PLANNING COMMISSION

GLADSTONE, MISSOURI

 

February 22, 2005

7:30 pm

 

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

 

Present:††††††††† ††††††††††† ††††††††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††† Council & Staff Present:

††††††††††††††††††††††† Ms. Newsom†† ††††††††††††††††††††††† Scott Wingerson, Assist. City Manager

††††††††††††††††††††††† Ms. Alexander††††††††††††††††††††††††† David Ramsay, City Counselor

††††††††††††††††††††††† Ms. Lowe††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Kreg Cox, GIS Manager

††††††††††††††††††††††† Mr. Boor††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Mayor Wayne Beer†††††

††††††††††††††††††††††† Mr. Stanley††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Mayor Pro-Tem Carol Rudi†††††

††††††††††††††††††††††† Mr. Shevling†††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Councilman Bill Cross

††††††††††††††††††††††† Mr. Whitton††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††

Mr. Revenaugh††††††††††††††††††††††††

Ms. Abbott

Mr. Steffens*††

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††

 

Absent:†††††††††† Chairman Hill

††††††††††††††††††††††† Mr. Reynolds

 

††††††††††††††††††††††† * Arrived after roll call.

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††

 

Item 2 on the Agenda:Pledge of Allegiance.

 

Vice-Chair Revenaugh led the group in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

Item 3 on the Agenda:Approval of February 7, 2005 Minutes.

 

Motion by Ms. Newsom, second by Mr. Shevling to approve the February 7, 2005 minutes as submitted.††† The minutes were approved as submitted.

 

Item 4 on the Agenda:Communications from the Audience.

 

None.

 

Item 5 on the Agenda:CONSIDERATION:of a Rezoning and Site Plan at property generally located at 64th Street and N. Prospect Avenue.Applicant:Northlander Properties, LLC.Owner:Curry Investment Company.(#1242)†††

 

Vice-Chair Revenaugh began with Mr. Wingerson.

 

Mr. Wingerson did a quick review of the application being heard tonight by referring to a site plan on the overhead screen.This is a commercial development at the corner of N. Prospect and NE 64th Street.Towards the east portion of the property are three pad sites.Two are generally facing 64th Street and one is facing N. Prospect at the north end.Egress on the east side of the property is a full access driveway onto N. Prospect with an additional full access driveway at NE 64th Street.Further to the west is the remainder of the development with a retail shopping center including an additional right-in, right-out only access on 64th Street.The current zoning of the east half is CP-1.The current zoning of the west half is RCHP-1.What is proposed tonight, and up for the Commissionís consideration, is a zoning change for the west half of the property to CP-1 and site plan approval for the entire site.

 

Mr. Wingerson said that staff has provided the Commission with volumes of information since the public hearing including both the transcript and the site visit report.More recently they were also provided a supplement to the original staff report along with various exhibits.With the Commissionís permission, Mr. Wingerson said he would like to go over the supplement in an effort to advise the public of some of the issues raised at the public hearing and the site visit.He stated the following:

 

During the public hearing Planning Commission Chairman Brian Hill categorized the public issues into:traffic, stormwater/drainage and property values.The public had a lot of other issues that were related to the development, and some unrelated, therefore for tonightís presentation there will be an added category of miscellaneous issues.

 

1.                  Traffic

        M-1 access point generally concerns congestion of traffic movements when considering the proposed driveway, traffic on

M-1 and the Prospect Plaza driveway.

        Sight distance on 64th Street concerns the ability to provide safe sight distances for pedestrian and vehicular traffic.

        Practical functionality of the right in/right out driveway.

 

The proposed supplement recommends conditions which seek to make improvements to M-1 to mitigate a majority of congestion concerns and provide for reconstruction of 64th Street at N. Wabash.The project engineer has provided a detail which explains the function of traffic control devices designed to create the right in/right out driveway.It would be impractical to think that cars would do something other than follow the correct direction.

