September 15, 2003
Item 1 on the Agenda: Meeting called to order – Roll Call.
Present: Ms. Abbott Council & Staff Present:
Ms. Alexander Scott Wingerson, Assist. City Manager
Mr. Davis David Ramsay, City Counselor
Mr. Dillingham Mayor Pro-Tem Wayne Beer
Chairman Hill Councilman Carol Rudi
Absent: Mr. Bone
Item 2 on the Agenda: Pledge of Allegiance.
Chairman Hill led the group in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
Item 3 on the Agenda: Approval of September 2, 2003 Minutes.
The minutes were approved as submitted.
Item 4 on the Agenda: Communications from the Audience.
Item 5 on the Agenda: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, 6212 NE Antioch Road. Applicant: Jo Marie Armilio. (#1198)
Chairman Hill called on Ms. Newsom for the site visit report.
Ms. Newsom reported that she assumed that everyone received a copy of the site visit report in their packets and have read it. In summary, it appears that the non-compliant business that is currently taking place is much more intense than the other businesses around that area. One thing that bothers her is the curve and grade as Wabash connects. The line of site in that area is poor. The traffic seems very intense. In addition, the driveway extension is on top of an easement and appears to be right on top of the property line. Ms. Newsom stated that she will be voting against this application.
MOTION: By Ms. Newsom, second by Mr. Kiser to approve the SUP at 6212 N. Antioch Road.
Mr. Davis apologized for his absence at the last meeting, and asked if anyone is currently residing at the home.
Ms. Newsom answered no. She added that the home is not currently totally being used for a business. Ms. Newsom said that gives her cause to pause and think that in the future the home might house more offices and have more employees.
Mr. Davis asked if the site visit committee discussed why this request was not for a rezoning since it doesn’t seem to apply to the normal Special Use Permit.
Ms. Newsom said the group did not discuss that issue.
Chairman Hill said that he drives by there several times a day and would concur with Ms. Newsom that this is a very intense use for this property. He acknowledges the fact that there are commercial businesses across the street, however his observation has been that there are frequently multiple cars in the driveway and cars parked in the street. Chairman Hill said that, in fact, he almost witnessed an accident there today because someone was trying to turn onto Wabash from Antioch, northbound, and there was a car pulling away from the curb on Wabash. If this were a commercial zoning, there wouldn’t be the cars parking all along the street because they would be required to have a parking lot. In addition, the property did not appear to be well-maintained. The business has been operation from this house for quite some time and there has not been any improvements made to the property.
Ms. Abbott said that she was thinking about the lady, who lived across the street, who had no complaints at the public hearing.
Chairman Hill said he goes by there at least four times a day and he can’t remember a time that there was not a car in the street. He frequently sees a lot of traffic coming in and out.
Ms. Abbott asked why they did not apply for a rezoning.
Mr. Wingerson answered that he did not encourage them to apply for a rezoning because of some of the reasons that were spoken of in the public hearing, such as the property width and depth and the feasibility of a commercial venture on a single lot. This lot combined with other lots and then commercial development is likely and feasible.
Ms. Newsom replied to Ms. Abbot’s comment about the lady who spoke at the public hearing. She said that the second part of her comment was that she was waiting for her property to be rezoned commercial so that she could sell it at a higher value. Ms. Newsom said that her testimony did not carry as much weight because of the woman’s encouragement of a commercial endeavor.
Mr. Revenaugh said that is really the issue in his mind. There is no doubt that there are already some businesses along Antioch, but it would make more sense to have a developer buy three or four of those residences along Antioch and create one new large development. It doesn’t seem fair to the residents on Wabash to have to fight all that traffic just to get to work each day.
Ms. Abbott No
Ms. Alexander No
Mr. Davis No
Mr. Dillingham No
Chairman Hill No
Mr. Kiser No
Ms. Newsom No
Mr. Revenaugh No
Ms. Wild No
The motion failed.
Chairman Hill announced that this application would be heard at the City Council meeting on Monday, September 22, 2003 with a negative recommendation.
Item 6 on the Agenda: Public Hearing on a Special Use Permit, 903 NE 76th Street. Applicant: Toni Faust. (#1202)
Mr. Wingerson reported that a majority of the Commission will remember a similar application from about eighteen months ago. This Special Use Permit application would allow for an in-home daycare. The concerns of the Commission, originally, revolved around the water feature (pond) in the back yard as well as traffic safety when entering and exiting the property onto 76th Street. The application is similar, if not the same, and the concerns remain the same. Mrs. Faust has choose to re-apply and see if she can work through, with her husband, the technical concerns of the request. Staff will reserve it’s recommendation until the water hazard issue and the traffic safety issue have been dealt with.
Ms. Newsom noted that the staff report states the application is for a Montessori school but Mr. Wingerson referred to it as a daycare.
Mr. Wingerson said that terms of the application is for a Montessori school; however, it is for preschool aged children. From a zoning standpoint, it is classified as a daycare by use, by name the applicant has choose to call it a school.
Ron Faust, 903 NE 76th Street addressed the Commission. Mr. Faust said that his wife is in Africa so he is here in her place. Their goal is to make this facility a pre-school and not a daycare. There are different qualifications for each. Mr. Faust said that he has permission from 7510 N. Harrison Place to use that area for their playground so that the water garden is a mute point as far as he is concerned. The goal is to provide a quality pre-school in two sessions eliminating food issues and other difficulties and provide a learning experience in 2 ½ hour segments in the morning and afternoon. It will be a very small operation. Currently they have two students.
