CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES

MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 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 January 24, 2005 with Mayor Stephen P. Hawkins presiding.  Mayor Hawkins called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.

 

II.         INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

           

The invocation was given by Council Member Bill Parker who then led the pledge of allegiance.

 

III.       ROLL CALL

 

Roll call was answered by Mayor Stephen P. Hawkins; Ed Collins and Coni Hadden, Ward I; LeRoy Coe and Anna Marie Martin, Ward II; Lyndell Brenton and Juarenne Hester, Ward III; and Bill Parker and Jim Robertson, Ward IV.  Also in attendance were Patty Gentrup, City Administrator; Cynthia Boecker, Assistant City Administrator; Steve Hansen, Public Works Director; JacLyn Carlson, Planner; Kate Egan, Preservation Planner; Craig Knouse, Police Chief; Chris Deal, Parks & Recreation Director; Dennis Dovel, Sports Complex Manager; Linda Tyree, Finance Director; Mary Towse, Human Resources Director; Jane Sharon, Deputy City Clerk; Kelly Garbus, Kansas City Star; Angie Borgedalen, Liberty Tribune; Joe Cook, Sun News and 48 members of the public.

 

IV.       APPROVE MINUTES AND SUMMARIES

 

A.                 REGULAR SESSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 2005

 

Council Member Robertson moved to approve the minutes as distributed.  Council Member Brenton seconded the motion, which carried 7-0-1.  Council Member Coe abstained due to absence.

 

B.                 EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 2005

 

Council Member Hadden moved to approve the minutes as distributed.  Council Member Martin seconded the motion, which carried 7-0-1.  Council Member Coe abstained due to absence.

 

V.        CITIZENS’ PARTICIPATION – None.

 

VI.       MEETING SCHEDULE

 

Mrs. Gentrup stated there would be no meeting on the fifth Monday, January 31, and the Council would meet next in study session on February 7, 2005.

 

VII.      CONSENT AGENDA

 

A.                 APPOINTMENTS

 

Board of Appeals

Reappoint Hugh McClelland to a term expiring December 30, 2009

Reappoint Clifford Mose, Alternate, to a term expiring December 30, 2009

 

Residential Rental Occupancy Code Board of Appeals

Reappoint David Fulk, Alternate, to a term expiring September 1, 2009

 

Tax Increment Financing Commission

Reappoint Lyndell Brenton to a term expiring October 1, 2008

Reappoint Joe Crossett to a term expiring October 1, 2008

 

            Council Member Hadden moved to approve the appointments.  Council Member Robertson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

 

B.                 AUTHORIZE EXECUTIVE SESSION TO BE HELD JANUARY 24, 2005 IN THE COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE REGULAR SESSION TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL MATTERS AS AUTHORIZED BY 610.021(3) RSMo – MOTION

 

Council Member Hadden moved to authorize the executive session.  Council Member Robertson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

 

VIII.     PUBLIC HEARINGS

 

A.        *AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM TRADITIONAL RESIDENTIAL TO CONVENTIONAL RESIDENTIAL, MULTI-FAMILY, AND COMMERCIAL FOR 200 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF BIRMINGHAM ROAD AND NORTH OF RUTH EWING ROAD [P&Z Case No. 04-2041A, Applicant: Joe Duffey/Prudential Carter Duffey] – RESOLUTION (Remanded to Planning & Zoning Commission and continued from December 20, 2004 special session)

 

Mrs. Gentrup reviewed previous activity regarding this application, noting that Council first considered the amendment at its December 20, 2004 session.  On December 14, 2004, the Planning & Zoning Commission had recommended denial of the application by a 5-3 vote.  At the December 20, 2004 meeting, City Council remanded the case to the Planning & Zoning Commission for discussion of a possible compromise.  The Council declined a proposal from the applicant at its January 3, 2005 study session.  The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the original application for amendment by a vote of 4-3 at its January 11, 2005 meeting.

 

Mrs. Gentrup noted that the public hearing on December 20, 2004 had been continued to this evening to allow an additional opportunity for public input.

 

Mayor Hawkins stated that proponents would be given an opportunity to speak first, followed by opponents and then questions.  Mrs. Gentrup stated that, due to technical difficulties, computer presentations would not be available this evening.  Steve Warger, engineer for the applicant, put up an exhibit showing the proposed phases of the development and staff displayed the Future Land Use Map for reference.

 

Joe Duffey, 1730 S. Withers Road, stated there is nothing new here.  He provided a summary of his development history within the City and stated he had contributed all or partially to many city improvements.  He said he estimates the financial ramifications of this development to the City at about $2.5 million.  On the table for Council consideration is the Community Improvement District (CID) and an amendment to the Future Land Use Plan Map.  He stated this property represents only two percent of the vacant ground left for development in Liberty.

 

Council Member Collins asked what improvements would be made to Ruth Ewing Road.  Mr. Duffey said he is still working with staff on the requirements.  He added that with the first 150 houses, he will be required to add a water loop.  Steve Warger estimated between $500,000 and $750,000 would be spent on Ruth Ewing Road improvements.

