November 17, 2008
Present: Council & Staff Present:
Ms. Newsom Mayor Pro-Tem Carol Rudi
Ms. Alexander* Councilman Wayne Beer
Ms. Babich David Ramsay, City Counselor
Mr. McCullough Chris Helmer, Planning Specialist
Mr. Garnos Melinda Mehaffy, Econ. Dev. Admin.
Mr. Shevling Becky Jarrett, Admin. Assist.
Absent: Ms. Smith
*entered after roll call
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 3, 2008 minutes.
MOTION: By Ms. Newsom, second by Mr. West to approve the November 3, 2008, minutes as submitted. The minutes were approved as submitted.
Item 4 on the Agenda: Communications from the Audience.
Item 5 on the Agenda: PUBLIC HEARING : on a request to vacate unimproved rights-of-way at NE 73rd Terrace and N. Euclid Avenue. Applicant/Owner: J.A. Peterson Enterprises, Inc. File #1326.
Item 6 on the Agenda: CONSIDERATION : of a Final Plat at NE 73rd Terrace and N. Euclid Avenue. Applicant/Owner: J.A. Peterson Enterprises, Inc. File #1329.
Item 7 on the Agenda: PUBLIC HEARING : On a Rezoning and Site Plan Revision at NE 73rd Terrace and N. Euclid. Applicant/Owner: J.A. Peterson Enterprises, Inc. File #1330.
Chairman Hill asked staff if all of the applications could be taken together as one public hearing.
Mr. Wingerson said that the Commission is welcome to take them together.
Chairman Hill called on staff for their report.
Planning Specialist Helmer began the presentation by stating that about a month ago when the Commission met there was a continuation of the street vacation for this application. That was done so that a more comprehensive discussion could be done on this development proposal this evening. Also, about a year ago, the Commission heard the Family Video application. There will be some very similar items to consider this evening that started back during that development proposal. Two items in particular are a traffic study analysis as well as some preliminary work on stormwater detention.
Mr. Helmer highlighted some areas of the staff report. The rezoning request is for a rezoning of an existing CP-1 and R-3 to the proposed RP-3, Planned District Garden Apartment Residential. There is a summary of the traffic analysis that was started in the staff report. A stormwater analysis has been done for not only the commercial portion that was approved, but also the residential component. New to the staff report is a section addressing how this application fits into the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Helmer spoke next about the street vacation. He explained that this vacation allows for additional flexibility with the development plan as well as recognizing the other existing properties that are surrounding the proposed development plan. The total area of the plat rezone is approximately 11.5 acres with a net development area of 8-9.5 acres. The site plan revision includes approximately 98 total units. Mr. Helmer said that last week the developer held a neighborhood meeting. He offered to answer any questions at this time.
Chairman Hill asked if the Commissioners had any questions for Mr. Helmer.
Chairman Hill asked what a “valley gutter” was as discussed in the recommended conditions: #7- A valley gutter shall be installed delineating City right-of-way from off street parking at the pool and cabana area.
Mr. Helmer answered that the Commission may not have noticed as they pulled in the parking lot in front of City Hall this evening but right behind the parking stalls is a valley gutter. This gutter delineates the parking from the street. When the City takes over the streets from the developer this would be for the street and not for anything private.
Ms. Alexander asked if these units were being built as rentals or homeowner occupied.
Mr. Helmer said the applicant could better answer that question.
Ms. Newsom asked about condition #5 that discusses manicuring and maintaining the landscaping in perpetuity. She is all for that, but said that it also mentions that they should all be irrigated and wondered how it all fits in with the City’s green initiative.
Mr. Helmer said that this item is one that staff is working with the applicant on. The main intent on what staff has looked for here is the green space and how it is maintained. As far as the City’s green initiative he can’t say that it might fully fall into everything the City is doing; however, any time they have additional green space or common areas that’s a good thing for the City.
Ms. Newsom said she realizes that but, so often you go by properties that have irrigation systems on timers that get knocked about by commercial lawn and landscape people and you get a free car was instead of them irrigating the grass. That is her concern.
