PLANNING COMMISSION

GLADSTONE, MISSOURI

November 19, 2007

7:30 pm

Present: Council & Staff Present:

Ms. Abbott Carol Rudi, Councilman

Ms. Alexander Wayne Beer, Councilman

Ms. Babich Scott Wingerson, Assistant City Manager

Mr. Boor Chris Helmer, Planning Specialist

Mr. Horton Melinda Mehaffy, Economic Dev. Admin.

Mr. Shevling Becky Jarrett, Administrative Assistant

Mr. Whitton

Ms. Newsom

Mr. Steffens

Chairman Hill

Absent: Mr. Garnos

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 September 17, 2007 minutes.

MOTION: By Mr. Steffens, second by Mr. Horton to approve the September 17, 2007, minutes as submitted. Ms. Newsom abstained from the vote as she was not present at the September 17^th meeting. 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 Rezoning at 1900 NE 72^nd Street. Applicant/Owner: JA Peterson Enterprises, Inc. File #1306.

Item 6 on the Agenda: PUBLIC HEARING: On a Site Plan Revision at 1900 NE 72^nd Street. Applicant: Family Video Movie Club, Inc. Owner: JA Peterson Enterprises, Inc. File #1307.

Item 7 on the Agenda: CONSIDERATION: Of a Final Plat at 1900 NE 72^nd Street. Applicant: Family Video Movie Club. Owner: JA Peterson Enterprises, Inc. File #1298.

Chairman Hill announced that since the issues are so similar, the Commission will hear them all at once then at the conclusion of the public hearing and the Commission’s consideration the Commission will then likely have three separate motions and votes. First, Chairman Hill said, he will hear from staff.

Planning Specialist Chris Helmer thanked the Commission and those in attendance from the community tonight. He began by explaining some documents that were given to the Commission this evening. One is a memo from Kaw Valley Engineering, written by Leon Osbourn, Project Manager, dated November 15, 2007. This memo came about from the preliminary stages of staff working with the applicant as well as after having comment and feedback from the community. The three pertinent issues involved are: traffic safety, storm drainage and parking spaces/green space. Mr. Helmer referred to the second document which was a rendering of what the proposed Family Video store is to look like along with the three additional leasing spots.

Mr. Helmer began with the staff report. He reported that the applicant is Family Video. The owner is Peterson Company. On this particular application, staff has been working with Kaw Valley Engineering. The new address that is proposed for the site is 1900 NE 72^nd Street. The current zoning is R-3, Garden Apartment Residential and C-1, Local Business District.

Mr. Helmer said that some of the additional information that has been on the forefront of moving this application forward is the proposed entrances. There are two proposed entrances. One is fronting NE 72^nd Street and one is off N. Euclid. Staff has asked the applicant to address the parking in more detail; however, would like to point out that for this particular site plan the minimum required parking is thirty-five(35) spaces and the total provided spaces is seventy-seven (77).

The recommended conditions found in the staff report are very typical of what the Commission is accustomed to seeing. Mr. Helmer said he would anticipate some clarification on those from the Planning Commission members prior to moving this application to City Council.

Mr. Helmer explained that the reason the Commission was not provided with a rendering of the proposed building prior to the meeting was because the Family Video company has undergone some changes in the building design and the look of the façade so there is some new work being done.

Mr. Helmer read from the staff report, “The applicant requests a zoning change and site plan approval to allow construction of a 5,000 square foot retail center with three separate leasing spaces at 1,200 sq. ft. each with associated parking. Currently, the proposed development area consists of a vacant lot and is zoned R-3 and C-1. The development site is generally described as being located at the northeast corner of N. Euclid and 72^nd Street.” Access to the site is proposed via both 72^nd Street and N. Euclid Street. The commercial portion of the development is intended to consist of a video rental store, a small retail area, and a possible restaurant or coffee shop with a drive thru window. The 1993 Comprehensive Plan indicates that this site is appropriate for general commercial development and residential garden apartments. Specifically, the applicant is requesting a zoning change for the small parcel that is zoned R-3 to CP-1.

Mr. Helmer referred to the staff report under “Landscaping” and explained that there is a breakdown listing of types of trees and shrubs.

He then addressed the next issue of the traffic study. Mr. Helmer said that he would ask that the applicant clarify and elaborate on anything that would seem necessary. He stated that it is pretty evident that the traffic is most intense from east to west, as opposed to north/south. The traffic volumes are illustrated in a handout which was included in the Commissioner’s packets. In the preliminary stages of this application safety issues were in the forefront. The City Engineer, Tim Nebergall, had some concerns and the applicant was receptive to those changes and is currently working on additional measures that they can take prior to moving forward to City Council.

Mr. Helmer said that the applicant is exploring the opportunity of combining the entrance to the north that is used for the Kindercare Learning Center as well as the entrance for the salon/insurance company to the east. The recommendations that specifically came out of the traffic report is as follows:

1) Efforts should be made to combine Entrance 2 with the driveway on the adjacent property to the north.

2) Efforts should be made to combine Entrance 1 with the driveway on the adjacent property to the east. The combined driveway should align with North Euclid Court.

The report also concludes that there is the potential for increased conflict points by not combining these. He would appreciate the applicant briefing the Commission with more detail on this subject.

