CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2005
I.
CALL TO ORDER
A
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Liberty, Missouri was held
in the Council Chambers at City Hall on November 28, 2005 with Mayor Robert T. Steinkamp presiding. Mayor Steinkamp called the meeting to order
at 7:00
p.m.
II. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The invocation was given by Council Member John Parry
who then led the pledge of allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL
Roll
call was answered by Mayor Robert T. Steinkamp; Coni Hadden and Harold
Phillips, Ward I; LeRoy Coe and Anna Marie Martin, Ward II; Juarenne Hester and
John Parry, Ward III; and Nick King and Bill Parker, Ward IV. Also in attendance were Cynthia Boecker,
Acting City Administrator; Steve Hansen, Public Works Director; Craig Knouse,
Police Chief; Gary Birch, Fire Chief; Linda Tyree, Finance Director; Steve
Anderson, Planning & Development Director; Rebecca Wymore, Planner; Dan
Fernandez, Planner; Jonna Wensel, Preservation Planner; Mary Towse, Human Resources
Director; Sara Cooke, Public Relations Coordinator; Jane Sharon, Deputy City
Clerk; Sheri Baker-Rickman, Liberty Sun News; Angie Borgedalen, Liberty
Tribune; Tanya Fogg Young, The Kansas City Star; and 78 members of the public.
IV. APPROVE
MINUTES AND SUMMARIES
A. REGULAR SESSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14,
2005
Council Member Hadden moved to
approve the minutes as distributed.
Council Member Martin seconded the motion, which carried 7-0-1. Council Member Hester abstained, due to absence.
B. EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14,
2005
Council Member Martin moved to approve the minutes as
distributed. Council Member Phillips
seconded the motion, which carried 7-0-1.
Council Member Hester abstained, due to absence.
C. STUDY SESSION MEETING SUMMARY OF NOVEMBER 21,
2005
Council Member Coe moved to approve the meeting
summary as distributed. Council Member
Martin seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
V. CITIZENS’ PARTICIPATION
Mayor
Steinkamp recognized Joe Buhlig with Troop 376, who is working on his
Citizenship in the Community badge. His
father, Mark Buhlig, accompanied him to the meeting.
VI. MEETING SCHEDULE
A. APPOINTMENTS
License
Tax Review Committee
Appoint
Nick King to a term expiring 11-01-07.
Tree
Board
Reappoint
Neal Shoger to a term expiring 12-15-08.
Reappoint
Brian Kelley to a term expiring 12-15-08.
Council Member Coe moved to approve the
appointments. Council Member Hadden
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.
*SPECIAL USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW BUSINESS USE IN RNC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT, AT 22
SOUTH PRAIRIE STREET [P&Z CASE NO. 05-039SUP; APPLICANT: KEVIN & CHRISTINE
ANDERSON] – RESOLUTION
Planner Dan Fernandez reviewed the application for a
special use permit to allow a business use in the RNC, Neighborhood
Conservation Residential District at 22 South Prairie. He stated the property is surrounded by
residential to the north and west and by commercial on the south and east. Businesses are not permitted in the current
zoning and the applicant proposes to operate a mortgage company on the
site. Since acquiring the property, the
applicant has made several improvements.
Parking would consist of on-street parking and two off-street spaces on
the west side of the building.
Staff consulted the comprehensive plan, which
discourages commercial expansion into residential areas. The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO),
however, includes specific provisions for this type of application. Section 30.25.5 provides guidelines for when
business uses can be considered appropriate.
As the UDO contains governing ordinances, it was determined that the UDO
takes priority in considering the application.
Mr. Fernandez stated that the staff and the Planning
& Zoning Commission recommended approval of the special use permit.
Council Member Hadden asked the distance between this
structure and the residence to the north.
Mr. Fernandez stated that house faces onto Prairie and is approximately
30 to 40 feet from the subject property.
He added there is an alley between the two structures.
Council Member Phillips asked what the long-term
effect would be on the other two residences.
Mr. Fernandez stated this is a special use permit and is tied to the use. Mr. Phillips asked if the two residential
properties nearby could get a special use permit to operate businesses. Mr. Fernandez said the commercial zoning to
the east would be a factor. Mr. Phillips
asked if the applicant had been advised of tax credits available, had he used
different materials in his improvements.
Mr. Fernandez stated that this had been reviewed with the City’s
preservation planner, and tax credits were not available in this case.
Mayor Steinkamp opened the public hearing and asked if
anyone present wished to speak in favor of the application. Kevin Anderson, 1303 Timber Ridge Ct., stated he and his wife had improved the appearance
of the property since purchasing it. He
has operated a mortgage company in Liberty since 1993 and business is transacted online or at
clients’ homes for the most part. There
would be very little walk-in traffic at this location. Mr. Anderson stated they will continue with
landscaping plans next Spring. Council
Member Coe asked if he had received any opposition from property owners to the
north. Mr. Anderson stated they had
received only compliments on the improvements.
Mayor Steinkamp asked if anyone else wished to speak
in favor of the application. Seeing none
he asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the application. Seeing none, he closed the public hearing and
returned discussion to the Council.
Council Member Martin moved to approve the special use
permit. Council Member Hester seconded
the motion. Council Member Phillips
expressed concern about encroachment of commercial into the residential area
surrounding the downtown and for that reason, he would vote in opposition to
the motion. Council Member Hadden stated
she agreed with the need to protect residential from commercial encroachment. She added this property is not in a
historical district, even though staff is trying to keep a handle on
encroachment. Mrs. Hadden stated she
finally decided to vote in favor, because the special use permit can be
reviewed, if it appears it is having an adverse effect. The motion carried 7-1-0 and is inscribed in Resolution No. 2231. Council Member Phillips voted in opposition.
Ms. Boecker noted the next two related items would be
presented together, though only the rezoning application required a public
hearing.
Planner Rebecca Wymore reviewed the application for
rezoning and a preliminary development plan along with the application for a
final development plan. The application
proposed rezoning 2.15 acres in the Oakwood Business Park from M-2, General Industrial District, to C-2,
General Business District. The property
is west of Church
Road and
south of Industrial
Drive. To the north is a new office building zoned
C-2. To the south is open space and the
future United Rentals building with M-2 zoning.
Property to the west is open space and with M-2 zoning. To the east is Church Road. The proposed
use is an extended stay hotel, not permitted in M-2 zoning districts. C-2 zoning would allow this use in
conformance with the Future Land Use Plan.
The Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning
and the preliminary development plan.