Mr. Helmer replied that he is confident Mr. Forquer with Lutjen will be able to address that question.
Ms. Newsom also asked about condition #13, which states that yard lights or street lights shall be provided by the developer. That needs to have the phrase “would be maintained by either the developer or the HOA” added.
Chairman Hill asked the applicant to come forward.
Brian Forquer, Lutjen, Inc., 8350 N. Saint Clair Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64151, addressed the Commission. Mr. Forquer said they went through this process a year ago with Family Video and there has always been a question on the remainder of the project. He proceeded to depict the area of his presentation on the screen and orient the Commission with the project. He explained that what he is asking for tonight is a street vacation, rezoning, site plan revision and final plat.
The R-3 district for garden apartment zoning allows them to use buildings that are two and half stories tall up to twenty-four units per building. Mr. Forquer said that what they are proposing is four and six-plex units. The gross density would provide them with 152 units. They are only coming in with 98 units with this project. They have had numerous concerns and comments from the neighbors at the neighborhood meeting last Thursday. He indicated areas on the site plan where a 35’ buffer was provided as well as areas where a 50’ and 85’ buffer was provided.
Mr. Forquer said that they are proposing to rezone the R-3 and C-1 to one RP-3 district making a planned district and tying the site plan to that zoning component. Pointing to an aerial image, Mr. Forquer showed where the new property lines would be after the vacation. The vacation will allow flexibility in the design making the final proposed plat of a singular curved linear road with a cul-de-sac and an island.
Mr. Forquer spoke of the existing KCP&L easement which is 100’ wide that is a constraint for the site and will need to be designed around and so units cannot go under that easement. He pointed out the existing storm sewers and areas they tie into.
He explained that they have tried to maintain as much of the vegetation on the east side as possible. They will enhance that with existing plant material to provide additional screening. Area residents have expressed that they like the existing vegetation because of the deer and other animals. That, he pointed out, will also serve as a marketing point to sell those units to the new tenants.
Mr. Forquer said that on the southwest corner there is a proposed detention basin and storm sewer. The storm sewer that discharges from the street and the Kindercare…there will be two components with that. There will be a large storm sewer running underground to convey the water to the existing system which will them move on to the 72nd culvert and also an overland swale above that to move the water that does not get in there back into that swale and would enter the basin.
Mr. Forquer informed the Commission that the units vary from a four-plex unit to a six-plex unit; there are no twenty-four unit buildings on there. It fits more within the context of the four-plexes that are facing the existing duplexes.
Regarding traffic, there is a traffic signal at the corner of Euclid and 72nd Street. As Mr. Helmer mentioned, with Family Video and 102 units that traffic signal will function with acceptable levels of service.
Looking at the southeast corner of Euclid and 72nd Street- the existing drainage way or ditch that happens along the adjacent property line is on Peterson’s property. They are trying to alleviate some of the items that have happened there due to stormwater, channelization and erosion. What they have shown is removing a building and putting a detention basin there to help the stormwater. Second, is putting a storm sewer in to help convey those flows and keep it in the pipe and move it downstream. Third, is to have an overland swale that would move the water from the new units (west side) into the basin.
Mr. Forquer showed a photograph of what the units will look like. They will have two doors on each side and two in the middle that are split by the garages. He said that the unit that is shown in the photo is actually located in Johnson County, Kansas at Woodland and Johnson.
Going through the staff recommendations, Mr. Forquer, spoke of the monument sign that would represent the community. Fire hydrants would comply with code. They will close the existing ingress/egress by moving those streets. In conversation with staff, the dashed outlined areas would be the common open space that would be maintained with irrigation. The detention basin would be if there is sod or landscaping in order to maintain them as well. The area under the open easement would be irrigated as open space for the residents.
The comprehensive stormwater study has been completed and staff agrees with their recommendations. A valley gutter will be installed. Sanitary calculations will be provided so that all the sewers are acceptable. Additional five feet of right-of-way will be provided along 72nd Street for any future street improvements. A ten feet drainage easement will be provided along the north side of Lot 1. A maintenance agreement, mainly for the valley gutter, will be provided. Sidewalks will be provided along both sides of the street and along 73rd Terrace, Euclid Street and their property. Yard lights or streetlights will be provided for the community.