Chairman Hill noted that in the recommended conditions the hours are stated as 8:30-11:30am.
Mr. Faust said that needs to be corrected. The hours would be 9:00-11:30am and 1:00-3:30pm.
Chairman Hill asked if DFS had been out to look at the water feature.
Mr. Faust said that he and his wife have been in conversations when they were needing to undergo the daycare. Mr. Faust replied that he was not sure how to answer that question because currently the parents are bringing the children around to the school. They have a gate to the adjoining playground area.
Chairman Hill asked what age the children would be.
Mr. Faust said that originally they were thinking 3 to 5 but are now thinking 2 ½ to 5.
Mr. Davis asked if the Commission is considering a Special Use Permit for 7510 N. Harrison.
Mr. Faust said that Alice Blythe is willing to do whatever he needs her to do. Earlier in the summer he thought that they might have the school at that address, but things evolved, and they realized that it was better to keep it in their own home and just use 7510 N. Harrison as the playground.
Ms. Abbott asked if the children in the morning would be the same children as the afternoon group.
Mr. Faust answered that there are two different groups of children.
Ms. Abbott noted that there would be traffic coming and going four times a day.
Mr. Faust said that presents very little problem. Apparently, that will be addressed with the 76th Street project. He said the whole area in front of his house is being leveled where there is a little bit of a hazard. He said he gave his permission for the project, but is not sure of the status.
Ms. Alexander said that when the Commission viewed the property one of their concerns was the safety when you have cars going in and out.
Mr. Faust said there are a couple of ways to minimize that. One is to find an access point from this east adjoining property, so it’s easily accessible. With the improvement on the road, he doesn’t feel it will be a problem. The way the parents to do it just doesn’t seem to present a problem to them.
Ms. Alexander asked if they have to back out on to 76th Street.
Mr. Faust answered that they do. He gives them instruction on how to do that using the left hand lane.
Ms. Wild asked how many children Mr. Faust anticipates having in each session.
Mr. Faust replied that ten children would be their maximum, if it goes that high. His wife had taught at another Montessori School in Smithville where she had 24 kids, and that was just too many. They are trying to keep their number of children at a minimum.
Ms. Newsom asked what permitting agency Mr. Faust works under other than the City. Does he get a state permit for the daycare or school?
Mr. Faust said that they are not applying for a daycare.
Ms. Newsom asked if there was a Montessori association or anything that he would be applying for a permit with.
Mr. Faust answered no.
Ms. Newsom noted that her concern was that there was no letter of authorization from the owner of 7510 N. Harrison authorizing Mr. Faust to use their property on file with the City.
Mr. Faust asked if that is what she would like.
Ms. Newsom wasn’t sure if that was what she wanted or what kind of liability issues there are for the City to permit them to use the adjoining property on a regular basis.
Mr. Wingerson said that the application was submitted on August 5, 2003 and it is now the end of September. Part of the reason for that delay is because staff was seeking an owner’s authorization and that didn’t come forward. Staff felt is necessary for the application to come forward, however, it does not contain that owner’s authorization. Regarding the 76th Street project, from Oak to Troost, it is designed, funded and it’s currently an active acquisition for the necessary right-of-way. There are approximately 77 easements required, and the City has secured 39 or 40. Once that is done, the project will be bid and released for construction.
Ms. Newsom asked when that construction might take place.
Mr. Wingerson said that hopefully in the spring, the City can begin that process.
There was no one to speak in favor or opposition of the application. Chairman Hill closed the public hearing.
Mr. Revenaugh asked if the Commission could vote on an application that includes another person’s property that we do not have authorization from.
Mr. Wingerson suggested that it would be inappropriate for the Commission to vote including that additional playground, which then makes the application the same one that the Commission saw eighteen months ago.
Ms. Newsom asked if it could be added as a contingency.
Mr. Wingerson said that an additional condition could be added to the draft ordinance that require proof of ownership and authorization, then if that authorization was not submitted, the special use permit would be invalid.
Chairman Hill said that they may want something in the ordinance regarding fencing.
Mr. Revenaugh asked it was staff’s view that the traffic would not cause in adverse impact on 76th Street.
Mr. Wingerson said that he doesn’t have any concerns about the volume of traffic, however it is more than a typical daycare because it has two sessions, so it is four trips instead of two trips. The concern is accessing the property from 76th Street and then backing into 76th Street. This street is narrow there with open ditches and the improvement will further impact this facility with construction equipment. The Commission noted in the minutes from last year, a little bit of a crest of a hill looking west that made visibility somewhat of a concern. In terms of volume and impact, Mr. Wingerson said he is not concerned, but basically exiting the property does cause some level of concern for safety.
Ms. Abbott said that she is not happy about the driveway, and backing into 76th Street. She said she was just out there around 7:00 pm and it just wasn’t very nice getting in and out of that driveway. She can’t imagine 10 cars going in at 9:00 am and 10 cars coming out at 11:30 am and 10 cars going back in at 1:30 pm and then coming back at 3:30 pm. Ms. Abbott said that is 40 cars a day getting in and out of the driveway and she doesn’t think it’s safe.