The neighborhood engagement aspect of this application is one that is extremely important and Mr. Helmer said that it is safe to say from this Planning Commission, City Council and staff, that is something that we take very seriously and he thanked everyone for attending this evening. The staff recommendation to further pursue this topic of public engagement came in response to receiving some phone calls from area residents.

Stormwater management follows the neighborhood topic because that was really a hot topic for the surrounding development. Mr. Helmer said that staff would like to see the applicant maximize some certainty in the area of stormwater detention. As stated in the memo from Kaw Valley he would expect to have those issues mentioned fully resolved prior to City Council.

The next issue is platting. (Mr. Helmer made reference to the PowerPoint) He explained that the map shows an “abandoned old Euclid Street.” At one time Euclid ran the alignment shown, but was later changed into what is now aligned with Woodland Avenue. Staff will work with the applicant on this issue to ensure that the old Euclid Street is abandoned and replaced with any necessary utility easements.

Mr. Helmer moved on to parking. He would ask the Planning Commission to have a discussion as to how this ties into landscaping. When reviewing this application there was some comment internally from staff on this issue and it has been recommended that the applicant look into maximizing more landscaping frontage on NE 72^nd Street. He would again ask that the applicant to address this issue with the Commission.

Finally, there is a recommendation in the ordinance that mentions the relocation of the dumpster that was originally proposed to be along Euclid Avenue. The recommendation asked that the dumpster be relocated to the eastern side of the property.

In conclusion, Mr. Helmer said he would once again like to reiterate that the applicant has done a lot of preliminary work with staff. There are obviously many issues that need clarification this evening, such as traffic safety, parking and stormwater management.

Ms. Newsom asked where the proposed drive-thru would be.

Mr. Helmer answered that it is being proposed for the eastern side of the building. Originally the applicant stated that it would be for a coffee-shop type restaurant.

Ms. Newsom asked if the proposed sidewalk along 72^nd Street would remain abutting the roadway and wondered if there would be no green space between it and 72^nd Street.

Mr. Helmer said that is correct. That is where staff initially had some concern and started to look into possibly increasing the landscaping in the area.

Chairman Hill asked the applicant to come forward.

Leon Osbourn, Kaw Valley Engineering, 2319 N. Jackson, Junction City, Kansas, addressed the Commission. Mr. Osbourn stated that he is here on behalf of Family Video. He said that Mr. Helmer has went through a laundry list of items, so he asked them to feel free to ask him questions as he goes through his presentation. He introduced Levi Dinkla of Family Video and Brian Christenson of Lutjen and Associates.

Mr. Osbourn began with the rezoning. He referred to a map and said that they are primarily talking about the pie shaped piece; it’s a fairly straightforward rezoning request. He pointed to the site plan and pointed to where the monument sign would go. He said they are looking at meeting with City staff to discuss some of those issues. Mr. Osbourn said he didn’t want to get redundant and keep repeating everything Mr. Helmer said, but they have reviewed the staff report and are in concurrence with a lot of staff’s requirements. He thinks the two big issues this evening are the access, which they are in the process of evaluating. He said he hadn’t a chance to review the traffic study and look at some of the conflicts that they discussed in that report, but prior to going to City Council, he said they will have that resolved to City staff.

Mr. Osbourn said the other big issue tonight is the storm drainage. Currently, all the water drains towards the intersection of 72^nd and Euclid and back to the north towards Kindercare. They are proposing putting in some storm inlets and revamping some of the current storm drains to direct the water towards the intersection. There is a small amount of water that will go out into 72^nd Street, but they are trying to capture most of it on site. With this site, he understands they are probably going to have to do some detention. It is existing grass right now and they are going to asphalt and concrete. He said they will evaluate that in their storm drainage study.

Mr. Osbourn continued by stating that they are more or less in compliance with the other items. Again, he said, City staff has done an excellent job on making his presentation this evening. He asked for questions from the Commission.

Mr. Whitton asked about the drainage study. He said most of the water is going to go down to the intersection of Euclid and 72^nd Street.

Mr. Osbourn answered yes. He replied that it is currently is going in that direction. Their practice is that they will not discharge any more water off their site than is going right now. He has not reviewed the City’s storm drainage ordinance; he needs to get that from City staff. Generally, what they will look at is underground detention in pipe structures.

Mr. Whitton said there is a lot of problems down by John Woody’s house where the creek comes out. There have always been a lot of drainage problems there.

Mr. Osbourn said that fortunately, for them, they are just dealing with this site (pointing to map) and the aspects of it and they will contain what their site is contributing to that drainage area.

Mr. Whitton said that what he is saying is that the City doesn’t need any more water in that creek over there.

Mr. Osbourn replied that they will have to still discharge to where it is running right now. They can’t divert it to any other drainage channel. They’ll slow it down and let it go off what it is right now; the water’s got to go that direction.

Ms. Babich asked what the controls are for uniformity, lighting and the other parts of the signs for these businesses.

Mr. Osbourn said he will have Mr. Dinkla address that question.

Levi Dinkla, 3029 SW Arvonia Place, Topeka, Kansas, Regional Director for Family Video, addressed the Commission. Mr. Dinkla answered that all the signage is uniformly backlit. The color is going to be green and orange. The other retail stores will depend on the City’s zoning ordinance and who the tenant is. He said the other thing to take into account is that they are only allowed so much store front signage. There will be one monument sign for the property that will inclusive of all tenants and then each tenant will have a small sign above their business.