The final development plan includes a four-story
structure, which would require a variance, as C-2 zoning allows a maximum of
three stories. The site has access to Church Road via Industrial Drive and would have access to water and sanitary sewer via
direct connections to existing mains in Oakwood Business Park. Storm water
would be directed to a detention area for the business park. The 10,746 square-foot building is proposed
to be constructed of white, tan and light green fiber cement siding with Nova
Brick accents. Because of the topography
of the site, the fourth story does not impede the industrial uses of adjacent
properties and the fourth story would not stand out, as it would stand on
completely level ground. The proposed
landscape plan meets City standards.
The final development plan substantially conforms to
the the City’s site development standards. The Planning & Zoning Commission
recommends approval of the final development plan with the variance from the
building height requirement that four stories be allowed.
The rezoning of the property would be pursuant to
approval of the final development plan and transfer of the property to New
River Development, LLC.
Council Member Hadden thanked staff for adding the
elevation graphic allowing a better visual of the lay of the land.
B.
*REZONE 2.1 ACRES
IN OAKWOOD BUSINESS PARK FROM M-2, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO C-2, GENERAL
BUSINESS DISTRICT AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SOUTH OF INDUSTRIAL DRIVE
AND WEST OF CHURCH ROAD [P&Z CASE NO. 05-047R&PDP; APPLICANT: VALUE
PLACE HOTELS] – ORDINANCE
Mayor Steinkamp opened the public hearing and asked if
anyone wished to speak in favor of the application. Ron Cowger, AGC Engineering, 2120 West College, stated he was present, along with Dave Pennington
and Burke Jones to represent the applicant.
Council Member Hester asked if the decision to build an extended stay
hotel was based on market research.
Burke Jones, Howard & Burke, 74000 West 110th Street, Overland
Park, Kansas, stated the decision was based on market research and
the need for temporary accommodations for construction workers. Mrs. Hester asked if anyone could stay
there. Mr. Jones said anyone meeting the
criteria could stay there.
Mayor Steinkamp asked if anyone else wished to speak
in favor of the application. Seeing
none, he asked if anyone present wished to speak in opposition to the
application. Seeing none, he closed the
public hearing.
Document No. 6443 was read. Council Member King moved to waive the rules
and consider the ordinance on first reading.
Council Member Phillips seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Council Member Hester moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Hadden
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 8902.
C.
*FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 10,746 SQ. FT. HOTEL IN OAKWOOD BUSINESS PARK SOUTH OF
INDUSTRIAL DRIVE AND WEST OF CHURCH ROAD [P&Z CASE NO. 05-051FDP;
APPLICANT: VALUE PLACE HOTELS] – RESOLUTION (Does
not require public hearing but is related to rezoning application, and will be
considered by separate action of Council following the rezoning case.)
Council Member Hadden moved to approve the final
development plan with the variance allowing four stories. Council Member Martin seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously and is inscribed in Resolution No. 2232.
D.
*AMEND
COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF LIBERTY, MISSOURI BY ADOPTING THE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN [P&Z CASE
NO. 05-045A; APPLICANT: CITY OF LIBERTY] – RESOLUTION
Ms. Boecker stated that the Downtown Master Plan was a
result of the Council’s 2001 economic goal setting process in which five major
areas were identified, including the downtown.
In 2003 the National Trust was brought in to assist in identifying a
vision for the downtown. One of the
recommendations from that visioning process was to develop a master plan for
the downtown. Patti Banks Associates was
hired in Summer 2004 to assist the Downtown Task Force in plan development and
charrettes and interviews followed, resulting in the Plan presented at this
time.
Richard Groves, 525 Camelot Drive, stated that he appreciated the opportunity to serve
on the Downtown Task Force, which had the charge to guide the development of a
plan for improvements to the downtown.
Their job was to paint the picture of a vibrant downtown over the next
15 to 20 years. Task force members were
not asked to consider how changes would be made or financed. They were asked for input.
Mr. Groves noted the National Trust vision report had
acknowledged the good intentions of the City and business owners but there was
no strategy in place to address growth in surrounding areas, which could have a
negative effect. The Downtown Master
Plan (DMP) is to serve as a guide. It is
not law. Some changes may occur soon,
some not for awhile and others may never be implemented.
Mr. Groves named the members of the task force,
including Council Member Coni Hadden; Ray Brock, a Liberty resident and
commercial real estate professional with Charles F. Curry; Richard Brown, a
past president of the Downtown Merchants Association and representative of
Commerce Bank; Nancy Hall, business owner Winter Bird Interiors; John Hooper,
owner of Sherlocks’ Home and resident; Chad Jolley, with William Jewell
College; Paul Victor, active in downtown activities; and himself Richard
Groves, who had been asked to serve as a representative of the Chamber of
Commerce and as a member of a downtown church.
He said he looked forward to the day when Johnson County, Kansas residents would make Liberty a regular destination to visit and shop. Mr. Groves thanked the planning staff for its
assistance to the task force and Patti Banks and her staff for their assistance
with the project.
Mr. Groves stated there had been more than 200
individuals who participated in the charrettes and interviews and attended task
force meetings. Because the Council had
been looking at the Downtown Master Plan for weeks and had already heard a
presentation during the joint study session with the Planning & Zoning
Commission, Mr. Groves said he would summarize the results and recommendations. First, he clarified some points raised at the
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting.
He stated that the Downtown Master Plan does not recommend moving county
buildings and the lawyers with them.
That comment was not made by a member of the Task Force. He stated that the County is very important
to the development of the downtown. The
Downtown Master Plan does not recommend eliminating businesses and structures
or the use of eminent domain. The DMP is
a long-term view to revitalize the downtown.
Mr. Groves reviewed the recommendations in the DMP,
the first of which is to establish an independent advocacy group to support
downtown businesses. This group will
coordinate marketing and promote heritage tourism, including events to bring
people to the downtown. He noted the
recent Kansas City Star article in which Liberty was ranked sixth among area cities, primarily due to
the downtown and historic square. He
stated the group will pursue status as a 501(c)(3) organization to focus on the
downtown needs. The group will provide
support to existing businesses, working toward business retention and
recruiting new businesses to the downtown.
The group will work to ensure the City’s capital plan includes projects
benefiting the downtown.
Items addressed in the DMP include: way-finding signs pointing to parking and
attractions; marketing of downtown; traffic flow, making travel painless and
safe, while allowing traffic to easily get to the downtown; a beautification
program, making the downtown an attractive place to visit and live; and offering
a quality pedestrian experience.
Mr. Groves noted the component of the Plan to make Main Street, Main Street. This will
include a reexamination of parking, looking for creative ways to increase
parking, including on-street parking.
Through the participation of property and business owners, the group
will look at establishing a visitor center, tours and events.
The Plan recommends a balance of retail, government,
offices and residential. The demand for
retail will come out of the effort to market the downtown. The County will be encouraged to make the
best use of space to meet its needs so that it is not at the expense of good
retail space.
