PLANNING COMMISSION

GLADSTONE, MISSOURI

October 18, 2004

7:30 pm

Item 1 on the Agenda: Meeting called to order – Roll Call.

Present: Council & Staff Present:

Ms. Abbott Scott Wingerson, Assist. City Manager

Ms. Alexander David Ramsay, City Counselor

Chairman Hill Mayor Wayne Beer

Mr. Kiser Mayor Pro-Tem Carol Rudi

Ms. McGuire

Ms. Newsom

Mr. Revenaugh

Mr. Steffens

Absent: Ms. Lowe

Mr. Davis

Mr. Dillingham

Mr. Whitton

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 4, 2004 Minutes.

Motion by Ms. Newsom, second by Ms. Alexander to approve the October 4, 2004 minutes as submitted. The minutes were approved as submitted.

Item 4 on the Agenda: Communications from the Audience.

None.

Item 5 on the Agenda: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Special Use Permit at 2501 NE 64^th Street. Applicant: Kevin Jamison. (#1237)

Mr. Wingerson reported that the applicant is requesting a special use permit that, if approved, would allow the operation of a small law practice from a single-family home generally located at the corner of 64^th and N. Wabash. The house is located in a residential neighborhood and is zoned R-1. The issue in this application becomes the compatibility of this use with the surrounding neighborhood. In order to determine compatibility, staff used the home occupation standard. Although this is not a home occupation request, there is good evidence in the Zoning Ordinance that would say that should a home occupation be approved, these things are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. There are four areas where this application is not consistent with home occupation standards: (these are also stated in the staff report)

1) No patrons or any other evidence of the occupation will be discernable at the perimeter of the property. Mr. Wingerson said that in this case the law practice will have patrons to the property in the form of clients, one staff person and a proposal for a 5-car parking lot.

2) No signs advertising the occupation may be erected on the property. Mr. Wingerson said that Mr. Jamison may wish to speak to this point.

3) The residential appearances of the dwelling shall not be changed by alternations or additions for business or commercial uses and the business shall not occupy more than 25% of the total floor area. Mr. Wingerson stated that clearly the addition of a parking lot changes the residential appearance of the dwelling and it is his understanding that nearly 100% of the floor area would be used for business use.

4) Such home occupation shall be carried on exclusively by members of the family actually residing in the dwelling. Mr. Wingerson said that this application is clearly business oriented with no residential purpose that he is aware of.

Mr. Wingerson closed by stating that based on the compatibility issue staff is recommending that it not move forward to the City Council with a positive recommendation. He also explained some of the attachments that pertain to this application that the Commissioner’s were given in their packets.

Ms. McGuire thought that there was a similar application on the same street last year.

Mr. Wingerson said that the Commission did consider an application for a real estate office to operate under a special use permit at a home at the opposite end of Wabash.

Ms. Alexander said she is assuming that across the street in the vacant lot there will be commercial buildings.

Mr. Wingerson said that property is currently split zoned. The portion at Antioch is zoned commercial and the property to the west (about halfway) is zoned RCH- Cluster Housing.

Chairman Hill asked the applicant to come forward.

Kevin Jamison, 2410 NE 65^th Terrace, addressed the Commission. Mr. Jamison said he lives less than one-half a mile directly north of the property in question. He said that 2501 NE 64^th Street is about three doors from a dance studio which has become commercially zoned. Two and a half blocks on the other side is Antioch Middle School. The street itself is a major east/west road and of course, the property to the north is now vacant ground. Apparently the part that will be in front of 2501 appears to be commercial. Currently this home is a one-family home. There has been an extended family living there and there has also been up to three cars parked at the location at a time. Two of those usually get parked on the grass just off of Wabash where he proposes to put a parking lot. Mr. Jamison said that he thinks the parking lot will be a better appearance for parking. In his proposed use there is only himself practicing law there. While the building is bigger than he needs, he doesn’t have any partners and he doesn’t intend to have any in the future. He does have one legal assistant, who is the person he purchased the property from and she will continue working for him. At any given time there will possibly be two or three cars parked in the proposed parking lot. On rare occasions there will be more. The only changes he is proposing is that there will be a small parking lot at the corner of N. Wabash and 64^th Street. There will be a small sign on the building indicating that it’s a law office and nothing else. Mr. Jamison continued by stating that given it’s current use the change will hardly be noticeable. He will not be living at the residence and does not have any plans to live there at this time; however he does live in the immediate area. There will be little or no disruption to the surrounding homes. He has no plans for any noise or hardly any traffic that they do not already have at this location. Mr. Jamison said that it will be convenient for him and there will be little or no notice to surrounding homes.