 

Council Member Brenton asked Mr. Duffey to review the development in the 208 acres.  Mr. Duffey said the property in the north portion of the development is part of the Bell estate and is not being sold by the current owner at this time.  South of that, he would purchase the land and improvements would be made to Birmingham Road.  Mayor Hawkins asked if the property owners had agreed to provide the right-of-way for the road.  Mr. Duffey said they had.  Mr. Duffey also noted property would be designated as parkland at the entrance to The Cedars.  He said there are no users in place for the commercial portion and, most likely, the multi-family units would be developed before the commercial tracts.

 

Council Member Brenton clarified that the applicant is seeking modification of the Land Use Plan map for all tracts in the development.  Mr. Duffey said that is correct.  Mr. Brenton said the applicant is purchasing the property and making a contribution to the City.  He asked if the CID was proportional to the acreage.  Mr. Duffey said that is how it will start.  Mr. Brenton asked about the number of buildable lots per acre.  Mr. Warger stated it was 2.4 single family lots per acre.

 

Council Member Coe asked for clarification of the location of the lots to the north, which Mr. Duffey pointed out on the map.  Council Member Hester asked where the Creekwood development was in relation to this proposed development.  Mr. Duffey noted Creekwood is just east of the area designated as Phase 6 and Phase 7.  Mrs. Hester asked what the percentage of development was north of Birmingham Road and south of it.  Mr. Duffey said it is about forty percent north of Birmingham Road, with approximately sixty percent to the south.  Mrs. Hester asked if the applicant currently owns the property in Phases 6 and 7.  Mr. Duffey said he does not.

 

Mayor Hawkins asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the application.  David Kimbrell, 400 N. Water Street, stated that he was in favor of all development that would bring people and commercial activity into the City.  He said that all traditional development throughout Liberty is not good.  He said that Council had voted for a non-traditional park in the downtown area and it is hard to find commercial if traditional development is required.  He said he hates to think the City would take this step.  He noted that everyone loves the look of a traditional home.  He owns one, but he doesn’t use his porch.  He said confining development to traditional would not be good for Liberty because it would stop growth.

 

John Ferguson, 2152 Oak Crest Drive, stated that he had contributed to the progress of this town.  He said development is slowing, though, with only Mr. Duffey staying the course.  He said he went to the Blueprint meetings and didn’t fully participate.  He said the town needed planned growth and Ruth Ewing Road is a perfect demarcation.  He said whether the costs of development pass onto the land owner or not, Mr. Duffey is agreeing to pay for them and is offering to improve Ruth Ewing Road.  He stated what the South Liberty Parkway area will become is still unknown, but it takes more than a year to develop lots and you can’t just stop and start development.  He said this proposal is not doing away with the Blueprint, but is changing it to make it flexible.  He stated that people have a choice with this proposal and the City has someone willing to put up the dollars for development.

 

Mayor Hawkins asked if anyone else present wished to speak in favor of the application.  Seeing none, he asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition.  Barb Lozier, 438 Moss, said she had intended to show photos from one of the exercises in the Blueprint planning process but is unable to, due to the technical difficulties.  She said in that visual preference survey, participants were asked to rank from -5 to +5 the images shown to them.  She noted that true traditional neighborhoods are similar to what is around the square, with homes close to the sidewalk.  She said some images shown in the survey are not available here in Liberty, but there are examples out West.  These were images of long straight streets with protruding garages, which were rated lowest in the survey.

 

She said during Blueprint implementation discussions, the highest rated images would not be allowed in Liberty.  The Blueprint participants had lobbied City staff to relax the code to allow alleys and granny-flats.  Ms. Lozier said when whole neighborhoods are of the lowest-rated variety, the streetscape is compromised.  Wide treeless streets are perceived as unsafe.  She said this is not a reflection of what Joe Duffey has done in the past, but he has said he cannot commit because he may sell off part of the property.

 

Ms. Lozier said the ordinances must be consistently applied.  She noted that the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) is proposing a hybrid of traditional development.  She said The Village is not all that can be built and there are a number of styles that would meet the UDO requirements.  Ms. Lozier stated that when this process began, it was proposed to amend the land use to allow both conventional and traditional and that has changed to simply amend the plan to allow additional conventional.  She asked why the Blueprint hadn’t been scheduled for an overall review.  Mayor Hawkins asked for clarification of this comment.  Mrs. Gentrup stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission had looked at the question of the need to amend the Blueprint Future Land Use Plan for any area and had decided it was not appropriate to amend the plan at that time.

 

Ms. Lozier stated the plan warrants a review.  She said it is a misconception that it shouldn’t ever be changed.  But, she added, there are areas that could be changed because they are contiguous to existing conventional development.  She said keeping Phases 6 & 7 of Mr. Duffey’s proposal as traditional could have an impact.  Ms. Lozier stated that the upcoming housing assessment could be an opportunity to review the Blueprint.

 

Mike Costanza, 991 Sherman Drive, asked if Mr. Duffey intended to resell the property, once he acquired it.  Mr. Duffey said he did not.  Mayor Hawkins asked that questions be directed to the Council, not to the individuals in the audience.