Ms. Newsom asked if there was a Starbucks and a Sheridan’s they would use their standard logo.

Mr. Dinkla answered yes; he feels it is very important to the name branding.

Ms. Abbott asked how many feet there is from the retaining wall to the property line.

Mr. Osbourn said that on the north side it is approximately 4-5’ from the property line and on the east side it is probably 20-30’ off of the property line.

Ms. Abbott said it looks to her like the building is only 17’ from the retaining wall on the east corner. She asked if that is correct.

Mr. Osbourn said that is correct.

Ms. Abbott asked staff if that is allowable.

Assistant City Manager Wingerson said he would check the City Code and get clarification.

Mr. Osbourn referred to his City Zoning Code and quoted that the “rear yard setback is 15 feet, side yard- none required except for buffer zone is required next to residential.”

Ms. Babich asked if the awning is metal.

Mr. Dinkla replied that yes, it is metal soffit material. He handed her a pamphlet depicting the building in a photograph.

Ms. Newsom asked what the tower structure was made of.

Mr. Dinkla said it is made of glass block with a steel frame and is interiorly lit.

Mr. Boor inquired about the sign at the corner. He asked if it would have bright, dazzling letters that would be moving.

Mr. Dinkla answered that no, it would not be a digital sign.

Chairman Hill asked if the proposed zoning change of CP-1 would allow for a drive-thru.

Mr. Wingerson answered yes.

Chairman Hill asked if in addition to consideration of a reconfiguration of the sidewalk if there had been any consideration to adding a dedicated left turn lane on 72^nd Street.

Mr. Helmer replied that he did have recommendation from City Engineer Nebergall that at some point and time in the future that there is the possibility that the City would need to look into that. It was mentioned, but there was no additional comments as far as the impacts with this particular development site.

Chairman Hill noted that with the signage and parking there wouldn’t be room to add an additional 15’ or so to the right-of-way in the future and that concerns him.

Mr. Horton asked how the traffic from the drive-thru window would be handled.

Mr. Dinkla said that the cars would head north and then back to the west.

Mr. Horton asked if relocating the dumpster was going to interfere with the drive-thru area.

Mr. Dinkla said that it would not. He also added that he would like to address some of the other issues that Chris had brought up. First, to introduce Family Video, they are new to northern Kansas City. He has one in Lee’s Summit, but they have been around since 1978; they currently have 535 stores of which they own the real estate on 530 of those stores. Mr. Dinkla explained that when he goes through this process and he is meeting with the City and the community, they are serious about being a long-term property owner here in the City so they are more than welcome to any thoughts of how they can make this very good for everyone involved. One of the things that came up was the parking and he said he always gets the question, “Why so many parking stalls?” The reason is because Family Video does about 70% of their business in six hours a week on Friday and Saturday evening. The difference between a store with 70 parking stalls and a store with 35 parking stalls is nearly double the revenue on monthly basis. That can be the difference between a $1.2 million store and a $500,00 store.

Mr. Dinkla continued by saying that in listening to staff’s response he is open to doing some more green space there. They would love to keep all those parking stalls, but they would like to work with staff on how they are displaying that green space. One of the things they would like to avoid is moving the sidewalk, as the Commission can probably understand, but that doesn’t mean they can’t enhance the current green space that’s there.

Another issue that came up was the driveway entrances. Mr. Dinkla said that previous to tonight’s meeting, he had tried to be in contact with both owners to the north and to the east and was unsuccessful on multiple attempts. Finally, tonight he got to meet the owner to the east of them and they began discussions on the possibility of sharing an entrance between the two properties. That is something that they would be more than willing to do if they could work out. Unfortunately, the corporation that owns the property to the north have been absolutely unresponsive towards any type of talk of sharing a driveway there.

Mr. Dinkla said he would like to clarify that whether or not they develop the property or not, the water situation going into that creek will not get one bit better or worse. If anything, it can only get better with the development. As they know, Family Video is responsible for retaining the water that is on them and only putting out what is going out right now. He just wanted to make sure that everyone attending from the public this evening understood that. That is something that they are committed to and he knows that the surrounding neighbors are passionate about it.

Ms. Abbott said that when he is talking about that he is not going to make any more water…he’s talking about a lot that is grass right now that is going to be concrete? She asked if he knew how many gallons of water comes with one inch of rain on a concrete surface-27,152 gallons. She asked where that water is going to go.

Mr. Dinkla said that eventually it’s going to go the same place it’s going right now.

Ms. Abbott said yes, but the ground absorbs the water considerably more than on a concrete surface.

Mr. Dinkla said that all he can say is that they are going to be obligated to make sure that they are not putting off more water that is there right now.

Mr. Osbourn approached the podium and added that there are other methods that they are seeing now that Kansas City, Missouri are requiring them to do where they put storm chambers under the ground with a gravel base and try and let some of that water filtrate back into the ground. He feels that being so close to that channel that it’s going to end up in the same place. Again, they’re not going to release any more water than is running out there now. Yes, they are going to increase the run-off, but they are going to detain that water.

