exemption. This will give restaurants time to make adjustments, and give Gladstone residents a definite time when they will be able once again to enjoy eating in this city’s restaurants.
Item 7. on the Agenda. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.
Councilman Wayne Beer had no comments at this time.
Councilmember Carol Suter stated she wished to comment on how busy we have been. It is apparent that City Council members have been working a lot by the volume of paperwork that comes with them, as some of the items on the agenda this evening have involved some significant work on the part of the Planning Commission and some other volunteer committees that Council has appointed. All of that work is really appreciated. It has also generated extra activity of late for people trying to contact City Council members. Councilmember Suter stated there have been technical problems with the City’s website and people trying to e-mail City Council members, and it seems that it could be more self explanatory in how the website works to e-mail City Council members. Councilmember Suter said she has heard that people go to the website, and they do not know that if they click on the City Council members’ names, they can e-mail Council members. Councilmember Suter suggested to Public Information Officer Richard King that a line be added to the City Council page that tells people how to e-mail City Council members. With all the activity going on of late, there seems to be more interest from people in trying to contact City Council members.
Councilman Les Smith stated that the lady he wished to address (Vickie Bowman) is never at City Council meetings, but was present at this meeting. On Saturday, the Gladstone Bowl, and the General Manager, Vickie Bowman, hosted a Bowl for Life for St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital, which has been done for the last few years at the bowling center. Councilman Smith said Ms. Bowman and her staff, with the cooperation of KFKF Radio Station, raised once again nearly $7,000 for St. Jude’s. Councilman Smith offered “good job” to Ms. Bowman, and asked she take that back to the folks who assisted with this effort.
Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi offered her thanks to the Community Center staff, who hosted the art exhibit opening last week. There were about 100 people who attended, and it was an excellent event, and the staff did a great job, as usual. Mayor Pro Tem Rudi announced that March 24th, from 6:00 to 8:00 PM, would be the next art exhibit opening. This is the rotating art that changes periodically. This will be a high school student show, and will be a special event, and not the first Tuesday, as usual. Mayor Pro Tem Rudi invited all to attend this event and the second annual Art Springs in Gladstone on April 24 and 25. This is a juried art show, and it was greatly attended last year, and was very popular. It promises to be a very good exhibit again this year. Mayor Pro Tem Rudi stated that if anyone is interested in sponsoring the show, they may contact Parks and Recreation Director Sheila Lillis.
Mayor Mark Revenaugh stated that, as he said at the last City Council meeting, nothing that is as divisive as a smoking Ordinance is going to make everybody happy, and two weeks ago he almost guaranteed that everyone would not be happy; in fact it was almost a sure thing that everyone would go away wanting more than what they were going to get. This is true of both sides of the issue. Mayor Revenaugh said he believed he was speaking in general for the Council that they would have much preferred that this issue had been on a state ballot, so everyone could vote the way they wished; but unfortunately, with the state statutes being what they are, we did not have that option. City Council members are trying to represent all the citizens in the community, mindful of the fact that smoking is hazardous to one’s health, but at the same time, trying to protect the rights of small business owners and their employees, while at the same time, creating a system for Gladstone to become a smoke free community.
Item 8. on the Agenda. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE CITY MANAGER.
City Manager Kirk Davis reported that City Hall would be closed on President’s Day, February 16, 2009.
Item 9. on the Agenda. FIRST READING BILL 09-02, regulating air quality in certain public places within the City of Gladstone by prohibiting or restricting smoking; and amending Ordinance 3.208 to expand smoke free areas within the City; and further, imposing penalties for violations.
Councilman Les Smith moved to place Bill 09-02 on its First Reading. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded.
Councilmember Carol Suter stated she has been a really strong proponent for a really strong measure to protect the health of our citizens, but she would be voting against this Bill, not just in content, but in terms of process, which is why she spoke at this time. Councilmember Suter said this is because of three basic reasons; one is that it certainly is a disappointment in terms of protecting the health of Gladstone residents, and she believes she speaks clearly for a majority of Gladstone residents in expressing this. The Sun Tribune did an online survey recently, and a very significant majority of folks expressed the opinion of supporting a full ban. Councilmember Suter said she was willing to consider some compromise that came out of the Public Hearing sessions, but the Bill that is before Council is so absolutely replete with exemptions, exceptions, and grandfathering, that she objects to it as a piece of legislation. Councilmember Suter said she would like to see us do something clearer, more direct, easy to understand, and actually is what it purports to be. It does not go far enough.
Councilmember Suter said secondly, she believes it positions us in exactly the opposite place where we want to be in terms of the promotion of a progressive image for Gladstone. We are spending a lot of money this year in advertising Gladstone throughout the area and throughout the Midwest as a progressive and enlightened community that is for sustainability and a healthy environment. This Ordinance, because it is so deficient in its protections, puts us in a very negative light, and that is counter productive.