Mr. Forquer asked if there were any questions for him.
Ms. Newsom asked if the stormwater plan they are proposing would mitigate what normally comes off of the land and would there would be even less running off with the additional hard surfaces into that creek than there is now with the natural surfaces.
Bob Sonta, Civil Engineer for Lutjen, Incorporated, addressed the Commission. Mr. Sonta stated that yes, that is correct. There will be more total run-off, but what a detention pond does is temporarily stores stormwater run-off and releases it over a lower rate.
Ms. Newsom said it was her understanding that behind the three big units on the west side of the development that was going to be tubed somehow so it would go through the storm sewer system and not in the open ditch.
Mr. Sonta said that is correct; it will be underground.
Mr. Forquer explained that the creek behind the units on Euclid is going to be redefined into two systems. There will be an underground storm sewer and there will be an above ground swale. The swale will be for the water that comes off the driveways and buildings and it will drain into the detention basin.
Ms. Newsom asked if the water will go into the creek behind the houses on Woodland.
Mr. Forquer said that creek will not be there; it will be redefined.
Ms. Abbott asked what is going to happen to all of the silt that will come from construction that will make it’s way downstream into the lower creek.
Mr. Sonta answered that as part of construction they are required to adequately manage the erosion that comes off the site.
Ms. Abbott asked if it could be put in the recommended conditions that the silt has to be removed after construction.
Mr. Sonta said that he is sure there are inspection teams to monitor that and the contractor will be willing to clean out any existing public improvements.
Mr. Whitton said he heard Mr. Sonta say there will be more water, but that it will be detained. Added water eventually ends up in Brooktree where the City has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars taking care of their flooding problem. He asked how much the water is going to add down there and how’s it going to affect Brooktree when it finally gets there.
Mr. Sonta said we are talking about two different things here- the total amount of water which is the volume of water, which they can’t help but increase. What the detention pond does is temporarily store that larger volume of water and spread it out over time.
Mr. Whitton said maybe his question was more for City staff.
Mr. Wingerson said that staff has spent a lot of time talking about stormwater with the applicant on this project. The capacity of the two basins are calculated to detain water and then release it in sequence so that downstream can handle it. Even though there is additional water that can’t be avoided because there is development on the property. The additional stormwater is detained. They may detain some water that’s already there and release it; that’s all okay. It’s just that whatever water that’s there has to be detained in an amount that is greater or equal to what they are creating. It’s a pretty comprehensive stormwater solution.
Ms. Alexander asked Mr. Forquer if they were building these units to rent or to sell.
Mr. Forquer answered that they would be for rent.
Ms. Babich said that since these will be rental units and there won’t be a homeowner’s association, what are the rules that they will have regarding parking on the street, actually using the garage space to put a vehicle in and using flowered bedsheets instead of curtains? What are the ways they will preserve this looking like a community instead of an area for transients?
Mr. Forquer said that parking will be provided for on the street. The CCR’s have not been completed at this time, but typically with a Peterson project and putting a pool and cabana in it is more of an upscale community compared to what has been called “section eight” or “government housing” which was a concern of many of the neighbors. He’s not sure that he can control the blinds that is either a bedsheet that’s flowery or curtains, but their intent is to be more upscale and to be a good neighbor and to fit within the surrounding community.
Mr. West asked how wide the streets are and how much parking will be available.
Mr. Forquer said that they would be approximately 25-28’ back to back and then any place you can find a place to park between the driveways. There are seventeen spaces provided at the pool for use of it and visitors.
Ms. Newsom said that if parking is allowed on the street and you start trying to park cars around the cul-de-sac how is Public Safety equipment going to get through there? She asked if Public Safety reviewed the plan.
Mr. Wingerson answered that they have reviewed the plan.
Ms. Newsom asked if it would be posted “no parking” around the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Wingerson said that to start they are usually not posted and if there becomes a problem then the City would have it posted “no parking.” He said he could have Public Safety take another look at it.