Mr. Whitton said that the City has passed many bond issues and they have spent millions of dollars on that creek so there can’t be any more water in there because he’s tired of passing these things and then later on all of the residents have to pay their tax dollars to fix the problems you [developers] create. He said it doesn’t matter if R-3 goes there or C-1, there’s still going to be run-off; this isn’t worse than anything else, but he just wants staff to make sure that is taken care of properly because that is a heck of a problem on that creek bed. He’s got no problem with anything else, but that water situation is bad.

Mr. Osbourn asked what regulations the City has adopted.

Mr. Wingerson answered that APWA’s regulations have been adopted and locally amended and that in cases like this if they go forward from Planning to Council, then the real stormwater work starts. He believes what the applicant is committing to is to comply with all of the City regulations and that staff hears Mr. Whitton very clearly and agree whole-heartedly.

Ms. Alexander agreed with Mr. Whitton that we need to take care of these water problems before they get any worse.

Ms. Babich asked the applicant if they have built any facilities that look like this in Johnson County. To her, this façade is not the attractive level that she would want to see in the neighborhood. When she goes down to Johnson County she sees exactly the same stores built there as built here and they look so much better there. They are being a lot more stringent on the aesthetics on what goes into place and when she looks at this she thinks it looks like it is being built for a blue-collar community as opposed to something that would be long lasting and pleasing in Gladstone.

Mr. Dinkla explained that the handout that shows the store’s “canned” sign and the soffit was only to show what the color is. That is their old building. This building is the first building of its type of 530-some stores being built. The video industry is transitioning. They are still doing really well, but their real estate has started doing better than their video. Mr. Dinkla said his goal with this new building design is to make a move more into the property management industry. He said he has been building the old building for $54-$56 a square foot; this one is costing him close to $80.00 a square foot. This is going to be a very nice looking building. As far as do they have anything similar, they have a prototype that was built in Illinois; however, it was only 5,000 square feet. It looks nothing like this one. The materials would be somewhat consistent, but it’s not really going to have the same look as a building this large. Mr. Dinkla said that no, it will not look cheap. It is something that they are about to spend a considerable amount of money on so they want to build something that is going attract the type of tenants that are going to pay the money to help them pay it off.

Mr. Steffens asked if a new driveway is going to built or is the drive going to be shared with the insurance company.

Mr. Dinkla answered that is something he would have to work with City staff on. He believes that is more than likely the recommendation but that is something they would work with us on.

Mr. Steffens said that his other concern was brought up earlier was the left turn lane. It really bothers him that we would do all of this and then come back and want to put the left turn lane in.

Chairman Hill asked for those in favor of the application to come forward. There was no response. He then asked for those in opposition.

Harold Bryant, 7215 N. Woodland addressed the Commission. Mr. Bryant said he is not against businesses coming into Gladstone; he has been a businessman most of his life. He does have some thoughts he would like to run by them. First, how much traffic is this going to generate? Second, is the safety issue of the traffic going in and out of the facility. One of the things that concerns him is that when you’re looking at traffic moving west to east on 72^nd Street, you have a turn signal there going into Euclid which is fine, but to have another access point, more traffic, he’s wondering if they couldn’t say let’s only allow the entrance from the west from Euclid. He just thinks it would be more practical because of the congested nature of the corner. Children are walking; there’s a daycare right next to it. We need to have those access points defined. Another issue is drainage. Within the last year or year and a half the residents along Woodland have lost 3-4 feet of the backyards to erosion. Any more water going into there…Right now people have had to move their fence lines back without losing the entire fence line. This has been a problem going on and he knows it has been brought to the attention of the City Council before and yet nothing has been done with that. Mr. Bryant said that another thing is the electrical area along there. They are constantly having the power companies come out because of the water in the system. They lose phone services. They get shorts. It’s a major issue along there. Mr. Bryant asked how tall the monument sign is.

Chairman Hill answered that his understanding is that the monument sign would be in accordance with the Sign Code.

Planning Specialist Helmer added that originally when staff had asked for a sign rendering it was shown at eight feet; however, that exceeded the City’s requirement of seven feet. The applicant was more than willing to reduce the sign to meet those requirements. For a C-1 classification the maximum square footage cannot exceed fifty square feet.

Ms. Alexander asked what category the lighted tower falls into.

Mr. Helmer answered that the tower is an element of the building structure and does not include any signage on it and would not be classified as a sign.

Mr. Bryant asked about obstruction of view from the tower when trying to enter and exit the site.

Mr. Helmer said that as far as the recommendations of what staff had seen within the traffic safety study that site distance was never an issue. If the Planning Commission feels that needs to be looked into in further detail, staff can certainly work with the applicant on that.

Carol Trivino, 7216 N. Woodland, addressed the Commission. Ms. Trivino said that her concerns would be the water flow in the creek as well as building a video store right next to a daycare center really bothers her. Because of the traffic it will generate and other things that video stores generate.