MOTION: By Ms. Newsom, second by Mr. Revenaugh to approve a Special Use Permit at 903 NE 76th Street.
Ms. Newsom amended her motion to include a condition that would be added to the ordinance which states that the City must receive notarized owner’s authorization and the hours of operation be changed in the ordinance to read 8:00 am to 4:00 pm, Mr. Revenaugh gave the second.
Ms. Newsom said that it appears that Ms. Faust had a deep commitment to the Montessori education. That said, it seems as though she has made other efforts to deal with the water hazard problem. One thing that has not changed is the traffic on 76th Street. Ms. Newsom feels that little children are going to wander and it does not seem to be a safe situation for them. This does not feel like a safe situation to permit a daycare or a school with double sessions and she will be voting against it.
Ms. Alexander said that if there was a way for the cars to turn around to get out she would be a lot less concerned about the safety factor.
Ms. Abbott said if they had a circle drive that would accommodate the cars; if they would put a circle drive in, she would vote yes.
Mr. Faust said that would be one solution. The other solution he had mentioned is they could restrict the access to their driveway and have the cars come through 7510 N. Harrison.
Mr. Wingerson advised the Commission that if that be made a condition, they may want to table action at this point and give staff an opportunity to notify people on N. Harrison.
Mr. Davis commented that he shares Ms. Newsom’s concerns and assuming the motion stays the way it is, he will be voting no. He wanted to express his concern that he would not like to see the Commission make it a practice of encouraging people to find ways to make residential areas more like commercial so they can get by being used as commercial while still maintaining an R1 use. He is very concerned about the spread of spot-zoning in the name of Special Use Permits instead of rezonings. There is a place for commercial and this is not particularly a good one. Mr. Davis added that the thing the Commission should be concerned about is that we are talking about uses other than R1, so they should be located in properties zoned for something other than R1.
Chairman Hill decided that it would be better to go ahead and vote on the motion presented and then if the applicant wants to re-submit his amended application staff can perform the necessary notifications to residents on N. Campbell.
Ms. Abbott No
Ms. Alexander No
Mr. Davis No
Mr. Dillingham No
Chairman Hill No
Mr. Kiser No
Ms. Newsom No
Mr. Revenaugh No
Ms. Wild No
Chairman Hill announced that the application would go to the City Council on September
22, 2003 with a negative recommendation from the Planning Commission.
Item 7 on the Agenda: Public Hearing on a Special Use Permit, 2201 NE 56th Terrace. Applicant: Joyce Vogt. (#1203)
Mr. Wingerson reported that the applicant requests a Special Use Permit to allow the operation of a nail salon from the home. The proposed conditions in the staff report and in the draft bill are typical in nature and include occupancy licensing and hours of operation. There is information in the Commission’s packets discussing the request. The official staff recommendation is to recommend that it be approved; however staff also recommends that the Commission perform a site visit and take this matter up for a vote in two weeks. He added that the applicant is in the audience tonight.
Ms. Vogt, 2201 NE 56th Terrace addressed the Commission.
Chairman Hill asked how many customers she would have per day.
Ms. Vogt replied that she would have six a day.
Mr. Dillingham asked what her hours would be.
Ms. Vogt said she works on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. She tries to take her last client about 6:00 pm because she has so many working women that can only come in the evening.
Mr. Dillingham noted that those days/hours are different from what is in the draft ordinance.
Mr. Steffens asked how many clients she would have at her home at any given time.
Ms. Vogt said that two would be the maximum. She would only have one client at a time. Her driveway is set up to where she can have two cars parked and they don’t have to move in order for the other person to leave. Ms. Vogt said she had pictures if the Commission would like to have them.
Chairman Hill noted that her letter to the City said that she would like to apply for a temporary permit until she received her license.
Ms. Vogt said that was to apply to work while her application was waiting to move forward. She said she has been working in a salon in Gladstone, but she thought she could get a temporary until this issue was decided.
Ms. Newsom asked Ms. Vogt if she was currently residing there.
Ms. Vogt answered that she is living there and has been since June 21, 2003.
Chairman Hill asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in favor of the application.
Pam Morrow, 6804 N. Walnut addressed the Commission. Ms. Morrow stated that she has personally been going to Joyce for a number of years and she was real happy for her that she got this opportunity to become a homeowner in Gladstone. She has been to her home and it is an ideal set-up for her. As far as the parking, there is no problem because you can pull in one way and if someone else is parked there, you don’t have to move your car for them to leave. It works well; there is no parking on the street.
Ivan Burke, 2204 NE Pursell addressed the Commission. Mr. Burke stated that as far as traffic is concerned, six cars a day coming around that street won’t even be noticeable the way she is situated. He is just glad to see someone moving into the house that is going to take care of it. It looks a lot better than it did six months ago.
William Gillespie, 5701 N. Brooklyn addressed the Commission. Mr. Gillespie said that he is a moderate person, he believes in “live and let live”. Everybody he knows who is in a service business is working a second job. He met his Gladstone Building Inspector selling building supplies on weekend trying to make ends meet. He doesn’t object to the application. He thinks that she has adequately addressed the parking issue which was his only concern. Mr. Gillespie said he lives in an older Gladstone area and those streets are so narrow that when they park on both sides of the street, it creates a one-way drive.