Mr. Groves noted the DMP mentions a wide-range of
financing options, but it is unlikely a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District
would ever be established for the downtown.
Instead, the plan encourages the use of existing TIF funds for downtown
improvements.
The DMP encourages activities that bring more
visitors, more spending, more new shops, improved quality and perpetuation of
the charm to the downtown Liberty
area.
Efforts are already underway to establish the advocacy
group, by the creation of the Historic Downtown Liberty, Inc. This group is seeking volunteers and broad
participation to accomplish its goals.
Mr. Groves concluded by stating the Task Force joins the Planning &
Zoning Commission in recommending approval of the Downtown Master Plan, which
will be good for Liberty and for its future.
Mayor Steinkamp recessed the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Mayor Steinkamp reconvened the meeting at 8:02 p.m., reviewing the guidelines for participation in the
public hearing. He stated that the
proponents would be heard first, followed by the opponents. He asked that speakers confine their remarks
to no more than five minutes each with no repetition of previous comments. Each speaker would be asked to state his or
her name and address for the record and make comments clear and concise.
John Hooper, 217 Camelot Drive, stated he supported the Downtown Master Plan and had
served on the Task Force. He reviewed
activity related to the downtown long before the 2001 economic analysis. Mr. Hooper referred to a 1982 Liberty Square Revitalization Project calling for $1.35 million to
be set aside. He also noted that project
had considered downtown parking issues.
It was followed by a community development and police study of parking
in 1985. Parking was again included as
an issue in a 1986 progress report. In
1998 and 1999, a large number of participants developed the Blueprint for Liberty, which talked about the central business
district. A plan for Mill Street was developed later.
Following the 2003 tornado, the downtown visioning report was prepared
by the National Trust, culminating in the Downtown Master Plan. Mr. Hooper stated public discussions about
the downtown have been ongoing for more than 20 years and it is time to start
implementation.
Joe Dugdale, 519 West Franklin, stated he is raising his family in Liberty and purchased and operates an auction house on West Franklin. He stated he
is invested in downtown. He thanked
those who participated in the development of this plan and thanked those who
had come before, including Joe Wally, John Pritchard, Sam Houston and others,
whose efforts brought a hospital, racial harmony and growth to Liberty. He asked the
Council to adopt the Downtown Master Plan.
Council Member King asked how Mr. Dugdale first heard of the plan. Mr. Dugdale said he attended the charrette
about a year ago. Mr. King asked how he
learned of the charrette. Mr. Dugdale
said Paul Victor had told him about it.
Ray Brock, 1140 Manchester, stated he had been a resident since 1937 and it was
a pleasure to serve on the task force and on the committee that put together
the 175th anniversary book on Liberty, which included a history of the downtown. He said the task force had considered how to
preserve and protect the downtown. His
family owns two buildings, the latest acquisition being on the southeast corner
of the Square and they were fortunate to have a store on the first floor. Mr. Brock said there are many individuals
present tonight he has known for some time and wished more had participated in
the plan’s development. He said the
Downtown Master Plan is a conceptual plan which the Council can change and
improve as needed. He asked the Council
to adopt the Plan and move forward.
Kevin Weaver, 1608 Ridgeway Drive, stated he has seen progress and there are pros and
cons to the plan, but those wanting to see the downtown grow and thrive with retail,
need to adopt this plan. He referred to
a comment made by Planning & Zoning Commission Member Dee Rosekrans that
this is a process and it involved a lot of people. Mr. Weaver said it takes time and commitment
to get things done and he hopes those opposing the plan will get involved and
work to promote the downtown. Council
Member King asked how he became aware of the Downtown Master Plan. Mr. Weaver said he received a letter about
the activities of the task force. At the
time, he had questioned the appointments to the task force but that was not a
significant issue for him and he believed a good plan had been developed. He noted he had tried to speak with an
opponent of the plan following the Planning & Zoning Commission, but the
person was not receptive. Mr. Weaver
said he hoped that would change and participation would increase and the
efforts continue.
Clay Lozier, 438 Moss, stated he owns two buildings on
the Square and was born in Liberty
in 1946. He noted what is happening in
towns like Parkville and believes Liberty is a better place and it needs to be made a destination. The Plan will assist in bringing more
vibrancy to the downtown.
Brad Charles, 430 East Franklin, stated he lives in a
historic district and owns two buildings in the downtown, one at 130 South Main
and one at 4 East Franklin. He stated
that he had worked for Tom and Sandy Williams when he moved to Liberty and then bought The Woodstripper from them. He said he understands there are questions
and concerns about the Downtown Master Plan but he hopes that passion can be
focused to help the downtown. His
antique store is now the only one remaining on the Square, but that is just
reflective of changes that are going to occur.
He said he is very optimistic about the activities associated with the
development of the Downtown Master Plan and supports its adoption. He stated he read about the Plan’s
development in the newspaper and received a letter at his business.
Mike Mundy, 417 East Franklin, stated his neighbor’s wife told him about the Plan,
as did others. He stated it is easy to
take things for granted and not appreciate them until they are gone or realize
what could have been. He said planning
prevents future regret and noted examples of poor planning, comparing Forest
Park in St. Louis to Swope Park in Kansas City; the light rail issue in
metropolitan Kansas City, when Liberty had once had the Interurban; development
by Kansas City west of I-35 with that tax base lost by Liberty and the old
Guy’s Plant built across Leonard Street from historic homes. Mr. Mundy cited a City plan being in place as
the impetus for saving the Liberty Female College from being demolished. He stated he regretted not participating in
the meetings for development of this plan and there are others expressing that
same regret. He said there are still
opportunities to get involved and this plan is a guideline for activities to
benefit the downtown.
Don Altis, 2 North Main,
stated he owns Scoops on the Square. He
said he likes this plan. It is a
guide. Some property owners on Main Street agree implementation of the plan will benefit them
and others do not. But a plan needs to
be in place. It can be changed as
needed. While it has been said the City
will not use eminent domain, there are still those with questions. He suggested the Council add a clause that
eminent domain would not be used. He
stated he had heard of the plan as a past president of the Historic Liberty
Merchants Association and had been involved since the beginning.
Mayor Steinkamp read a letter from John Le Grotte,
owner of the building at 9 West Franklin and operator of Casablanca Haircutting Establishment
at that location. Mr. Le Grotte
expressed support for the Downtown Master Plan, noting the renaissance in Kansas City is similar to what this plan proposes. He also stated he would not support
acquisition of property through eminent domain or special tax assessments on
property owners that could impose a hardship.
Mayor Steinkamp asked if anyone else wished to speak in
favor of the application. Seeing none he
asked if anyone present wished to speak in opposition to the application.