Mike Trivino, 7216 N. Woodland, addressed the Commission. Mr. Trivino asked if the video business is that good. What is the attraction for putting a video store in that neighborhood? He doesn’t play the stock market, but Blockbuster seems to be hurting pretty bad and he’s never even heard of these guys. Mr. Trivino stated that he’s a creature of convenience and he’s been living in that house since 1982 and obviously there’s twice as many cars as there used to be. Traffic is the main concern for him. Just coming down to the bottom of N. Woodland, depending on the hour, it’s kind of torturous getting into the intersection. He doesn’t know whose idea it was who put in the turning lanes into Antioch Bible Baptist and N. Holmes, but he’d like to buy them dinner, he sees that as a possible solution for putting a retail outlet…He wasn’t real taken with the idea to begin with but the drive-thru window kind of turns him off because of the obvious. Mr. Trivino continued by stating that quite honestly he’d be against retail or traffic entity that would want to show up anywhere between the N. Oak corridor and Highway 1. There is enough traffic through there. He loves the N. Oak Traffic corridor for all of its amenities and convenience of travel and traverse. He just doesn’t want to see 72^nd Street become a part of that.

Oriana Hensel, 7217 N. Woodland, addressed the Commission. Ms. Hensel stated that she has lived on N. Woodland for 38 years so obviously she does have concerns. Most of those concerns have been addressed by others members that live in her area. She has seen North Oak development, and so another concern she has is regarding pawnshops, payday loans and all those wonderful businesses. She asked what there is to stop the other spaces adjoining the video store from becoming those types of businesses.

Dave Hensel, 7217 N. Woodland, addressed the Commission. Mr. Hensel stated that he is with his neighbor Mick, he thinks they have a really nice residential neighborhood and he’d like it to stay residential. He was around when 72^nd Street was a two way street and then they tore it up and improved it and made it nice and wide, which was a nice improvement. But it didn’t let the water go underneath it when it rained. He remembers calling his neighbor Bob Los and he was in Wichita and said “Bob, come home your cars floating around the basement, and he said Hensel, go back to bed you’re drunk!” He said I may be drunk, but your cars floating around in the basement. That same morning, he also moved Mr. Woody’s washer and dryer to a higher point of view. He was in Marshall, Missouri….and of course, they fixed it. Mr. Hensel said then they tore up 72^nd Street and put a wider culvert through there. Then they did some work down at the end of the block and some how or another they managed to carry that whole creek instead of under 72^nd, they made a 90 degree elbow and shot it through the north side of 72^nd Street into the main creek bed. Then just this last Summer they improved their drainage north on N. Woodland, but here they’ve got water down a straight line from the north and it’s an open ditch and then they’ve got a culvert going into a “T” into that creek and he said to his self, don’t they usually put a “Y” in your house draining system instead of a “T” where water meets. It hasn’t gotten any better since they worked on it last year; it’s actually gotten worse. Mr. Hensel wondered about the rest of the Peterson property. On the west side of Euclid there’s a little area that another gentleman was speaking about but it’s got to go into that drain plane. And then north and east of the daycare center there’s a lot more property and it sits higher than that creek so he doesn’t see where it can go except into the creek. Water is his main concern.

Cathy Bryant, 7215 N. Woodland, addressed the Commission. Ms. Bryant stated that her parents actually bought her house when it was new and she has purchased it from her mom. So she has seen it for 37-some years, since 1971. She would just like to reiterate the problem with the creek back there and let them know that pictures by appraisers show the land was way out before and how it’s eroded back through the years. Two houses down is where they have a telephone pole and at one time the pole actually fell into the creek because there was no earth around it left anymore to hold it up. Her mom has been ill, but with the rains in the summer she tried to use her phone at home and there was so much static, if she would get a call, she could not hear the other end. It was all because of all the moisture that travels down through there and then the phone lines are buried along there and they either get wet or it all erodes away and those wires fall into the creek. She told the Commission that they can check, if they’re interested, with AT&T as to how many trouble calls get sent and they have to call all the time about their telephones not working. It’s been going on forever. She’s probably got a picture or two at home if anybody needs to know how much land has washed away from there.

Ms. Alexander asked if any part of the creek in the flood control plan that they’re working on from the south to the north.

Chairman Hill said he couldn’t answer that and he’s not sure that’s something to deal with at this public hearing. That would be a topic more suited for the Council or Capital Improvements Committee.