 

Scott Vulgamott, 4310 NW 67^th Terrace, Kansas City, Missouri, stated that he works for Reese Nichols, owns Attic Storage and is an owner and developer of the Creekwood subdivision.  He reviewed a letter he had written to City Council in which he addressed some of the arguments he had heard about traditional development.  He stated that he is just now aware of the proposal to amend the Future Land Use Plan Map and that is why he is just now coming forward.  Mr. Vulgamott stated that, while he believes Joe Duffey is a great businessman, he was present to dispute Duffey’s claims of why traditional development won’t work.  He had heard that walkout basements could not be built in traditional development but there will be some in Creekwood, as the topography permits.  He had heard that bankers won’t finance non-conventional development, but that is not true.  He is aware of financing that is available and he has received financing for Creekwood.  He said he has heard that traditional homes can’t be built for a low cost, but Creekwood homes begin in the $180,000’s and in a traditional development in St. Charles, Missouri, homes begin in the low $100,000’s.  He said there are hundreds of traditional-styled home plans available and there are 313 TND neighborhoods across the country.  Mr. Vulgamott said he had heard appraisals are difficult to obtain.  He said this comes before lending and has not been an issue at Longview Farms.  He said he heard there was no market for anything but conventional.  He said Longview Farms opened in August and has sold 17 lots.  He said the traditional development in North Kansas City is selling 1.2 lots a month without being in the Liberty School District and these properties have no basements.  He said Shoal Creek has ten sales already.  He noted the development in St. Charles has sold 350 homes in the first three months.  Mr. Vulgamott said he heard there are no other developers interested in the property in question.  He said he had contacted one of the property owners prior to Mr. Duffey and continues to have interest in acquiring properties.  He said obviously these are two developers with opposing views.  He asked the Council to exercise due diligence in doing the right thing.  He suggested the Council table the issue of amending the land use plan as Mr. Duffey has 100 lots yet to sell in his conventional developments.  He said he heard there is no market, but that is incorrect.  He said he is not opposed to a mix of traditional development and conventional development, but asked that the areas next to Creekwood be traditional, because this is such a small percentage of the property that can still be developed.  He said he had heard that traditional and conventional can’t work in the same development but there are many developments where this works.  He said there is nothing wrong with either type of development, but this will impact housing.

 

Council Member Robertson asked how many acres are in Creekwood.  Mr. Vulgamott said there are ten acres.  Mr. Robertson said that’s a small development compared to the 208 acres in Mr. Duffey’s proposal.  Mr. Vulgamott said it is his understanding the developer is being asked to develop 100% as traditional, but perhaps there might be a small buffer between the traditional and conventional development, such as the natural area located around the drainage way.  He said even if it is a small area in Phase 6, there could be a transition area.  Council Member Brenton asked what Mr. Vulgamott’s understanding had been of the development requirements for the adjacent property.  Mr. Vulgamott said he expected it to be 100% traditional development, but he is not opposed to a compromise.  Mr. Brenton asked if he is still interested in acquiring the adjacent property.  Mr. Vulgamott said he is and that Creekwood got final approval on public works’ elements last week.  He said in the last two months, even in the winter, he has received one call a day from people with an interest in buying in Creekwood.  He said the Fairways sold out in a year and a half and that development never averaged a call a day.

 

Council Member Hester asked if he would be interested in developing where Mr. Duffey is proposing development.  Mr. Vulgamott said he is.  Council Member Martin asked Mr. Vulgamott to clarify his statement about a buffer in Phase 6 of the proposed development.  Mr. Vulgamott said there is a natural buffer which could allow the transition from one style to another.  He said some conventional home owners do not want traditional homes next to them and vice versa.  Mrs. Martin asked about the green space.  Mr. Vulgamott said it was just in the area he had noted earlier.

 

Mayor Hawkins asked Mr. Vulgamott how he reconciled his suggestion for a buffer with his statement that the two development styles could co-exist.  Mr. Vulgamott said he believed the two can work in the same development, but the natural buffer of the road would be better.  He said he had visited the development in St. Charles and had interviewed owners.  They said they loved it because it is different.  He said this is a better location for traditional than Shoal Creek because it is within one and a quarter miles of the Square.

 

Council Member Robertson asked staff to clarify how the Creekwood development fits in to the current ordinances.  Mrs. Gentrup stated that, when Creekwood was approved, the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) had not been developed and variances to the R-1C zoning district were granted to address the traditional land use designation.  Ms. Carlson stated that the garages in Creekwood are not rearloaded, but will be recessed from the street.  She said that the Blueprint principles call for smaller streets in traditional development but the garage to be off the street.  She said

the zoning district in the UDO, which will be used for traditional development, is a hybrid.  She said true Traditional Neighborhood Development could be built, but the UDO also allows for a more conventional type of traditional development.  Mr. Robertson asked about grid streets.  Ms. Carlson said there are no cul-de-sacs in Creekwood, but there are looped lanes.  She stated that the main roads are stubbed and will be continued with further development.

 

Council Member Parker asked if Mr. Vulgamott has any of the land in the proposed development under contract.  Mr. Vulgamott said he did not, but wished he did.  Council Member Robertson asked if he had developed any other properties.  Mr. Vulgamott said he had not but his partners have.  Mr. Robertson asked why they had not received the letter regarding the rezoning.  Mrs. Gentrup stated the letter would have been sent to the developer’s office, not to each partner individually.