Chairman Hill asked if the Commission had any questions of the applicant.

Ms. Abbott asked Mr. Jamison if he has any plans to remodel the exterior of the home.

Mr. Jamison said no, not other than the parking lot.

Chairman Hill asked Mr. Jamison if he had plans for making the interior of the structure ADA compliant.

Mr. Jamison said that in his plan for the parking lot he has indicated a handicapped parking space. In the nature of the legal profession he has people who are injured, in wheel chairs or what have you. He has a planned access through a back door into the property itself that will not require the addition of any ramps. At a later time he may add a ramp there for the front door. Since he doesn’t do personal injury work at this time he does not anticipate adding any further ramps.

Ms. Newsom asked if the interior of the home needs to be made ADA compliant on things such as restrooms.

Mr. Jamison said that he will have to make the restrooms handicapped accessible and he thinks that he can do that.

Ms. Newsom asked if he plans on having that in place prior to opening the business.

Mr. Jamison answered that he does not have an architect’s drawing at this time. If he gets the special use permit approved he will them get an architect to draw up some plans.

Ms. Newsom asked what Mr. Jamison’s proposed hours of operation are.

Mr. Jamison said they are generally between 9:00 am- 5:00 pm, however, he does do some appointments in the early evenings and on Saturdays.

Ms. Newsom asked Mr. Jamison if he has explored any other open office space in Gladstone.

Mr. Jamison commented that no, not in particular. This building fell into his lap and he thought he would use it. He has looked at some other locations in driving around, but this one seems convenient to his current operation, making it easy for his current clients to find. He is currently officed in the Coldwell Banker building, behind Quiktrip.

Chairman Hill asked for those in favor to step forward. Hearing no response he asked for those opposed to come forward.

Mr. Wingerson said that staff received a letter last week from Mr. James B. Jackson in reference to this request. He proceeded to read it for the record:

“My mother, Evalyn Jackson lives across the street at 2405 NE 64^th. I got a reference to this in the mail. I am concerned about the issue of the proposed garage. The hill on 64^th to the West has very little sight distance, and cars frequently speed coming East over the hill. I think a parking lot would be dangerous at that corner.”

Chairman Hill closed the Public Hearing.

Ms. McGuire said that she would agree with the letter and that she travels that area frequently and you do come over that hill and it’s sort of a surprise. If someone were backing out and someone else was coming down Wabash it could be awkward.

Ms. Alexander said that her thinking was that if that vacant lot to the north is going to be commercial that the other side would probably end up being commercial too.

MOTION: By Ms. Newsom, second by Ms. Alexander to approve the Special Use Permit at 2501 NE 64^th Street.

Ms. Newsom said that she has some concerns about the land use at this particular location. She realizes that a law practice would be one of the least intrusive practices to go into a neighborhood if it were a home occupation, but as Mr. Wingerson pointed out earlier, this doesn’t meet the caveats of a home occupation which to her makes it intrusive into a residential area. She realizes there is the dance studio on the corner that they have gone in and rezoned and it is on a highly traveled corner. There are also two other residences between the dance studio and this proposed location and the rest of the neighborhood surrounding it is residential with the exception of the undeveloped land to the north. That zoning and site plan has been in place for quite a number of years and nothing has transpired so she doesn’t know where it may or may not go over time. Ms. Newsom continued by stating that by putting an unoccupied residence as an office in this particular location is not a good use of the land. She will voting in opposition.

Chairman Hill said that he would second Ms. Newsom’s sentiments. The fact that the applicant is not going to be living there so it’s not a circumstance where it’s an in-home daycare where someone is always there. He has proposed a sign which we generally don’t allow on special use permits. There will be changes to the exterior with the addition of a parking lot. He will also have an employee. There are no architect’s plans for the ADA accessibility compliance and he believes that this would have a negative impact on adjacent residential property values, which is something the Planning Commission is obligated to protect.

