PLANNING COMMISSION
GLADSTONE, MISSOURI
November 3, 2003
7:30 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
Mr.
Davis
Mr. Dillingham
Chairman Hill
Mr. Kiser
Ms. Lowe
Ms. Newsom
Mr. Revenaugh
Mr. Steffens
Ms. Wild
Absent: None
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 20,
2003 Minutes.
Motion by Mr.
Dillingham, second by Ms. Alexander to approve the October 20, 2003
minutes.
Mr. Davis noted that
on the top of page two, second line it should read “Holmes” rather than
“homes”.
Ms. Newsom asked
Chairman Hill if the vote could be taken as a voice vote to save time. Chairman Hill said that would be fine. The minutes were approved as corrected.
Item 4 on the
Agenda: Communications from the
Audience.
None.
Item 5 on the Agenda: Consideration of a rezoning & site plan revision, Shady Lane & North Oak Trafficway. Applicant: Reveda Development, LLC (#1204).
Chairman Hill asked Ms. Newsom for the site visit report. (see attached)
Ms. Newsom said to begin, she would like to apologize for putting a question mark beside Mr. Eisner’s name on the site visit report. That was just there to remind her to double check the spelling. She joked that it was not questioning Mr. Eisner’s character, creditability or anything else. Ms. Newsom continued by reporting that during the site visit there was a good turnout of Planning Commissioner members as well as the applicant’s representative and representatives from the church. As stated in the report there were a number of concerns and the Planning Commission proposed a number of resolutions to these concerns that the Commission thought might be in the best interest of the project and how it might blend with the existing community and proposed commercial renovations to the west. (These are stated on page 2 of the site visit report that is attached).
Ms. Newsom stated that from the site visit it would appear that this property is well suited to a development like this, when all the other assurances in place, because it is a very dense development compared to some of the other areas that do not have as much impervious area with driveways, streets and houses. Once the traffic, setbacks and stormwater drainage issues are dealt with this will be a very good fit for the community. Ms. Newsom noted that one of the Planning Commission’s proposed solutions was the possibility of constructing a footpath linking the residential portion of the development to the church property. In communication with Mr. Sayles it seemed that the church did not want a gate or anything connecting their property with the development for security of their school playground; therefore, that may be a mute point. Ms. Newsom asked if there were any comments or concerns from anyone that she might have missed at the site visit.
Mr. Wingerson followed up on Ms. Newsom’s site visit report by stating that the applicant is proposing a wood privacy fence basically around the entire development. They have suggested not moving the clubhouse and swimming pool, but changing the orientation of those to put the swimming pool in front of the clubhouse on the new street, with the back of the clubhouse next to the church sanctuary. His understanding is that the church is accepting of that compromised position. Again, the church reiterated that they would prefer not to have vehicular or pedestrian access to their property from the project. The developer has provided access to and from the development, on the north side, to Gladstone Plaza. They have also committed to the sidewalk along Shady Lane. Staff is recommending that all the traffic information be reviewed by City staff before anything is constructed. As it relates to the Village, City staff would like to review that information also and at least provide their recommendation to the Village. Staff has been talking closely with the Village and they are supportive of that idea. Mr. Wingerson stated that the turning lane length is a traffic study and engineering issue that will be studied if this development moves forward. Staff is proposing that when the streets are constructed, if it is approved by City Council, that City staff conduct studies for stop sign warrants or other traffic control throughout the development, specifically at 66th and North Shady Lane. Between staff and the developer they have tried to address all of the concerns that the Planning Commission raised in the public hearing as well as at the site visit. Mr. Wingerson explained that the memo from staff adds to the staff report, so any motion the Planning Commission would make would include conditions from the original staff report as well as the six conditions stated in staff’s memo dated October 30, 2003.
Ms. Abbott stated that she went out to Courchevel last Saturday. She was concerned about the density, but stated that when you see it, it doesn’t look crowded. Her only complaint, other than no basements, was that the driveways that accommodate eight garages are very narrow.
Mr. Eisner, Reveda Development LLC, 11605 Pawnee Lane answered that one drive does service four homes.
Ms. Abbott said that it was landscaped beautifully. A retaining wall was made from boulders that was fully landscaped and bermed half-way up. She said it was lovely and a similar development would be an asset to Gladstone.
MOTION: By Ms. Newsom, second by Ms. Abbott to approve the rezoning and site plan revision for the Shady Lane Villas including the eight recommended conditions in the Staff Report and the six conditions in staff’s memo dated October 30, 2003.
Chairman Hill asked for discussion.
Mr. Davis said that he
had a couple of concerns. One question
was in respect to the placement of the sidewalk. He asked if the sidewalk could extend to the pavement at the west
entrance of St. Charles property. His
second concern is the buffer between the development and St. Charles
Church. He asked if a line of trees
could accompany the privacy fence along that area. He is concerned about those homes being 15’ from the property
line. A tree line in combination with a
fence would possibly create more privacy and act as a sound barrier for both
the residents and the church.
Mr. Eisner said that his
plan is to landscape extensively. He
also pointed out that the footprints of the homes on the plans are the largest
footprint available and guessed that probably 80% of those footprints will be
smaller than what is proposed. Mr.
Eisner stated that he builds these homes according to demand, and he can’t
image everyone wanting a 2,000 square foot home because most people are trying to
downsize.
Mr. Davis asked what Mr.
Eisner thought, specifically, about a tree line.
Mr. Eisner said that with
each building there is a set landscape plan.