 

Ken Endsley, 1300 Hillary Drive, apologized to Council members who were offended by his previous remarks.  He said they were intended only for those that were guilty.  He passed out some materials and noted that his history should note military service in 1957, not 1997.  He said he is hearing an interest by Council in traditional development.  But in 1992, when he decided to build a house, the regulations would not allow the traditional style, in particular because he was not allowed to have the drive come out onto South Wales.  He said the people on the Planning & Zoning Commission need to throw out the stupid regulations so all have the same privilege to build or not build.  He said the garage was an afterthought.  Mr. Endsley said the City told him he couldn’t build a shed when he was on Prairie Street, unless he put a garage door on the 12’ x 12’ shed.  He asked that the amendment proposal be tabled until people read the Blueprint and had an idea about what was needed.  He said this amendment should be considered at a special meeting.

 

Laurie Brown, 16425 NE 113^th Street, stated that the Blueprint was unanimously approved five years ago as representative of what Liberty wants in the future.  Over time, she said, it should be reviewed and changed as needed.  She said this would be a perfect time to step back and see if this was still what was wanted.  She said it will be a patchwork, if the plan is amended piecemeal.  Ms. Brown recommended the proposal be held in order to get input and then consider changes as needed.  She said if it is done on a case by case basis, there will always be those butting heads.  She said the community is emotionally involved in this plan because of the input that was provided.

 

Steve Enright, 655 Thornton, said he was excited to see the Blueprint, which is an award-winning plan.  He said people put in a lot of effort and piecemeal review will only produce scattered development and doesn’t help.  He said there are a lot of good things about traditional development.  He said it promotes walking and not always having to drive somewhere, like when you live on a cul-de-sac.  He said he bought a fifty-year-old house because he wanted that style.  He noted there is a reason why Brookside homes are so expensive.  He said the City offers conventional development and it doesn’t pay for itself.  He said conventional development has a return of 116%.  He suggested the plan be amended through a thoughtful process so that it remains a shining example instead of like that of every other city.

 

Robin Anderson, 2009 Place Liberté, said she teaches in Liberty.  She said when they moved to Liberty, they had three days to buy a house and ended up where they live, not really by choice.  She said they must use a car to get everywhere and she hates that.  Ms. Anderson said she participated in the Blueprint planning process and had her students work through a similar process in their classroom.  She stated that a lot of work went into the plan and that should be considered before kicking holes in it.  She said she would love to buy a home in a traditional development and that she had chosen Liberty because of the Square and because of the community.  She asked the Council to consider the people’s efforts and not to amend it piecemeal.  She asked them to step back and consider the overall plan first.

 

Penny Russell, 605 Thornton, said the questions asked of Mr. Duffey were not answered clearly.  She asked the Council to consider what would happen in the future and not just address separate parcels of land here and there.

 

Mayor Hawkins asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition or had questions.  Seeing none, he closed the public hearing.

 

Council Member Hadden stated that she tries to get as much information as possible on all issues the Council considers.  She said she realizes that Mr. Duffey has been planning this development for two years.  She stated he has done good work in Liberty and it was good to be reminded of his efforts.  Mrs. Hadden stated that those who live and work in Liberty have a special devotion to the City.  She recognizes that Liberty helps form its citizenry and that, while sometimes hard to express, there is a special identity that exists in Liberty.  The Blueprint was developed five years ago, through a laborious process, which continues today.  She stated that everyone is dedicated to making it work well.  Mrs. Hadden stated that, in looking at the map, she was shocked to think there is no place left for conventional development.  She said she likes the result of the Blueprint process and, if they are forced to chip away at it, they haven’t done it right yet.  She said she would have to vote “no” on the amendment, but she doesn’t like what the Future Land Use Plan map tells us and she believes that needs to be corrected.  Mrs. Hadden said if anyone says Coni Hadden was a part of what happened, she wants to be proud of the effort and wants it to be seen as quality work.  She is in favor of the map being changed, but as the application stands, she said she would have to vote “no”.

 

Council Member Collins stated that this is setting a rigid standard for development, using the Blueprint.  He said he had been told developments would be considered on a case by case basis.  He noted he has said often that the City is too much involved.  People should be able to use land as they see fit.  He stated that individual markets should be allowed to work.  He said he lives where he is happy and he can’t buy into one person in a conventional-style home not being able to live next to a traditional-style home.  He said he has no problem supporting the amendment.

 

Council Member Hester stated this is the most painful issue she has considered as a council member.  She stated that she has looked for answers and has received conflicting facts about conventional and traditional development, which she believes weigh evenly.  She stated she feels very strongly that the Blueprint needs to be changed, but just as strongly also recognizes there are some tracts in this proposal that need to be traditional development.  She stated that she appreciates the time and effort that went into the development of the Blueprint as well as Mr. Duffey’s time spent on this project.  She stated that the general opinion seems to be there is still a commitment to the Blueprint.  She believes that amending the Future Land Use Plan and map on a case by case basis is not effective.  She said there should be a revisioning process before making the first change and no portion needs to be changed in the near future.  She said she would like to see traditional development in the sixth and seventh phases of the proposed development in order to see what the market is.  She said she wanted to vote yes but would not because most of the development is conventional and some traditional development is needed.