 

2.                  Stormwater/Drainage

 

        The requirement for stormwater volume is based on the relationship of current run-off compared to developed run-off.The standard requires that under any circumstances, including a 100- year flood event, that the rate and amount of run-off do not exceed pre-development conditions during a period of time.This project proposes two detention basins to accommodate this requirement.The basins will be specifically sized based on accepted engineering calculations.

        Erosion and sediment control relate specifically to the northern drainage channel.The project engineer has provided detailed drawings regarding these issues.Ultimately, strategies and improvements are proposed that meet City and national requirements.

 

3.                  Property Values

 

Mr. Wingerson said that certainly this topic is a matter of perspective.The developer did not provide any objective analysis concerning property values not did the public provide any subjective documentation concerning property values.He asked that the Commission not rely substationally on this entire property value issue because of the lack of documentation from both sides of this issue.Based on a random selection of three homes, property values adjacent to Prospect Plaza increased approximately an average of 12% since 2000.

 

4.                  Miscellaneous

 

        Increased speed on 64th Street.This issue is a matter of enhanced traffic enforcement rather than planning.

        Exposed sanitary sewer.Public Works Director and his staff investigated this issue and found very little evidence of this concern; however, staff has added a supplemental condition to address this issue.

 

 

Several people had raised the issue of developer qualifications.

 

-†††† Ms. Wheeler:8 years of residential construction, real estate.

-†††† Mr. McAffee:13 years experience in engineering.Project engineer and

owns his own company.

-†††† Mr. Operman:25 years experience in planning and landscape††††

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† architecture.

-†††† Mr. Cantrell:†† 30 years experience in architecture.

-†††† Mr. Mann:††††† 35 years, Development Consultant.He did not testify at the

public hearing, but is in a support roll to the developer.

†††††††††††††††††††††††

Other questions raised at the public hearing:

 

        Property taxes, rates, water rates, sewer rates or fees are not increased because of this proposed development.

        Restaurant Odors:A supplemental condition addresses this concern.

        Light Control:†† A supplemental condition addresses this concern.

        Wall Maintenance:A supplemental condition addresses this concern.

 

 

B.     Other Concerns

 

        Several City stormwater projects were referenced in the public hearing.The N. Prospect at 68th Street detention basin was designed and constructed to detain stormwater flowing through Rock Creek.Directly upstream from this basin are the N. Park and N. Garfield projects which are designed and constructed to address localized flooding concerns.These projects are not impacted by the development request.

        The zoning at Northaven Village Condominiums is R-3.Condominium building require only approval of necessary building permits.This development request proposes planned zoning (CP) which requires the current public hearing process.

        The parking provided at 104 NE 72nd Street was mentioned.This property is generally across the street from Northland National Bank.Forty-two (42) spaces are required and 42 parking spaces are provided on that site.

        Ms. Lowe had asked how many zoning changes the Planning Commission had done.Twenty-three (23) zoning changes and site plan revisions have been heard by the Planning Commission over the last three years.

 

Mr. Wingerson continued by speaking of the recommended conditions and highlighted some of them.

 

Conditions- Originally Recommended

 

     Hours of operation shall be limited to the public between the hours of6:00 AM to

†††† 12:00 Midnight.

     Truck delivery traffic shall be limited to the hours of8:00 AM to 6:00 PM.

     Trash pickup shall be limited to the hours of8:00 AM to 6:00 PM.

     Tractor trailers shall not be parked overnight in the parking lot.

     All rooftop equipment shall be screened with an enclosure at least one foot in height

greater than such equipment, and constructed out of materials utilized in the construction of the primary building or an approved substitute material of similar design.

     The dumpsters shall be enclosed and shall be constructed of materials utilized in

†††† construction of the primary building.

     A deceleration lane shall be designed and installed leading to the east 64th Street drive.

††††††††††

*These conditions are not in their entirety and are not in order.