Diane McGuire, 6725 N. Askew addressed the Commission. Ms. McGuire said that she is Gladstone resident, but she is a client of Joyce’s for about thirteen years. She knows how she runs her business, she knows how she runs her personal life and she is a wonderful gal. She’ll take care of the property, she’s met the neighbors, she’s done her homework. In addition to that, Ms. McGuire said that she is a realtor and has good standing in this state for eighteen years and primarily here in the northland area. It will have no impact on anything other than she’ll take care of the property and the people like her; her neighbors like her. She doesn’t see any reason to not go forward with this. She hopes the Commission will take that into consideration.
Chairman Hill asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in opposition.
Jerry Braton, 5705 N. Brooklyn addressed the Commission. Mr. Braton said he has several concerns. First, like Mr. Gillespie said, it is a pretty old neighborhood. They have a lot of cars that park on both sides of the street, especially down where Ms. Vogt’s house is on the corner. They have a lot of commercial trucks that park there that narrow the streets. He believes that if the Commission goes and looks at the property…it is single drive not a double-wide drive as she has there. With all due respect to the gentleman on the end, he has been there quite a while himself and there is more than five or six cars that go down that street everyday. Mr. Braton stated that in fact, they are going more than 25 mph down the street. They have a problem with school children, school buses…the kids stand at the bottom of Pursell and Brooklyn, which he thinks needs to be considered. He feels that if we let this happen this time, we are setting precedence for other people to come into the neighborhood and do the same thing for other commercial-type operations, which is basically what this is. He doesn’t know if there were any petitions or anything that were send around the neighborhood, but he never saw any; 56th Terrace and Brooklyn is a bad intersection. It may not look like it when you drive down it, but a lot of people whip up Pursell taking a shortcut to get back on Englewood Road. He has almost been hit several times. It is basically a quite neighborhood, and they are just concerned that if we start out small, the businesses could grow and it’s just going to be expanded into a larger operation.
Stan Maynard, 5707 N. Brooklyn addressed the Commission. Mr. Maynard stated that the driveways do go off of Brooklyn, which goes from Englewood down to Pursell Road and there is quite a bit of traffic that goes on that street. In their neighborhood, they have a lot of elderly neighbors as well as children and these people are sometimes walking during the daytime so they are concerned about the traffic. Obviously, they purchased their homes in an residential neighborhood, assuming it would stay residential, and they would like to keep it that way.
Chairman Hill closed the public hearing.
Mr. Revenaugh noted that staff’s recommendation was for the Commission to do a site visit.
Ms. Newsom asked Mr. Wingerson about the three letters that were in their packets from residents opposing the application. Only one of those had an address on them.
Mr. Wingerson said that Ms. Thorton is at 5912 N. Brooklyn, Ms. Kennedy is 6610 N. Brooklyn and Ms. Euritt is at 2206 NE 56th Terrace.
Discussion ensued regarding what time the site visit would take place. It was decided that Mr. Kiser would chair the site visit on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 at 5:30 pm.
Ms. Vogt submitted a petition of names in favor of her application and some photos of her lot.
Ms. Abbott asked if Ms. Vogt was licensed with the State Board of Cosmetology.
Ms. Vogt answered that she has been licensed for 27 years.
Item 8 on the Agenda: Public Hearing on rezoning and site plan revision, 3610 NE 72nd Street. Applicant: City of Gladstone. (#1205)
Mr. Wingerson stated that this application proposes to rezone the parcel of property at 72nd and Monroe from R1 to R2 to allow construction of a duplex. The City acquired this parcel through the re-construction of NE 72nd Street. There a was single-family home on the property. The City purchased it, demolished the existing structure and provided an ingress/egress easement on the north edge of the property to a duplex that is directly west of the subject property. Both to the east and the west are duplexes basically in all directions except for the north. Multi-family is across the street in the form on Appletree Apartments. The City Council has declared the property to be surplus and it will be bid and available for sale. Eighty percent of the proceeds from the sale of the property will be provided to the Missouri Department of Transportation because they provided a significant portion of the funding for that reconstruction project. Mr. Wingerson stated that he wants to be very clear that this is not about the City making money by selling the property for more money; this is about creating a consistent land use along that portion of 72nd Street. Staff recommends approval of the request.
Chairman Hill asked if anyone from the audience would like to speak in favor of the application.
Chris Bonova, 312 NE 88th Street addressed the Commission. Ms. Bonova stated that she represents the owner of the property at 3604/3606 NE 72nd Street which is right next to the property proposed. She is here on behalf of Charles Matney who is here in the audience. Originally this property was not buildable, which was the understanding when she attended the meetings on the 72nd Street project. She asked if the requirements changed.
Mr. Wingerson answered that the buildable, not-buildable question is really a function of how MoDot used the property. The City took a position that they believed that the property may not be developable because of lot sizes and land use consistency because it allows a more efficient, and affordable option on the City’s part as a way to dispose of the property. MoDot didn’t agree that the property was undevelopeable and actually they are right, it is developable, so now the City is in the formal process of disposing of the property in accordance with MoDot and Federal regulations. The City is attempting to take advantage of a provision in Federal and State Laws that relates to these kinds of things that would allow the City a quicker and more affordable way to dispose of the property and protect the taxpayer’s money. Unfortunately MoDot didn’t concur. When they didn’t concur, that made the City come forward on the zoning change for consistency to ensure that any development that occurs there is consistent with what is in the neighborhood. The City believes that this request, with the proper builder would met the setback requirements and parking requirements and all the things that a duplex would need to meet.
