PLANNING COMMISSION

GLADSTONE, MISSOURI

November 20, 2006

7:30 pm

Present: Council & Staff Present:

Ms. Newsom Carol Rudi, Councilman

Ms. Alexander Wayne Beer, Councilman

Mr. Boor Scott Wingerson, Assist. City Manager

Mr. Reynolds Melinda Mehaffy, Econ. Dev. Admin.

Ms. Shevling Becky Jarrett, Admin. Assist

Mr. Suter

Mr. Steffens

Ms. Whitton

Mr. Abbott

Chairman Hill

Absent: Mr. West

Mr. Stanley

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.

None.

Item 5 on the Agenda: Public Hearing on a Zoning Change/Site Plan at 7312 N. Antioch Road. Applicant/Owner: Northaven Village, LLC. File #1289.

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 Antioch Road and north of NE 72^nd Street. Access is provided in three ways: 1) Antioch Road, 2) N. Askew (extension) and 3) N. Indiana (extension).

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 72^nd 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.

2) Half street improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm) shall be constructed adjacent to Antioch Road.

3) Sidewalk shall be installed on both sides of N. Indiana, N. Askew and the proposed roadway.

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.

Tim Giddens, 7300 N. Mersington Street, addressed the Commission. Mr. Giddens stated that he lives in the Stonebrooke housing edition. Looking at the site plan, he has many questions. The street is going to intersect Antioch at his backyard. With 108 sites, that means he’s going to have 108 cars coming down the hill intersecting at his backyard. He bought the house about a year and a half ago because it was a quiet, undeveloped area. They didn’t have traffic lights or housing lights. Mr. Giddens said that this development will change the whole view from the back of his house. He also questions what this will do to all of their property values. They live in a single-family area and he has a concern with putting in a cluster of 4-plexes. There is already apartment buildings and this is just going to add that much more traffic to the area. He is afraid this development is going to be detrimental to their neighborhood.

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 about Chapel Hill or other surrounding schools and how the increase in student population is going to be addressed. His kids go to Chapel Hill and right now the classrooms are getting loaded. There are thirty kids per classroom. Is this being addressed?

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 Happy Rock Park, which wasn’t too densely populated. They realized there was Appletree Apartments and a lot of duplexes on the west side of Antioch and they felt comfortable with that. To the east there is a lot of open area which has now been developed by Kansas City into patio homes. His concern is that there is becoming too much of a densely populated residential area. Right now there is a good balance and they don’t need any more. Mr. Hoke feels that Antioch is busy enough, especially with N. Brighton closed. Having that farm-like area sold out and developed into 4-plexes makes him feel like he was mislead. That is not what he bought into. They are the residents of the area and they are speaking out and saying what they want their community to be like.

Pam Roberts, 7243 N. Mersington, addressed the Commission. Ms. Roberts stated that she is on the Board at Stonebrooke and they too are opposed to…single-family would be fine…she doesn’t know if you have ever tried to take your child and walk down from Stonebrooke to the park, but that is the most dangerous road in the world and to add another 108 cars. They are understanding the City has a grant to put a walking trail through there and add on to the bridge, so they are hoping they can walk to the park. They are definitely opposed to 108 units going into that small property area.

Mary Shurtz, 7233 N. Indiana, addressed the Commission. Ms. Shurtz stated that it is her understanding that N. Indiana is going to be a thoroughfare for the new area.

Mr. Wingerson stated that N. Indiana is proposed to be extended from where it stops now to a new street that would be built east and west from Antioch Road to Indian.

Ms. Shurtz said that she is highly opposed to that. She, like everyone else, bought her house on Indiana because it wasn’t developed and she really had no fear of it being developed. That is a very small area and that is a lot of apartments and unfortunately apartments do get run-down. You can look at Appletree and they are not as nicely kept up as they could be and it kind of makes your property look trashy and being close to her house, she is very opposed to it. She is also opposed to the extra traffic.