 

Council Member Martin said this is a difficult decision.  She noted that if she were in the market for a new home, she would be looking for traditional development.  She stated that she is not a developer but does recognize developments must make a profit and it is not appropriate to require developers to build something that won’t sell.  She stated that Mr. Duffey has offered to build a bridge which would be a cost savings to the City.  She commented on the new information that there are new developers interested in traditional development and lenders available.  Walkout basements are possible in traditional development.  She mentioned statements that Mr. Duffey might sell the land to

those interested in traditional neighborhood development and that if marketable, he would jump on the band wagon.  Mrs. Martin stated the City should do all it can to get building going again, while not slighting the participants in the Blueprint process.  She stated that traditional development is a minute but integral part of the Blueprint and the citizens will determine what kind of city this is.  She stated she would vote in favor of the amendment.

 

Council Member Brenton stated that this issue did not allow you to vote “yes” and win.  He talked about Liberty’s heritage and its small-town-feel preserving the downtown and homes for more than a hundred years.  He stated compromise and flexibility should be balanced and believes the City should revisit the plan.  He stated that participants in its development have a long-term vision and comparing that to a proven economic formula there is no incentive to deviate.  Mr. Brenton said that the case was remanded to find a compromise and that did not happen, but he continues to hold to the hope that compromise and flexibility are related to this application.

 

Council Member Brenton said he would propose that phases 1-4 and 8-12, along with modified lots in the fifth phase be designated as conventional and the sixth and seventh phases, the multi-family and commercial remain designated as traditional development.  He said this would still create only one third of the development as traditional with two thirds being conventional.  He said that 150 lots was about a three year inventory and would show good faith to the Creekwood developer, whose understanding was the adjacent property would be developed as traditional.  He said it might have been bad faith on the part of the City to allow him to develop and this compromise preserves traditional development along the Birmingham corridor and along the South Liberty Parkway in an area where there will be a neighborhood center.  He stated if it is all or none, he cannot vote for the amendment.  But, Mr. Brenton said, he would vote in favor of a compromise.  He stated that the compromise he is proposing includes 15% to 20% traditional development and protects traditional development along the corridor.  He stated he would formally offer this proposal when it was appropriate.

 

Council Member Parker stated he was opposed to a piecemeal approach to changing the Future Land Use Plan Map.  He stated he is not in favor of force-feeding traditional development but with roads and bridges being put in and if the sixth and seventh phases were held to traditional, that would start some TND houses before Ruth Ewing Road.

 

Council Member Coe said at the time he voted in favor of the Blueprint, he didn’t understand that there were no conventional development areas left.  He stated that Mr. Duffey had built 280 homes all of which were conventional.  He said he will vote in favor of the amendment.  He said he has always voted the way he thought was best.  Mr. Coe said the developer has invested a lot and the City will have to make the improvements if the developer does not.  He stated this will contribute to the tax base and he had no problem with conventional mixed with traditional.  Mr. Coe said, at the last meeting Mr. Duffey had said he would consider some traditional development and that should be taken into consideration.

 

Council Member Robertson stated that, before he was on the Council, he could see there could be two points of view on an issue.  But once he became a council member he realized he had to stand up for one side.  He said he wished he had been more involved in the Blueprint planning process but he had been told the City would have alternative development and this was not the intent of the participants or the Council.  He stated there should be a joint Planning & Zoning Commission and Council meeting and this is not a good way to transition from all conventional to all traditional development.  He said when the application went back to the Planning & Zoning Commission he asked the city administrator if this would be a chance to look at the map.  He was told the Commission did not see a need for a change at this time.  He said people in houses pay for roads.  He noted that the City had sold $10 million in bonds but with this developer’s proposal, the City won’t have to pay for these roads.  He said he appreciated the citizen comments, but he would be voting in favor of the amendment to the Blueprint.  He added that he hoped the Council would revisit the Blueprint as soon as possible.

 

Mayor Hawkins stated this would be an historical moment if the Council’s decision was such that it required him to cast a deciding vote.  He stated that he hadn’t heard a lot that he agreed with from either side.  He stated that he was around for all the meetings and he recalled the discussion of the format for the Blueprint for Liberty.  He had always had a lot of respect for the process through which it was developed.  When he accepted the award for the Blueprint in New York City, he did so with a great deal of pleasure, because he believed the award was recognition of the process.  He stated there had been several hundred that participated and he recalled one of his happiest moments at William Jewell College, six years ago, when Mr. Apfelbaum had been scheduled, but was not able to make it due to the bad weather.  Fifty or so citizens showed up and, when told the speaker would not be there, stayed to participate in a spontaneous discussion facilitated by Planner Bonnie Johnson.  Those present were asked to comment on what’s best about Liberty.  For two and a half hours, individuals offered thoughtful comments.  He stated this was an excellent process and is the pattern for long-term planning, being bottom-up, instead of top-down, as had always been the case before.

 

Mayor Hawkins stated he had re-read the Blueprint for Liberty with a critical eye, after the many discussions that have taken place.  He noted there are fourteen key recommendations, twelve neighborhood principles with sixty-six guidelines.  There are four areas of concentration in implementation and twenty-one action steps.  Overall there are 101 good suggestions in this comprehensive plan.  He said he had looked for garages and TND, which is the shorthand by which traditional development is identified and realized the Blueprint is a very broad document.  He said among the recommendations are a tunnel under I-35 and it contains language for light rail and prairie restoration.  Mayor Hawkins noted that many of the principles deal with neighborhood concepts, such as being pedestrian and bike-friendly and emphasizing community centers.  He said traditional development is mentioned in only two of the 101 recommendations and these were given good emphasis.  He added that zoning districts were recommended to be redefined and used the RNC, Residential Neighborhood Conservation District, as an example.  Mayor Hawkins said traditional neighborhood design was recommended to be woven into the zoning ordinances.  The other reference is to de-emphasize the garage.  He said the photos are not of TND homes, unless that is defined as an 8-foot garage setback.