John Woody, 7201 N. Woodland, addressed the Commission. Mr. Woody stated that he has been there for thirty-seven years. Larry and him go back a few years. At one point they wanted to put a filling station behind his house. Thank goodness the City was helpful to the residents and he’s always appreciate of the response of the City to the residents and their needs. He said they were here last week…not last week…when the meeting was scheduled, two weeks ago and they came in mass and they were ready to participate in a meeting, but apparently it had been cancelled. Mr. Woody said that he fully recognizes that any piece of property…the property owner has a right and responsibility to develop that property to the maximum, but he would hope that they would be a good citizen and work with the residents in the area. There have been a number of things…issues…that have been raised at the meeting, and primary of that is the water retention plan and some other things that will be need to be changed as far as engineering is concerned. He would ask that any action be deferred until the applicant can produce actual changes in the plan…in the written plan…and had a chance for the City and also for the neighborhood to evaluate those changes because they are very significant and have a great bearing on them and their quality of life and the value of their property. He would hope that the Commission would hold off until it is very clear as to what the action is. There are two property owners who are not here today because they are educators. One is a coach in the North Kansas City…he has a game tonight. Another one, as he understands it, works at Park University. Mr. Woody said that in particular they are concerned that the…understanding what the applicant has said and has committed to verbally that water retention is their biggest problem because as the thing is drawn right now all the water from the entire thing goes to the southwest corner and feeds into a drain that goes under 72^nd and then runs parallel to his property to the ditch…the culvert ditch…across from him that goes under 72^nd Street. He doesn’t know what size tube that is, whether it’s a ten-year tube or a twenty-five year tube. All he knows is his neighborhood has experienced a 100-year flood, so twenty-five years ought to be coming up. Mr. Woody said that this is just an estimate, they are not professionals so they have no idea, but a guesstimate is that at the present time 1.34 cubic feet per second is coming off that piece of property because of the grass that is located there. If it is all concrete and building, they estimate that it would be 4.28 cubic feet per second coming off that, which is approximately three and a quarter times the water that is coming off. He feels that is so important, so key, so important to the neighborhood that it should be addressed and it the question resolved before going forward any further. Other items that the neighborhood is concerned about is crowd control. You have a business there where people are coming for videos. He understands they also sell video games also. So, he’s not sure…but he thinks that’s the case, so you can see that it would be a point where people congregate and maybe get a video but then hang out on the corner. So, the neighborhood is concerned about crowd control on that particular corner. He said they’ve already discussed traffic; the questions about traffic. Some questions have been raised about signage and particularly this pylon that stands up. Will it be lit? How will it be lit? How bright will it be lit? Those are some of the questions that he would like to see answered. There are going to be other businesses on that property so there’s going to be monument sign out front for the video store. The question then comes up, “What other signs are going to be out there on the corner?” If you have a business in that location you’re going to want a sign outside on the street. So they are interested in knowing what signage would be put out on the street. Other things that have already been discussed…relocating the dumpster and the potential right-of-way problem. Mr. Woody said that he also made a note that there was a question about this drive-thru…he needs a little bit more information about the drive-thru and how it would be handled and how many coupons they would be handing out in the neighborhood where you get a free coffee. He thanked Chris for his assistance in providing information. He thanked the Commission for their services. This takes a lot of time…[they] listen to a lot of things, but they do have an impact.

Dale Anderson, 1801 NE 72^nd Street, addressed the Commission. Mr. Anderson stated that he wanted to speak to a couple of things…traffic. Right now the traffic, quite a few times a day, backs up past his driveway. There aren’t a lot of polite people in Gladstone because people will pull up and park right in front of his driveway when he is sitting on his driveway with his left turn signal on to go west. He can see with people trying to go through the intersection and make left turns off of 72^nd Street into this video store…this is going to back traffic farther along his street because the traffic going west on 72^nd Street backs up not quite to that insurance agency driveway, but pretty close. There are going to be people trying to make left turns into the traffic light going east, which isn’t going to clear until…you get the picture. Mr. Anderson said that secondly, drainage. They have talked a lot about it. This is going to affect drainage to the north more than him. His house has been flooded already with water coming in. It sounds to him, listening to the conversations, you’re talking about putting in detention but it looks to him like this drainage ditch over here doesn’t need any more water. Another thing that disturbed him was once the zoning is changed the testimony he has heard from staff…their treating this like it’s commercial property on N. Oak…and this is commercial property if it’s rezoned in a residential neighborhood. He said you do things different on N. Oak than you do on N. Euclid. There is a difference there. Lighting shining in people’s back windows, traffic problems, there’s a lot of different things. He would hope that if this goes proposal goes through that there could be some consideration for the residents that are there now and maybe not treat this like this was in a commercial development, but treat it like it’s a commercial pocket in a residential neighborhood.

Larry Strange, 2000 NE 72^nd Street, addressed the Commission. Mr. Strange said he owns the insurance agency next to the proposed video store. He said he was unaware of anything going on until he received a letter on November 5^th. He had heard about it; the secretary in his office said that there’s apartments going in the back and there’s going to be video store next door to him. He’s a little disappointed that a City Councilman or somebody for not informing a next door neighbor about what’s transpiring. Mr. Strange said that they have talked about driveway sharing…he doesn’t know, tonight is the first time he has heard about it. Someone did call him last week and say something about sharing a driveway and he was thinking “What in the world is going on?” He feels like someone should have sent some better notifications to the neighbors. A gentleman here just talked about traffic on 72^nd Street. He comes out of his insurance agency and turns left to go home. There’s lots of nights he has to wait two traffic light changes to even get out. What’s going to keep the kids from cutting through there...going from 72^nd to N. Euclid? It’ll happen. He’s also concerned about the safety of his patrons that come into his insurance agency. He’s been an agent for over forty years. He has a lot of older clientele that don’t back up like they should sometimes, so he’s concerned about fender benders and stuff like that too. Mr. Strange commented that he’s not saying no to the shared to the driveway and he’s not saying yes because he has to think about it.

Chairman Hill said he would like to go back and talk about some of the issues that have been raised. Obviously, drainage is an issue and is something he would think would be addressed by City staff and by City ordinance. He said there really hasn’t been much said about the traffic. He asked if the applicant had someone to speak about the traffic and trips into the development.

