PLANNING COMMISSION
March 21, 2005
7:30 pm
Item 1 on the
Agenda: Meeting called to order –
Roll Call.
Present: Council & Staff Present:
Ms. Newsom Scott
Wingerson, Assist. City Manager
Ms. Alexander David Ramsay, City
Counselor
Chairman Hill Kreg Cox, GIS
Manager
Mr. Boor Mayor Wayne
Beer
Mr. Stanley Mayor Pro-Tem
Carol Rudi
Mr. Shevling
Mr. Whitton
Mr. Revenaugh
Ms. Abbott
Mr. Steffens
Mr. Reynolds
Absent: Ms. Lowe
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 February 22,
2005 Minutes.
Motion by Ms.
Newsom, second by Ms. Abbott to approve the February 22, 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 Site Plan Revision at 6100 N. Oak
Trafficway. Applicant:
Mr. Wingerson reported
that Gladstone Gifts does business on the corner of
Mr. Cox reported that the
applicant is requesting a site plan revision for the area in the rear of the
building to allow for additional parking.
The land is generally located at the northwest corner of
Mr. Cox reviewed the
recommended conditions:
·
Install trees
along frontage minimum 35’ on center.
·
Adjust the
existing manhole to be flush with the ground.
·
Install
handicap ramp in new rear parking since handicap space is required.
·
Lower lot drive
will not be allowed to connect to neighbors lot to the north.
·
Vegetative
buffer required along west edge of lower lot.
Mr. Wingerson asked for
questions from the Commission.
Ms. Alexander asked if
Priscilla’s had that much need for more parking.
Mr. Wingerson said that
there are representatives from Gladstone Gifts who can speak to that, but in
development of Mr. Meyers car lot some of Priscilla’s parking was lost. Part of this request is to gain those spaces
back and some is due to demand.
Ms. Newsom asked what the
vegetative buffer might consist of.
Mr. Wingerson said that
what was envisioned was a hedge row with a maximum height of approximately 42”.
Ms. Newsom asked how many
parking spaces were lost with Mr. Meyers’ project.
Mr. Wingerson said it’s
hard to say because people were parking on unimproved surfaces, not endorsed by
Gladstone Gifts.
Chairman Hill asked what
kind of lighting is proposed and what steps will be taken to reduce the impact
on neighbors to the west.
Mr. Wingerson said that
no lighting is proposed although in the recommended conditions it does state
that any added lighting installed shall be done in a manner that reduces the
impact on adjoining properties.
Chairman Hill asked if
the trees being added are only to the
Mr. Wingerson said that
in the two conditions that refer to landscaping, it states that “trees shall be
planted along street frontages…”, which would refer to
Chairman Hill asked if
the site plan revision is for the entire site or just the parking lot.
Mr. Wingerson answered
that technically it is a site plan revision for the new parking lot that is
currently zoned CP-3.
Chairman Hill said that
his concern is that if it just involves the parking lot in the back; how are
the other conditions going to be enforced?
Mr. Wingerson said that
when the ownership combines into a single owner then the existing site plan
would be amended to include this application.
Ms. Alexander asked what
kind of assurance the Commission had that the parking lot would not be used to
park cars from Mr. Meyers’ lot.
Mr. Wingerson said that
as the Commission remembers, the Council made that a specific condition in the
ordinance for Mr. Meyers’ project. Staff
has tried to address that issue in condition #4, which states that cross
connection of the lower lot and adjacent property is prohibited.
Mr. Revenaugh asked why
the sale wouldn’t have taken place before the application came forward.
Mr. Wingerson said that
it is his understanding that it is a contingent contract.
Ms. Alexander asked if
water from the new parking area would flow into Mr. Meyers’ detention pond.
Mr. Wingerson answered
that the water will go into
Ms. Alexander asked what
effect that would have on residents downstream.
Mr. Wingerson said that
the existing detention basin is over-designed and was done so with the idea
that it would hold more water from additional development. Second, Mr. Meyers’ original request included
a drive there that was taken out by the Planning Commission; however, the basin
was designed with that in mind.