Councilmember Suter said thirdly, the part that is most egregious to her are the provisions that are grandfathered. They provide an uneven playing field with current businesses in Gladstone, and certainly provide a disincentive to attract new business to Gladstone, when it is quite clear that we are not interested in treating all businesses fairly, and people have to take that into account when they decide to come here. One of the number one concerns of all of our citizens, and for every one of us, as we ran for office, is doing the best we can to increase the economic development opportunities in Gladstone – bring more business to Gladstone. This piece of legislation will do exactly the opposite. Councilmember Suter said for these reasons, she will be voting against the Bill in content and in terms of process.
The vote: “Aye” – Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, and Mayor Mark Revenaugh. “Nay” – Councilmember Carol Suter.
(4-1). The Clerk read the Bill.
Councilman Les Smith moved to accept the First Reading of Bill 09-02, Waive the Rule and place the Bill on its Second and Final Reading. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded.
Councilman Smith referenced Section 2.135.060 (8) in the Bill, which is concerning hotels and motels. Councilman Smith said the draft Ordinance states that hotels and motels may permanently designate 25 percent of guest rooms as smoking rooms, and a higher percentage may be temporarily designated by the hotel or motel when, on a given date, there is a 75 percent or greater occupancy rate due to the booking of guests for conventions, and so forth. Councilman Smith said he believed the majority, at least at the last meeting, who supported this Ordinance, want us to get to a smoke free community. We just want to do that through attrition and not contraction. Councilman Smith suggested that leaving the hotels and motels at 25 percent is a bit too many rooms, and he believes that leaving that open ended to where they can change that basically at their will, based on their demand over the years, really doesn’t do anything to keep this tied down.
Councilman Les Smith moved to amend Bill 09-02 to include a revision provided by legal counsel that says hotels and motels may permanently designate 10 percent of guest rooms as smoking rooms, and a hotel or motel may only change the specific rooms that are designated as smoking rooms once during any 12-month period. Councilman Smith suggested that the rest of the paragraph in the revision provided by legal counsel be deleted in its entirety. This would be Amendment Number One. Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi seconded.
The vote: “Aye” – Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, Mayor Mark Revenaugh. “Abstain” – Councilmember Carol Suter.
Councilman Smith stated he asked legal counsel to draft an addition to the prohibition of smoking on or within all public park grounds. Councilman Smith said those who were present at the last meeting might recall that Council had some concern with the viability of the special events held in the parks. The suggestion was made that part of the special event application for park event sponsors include that they designate a smoking area. Councilman Smith said he asked legal counsel to draft an amendment to Section 2.135.040, paragraph 2. City Council members received a copy of this draft amendment. Councilman Smith stated he would ask Council members to consider the addition that says that the sponsor’s plan shall include the designation of smoking areas acceptable to the Director of Parks and Recreation, the provision by the sponsor of containers within the designated smoking areas for disposal of smoking refuse and paraphernalia, and the assurance by the sponsor that the sponsor will remove all smoking containers and smoking refuse and paraphernalia from the designated smoking areas at the conclusion of the special event. Councilman Smith proposed, for clarification, that this would be Amendment Number Two.
Councilman Les Smith moved to amend the draft Ordinance with Amendment Number Two, as read. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded.
The vote: “Aye” – Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, Mayor Mark Revenaugh. “Abstain” – Councilmember Carol Suter.
Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi said she would suggest a third amendment, which is in Section 2.135.030, Section L, which reads Restaurants seating more than 75 persons. Councilman Rudi said she would like to return that amount to more than 50 persons. Councilman Rudi referenced Section 2.135.060, Item Number 10, suggesting that number be changed from 75 persons to 50 persons. Councilman Les Smith seconded.
Councilman Smith asked if this brings the number back to 50, which is in the Clean Air Act?
Mayor Pro Tem Rudi replied yes.
Councilman Smith stated for clarification that pursuant to legal counsel’s opinion, we can increase that number, but we cannot lower the number, or make any more stringent requirements on those protected businesses, so this is bringing the number in both of the clauses down to where we actually started.
Mayor Pro Tem Rudi agreed that was correct.
The vote: “Aye” – Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, Mayor Mark Revenaugh. “Abstain” – Councilmember Carol Suter.
Councilman Smith explained to the audience that although the number has been dropped to 50, those establishments in the community that hold a liquor license as of January 1, 2009, and hold it continuously under the same ownership, are still exempted from the smoking ban provisions in the Ordinance.
Mayor Mark Revenaugh asked for a vote to accept the First Reading, Waive the Rule and place Amended Bill 09-02 on its Second and Final Reading.
The vote: “Aye” - Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, Mayor Mark Revenaugh. “Nay” – Councilmember Carol Suter. 4-1.
