October 20, 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. Bone Mayor Les Smith
Mr. Davis Mayor Pro-Tem Wayne Beer
Chairman Hill Councilman Carol Rudi Mr. Kiser
Absent: Mr. Dillingham
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 October 6, 2003 Minutes.
Motion by Ms. Alexander, second by Mr. Revenaugh to approve the October 6, 2003 minutes. The vote was read and the minutes were approved unanimously.
Item 4 on the Agenda: Communications from the Audience.
Item 5 on the Agenda: Continuation of a Public Hearing for consideration of a rezoning & site plan revision, Shady Lane & North Oak Trafficway. Applicant: Reveda Development, LLC (#1204).
Mr. Wingerson said that this continuation of a public hearing is a chance for the public and the Commission to ask any questions. Since the last public hearing, the applicant has made, what he hopes the Commission to believe, are significant changes in the plan to more closely resemble the planning work that staff, this Commission and the City Council has done in the last couple of years. Mr. Wingerson referred to their packets which contain the staff report, excerpts from the drainage and traffic study and some previous correspondence. Mr. Wingerson stated that the applicant, Mr. Eisner is in the audience and is excited to explain some of the changes in the project.
Richard Eisner, 11605 Pawnee Lane addressed the Commission. Mr. Eisner stated that he has made a number of changes. One is that he is proposing to enter the community through Holmes, which he has an option agreement to purchase, to create a northern entrance which is consistent with the City’s interest in connecting Gladstone Plaza with his community. In addition, on Shady Lane, he has added a turning lane to accommodate vehicles entering their community. Mr. Eisner stated that his engineer, Damien, is present tonight.
Ms. Newsom asked if there was a proposed shared access from the commercial development into the community.
Mr. Eisner replied that there are separate entrances.
Ms. Newsom replied that in order for the residents of the Villas to enter the commercial property, they will have to exit onto Shady Lane and re-enter.
Mr. Eisner said that there is no shared access.
Chairman Hill asked what improvements he is proposing to Shady Lane other than the turning lane. He asked if there were any plans for improvements at the N. Oak/Shady Lane intersection.
Mr. Eisner said that that intersection is pretty far down. He asked his engineer to address this question.
Damien Greble, Construction Engineering Services, addressed the Commission. Mr. Greble reported that the traffic study analyzed the intersections at Shady Lane and North Oak Trafficway and all surrounding intersections and what they have determined is that the level of service after the development is still below the level of service of B or C or no worse that the level of service that is existing. That information is summarized in the traffic report.
Chairman Hill asked about the median and left turn lane on Shady Lane.
Mr. Greble stated that what they have proposed is a center left-turn lane for the commercial and residential. There are curbs on the north side of Shady Lane, what they would do is probably pull the curbs back into their property to provide three lanes of traffic, two through lanes and one center turn lane.
Ms. Alexander asked how many units there are total.
Mr. Eisner answered that there would be 24 units.
Ms. Alexander asked: “There won’t be anymore traffic?”
Mr. Greble said that it is not stated that there won’t be anymore traffic, it’s that level of service of the intersection that will still operate the same.
Ms. Alexander noted that most of those places are going to have at least one, perhaps two cars.
Mr. Eisner said he thought the study was done reflecting a completed project.
Ms. Newsom asked if the study included any traffic cutting through from existing neighborhoods or proposed redevelopment of the shopping center.
Mr. Greble answered that the way they design the traffic study is they do existing conditions, then they do existing conditions plus growth. After than, they do existing conditions, existing conditions plus their development, then add growth. They do take into account cut-through traffic plus additional growth outside of their development.
Ms. Newsom asked if any traffic calming device was planned for the cut-through to Holmes. She knows that traffic study said that it would not require a stop sign.