Chairman Hill said he is still confused by the proposed drainage on the west edge of the property. He asked what effect tubing the water from the north has on it’s velocity as it goes under 72nd Street.
Mr. Sonto explained that they are not going to increase the peak flow. Once it gets to the structure at the southwest corner of the property, what can fit into the downstream pipe will keep going so it will be just like the existing condition. The increased flow that’s in the bigger tube will back up into the detention basin and that will be the temporary storage.
Ms. Abbott asked how many gallons the basin holds.
Mr. Santo said he is not sure how many gallons it would be.
Chairman Hill asked how far back from the street the buildings are set back.
Mr. Forquer said that the buildings are setback 35’ from the street.
Chairman Hill asked if the developer would be willing to put some architectural detail on the backs of the buildings that back up to the newly created swale. He said they seem kind of bare and they are quite large. He asked if they will have decks or patios.
Mr. Forquer said they could take it under consideration and talk with the applicant. The units will have 8’ patios.
Chairman Hill asked if the patios would encroach upon the 35’ rear yard setback.
Mr. Forquer said yes.
Ms. Newsom asked the applicant if they would consider making the new proposed street from the development on to NE 72nd Street a right in/right out.
Mr. Forquer said no, because based on the existing signal and the proximity to Woodland. The tenants will either come out and use the signal as intended or they will come off the new road and take their chances. He understands from the neighbors about the traffic on 72nd Street, but there is no intention right now to make that intersection a right in/right out.
Ms. Abbott asked how many trees they are planning on removing.
Mr. Forquer said that is still in review. Right now they have shown it to the property line, but it’s going to depend on how much work needs to be done for grading and engineering back there in the drainage way. He said their intent would be to keep and enhance the plant material that is there. Pending final engineering refinement and what needs to be done for the channel is going to determine what the final outcome is.
Mr. Steffens asked how long the driveways are.
Mr. Forquer said they would be 45’ long including the right-of-way.
Mr. Garnos asked if the plan was approved, what kind of timeline are they looking at.
Mr. Forquer said that pending building permits, they would like to construct this winter or spring.
Mr. Garnos asked if the existing duplexes along 72nd Terrace had anything to do with this property.
Mr. Forquer showed the property line on the slide and said that property line includes everything there is with this project.
Mr. Garnos asked if the duplexes around this development are rentals.
Mr. Forquer said that the neighbors tell him there are a mix of rentals and owner-occupied.
Ms. Newsom said she knows some of the owners on the north side that own one side of the duplex and rents out the other.
Chairman Hill asked for those in favor of the application to come forward. He requested that comments be limited to three minutes.
Marilyn Chavez, 2227 NE 73rd Street, addressed the Commission. Ms. Chavez said that the streets on the maps are labeled wrong; it should read NE 72nd Terrace. She stated that she is concerned about the parking because if you go to any of these types of townhouses they have parking for one car outside and then between most of them there’s not room for parking. Being just one house away from the development, she envisions people parking in front of her house quite often. If this is 98 units, this is going to be 200 people- 200 cars at the least. It concerns her that on the agenda and on the map the street name is wrong. The runoff is probably a problem too, but daily living the parking is going to be a bigger problem for her and her neighbors.
Becky Murray, 2223 NE 73rd Street, addressed the Commission. Ms. Murray said that she is the first house in the northeast corner of the map. She explained that where the red line is shown on the map there is another creek and the developer has never said anything about that creek. It runs full; they can hear it from their house. They have told her that they don’t know how they are going to block her from this development and that they don’t know what they are going to do with the creek.
8:30 pm- Chairman Hill called for a five-minute recess.
8:42 pm- The meeting reconvened.