Counselor David Ramsay explained that the effect of having a less than unanimous vote on the Waiver of the Rule will require that the Second Reading of this Bill be moved to the next City Council meeting.
Item 10. on the Agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: for consideration of a request to Vacate Unimproved Rights-Of-Way; and for the Rezoning; and Site Plan Revision for property generally located at Northeast 72nd Terrace and North Euclid. Applicant/Owner: J.A. Peterson Enterprises, Inc. File #1326 and File #1330.
Mayor Revenaugh opened the Public Hearing.
Comments from Staff
Planning Specialist Chris Helmer pointed out that there are four Ordinances to be considered relative to this project. Mr. Helmer reported that the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on November 17, 2008, for the Stratford Park development proposal, as well as a follow up meeting on February 2nd. The Planning Commission recommendation is 9-2 in favor of the proposed development plan. Mr. Helmer stated there were a number of memorandums given to Council members in their meeting packet; one dated from him on January 26, 2009, that outlines a majority if not all of the issues that came about from the Commission, as well as from area residents.
Mr. Helmer said several different letters were provided to Council, one of which is an example letter that the applicant sent out as legal notification to those surrounding the property, for a meeting they held to inform the area residents of their proposed development plan. Council also received copies of several different letters on continuations for the application. That is predominantly a result of the issues that needed to be addressed from the Planning Commission, as well as from the area residents. Council members have also received a memorandum from Mr. Forquer, which states their proposal for the proposed full access on 72nd Street, and attached exhibits with their specifications. Mr. Helmer stated what is new, as the result of the Planning Commission meeting, and was included in Council’s packet, is a covenant agreement regarding the stormwater maintenance. There was much discussion from the Planning Commission on making sure that the development proposal was going to be maintained as well as possible into perpetuity, for stormwater and for the overall Peterson property. Mr. Helmer stated the usual information was also provided in Council’s packet regarding the Staff report.
Councilmember Suter asked if a neighborhood meeting was held?
Mr. Helmer replied yes, not by the city, but the applicant held a neighborhood meeting.
Councilman Smith stated he would ask that he might digress for a moment, because he noticed some people in the audience who looked a bit confused with what occurred with the last Council agenda item, which was the smoking issue. Councilman Smith said he would like to explain to the audience where we are now with that issue. Councilman Smith explained that State law only allows City Council to give a Bill one reading in a meeting, unless we “waive the rule”, which is waiving that particular rule that allows the City Council to move forward. However, it is a statutory requirement that this particular motion receive a unanimous vote of the Council, since there was not a unanimous vote of the Council, we cannot take that any further this evening, and it will be on the next City Council meeting’s agenda for final disposition. Councilman Smith said Council would not be taking any more action on that item this evening; it will happen again at the next City Council meeting on February 23, which begins at 7:30 PM. That is why the City Council abruptly stopped.
Comments from the Applicant
Brian Forquer, Lutgen, Incorporated, 8350 N. Saint Clair Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri, stated that with him at this meeting was Chris Chancellor, and Bill Podrebarac, both from Lutgen. (Mr. Forquer utilized a PowerPoint presentation, as he made his remarks). Mr. Forquer stated that Stratford Park is a residential development at the corner of 72nd Street and Euclid Avenue. Family Video came through the process last year. Mr. Forquer said they are requesting a street vacation, a rezoning, a site plan, and a plat to go along with this plan. Currently, the property is bound by 73rd Terrace, Euclid, 72nd Street, and North Brooklyn. North Brooklyn and 72nd Terrace are not constructed at this point. Mr. Forquer said this property is zoned R-3, Garden Apartments; and C-1, Commercial, and what they are trying to do is to rezone this to RP-3, which ties the site plan to the rezoning. The zoning allows building height of two and one half stories, or 35 feet in height, maximum. The maximum building unit would be 24 units. Gross density of the project would be about 152 apartment units that could be done in this location.
Mr. Forquer said they have provided and required a 35-foot buffer from R-3 to R-1 on the east and the west sides. There are R-2 duplex units and RP-2 surrounding the property. Mr. Forquer pointed out in the PowerPoint presentation that the aerial view of the property at this point shows the duplex units at 73rd Terrace, and in yellow, is the platted Brooklyn Avenue, and 72nd Terrace, KinderCare, the proposed Family Video, prior to its construction, and 72nd Street. On the left is the vacation that is being proposed. Family Video came in and vacated the old Euclid Street, prior to the realignment. Mr. Forquer said he would complete that vacation of the old alignment, vacate 72nd Street and Brooklyn Avenue as is platted currently, allowing them to get to a final plat that allows a realignment of a singular road with a cul-de-sac through the property that they are currently calling Brooklyn Avenue. Mr. Forquer pointed out that some of the site constraints in the existing plat are the vacated streets. There is a KCPL easement, which is about 100 feet wide down the middle of the property. There is a drainageway on the east property line, with existing vegetation, and a drainageway on the west property line. The current site plan proposes 98 townhome units, which are two and three bedroom townhomes. On November 13, 2008, his company conducted a neighborhood meeting. About 20 people attended the meeting, and there were about 48 letters of notification sent out. Mr. Forquer pointed out that split down the middle is the KCPL easement, and he is proposing a 20-foot building separation between the units. On the east side of the KCPL easement they are requesting a variance to a 15-foot building setback, trying to provide more of a buffer in the existing vegetation that they have provided there.
