PLANNING COMMISSION
GLADSTONE, MISSOURI
October 20, 2003
7:00 pm
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
Ms. Lowe
Ms. Newsom
Mr. Revenaugh
Mr. Steffens
Ms. Wild
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.
None.
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.
Respectfully submitted:
______________________________________ Approved as submitted _____
Becky Jarrett, Recording Secretary
______________________________________ Approved as corrected _____
Brian Hill, Chairman