Ms. Abbott asked why they
eliminated parking spaces #8 and #9 (upper lot) on the site plan.
Mr. Wingerson said that
with the proposed closure of the drive on
Ms. Abbott asked why the
handicap parking space would be on the rear because of the incline.
Mr. Wingerson explained
that because the parking lots are not connected by a drive aisle, a second
handicap space is required in the lower lot.
Ms. Abbott said that she
noticed there are not sidewalks on the site plan.
Mr. Wingerson said he
would make a note of that.
Mr. Reynolds asked what
the required number of parking spaces were for this size of retail facility and
also if the building had a lower level.
Mr. Wingerson answered
that there is no lower level and that the required number of spaces would be
eight spaces.
Chairman Hill said that
his observation is that we will have one parcel with two separate zonings. He asked why the Commission is not
considering a rezoning. He also wondered
why the Commission is not checking to see if this site conforms to current code
as far as setbacks, streetscape guidelines, etc.
Mr. Wingerson said that a
zoning change was discussed with the applicant and it was decided that the
zoning change would be applied for after the ownership change. The building is existing, therefore it is
“grandfathered” when it comes to setbacks and those types of issues. What staff has tried to do is improve the
property as much as possible and get it closer to City standards.
Ms. Newsom asked what
assurance the Commission has that if the site plan revision takes place, it
will come under one ownership and the contract will be executed.
Mr. Wingerson said that
we do not have that assurance.
Ms. Abbott asked who owns
Priscilla’s.
Mr. Wingerson answered
that Randy Robb owns the property that Priscilla’s is on; Larry Meyers owns the
land where the parking lot will be and Priscilla’s is owned by Mr. Larry
Cooley. (The applicant answered part of
this question from the audience).
Ms. Abbott asked who is
paying for all this concrete work.
Mr. Wingerson said that
he does not know.
Ms. Shevling said that
there is a contract in place with a contingency that this sale will
proceed.
Both parties would be
obligated to honor that contract if the change was made…or they could both
agree to back out.
Mr. Revenaugh asked if
there are any negative implications if the Commission were to approve this site
plan revision and then the contract didn’t go through.
Mr. Wingerson said that
there are always negatives, but one positive would be the closure of the 61st
Street entrance and another would be prohibiting cross connection of the
parking lot to Mr. Meyers lot. The
negative impact would be the split ownership of properties and who is using
what for what purpose.
Chairman Hill said he is
not sure the Commission can bind the owner of the store to the owner of the
proposed parking lot.
Mr. Wingerson said that
it would be possible, if the Commission should choose, to add a condition
stating that the ownership change must take place in order for this application
to be valid.
Ms. Abbott said that with
4,800 feet of new concrete you would get over 3,000 gallons of water in a one
inch rain. The retention basin on Mr.
Meyers’ property is a dry basin and lets the water run out just as rapidly as
it comes in. East Creek was running
bank-full last Fall. East Creek has
floated baby grand pianos at one time.
It was in her basement at one time.
All this new concrete will cause a lot of water runoff.
Mr. Steffens asked if
this is all approved and then doesn’t happen, can it become part of Mr. Meyers’
car lot.
Mr. Wingerson said no,
that it would take Commission and Council action because of condition number
four.
Chairman Hill asked for
those in favor of the application to come forward.
Tom Windsor, 1800
Southwest Fountain Drive, Lee’s Summit, Missouri addressed the Commission. Mr. Windsor said that he is the contractor
for Priscilla’s and that there is a local firm retained who has done all the
engineering work on several adjacent properties and will blend the water
retention requirements from the new parking lot to meet City standards. The closing of the existing drive onto 61st
Street seemed like a good opportunity since it is always crowded and
congested.
Ms. Abbott asked if Mr.
Windsor did the excavation for Mr. Meyers’ lot or the south side of Priscilla’s
building.
Mr. Windsor answered that
he did not do either one of those projects.
Chairman Hall asked for
those in opposition to come forward.
Galen Neill, 6010 N.
Wyandotte addressed the Commission. Mr.
