February 20, 2007
Present: Council & Staff Present:
Ms. Newsom Wayne Beer, Councilman
Ms. Alexander Scott Wingerson, Assistant City Manager
Ms. Babich Melinda Mehaffy, Econ. Dev. Admin.
Mr. Boor Chris Helmer, Planning Specialist
Mr. Garnos Becky Jarrett, Administrative Assistant
Ms. Suter Kirk Davis, City Manager*
Absent: Mr. Shevling
*entered at the end of the meeting.
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 February 5, 2007 minutes.
MOTION: By Ms. Newsom, second by Mr. Whitton to approve the February 5, 2007 minutes.
The minutes were approved as submitted.
Item 4 on the Agenda: Communications from the Audience.
Mr. Wingerson announced that there was a guest in the audience tonight.
Kam Lovall introduced himself. Mr. Lovall stated that he is a student of Urban Planning and Design at the UMKC Volker Campus. It is mandatory for his Urban Planning Theory class that he visits a city planning meeting so that is why he is here tonight.
Item 5 on the Agenda: PUBLIC HEARING on a request for a Zoning
Change and Site Plan Revision. This
Chairman Hill questioned the agenda which stated that the public hearing for the City Council was scheduled for March 5th.
Mr. Wingerson said that was an error. The public hearing will be heard at the City Council on March 12th.
Chairman Hill asked for the staff report.
Mr. Helmer reported that
in front of the Commissioners is a staff report requesting a rezoning and site
plan approval for the addresses of
Mr. Helmer referred to the PowerPoint presentation which depicted the preliminary plan as well as the revised plan. The proposed development will incorporate 14,000 square feet. Lot one is 2,000 square feet. The remaining retail structure is 12,000 square feet.
The main area of concern, Mr. Helmer continued, was where lot one was located in the preliminary design. The detention basin was in the most southern portion of the lot, which makes sense due to the topography of the land, so staff addressed the issue of moving lot one to the southern portion with Mr. Noll. Ultimately, it was decided to move the stormwater detention basin further south into the unimproved area of NE 57th Street. Another area of concern was site distance. Staff didn’t want lot one to have any adverse affect to the existing retail. Mr. Helmer showed the Planning Commission the revised plan on the slide show where lot one now faces Antioch Road and is situated at the south end of the property. Concluding his presentation, he asked if the Commission had any questions for him.
Ms. Newsom asked how the main parcel of the shops of the west side of Antioch align with the shops directly to the north. Is there a similar alignment as far as setback to the road?
Mr. Wingerson answered that the setbacks would be the same.
Ms. Newsom asked if there was any consideration given to the northern ingress/egress to align it with the shops on the north.
Mr. Wingerson answered that staff did try and align that; however, there were two considerations that don’t allow that to happen. One was the existing topography of the land and the second was the way the site plan laid out in a general sense- to bring people in and make them turn one way or the other and angle parking. Fifty-seventh Terrace was reconstructed in partnership with Mr. Morgason, the developer of the property to the north, and that dealt with the widening issues and the obligation of this particular property to make a lot of improvements that otherwise would have been necessary. He suggested that when Mr. Noll makes his presentation he could address the possibility of moving the drive slightly to the east.
Ms. Newsom said she thought that was a planning principal that the City tries to incorporate.
Mr. Wingerson answered that yes, it is. This plan changed a lot from the time it walked in the door with Mr. Noll with his client’s cooperation. What staff is wrestling with is safe sight distances on NE 57th Terrace and conflicting traffic movement. He said they can take a look at it.
Ms. Newsom asked if it is prudent to put a left turn lane on Antioch Road for ingress/egress.
Mr. Wingerson answered that yes, he believes it is. There is probably a level of service issue there from the private property onto Antioch Road. Plaza 57 does have left in/left out access as does the center across to the west. It is MO Route 1 and the queues will be long during certain times of the day on private property, but shouldn’t impact the through-way of Antioch.
Ms. Newsom remarked that trying to pull out of that shopping center and make a left turn onto Antioch Road into traffic into a suicide lane is going to be difficult.
Ms. Abbott said that her concern is water. She asked if the underground basin is going to be covered with concrete or if NE 57 Street is going to remain unimproved with a detention center in the middle of it.
Mr. Wingerson replied that NE 57th Street is simply unimproved right-of-way. It is access to land-locked property further to the east towards N. Indiana. There is no plan to improve that right-of-way and make it a paved, curb and gutter city street. The undeveloped property to the east is best characterized as backyards for houses that either front on NE 57th Terrace or NE 56th Street. What is proposed is the installation of an underground detention basin. This would be a series of underground pipes that would hold stormwater just like a basin would hold stormwater and release it at a pre-determined rate.
Ms. Abbott asked if it would work like a septic tank system.