Kristen Skinner, 31720 S. McClain Road, Harrisonville, Missouri, addressed the Commission. Ms. Skinner stated that she is with Lutjen and she did the traffic impact study for this development. She said that what they did was went out and took existing traffic counts at Euclid and 72^nd Street during the AM and the PM peak hours for two hours at each time. Then they used an industry manual to calculate the number of trips that would be generated by a video store, a fast food restaurant and retail stores and then laid those on top of the existing trips and then used a modeling program to help calculate the additional delays and some of the things that would be happening with the traffic out there and see how that would affect the signal. Ms. Skinner continued by stating that she heard the question earlier regarding how many trips this development would generate. She answered that for this site (speaking mainly about the PM peak hours) there would be 130 additional trips. How she thinks those would be spread out is that on the 72^nd Street entrance there would be about 40 cars entering and 40 cars exiting during that peak hour. On the Euclid entrance there would be about 30 cars leaving and about 20 cars entering. On 72^nd Street that would be a car, on average, entering every minute and a half or leaving every minute and a half. One of the things that was considered when placing the driveway at this end of the property was the signal and the delay and how many vehicles would be stacking and how far back they would go. What was found was that in the PM peak hour, 95% of the time the stacking won’t go past the proposed entrance. (Ms. Skinner illustrated this on the rendering)

Ms. Abbott said she was concerned about the site distance being impaired from the seven-foot monument sign.

Mr. Horton said that it would seem that the City Code has regulations on setbacks for the sign, so that should resolve that issue. He also heard someone comment about additional signs going in and if he heard correctly, he believes there will just be one monument sign with all the tenants on it.

Mr. Helmer replied that is correct and that one example that the Commission has seen on that very issue is the monument sign for CVS at Antioch and Brooktree Lane that was recently installed. The topic of discussion for that sign from an engineering standpoint was the line of sight that was in that area, so there is a standard equation that is used for that issue to deal with safety.

Ms. Abbott said that with the ingress and egress on Euclid to make a left hand turn into the traffic. Would that not cause a problem?

Ms. Skinner answered that what they looked at was called ‘level of service’ which analyzes delays. She referred to her manual and said that on average someone leaving the development would wait 11.2 seconds for a gap before they could turn left. Again, they looked at how far cars waiting at the signal would stack back onto Euclid and it’s much shorter, it wouldn’t be a problem.

Mr. Boor commented that it seems like they are hearing one story from the residents and one story from the applicant; he is confused and he’s not sure if they can get some kind of commitment here or not.

Chairman Hill asked if Mr. Helmer would like to address Mr. Boor’s question.

Mr. Helmer referred to the memo the Commission received which outlined the issues that are resurfacing time and time again on the traffic safety, stormwater management and parking. Specifically, with the stormwater issue prior to moving forward to Council staff would require the applicant to have all those issues taken care of and could add on any other conditions that the Commission could ultimately decide on this evening. As the conversations that staff has had with Mr. Woody and has consistently heard tonight is that staff, with marching orders, is going to ask the applicant to not increase the water problem anymore and whatever ways they can do to mitigate that is what they are asking of the applicant. If the Planning Commission feels comfortable with the written language staff has received from Kaw Valley and Mr. Osbourn they can go that route; however, that is up to the Commission.

MOTION: By Ms. Alexander, second by Ms. Abbott to table the application until more information is received from the application on the water retention.

Chairman Hill said that the public hearing is not closed at this point so he is unable to entertain a motion at this time. He asked for agreement from Ms. Alexander and Ms. Abbott that they gather a little bit more information and then they can deal with that. Ms. Alexander and Ms. Abbott agreed to wait on their motion.

Chairman Hill asked what kinds of businesses would be permissible at this location. He heard people ask if pawnshops or check cashing businesses would be allowed. He asked for clarification on that issue.

Mr. Helmer answered that currently with the City’s payday loan ordinance there is the land use aspect that the distance requirement from another freestanding building would be 5,280 feet. Any new payday loan business would have to be occupied in a multi-tenant facility housing not less than four separate leasing spaces.

Chairman Hill asked if that means that this building could be used for a pawnshop.

Mr. Helmer replied that staff would have to look further into that distance requirement is. Ideally, he would need to look at the closest location on N. Oak, so he wouldn’t be able to give an exact answer right now.

Ms. Newsom asked if there was a current payday loan operation within the permitted distance and it went out of business, wouldn’t that open the opportunity for one to take place at this location. As long as the CP-1 allows it, there would not be a guarantee that there’s never going to be one there.

Mr. Shevling asked if there was a residential requirement to that ordinance.

Mr. Helmer said there is and it is 200 feet.

Mr. Dinkla said that he was sorry to butt in, but that he could save the Commission a lot of time. In the purchase of the property the company signed a covenant stating that they would not put in any bank, savings, loan or financial institution; cigar or cigarette shop; liquor store; automobile sales; body repair facilities; mortuary; store selling pornographic material; noxious, toxic, or caustic or corrosive fuel or gas.

Chairman Hill said he would also like to ask City staff about the turn lane on 72^nd Street. He said he is uncomfortable proceeding without having more information on it because he knows that the long-term projections are that 72^nd Street is going to project with Brighton in an improved roadway that is going to increase the traffic on 72^nd Street. From his familiarity with long-term city planning there is supposed to be a left-turn lane put in there at some point, may none of us still be alive at that point, but he thinks that is somewhere in the City’s sights.

Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. He said he would now take discussion on Ms. Alexander’s motion to table the application for more information.

Mr. Shevling said he has the same issues with it as it stands now with not knowing about the future of the turn lane. He drives by there everyday and he thinks that is something that needs to be addressed. He is not a fan of having a drive-thru in there. He does like the plan. He thinks it might be a bit too much for the space though, a lot of square foot of building; a lot of square foot of parking and of course there is the concern for the water that should be addressed. As it sits now, he thinks more issues need to be fixed first.