Ms. Bonova said there is another question regarding safety. She said she is not sure if the Commission has gone to the site…she has verbalized this in letters to the Council when they re-did 72nd Street because originally the duplex at 3604/3606 was to be torn down. That didn’t happen, they instead took the single-family dwelling as Mr. Wingerson indicated. At that time, they changed the access to all of these duplexes that are facing 72nd Street. All of the duplexes’ accesses are through the back off of Monroe. There is no through street to there. She has expresses the safety issue of fire trucks getting back there. They are telling her that the street is wide enough, but if you go back behind the duplexes and there are cars parked back there, it is a death trap in her view. Again, Ms. Bonovo stated that she has expressed that in writing. So now we are talking about adding two more cars, actually four more cars, and there are no parking spaces available. She thinks they need to find another avenue out if we are going to increase the amount of traffic in there.
Mr. Davis noted that from the drawing in the packets, it looks as though the driveway Ms. Bonova speaks of is part of this lot. He asked for a clarification of that issue. It looks like it provides access to far more than the first duplex. It looks like it provides access to several duplexes.
Mr. Wingerson answered that when the City acquired the property the reason it was acquired was to provide access to the duplexes further to the west. The City, in effect, purchased the property and then deeded an ingress/egress easement or access easement back across the property to provide access for the duplexes to the west.
Mr. Davis asked how big an easement is was.
Mr. Wingerson said be believes it is a 30’ easement.
Ms. Bonovo said that at one time the owner was told that he is responsible for the whole back alley.
Chairman Hill asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition of the application. Hearing no response, he closed the public hearing.
Chairman Hill asked what would happen if the application was denied as far as MoDot is concerned.
Mr. Wingerson answered that MoDot is not concerned with the zoning, just with the disposal of the property and receiving 80% of those proceeds above the City’s costs.
Chairman Hill asked if there would be a way to protect the easement so that there was no parking on it.
Mr. Wingerson said that it was designed as an ingress/egress easement. It may be helpful if he were to pull the actual ingress/egress document that was recorded. He believes it prohibits parking in that thirty feet.
Chairman Hill asked if that is something that the owner of 3604 could call Public Safety about or is it a private matter.
Mr. Wingerson said he thinks it would be a private matter, but he could check.
Mr. Davis said that the map that is attached said the easement is to be dedicated. He asked if that means that approval of this rezoning would be a part of that dedication.
Mr. Wingerson said that easement has been dedicated and currently exists on the property.
Ms. Alexander asked that if that were an alley, would each individual property owner be taking care of their own part or would it be the City.
Mr. Wingerson said it was the individual property owner’s responsibility as Ms. Bonova indicated.
Mr. Revenaugh exited the meeting, 8:40 pm.
Ms. Bonova approached the Commission again and said that it is a dead end street. If they go look at it, they will see that there is no way a fire truck can turn around. She was reassured that they could do it, but there is not enough room. The access off of N. Monroe is wide enough, but once the fire truck is back in there…that is why she is requesting a site. Her concern is they are going to put another two units in the corner and if we have the same problems that are existing beyond the 3604 and 3610 that will create havoc at the entry and that is going to be detrimental to all these others. Mr. Matney watches his duplex and his tenants are not allowed to park in behind.
Chairman Hill asked if MoDot would go along with using the proceeds from the sale to improve the access to these units.
Mr. Wingerson answered that he doesn’t believe they would. MoDot approved all of the design plans for this project, as did the fire department. He doesn’t want to discount what Ms. Bonova said; it is congested back behind the existing duplexes. The fire department does believe that they could adequately handle a fire on any of the properties as well as police protection and emergency services.
Ms. Abbott asked why a fire truck would have to go down the alley. Why couldn’t they park on 72nd Street?
Mr. Wingerson said that is one of the ways they would approach a fire in this area.
Mr. Davis stated that he has a concern that the Commission not rush to condemn this proposal because this lot is poorly zoned right now as R1. One thing that the Commission should be concerned about is correcting mistakes that time has created. Time has created this mistake and he thinks that the City of Gladstone should want to avoid a single-family dwelling being built on that lot. That lot is certainly big enough; it is a good-sized duplex lot. This area is completely surrounded by duplexes or multi-family. Every one of them get fire access from the front door, not the back door. The access lane was put in there for a good reason, to get people to avoid using driveways on 72nd Street, not to provide fire access. It was a good idea. If it becomes a permanent easement, that’s a good idea. The City of Gladstone is faced with options. What happens to this piece of land? It’s certainly not an attractive one for City ownership for a park; you don’t want kids to be walking or playing in this busy area. It just doesn’t have a functional alternative other than R2. Mr. Davis said that it is a constructive move in the right direction by the City and he doesn’t think the Commission should rush to condemn it.
Chairman Hill pointed out that the aerial photo that was in their packets is old and there are no longer driveways on 72nd Street.
Mr. Davis said that he understands that, that is why the City gave them the access to the back to park their cars. The fire access is still from the front, isn’t it? That’s how everyone else gets fire protection, from the front.