VOTE: Ms. Abbott No

Ms. Alexander Yes

Chairman Hill No

Mr. Kiser No

Ms. McGuire No

Ms. Newsom No

Mr. Revenaugh No

Mr. Steffens No

7- No, 1- Yes

Chairman Hill announced that this application would move forward to the City Council on October 25, 2004 with a negative recommendation.

Item 6 on the Agenda: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Rezoning and Site Plan at property generally located at 5711 NE. Antioch. Applicant: Terry Morgason. (#1238)

Mr. Wingerson reported that a revised site plan had been placed at the Commissioner’s seats this evening along with a color rendering of the proposed building. The applicant is requesting a zoning change and site plan approval to allow construction of a 16,000 square foot retail center together with associated parking and other amenities. The proposed development consists of a currently vacant building, commonly known as Precision Tune at 57^th Terrace and NE Antioch Road. The second parcel is an “L-shaped” parcel that wraps the corner where the Precision Tune building is to the north and to the east. The vacant parcel is currently zoned R-1 and the Precision Tune facility is zoned C-3. The applicant is requesting an approval of a zoning change from C-3 and R-1 to CP-2, Commercial Planned District. Access is proposed from two locations. The first one is on NE Antioch Road, the primary ingress/egress which includes a three-lane wide driveway, two exiting and one entering. Mr. Wingerson pointed out that is a change from the site plan provided in the Commissioner’s packets. The second access is located on 57^th Terrace approximately halfway through the width of the property. The 1993 Comprehensive Plan/ Future Land Use indicates that both parcels are suitable for commercial development. The proposed site plan is generally well thought out and consistent with the adopted standards. One of the main points in the planning process is provision of a 40’ wide landscape buffer; the requirement is a 35’ horizontal buffer. The applicant has also committed to make use of, as much as possible, the existing tree line on the east side of the property. There is also a nice green area on Antioch Road that serves as stormwater control but also provides green space to travelers on Antioch Road.

Mr. Wingerson said that he would draw the Commissioner’s attention to a few of the recommended conditions:

1. A true or modified monument shall be utilized to serve the development.

2. Dumpsters shall be enclosed with materials consistent with the primary building and trash services shall be scheduled between 7:00 am- 10:00 pm. Mr. Wingerson added that the architect will talk a little about the uniqueness of this dumpster enclosure; a really good effort.

3. Tractor trails shall not park or be stored overnight. Deliveries shall be made between 7:00 am- 10:00 pm.

4. Closed ingress/egress points shall be replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk.

Overall it is a very positive application. Mr. Wingerson said that the architect and owner have done a good job brining it forward to the Planning Commission. Staff is recommending approval.

Chairman Hill asked the applicant to come forward.

Dennis Markey, Rees Masilionis Turley Architecture, LLC, 210 W. 19^th Terrace, addressed the Commission. Mr. Markey said that he represents the owner, Terry Morgason. For the last couple of months he has been working on finding the best possible use for this property that Terry has owned for a number of years. They have plans to take down the existing building on the site and putting in a retail/office-type of development. They are looking for service-type tenants such as insurance agents or lawyers. Mr. Markey pointed to the site drawing and further explained the layout of the property. The building itself will be used as a retaining wall because of the slopes that are involved with the site. The back of the building will be about 5’ recessed into the land. Right now the access to all of the shops…delivery…will all be through the front door. They have given the provision for a 5’ sidewalk along the back of the building in case the tenant wants a rear exit. Mr. Markey explained that with the trash enclosure they were looking for the best possible location for it due to the accessibility by a truck as well as where it could be hidden from the public. The trash enclosure actually sits down into the ground with a retaining wall out of the same type of material as the building with evergreens around it.

Ms. McGuire asked if the trash bin actually sits down in a hole.

Mr. Markey answered that no, it’s going to be tucked into it’s own retaining wall that is created by the slope of the land.

Mr. Markey continued by saying that Mr. Morgason is planning on retaining this property as an investment for quite a while and he wants to make sure this is a quality building. Therefore, they are looking at nicer, higher quality materials than the average strip center. He showed the elevations for the property on a large site plan he brought.

Mr. Markey said that he brought a representative with him this evening who can address stormwater and traffic issues.