Larry Mines, 7180 N. Woodland, addressed the Commission. Mr. Mines said that what he is hoping is that everybody looks at this on a strategic basis. All he is hearing is chaotic. “Lets jump in and get it going this winter”. Let’s really take a look at this thing. There is a problem with water, and it’s going to hold, but if it floods like it did this year- where’s it going to go? Secondly, have the traffic counts been taken from traffic coming south too? There’s a lot of flow of traffic heading north to the main ingress of 72nd Street from the south. That traffic pattern is really going to be something because with that many units you’re going to have more school buses, more traffic, pedestrians and trucks. There was one spot in Gladstone that was green- there was no development on it. Mr. Mines said he could go along with it if they were going to put in ten or twenty units, but how are people going to live side by side like that, peacefully? He thinks it is unethical; to bring a lot of folks in for what objective? What’s the objective of this? Mr. Mines asked about the environmental impact. He doesn’t know how old or new the sewage systems are but, he asked them to think about it. He just can’t see how people are going to be able to live side by side and not have a lot of traffic up there including law enforcement people. He asked where these folks are going to work at. What are they going to do for a living?
Phillip Donnici, 7207 N. Woodland, addressed the Commission. Mr. Donnici said he was not able to make the meeting that the developer held with the residents, so he has several questions. He thinks there are way too many units. He is concerned about the backs of the units. He said you can see that they have taken out all of the vegetation. The creek behind his house has several trees and is wooded and during the summer he can’t see the lights from the daycare. During the winter they have those big LED lights and they flash on to his deck and they have to close their blinds just to sleep. Since they put the light in, the wrecks have gone way down. He has been there since 1997. Mr. Donnici said he still hears a wreck or screeching tires probably every other month. Since the video store has come in he has heard at least two or three wrecks. The surveyors were in his yard at least 5’ and he’s worried about that. He’s been paying taxes…he was told when he bought the house that the fence was brought in already. What about the existing fences? Mr. Forquer told him he didn’t know what would happen there. He knows this has to be developed sometime and like his neighbor, he doesn’t know if this is the right development for this area.
Oriana Hensel, 7207 N. Woodland, addressed the Commission. Ms. Hensel stated that all her neighbors down N. Woodland have been affected by the creek erosion to the point that they have had to move their fences back several times. One of her neighbors…the telephone service had gone because the telephone pole went into the creek. This is a big problem and she is not convinced that this is going to take care of the N. Woodland properties that are further to the north. The other thing is the retention basin…how many feet deep is it going to be when water is in it? Is the safety of kids considered? Where do you protect children from the safety of that basin- let alone this creek that is now at least six feet deep. It used to be a little creek. Also the traffic is a big issue. The light has been helpful, but it is still hard to pull out. Ms. Hensel said that they were told the other night that they are rental properties, but the question that was asked was “Will they always be rentals?” The answer was that they could be sold and owned. Another question at the meeting was if there will be parking on the street. They were told that there would probably only be one car allowed on the street and one in the driveway. Now tonight that is contradictory. Also, what is to keep this from becoming another low income housing in Gladstone? This is her biggest concern. What about their property values? She has lived there for thirty-eight years.
David Hensel, 7217 N. Woodland, addressed the Commission. Mr. Hensel said he remembers when the put 72nd Street in and widened it and it was a great improvement until it rained. His neighbor’s houses flooded. After that they fixed it and there were no problems until they straightened out Euclid. The neighbor’s yards are disappearing from erosion. He’s lived there thirty-eight years. It makes sense to him to put a great big tube right under the middle of Euclid and take it across 72nd Street and move it down to Brooktree.
Ruth Russell, 7200 N. Woodland, addressed the Commission. Ms. Russell explained that she has a creek in her backyard. Granted, the City spent a lot of money on it; the last time she flooded was 1993. She was very grateful the City did this. They widened the box under 72nd Street. Their problem was eliminated up until this year. As of this year she has had water come up in her yard two times. It hasn’t got to her house yet, but that’s a matter of time. Brooktree is going to feel the brunt of it. Ms. Russell said she posed this question to the developers the other night and they said her problem is upstream. This development is not going to help the problem. She has lived there since 1974. She finally purchased flood insurance because of these problems. She is obviously opposed to the development, it’s probably going to happen whether she is or not. The other issue she has with it is the development. Right now this is what’s proposed. What happens if JA Peterson decides two months from now that he doesn’t have the liquid funds to do this and the land sits vacant for a couple of years and later on he decides to develop low income housing. There is nothing in this proposal or in the City by-laws that holds their feet to the fire.