Ms. Alexander asked if there could be as part of this, the fact that they need off-street parking from the alley.
Mr. Wingerson said that if a duplex were built there he is envisioning that it would have garages and driveways leading to the garages providing, probably, 4 parking spaces per unit. There are different ways to do it but it would depend on the actual builder.
Ms. Newsom said that right now she couldn’t vote up or down on this one tonight without a site visit. She requested that one of the fire captains accompany them to the site visit so that they can tell us how they would approach a fire in that area.
Mr. Wingerson said that would be fine.
The Commission voted to table the application and perform a site visit. The vote was unanimous, 9-0.
It was decided that the site visit would take place on Tuesday, September 23, 2004 at 6:30pm, following the Vogt site visit. Mr. Kiser would chair the visit.
Item 9 on the Agenda: Public Hearing on rezoning and site plan revision, Shady Lane and North Oak Trafficway. Applicant: Reveda Development, LLC. (#1204)
Mr. Wingerson began by explaining the contents of the Commissioner’s packet on this application. It begins with a memo that references some other correspondence and the plans that were provided. A couple of things are missing from a normal packet. One being a staff report, the other a draft bill. This is an important project for the City on a variety of levels and he was not comfortable drafting a technical staff report without all the technical information available especially on a project of this magnitude. After tonight’s public hearing and additional technical information being provided by the applicant, staff will come forward with a full staff report and a recommendation. The applicant is requesting a zoning change and site plan approval to allow the construction of a project known as the Villas of Shady Lane. To give some background, Mr. Wingerson drew the Commission’s attention to the display boards behind City Attorney Ramsay. These boards represent the North Oak Corridor Study. The Commission is also aware that staff and Council are seeking redevelopment proposals for the commercial portion of Gladstone Plaza as well as the vacant un-developed area behind Gladstone Plaza, which is the subject of this request. It is his understanding that the applicant has a contract to purchase the available land and desires to move forward separate from the redevelopment process.
Mr. Wingerson said that from the Corridor Study, one of the things that was talked about at the citizen meetings as well as the Planning Commission and City Council meetings was the desire to connect the two catalytic projects. The first being traditional retail and traditional residential properties at Gladstone Plaza. The second one being the creation of a civic center area further to the north to create a sense of “town center”.
The request, at this point, is somewhat consistent with the North Oak Corridor Study. Mr. Wingerson said that it is his understanding that a traffic engineer has been retained to perform a traffic study. Staff continues to have some concern about the alignment of the north entry. It is currently aligned with a street further to the east, and Mr. Eisner will talk about that in his presentation. Staff would prefer and suggest that alignment be N. Holmes to provide a linkage between the plaza property and a future civic center that is both vehicular, but primarily pedestrian.
Mr. Wingerson explained that a storm water study has been done; the City’s Engineering Department is currently reviewing that. It appears to be conceptually accurate with some technical revisions that will be requested. Regarding installation of sidewalks, the applicant will ask the Planning Commission’s permission to allow sidewalks on one side of the street. The revised plan indicates the relocation of proposed water mains and sanitary sewer mains into a location that is more maintainable for the City in the future. Storm water inlets will be located or designed appropriately.
Mr. Wingerson explained that one of the things about the Gladstone Plaza redevelopment project is the ability for residents of the property to have access to a redeveloped commercial portion. Certainly no developer would want access to the current facility, but in a redeveloped situation it may be very attractive. The engineer has corrected the cul-de-sac radiuses; the City is waiting for final approval from the fire division.
Richard Eisner, 11605 Pawnee Lane, Leawood Kansas addressed the Commission. Mr. Eisner stated that he is a developer, his company is Reveda Development. They are a Kansas City based development and construction company. They specialize and have specialized for the last eight years in building and developing condominium town home communities in the greater Kansas City area. Currently they have completed several projects such as Villas of Leawood, Palisades of College and currently they are building a project called Courchevel in Lee’s Summit, Missouri. All these projects have been very successful and have sold very quickly. The reason they have sold quickly is because what they are offering is something that is fairly unique in the area and is becoming more common with time. His company has introduced a maintenance provided concept with an emphasis on single-story living. They are not age restrictive in who they sell their homes to; however the very nature of their project, being single-story and being in a maintenance provided setting has a great attraction to the empty-nester market. Many of their buyers are empty-nesters, active retirees, single professionals, couples who are still working, people who are concerned about maintenance. They often are down sizing from a larger home because they don’t want to maintain the grounds anymore or the roof. When someone buys a home, this is a for sale concept, it is not a for rent, everything outside that home is maintained by the community, collectively. The roof, the sidewalks, lawn care, snow removal, clubhouse and pool are all part of living at one of their communities. There are six different plans (Mr. Eisner submitted a group of photos for the Commission to look at) which are represented in the pictures they are looking at. These homes range in size from 1200 sq ft to just under 2200 sq ft. They offer 2,3 and 4 bedrooms all with two car oversized garages. It’s a wonderful plan. Architecturally, they are very proud of what they have done. It’s very architecturally pleasing and consistent. They do a combination of siding, stone and brick depending on the community.