 

Mr. Wingerson reviewed the additional four (4) proposed conditions:

 

        The developer and City shall negotiate and enter into a development agreement that provides for improvements to M-1 designed to improve traffic safety and mitigate traffic congestion.The agreement shall also provide for reconstruction of NE 64th Street at N. Wabash to create safe sight distances and provide curb, gutter and sidewalk.Finally, the development agreement will analyze and repair any currently exposed sanitary sewers.

 

Mr. Wingerson commented that is a lot in one condition.Basically what is suggests is that a development agreement would be negoitiated between the City and the developer to make improvements to M-1 Highway.It will also provide for the reconstruction of 64th Street.That would be accomplished by a combination of cutting the high spot of the hill and filling the low spot of the valley to create safe site distance for all uses.Mr. Wingerson remarked what is interesting about the road work is that it should be done regardless of whether this development is approved or not.The final issue in the development agreement would be the repairing of any exposed sanitary sewer lines.

 

        Any odor-producing businesses located within the project shall contain the highest quality and most effective filtering equipment available.End users shall be required to document that odor-control mechanisms are in place and function as designed.

 

        Lighting fixtures shall be provided as specifically detailed.The Commission was provided with brochures on lighting fixtures.

 

        All retaining walls shall be constructed as specifically detailed.Again, the Commission was provided with a hand-out on retaining walls.All walls shall be maintained in perpetuity both structurally and ascetically.

 

Mr. Wingerson said that concludes his presentation and would be happy to answer any further questions.In addition, the development team is here to answer any further questions from the Commission.

 

Ms. Alexander commented that taking care of the height of 64th Street will solve a lot of problems.It was really a good idea.

 

Vice-Chair Revenaugh asked if anyone of the Commissionerís had any questions for Mr. Wingerson.

 

Ms. Newsom asked if the access to M-1 Highway been approved by MoDot.

 

Mr. Wingerson answered that the access as planned has received MoDot concurrence.Staff is suggesting the access be enhanced through the development agreement to provide better separation between northbound and southbound traffic.

 

Ms. Newsom remarked that it seems the developer is willing to go above and beyond what MoDot has approved.

 

Mr. Wingerson answered yes, that is correct.

 

Ms. Newsom asked what the architectural style of the out parcels would be.

 

Steve Cantrell, Steve Cantrell & Associates Architects, addressed the Commission.Mr. Cantrell said that it is their intention to have architectural continuity among the entire project.Obviously, there is not any determination as to what those pad sites will be.There may not be continuity in styling, but there will certainly be in material and colorations.

 

Mr. Steffens entered the meeting, 7:50 pm.

 

Ms. Alexander asked if the businesses for the pad sites would have to come back to the Planning Commission.She also asked if we knew what those businesses would be yet.

 

Mr. Wingerson said that no, we do not know who the tenants would be and assuming that they fit within the ďenvelopeĒ and the allowed uses, they would not come back to the Planning Commission.They will only go to the City Council in the form of the building permit, but it is a different type of hearing.

 

Ms. Newsom asked what uses would be allowed if the parcel is rezoned to CP-1.

 

Mr. Wingerson read the following uses:Any office use, all professional offices, banks, savings and loans, barber and beauty shops, optical shops, seamstress, tailor, interior decorater, photographer, shoe repair, post offices, utility offices, shops and stores for the retail sale of notions, gifts and novelties, flowers, tobacco, hobby supplies, music supplies, shops and stores for the retail sale of food and beverages for human consumption, clothing, shoes, drugs, cosmetics, furniture, appliances, hardware (very small, narrow definition of hardware), kitchenware, toys, sporting goods, antiques, eating establishments, dry cleaning, bakeries and doughnut shops.

 

Ms. Newsom asked if the eating establishments would include those with drive-thru facilities.

 

Mr. Wingerson answered yes, they would.

 

Mr. Whitton said that he is gathering that everything the City has required of them they have agreed to.

