December 3, 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 Becky Jarrett, Administrative Assistant

Mr. Shevling

Mr. Whitton

Ms. Newsom

Mr. West

Mr. Garnos

Chairman Hill

Absent: Mr. Steffens

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 November 19, 2007 minutes.

Ms. Alexander said that on page 8, blue-color, should be corrected to blue-collar. Ms. Newsom commented that she had contacted Becky prior to the meeting to note some corrections.

MOTION: By Ms. Newsom, second by Mr. Whitton to approve the November 19, 2007, minutes as corrected. The minutes were approved as corrected.

Item 4 on the Agenda: Communications from the Audience.


Item 5 on the Agenda: CONSIDERATION: Of a Final Plat at 1900 NE 72nd Street. Applicant: Family Video Movie Club. Owner: JA Peterson Enterprises, Inc. File #1298.

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

Item 7 on the Agenda: CONSIDERATION: On a Rezoning at 1900 NE 72nd Street. Applicant/Owner: JA Peterson Enterprises, Inc. File #1306.

Chairman Hill said again, these issues would be discussed together, but when motions are made they will be voted on separately. He began with staff.

Mr. Helmer went through some of the things that were distributed at the Commissioner’s place this evening. One of those items was a memo from Lutjen which further address the issues of traffic safety. The applicant also provided a packet of information titled “Stormtech” which Mr. Osborn will further explain.

Mr. Helmer said the Commission left off last time by looking for further clarification on traffic safety, landscaping and stormwater management. The applicant will go into more detail later, but has proposed dedicating five feet of right-of-way for future use of a turn lane should it be needed. Landscaping and parking was also an issue with staff from the beginning. Originally there were seventy-seven stalls; however, with the current proposal that number is being dropped to fifty-seven stalls.

Mr. Helmer continued by stating that at the first public hearing staff was in the position of the applicant of not having a detailed plan to present to the Planning Commission. The information received in the Commissioner’s packets last week was a proposal for a stormwater detention at the corner of 72nd and Euclid, which would be a tiered system. Since that particular plan was given to the Planning Commission, staff had concerns with the aesthetics of that type of detention basin and addressed those with the applicant. After the last meeting, that particular detention basin would be an underground lateral tubing system, similar to Plaza 57, but the applicant will go into further explanation on the release rate and other details.

In closing, Mr. Helmer, commented that staff has had a tremendous amount of public activity and engagement with this project and has addressed this through the draft ordinance where some revisions were made. He asked for questions.

Ms. Alexander asked if this [drainage plan] would take care of the run-off so there would be no more water going away from the site than there is now.

Mr. Helmer said that is his understanding that the applicant won’t be releasing anymore than is currently coming off of that site. He said that actually he believes that it’s going to be reduced a little bit; therefore, it will be released at a longer rate than it is currently.

Ms. Alexander suggested that the City require that new developments get more water off the site than what is currently running off since there is such a big problem with that right now.

Mr. Helmer said that of course, at this point in time, this proposal is following the guidelines already established and again, this development will actually be reducing some of the run-off that is being seen going into the drainage ditch to the west.

Chairman Hill asked if the sketch of the median and turn lane is just a future draft. It is not being proposed by this development?

Mr. Helmer said that is correct. It is not shown on the site plan for that reason. The sketch was designed to show that if there is a need for that turn lane in the future, the City could get that additional five feet. He said it is a striped median not a raised median.

Mr. West asked if there has been any additional consideration given to some of the permeable technologies that can be used for parking surfaces or something like a live roof system.

Mr. Helmer answered that on this particular issue staff has not had those discussions with the applicant; however, when they were looking at the original plan where the parking spaces were far exceeded, they believed that by reducing that it would be increasing landscaping and also reducing stormwater run-off. By doing so it reduced the amount of impervious area from 1.13 acres to 1.03 acres.

Mr. Boor said that he had a question on the driveway detail, but that it might be better suited for the applicant.

Mr. Helmer said he would like to quickly address that. Right after the last public hearing on the 19th when staff met with the applicant, staff was advised that there was documentation for an access agreement between the neighboring property owners for that particular parcel. The applicant is prepared to discuss that issue tonight.

Mr. Boor said he misstated his question. It was the drive-thru detail that he was concerned about; especially around the back of the building.

Mr. Helmer said that he believes that it is a 12’ width drive, but he is unaware of any other renderings of what it would look like.