Tom Willoughby, 13405 NW 120th Street, stated he owns the buildings at 30 South Main
through 36 South Main in which he operates Antigen Labs. He stated that anyone who is a business owner
should excuse themselves from voting on this issue. He commented on the parking issue, stating
that the plan shows his parking lot being used for a parking garage and the
only way that would happen was through the use of eminent domain. Mr. Willoughby stated he had surveyed parking
around the Square and the 4-hour parking fills up first, then the 2-hour
parking. No one was parked along Franklin and half the parking on the Square was open. He asked how many parking spaces the City
planned to take. Mr. Willoughby reviewed
the history of his family’s development of businesses in the downtown, noting
they had rehabbed the current buildings they own in 1982 when they were
blighted. In 1983 they had received
funding through Clay County Economic Development to rehab the buildings and
create clean rooms for the laboratory operations. He stated there is plenty of parking and no
need for parking garages. Building
parking garages would make it impossible for trucks to pick up the garbage. Mr. Willoughby said he had not been invited
to the original charrette and found out about the Plan after that.
Harvey Seely, 336 Georgia Court, stated he has
operated his business at 6 West Kansas for 62 years and owns the buildings at 109 West Franklin and 7 North
Missouri. He stated the businesses have changed over
the years and he was very excited when the aluminum came off the facades. Mr. Seely stated he would like to have seen
more representation on the task force by business owners and an expansion of
the task force to include them. He said
it is important to have input from those with so much knowledge and history of
the downtown. Mr. Seely stated he had
been misquoted in the Planning & Zoning Commission minutes, because he had
not advocated expanding commercial into the residential neighborhoods. He said there needs to be a perimeter for
businesses.
Mr. Seely expressed concern about the apartment houses
that were proposed because that would bring in more people taking up more
parking. He stated it is wrong to take
out buildings housing small businesses like Sorella’s and Personal Touch,
because they cannot afford the rent in shopping centers. The rent on these small buildings can be low
enough to allow small businesses to survive slow periods. This Plan appears to eliminate small
businesses. He noted a recommendation to
retain businesses, but with these buildings gone, the businesses won’t be able
to stay. He said he supported half a
block being given to the County, but would not have donated had he known the
buildings would be taken out. He asked
the Council to support the flavor of downtown Liberty by supporting its small businesses. Mr. Seely said he had heard about the Plan
through word of mouth and heard the committee was seeking input back in
February, but received no written notice.
Council Member Hadden stated she was glad to hear he had not advocated
moving businesses into neighborhoods.
Bob Burton, 1530 Baker, stated he is property chairman
for the Liberty Christian Church. He
noted that heritage is prominently mentioned in the Plan and stated the church
has been in its present building since 1904.
Over the years, Mr. Burton said the church has held its own planning
meetings and the church plans to remain in the downtown. It expanded the building in the 1970s and
1980s. Mr. Burton stated the Downtown
Master Plan shows houses on Mill Street which would take up lots to the east. This would not allow the church to expand and
add parking as needed. Without parking,
Mr. Burton said the church would die on the vine. He said he supports the City planning for the
future, but was not contacted about the planning committee. He invited the City to meet with church
officials. He said he first heard of the
Plan two days before the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting.
Ken Robinson, 1108 North Ridge, stated he is not an
adversary of the plan, but is disheartened that the City task force wasn’t as
inclusive as it could have been, even though an error of omission may not have
been intentional. He stated he is a
member of the First Baptist Church, which has been in Liberty for 162 years and no one at the church was
included. Mr. Robinson praised the
committee for its work and said change can be difficult. He said the Council can establish trust in
the community by going forward together in unity. Mr. Robinson stated he is also concerned
about the Garrison district. If a police
station is built, as the plan proposes, it would be two houses from Sam
Houston’s home. The neighbors were not
informed. He said the City has a
website, but not that many have computers and do not rely on this as a means of
obtaining information.
He
said word of mouth is best for communicating.
Mr. Robinson said heritage is the key and the City is proud of its
diversity, and he asked the Council to consider holding off on a decision about
the Plan until more members of the community are approached for input. The Plan has guiding principles and the
Council needs to step forward with sensitivity and concern. Mr. Robinson stated he wants to see retail
thrive in Liberty. He noted he
had received information about the Plan’s development through his participation
in Historic Liberty Merchants Association over a year ago.
Rev. Steve Barnes, 228 N. 38th Street, Kansas
City, Kansas, stated he is the new pastor at St. Luke’s AME Church,
443 North Main, stated he found out about the Plan just last week. He stated his biggest problem with the Plan
was the cutoff of the downtown at Mississippi. He noted
Council Member Phillips had suggested that the setting of the boundary to
include the Liberty Historic Jail may have been prompted by the high volume of
visitors that go to that site. Rev.
Barnes stated that excluding a church that is two blocks north on Main Street is a problem.
He agreed that the town has potential for change and sometimes that is
necessary. He referred to the example of
Evanston, Illinois, which had several growth periods but in 2000 the
growth prompted increases in property assessments for all property owners. Rev. Barnes stated the City needs to look at
the whole picture. He expressed concern
that no African Americans, Hispanic Americans or just regular citizens had been
included on the task force. There should
be small businesses, with shops and mom and pop groceries. But there are people who live off the main
Square that should be involved. He asked
the Council to establish a time frame and get input from the whole community.
Marilyn Jensen, 313 E. Mill Street, stated she is a member of the First Presbyterian
Church and found out about the charrette after it was over. She learned about the Planning & Zoning
Commission meeting from Anna Bedinger.
Ms. Jensen stated it seemed that the Plan is not as close to being set
in stone as it appeared at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. She talked about the park that is on the
corner of the church property and asked why that green space was not
important. She said the visitors on tour
buses that go to the Historic Liberty Jail are on tight schedules and time to
shop on the Square is not part of that schedule. Ms. Jensen said she does like parts of the Plan. She stated her church is part of Liberty history too and there is a playground for the
children that is proposed to be replaced in the Plan. That she does not like. She agreed with Mr. Robinson’s comments.
Bob Beeks, 1013 Sherman Drive, stated he is neither for nor against the Plan and
believes he could support it if the Council would declare it would not use
eminent domain. He stated he had moved
back to Liberty to live and believes more should be done to promote
it and make it a destination. He stated
there is not much going on in the downtown at night. More buses should be brought in and people
should be encouraged to visit the museum.
Signs promoting the sites and places to eat should be added out on the
highway. He also mentioned that the
sports complex needs to be promoted because it brings in lots of people to the
City, who stay up to a week while participating in tournaments. Mr. Beeks stated he was also present as a
member of Liberty Christian Church and believed the City should leave the
property as is.