Ron Petering, Shafer, Kline & Warren Engineers, Kansas City addressed the Commission. Mr. Petering said that he was brought on board recently to look at the traffic issues and he is currently in the process of completing a traffic study although they are finished with the early phases and feels like he has a good handle on where the numbers are going to end up. His expectation is that he will not find any impacts as a result of this development that will really change anything that is contained right now in the preliminary site plan. He has shared those initial findings with MoDot and the representative who will be working on the access permit and they have agreed with what was presented and allowed him to stop any further studies. They are to provide MoDot with a summary of where the traffic study is now and they will review it. Any further questions from MoDot will be addressed. Mr. Petering said that conservatively he is estimating about 90-97 vehicles in and out of the drives through the peak hour. That is total in and out of the two drives, being distributed between the two drives. With the criteria that MoDot has in their access management they do not see any need for a right turn lane. Northbound into the sign, the threshold MoDot sets for that is considerably higher than what they expect will be the right turn movement into the driveway. He anticipates that MoDot will have them increase the radius on the right turn movement into the shopping area by about 10 feet.

Mr. Petering said that there have been calculations on the storm drainage side done to size the detention structure that would be needed to contain the runoff and not allow it to leave the property in any greater intensity than what it does now.

Ms. Newsom asked Mr. Petering to show on the site plan where the southern exit to the parking lot comes out in relationship to the hill on 57^th Terrace.

Mr. Petering showed the group where the exit would be.

Ms. Newsom commented that it would seem it is closer to the crest of the hill.

Mr. Markey replied that it is probably about at the mid-point and added that they tried to stay as far away from Antioch as possible.

Ms. Newsom said she would just be concerned with someone trying to pull out of there and a car popping over the hill and causing a collision.

Ms. Abbott asked where the drive on Antioch Road is in comparison with the current drive of the auto repair store.

Mr. Petering said that the auto repair drive actually has three entrances/exits. He showed her on the site plan. The new plan will take the three drives and combine them into one. The one new drive will be about 20’ or so north of where the middle drive is now.

Ms. Abbott said that it looks like it would take it up onto the crest of the hill where anyone going south out of the new development…would they have any problem with the on-coming traffic coming over the hill on Antioch?

Mr. Petering answered that for a 40 mph speed limit there should be plenty of site distance to get out.

Ms. McGuire asked if it is fair to say that MoDot has already looked at this and they know the distances. She believes that the concerns of both Ms. Abbott and Ms. Newsom are because they, and herself, are the ones who live here and will be entering and exiting the property.

Mr. Petering said that is certainly something that is important to look at and resolve. To be honest, he has not mathematically calculated those out. He has been out to the site and there is a signalized intersection to the north and there is site distance all the way up to that area.

Ms. McGuire asked if the applicant would be willing to make a variation, mostly on the 57^th Terrace exit, if necessary.

Mr. Steffens said that he thinks you need to have the entrance/exit on 57^th Terrace as far up as you can from Antioch Road.

Mr. Wingerson said that he believes the standard of MoDot is 150’ from the intersection.

Mr. Steffens asked about the 97 car trips. He asked if that was all day or each peak period.

Mr. Petering answered that was 97 during the evening peak period, which is what they would typically expect to be the worst-case of the day.

Chairman Hill asked if the air conditioner units will be on the roof.

Mr. Markey answered that yes, they will be.

Chairman Hill said that his concern is the noise to the area residents.

Mr. Markey said that it shouldn’t be a problem. They are planning on centering each unit over each bay. They’re not real large units.

Chairman Hill wondered if there would be problem with people getting on the roof, since the building is acting as the retaining wall.

Mr. Markey said that he wouldn’t think so because it will still be about 12’ high.

Chairman Hill asked if the drive off of Antioch Road would be elevated.

Mr. Markey said that it should be fairly flat. He doesn’t remember it being very steep one way or the other.

Chairman Hill asked if there will be adequate trees to screen the residents from the back of the buildings.

Mr. Markey said that the land goes up hill and there are a lot of trees. He’s not sure how many of those trees he will be able to use until they get in there and start moving earth around. They will try and keep anything that looks like it is worth keeping and if it looks like they need additional trees it will be evaluated at that time.

Ms. Newsom said that it is her understanding that the northern property line directly abuts the offices at Kendallwood.

Mr. Markey said that is correct.