Mr. Forquer said a homeowners’ association would be developed with this project; although, it will be a rental project, eventually there will be lots split for future homeowners, and single-family residences. Mr. Forquer pointed out the detention basins, and said one basin handles the east half, and another is at the northwest corner of 72nd Street and Euclid, and would be maintained by the homeowners’ association, and initially by the developer. This is the maintenance agreement they have provided currently as a draft. Covenants, conditions, and restrictions will be provided with this, and as stated, market conditions currently dictate that this go to a rental property, and eventually would be converted to home ownership. Some of the discussions at the Planning Commission was that two stalls are required per unit, and he has provided that in the garage and in the driveway. Mr. Forquer pointed out that the areas colored brown are the additional off-street parking areas, and pointed out where 86 units would be located, and 78 additional off street parking spots will be provided for those residents, and they have provided “no parking” signage on the south side of 73rd Terrace.
Mr. Forquer said, based on the aesthetics of 72nd Street and Euclid, they have provided building upgrades, and he pointed out those areas where the upgrades are located. In addition, with the swale that is in the proposed stormsewer, they have provided upgrades to the back of those units for the existing single family residences to the west. Mr. Forquer pointed out that the top four images in the PowerPoint are what the standard unit would look like for a four plex – there are four plexes and six plexes. The bottom two are additional upgrades on the side and the rear, providing a cultured stone, and a first floor elevation of the units. In Johnson County, at Johnson and Woodland, this is a product that Peterson Company has built and currently manages as a rental type product, and this is the product that they are proposing in this development. An additional proposal of the architecture is that not more than two consecutive units will have a similar roofline, which will break up the architectural features of the streetscape. Mr. Forquer pointed out the proposed trees to remain, and the existing landscaping that they are offering. The project has a pool and cabana in the middle. The drainageway on the west property line has been a point of numerous discussions between the applicant, neighbors, and City staff, and they have been working hard and long on this. Currently, at the north property line, is an existing stormsewer that erodes when it discharges out on to the other side of the property. It is cutting some of the bank. It is an open swale to the north of that point, and it comes on to the Peterson property. Currently, when that water backs up, it comes to the south corner and overflows across Lot 1 to the west. Mr. Forquer pointed out that looking at the overall watershed, in red is outlined the Stratford Park property. In Watershed A, the property drains to the point he just discussed. That property is approximately five acres of that watershed. Mr. Forquer pointed out the crossroad culvert to 72nd Street, and he pointed out the area that is 422 acres of watershed, and said their onsite property equals about one percent. Mr. Forquer pointed out that Watershed A is broken down further into the two drainageways that are on each side of the property. At the discharge point out of the detention basin there are 47 acres. Where the existing 30 inch stormsewer discharges, there is about 41 acres that come down the rear of the lot lines, and comes into the Peterson property, and their onsite percentage is about 10 percent of the watershed in this location.
Mr. Forquer continued by saying that their proposal at the southwest corner to protect adjacent properties and alleviate some of the stormwater, is to first take the existing stormsewer that is having some erosion in the bank cuts, and tie that into a stormwater box inlet. That box inlet will be an opening to match the existing swale so the water can drop in there, and it will then be outletted through a 66-inch pipe. This will bring the water underground, tying to the reconstructed structure, as an outlet to the detention basin, and then following down the system. If the water does get backed up, it can follow a swale down behind the homes and will fall into the proposed detention basin. Mr. Forquer said it is proposed to disconnect the street stormsewer from the outlet, and put that water into the detention basin, so we would have additional water from the KinderCare and the Family Video that would dump into that basin. Mr. Forquer said in an effort to buffer the single-family residents, they have done the architectural upgrades, provided landscape screening, and trees, and the detention basin will be maintained by the homeowners’ association and the developer.
Mr. Forquer said there was discussion on their proposed access at North Brooklyn Avenue. Based on reviewing that access point, the intersection sight distance on making a left turn into the development meets AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) standards. Mr. Forquer said a car coming out and making a left turn meets the intersection sight distance requirements, and for marketing purposes and for resident access, they would prefer to see that continue to be a full access. If residents do determine that during peak hours they cannot get out, they can still go back to Euclid Avenue, through Brooklyn, come down to 72nd Street, at the stoplight, and make a left turn. Mr. Forquer said they are in agreement with all the conditions that the Planning Commission has sent to them.