Mr. Wingerson said no, it wouldn’t be exactly like a septic tank system. It would be more like a basin system where stormwater is held for a period of time and then released very slowly into the main system. It would be the same engineering principles as a depression in the ground that holds water. What’s different about this request is that staff is recommending that the stormwater detention be placed in the public right-of-way. It would still be possible for the City to improve the right-of-way in the future because these systems are under some of the City’s streets right now. The best example is about 300 yards east of where we’re talking about on NE 57th Terrace. It’s also the same system used at Plaza 57 in their parking lot.
Mr. Boor asked if there are supposed to be signs posted on the property notifiying neighbors of the rezoning.
Mr. Wingerson stated that it is a policy that the City do that, not a requirement.
Mr. Boor said he did not recall seeing a sign.
Mr. Helmer said that he did see the sign there when he took the photos of the site.
Chairman Hall asked if someone was here on behalf of the applicant.
Andy Noll, WA Noll & Associates, 105 W. Kansas, Liberty, Missouri, addressed the Commission. Mr. Noll stated that the applicant approached him in September of 2006 stating that he owned this property and that he would like to come up with a plan that would be a viable commercial center for today’s market. Knowing the background of that area he knew that it was too shallow of a lot, however, the applicant had already taken that into consideration and purchased both houses to the east. With the added depth of those two lots the new parcel lines up with Plaza 57 to the north making it a consistent development pattern.
Mr. Noll said that what he tried to do rather than having the longest strip building that he could get in there, was to break it up with two buildings. This gives the applicant the ability to either phase it, which he does not plan to do at this time, or sell the out-building separately. What the applicant had in mind in the beginning was maybe a coffee shop and some other tenants that Mr. Noll thinks would be very successful in there that is not fast food. It would be a food establishment, but not fast food.
Mr. Noll explained that he needed to provide at least two accesses in and out of this property so that if one became blocked there would be an alternative route. On the north drive, to address Ms. Newsom’s concern, the fall between the two drives is what directs him to move that as far to the west as he could without getting too close to the intersection. The further he pushes it to the east, the more retaining walls and the steeper the parking lot becomes. He may be able to move it farther to the east when he gets into the detailed design; however, he did not have enough time to complete revised grading. He felt he could accomplish this plan within reasonable grades of the parking lot, but moving father to the east he wasn’t absolutely certain he could do that.
Mr. Noll said that on the detention basin, the underground is the best way to go for this plan so that they can maximize the use of this particular property of 1.8 acres. What he anticipates at this time is about 250-300 feet of 48” pipe to store the excess run-off as to not exceed the existing discharge from the site. Mr. Noll said that he did see the public hearing sign on the property as well, so it was there at one time. He said he would be happy to answer any questions and he would request approval of the proposed plan.
Ms. Alexander asked what the buildings might look like.
Mr. Noll answered that it will probably be a split-faced block on the front. There is also a 10’ sidewalk out front so they can put awnings in the front to break up the long run…maybe some different colors that can be easily changed out.
Ms. Alexander asked if he building will be one-story or two-stories.
Mr. Noll said it will be a one-story building that will be about 20’ tall.
Mr. West said he is not familiar with the turning radius of delivery trucks, but those trucks are getting longer and longer. He noticed there are 24’ lanes going around the parking lot and asked if a 50’ trailer can get through there.
Mr. Noll replied that yes, a 50’ trailer can get though, but is going to be tight; he’s going to be using the entire drive. Generally, those deliveries have to be timed where it’s not during peak hours.
Mr. Whitton remarked that he liked the plan and it looks nice, but he wondered why it’s being recommended for a C-3 zoning because C-3 is a very strong zoning for this parcel.
Mr. Noll answered that C-3 was requested just to give the developer as many opportunities as he could.
Mr. Whitton said that is what bothers him. It’s C-2 already and he wants to encompass a couple of residential areas…he doesn’t see any need for C-3. There are so many things there can be done there in a C-3 zoning when we don’t know who the tenants are going to be. He remarked that he can’t support the plan for C-3, but he could for C-2. If he needed C-3 later and the Commission knew what was going to go in there, then maybe it could be considered later. He is already encroaching upon residential properties behind the site already…he can’t support it.
Mr. Noll replied that they are providing a significant buffer between the residential…
Mr. Whitton said it’s still C-3. He thinks it would be a great improvement to the property, but the C-3 scares him to death.
Mr. Noll asked if there are any specific uses that concern him.
Mr. Whitton replied that a use like he has…same thing he does- auto repair. The tenant could put garage doors in or become a machine shop. He doesn’t think that would look good with what’s already there. He could do plenty with C-2.
Mr. Noll asked staff if there could be covenants or restrictions placed on the property that would restrict certain uses.