Generally speaking, Mr. Eisner stated, you will see a tree line.
Mr. Davis asked Mr.
Eisner if he could again consult with the church in reference to how to do the
buffering along there. Mr. Eisner
agreed that he would do that.
Mr. Davis said that he
would like to state the fact that they (the developer) have responded to the
Commission’s concerns about the swimming pool.
Mr. Wingerson said that
to answer Mr. Davis’ first question regarding the sidewalk, that is in writing
and part of the plan. It is quite
possible that part may have been illegible on the smaller plan that was given
to the Commission.
Mr. Bone asked if the
drainage concern has been addressed.
Mr. Wingerson answered
yes.
Ms. Abbott remarked that
even the work area of the project (Courchevel) was professional and clean. She was most impressed and she will be
voting for it.
Mr. Steffens asked if the
Commission is trying to shield the noise from the houses to the church or the
noises from the church to the houses.
He doesn’t believe that there needs to be a forest built between them. He added that the people in the houses are
not going to be making much noise.
Mr. Eisner agreed that
the kids at the school are going to be much more of a concern to a resident
than vice versa.
Mr. Davis said that here
in Gladstone we expect more of a setback than 15’ in residentially zoned
area. That is the reason for his
concern. All he is looking for is more
of a buffer than usual, for privacy.
The combination of a tree line next to a fence might make it more
acceptable.
Ms. Alexander said that
from experience she knows that buffers work.
Chairman Hill asked if
there were any further questions. An
audience member asked to address the Commission.
Reynold Tomes, 7806 N.
Wayne Kansas City, MO 64118 addressed the Commission. Mr. Tomes stated that he is a parishioner at the church and he
appreciates Mr. Davis taking a stand on a tree buffer on the St. Charles side
of the fence. What he is concerned
about, long term, is the maintenance and up-keep of the wooden fence. He is assuming that will be the
responsibility of the homeowner’s association. A tree line near the fence would enhance the view from St.
Charles northward and also provide shade for the southern properties in the
development.
Leonard Bronec, 7617 N.
Woodland addressed the Commission. Mr.
Bronec stated that he is appreciative of the site visit and the concern about
the things that the church had put in their letters. He is also appreciative of the adjustments that the developer has
made. One very small point that came up
today when he was speaking with the Principal was how soon the fence would be
put up. He spoke with the developer
before the meeting and has been assured it would go up quite early. Mr. Bronec said that is a very good point
she (the Principal) brought up. He said
they would encourage the placement of that fence as soon as possible. Their position is that it will be a privacy
fence with no gate. He thanked the
Commission for taking their thoughts into consideration.
AMENDED MOTION: By Ms. Newsom, second by Ms. Abbott to include the condition that the privacy fence along the school edge be added at earliest, most practical stage of construction.
VOTE: Ms.
Abbott Yes
Ms.
Alexander Yes
Mr.
Bone Yes
Mr.
Davis Yes
Chairman Hill Yes
Mr. Kiser Yes
Ms. Lowe Yes
Ms. Newsom Yes
Mr. Revenaugh Yes
Mr. Steffens Yes
Ms. Wild Yes
12- Yes, 0- No
Chairman Hill announced
that the application would be forwarded to the City Council with a positive
recommendation on November 10, 2003.
Item 6 on the Agenda: Other Business.
None
Item 7 on the
Agenda: Communications from the
City Council and City staff.
Mr. Wingerson
informed the Commission that long-time Planning Commission member Bill Duncan
passed away last Thursday. He
apologized for not letting them know earlier, but he was waiting for
confirmation. The visitation and
celebration of his life was held today at Northminster Presbyterian Church on
Englewood.
Item 8 on the
Agenda: Communications from the
Planning Commission Members.
Mr. Davis said that
he is impressed to be a member of the Commission at this time. The Commission handled this application very
well.
Ms. Abbott said that
the letter that was sent to Matt Reinschmidt of Classical Ballet North should
be sent to Englewood Vista because the landscaping that they put in is all dead
and they have absolutely no sod.
Mr. Wingerson said
that all of that is true, but the worst thing about it is that Mr. Sharhag is
living with all of that. He is being
told a lot of things that aren’t true. There are private agreements that were made that are not working
out. Staff continues to help him and
work with the developer. There is
really no good answer at this point.
Mr. Dillingham asked
when ZAPO is coming forward.
Mr. Wingerson said
that his hope was to finish the outbuilding amendment and take it to City
Council, then put it in ZAPO and bring it all forward. There are four major sections left to
review.
Chairman Hill
thanked everyone for all their time and effort in considering the application
tonight. He also thanked Ms. Newsom for
all her work on the site visit report.
Ms. Newsom said she
did want to mention that the City has worked on a signage plan for a long time
and now that the project is underway it looks very nice and professional.
Chairman Hill asked
Mr. Wingerson what was coming up.
Mr. Wingerson
replied that a new proposal for a Walgreen’s Store at 64th and N.
Oak Trafficway will be coming forward along with a proposal for a retail
building behind the Quiktrip on M1 Highway.
Ms. Faust will also be coming forward with a new Special Use Permit
application.
Ms. Alexander asked
Mr. Wingerson to remind Ms. Faust to bring her Montessori certification with
her.
Item 9 on the
Agenda: Adjournment.
Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 8:07 P.M.
Respectfully submitted:
______________________________________ Approved as submitted _____
Becky Jarrett, Recording Secretary
______________________________________ Approved as corrected _____
Brian Hill, Chairman