Councilman Wayne Beer stated he still has a serious question in regard to stormwater management, and water that enters Rock Creek, and especially south of 72nd Street. Everything has been addressed north of 72nd Street, but the fact remains there will be at times additional water that is going to enter Rock Creek south. Rock Creek meanders, and under stormwater conditions, there is a good deal of erosion issues with which those neighbors must deal. Dumping the excess overflow of water onto 72nd Street will dump all that water into Rock Creek. Councilman Beer said those folks have some serious considerations and concerns, and he shares those same concerns. One of the things he has not heard from the applicant is addressing some of the sustainability or green issues that the Council has undertaken. One of the things that help to control stormwater is permeable surfaces. Councilman Beer said he does not see where those kinds of stormwater run-off issues have been addressed.
Mr. Forquer stated they currently do not have any permeable pavement in the plans.
Councilman Beer said that would be something to consider.
Councilmember Carol Suter said she agreed, and asked if the applicant had explored any nontraditional stormwater run-off strategies, other than putting the big tank underground to hold the water. There are a lot of exciting new strategies and approaches being developed that are more environmentally friendly and that deal with the water before it gets into the big tanks. Councilmember Suter said she was wondering if the applicant had explored any of those, and if there are any new techniques that have been incorporated into any of this run-off issue that would be nontraditional or more environmentally in tune.
Bill Podrebarac, of Lutgen, Incorporated, stated that with respect to nontraditional approaches, the overall stormwater management plan is more or less nontraditional in the sense that there is an awful lot of stormwater that is coming through the site, and we could separate the stormwater generated on-site, but it would not solve anything. The floodway that moves from north to south is really the big problem in this vicinity. Mr. Podrebarac said this is a pretty atypical approach, in that it is an open detention basin and a pipe, and the way it operates is very atypical, but it was the best solution that they were able to come up with in order to affect some sort of improvements at 72nd Street. Where the pipe is located on the northwest corner of the site – west of Euclid and east of Woodland Avenue – there is an existing channel out there that is eroding. Mr. Podrebarac said they had looked at the possibility of keeping an open channel and some of those options, but it appears by some of their models that there is too much water in there, so they would almost have to line it, and it would be a sort of Brush Creek affair. They left that opportunity and they considered putting in a pipe, and so they have a stormsewer that is a little larger than the downstream system. It collects most of the stormwater run-off for up to a one hundred year event. It begins to have some overtopping at that point. That is conveyed through an overland swale, and the overland swale is directed into the detention basin. The pipe itself connects to the basin indirectly, in that the low flow events will predominantly go right into the existing system, and that will go into the box at Rock Creek. As soon as the precipitation event begins to get intense, the water will begin to back up; the pipe into the basin is more able to flow and provide additional capacity on the upstream side of the downstream pipe. It backs into the basin, and it is kind of a surcharge for the existing system. It does provide some detention effects, but the main thing it does is that it reduces the amount of water that is getting off the site onto 72nd Street. It is a little less than half the peak rate that is getting onto 72nd Street. Mr. Podrebarac said they have cut the amount in half from what is there in the existing condition. Currently, the ten-year and possibly the five-year events have quite a lot of overflow. Mr. Podrebarac said we have zero overflow; we have contained the ten-year within the system we have proposed.
Councilmember Suter said this is a major problem for Gladstone, because of the topography and underground springs. Water is a big issue in our community. Councilmember Suter said she does applaud the applicant, and she knows when Council was working on the Family Video piece, that they did more than was required around the drainage for that project, in anticipation, she suspects, of this, and that effort was appreciated.
Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi asked if the proposed units would have basements.
Mr.Forquer replied yes they would.
Mayor Pro Tem Rudi asked if there were samples available of the materials that would be used in this project.
Mr. Forquer replied they could provide those samples, but did not have samples with them at this meeting.
Councilmember Suter asked if there were existing properties that the applicant has that have the same materials as what is being proposed?
Mr. Forquer replied yes, it would be the Woodwin Townhomes in Johnson County.
Mayor Pro Tem Rudi asked if the proposed swale could erode over time?
Mr. Forquer replied it could erode, but there will be landscaping and plants in the area. The vegetation will be selected so as to limit the erosion, and it is part of the maintenance. The possibility of erosion in it would be very limited, because it only collects the flows from the north in a one hundred year event, or a fifty year event. Other than that, only the back yards are directly tributary to it. It is not a major conveyance, as the existing channel is.
Mayor Pro Tem Rudi asked if there were erosion, could it be repaired as it happened?
Mr. Forquer replied he did not have the verbage on hand as to how that was set up, but because that is part of the landscaping itself that would have been damaged by the erosion, then he believes that would be covered.