Gloria Williams, 7242 N. Mersington, addressed the Commission. Ms. Williams stated that these proposed 4-plexes will be across from her property and she knows that when there is anything going on at the park that street becomes dangerous. The City’s police cars and fire trucks all go to the Public Works facility to get gas and use Antioch. If they have an emergency they go screaming down Antioch to get wherever they are going so that adds another traffic concern. You’re talking about 108 units. She hasn’t heard what the price of them is yet. Are they rentals or are they going to be sold to families. If they are 4-plexes, someone is going to buy them and turn them into rental units. Do we need anymore rental units where people move in and move out in a short length of time and leave the property a mess? Ms. Williams continued by saying that if you put in 108 units, you put in more kids, there’s the school system, the parks system….she is opposed to it. Put single family homes in where they can have lots that the kids can play in. It’s a mile to Wal-Mart or Hy-Vee from that area, so the next thing that they’ll have to put in is gas stations or convenience stores.

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 Gladstone. It’s just going to hurt Gladstone; it’s not going to make it a better family environment. She has a feeling that this area is really a nice area. It’s a mixture of all kinds of economic levels and bringing in 4-plexes isn’t going to help Gladstone. She’s not happy about it.

Charles Williams, 7241 N. Myrtle, addressed the Commission. Mr. Williams stated that he has grown up in Gladstone and everyone always says that Gladstone is a great community with great houses and great neighborhoods. He really sees this as being a tarnish to Gladstone. He is opposed to it.

Cathy Reinhart, 7400 NE Antioch Road, addressed the Commission. She thanked Ms. Abbott for inviting her here this evening. She has a few questions. Her family has one of the last large acreages in Gladstone, 16 acres. She asked about the floor plans. Two-story, one-story?

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 road because Antioch Road is dangerous. They cut across her property. She would really appreciate it if the Commission would reconsider 108 units. Where’s the greenspace? There isn’t any. You’re going to have traffic. She doesn’t think you can justify holding the value on this. She would like to know how big they are. What are they going to sell for? Are they going to have basements? Personally, she doesn’t want 200-some people that close to her, but that’s beside the point, the point is the Commission should think down the road to what this is going to do for Gladstone.

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 N. Mersington, addressed the Commission. Mr. King stated that he is the President of the homeowners’s association for Stonebrooke. He was one of the first to move into their subdivision about nine years ago. One of the things that attracted him was Happy Rock Park and the green space. They have all been bothered by the additional traffic from N. Brighton being closed. His house faces directly into the proposed subdivision. One of the attractions to his house was the wooded area. Mr. King said that the additional traffic would be a hazard to the children living in the area. He, like the rest of his neighbors, is concerned that property values will decline in the area and what that means to the City of Gladstone…maybe less taxes. They oppose it and he would ask that the Commission strongly consider defeating any rezoning of the property.

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 Northaven Village? Why are they not here? She was here first and she just thinks they should keep it that way. She doesn’t want all the traffic and then there’s all the kids.

Brian Smith, 4017 NE 72^nd Terrace, addressed the Commission. Mr. Smith stated that he thinks single-family housing is the way to go.

Floyd Jones, 7300 N. Indiana, addressed the Commission. Mr. Jones stated that four houses on 90’ is a lot. He thinks it should stay single-family. An individual should use his property, but it should be used in accordance with existing conditions.

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 7312 N. Antioch Road. The motion carried.

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 18^th 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 4^th so that the applicant can possibly address the questions in a packet by the December 18^th 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 21^st at 6:00 pm. He said that Counselor Ramsay is at home with pneumonia and therefore is not in attendance tonight. Also, the December 4^th 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 64^th Street and when the hill might be cut down. She said that the developer has already done some curb work and entrances onto 64^th Street.

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 40^th 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.

Respectfully submitted:

______________________________________ Approved as submitted _____

Becky Jarrett, Recording Secretary

______________________________________ Approved as corrected _____

Brian Hill, Chairman