Mr. Eisner noted that his company is under contract to purchase this piece of ground. Their intention is to move as quickly as they can to begin construction. They have identified a traffic engineering company to conduct this study on the intersection. Some of the issues on their northern entrance will be resolved, hopefully, with that traffic study. Mr. Eisner introduced his civil engineer, Damien Greble, of Construction Engineering. He asked if there was anything else he could answer for the Commission.
Ms. Alexander said that she had reason to be in Villas of Leawood last week. She asked Mr. Eisner if the density here would be similar to theirs.
Mr. Eisner answered that typically he will have 5.2 to 5.8 homes per acre. They have never gone over 6 per acre, which is pretty nice. They have a lot of green space in their developments and do a very nice job of landscaping. One thing about their development is that they are attempting to build a sense of community. They have a clubhouse, a pool and often the neighbors come together and organize social events. It is really a community. Mr. Eisner said that he is trying to create the same feel for Villas of Shady Lane, which may actually change names, that was just a first step. He added that one thing he would like to point out is that that northern entrance is desirable in a number of ways. The first is that his company controls the site. They actually have the house and the lot under contract. The alignment issue they know has to be resolved, but it’s important that this is a community that does not create a “through way” to get somewhere. All of their communities are closed loops. Typically their average sized homeowner is 1.2 to 1.5. It is rare that they have children, although they do not restrict that.
Ms. Alexander asked what the price range would be.
Mr. Eisner replied that it would be between $130,000 to just under $200,000; those are base prices. He said that in speaking with Gary Gable, who used to be a partner of his, he thought that there weren’t many homes in this range in the northland and that it would be very desirable.
Mr. Davis asked how many acres the property is and how many dwelling units there will be.
Mr. Eisner answered that there are 22 acres, and they are proposing 124 homes in the community, or 31 buildings. What is neat about the plan is that almost all the driveways are side entries. So when you drive down a Reveda community you actually see homes and not garage doors. It makes it more attractive.
Ms. Wild asked if these buildings are on basements.
Mr. Eisner said they are slab on grade. One of the things they are offering is single-story living. So when you go into one of their homes, they offer tremendous storage on one level. Two of their homes that are the larger homes, have guest suites that are also on the same level.
Ms. Newsom said that generally in the Midwest that hasn’t been an acceptable building practice because of storms.
Mr. Eisner said they do it successfully and many other companies have been doing it for years and have no issues with those factors.
Ms. Newsom asked if there is a storm do you just go stand in the shower.
Mr. Eisner said that is a good idea.
Mr. Davis commented that Gladstone has over 100 people who are alive because of basements.
Mr. Eisner said he understands.
Mr. Davis asked about the easements between this development and the single-family residences behind them.
Chairman Hill said that he is not sure we are ready to talk about that because staff has not had an opportunity to do a full review.
Mr. Eisner said that the plan the Commissioner’s have shows the buildings with the largest footprints. When they plan a community they actually plan it with the largest footprint, but they build to sell as to what the market is telling them. Some of those larger footprints will actually shrink, actually a good number of them will become 10’ smaller in length.
Ms. Newsom asked if the storm water and drainage calculations are also figured on the largest footprint.
Damien Greble, 16810 E. 40 Highway, Independence, Missouri addressed the Commission. Mr. Greble answered that they have submitted a preliminary storm drainage report to the City of Gladstone. In their calculations they have developed run-off curve numbers per APWA for multi-family homes. So, in essence they use a number for the worse case scenario. They could break it down to driveways, buildings, curbs, but in this preliminary report they used APWA run-off curve number.
Mr. Wingerson said that in response to Mr. Davis’ question, the rear yard setback on the north, east and south is fifteen feet.
Ms. Alexander noted that since we are talking about redeveloping the shopping center, is this putting the cart before the horse? Should they be looking at the entire property?
Mr. Wingerson said that certainly the Commission should consider the future of Gladstone Plaza and the retail portion. As the two projects may relate is a difficult question because we don’t know what the future of the retail portion holds in any level of detail. However, there are ways to reserve flexibility to provide pedestrian and vehicular access between the communities.
Mr. Wingerson continued by saying that in terms of “the cart before the horse” the applicant, as he stated, has a contract on the property. If the property can be developed in a way that is consistent with the City’s planning tools and desires of the Commission and the Council as a private sector matter without the City’s involvement. That may be a very good situation also. So if it meets the goals of the City and it’s a private venture…
Ms. Alexander asked if the reverse would be true, the fact that this is developed would make the shopping center more interesting.
Mr. Wingerson answered that his gut feeling is that it is a coin toss.
Mr. Davis asked for an explanation on the southern portion that is not in Gladstone, since it is so relevant.
Mr. Eisner said that in the Oakview portion of the project is the clubhouse, pool, a putting green, parking and a retention area that is proposed as a retention pond. To the left is a potential commercial piece, which they do not know what the use is. One thing that is important from their side is that they control that entry. They want to make sure they have power over the appearance of that entry.
Mr. Davis asked what street it will be tying in to Oakview.
Margaret Martins, Oakview answered that it was Circle Drive.
Mr. Wingerson said that Mr. Eisner has met with the Village of Oakview and in the discussion of redeveloping Gladstone Plaza members of staff and of the City Council met with the Village Board and committed to pay very special attention to two particular subjects. One is that storm water would run to the south primarily from this property into the Village of Oakview. The other is to look very closely at the traffic issues.