Neill said that he would be speaking as Chairman of the 59-61 Neighborhood
Watch Group and distributed pictures of the detention basin on Mr. Meyers’
property for the Commissioners to look at.
A brief description was written on the back of the pictures. Mr. Neill submitted, for the record, a
protest petition signed by 66 homeowners and read the cover page (see
attached). He stated that since the
Planning Commission and the City Council previously turned down a request,
whereby a street would give ingress and egress to Mr. Meyers’ used car lot, he
can only assume that Mr. Meyers’ still owns the property where the parking lot
is being requested. Mr. Meyers’ has not
been a good neighbor. The construction
area of the retention pond and surrounding areas in front of the wall is a
mess. Tree limbs, paper, bottles and
construction materials were never moved and still remain. The mud from the area is washing out onto 61st
Street. Curbs are full of mud. There is one area adjacent to the street
where the water has opened up a sinkhole and the hole is approximately 2’X2’. The street is settling. This is an additional expense to the
taxpayers and that is not right. There
is a large amount of tree limbs that have been disposed of and it looks like
they are cedar. He would have to assume
that this was dumped by a passerby who may have thought the area was a
landfill. He remembers that the original
site plan for Mr. Meyers property showed sod in this area; however, it is not
there. Mr. Neill said that he must point
his finger at Mr. Wingerson and the City staff for not following through with
the plan that was submitted by Mr. Meyers and would assume that this will be
corrected soon. In conclusion, Mr. Neill
strongly urged the members of the Planning Commission to vote no on this
request.
Mr. Revenaugh asked Mr.
Neill what exactly the group is protesting.
Mr. Neill said they are
protesting the parking lot because it will impact the 61st Street
traffic.
Mr. Revenaugh asked Mr.
Neill if he was concerned about 7 additional cars flowing onto an already
crowded 61st Street.
Mr. Neill answered yes,
that is their primary objection.
Jim Burt, 805 W. Meyer
Boulevard, Kansas City, Missouri addressed the Commission. Mr. Burt stated that he and his family helped
build Bircain Apartments. This
intersection already has problems and is the only one that doesn’t have a
stoplight. In the last two years, on
just the west side, there have been 17 accidents. Priscilla’s used to be a liquor store. That whole plan fit fine when N. Oak was two
lanes and very slow, about 35 years ago.
We’re in 2005 now. Bircain has
been flooded and will be flooded again because of all the construction that has
taken place. There just isn’t sufficient
water retention. Mr. Burt said that he
has been in construction and development for 30 years. This is a disaster waiting to happen. He’s not talking about an inch or two of
water coming into people’s houses, he’s talking feet! He asked who is going to be responsible for
that. He asked the Commission if they’re
going to look at his 100 residents who live down in the valley and tell ‘em “We’re
sorry, we thought Priscilla’s should have a parking lot up here. They said they had enough water
retainage.” Mr. Burt went on to say
that it is a mess back there. Developers
have had ample time to sod, seed, whatever they need to do to make that area
look right. It just doesn’t work. North Oak has enough on it as it is.
Mr. Revenaugh asked Mr.
Burt if he was one of the owners of Bircain.
Mr. Burt answered yes.
Mr. Revenaugh asked if
when Bircain was built if they built any kind of stormwater runoff.
Mr. Burt said it wasn’t
required at the time.
Mr. Revenaugh asked how
many square feet of asphalt that development took away from the natural
environment.
Mr. Burt answered said
that he would guess maybe 10,000 square feet.
Mr. Revenaugh asked him
if his contention was that the amount of asphalt required for 7 parking spaces
is going to materially effect the development of over 10,000 square feet of
asphalt.
Mr. Burt said that he
what he is saying is that 7 more are going to add a little bit more to the
parking that the car lot added and the fire station…more and more keeps being
added. It won’t work.
Ms. Alexander asked if
the City has any plans for taking care of East Creek.
Mr. Wingerson explained that the City
significantly upsized the culvert under N. Broadway a few years ago (1999)
which change the flow of that creek from a “chokepoint” at N. Broadway to a
more freely flowing creek.