 

Mr. Wingerson said that is a fair characterization.He believes that everything that has been asked through the public hearing process has been addressed in a technical manner.Those issues being the traffic concerns, the stormwater concerns and some of the general development concerns.The developer has been very, very good to work with through this process and cooperative throughout.

 

MOTION:By Ms. Alexander, second by Ms. Abbott to approve the Rezoning and Site Plan at NE 64th Street and N. Prospect Avenue.

 

Vice-Chair Revenaugh asked for discussion.

 

Ms. Newsom asked if the motion was for the rezoning and site plan combined.

 

City Counselor Ramsay said it can be done in one motion or in two.

 

Ms. Alexander said it was her intent to combine the two into one motion.

 

Ms. Newsom said that this parcel has sat vacant for quite a number of years and itís no surprise to anyone that it needs, and is proposed, to be commercial.There have been a number of proposals that have come forward; some of which have been more well received than others.She personally does not have a problem with a C-1 zoning for the entire parcel; she could vote for the zoning.What causes her consternation at this point is the specific site plan that they are looking at.Her problem is that with all three of the out-parcels, the footprints contain drive-thru lane facilities.Someone could go in with two fast food restaurants and a bank with a four-lane drive-thru and that would increase the car traffic a tremendous amount.In addition, the fast food restaurants will bring trash and noise.Ms. Newsom said that since the motion included both the rezoning and the site plan she will find herself voting no.Before the meeting she asked Mr. Wingerson to pull the currently proposed site plan and the pad sites on it seem much less obtrusive.

 

Mr. Whitton said that he thinks this is a good project.This land has set vacant for years and it is next to a four-lane state highway.The Economic Development Administrator is trying to bring quality businesses into town and then if the Commission turns it downÖweíre just stepping on our own feet.The land is making nothing for the City as it is.According to Mr. Wingerson, the developer is being very cooperative.Being on a four-lane state highway, he doesnít know how they can vote against it.

 

Mr. Wingerson said that it might be appropriate to take two separate votes on the issue to clarify to the City Council where the Commission stands.

 

Ms. Alexander withdrew her original motion, as Ms. Abbott did her second.Ms. Alexander made a motion to approve the Rezoning of the west portion of the parcel located at NE 64th Street and N. Prospect Avenue from RCH-1 to CP-1.Ms. Abbott gave the second.

 

Vote: ††††††††††††† Ms. Newsom††††††††††††† Yes†††††††††††††††††

††††††††††††††††††††††† Ms. Alexander†††††††††† Yes†††††

††††††††††††††††††††††† Ms. Lowe†††††††††††††††††† No

††††††††††††††††††††††† Mr. Boor††††††††††††††††††† Yes†††††

††††††††††††††††††††††† Mr. Stanley††††††††††††††† Yes†††††

††††††††††††††††††††††† Mr. Shevling††††††††††††† Yes

††††††††††††††††††††††† Mr. Whitton†††††††††††††† Yes†††††

Mr. Revenaugh††††††††† No††††††††††††††††††

Ms. Abbott†††††††††††††††† Yes

Mr. Steffens†††††††††††††† Yes

 

Vote:Yes-8, No- 2.The motion passes.

 

Mr. Wingerson said that before the second motion is made the Commission may wish to hear from the development team regarding the allowed uses of the property.

 

Joe McAfee, Project Engineer, McAfee & Strick, Inc., 360 Santa Fe, Leavenworth, Kansas66048 addressed the Commission.Mr. McAfee said that the topic of the drive-thrus came up during the site visit and he was hoping he would get a chance to clarify.When he put this plan together he had to do a traffic study that showed what type of uses would be in there.They canít look into the future and guarantee whatís going to be in there, but the basis of their traffic study showed one restaurant-type facility.The idea on the eastern portion of the property was to try to get three lots out of it.He looked at the old plan that is already recorded with the City.He saw some issues on that plan.It did not abide by the 35í setback to the north part of the property, which is next to the residential area.Another thing they didnít show was storm detention.Mr. McAfee knew there were some challenges with this property and he also wanted to keep that north property line undisturbed.They basically went after a plan that showed three lots and used retaining walls, which have to be used on that north property to keep from taking all the trees out.†† Ms. Wheeler does not have any clients for these lots yet.Mr. McAfee said that what he tried to do was put the most intensive use on those lots to ensure they have the lots big enough.The traffic analysis that was accepted by MoDot had one fast-food restaurant in it.He asked if there were any further questions.