Mr. Wingerson commented that the original traffic study was based on an off-set intersection at Campbell. The Holmes entrance is a different deal regarding traffic control. It may warrant a four-way stop. In addition, one of staff’s recommendation is that a center median be installed in the extension of N. Holmes south of 67th Street. This design would provide an enhanced entrance to the project and also seek to calm the traffic.
Ms. Abbott said that traffic on Shady Lane is quite a battle when parents are picking up their kids at St. Charles. It is a catastrophe.
Mr. Wingerson noted that it is staff’s responsibility and the Commission and Council’s responsibility in voting on these matters to ensure that the impacts from the development being proposed are being mitigated. It would difficult for him to ask the developer to mitigate an issue that exists and is not a result of project at hand. Secondly, the response to the traffic study is that there will be a more significant impact from the commercial property that is proposed in the Village of Oakview. When those two things are taking in combination, what the traffic engineers are suggesting is that a center turn lane is required in Shady Lane which will taper back approximately to the school’s west property line, and nearly to Locust at the west. With that improvement, the efficiency of Shady Lane should improve and actually become a higher level of service, not in classification but within a single classification, than it exists today.
Mr. Davis said that his understanding is that in part of the Commission’s approval they can still establish conditions to what improvements will be made on Shady Lane. Even though those improvements may be outside the City, it is the developer’s legal responsibility to comply with the requirements established by the City.
Mr. Wingerson replied that the City has been coordinating a little bit with the Village of Oakview and have committed to them to treat this development as we would any other that would be entirely within the City limits of Gladstone. One of the recommended conditions in the staff report is that either an escrow or physical improvements be installed in a way that does two things: is consistent with the Village’s desires and with Gladstone’s requirements and it provides flexibility for improvements that may be coming with the redevelopment of Gladstone Plaza. The developer has made it clear in his desire to do what is necessary and required by the traffic study.
Ms. Alexander asked if it would help to work with St. Charles to get more of those cars into their lot to pick up children. She asked if that would alleviate any of the traffic.
Mr. Wingerson said that he is not sure that there is lot of efficiency that can be improved. It is a popular place during certain times of the day. What makes this a little challenging from a traffic standpoint is the peak is weird. The school’s peak is actually a false extension of the peak. He said there is a representative from the church if they would like to comment on it.
Chairman Hill asked if there was a landscaping plan for the development.
Mr. Eisner said that he has some ideas and the City has asked for a landscape plan to be submitted. (Mr. Greble showed the Commission a rendering, which included landscaping, of one of the buildings).
Ms. Newsom asked what types of trees they would be using.
Mr. Eisner said it would be a combination of several types of trees.
Chairman Hill asked how the elevations of this project line up.
Mr. Eisner said that the whole side of the property will be re-graded. There will be berms and landscaping on the edges of the proposed project.
Ms. Alexander said that if this is built even similar to the Villas of Leawood, they are attractively done and quite lovely inside.
Mr. Kiser asked how the density of the Villas of Leawood would compare with the density of Gladstone’s project.
Mr. Eisner replied that it would be very similar, about 5.5-6 units per acre.
Mr. Davis asked if the developer has responded to the letter that St. Charles submitted.
Mr. Eisner said he has never seen the letter.
Mr. Wingerson commented that the concerns from the church were traffic on Shady Lane, stormwater, buffering between the church and this development and the swimming pool at the clubhouse.
Ms. Lowe entered the meeting.
Richard Sayles, Operations Manager for St. Charles Church addressed the Commission. He stated that most of the concerns have been addressed. Mr. Sayles said that the church would like to see a privacy fence between their property and Mr. Eisner’s development.
Mr. Eisner replied that a privacy fence would be appropriate. He said they will do a good job of landscaping the berm and fence.
Ms. Alexander thought that the privacy fence would solve a lot of problems and she would be in favor of it.
Mr. Davis said he would feel more comfortable if the developer was to see the letter that Mr. Sayles submitted at the last meeting.
Mr. Eisner said that he has had exchanges with Mr. Sayles at the meetings here at City Hall.