Ms. Newsom asked how the north side of those units will be finished. She noted that so often the back of a commercial facility will be terribly utilitarian. She was noticing today that the backs of the Kendallwood offices are finished with the same kind of finish as the rest of the exterior of the building and in such a way that it doesn’t look like the “back-side” of a facility.

Mr. Markey answered that the current plan is to use some nicer materials. The back-side of the building will probably be a stained split-faced block with maybe some detailing. They haven’t gotten to the design yet.

Ms. Newsom asked him to give a more accurate description of what he terms as “stained split-faced block”. She added that gussied-up cinder block doesn’t cut it in this town.

Mr. Markey said that on split-faced block what they do is pour a stained concrete into a form and then they split it after it cures, which gives it a rough texture that comes in various colors and hues.

Ms. Newsom said that although building materials and color choice are not the purview of the Planning Commission, however, whenever she saw the initial drawings she was fearful that their color choices would be similar to the units that are further south at Englewood and Antioch which she finds to be obnoxious with way too many colors. Their color choices here look to be much more civilized. She would like the record to show to the City Council that what she terms gussied-up cinder block, such as stuff used on the Midas building farther north, is not acceptable in this community. It is not the look we are going for as a community. Ms. Newsom said that when Mr. Markey brings his samples to the Council that’s their decision to make.

Mr. Markey said that on the front of the building they are planning on using a mixture of split-faced block as well as a cast stone detailing to the height of the windows and then it is a stucco material above that.

Ms. Newsom said that is sounding better, although it will still be up to the City Council.

Ms. Abbott said that currently it looks like there is a 10’ difference from south to north on the elevation on Antioch.

Mr. Markey said that is correct and that they are taking that hill down completely and actually raising the site.

Ms. McGuire asked Mr. Markey to clarify on her site plan exactly what Mr. Morgason owns. Mr. Markey approached Ms. McGuire’s desk to show her.

Chairman Hill asked for those in favor of the application to step forward. Hearing no response he called for those in opposition.

Tim Davis, 2702 NE 57^th Terrace addressed the Commission. Mr. Davis said that he has raised a number of children at that location and he believes that the traffic coming on NE 57^th Terrace over the hill….anyone who would look at Gladstone Public Safety in that location would recognize that is going to pose, what he believes, is a significant danger as people are pulling out onto Antioch. Already as you cross that hill, regularly people exceed the posted speed limit and he believes that is going to create a very dangerous situation. He thinks that someone needs to do a real serious look at the traffic flow that’s going to be created on NE 57^th Terrace. It’s nearly impossible in the mornings to turn left onto Antioch as it is; adding traffic certainly will not improve that situation. Mr. Davis said that the other consideration that he would like people to think about is about the dumpster. It looks real pretty in the picture, but it’s going to be about 200’ from his front door. You can cover it with concrete blocks but how much of the smell is that going to make go away? He’s lived in Gladstone for more than 20 years and he certainly thinks that some consideration needs to be given to the quality of life of the residents that are now going to be close to an establishment that has many more tenants that what has historically been there.

Terry Hoppenthaler, 2706 NE 57^th Terrace addressed the Commission. Ms. Hoppenthaler said that she has lived at the address for 23 years. She agrees with Mr. Davis as far as an extreme traffic problem especially at the crest of the hill where the bus stops. It’s already a dangerous situation for the kids getting on and off the bus. Either turning left or right off of 57^th Terrace in either the morning or the evening it is just impossible. She realizes that it’s probably not practical to put another stop light there but maybe they could do something with the two at Kendallwood and the one at Englewood to try and help with the traffic situation. Ms. Hoppenthaler asked what the buffer was between the property and the house just east of that is going to be. The dumpster is going to be right by the east property line. It will become not only a traffic hazard for the pick up of the trash but also a noise issue. She suggested that a site visit during high traffic times might be in order.

Chairman Hill asked Mr. Markey if there is anywhere else the trash enclosure could go.

Mr. Markey said that it was placed where it was for traffic flow of the truck itself so it had the least interaction with the site; so it could come on and off as easy as possible as well as getting the trash enclosure as far away from Antioch as possible.

Mr. Wingerson said that one way to deal with that issue is to have staff look at the grades and work with the architect and take into account Mr. Davis and Ms. Hoppenthaler’s concerns and then advise the Commission at either the site visit, should they choose to do one, or at the next meeting.