Mr. Reynolds asked what
the purpose is for condition #4, regarding cross connection.
Mr. Wingerson answered
that it was to make sure that the parking lot to the north is not connected to
the proposed parking lot. This was at
direction of the City Council when Mr. Meyers’ site plan revision was heard
last year.
Mr. Reynolds asked if Mr.
Wingerson thought that it was the City Council’s intent to prevent cars from
being parked in the proposed lot.
Mr. Wingerson said that
was mentioned in the discussion as was a concern regarding drive-thru traffic
from employees and people test driving vehicles.
Ms. Newsom remembers a
concern being people cutting through to get to the highway.
Mr. Reynolds asked if it
would become an issue if cars starting being parked there because they could
come down N. Oak and park them there. He
said he was still confused on why they were asking for more parking spaces when
the requirement is only 5-8 spaces.
Mr. Wingerson said that
the parking would be a private enforcement issue. As far as the additional parking,
representatives of Priscilla’s have indicated that they have a demand. Occasionally, people are parking on 61st
Street and at the office building to the south and walking to the facility.
Mr. Whitton stated that
the Commission shouldn’t care who parks on the proposed parking lot. This is a simple site plan revision with
seven new parking spaces. We’re trying
to figure out who’s buying it; it’s none of our business. It’s a contingency. They’re going to sell the property. If it goes, they’ll sell it. It’s a simple matter and he doesn’t know why
we’re trying to find out why the sky’s going to fall. It’s a very simple operation.
Ms. Abbott asked why the
draft ordinance does not reference closing the existing 61st Street
drive as a condition.
Mr. Wingerson said that
it is not spelled out; however, it is illustrated on the site plan which
accompanies the ordinance.
MOTION: By Mr. Whitton, second by Mr. Revenaugh to approve the site plan revision at 6100 N. Oak Trafficway along with two added conditions that state the existing 61st Street drive will be filled in and that that ownership change must take place.
Ms. Newsom asked if the
zoning on the lot will stay C-3 and the zoning for the remainder of the
building and the existing parking remain C-1.
Mr. Wingerson answered
yes.
Ms. Newsom stated that
because of that issue she will be voting no.
Ms. Abbott agreed.
Mr. Steffens said that he
thought the zoning change would come next.
Mr. Wingerson said that
is what he anticipates and if the Commission would like to add that as a
condition they may.
The group discussed
adding a condition that would state that the rezoning would need to take place
before construction begins.
Mr. Whitton and Mr. Revenaugh agreed to amend their motion.
Ms. Abbott said she would
like to see Mr. Meyers clean up his mess and to add that as a contingency as
well.
Chairman Hill said that
he will be voting against the application.
This is an obsolete building that has reached the end of it’s economic
lifetime. By allowing the additional parking,
the Commission is extending the life of a non-conforming site. He is opposed to that. Obviously, the Priscilla’s people are telling
the City that this building does not satisfy their needs anymore…when that
happens the Commission should not modify and extend a building’s non-conforming
site plan. The only way he would me
aminable to this is if the entire site was brought into compliance with current
codes.
VOTE: Ms. Newsom No
Ms. Alexander No
Chairman Hill No
Mr. Boor No
Mr. Stanley No
Mr. Shevling No
Mr. Revenaugh No
Ms. Abbott No
Mr. Steffens No
Mr. Reynolds No
Vote: Yes-1, No- 10. The motion fails.
Item 6 on the Agenda: Communications from the City Council and the
City Staff.
Mayor Beer reminded everyone of the
election on April 5, 2005 and also that Bluesfest is coming in June and they
are always looking for volunteers.
Item 7 on the Agenda: Communications from the Planning Commission Members.
Ms. Newsom said
there were a lot of cars for sale parked on the old Texaco lot on Antioch over
the weekend.
Mr. Reynolds said he
is planning on attending the MARC workshop on Thursday, April 24.
Item 8 on the
Agenda: Adjournment.
Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 8:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted:
______________________________________ Approved as submitted _____
Becky Jarrett, Recording Secretary
______________________________________ Approved as corrected _____
Brian Hill, Chairman