Discussion ensued regarding the exact wide of the drive-thru lane and speculation of what the site plan depicted.

Chairman Hill called for the applicant to come forward.

Levi Dinkla, 3029 SW 25th Ct, Topeka, Kansas, Regional Director for Family Video addressed the Commission. Mr. Dinkla said that what he had hoped was expressed at the last meeting was that that the Commission felt that this was a project that he was very intent on; that he really believed in. After the last meeting, he had a chance to meet with City staff and they presented to him three problems that he needed to have a solution for if they were going to come back tonight. The first is the water detention. Mr. Dinkla said that he would have Mr. Osbourn speak about that in detail, but they have come up with two separate options and are willing to work with the City on either one.

Mr. Dinkla explained that the second issue was the traffic study. The first thing they did was show the availability of a future [left] turn lane there along 72nd Street. To make sure that it is something that could happen in the future, Family Video has already offered up an additional 5’ of right-of-way along 72nd Street. The third issue is the traffic concerns. He said he heard several residents say they were concerned with the monument sign being on the corner, so they voluntarily moved the sign from the corner to the front of the property even with their vestibule. Now that it is out in front it will allow them another opportunity for them to make the property look better and there will be a landscape bed around it. The forth thing with the traffic was sharing the drives. Since that point in time, they have discovered that they have the ability to have cross access and they are in talks with both neighbors in getting the shared access that is shown here this evening. Mr. Dinkla stating that he is confident that they will be able to have the shared access on the site…definitely the one on N. Euclid. They are currently in talks with Mr. Strange for the one on 72nd and it is just a financial matter at this point.

Mr. Dinkla explained that the landscaping was the last issue that needed to be resolved and the first thing they did there was reduce the parking by twenty parking stalls. He said that hit him near and dear to his heart because every one of those parking stalls brings him revenue, but he does feel like they came up with a good agreement that serves a couple of purposes. The first thing is that it’s going to reduce water to the site, it’s going to increase green area and because it’s reduced the parking by nearly 26% it will bring some of his site cost down too. Whether they go with underground detention or not, there will be a significantly greater green presence at the corner.

Mr. Dinkla said that regarding all three of the issues he feels that they have come up with solutions and that they are good for the community, Family Video and for the neighborhood. Like he said last week, they want to be a long-term member of this community and they want to do good because anything they don’t do good is going to come back to hit them. They are not a developer who is going to be gone in five years when they have sold off all the land. They are going to be here for a while and so they feel like they have come up with a good option. Mr. Dinkla said that Mr. Osbourn will speak to the more technical aspects of the plan, but asked if there were any questions for him.

Ms. Newsom wanted to clarify that the proposed shared drive will now align with the drive directly across the street.

Mr. Dinkla said he could not guarantee that. He said his first option is to align it, and that is what they are in talks with Mr. Strange about. Mr. Strange and Peterson Company signed a cross access agreement when he purchased that property in 1991 and his driveway is a little further to the east. For them, they feel like the project works better for both of them if it is where they see it on the proposed site plan. If Mr. Strange and Family Video cannot come to an agreement then they will be utilizing Mr. Strange’s current access point, but both Mr. Dinkla and Mr. Strange agree that it is not in his best interest. Conceptually, they are in agreement that this is where it will be, but he is unable to guarantee it until he has something in writing. What he can say is that it’s not going to be on their (Family Video) site.

Chairman Hill asked about having the entrance marked with arrows showing the in and out lanes.

Mr. Dinkla said that is not currently proposed, but they would be open to that idea if the City could give them another two feet of driveway opening.

Mr. Helmer said that is something staff can work with the applicant on.

Mr. West asked if fifty-seven parking spaces are going to be adequate for Family Video and other tenants who will go into the other 3,600 square feet.

Mr. Dinkla answered “yes and no.” He said that what it will do is restrict who he looks at leasing these spaces to so that he can make sure that he can still accommodate his customers at Family Video first. It’s not his first option, especially when they are building a new project. What he would probably be looking at doing is getting two of the three leases with daytime businesses that are closed by 6:00 pm so that evening traffic doesn’t utilize the parking spaces. Mr. Dinkla said that he’s not happy, but he will make it work. They have enough relationships with companies that lease with them that they can find someone to lease the spaces.

Mr. Horton asked if the trash receptacle moved and if Mr. Strange was aware of that.

Mr. Dinkla answered yes and that it was actually present on the site plan at the last meeting that Mr. Strange attended.

