November 20, 2006
Present: Council & Staff Present:
Ms. Newsom Carol Rudi, Councilman
Mr. Boor Scott Wingerson, Assist. City Manager
Mr. Reynolds Melinda Mehaffy, Econ. Dev. Admin.
Ms. Shevling Becky Jarrett, Admin. Assist
Absent: Mr. West
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 the October 16, 2006 minutes.
MOTION: By Mr. Whitton, second by Ms. Newsom to approve the October 16, 2006 minutes.
The minutes were approved as submitted.
Item 4 on the Agenda: Communications from the Audience.
Item 5 on the Agenda: Public Hearing on a Zoning Change/Site Plan
Mr. Wingerson reported that the
applicant is requesting two actions. The
first is a zoning change. The land is
currently zoned R-1, single-family residential.
It contains an existing single-family home. The applicant is requesting that the zoning
be changed to an RCH zoning classification, Residential Cluster Housing. That is a classification that allows for
groups of single-family homes to be together.
In this particular case the application indicates four-plexes on each
lot within the development. Staff is
asking the Planning Commission to consider an RCHP, Residential Cluster
Housing- Planned zoning because there are some conditions that need to be
complied with if this application is to move forward. Mr. Wingerson explained that the request,
from staff’s perspective, is a zoning change from R-1 to RCHP-1 and because of
the “planned” classification a site plan approval is necessary. In this particular case, the applicant is
requesting 27 lots on approximately 10 acres for a total of 108 units. The land itself is generally located west of
and adjacent to
Mr. Wingerson highlighted some of the eleven conditions in the staff report:
1) Right-of-Way shall be provided to allow extension of N. Askew to the north property line. Right-of-Way shall be 50’ in width. Mr. Wingerson said that currently N. Askew connects with NE 72nd Terrace and dead ends at the applicant’s property. Staff is suggesting that to allow future development of the parcel north of this application that Askew should be continued to the north property line.
street improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm) shall be constructed
shall be installed on both sides of
4) A stormwater study shall be provided with development plans. The study shall be implemented by the developer.
5) A traffic study analysis shall be provided with development plans. The analysis recommendations shall be implemented by the developer.
Mr. Wingerson concluded his presentation by asking for questions from the Commission.
Chairman Hill asked if someone was present on behalf of the applicant. There was no response. Chairman Hill asked if there was anyone present to speak in favor of the application. There was no response. He then asked for those in opposition.
Greg Miller, 7315 N. Norton, addressed the Commission. Mr. Miller said he has heard talk of a
traffic and water study, but there are other developments going in right
now. What he hasn’t heard is anyone talk
John Hoke, 7241 N. Norton, addressed the Commission. Mr. Hoke said that when he and his wife
picked Stonebrooke to live in they looked long and hard for a nice lot. They found this area next to
Pam Roberts, 7243
Mary Shurtz, 7233
Mr. Wingerson stated that
Ms. Shurtz said that she is highly opposed to that. She, like everyone else, bought her house on
Gloria Williams, 7242
Jolinda McClintock, 7248 N. Askew, addressed the
Commission. Ms. McClintock stated that
she has had her duplex on the market for six months and it’s not that great,
but now it’s all that less desirable to own with these brand new 4-plexes being
built. There’s no reason to put that
many more people in
Charles Williams, 7241 N. Myrtle, addressed the
Commission. Mr. Williams stated that he
has grown up in
Chairman Hill answered that we don’t know at this point.
Ms. Reinhart said that as the Clay County Assessor she can
tell you that the people across the street from this development, Stonebrooke,
it could affect their value. The
duplexes over there already affect some of the values. Before you put 108 in…you’re talking at least
two people in each unit, two cars in each unit and even though at the time you
put this in it will increase the value for Gladstone, it will increase your tax
base, which is, she’s sure what Gladstone is interested in, you might want to
consider the long haul. She said that
she does not have enough information in the Assessment Department to tell you
whether 4-plexes are actually holding their value or not. She can tell you that duplexes are. She can tell you single-family homes
are. Ms. Reinhart said that there is one
property between her property and this property. She really doesn’t want 216 extra people
running across her personal property because they never seem to go down to the
Karen Merkel, 7244 N. Norton, addressed the Commission. Ms. Merkel commented that she is also opposed to the change in zoning. She thinks it should remain zoned for single-family housing. Her concerns are the extra traffic, the extra people, property values, more kids in school.
Martin Soffran, 7249 N. Askew, addressed the Commission. Mr. Soffran stated that him and his family just moved in about a month ago. He looked at a lot of subdivisions for the duplex they ended up buying and one of the selling points was that there wasn’t cars parked up and down the streets along with the traffic and all the kids running in and out and all over. They are sitting almost on the corner lot where they would be right in the middle of it.