Ms. Newsom said that she concurs. Stormwater has been a huge issue with this community since before she was elected to the Council, so she thinks those issues should be addressed. She also said the driveway issue is critical for the traffic flow. Without having those things firmed up she would be uncomfortable in moving forward. This is not the type of development she had really hoped to see on this corner. She was hoping for some type of mixed-use, like a residential and some sort of maybe support retail. This seems to be pretty intense. To quote a former Planning Commissioner, “It looks like we’re putting ten pounds of potatoes in a five pound sack.” She’s not sure it’s going to fit and flow and be profitable for everyone concerned including the neighborhood. She is uncomfortable in moving forward the way it stands right now. If she were forced to vote on it tonight, it wouldn’t be a positive vote.

Chairman Hill said that they have treated this as one public hearing when they really have three matters here. He agrees with Ms. Newsom and Mr. Shevling; he thinks this is an attractive development, he just concerned about going forward until they have site plan issues resolved. He would be comfortable going ahead with the rezoning to have the entire tract rezoned CP-1, but as far as a site plan revision and the final plat, there’s just a lot of issues that need to be resolved. It’s not all things that need to come from the applicant; some of it needs to come from City staff before the Commission proceeds on this. Like Ms. Newsom, he feels as though he would be forced to vote against the site plan revision and the final plat, when he really may not want to it’s just because he doesn’t have all the information. He asked the applicant if they would like to go ahead with the rezoning and have a vote on just it tonight, or have them all tabled together.

Ms. Newsom asked how they can vote on a planned district without a site plan.

Chairman Hill replied that is correct, they would need to go together.

Mr. Whitton said he likes the project and he would be for it as soon as he sees how they are going to handle the water because something is going to go there. It’s been vacant too long; we need it. No matter what you put there, there’s going to be run-off.

Chairman Hill asked the applicant if he would like the Commission to proceed with the final plat or table the entire thing.

Mr. Dinkla said he would prefer they all be tabled together.

Discussion ensued as to the timeline of the next Planning Commission and City Council Meeting.

AMENDED MOTION: By Ms. Alexander, second by Ms. Abbott to continue the consideration of the rezoning, site plan and final plat at 1900 NE 72^nd Street until the next Planning Commission meeting (December 3, 2007).

VOTE: Ms. Abbott Yes

Ms. Alexander Yes

Ms. Babich Yes

Mr. Boor Yes

Mr. Horton Yes

Mr. Shevling Yes

Mr. Whitton Yes

Ms. Newsom Yes

Mr. Steffens Yes

Chairman Hill Yes

The motion carried. (10-0)

Item 8 on the Agenda: Communications from the City Council and City Staff.

Councilman Rudi reminded the Commission of the Mayor’s Holiday Christmas Tree lighting tomorrow evening at 6:00 pm at the First Bank of Missouri on Antioch Road. She hoped to see everyone there. She also wished them all a safe and happy Thanksgiving.

Ms. Mehaffy announced that on December 11, 2007, from 4:00 to 6:00 pm City staff will be giving hardhat tours of the community center to the business community. She invited them to attend.

Mr. Wingerson congratulated the Commission on a good hearing tonight. They hit the issues clearly in support of the neighborhood while still being supportive of the applicant. He did want them to know that Chris hit those four issues, stormwater, traffic, signage and landscaping during the very first meeting with the applicant so those issues have been on the table for some time. He thanked Chris for that and the Planning Commission for standing firm on the things that they need to know before they make a decision.

Mr. Helmer reminded the Commission of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee meeting on November 27^th from 5:00 to 7:00 pm. The next public meeting is December 4^th at Antioch Bible Baptist.

Item 9 on the Agenda: Communications from the Planning Commission Members.

Ms. Alexander said that the November 6^th edition of the Kansas City Star had an article about Planning Commissioner Bill Garnos.

Ms. Babich commented that this development is very unattractive in contrast to what some other people thought. She thinks it looks kind of cheap. She especially doesn’t like that glass tower and it will look very out of place on 72^nd Street. The final thing she has to say is that because she travels all over the country including Kansas City and even Gladstone…she sees new construction going up to pave over green grass at the same time there is abandoned developments all over the place. She would like the City to have a policy that says that no more grass will be paved over until we use all the existing concreted-over area that the City has.

Ms. Abbott said that as she was driving up N. Oak tonight she thought she saw three new electronic signs that are enormous: Church’s Chicken, Artic Air, and Conoco. Gladstone is beginning to look like Las Vegas.

Ms. Newsom said that once she took the time to read the new formatted staff report she liked the level of detail. She appreciates it. She also added that the City needs some weekend code enforcement. She realizes its Winter and there are no weeds growing up, but Burnett’s Custard is turning into a used car lot. Also, she asked if code enforcement can address the residents who are blowing leaves in the street. It is a safety issue as well as an aesthetic issue.

Item 10 on the Agenda: Adjournment.

Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 9:29 pm.

Respectfully submitted:

______________________________________ Approved as submitted _____

Becky Jarrett, Recording Secretary

______________________________________ Approved as corrected _____

Brian Hill, Chairman