Mr. Wingerson answered by stating that the City’s zoning process doesn’t really allow a restriction by use, but the Commission could decide to lower the zoning to C-2. The only consideration for C-3 might be the drive-thru service. There would be limiting opportunities for any kind of drive-thru retail. Mr. Wingerson said he was pretty sure that drive-thrus needed C-3, but he said he would look it up in just a minute.
Ms. Alexander said she agreed with Mr. Whitton and is more comfortable with C-2 rather than C-3.
Mr. West said it makes sense to make it a C-2 instead of a C-3, but from another perspective, whatever is going to have drive-thru service is not going to want a machine shop or something like that right outside it’s drive-thru, so it would be protecting a potential tenant.
Ms. Newsom asked if it would be possible to subdivide this land and have part of it be C-2 and part be C-3.
Mr. Wingerson said that is a possibility.
Ms. Newsom said that would protect the big building but it would also let the pad site function as designed.
Ms. Abbott said that this is a real improvement to the property. The parcel has been an eye-sore for a number of years. She is opposed to the C-3 zoning on it, but she’s very much in favor of the overall plan.
Mr. Boor asked what type of roof will be on the building.
Mr. Noll answered that it will be a standing seem metal roof that will slope from the front all the way to the back where it will be picked up by a gutter system and directed into the underground storm drainage.
Mr. Boor asked if that is acceptable in Gladstone.
Mr. Noll said that yes, he believes it is.
Ms. Suter asked what the owner’s hope for a timetable is.
Mr. Noll replied that they are hoping to start construction in March and have occupancy by Fall. He has financing and everything lined up and ready to go.
Chairman Hill asked about the traffic flow on lot one. He said he didn’t see any traffic flow for a drive-thru window. He asked if the anticipated restaurant was one that would use a drive-thru window.
Mr. Noll said that yes, it would use a drive-thru. It would be most likely on the west side with the order window on the south side. There would be ample room for stacking cars while taking orders.
Chairman Hill asked how high the proposed retaining wall is.
Mr. Noll said it varies. In the old plan it was a maximum of 12’ and he thinks it is about the same distance on the revised plan.
Chairman Hill said the underground detention basin is going to be on property owned by the City. He asked if some kind of maintenance agreement is proposed so that the owners of lots one and two have to maintain that or is the burden of maintenance going to fall on the City.
Mr. Noll said that what they are going to try to do in the design is maintain the basin within the confines of the property line; however, they may need some more area. At that point, he would probably work it out with Mr. Wingerson to draft a maintenance agreement.
Mr. Wingerson remarked that he has spoken with the Director of Public Works about this and they agreed that to the extent that the private detention is located in the public right-of-way there would have to be some kind of private maintenance agreement for that portion. He would anticipate that agreement moving forward behind this application and would probably move along side the building permit to the City Council.
Chairman Hill asked if the City could look at selling half of the right-of-way for NE 57th Street to Mr. Scola, so we don’t end up with a strip of land that the City is responsible for.
Mr. Wingerson said that about three years ago staff looked pretty comprehensively at unimproved right-of-way throughout the City. This is a very big strip of unimproved right-of-way. It runs from Antioch Road all the way to N. Indiana. When staff began to look at removing the access from Antioch Road, that would in effect, remove access from small, landlocked parcels with separate ownership all the way along the length of the right-of-way.
Chairman Hill said it didn’t look like there is much landscaping planned for the south end of the property.
Mr. Noll said that they may require some retaining walls through that area, but they also wanted to make sure they didn’t plan any tall landscaping that would obstruct view of the buildings. They were also planning on leaving as much existing trees and natural habitat as possible.
Chairman Hill asked if there was any landscaping planned for behind the retaining wall.
Mr. Noll said they are proposing a box fence through that area that would be easier to maintain than shrubbery as a screen.
Ms. Newsom commented that she didn’t see a condition listed on the staff report that mentions maintenance of the landscape plan and fence in perpetuity.
Chairman Hill asked if there would be a sprinkler system.
Mr. Noll said there will be; however, at this time he does not know if it will encompass the entire area or not.
Chairman Hill asked if the fence will be made of wood.
Mr. Noll answered that it will be made of wood with a metal support system. What they plan on doing is using metal u-channels or square posts and they attach the wood to those to make it sturdy.
Chairman Hill noticed that the fence will be about 200’ long.
Mr. Whitton asked if Mr. Wingerson found the answer on the C-3 versus C-2 yet.
Mr. Wingerson answered that Chairman Hill and Mr. Whitton were exactly right. The C-2 zoning classification would accommodate a drive-thru restaurant. The main difference between C-2 and C-3 are car sales and repair, drive-in theatres, car hop businesses, nurseries and greenhouses, pop bottling and light manufacturing.