 

Ms. Abbott said that she is usually concerned about stormwater and it looks like on this project it has been adequetly addressed.

 

MOTION:By Ms. Alexander, second by Mr. Whitton to approve the site plan as presented for the property located at NE 64th Street and N. Prospect.

 

Ms. Newsom said that she will still need to vote no for it because if approved, that would meanit could be used at the most intensive use.

 

Vice-Chair Revenaugh said that he grew up in that neighborhood and attended Antioch Jr. High and itís personally a tough decision.He agrees with Ms. Newsom that this will increase the traffic along NE 64th Street where he used to walk.The idea of it being able to be developed as the most intensive use will be the greatest factor that will cause him to probably vote no.

 

Ms. Lowe said that staff has done an excellent job of providing answers to all the issues raised last month.One thing that really concerns her is the quality of life issue.The response from the people that live around there really made an impression on her.While economic development is,a primary concern for the City, she cannot lose sight of the fact that residents make up the City too.For that reason, and others, she will not be able to support this application.

 

Mr. Shevling commented that he is officed in a development similar to this in another city.He is surrounded by several restaurants and the traffic is not that bad at lunch or when he leaves work in the evening.He does feel concern for the neighbors.Itís emotional.Itís their backyard and itís been that way for a while.Heís had a couple of friends who have had developments in their backyards and after it was said and done in a nice manner they were fine with it.Mr. Shevling said that the plan is well thought out and although it was not an easy decision, he will be voting in favor of it.

 

Mr. Boor asked if there has been any consideration given to the children who walk on NE 64th Street.

 

Mr. Wingerson answered that reducing the hill is a big improvement so that both cars and pedestrians can be seen.There will also be sidewalks on both sides of the street.The development is open to the back and therefore provides an internal connection point to the north without using 64th Street.

 

Vote: ††††††††††††† Ms. Newsom††††††††††††† No††††††††††††††††††

††††††††††††††††††††††† Ms. Alexander†††††††††† Yes†††††

††††††††††††††††††††††† Ms. Lowe†††††††††††††††††† No

††††††††††††††††††††††† Mr. Boor††††††††††††††††††† Yes†††††

††††††††††††††††††††††† Mr. Stanley††††††††††††††† Yes†††††

††††††††††††††††††††††† Mr. Shevling††††††††††††† Yes

††††††††††††††††††††††† Mr. Whitton†††††††††††††† Yes†††††

Mr. Revenaugh††††††††† No††††††††††††††††††

Ms. Abbott†††††††††††††††† Yes

Mr. Steffens†††††††††††††† Yes

 

Vote:Yes-7, No- 3.The motion passes.

 

 

Item 6 on the Agenda:CONSIDERATION:of a Rezoning and Preliminary Plat, ďThe Preserve at Carriage Hill Estates.ĒApplicant/Owner:JA Peterson Enterprises, Inc.(#1239)†††

 

Vice-Chair Revenaugh asked Ms. Newsom for the site visit report.

 

Ms. Newsom referred to the site visit report included in the Commissionerís packets.The Commission was able to see firsthand the concerns of the neighbors as far as potential drainageand traffic situations.They also walked the terrain.It appears this plan is well thought out and provides nice, big lots for another level of housing that Gladstone doesnít currently have.The developer has worked to mitigate the possible stormwater drainage problems through both retention and detention basins and the channeling of stormwater to make it less that what is currently running off.There were also concerns expressed about cut-through traffic.Looking at the land and the terrain, a number of the Commission did not think that would be an issue.It appears that it would be well suited for a residential development such as the one being currently proposed and that it fits the vision of the Comprehensive Plan for this particular area.The proposal has also addressed the concerns of the neighbors.