Sandy Williams, 401 Murray, stated she is representing Corbin Mill, which was
not included in the Plan until tonight.
She said they want to be included.
She offered solutions to parking and other issues, including having the
County use the old lumberyard for parking and making Water Street a one-way street south. She stated she has tried to get signage on
the Square pointing to Corbin Mill for 20 years without success. Ms. Williams stated the Plan is flawed and
people with good ideas were excluded.
She asked that the business owners not be saddled with rules and asked
that people shop in Liberty and not go to the Plaza and Zona Rosa. She stated that word of mouth is the best
advertising for the businesses in Corbin Mill and asked the Council to quit
planning for the business owners, but just let them plan for themselves. She asked the Council not to exclude them,
but let them make their comments. Ms.
Williams stated she heard about the Plan at a presentation by Patti Banks
Associates at an event this year.
Council Member King asked if she was ready to get involved now. Ms. Williams stated that, if anyone had asked
her, she would have offered her opinions.
Teresa Byrd, 431 East Franklin, stated that she was born on Main Street and both her parents had been born nearby. She stated she has a vested interest in the
downtown with deep roots and a commitment to excellence. She stated she could not support the Plan
because a sin of omission had been committed, whether or not it was done
intentionally, by segregating the south and north ends of Main Street. She stated
the Plan says to make Main Street Main Street, but portions of it have not been
included. As a resident, Ms. Byrd stated
she has a voice and an opinion about the plan for downtown, but had not
received any invitation to participate.
The Garrison Center and the church had not received invitations
either. Ms. Byrd stated she felt left
out, isolated and segregated. The Plan
includes proposals for Shrader Street but not south Main Street. She stated
she has concerns about parking structures.
Ms. Byrd stated she had tried to access the plan on the City’s website
but it required great effort to find it.
She asked the Council to stop, reposition and refocus, before proceeding
and to get additional input. Ms. Byrd
stated she had been told of the Plan by Anna Bedinger about three weeks ago.
Fay Bedinger, 232 West Franklin, stated she has seen Liberty progress over the years and improve, but by people’s
efforts, not government plans. She
stated this is a divided group and her granddaughter has taken abuse because of
her efforts to inform people about the Plan.
She asked what it would mean if the Council amended the Comprehensive Plan
and adopted the Downtown Master Plan.
She asked the Council to table its consideration of the Plan for more
information and research by those who care about the downtown. She noted that businesses and buildings had
been taken out for the County and City offices.
Lawyers had come in and they can pay rent. Small businesses have to work at it. Georgetown Furniture and Liberty Savings Bank
should not be destroyed. The Plan needs
more work. Mrs. Bedinger stated she
intends to continue her efforts to make the town better.
Doug Bratcher, 1330 Clayview, stated he is a fifth
generation resident of Liberty. He stated he
agrees with the Plan that progress is needed.
He stated that the visitors to the Historic Liberty Jail are some of his
best customers as are other visitors from out of town. He stated the city has potential, but he does
not want to do the City’s business – that’s why he votes for the elected officials
– and he doesn’t want the Council to do what is his business to do. He asked the Council to hold off on the Plan
and improve it before it is adopted, instead of approving the Plan and then
trying to change it later. He stated
that the City’s code enforcement regulations make it hard to promote his
business. Council Member King asked how
likely it is that Mr. Bratcher would get involved and provide input on the Plan. Mr. Bratcher said he might be willing, but he
believed in doing what he does best and that meant sticking to what he knows –
his business.
David Williams, 1554 Canterbury, stated that he owns the building at 105 East Mill Street, out of which he operated a retail shop until the
2003 tornado. At that time, he
determined his best option was to rent the space as professional offices. He stated the Plan has great possibilities,
but needs more inclusion. He stated the
recommendation to have retail in first floor space infringes on the business
owner’s right to make decisions. He
stated there needs to be a balance of retail and government, which is set by
free enterprise. Mr. Williams asked the
Council to table the Plan and review tonight’s comments before proceeding. He stated he had received some information in
the mail and had read about the Plan in the newspaper, but was unable to
participate because he is working in DeSoto,
Kansas. He noted he
had served six years on the original Historic District Review Commission in Liberty.
Jack Wymore, 741 Ridgeway Drive, stated he owns real estate including the Jesse James Bank Museum. He stated the
plan scares him, because a plan is to do something. The money required with this Plan is
tremendous. He stated he owns the
property at the corner of Mill Street and Lightburne and his son operates Cody’s Quick Stop
there. The plan calls for $9 million to
be spent at that intersection and he can’t believe that money would be spent
without government control. In order for
money to be made available through a TIF district, the property must be rundown. The Liberty Triangle has hurt people. Mr. Wymore noted examples of changes that
have already taken place and stated the loft idea is not a new one, but
residences over the stores brings with them parking issues. He stated the college already has problems of
on-street parking by students. Mr.
Wymore stated the Plan needs more study and needs to involve the day-to-day
people in the affected area. He stated
two members of the Planning & Zoning Commission voted against adopting the Plan.
Carol Waltkamp Dyer, 18 S. Gallatin, thanked Council Member Hadden for returning her call. She stated the Plan seems to be for a special
segment and not for others. She asked
Council to consider enlarging the task force and making it more inclusive. She agreed the Plan is a vision of those who
participated in the process, but the City should have expended a little more
effort and sent a letter to all to participate.
Ms. Dyer said those who oppose the plan would have spoken up earlier,
had they known about it earlier. She
stated the downtown business owners and residents should have control over
their own destiny. She recommended expanding
the task force to include a high school student, a senior citizen, an attorney,
a business owner, a member of the faith community and a regular citizen. She stated that everyone present loves Liberty and through discussion, a plan that people can live
with is possible. Ms. Dyer asked the
Council to step back get more people involved.
She stated she had heard about the plan by word of mouth and had known
about it for about two months.
Mayor Steinkamp recessed the meeting at 9:58 p.m.
Mayor Steinkamp reconvened the meeting at 10:09 p.m. and asked if anyone else wished to speak in
opposition to the plan.
Ralph Brant, 653 Butternut Court, stated that he is a business owner and is also
representing Liberty Savings Bank. He
stated it is good to have a plan. He
expressed the concerns of the bank that the plan shows its downtown facility
being replaced by a parking structure.
He stated Liberty Savings Bank is still committed to and has invested in
its downtown location for more than 50 years.
He stated the bank is opposed to the Plan and asked for further
study. Mr. Brant stated his own position
is that he has many misgivings, because so many were not adequately informed or
advised of the Plan. He asked the
Council to include all stakeholders in the process and consider the business
owners in the downtown. He stated the
bank had heard about the Plan a few days before the Planning & Zoning
Commission meeting and he had heard of it before that.