Leon Osbourn, 2319 N. Jackson, Junction City, Kansas of Kaw Valley Engineering addressed the Commission. Mr. Osbourn reported that on the storm drainage they followed the APWA regulations as outlined by City staff. They created a detention pond which would adequately handle the water for a 100-year storm event, in fact, the pond was designed to handle one inch without any of it running off. After talking with City staff a few days later they came up with the secondary option which essentially does the same thing as the above ground detention, but it is all underground. Mr. Osbourn referred to a packet of information labeled “Stormtech” that was provided to the Commission. He said that basically what the system consists of is heavy-duty plastic panels covered up with a washed rock and it lets the water percolate through. They will set the outlet structure so that the bottom of that will never empty out. It will contain the one inch storm for that whole site. There will be a structure in the bottom that will catch trash and silt that will have to be maintained by someone. Mr. Osbourn went on to further illustrate on the drawing how the pipes would work. He said it is a pretty simple system although it is more expensive than the detention pond, but again, you have maintenance with the detention pond as well as some aesthetic issues. This system is out of sight- out of mind.

Ms. Alexander asked who is responsible for cleaning out the system.

Mr. Osbourn said it would be the property owner’s responsibility.

Ms. Babich asked over what period of time would the one-inch storm be.

Mr. Osbourn said it would be whatever it is. The system will collect up to one-inch of run-off and then after that it will start detaining it and then releasing it less than what the current rate is right now. He said that they have the flexibility as they work with staff through final drawings to expand that if they have to because they are still in preliminary designing stages. It is his understanding that City staff is preferring that they go with the underground detention, so that is the direction they are headed.

Mr. Horton asked if there would be plantings above the detention basin.

Mr. Osbourn said he won’t want to put any heavy-rooted trees or anything like that, but probably just some nice shrubbery.

Mr. West asked if a live root system or porous pavement surface was being considered.

Mr. Osbourn said that he has a LEED Certified engineer on staff at his Lenexa office and they are starting to see more of those projects. He said it is pretty expensive to do porous asphalt. They did one in Kansas City, Missouri; it’s working out right now, but he would like to see how it does over the course of five years. Mr. Osbourn said he knows of one live roof system that is under construction and that company is debating on whether to take it out because of the maintenance and the up-front costs.

Ms. Abbott asked what the dimensions of the units that would contain 652,000 gallons of water would be.

Mr. Osbourn replied that the ones he has presented are designed to handle 9,000 cubic feet of water. Each chamber is about four feet wide about seven feet long. It is right at 4,000 square feet and then you have a 6, 12, or 18 inch depth base underneath it and that is where you start picking up the volume.

Chairman Hill wanted to clarify that what is being proposed now is the underground storage system and not the detention basin.

Mr. Osbourn answered yes, at the request of City staff.

John Woody, 7201 N. Woodland, spoke from the audience and remarked that he is not hearing any discussion regarding the petition that the neighbors submitted.

Chairman Hill said that the Planning Commission has received the petition and that the proper place for him to bring that up is at the public hearing next week at the City Council because the public hearing is already closed here.

Mr. Helmer added that staff did receive the petition from Mr. Woody and, in turn, another condition was added to the draft site plan ordinance, which states the concerns that the area residents had.

Chairman Hill referred to the draft ordinance and specifically to the restriction that states prohibited uses of payday loans, pawn shops and adult-oriented businesses. He asked if those terms were defined in the City Code to where they are enforceable.

City Counselor Ramsay replied that he would have to check the Code, but that staff would make sure the term is properly defined before going to Council.

Mr. Dinkla added that there is a covenant on the property which forbids him from having any one of those three described businesses on this property for a period of thirty years, which is the longest a covenant can go on.

Ms. Newsom said that her understanding is that the final plat would permanently vacate the previous easement for the road and make this one contiguous block suitable for development.

Chairman Hill said that is his understanding as well.

MOTION: By Ms. Newsom, second by Mr. West to approve the Final Plat at 1900 NE 72nd Street.

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. West Yes

Mr. Garnos Yes

Chairman Hill Yes

The motion carried. (11-Yes, 0-No)

Discussion ensued regarding which action to vote on next. It was decided that it would make more sense to move forward on the zoning first.

MOTION: By Ms. Newsom, second by Mr. Shevling to rezone the property at 1900 NE 72nd Street to CP-1.