Ms. Newsom said that as a side-note to Mr. Sayles, when there is a traffic or congestion problem in their parking lot, sometimes it is beneficial to invite local police officers to look at it since they have experience. They may be able to offer some solutions.
Chairman Hill asked if anyone from the audience would like to address the Commission in opposition or in favor of the application. Hearing no response, he closed the public hearing.
Chairman Hill announced that Ms. Newsom has agreed to chair a site visit. It was decided that a site visit would take place at 5:30 pm on Wednesday, October 22, 2003.
Mr. Wingerson said that the City Council would probably continue their public hearing at the October 27, 2003 meeting based on the Planning Commission’s action this evening and pick it back up at their next meeting in November.
Ms. Newsom said she had a few questions on the staff report. Regarding porous and non-porous, there were no figures. As a layman looking at the stormwater study she didn’t see where it addresses the increased impervious area that would occur once the development is finished. The stormwater also refers to a wet-bottom basin, which should have a fountain or something to prevent west nile and related issues.
Mr. Eisner said that he is headed in the direction of a dry basin.
Ms. Newsom said that would be her preference.
Mr. Davis asked if the Planning Commissioners could get a copy of the letter from Mr. Sayles to distribute.
Item 6 on the Agenda: Other Business.
Mr. Wingerson stated that there are or will be two additional applications filed, so it’s going to be a little busy at the end of the year. The City Council has picked December 1, 2003 as the Council meeting for December; so staff is working to get the applications filed. Mr. Wingerson said there may be a request for a special Planning Commission meeting in late November.
Item 7 on the Agenda: Communications from the City Council and City staff.
Councilman Rudi said that she appreciates all the work the Commission is doing on this application.
Mayor Pro-Tem Beer said he would like to follow-up on that sentiment. He would encourage as many members of the Commission as possible to attend the site visit on Wednesday.
Mayor Les Smith mentioned that two or three years ago the Planning Commission discussed the possibility of having a “video” site visit, which would be part of the presentation to the Commission. He suggested that perhaps, if they are interested, staff could explore the possibility of video presentations. The interest really wasn’t there a few years ago, but technology may have changed that. More technology in the Council Chambers will come forward in March when the renovations are complete.
Ms. Alexander said that her concern would be, even with the video, you don’t see all the things you do when you are on site.
Mayor Smith agreed and said that in some cases it might not be enough and a site visit could also take place, but in some instances it may be enough.
Mr. Wingerson thanked the Commission for attending at an earlier time tonight.
Item 8 on the Agenda: Communications from the Planning Commission Members.
Ms. Lowe said she would like to offer her thanks for the Planning Commission’s indulgence and offer her apologies for her absence. She joked that she has been trying to be a better taxpayer and has just bought a house!
Ms. Newsom commented that Mr. Wingerson may want to share with presenters to not use terms like “it will be no worse that it is now”. She doesn’t think they are thinking when they say things like that. In addition, Ms. Newsom asked where the City is on code enforcement. She sees a lot of things: weeds, junk, RV’s in yards…the City is not looking to cool right now.
Mr. Wingerson replied that regarding the coaching of the presenter, some of that did take place and obviously was not very effective, but he will continue to work with them. As far as code enforcement, Mr. Wingerson said that he did not have the numbers, but would be happy to provide them at the next meeting. The two code enforcement officers processed 847 violations last month. That is about 200 more than any month since he has been there. Council has passed some new requirements and policies that have provided more tools. That is based on the “three strikes and you’re out”. The volume of cases in Municipal Court has greatly escalated. Neighborhood calls have increased as well. Staff will continue to hit it hard.
Item 9 on the Agenda: Adjournment.
Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 7:42 P.M.
______________________________________ Approved as submitted _____
Becky Jarrett, Recording Secretary
______________________________________ Approved as corrected _____
Brian Hill, Chairman