Chairman Hill asked how close the 57^th Terrace entrance was to the crest of the hill.

Mr. Markey said it would be about 135’. He said they could play with the drive a little bit.

Ms. Alexander said that she assumed that they were not planning to cut down the crest of the hill.

Chairman Hill said that is his understanding.

Chairman Hill asked if there were any further comments. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing.

Ms. Newsom said that some valid points had been up this evening that would warrant a site visit. She would request that the developer flag or mark the entrances onto NE 57^th Terrace and Antioch Road so that it will be easier for them to visualize.

The day and time of the site visit was discussed. It was decided that a site visit would take place on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 at 5:00 pm. Mr. Revenaugh would chair the site visit.

Item 7 on the Agenda: Other Business

7A. Creative Arts Academy

Mr. Wingerson said that he did place information at the Commissioner’s seats this evening regarding this topic and the reason for the short time frame is because he held the information pending a discussion with Pam Raisher. Ms. Raisher has been in Florida and not reachable. He believes the information in the packet is what the Commission had requested at the last meeting and if anything is lacking staff will be glad to provide it. Mr. Wingerson added that as an update to this information, he believes that the Church talked a little bit about the recycling dumpster on Sunday and since this morning he has received 13-14 phone calls from church members requesting that the recycling dumpsters be allowed to stay where they are. Mr. Wingerson suggested that since Ms. Raisher is gone and Mr. Davis is absent this issue be tabled for a period of time. In that time he would suggest that staff be able to use whatever mechanisms that are available at staff’s disposal, including the possibility of neighborhood mediation, to clearly understand what the issues are and seek resolution to those issues. Any further information will be forwarded to the Planning Commission.

Ms. Newsom said that she would concur that we need to have all the parties here and the opportunity for the Commission to review all the material they have been provided again.

MOTION: By Ms. Newsom, second by Ms. McGuire to table further discussion on Creative Arts Academy until all the necessary information and parties that are involved are able to be here and discuss it.

Ms. Alexander said that she has been extremely supportive of the dance school but when she saw where that fence was located she feels like the Commission had been stabbed in the back. For whatever reason it’s there and the neighbors were promised they could get into their property and they cannot. It is her hope that everyone can get it worked out.

Mr. Wingerson said that he would encourage Ms. Alexander and everyone else to review the information provided tonight. He added that he will have copies made and delivered to Ms. Selig and Ms. Norton.

VOTE: Ms. Abbott Yes

Ms. Alexander Yes

Chairman Hill Yes

Mr. Kiser Yes

Ms. McGuire Yes

Ms. Newsom Yes

Mr. Revenaugh Yes

Mr. Steffens Yes

8- Yes, 0- No

7B. Rules of Procedure

City Counselor Ramsay stated that this effort started with a request from the City Council to adopt some type of guidelines for various bodies because of the change over of membership that we have from time to time to have a consistent statement of expectations and rules. Counselor Ramsay said that he did an initial rough draft and then had a Boards and Commissions training session with two former City Counselors, Nancy Thompson and Christine Treat-Bushyhead. He used the information contained in their presentation along with a sample from Jefferson City, Missouri’s Rules and Procedures for their Planning Commission. He also looked at the contested hearing provisions of the Missouri Administrative Procedures Act Statues, 536.070, which essentially spells out what we are doing. Counselor Ramsay said that the State Statute that authorizes the creation of a Planning and Zoning Commission and states that the Commission is to adopt Rules of Procedure. That provision is also mirrored in Chapter II of the Gladstone City Code. There have probably been some Rules of Procedures in the past but they have been neglected for a number of years. Staff tried to locate something that existed but nothing was found.

Chairman Hill asked Counselor Ramsay if he had checked with any municipalities that are roughly the size of Gladstone.

Counselor Ramsay answered that he does have the rules from Jefferson City. He did make a general inquiry through email but no local Cities responded. He liked Jefferson City’s and it seemed to work well with what had already been discussed.

Chairman Hill asked if Lee’s Summit had one in place.

Counselor Ramsay said that he believes they do although he does not have a copy.

Chairman Hill said he would just like to see what other cities are doing because it seems like they could benefit from other people’s experiences.

Ms. Abbott said she would agree.