Councilman Les Smith stated the folks along North Woodland have been dealing with the erosion problem in their backyards since at least the early 1980’s, and he believes the applicant was going to move some of their network to the east to retain some of the vegetation in those areas. Councilman Smith asked the applicant to explain that and to draw a mental picture of the existing channel versus what the entire area would look like at completion of the project.
Mr. Forquer stated the existing channel is an eroded ditch at this point that keeps getting cut deeper and deeper. There are existing vegetation and shrubs, and that is what the existing conditions look like. What is being proposed is a small retaining wall, and addressing plant material on the outside of the swale.
Councilman Smith inquired into further north off of 72nd Street, there is a pipe that t-bones into the ditch, and asked how that would be handled.
Mr. Forquer said they are proposing a stormsewer concrete box that will be open on three sides. It will match the swale so that the water will fall into it. There are bars across it for safety purposes. There are two small openings on the east and west sides. The existing stormsewer that is eroding a lot is going to be tied into that stormsewer box, so it is not an open channel at that point anymore. Once the water hits Euclid Avenue, will go straight into the structure and then move on down the system.
Councilman Smith said he believed the folks have been looking forward to this project in one regard for years, and that is to finally fix that problem. Councilman Smith said he did not have any grand expectations other than fixing that problem. Councilman Smith said there was discussion at the Planning Commission level regarding North Brooklyn, and its proximity to the Family Video drive or the drive between Brooklyn and Family Video, and inquired into the outcome of those discussions.
Mr. Forquer replied the outcome was a full access intersection based on meeting AASHTO requirements for stopping in an intersection.
Councilman Smith said he loves those parameters and requirements when they work, but was there discussion on moving North Brooklyn further to the east – would that help, or are there some egress or ingress adjustments that can be made on the existing properties?
Mr. Forquer replied that moving that to the east would start moving the buildings to the other side, and also that is where the existing curb cut is right now – we have matched into that location. That is also the location for the platted Brooklyn Avenue.
Councilman Smith asked Assistant City Manager Scott Wingerson if this has been further addressed since the Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Wingerson replied that staff has not looked at moving Brooklyn to the east, but that can certainly be done, and see what impact that has on the overall development. Staff has looked at some traffic calming concepts having to do with Family Video and Stratford Park, and he is sure those will evolve and address the Council concern.
Chris Chancellor, Lutgen, Incorporated, stated one of the issues they have is as one looks at the center line of Brooklyn where they have it, and they start to slide that over to the east it drops that intersection further down into the sag, and one of the reasons he believes the right-of-way exists where it does today, and why that curb cut is where it is today is because of the sag location at 72nd Street. It meets AASHTO requirements now at that location. If you slid it further to the east, it would not meet AASHTO requirements and you would not have the necessary sight distance. This was looked at almost 15 months ago in the site planning of this project, and the outcome that they came away with was that the location where Brooklyn exists today with respect to the right-of-way, is ultimately the best location. Mr. Chancellor said they would have loved to have moved it further to the west, but there is an existing building there. That location is the best condition they could get for that intersection.
Councilman Smith asked, relative to Councilman Beer’s question regarding permeable surfaces, would the applicant be willing to look at some modifications to their plans?
Mr. Forquer replied that from an engineering perspective, an issue for them is how well permeable pavements work in this area of soil types that we have. Mr. Forquer said they would certainly be glad to entertain other nontraditional ways of trying to mitigate volume and infiltrate water, but their concern is that they cannot clearly recommend to their client to do permeable asphalt or permeable pavements at this point, because in this area it is inconclusive as to whether or not they truly work in the long term. From the day they are installed, they can work for a short period of time, but the concern is over a long period of time, are you really getting the same benefit out of it. Mr. Forquer said they do not have enough evidence at this point to point one way or another, and so as a firm, they decided that they would not recommend those to their clients at this point, not being sure of the ultimate outcome.
Councilman Beer said perhaps on streets that are driven daily and have high volume of traffic that might be an issue right now. That is still to be decided as to its practicality. There are quite a lot of paved surfaces on driveways and patios in this plan that certainly perhaps could lend itself to a permeable type surface or intermittent paving or something such as that. Councilman Beer said that our City has Ordinances that do not permit that, but they surely could be entertained by the Council on an exception basis, and he would like for us to take a serious look at surfaces that do not carry high volumes of traffic, but still shed water.
Mayor Mark Revenaugh said he knows the applicant plans to build these units with the idea of eventually selling them, and plan to lease them until some point in time, and asked if there is a trigger at which time the applicant will begin to market the units for sale and create the homeowners’ association that will transfer the liability of the property from the developer to the home owners’ association?