James Willoughby, 413 Arthur, stated he found out
about the charrette from his niece at a fundraiser for Harvesters. He stated the property owners should not be
left out and believes information about the Plan was not communicated. Dr. Willoughby stated that he cares about Liberty but those pushing this plan have a financial interest
in it being adopted. He asked the
Council to get input from those vested in Liberty.
Harry Waltkamp, 724 Kings Highway, stated the Council should table the Plan. He stated it is not ready to be adopted. Mr. Waltkamp asked that the Council be polled
in its vote. He stated he heard about
the Plan when the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting was held.
Dave Cole, 615 East Richfield Road, stated the executive summary refers to traffic
calming and other changes for Mill Street. He stated if
changes are made it would require retrofitting and that would be throwing money
away that has already been spent. He stated
the intersection at Mill Street and Lightburne was already changed when the Depot was bulldozed. Mr. Cole stated a decision should not be postponed,
but the Council should actively pursue a second charrette to get input. He stated this Plan is not integrated with
other City plans and that needs to happen also.
Garnett Peters, 11915 A Highway, stated he has the properties at 9 North Water and 11
North Water. He
stated that people have to walk farther when parking at shopping centers and
that is farther than you have to walk from parking to the shops on the Square
in Liberty. He stated that he has
surveyed cities where he shows classic cars, and 95-98% of the cities have
vacant buildings in their downtowns. Liberty has only one.
He stated that they need to do more thinking before adopting the
plan. Mr. Peters stated that there are
not many property owners on the commission.
He stated the businesses should not have government restrictions on
them. He stated he first heard of the Plan
three days ago.
Anna Bedinger, 615 North Lightburne, stated she is a
resident and a registered voter. She
stated she believes better communication is needed in the community. She read the plan two weeks before the
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting and went door to door around the
Square and to some residences. She
prepared her own summary of the Plan that included questions she had about it,
such as who pays for the Plan to be implemented. She stated taxpayers have a right to know and
vote on taxes that are going to be added.
Ms. Bedinger asked why it is not called a guide, if that is what it
is. She noted that, while some did not
agree with her, it was easier to contact people going door to door than it was
to contact City Hall. She stated the Plan
talks about being market driven and it all appears to be about money, but it
takes more than money to solve problems.
It takes trust in government and in each other. She asked for an explanation of how TIF
funding would be used. She stated
eminent domain is listed as a benefit, but asked where the funds would come
from. She stated that two funding
sources had been added to the Plan since it was presented to Planning &
Zoning Commission and she asked if the Plan then needed to go back to that body
for a revote. Ms. Bedinger stated she
enjoyed the experience of getting involved because of this Plan and hoped to do
more.
Rosemary Overstreet, 18404 Christy Road East, stated she had overheard business women talking
about the Plan and had assumed it was about businesses on the Square. She stated she and her husband operate Town
& Country Feed, which the Plan has marked for demolition. She said that would put them out of
business. She asked the Council to
either help retain small businesses such as hers or act now to clear them out,
so they wouldn’t invest more into a business that was going to close. Ms. Overstreet stated she wanted to be part
of the town and the Council shouldn’t approve a plan that will lose the small
business owners.
Mayor Steinkamp asked if anyone else wished to speak
in opposition. Seeing none he closed the
public hearing and returned the application to the Council for further
discussion.
Council Member Phillips moved to amend the Comprehensive
Plan by adopting the Downtown Master Plan as presented. Council Member Martin seconded the
motion. Council Member Phillips asked
about the Plan proposing sites for parking that concern the downtown
churches. Mr. Groves stated that the
only way changes will happen is if the property owners want to make them
happen. The City will not say, “forget about increasing the parking for your church, because
you must put houses there”. Mr. Phillips
asked about the apartment houses that were mentioned by one of the
opponents. Mr. Anderson stated that
single-family attached housing, or row houses, were shown in the Plan, but
agreed with Mr. Groves that a property owner would be the one to bring that
forward as a proposal. Mr. Phillips
asked about the police station being shown at Gallatin and Mississippi. Mr. Groves
stated the concept came up when the task force talked about striking a balance
in Downtown with the government’s need to expand. That location would keep the police station
in the downtown area. Mr. Phillips asked
what would happen if neighbors expressed concern about that possibility. Mr. Groves stated that anything done would be
reviewed by the City on a case-by-case basis, and each proposal would have its
own hearing.
Council Member King noted the many questions posed by
the speakers and stated there hasn’t been a single individual who likes 100% of
what is in the Downtown Master Plan. He
stated most appear to agree with the principles, but the trouble appears to be
with the maps. The maps are just a
collection of possibilities. The downtown
group being formed is enthusiastic and ready to see something going
forward. Mr. King asked if those who
have requested more study and more input could participate in the new group
being established. Mr. Groves said all
were welcome. Mr. King said if they did
participate, it was likely the map would change. Mr. Groves stated he believes it was a
mistake to include the maps and the Plan should have stuck to the
concepts. Mr. King stated the attitude
needs to be directed to finding out more and moving forward instead of digging
in their heels. Those individuals
wanting to do so, can get involved now.
Mr. Groves stated formation of Historic Downtown
Liberty Inc. presents an opportunity for all interested parties to work
together with a voice independent of the City to benefit the downtown. An executive board has already been formed
and volunteers to serve on an advisory council are being sought.
Council Member Martin asked Council Member King how to
determine which would be the right map and not just a reflection of those who
don’t want this to directly affect them.
Mr. King stated that he believes the map included with the Plan being
considered tonight will look very different if all those interested get
involved and participate. These maps
just show possible directions the community could take in focusing on the
downtown, a beginning place. For
example, Mr. King said, Mr. Seely is never going to sell the engraving shop
until he is ready. The Christian Church
might lose parking space if houses are built, but that is only going to happen
if the church decides take that action.
Opportunities present themselves.
He added that the money has to be available too and cited the example of
$1 million in the Plan for street furniture.
He stated the City doesn’t have that in its budget, let alone the $20
million anticipated for the next project mentioned in the plan. He stated with people who have good ideas
getting involved, those ideas could shape what happens.
Mayor Steinkamp asked if Council Member King was
proposing the Plan should be considered for adoption without the map. Mr. King stated that, in a perfect world, he
would take out the map, but believes the Plan being adopted with the map is
just a beginning point.
Council Member Martin stated that the Council is
accountable, whether it does nothing or adopts the Plan. She stated she was disappointed that more
didn’t get involved in the process when the Plan was being developed, but she
believes it should be voted on as is.
The map will change as things progress.