Dave King, 7304
Diane Fry, 7239 N. Bales, addressed the Commission. Ms. Fry stated that this property is
literally in her backyard. She is
opposed because she is already in duplexes and…if it were single-family housing
then that’s fine, but 108 units put to the same market of her duplex. She thinks that is really going to lower hers
because why are they going to buy their duplexes when they can have this brand
new cute, little 4-plex, which in the end, they still don’t have as much space,
but you don’t seem to notice that at first.
When they bought their house, five years ago, it was nice and wooded and
pretty and now they have already came in and tore down all the trees, which is fine
because that’s the owner’s prerogative.
Her other question is, where is
Brian Smith, 4017 NE 72nd Terrace, addressed the Commission. Mr. Smith stated that he thinks single-family housing is the way to go.
Floyd Jones, 7300
Chairman Hill said that at this point everyone has a lot of questions; however, with no one here on behalf of the applicant he suggested continuing the application to the December 18, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
MOTION: By Ms. Newsom, second by Ms. Suter to table
the public hearing on a zoning change/site plan at
Ms. Abbott said she would like to clarify that Cathy Reinhart is a personal friend of hers. She knows where she lives and when they were talking Ms. Reinhart mentioned she did not receive a 185’ letter. Ms. Abbott thought that Ms. Reinhart’s property adjoined the applicant’s property and therefore told her about the meeting tonight.
Mr. Reynolds asked if the Commission members should submit questions they have to staff so they can be addressed by the applicant prior to the December 18th meeting. He thought that might make the applicant aware of the some of the primary concerns.
Several of the Commission members listed questions they had such as: Are the units owned or rented?, What are the setbacks, are there basements?, Is maintenance provided?, Where are the cars going to park?, Are they going to be marketed to families or retirees?
Ms. Newsom asked about the color elevations and asked why the Planning Commission was not provided with that information, but rather it was requested in the staff report that it be provided prior to the City Council meeting. She also asked if Public Safety had looked at the site plan.
Mr. Reynolds proposed that the Commission have questions to staff by December 4th so that the applicant can possibly address the questions in a packet by the December 18th meeting.
An audience member asked if the public would have access to the packet of information.
Mr. Wingerson said that any results from Planning Commission questions would certainly be available to the public, as would any information.
Ms. Abbott suggested having the applicant meet with the neighborhood to resolve some issues.
Chairman Hill said that staff can encourage the applicant to do that, but they can’t make it a requirement.
Mr. Wingerson clarified two things: That this application would be continued to the December 18, 2006 at 7:30 pm and that the Planning Commission has committed to provide information to the interested public as it becomes available to the city staff. He also thanked the public for coming out and stated that he is sure it is equally frustrating for the Commission as it is for the residents.
Ms. Suter said that she would echo Mr. Wingerson’s comments on public input. She has been working with a group on refining the development process and looking at the stages in which people get involved. One of their motivations was to be sure that citizens were informed early enough that they are here for the first meeting. It is very important that the public is here tonight and she really appreciates their time and energy to come today. It really helps the Commission to hear their input at the beginning of the process.
Item 6 on the Agenda: Communications from the City Council and the City Staff.
Councilman Rudi thanked the Commission for their time here tonight. She knows it has been frustrating for them tonight. She wished them a Happy Thanksgiving.
Mr. Wingerson invited everyone to attend the Mayor’s Holiday Tree Lighting tomorrow, November 21st at 6:00 pm. He said that Counselor Ramsay is at home with pneumonia and therefore is not in attendance tonight. Also, the December 4th meeting is the public hearing for the Downtown Village Center Master Plan. Mr. Wingerson said that he has copies of the plan available in a binder for the Commission members after tonight’s meeting.
Item 7 on the Agenda: Communications from the Planning Commission Members.
Mr. Reynolds asked how the Mayor is doing.
Mr. Wingerson said he saw him in the office today.
Ms. Abbott wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. She asked about 64th Street and
when the hill might be cut down. She
said that the developer has already done some curb work and entrances onto
Mr. Wingerson answered that the City is shooting for next summer for reconstruction of the roadway in which case those improvements that have been installed would be removed and replaced at a lower elevation.
Ms. Alexander requested the City Council minutes be placed in their packets.
Ms. Newsom reminded everyone about the Chamber’s 40th Anniversary Banquet. Please RSVP to her as soon as possible.
Item 8 on the Agenda: Adjournment
Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 8:32 P.M.
______________________________________ Approved as submitted _____
Becky Jarrett, Recording Secretary
______________________________________ Approved as corrected _____
Brian Hill, Chairman