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. West Yes

Mr. Garnos Yes

Chairman Hill Yes

The motion carried. (11-Yes, 0-No)

MOTION: By Ms. Newsom, second by Mr. Horton to approve the site plan at 1900 NE 72nd Street as presented.

Ms. Newsom stated that she is very divided on this plan. She thinks the applicant has done a good job of addressing the needs that have been requested and has carefully designed the project. The business would be a good add to the Gladstone mix of businesses, but her perception is what they are being encumbered with is looking beyond this site to how it impacts the neighborhood as a whole and that is what gives her cause for pause. The intense character of the business and the traffic is her concern. The traffic studies can say what they want to say. She travels that area daily and she sees the fender benders, the almost-misses and the daycare traffic…it is just too intrusive for this property at this time. Ms. Newsom said she would like to see this business in Gladstone and she likes the plan, but here at this point in time she can’t vote for it.

Mr. Shevling said he agrees with the majority of what Ms. Newsom is saying. He thinks traffic is going to increase; however, he travels it daily as well and sometimes coming home from work at 6:30 pm on a Friday night there is absolutely no traffic there, so he kind of thinks it can handle it. He said it’s a good plan and the applicant did a good job of putting it together. They worked back and forth with the City well. It will be a good addition to the City. He feels the applicant has shown that they want to be good partners with the City and the community to do what it takes to make people happy. The green space that they have added looks good. His big concern was the stormwater and adding additional ingress/egress on that street, which was negated with the new plan. Mr. Shevling said he is in favor of it.

Ms. Babich said although she would compliment the applicant for all the hard work they have done to accommodate everyone’s interest, to her the project has “future abandoned strip mall” written all over it. She is looking at down-loads, Netflicks, pay per view and other things which to her imply that the video store is going to go the way of the radio store within the next ten to fifteen years and then they will have to deal with the situation all over again. She also added that it is far too much of a residential area…she would not want to be on the corner of 72nd & Woodland and have to look out her bedroom window and see that lighted tower.

Ms. Newsom said she would really like to see this application on a M-1 or N. Oak site.

Mr. Whitton said he only has one problem with it and it’s the entrance. He asked if they could angle the corner of the entrance so that cars wouldn’t stack up and be in the way for cars entering the site. Other than that he is in favor of the project.

Mr. Helmer said the applicant seems agreeable to that alteration and staff can work the details of that out before Council.

Chairman Hill thought that would be a wise idea. That is also why he mentioned the striping, to calm traffic in that area. He thanked the applicant because he knows they spent a lot of time working over the Thanksgiving holiday and have worked with City staff to address the concerns that were raised at the public hearing. He also thanked the neighbors for participating and City staff for working so hard on this project. He then called for the vote.

VOTE: Ms. Abbott No

Ms. Alexander Yes

Ms. Babich No

Mr. Boor Yes

Mr. Horton Yes

Mr. Shevling Yes

Mr. Whitton Yes

Ms. Newsom No

Mr. West Yes

Mr. Garnos Yes

Chairman Hill Yes

The motion carried. (8-Yes, 3-No)

Item 8 on the Agenda: PUBLIC HEARING: On an amendment to Chapter 135 of the Gladstone Zoning code. Applicant: City of Gladstone. File #1309.

Mr. Wingerson reported that the amendment tonight has to do with a specific use and it is a change from a current allowed classification of C-2 back to C-1. He began by stating that in the Commissioner’s packet there was an explanation of the C-1 zoning classification. Mr. Wingerson read that currently the code reads: C-1D- Shops and stores for retail sale of notions, automotive supplies, gifts, novelties, jewelry, printed materials, flowers, tobacco products, photographic equipment, artist and hobby supplies and music supplies. Under C-2C, it reads: Shops and stores for the retail sale of automotive supplies and petroleum products.

Mr. Wingerson said that the topic of today’s discussion is “the retail of automotive supplies and petroleum products.” When this ordinance was written in the 1950’s and 60’s, the only place you bought automotive supplies was at a place that also sold petroleum products. It would have been a place like a gas station or auto service location. All of those businesses are now separate. He explained that the question this evening is whether or not automotive supplies and petroleum products should be separated and should one of those be in a lower classification by right than it currently is.

Mr. Wingerson said that the technical amendment would add the “retail sale of automotive supplies” and be allowed in a neighborhood C-1 zoning classification, while the more intense, also retail sales, but also wholesale sales and petroleum products and automobile service in a higher zoning classification- C-2 or C-3. The logic in reviewing the Zoning Code is that businesses are different now than in the 1950’s or the 1960’s, which was when it was written.