 

Mayor Hawkins said that, regardless of how the vote goes, there are 98 other very important points that make up the Blueprint for Liberty.  He stated he may have disagreed with Council Member Robertson over the years on some points, but there are many more points on which they have agreed.  He said, in looking at the Future Land Use Plan map showing all traditional development, changes can be made.  He stated they are dealing with very good ideas at a time when there was no Shoal Creek and no Creekwood.  Without exception, Council had wanted to see if this could be developed, so an effort was made to change the zoning ordinances to make traditional development possible.  He stated if no changes were to be allowed, the Council might have voted differently that night when first considering adoption of the Blueprint for Liberty.  He stated that, considering the ten-year life of a comprehensive plan, no matter the conclusion of this particular issue, all need to step back.  He emphasized that this is not a vote to ditch the Blueprint or wanting to see development; it is not an up or down on conventional versus traditional development, but rather a decision on the future use of 208 acres.

 

Council Member Collins moved to approve the amendment.  Council Member Robertson seconded the motion.  Council Member Brenton moved to amend the motion to remove the sixth and seventh phases as well as the multi-family residential and commercial portion and that portion of the fifth phase with no building on it so that it would remain designated as traditional development.  He stated that Mr. Duffey had agreed to build traditional development if it is viable and by the time those

phases are ready for development, there should be more evidence whether traditional development is viable.  He stated this would give the development team more of an opportunity to see if traditional will sell.  Council Member Robertson said the application is for the amendment on the table.  He called for the question.  Council Member Parker stated that he doesn’t agree with the amendment because it might require him to vote against the amendment and the developer might walk away.

 

Mayor Hawkins stated that there is a motion to amend the original motion and no second has been made.  Council Member Hester seconded Mr. Brenton’s motion to amend the original motion.  The amendment failed 3-5-0.  Council Members Collins, Martin, Parker, Coe and Robertson voted in opposition to the motion to amend the motion approving the amendment to the Future Land Use Plan map.

 

Council Member Robertson called for the question.  The original motion carried 5-3-0.  Council Members Hester, Hadden and Brenton voted in opposition.  The resolution is inscribed in Resolution No. 2195.

 

B.         REZONE 208 ACRES FROM R-1A, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R-1C, STANDARD SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO THE CEDARS [P&Z Case No. 03-2004R&PDP, Applicant: Joe Duffey]  – ORDINANCE (Continued from the December 20, 2004 regular session at request of applicant)

 

Mayor Hawkins stated that the rezoning application was being continued to the February 28, 2005 regular session, as the Planning & Zoning Commission has not yet made a recommendation.

 

1.         CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO FEBRUARY 28, 2005 REGULAR SESSION OF CITY COUNCIL – MOTION

 

Council Member Hadden moved to continue the rezoning public hearing to the February 28, 2005 regular session.  Council Member Martin seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

 

2.         CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF P&Z CASE NO. 03-2004R&PDP TO FEBRUARY 28, 2005 REGULAR SESSION OF CITY COUNCIL – MOTION

 

Council Member Martin moved to continue consideration of the rezoning application to the February 28, 2005 regular session.  Council Member Hester seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

 

Mayor Hawkins recessed the Council meeting at 9:35 p.m.

 

Mayor Hawkins called the Council meeting back into session at 9:47 p.m.  He suggested the executive session, approved earlier in the agenda to follow the regular session be postponed to February 7.

 

C.         *SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR OUR LADY OF MERCY COUNTRY HOME TO CONSTRUCT NEW 45,000 SQ. FT. BLDG. AT 2205 HUGHES ROAD [P&Z CASE NO. 04-2042SUP; Applicant: Wilson Johnson Embers] – RESOLUTION

 

Ms. Carlson reviewed the application for new construction at Our Lady of Mercy Country Home, stating the expansion would add 45,000 sq. ft. to the living space for a total of 113,000 sq. ft.  The zoning of surrounding properties is R-1A, Suburban Residential District, as is that of the property in question.  Ms. Carlson reviewed the long case history of the property, beginning with approval of a special use permit for continued operation of a residential care facility on the site and construction of independent living units.  Additional special use permits were approved in 1998 and 1999 for expansion and construction of town houses.  In 2001, the permit approved in 1999 was renewed, this time for a five-year period.

 

Ms. Carlson stated that construction is to replace the existing Residential Care Facility (RCF) and the application meets all the standards for Adequate Public Facilities.  She stated that the new and old RCFs will be connected via a tunnel and walkway.  She stated that a determination for the existing facility’s reuse or replacement had not yet been made.  In the interim, it will be used for additional activity rooms and offices.  She noted that two asphalt drives would be added to accommodate vehicular activity and with a looped lane and one access drive; the site includes 126 parking stalls.  While City standards do not require an increase in parking, the applicant intends to add 10 parking spaces.