Mr. Forquer replied that Mr. Reidemann is the President of Peterson Development and he was present at the Planning Commission meeting, and spoke to that. Mr. Forquer said he believed the comments he made were really that it becomes an investment issue of when is the ultimate time to get the best rate of return on the property. J.A. Peterson Enterprises owns and maintains several apartment complexes regionally. It is to their advantage to keep the project looking attractive, not only from a rentable standpoint, but also for the fact that they do know that at some point in the future they will be looking at splitting the lots and making those units for sale. Mr. Forquer said he did not know if there was a specific trigger in terms of time; it was really driven by the market, and when it becomes an attractive rate of return to be able to sell those. Mr. Forquer said that Mr. Reidemann would be able to speak more clearly and eloquently than he on this subject.
Comments from those in Favor of the Application
There was no one to speak in favor of the application.
Comments from those Opposed to the Application
Ronald Guglielmino, 7160 North Woodland Avenue, stated he is a little bit behind the eight ball on this project not having learned about it until about ten days ago. Unfortunately, he was unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting, but thanks to the City’s website, he was able to catch up on a lot of things. Mr. Guglielmino thanked Councilman Beer for pointing out one of the subjects he wished to point out this evening. After having looked at the summary of the Planning Commission’s meeting, he had a couple of general comments and then some specific remarks related to some of the folks who live south of 72nd Street in the vicinity of the project. Mr. Guglielmino said as a general observation, the project signs that were posted on this project on 72nd Street are entirely too small. With the speed of traffic on 72nd Street, you can hardly notice that they even exist, unless you become aware of it, as he did, through the City’s website. Mr. Guglielmino said he would encourage the City staff and Council to consider enlarging the minimum size for signs on any project that is on a heavily traveled arterial street such as 72nd Street.
Mr. Guglielmino stated the current project notification area, he is advised by the Community Development Department, is only 185 feet radius from the project location. As has been clearly pointed out this evening, there are significant impacts with this project potentially in terms of stormwater drainage south of 72nd Street. Mr. Guglielmino said he believed the project notification area requirement should be enlarged, and he would leave it to the wisdom of the City Manager and his staff, and the Council as to what that should be. There is no reason why people like him should come to the realization of a project’s existence this late in the game.
Mr. Guglielmino stated he thinks the Council should consider Planning Commissioner Anita Newsom’s suggestion at the November 20th Planning Commission meeting, and reiterated last Monday evening, that the proposed Brooklyn location at 72nd Street be considered for a right turn in and a right turn out only during the peak hours. This would help the problem at the traffic light at 72nd Street, and would reduce the possibility of traffic accidents, that none of us want at that location.
Mr. Guglielmino said he is also concerned about the stormwater issues that were discussed at the Planning Commission meeting last Monday evening, and mentioned by Councilman Beer this evening, especially with the impact on Rock Creek, south of 72nd Street. Mr. Guglielmino said he was the first homeowner on North Woodland, south of 72nd Street, over 20 years ago, and he can remember looking at the traffic study that was done and the stormwater study at that point, and before he decided on a lot location, he wanted to be sure they were outside of the 500 year flood plane, which they are, and that they had a reasonable chance not to be inundated by a chance event that might occur affecting the stormwater.
Mr. Guglielmino said he is still concerned about the impact south of 72nd Street on Rock Creek, and he has observed Rock Creek when it was just about ready to overflow onto North Woodland, soon after it was constructed. The homeowners in that area, to his knowledge, none of whom were notified of this project, are equally concerned. Mr. Guglielmino stated he has been for some time working with the Public Safety Department on the excessive traffic volumes and speeds on North Woodland, south of 72nd Street. There is documented evidence that they could provide about the high volumes of traffic on what is supposed to be a residential street. North Woodland, between 69th and 72nd Street, now operates as a minor arterial, and if you look at the traffic study that was done for this project, the traffic volume in the peak hour and peak direction will increase from approximately 2.9 vehicles per minute on North Woodland to about ten percent over that. Mr. Guglielmino said an increase of that magnitude is not going to be that significant, because many of us now wait 90 seconds to two minutes before they can back out onto North Woodland to go either north or south.
Mr. Guglielmino said he worked for over 35 years before retiring as an Urban Transportation Planner, and he can say that having worked with these projects, that everything you see that appears in any project development report is probably going to be on the conservative side. Mr. Guglielmino thanked Council for the opportunity to speak, and said he is not opposing this project, and believes in this economic environment, the fact that the developer was willing to take the risk that he is willing to take speaks well, and he generally favors the project, but he has a lot of concerns about some of the details.