Council Member Parker moved to amend the motion to
adopt the plan without the maps. Council
Member Hadden seconded the motion to amend.
There was a brief discussion about which maps were included in the
motion and how that would alter the plan being considered for adoption. Mr. Anderson stated there are references to
the maps in the second half of the plan and, if Council decided to pursue
adoption without the maps, the second half of the plan should be removed for it
to make sense.
Council Member Coe asked why so many had not been
notified or hadn’t heard of the process of developing the Downtown Master
Plan. He questioned the City relying on
word of mouth to provide information about the plan. Mr. Groves stated that letters were sent to
many citizens, business owners and property owners. Letters were sent to all the churches, though
perhaps St. Luke’s AME Church had not been on the list. Mr. Anderson stated that letters had been
sent to 110 citizens, 70 organizations (including churches and clubs), and
information was printed in the Liberty Tribune, Liberty Sun News and The Kansas
City Star. Thirty business owners and 80
developers had received updates on the process.
The task force and the staff relied on the press. There were 30 articles in the newspapers from
February to this week.
Council Member Hester asked if there had been any
articles about the Downtown Master Plan in the Liberty Citizen, which goes to
every household. Ms. Boecker stated
there may have been something after the charrette, but the publishing deadline
may have presented a problem to including information in that publication. Mrs. Hester asked if the process to be
followed from this point forward is to offer a chance for others to get
involved. Mr. Groves stated the group
wants to be inclusive and will not be focused on the maps. He noted the town hall meeting scheduled in
February and said this is a community effort.
Mrs. Hester confirmed that those who choose to be involved can
participate.
Council Member Phillips asked for clarification of
what part of the Plan would be removed from consideration if the amending
motion passed. Council Member Parker was
asked by Council Member Hadden if he would be willing to withdraw his motion to
amend the main motion, by approving the Plan without the maps. He stated he would be open to withdrawing his
motion, but wanted the plan to be considered now and not tabled. Mayor Steinkamp stated there was no guarantee
that Council action would follow if he withdrew his motion. Mr. Parker stated he understood and withdrew
his motion to amend the main motion.
Council Member Hadden withdrew her second to the motion to amend the
main motion.
Council Member Hadden said many conflicting points of
view had been expressed, from there being too many people with vested interests
to not enough business people being included.
She stated the pavers downtown were a result of the 1982 plan for the
downtown. She stated it is difficult for
her to believe that with activity related to this plan taking place over the
last two and a half years, there are some who haven’t heard about it until
now. She stated a lot of time and effort
had been expended to develop this plan and there had been a great deal of
input. She encouraged all to attend the
next organizing meeting this week and to get involved. She stated the National Trust had written a
vision for Liberty’s downtown after interviewing many here and included
what has worked in other areas. She
emphasized that the plan is not to take property away from property
owners. Mrs. Hadden stated she had moved
to Liberty and lived in two historic homes near the Square. After the tornado, she volunteered to work on
the task force, because she believes it is important to have a plan.
Council Member Hester stated that nothing is going to
happen that is not economically advantageous for all parties.
Council Member Parry stated that many citizens have
asked that consideration of the Plan be tabled and he believes it is worth it
to do so. He moved to table the plan for
two weeks to allow time to make a few changes.
Mayor Steinkamp stated the motion died for lack of a second.
Mayor Steinkamp asked for a response to the comment
that anyone who served on the task force should not be able to vote on the
adoption of the Plan. Mr. Anderson
stated that the City’s legal counsel said there is no conflict, because there
is no economic gain and there was no problem with either members of Council or
the Planning & Zoning Commission voting on this issue.
There being no further discussion, the motion to amend
the Comprehensive Plan by adopting the Downtown Master Plan carried 5-3-0. Council
Members Parry, Coe and Parker voted in opposition. The resolution is inscribed in Resolution No.
2233.
Mayor Steinkamp recessed the meeting at 11:23 p.m.
Mayor Steinkamp reconvened the meeting at 11:32 p.m.
A. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
OF VENDOR PAYMENTS FROM NOVEMBER 10, 2005 THROUGH NOVEMBER 18, 2005 – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6444 was read. Council Member Martin moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member King seconded
the motion.
Vote on the motion was as follows: Council Member Phillips – yes; Council Member
Martin – yes; Council Member Hester – yes; Council Member Parker – yes; Council
Member Hadden – yes; Council Member Coe – yes; Council Member Parry – yes;
Council Member King – yes. The motion
carried unanimously; it was approved by the Chair and inscribed in Ordinance
No. 8903.
B. *FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 12, 545
SQ. FT. BUILDING ON KARA COURT IN THE CHURCH ROAD BUSINESS PARK [P&Z CASE NO. 05-049FDP; APPLICANT VALCON
CONSTRUCTION] – RESOLUTION
Mr. Fernandez stated the application is for one
building on Kara
Court in the
Church Road Business Park. This will be
0.95 acres on Lot 2 of a seven-lot business park. The site will have direct access to Kara Court via two access points. The site will be served by connections to
existing sanitary sewer and water mains.
Storm water will be managed using a previously-approved off-site
drainage basin in the northeast corner of the business park. Mr. Fernandez stated there will be 30 parking
stalls in front of the building.
Extensive landscaping is proposed for the site. Outside lighting will be on the building only
with no pole lights. The building will
be one-story with three entryways and three garage/loading docks. A prefabricated burgundy awning structure
will be added above the entryways and garage doors.
Mr. Fernandez stated the application substantially
conforms to the requirements in the Unified Development Ordinance. The Planning & Zoning Commission
recommends approval of the final development plan.
Council Member King asked about the use of the
building. Mr. Anderson stated it is
speculative at this point. Mr. Cowger stated it is a speculative building and could be
split, but is not yet tenantized. Council Member Parker asked about the
appearance of the building. Mr. Cowger stated it would look very much like the existing
building in the business park.
Council Member Martin moved to approve the
resolution. Council Member Coe seconded
the motion, which carried unanimously and is inscribed in Resolution No. 2234.
C. *FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A PRE-OWNED AUTOMOBILE SALES LOT
AT 2801 N. LIGHTBURNE [P&Z CASE NO. 05-044FDP; CHARLES COVEY] –
RESOLUTION
Ms. Wymore reviewed the application for a final
development plan at 2801 North
Lightburne. She stated the zoning is C-2,
General Business District, and is surrounded by open space and R-1A, Suburban
Residential District. She stated that a
court ruling had disallowed the City’s requirement for a supermajority vote in
an earlier rezoning application and that C-2 is the existing zoning, which does
allow the proposed use of a car sales lot.
The site has access to Lightburne Street (M-33 Highway) and M-69 Highway. The site is served by a 12-inch water main
running along the southern portion of the property. The impervious area of the site will not
change and is adequate to handle storm water.