 

Ms. Carlson stated that all seven findings required for the granting of a special use permit were supported by this application.  The Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval and consolidation of this special use permit with the other two, so that all will come under one special use permit.

 

Mayor Hawkins asked if the 137,000 sq. ft. includes the old and the new facility.  Ms. Carlson said it did.  Council Member Parker asked for clarification that this special use permit would be for an indefinite period.  Ms. Carlson said that was correct.

 

Council Member Hester asked if all the space is being used.  Ms. Carlson said it is and the existing RCF would be used until a decision is made about reuse or replacement.

 

Council Member Robertson asked how close this is to the South Liberty Parkway.  Public Works Director Steve Hansen stated that it is about 100 feet from the first phase of the Flintlock overpass.  He stated that Hughes Road will be removed at that juncture and Flintlock will go to the south and west.  Mayor Hawkins asked if the eastern extension is where it will connect.  Mr. Hansen said that is correct.

 

Mayor Hawkins opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of the application.  Richard Johnson, Wilson Johnson Embers, 8325 Lenexa Drive, Lenexa, Kansas, stated that the tunnel mentioned in the staff presentation will connect to the independent living unit.  He stated that the Commission had asked if anything was wrong with the RCF and the answer is that the facility is undersized for today’s needs.  He said another element of the plan is that it completes enclosure of the courtyard area, so there is no fear of residents wandering off.

 

Mayor Hawkins 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 or had any questions.  Seeing none, he closed the public hearing.

 

Council Member Martin moved to approve the special use permit with the consolidation of previous special use permits.  Council Member Parker seconded the motion, which carried unanimously and is inscribed in Resolution No. 2196.

 

D.        *SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR FAMILY RECREATION BUSINESS FEATURING MINIATURE GOLF AND ARCADE AT NORTHEAST CORNER OF PROGRESS DRIVE AND SOUTH WITHERS ROAD [P&Z CASE NO. 04-2043SUP; Applicant: Scott Bailey] – RESOLUTION

 

Ms. Carlson stated that this application is for a family recreation business with miniature golf and an arcade, located on the northeast corner of Progress Drive and South Withers Road.  She stated the surrounding properties are zoned CP-2, Planned General Business District, MP-1, Planned Light Industrial District, R-1C, Standard Single Family Residential District, and a park with the Canterbury Westboro Greenway to the west.  Ms. Carlson stated that a special use permit had been approved two years ago, but had expired when no permits were pulled within eighteen months.  She stated the proposal meets the Adequate Public Facilities ordinance standards.  The facility includes an 18-hole course and arcade which will be open to the general public.  The hours of operation will be 10 am – 10 pm with no new golfers allowed after 9:15 pm.

 

Ms. Carlson stated this area has a diverse character, with a mix of residential uses to the south and public and industrial uses to the east, north and west.  The property is zoned MP-1.  Permitted uses in this zoning, including mini-storage and auto repair shops, would not require any public review prior to their construction.  The family recreation business would integrate well in this area as a buffer between the different uses.  Ms. Carlson stated that the plan is to achieve a layout within the natural setting.  She noted the lighting would be box lights on 20-ft. poles and light shields if necessary.  The building design includes a natural wood exterior with a porch and metal roof.

 

Ms. Carlson stated that the seven findings required for a special use permit are supported by the application and the Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval of the special use permit.

 

Council Member Parker asked where the access drive would be.  Ms. Carlson said it would be on the Progress side of the property.  Council Member Hester asked about the zoning of property to the north.  Ms. Carlson said it is CP-2 and currently open space.  Mrs. Hester asked what was planned for the southern portion of this property.  Ms. Carlson said it will remain natural and will be utilized for storm water.  Mrs. Hester asked if a go-kart track would be allowed at this location.  Ms. Carlson said it would require an additional special use permit and if that came forward as a proposal, staff would encourage the applicant to find a more appropriate location for that use.

 

Council Member Martin asked if further buffering was proposed along Progress Drive on the other side of the berm.  Ms. Carlson said it could be, but the plans currently call for open space.  That could be changed to trees.  Scott Bailey, 106 Kirkland Avenue, stated that he is willing to do what is necessary to keep the residents happy.  Mrs. Hester asked what recourse the homeowners have, once the permit is approved.  Ms. Carlson said that, if there is a complaint, the permit could be reviewed for compliance with the approved plan.  Ms. Carlson stated the applicant may do some consulting from the office in the building.  She asked the deputy city clerk to speak to any licenses that would be required for that.  Deputy City Clerk Jane Sharon stated that consultant businesses are not required to have an occupation license.

 

Council Member Brenton asked about the lights in the parking lot.  Ms. Carlson said there would be lights and the 20-ft. poles are comparable to street lights that are currently in operation along Progress Drive.  Mr. Brenton asked what the owner expected to do if loitering became an issue.  Police Chief Craig Knouse said it would be addressed like any other location.  If there are many calls, Chief Knouse stated, police staff works with the property owner to determine a workable solution. 

Police enforce the laws and this would fall under public disturbance.  Mrs. Gentrup stated this would be an excellent opportunity for community cooperation and getting neighbors working together to find a satisfactory solution.  Mr. Brenton asked if this process does not result in the concerns being addressed, would the special use permit be called into question.  Mrs. Gentrup stated that is typically how it is enforced, but it is difficult to quantify.