Chairman Hill asked if anyone from the audience would like to address the Commission in favor of the application. Hearing no response, he asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition.
Ted Wales, 6506 N. Campbell addressed the Commission. Mr. Wales stated that he has lived there for forty-eight years. All the neighbors came out here to raise their kids in a quiet neighborhood. He is against this proposal because he is afraid the traffic and everything will be different from what it is now because it’s been a very good neighborhood up to this point. He would be very much against anything like that going in back there.
Richard Sayles, Operations Manager at St. Charles Parish addressed the Commission. Mr. Sayles stated that the proposed project has boundaries to the Parish property to the north and the west. He hesitates to count his comments in terms as being in opposition, but the Parish does have some concerns they would like to make the Commission aware of as this goes through. Some of these concerns may have been answered already because they do not have all of the technical data either that Mr. Eisner may have provided to the City. Mr. Sayles provided copies of his comments to the Commission members. One was submitted for the record (see attached). Mr. Eisner has visited with Father McClure and himself about the project. They had a good visit and he thinks Mr. Eisner was very forthcoming and he thinks that overall they will be able to work together well. Mr. Sayes continued by saying that St. Charles Parish is a community of 1800 families who use the Parish grounds at one time or another. They also have an elementary school there with about 600 children. As far as the northern boundary they would like to encourage all code compliances for setbacks and green space. In addition they would like some type of consideration given to some type of berm and fencing on their north and west property line so that they have some type of boundary for the children they have on their playground. One of their main concerns is storm water runoff. They have problems with that now without construction there. The addition of the roofs and the driveways is going to cause water to come their way. There also are the issues that occur further on down the road in Oakview, which are stated in his letter.
Joanie Smith, 801 NW 67th Place addressed the Commission. Ms. Smith stated that she has a couple of concerns/questions. She walks that neighborhood all the time for exercise and see the children and everybody playing. If she understands correctly the north entrance would come out on Campbell. The traffic that they want to come out there…if it’s to go down to Campbell it dead ends at 67th Place. That is not a through street. She is on 67th Place and there is a problem with traffic already because they cut from N. Oak up to Flora to get on over to Antioch. Her concern would be, what are you going to do with these 150 cars that are now going to be there coming out in that direction? If you park on the streets, which everybody does, how are the vehicles going to get through? Her other concern is the storm drainage and Scott will tell you that she has been back and forth about that. Even though she is on 67th Place a lot of the drainage ends up down there and there aren’t storm sewers all over to cover all of that.
George Stephens, 703 NE 66th Terrace addressed the Commission. Mr. Stephens stated that he has several issues. One is on the ground water. Basically there is a creek that runs through this property. He doesn’t know what they plan on doing with additional water. He also has an issue with the access to it; 66th Terrace is basically a narrow street, residential and all the traffic will be using. The only other access you have is on Shady Lane.
Chairman Hill closed the public hearing.
MOTION: By Mr. Kiser, second by Ms. Alexander to table the application for a rezoning and site plan revision at Shady Lane and N. Oak.
Ms. Abbott Yes
Ms. Alexander Yes
Mr. Davis Yes
Mr. Dillingham Yes
Chairman Hill Yes
Mr. Kiser Yes
Ms. Newsom Yes
Ms. Wild Yes
Mr. Wingerson noted that this application will be tabled at the September 22, 2003 City Council meeting pending the Planning Commission’s recommendation. For the audience’s benefit, when the follow up to this meeting is scheduled staff will send notification. If anyone in the audience did not receive the original notification, he asked that they give him their name and address.
Item 10 on the Agenda: Other Business.
Item 11 on the Agenda: Communications from the City Council and City Staff.
Mr. Wingerson said he had follow-up on a couple of items. First, he thanked the Commission for making an excellent record tonight. He let Ms. Abbott know he hadn’t had a chance to check on her mosquitoes. He also still needs to check on the landscaping for Ballet North. Chairman Hill forwarded a concern about a semi-trailer in the Westlake parking lot and ways that might exist. Mr. Wingerson will check into that and see what was approved originally. Mr. Steffens raised an issue regarding roofing debris at 3607 NE 62nd Street. That was written up as a property maintenance violation and should be on it’s way to being corrected.
Item 12 on the Agenda: Communications from the Planning Commission Members.
Ms. Abbott remarked that the Sr. barracks are just the way they were.
Mr. Steffens commented that regarding the N. Oak Study, this is the one of the biggest projects that have come up and he thinks the Commission needs to take a real good look at this before we say no. This is what we have been working on for a long time; to have something like this come into the area. He was in on the study and have worked long and hard on this thing and this is really the first big thing that has come up. Mr. Steffens thanked the City if they have been behind this.
Ms. Alexander asked how we are coming with Larry Whitton and his cars.
Mr. Wingersons said that he pulled the file and took a look at it. His understanding is that there has been, or will be shortly, a discussion with the property owner to refresh everyone’s memory as to what’s going on there.
Mr. Dillingham thanked Mr. Wingerson for following up on the light pole at Lighthouse Custard.
Chairman Hill thanked the Commission members and staff for their time, attention and discussion tonight.
Item 13 on the Agenda: Adjournment.
Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 9:30 P.M.
______________________________________ Approved as submitted _____
Becky Jarrett, Recording Secretary
______________________________________ Approved as corrected _____
Brian Hill, Chairman