Chairman Hill closed the public hearing.
Ms. Alexander stated that she thinks the development is way too dense which will lead to traffic problems. Water problems will only be compounded regardless of what goes in. She is adamantly opposed to the exit on 72nd Street because there are enough problems with QuikTrip. She will be voting no.
Ms. Abbott said she is concerned about the water problems as well and will be voting no.
Ms. Newsom said that when she first heard of this project she was excited to think that Gladstone was going to have another quality development such as Oak Lane that are owner occupied with outside maintenance provided. They are properties that are well maintained and not extremely dense. This project is too dense to fit the rest of the surrounding neighborhoods and is not compatible. Ms. Newsom said that as it stands now she cannot support it because of street parking, density, lack of willingness of the developer to make a right in/right out lane and to deal with some other issues mentioned tonight. She would like to give the developer an opportunity to go back and do a do-over if they would like. If they are not willing to make any concessions then she will be voting no.
Mr. Forquer stated that the property is zoned R-3. The developer has come in with this application to rezone those. As the R-3 stands, garden apartments could come in right now. This does not have to be made a planned district. Mr. Forquer said that they have come in to work with the City and have spent a lot of time with City staff…
Ms. Newsom told Mr. Forquer that if he is going to talk down to her and chastise her he can stop right now. He still has to come before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Forquer continued by stating that based on the ability to come in with “section eight” housing they have also asked this to be a planned district in order to answer the neighbor’s concerns if it can get changed in a year- they are tying the site plan to the zoning. By tying the site plan to the zoning any major modifications to that site plan would have to come back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Forquer said they have done that in best interest to the City, the developer and the neighbors. They have also tried to clean up the R-3 and C-1 districts. The sanitary sewer had the capacity to do the development. It has been zoned to be a residential community and commercial development. It is one of the last pieces of land to be development in the Gladstone area.
Mr. Forquer explained that traffic has been a concern and what was discussed at the neighborhood meeting was that there would be one car parked in the driveway, one parked in the garage and then there would be some on-street parking.
Mr. Forquer said that in regards to Ms. Murray’s questions about the creek all he can answer at this time is that they are building a retaining wall and do the least about of work in that drainage area as possible. This will help her answer her question of does she build a retaining wall on her property to build that up and get that land back compared to the slope that exists there for her house right now. He is willing to share the information with what they do as they further refine the engineering plans.
Mr. Forquer said that the traffic study did incorporate all four sides of the signal. The study shows how many people are going north/south and east/west.
There have been discussions regarding the property lines and they continue to talk with the neighbors. Mr. Forquer said there is a perception that people may own the ditch or may have been told by a realtor that they owned it, but when they surveyed the property line corners fell within what is maintained as some of the property. That is based on recorded plat information.
Ms. Babich stated that there are not enough protections in this particular layout and there are too many unknowns. She is also concerned about the lack of any knowledge of what kind of requirements would be placed on the tenants. There are people in her neighborhood that can’t a car into their garage, so she has no doubt that there will be stuffed driveways and cars on the street and it will look like a major parking lot. Ms. Babich said she does have a lot of concerns that this will look like a low-income district even if it’s intended to be high-end. To her, it doesn’t appear to be the level of housing they would want in this area.
Mr. Whitton said he agrees with Ms. Newsom. He commented that Mr. Forquer lost him when he said rental. If this was a Larry Mitchell project like the one on N. Troost he thinks they would welcome it with open arms. He realizes they are tying to make all the money they can out of the property they have left, but he’s sure that anybody on this Commission would approve a quality project like Mr. Mitchell’s. It’s beautifully maintained, painted and taken care of. He understands that they have a right to develop their property, but they would be a much better neighbor if they would do something else.
Mr. Forquer replied that he thought they had come in with a nice product and tried to work with the City. They didn’t come in with twenty-four unit buildings. They’re not coming in with 150 units, which would cause more concerns by the neighbors. This fits with the duplexes across the street and creates a cohesive street environment. J.A. Peterson has done quality products such as Copperleaf and Preserve of Carriage Hill.