 

Mr. Wingerson said that Mr. McMillian is here with Scott Cargill, Stormwater Engineer for Lutjen, to answer any further questions.

 

Ms. Abbott asked Mr. McMillian if he ever found out how many gallons are in a cubic feet of water.

 

Mr. McMillian answered 7.48.

 

She also asked how much the basin would hold.

 

Mr. Cargill said the basins are measured in acre feet.

 

Mr. Wingerson said by doing some rough math it looks like it would hold over 600,000 gallons.

 

Mr. Whitton said he would assure everyone that if Mr. Cargill is on this project everything is just fine.He would have never asked those questions last time if he knew Scott was on the project.

 

MOTION:By Ms. Newsom, second by Mr. Whitton to approve the rezoning and preliminary plat for ďThe Preserve at Carriage Hill EstatesĒ.

 

Mr. Whitton stated that this is a good project and much better for the residents than the R-3 that it is zoned currently.He was very impressed with the site when he was there.

 

Vote: ††††††††††††† Ms. Newsom††††††††††††† Yes†††††††††††††††††

††††††††††††††††††††††† Ms. Alexander†††††††††† Yes†††††

††††††††††††††††††††††† Ms. Lowe†††††††††††††††††† Yes

††††††††††††††††††††††† Mr. Boor††††††††††††††††††† Yes†††††

††††††††††††††††††††††† Mr. Stanley††††††††††††††† Yes†††††

††††††††††††††††††††††† Mr. Shevling††††††††††††† Yes

††††††††††††††††††††††† Mr. Whitton†††††††††††††† Yes†††††

Mr. Revenaugh††††††††† Yes†††††††††††††††††

Ms. Abbott†††††††††††††††† Yes

Mr. Steffens†††††††††††††† Yes

 

Vote:Yes-10, No- 0.The motion passes.

 

Item 7 on the Agenda:Communications from the City Council and the City Staff.

 

Mayor Pro-Tem Rudi thanked everyone who worked on the tax issues that were recently passed.

 

Councilman Cross said that he appreciated everyone discussing these two issues tonight in an intelligent manner.

 

Mr. Wingerson thanked the Planning Commission for all their work in considering the applications tonight.Staff appreciates it.Also thanks to Kreg Cox for attending the site visit on February 12, since he could not attend.

 

Item 8 on the Agenda:Communications from the Planning Commission Members.

 

Ms. Abbott said that there hasnít been a thing removed from Mr. Meyers place and now itís worse because they have broken trees from the ice storm.All he has to do is call his contractor and have them come clean up their mess.

 

Mr. Wingerson said he will follow-up on it and report back.

 

Ms. Newsom said that the tax issues on the ballot were a part of making history.It will help the community move forward and maintain those quality of life issues that Ms. Lowe spoke of earlier. She thanked everyone who helped support it.

 

Mr. Boor commented that the election campaign was done very well and the outcome was a vote of confidence in the City of Gladstone.

 

Ms. Alexander said she would echo the same comments and add that itís a good example of a citizenís group deciding what needs to be done and following up.It is her understanding (from the Mayor) that those who served on the Committee arenít done yet.

 

Mayor Beer said that yes, the GOTM committees will probably follow the election with an implementation committee to help shepard along the idea.He believes that this Council, and any Council that follows, will see this as a mandate from the voters.It is a huge step in the Cityís history and it shows that people have faith in the City.

 

Item 9 on the Agenda:Adjournment.

 

Vice-Chair Revenaugh adjourned the meeting at 8:32 P.M.

 

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted:

 

______________________________________††† Approved as submitted _____

Becky Jarrett, Recording Secretary

 

______________________________________††† Approved as corrected†† _____

Mark Revenaugh, Vice-Chair