Mr. Garnos asked if we can assume by the time the plans have gotten to this phase that since this used to be a gas station, that all the contamination and fuel tanks have been taken care of.
Mr. Wingerson said that yes, it is safe to assume that it either has been or will be resolved.
Mr. Whitton commented that before you can get a loan you have to have clean bill of health from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR).
Chairman Hill asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of the application. Hearing no response, he asked for those in opposition. Again there was no response. The public hearing was closed.
Chairman Hill asked the Commissioners if they felt a site visit was necessary. Seeing several of them shake their heads no, he asked for a motion.
Ms. Newsom said that she wanted to add Condition #8, which would refer to the maintenance of the landscaping and fence in perpetuity.
MOTION: By Mr. Whitton, second by Mr. West to approve the Zoning Change and Site Plan Revision for 5705 NE Antioch Road, 2603 NE 57th Terrace and 2607 NE 57th Terrace, with the zoning being C-2 (General Business) and condition #8 added which would require maintenance of the landscaping and fence in perpetuity.
Ms. Newsom commented that she would hope that this plan would have a consistent look with the property to the north; maybe kicked up a notch from the property to the west. She still has, personally, issues with split faced block, because too often it looks like gussied-up cinder block and does look like real masonry bricks.
Chairman Hill agreed and said that he thinks it would be wise for the developer to make it look nice because of available space to the north or to the west and that if this property doesn’t look as good or better then they’re going to be at a competitive disadvantage.
Mr. West said he will go back to the issue of deliveries because they aren’t going to be any retailers who go into a facility this size that will be able to command the delivery parties to adhere to time guidelines. The time guidelines are “we show up when we show up.” They also drive whatever truck they need to make that route. What’s going to happen is that there’s going to be problems getting in and through that lot with the trucks the way it’s configured. You’ll probably see trucks backing in from Antioch Road. That’s something for the developer to think about.
Ms. Abbott said she thinks this is a nice project, but she too hopes that cinder blocks are out and that he keeps the quality of the buildings up.
Ms. Alexander Yes
Ms. Babich Yes
Mr. Boor Yes
Mr. Garnos Yes
Ms. Suter Yes
Mr. Whitton Yes
Ms. Abbott Yes
Mr. Steffens Yes
Mr. West Yes
Chairman Hill Yes
The motion carried. (11-Yes, 0-No)
Item 6 on the Agenda: Communications from City Council and the City Staff.
Councilman Beer said it was great seeing so many of the Commissioners at the Boards and Commissions Banquet. He thanked them for coming. He announced the first community center site visit as Saturday, February 24, 2007, at 8:00 am. If you are able to attend please bring the proper footwear as it is muddy on the site.
Mr. Wingerson thanked the Commission for their thoughtful discussion and for making a great public record for the Council. He reminded them of the new member orientation on Monday, March 5, 2007, at 5:30 pm. Everyone is welcome.
Item 7 on the Agenda: Communications from Planning Commission Members.
Mr. Boor commented that the City did a terrific job on the snow removal.
Ms. Alexander said she noticed that the Creative Arts Academy has two sections of their fence down. She also commented on how nice the entrance island on Englewood is going to look.
Ms. Babich said she appreciated the Boards and Commissions banquet, but hopefully in the future it can be held in Gladstone.
Mr. Steffens said the new entrance sign on Antioch looks very nice.
Ms. Newsom said that she thought that when Goen’s site plan was approved the equipment was going to be stored behind the fence. She also thanked staff for another great edition of the magazine.
Mr. Wingerson said that he had actually left a message for Mr. Goen’s today, so he will report back.
Chairman Hill asked if it would be possible for City crews to fill in some potholes in the curbs and aprons of businesses as they are out and about.
City Manager Davis said that if there is an area on a curb where it is deteriorating they will go through and replace the curb and/or patch it.
Chairman Hill said he was speaking of the apron onto NE 72nd Street at Hy-Vee. They generally keep their property up pretty well and he thought if the City crews were going by there anyway it would benefit the property and the residents who use it everyday. It would also do the business a favor.
City manager explained that the apron is on private property and so the City tends to shy away from that type of work just because they wouldn’t know where to draw the line. Sometimes when the City is doing overlay work they will see if the business wants to contract with the same company and get a better rate.
Chairman Hill thanked the City Council and staff for a nice dinner at the Boards and Commission banquet.
Mr. Wingerson said he had one more announcement. There will not be a regular Planning Commission meeting on March 5th. It is doubtful there is anything for the March 26th meeting; although it is a little early to tell. Also on April 2nd there will not be a meeting.
Item 8 on the Agenda: Adjournment
Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 8:36 P.M.
______________________________________ Approved as submitted _____
Becky Jarrett, Recording Secretary
______________________________________ Approved as corrected _____
Brian Hill, Chairman