Ms. Wymore stated the site has been served in the past
by an off-site lateral field, which is regulated by the Clay County Health
Department. Documentation has been
provided stating that the existing septic system would support the proposed use
of a pre-owned car sales lot. The Future
Land Use Plan denotes this area as one of the gateways to Liberty. As a Gateway,
the Future Land Use Plan states that this area should be designed to create a
sense of arrival and distinguish Liberty from other communities. The Plan also states that development of the
Gateways should build on Liberty’s
sense of community.
Ms. Wymore stated there will be two access points, one
off Lightburne Street and one off of M-69 Highway. The existing western entrance will be
eliminated. Parking for auto sales,
customers and employees will be located around the existing building. A pipe rail will surround the south, west and
north perimeters of the site with a gate on the south and north entrances. A six-foot wood privacy fence is proposed
along the east side of the site. Ms.
Wymore stated that sufficient plantings are proposed, but the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) calls for a minimum ten-foot buffer around the
perimeter of the site. The existing
paved area, except for the west entrance, is to be resurfaced. She stated that the Planning & Zoning
Commission recommended approval of the final development plan with the
following stipulations: 1) any change in
the use of this site will require approval of the Clay County Health Department
regarding the capability of the existing septic system to safely and adequately
dispose of the sewage; and 2) to better satisfy the Gateway designation of this
site, the following changes are recommended to the plan: a) a ten-foot buffer shall be added between
the parking area and the western property line; b) the existing pole sign shall
be removed from the site; and c) rather than construct a six-foot high privacy
fence along the eastern perimeter of the site, the fence should be no taller
than four feet and either be an open picket fence, a vinyl-coated chain link
fence, a wrought iron/aluminum fence or a continuation of the proposed pipe
rail.
Council Member Martin asked how the Gateway aspect is
addressed in the plan. Ms. Wymore stated
the plan includes landscaping, minimal cleanup and use of the existing building
and nothing additional will be built on the site. Mrs. Martin asked about the resurfacing of
the lot. Dave Pennington, Akin Gordon Cowger Engineers, 2120 West College, stated that asphalt will be used for an overlay to
the existing surface. He noted that
repairs had been made to the building and the stone surface would be
cleaned. Mrs. Martin asked about
signage. Mr. Pennington stated it would
be what was required by the State. Mrs.
Martin asked where the cars would be placed.
Mr. Pennington stated they would be on the paved areas and not on the
grass. He added that Mr. Covey has no
objection to removing the pole sign and changing the design of the proposed
fence. He asked, however, that the Council
consider waiving the requirement for the additional ten-foot buffer on the west
side, noting green space there is 40-60 feet wide already. Adding the ten-foot buffer will narrow the
usable area of the lot. He suggested
planting trees in paved squares instead of adding the buffer. Mr. Pennington added that the applicant has
already made improvements, including taking out the canopy and fixing the
building. He asked that the applicant be
allowed to pave an equal area to the ten-foot buffer.
Council Member Hadden asked why the ten-foot buffer
was added as a requirement. Mr. Anderson
stated it is a standard for any new final development plan. He added there is a drive aisle within the required
buffer area on the east end of the site and the staff had not recommended
pulling that back so as not to impede traffic flow. Mrs. Hadden asked if there would be trees
planted in the green space. Mr. Anderson
said there would be. Mayor Steinkamp asked if the green space is on the applicant’s
property. Mr. Anderson stated a lot of
it is State right-of-way, which could go away over time. Council Member Martin asked where the trees
would be placed in the applicant’s proposed alternative. Mr. Pennington stated the applicant would cut
out a section of pavement every 60 feet and plant trees, which would add to the
landscaping. He stated that, if this was
undeveloped land, the applicant would not argue the ten-foot buffer, but since
it is an existing development, he wants to be able to utilize all the usable
display area. Council Member Hester
asked if there is extensive planting in the rest of the green space. Mr. Pennington stated there is only grass,
because it is State right-of-way. He
stated the business needs visibility.
Council Member Phillips asked for clarification of the
applicant’s alternate proposal. Mr.
Pennington showed the area which would be paved in order to allow the
additional ten-foot buffer to the west.
Mayor Steinkamp asked if it
was possible to have the ten-foot buffer in a different area of the lot. Mr. Anderson stated that staff would defer to
Council on this point as they could certainly approve the pan with revisions.
Council Member Martin asked for clarification of what
was approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Anderson stated that the Commission voted
to approve the plan with staff’s recommended stipulation to reclaim the
ten-foot buffer. Should Council decide
to approve an alternative, the plan would not require a second review by the
Planning & Zoning Commission.
Council Member King asked if this area is part of the
interchange improvements to be made. Mr.
Hansen stated it is and it will not be known until late next year how much
right-of-way will be changed. Mr. King
asked why the staff had recommended the buffer.
Mr. Anderson stated it is part of the UDO. Council Member Parry asked if that was a new
regulation in the UDO. Mr. Anderson
stated this was one of the areas that had been clarified in the UDO, as the
language had been vague in the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations.
Mayor Steinkamp reviewed the
Council’s options if it decided to approve the plan, including: adoption as
presented and recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission; adoption
without the ten-foot buffer; or allowing the applicant to recoup square footage
with additional pavement.
Council Member Phillips moved to approve the final
development plan with stipulations, as recommended by the Planning & Zoning
Commission. Council Member Hadden
seconded the motion. Council Member Coe
asked for clarification that the applicant would be able to add paved
area. Mayor Steinkamp
said that would not be allowed with the motion being considered.
The motion carried unanimously and is inscribed in
Resolution No. 2235.
D. AMENDMENT
TO CITY CODE, SECTION 2-106, RESCHEDULING REGULAR SESSIONS OF THE PLANNING
& ZONING COMMISSION TO THE SECOND TUESDAY OF THE MONTH – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6445 was read. Council Member Coe moved to waive the rules
and consider the ordinance on first reading.
Council Member Martin seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Council Member Martin moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member King seconded
the motion, which carried unanimously.
It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 8904.
E. ACCEPTANCE
OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH ROBERTSON PROPERTIES, INC. PERTAINING TO THE UPPER RUSH CREEK SEWERAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6446 was read. Council Member Coe moved to waive the rules
and consider the ordinance on first reading.
Council Member Martin seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Council Member Coe moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Phillips
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 8905.
XI.
MISCELLANEOUS
MATTERS FROM CITY ADMINISTRATOR
XII.
MISCELLANEOUS
MATTERS FROM MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
The
meeting adjourned to executive session at 12:07 a.m.
__________________________________
Mayor
Attest:
_____________________________________
Deputy City Clerk