Marilyn Chavez, 2227 NE 73rd Street, began by saying that 72nd Terrace becomes 73rd Street, so basically she is one house away from the eastern most townhouse project. Ms. Chavez said she has the same concerns about her street. It has become “go from Walmart anyplace over to Euclid trafficway”, and with 98 units on that small piece of land, she has concerns about the traffic on her street. The Planning Commission could see no reason to not approve this, but she would ask if there was any way the number of units could be decreased. Ms. Chavez said she is in favor of the project, but just not so many units. Ms. Chavez said one of the Planning Commissioners said he lives close by, and he would not want the extra traffic, but it would be extra traffic for her every day, not just to and from work. Ms. Chavez said when he said they would not go down Brooklyn to 72nd Street, what they will do is they will turn and go down Euclid, when they are going to M-1 Highway, then they will turn right, go up 72nd Terrace, to 73rd Street, and cut through to the Walmart traffic light, which is what everyone does. Ms. Chavez said her concern is the density of units.
As there were no further comments, Mayor Revenaugh closed the Public Hearing.
Item 11. on the Agenda. FIRST READING BILL 09-03, vacating the north section of “old” Euclid Street, Northeast 72nd Terrace, and North Brooklyn Street right-of-way, proposed streets immediately north and east of 72nd and Euclid Streets located in Clay County, Gladstone, Missouri. Applicant/Owner: J.A. Peterson Enterprises, Inc. File # 1326.
Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi asked for Council to consider the possibility of continuing this action to the next City Council meeting. There are a number of issues still outstanding, and City Council members have asked questions for which they would like answers. Mayor Pro Tem Rudi said she would like to see some of the materials that would be used for construction.
Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi moved to continue the First Reading of Bills 09-03, 09-04, 09-05, and 09-06 to the next City Council meeting on February 23, 2009. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded.
Councilmember Suter said this is a very interesting project and she is excited that someone is wanting to take a risk in this economy, and it is the kind of housing that we keep hearing from Gladstone residents that they want to have more of in Gladstone, but she is also sensitive to what they really want is quality housing. If there is any question or lack of comfort at this point around the materials, because that is really the issue, it looks nice on paper, but sometimes things look good on paper, but when you see them for real, they are not so good, then she believes it is worth a little time just to be certain we have that done. There were a couple of other issues about drainage and so forth, so if there are any other assurances to come back to Council that all avenues have been explored, that would be worth the time from Council’s perspective; although, she knows it is hard on the developer.
The vote: All “aye” – Councilmember Carol Suter, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, and Mayor Mark Revenaugh.
Item 12. on the Agenda. FIRST READING BILL 09-04, approving the Final Plat of a Replat of Stratford Park, Fourth Plat, Gladstone, Clay County, Missouri, and directing the appropriate officials to affix their signatures to said Plat for recording. Applicant/Owner: J.A. Peterson Enterprises, Inc. File #1329.
Note: Continued to the February 23, 2009, City Council Meeting.
Item 13. on the Agenda. FIRST READING BILL 09-05, amending Ordinance No. 3.973 and being an Ordinance relating to Zoning Ordinance Regulations and the establishment of Use Districts within the City of Gladstone, Missouri. Applicant/Owner: J.A. Peterson Enterprises, Inc. File #1330.
Note: Continued to the February 23, 2009, City Council Meeting.
Item 14. on the Agenda. FIRST READING BILL 09-06, approving a Site Plan Revision for property legally described as; a Replat of Stratford Park, Fourth Plat. Applicant/Owner: J.A. Peterson Enterprises, Inc. File #1330.
Note: Continued to the February 23, 2009, City Council Meeting.
Item 15. on the Agenda. FIRST READING BILL 09-07, Declaring the results of the Gladstone Primary Election held on Tuesday, February 3, 2009, as certified by the Clay County Board of Election Commissioners; and declaring the names of the candidates to appear on the Tuesday, April 7, 2009 General Election Ballot.
Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi moved to place Bill 09-07 on its First Reading. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilmember Carol Suter, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, and Mayor Mark Revenaugh (5-0). The Clerk read the Bill.
Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi moved to accept the First Reading of Bill 09-07, Waive the Rule and place the Bill on its Second and Final Reading. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilmember Carol Suter, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, and Mayor Mark Revenaugh (5-0). The Clerk read the Bill.
Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi moved to accept the Second and Final Reading of Bill 09-07 and to enact the Bill as Ordinance # 4.094. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded.
Roll call vote: “All aye”– Councilmember Carol Suter, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Les Smith, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Rudi, and Mayor Mark Revenaugh. (5-0)
Item 16. on the Agenda. OTHER BUSINESS.
There was no other business to come before Council.
Item 17. on the Agenda. QUESTIONS FROM THE NEWS MEDIA.
There were no questions from the News Media.
Item 18. on the Agenda. ADJOURNMENT.
There being no further business to come before the February 9, 2009, Regular City Council meeting, Mayor Mark Revenaugh adjourned the Regular meeting.
Cathy Swenson, City Clerk
Approved as submitted: ___
Approved as corrected/amended: ___
Mayor Mark S. Revenaugh