Mr. Wingerson continued by saying that there is a much more specific discussion; however, he takes the risk of the Commission having preconceived notions. He explained that about six months ago there was a very serious discussion with two businesses at Tower Plaza regarding the north parcel. The City Council has approved the site plan; it is zoned CP-1. The site plan showed a drive-thru restaurant in the style of a Sonic. There were some very serious discussions about a restaurant like this with the property owner and the neighborhood. About the same time, a retail auto parts chain came to Mr. Wingerson and after meeting with them he had to tell them that the zoning was wrong for that type of business. After meeting with the auto parts chain, Mr. Wingerson drove through the neighborhood behind the development and thought that it would be better to look at the back of an auto parts store rather than a fast food restaurant. He contacted the neighbors and they too believed that a retail parts store, with no service, would be a better fit for their neighborhood.

Mr. Wingerson said that the question for the Planning Commission tonight is whether or not retail, automotive supplies should be allowed in a C-1 zoning classification.

Mr. Shevling asked if asked if oil is considered automotive supplies or petroleum products.

Mr. Wingerson said that in the current business world a single quart of oil would be a retail sale of an automotive supply. He said that regardless of what comes out of the building, it’s not being installed at the building or in the parking lot of that place.

Ms. Newsom said that is what you see a lot of people do though.

Mr. Whitton said that a lot of do-it-yourselfers will tear their car down in the parking lot and they’ll put a set of brakes on…he doesn’t care, but that is something to deal with.

Chairman Hill said that O’Reilly and some other shops do other things such as turning brake rotors and some other machine shop type things…maybe even mount and balance tires. He asked how that would fit into the proposed change.

Mr. Wingerson answered that there is no intention to perform any service on site that is not conducted within the four walls of the building. There would be no bay doors or no ability to pull a vehicle in. If they can turn rotors in the back with no doors he guessed that would be okay. What they are trying to do is make a distinction between things that most people use near their neighborhoods….a bottle of wax or a headlight bulbs or other things like that.

Ms. Abbott asked what this would do to generalize a CP-3.

Mr. Wingerson said he doesn’t see that it would have an effect on a CP-3.


Ms. Newsom said she believes that if this moves forward the definition of the “sale of petroleum products” is going to need to be defined in a different way.

Chairman Hill asked for those in favor to come forward. Hearing no response, he asked for those in opposition. Again there was no response. The public hearing was closed.

Mr. Shevling said he would be recusing himself from the vote.

MOTION: By Ms. Newsom, second by Mr. Horton to approve the amendment to Chapter 135 of the Gladstone Zoning Code.

VOTE: Ms. Abbott Yes

Ms. Alexander Yes

Ms. Babich Yes

Mr. Boor Yes

Mr. Horton Yes

Mr. Shevling Recuse

Mr. Whitton Yes

Ms. Newsom Yes

Mr. West Yes

Mr. Garnos Yes

Chairman Hill Yes

The motion carried. (10-Yes, 0-No, 1-Recuse)

Item 9 on the Agenda: Communications from the City Council and City Staff.

Councilman Beer reminded the Commission of the series of hard-hat tours at the community center coming up within the next couple of weeks.

Mr. Wingerson announced that the newly formed Gladstone Neighborhood Commission had their very first meeting this evening at 5:30 pm. He also thanked the Commission for their comments on the Family Video application tonight.

Mr. Helmer reminded the Commission of the next comprehensive planning meeting which is tomorrow evening from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm at Antioch Bible Baptist Church. He also announced that the roofing contract was awarded for the Atkins-Johnson Farm and work has begun.

Item 10 on the Agenda: Communications from the Planning Commission Members.

Ms. Alexander asked what kind of roof is being put on the Atkins-Johnson Farm.

Mr. Helmer said that they were able to use an asphalt shingle; however it does mimic a weathered wooden shingle.

Mr. Horton thanked the City staff for all their hard work and wished them a Merry New Year.

Chairman Hill asked what the State is doing on M-1 Highway.

Mr. Wingerson said he is not sure.

Item 11 on the Agenda: Adjournment.

Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 9:05 pm.

Respectfully submitted:

______________________________________ Approved as submitted _____

Becky Jarrett, Recording Secretary

______________________________________ Approved as corrected _____

Brian Hill, Chairman