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