Mr. Whitton asked if they have developed any apartments in Gladstone.
Mr. Forquer said he did not know if they did. They did develop the Woodland townhomes.
Ms. Alexander again stated that she is not comfortable with this project due to the water problems and the exit on to 72nd Street.
Mr. West explained that his biggest concern would be water run-off. He understands the concept behind the detention basin and he thinks the developer has come with a good faith effort to come up with accurate calculations, but he was on the Capital Improvements Committee for eight years when they were fixing all those stream run-off problems. He has seen too many examples of where the run-off was calculated and it just didn’t handle the flow.
Mr. Forquer said that based on the comments this evening he would like to request that the application be tabled.
MOTION: By Mr. West, second by Ms. Newsom to table the request for vacation, rezoning, site plan and final plat at 73rd Terrace and N. Euclid until the December 1, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.
Chairman Hill remarked that he has concerns about parking. He understands that there is probably room for two vehicles on each side of the driveway, but there really isn’t going to be enough room to park between the two buildings. Then along the north side of the development there are existing homes, not part of this development and what may happen is that people may begin to park in front of those homes. This development is going to have to provide more on-site parking.
Chairman Hill stated that he also still has serious concerns about drainage. The drainage basin is going to be installed, but tubing what is already there is going to increase the velocity of the flow under 72nd Street, which is going to harm properties on the west side of N. Woodland and south of 72nd. Another issue he would like to see addressed is the newly created intersection on 72nd Street. He recalls a dip in 72nd Street that may cause sight distance problems with increased traffic. He suggested a turn lane if a right in/right out is not going to be used.
Chairman Hill also mentioned the backs of the units along N. Woodland lacking architectural detail and any type of a buffer. The buildings are going to be massive and he thinks it needs to be broken up.
Ms. Newsom said that in order to look at this proposal favorably, the developer needs to address the traffic and run-off. The development needs to be less dense, upscale and owner-occupied.
Ms. Newsom Yes
Ms. Alexander Yes
Ms. Babich Yes
Mr. McCullough Yes
Mr. Garnos Yes
Mr. Shevling Yes
Mr. Whitton Yes
Mr. Steffens Yes
Mr. West Yes
Chairman Hill Yes
The motion carried. (11-yes, 0-no)
Item 8 on the Agenda: Other Business- Sign Ordinance.
Mr. Helmer gave a brief presentation on the sign ordinance and findings of the sign code committee. The ordinance will be presented in its entirety at the next meeting.
Item 9 on the Agenda: Communications from the City Council and City Staff.
Councilman Beer reminded the Commission of the November 25th Mayor Christmas tree Lighting as well as the December 2nd art show of Tom Holle at the Community Center. On December 4th at 6:30 pm is a meeting of the Friends of the Atkins-Johnson Farm.
Item 10 on the Agenda: Communications from the Planning Commission Members.
Ms. Newsom said that she does not appreciate when presenters blow off the Commission’s request or talk down to them. It does not make one look favorably upon an application. She does appreciate staff’s diligence in trying to bring the plan forward.
Mr. West asked what the status was of the ground manhole covers on N. Oak was and said that the fix seems to be worse than the problem.
Mr. Wingerson replied that the problem and the fix are complicated, so he will get an explanation in writing from the City Engineer to make it more clear.
Many of the Commissioner’s agreed with Ms. Newsom’s comments and discussion ensued.
Mr. Wingerson explained that it’s one thing to say a threat out loud, but it’s different when it’s actually true. The developer could probably have about 160-170 traditional multi-family apartment units with traditional surface lot, stormwater detention and clear-cut techniques on this property and apply for a building permit that would be issued. The building permit is a right of the zoning and the zoning is already there. Stormwater and traffic would be the two main concerns and there are studies for both of those.
Item 11 on the Agenda: Adjournment.
Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 9:35 pm.
______________________________________ Approved as submitted _____
Becky Jarrett, Recording Secretary
______________________________________ Approved as corrected _____
J. Brian Hill, Chairman