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.




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

                        Mr. Dillingham           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.




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