Counselor Ramsay said he can do more research and report back.

Ms. Newsom said that the rules serve a good purpose and she would think it would be a good idea to get something in place before January when new appointments done.

Mr. Revenaugh commented that he doesn’t understand the objection to going ahead and adopting some form of Rules of Procedures. He doesn’t know why if what they were presented with is workable they couldn’t just go ahead and adopt it and if changes need to be made it can be done at a later date. He would like to see the Commission sit down and hash it out on a slow night in order to get something in place.

Chairman Hill said that from his experience as an attorney that he can go spend a lot of time writing a security instrument and if he does it cold it’s not going to be nearly as good of a document as if he takes two or three others that he knows are good documents and uses them as a guide. He believes that what is going to happen is that the Commission will end up adopting it as it is and the tendency will be to let it lie for many years even though it may not be thorough.

Mr. Revenaugh said that he can understand that, but at the pace things seem to move it will be into next year before anything is adopted.

Ms. Newsom asked what the next agenda is looking like.

Mr. Wingerson answered that there are three pending applications, the follow-up vote from tonight’s rezoning and the Creative Arts Academy discussion.

Discussion ensued regarding when this topic would be discussed in greater detail.

It was decided that the Rules of Procedure would be discussed at the November 15, 2005 meeting and that additional information on Rules of Procedures from other cities would be provided at the November 1, 2004 meeting.

Item 8 on the Agenda: Communications from the City Council and the City Staff.

Mayor Pro-Tem Rudi apologized for missing the last meeting and also for being late to the meeting this evening, as there was another meeting before this one.

Mayor Beer said that he would like to say thank you to the Commission for all their hard work. He also thanked everyone who was able to help with Gladfest.

Mr. Wingerson thanked the Commission for the good work tonight during the public hearing, especially to Ms. Newsom on the first one for articulating that kind of vision for the neighborhood.

Mr. Wingerson gave more detail on the applications coming forward. The first one is a subdivision on property the Peterson Company owns on old Antioch Road, south of 72^nd Street that has access from Antioch Road and also through Stonebrooke Estates. The other application is a zoning change application that was filed today that is located directly south of the Scola property for an office building. Mr. Wingerson asked the Commission to consider that when attending the site visit on Wednesday. The last site plan is on Chestnut, just south of the Assistance League. There is a vacant lot that the applicant has proposed an office building for.

8A. November 29^th Meeting

Mr. Wingerson said that the November 29, 2004 meeting is a meeting with the other Boards and Commission members to discuss the Gladstone on the Move recommendation.

Item 9 on the Agenda: Communications from the Planning Commission Members.

Mr. Revenaugh said that he believed the City Council passed a resolution in favor of question #1 on the ballot for November 2, 2004 and encouraged everyone to vote.

Ms. Newsom commented that she believes that the Commission does have an obligation as citizens to become informed and vote in the coming weeks. She also noted the model ordinance for project #1238 showed Les Smith as Mayor.

Ms. Alexander said that at 72^nd Street just north of Hy-Vee there are some pretty big crevices that need to be filled. She also thanked the City for her beautiful re-paved cul-de-sac. The inspector, Shane, talked the contractor into doing more curb work that what was required. Once again, she is not only impressed with the City staff, but the people the City hires.

Ms. Abbott said she doesn’t understand why the developers of the “Sr. Barracks” and Mr. Scharhag can’t get the mess cleaned up at the retention pond.

Mr. Wingerson commented that he met with representatives of the new owners last week at the site. The ownership investment group is out of Long Beach, California and they own hundreds of similar facilities. They are not at all satisfied with a lot of things having to do with that facility and the exterior appearance is one of those. He fully expects that all of the issues that the Commission has been talking about for a couple of years now are going to be resolved by spring.

Chairman Hill asked staff to make sure that the members not present tonight be informed of the site visit. He also asked if there has been any further communication with MoDot regarding M-1 Highway.

Mr. Wingerson said that he is not sure, but he will check with the Engineering Department. The City did do crack-sealing at 64^th and Prospect.

Item 10 on the Agenda: Adjournment.

Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 9:05 P.M.

Respectfully submitted:

______________________________________ Approved as submitted _____

Becky Jarrett, Recording Secretary

______________________________________ Approved as corrected _____

Brian Hill, Chairman