 

Council Member Hadden asked if there are trees now on the south side of Progress.  Mayor Hawkins said there are not.  Council Member Hester asked what landscaping is included in the plan.  Ms. Carlson said there is an extensive landscaping plan and the area southwest of the course and the building will remain natural to serve as a buffer between the development and the uses to the south.

 

Council Member Brenton asked why the 20-ft. poles were required.  Ms. Carlson stated they were part of the applicant’s proposal and, with minimal spillage, staff found them acceptable.

 

Council Member Collins stated that his understanding of loitering was someone there and not paying, in which case, that person can be asked to leave or is trespassing.

 

Council Member Hester stated she would like there to be a more stringent requirement for landscaping.

 

Mayor Hawkins opened the public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak in favor of the application.  Scott Bailey, 106 Kirkwood Avenue, Glenaire, clarified that he has no plans for a go-kart track at this location.  He said he likes trees and if the Council wants him to put in four, he’ll plant eight.  He stated the landscaping would absorb the sound, which he planned to test extensively for spillage.  Mr. Bailey noted he is a member of the Dark Sky Society and won’t put up unnecessary lights.  He stated those in his plan are minimal, compared to what exists on the street and at the post office.  Mr. Bailey said this is to be a family place and there would be no alcohol or smoking.  He said he has planned from the beginning to take a strong stance against loitering and has received good pointers from the police and the owner of the local roller skating rink.  Mr. Bailey said he has talked to many people and there had been no opposition, until a few weeks ago.  He said he had planned the open space at the front as an extension of the park.  He stated he would look forward to the comments from residents and will work with them in any way he can to address their concerns.

 

Pat Hill, 423 Gordon, stated that he is a longtime volunteer with youth groups, including scouts, church and recreational soccer.  He said the youth need a location for entertainment and this is a good opportunity.  He said he knew there had been problems at the movie theaters, but this additional option for recreation should lessen problems there.  He said the youth today want lots of things to do and this is a good opportunity for the community to provide some additional alternatives for entertainment.

 

Mayor Hawkins 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.

 

Jeff Braeden, 1036 Sherman Drive, stated he lives three houses up to the south, directly behind what will be the parking lot.  He said he is a golf teacher and understands the need for youth to have activities.  But, he said, his concern is the youth, because despite the berm, when he is on his deck he will have a direct view of the activity.  He expressed concern about the noise and there are unknowns with this proposal, including problems of loitering.  He said this proposal is not being a good neighbor to residents.

 

McKenzie Mallon, 1054 Wellington Way, stated she has lived directly behind the property in question since October.  She stated she understands that Council gave approval earlier but there were no houses to the south then.  She stated that most residents have young children, who are in bed by 8 pm and this is a quiet neighborhood.  She asked if some type of P.A. system was planned.  Ms. Mallon said lighting is a concern and the 20-ft. poles seem high.  She added that traffic is a concern for her with small children and no fence.  Ms. Mallon said loitering will happen; there was a police officer who spoke at the Planning & Zoning Commission about loitering and said it can be a difficult problem to resolve.  She said the waterfall in the plan sounds beautiful but standing water will bring bugs.  Ms. Mallon suggested that small offices might be a better transition and rezoning should be considered.  She said there is probably a better place for this type of business and she is not opposed to the business but doesn’t like the proposed location.

 

John Costa, 1041 Wellington Way, stated that it is great to be concerned about options for youth entertainment but this is not the place for this recreation business.  He said he had looked at locations around the metro area for comparison – in North Kansas City, Independence and Kansas City.  He said the locations are in commercial or industrial areas with no residential and the parking lots are enormous.  He stated the surrounding businesses to the one in Kansas City are a restaurant and a VFW.  He said these locations look like they are in the bottoms.  He asked if this is what council members would want in their back yards.  He said the parking is adequate for the traffic and the berm blocks the business but not the light.  He said he knows water pumps can go out and he knows about mosquitoes.  He said the park across the street is not lit and it will attract juveniles with drugs and alcohol, who will then come back and play mini-golf.  He asked if someone is kicked out of the mini-golf, where will they go.  He offered a petition with 45 signatures on it, requesting the application be denied.

 

Mayor Hawkins asked if anyone else wished to speak or had questions.  Seeing none, he closed the public hearing.

 

Council Member Parker asked where the parking access would be located.  Ms. Carlson said it would be closer to the post office on Progress, because of the traffic on Withers Road.  Mayor Hawkins reviewed what would be needed to add a stipulation about the trees.  Mr. Bailey said he thought it was a requirement to add trees along Progress, but he had no problem to add them, whether required or not.

 

Council Member Hester asked about music at the site.  Mr. Bailey said it would be piped music during the daylight hours only and there would be no rock and roll.  Council Member Coe asked how the applicant would control profanity.  Mr. Bailey said it would be considered disorderly conduct and he had discussed having a uniformed officer on site during the evenings.  He said the staff would be thoroughly trained.  Council Member Hester asked if there would be seasonal limits on the hours.  Mr. Bailey said, once school is in session and during cold months the site would be open shorter hours.

 

Council Member Brenton said valid concerns have been expressed and asked staff where the hammer is that assurances made will be upheld.  Once the applicant has made substantial improvements, it would be hard to close it down.  Mrs. Gentrup stated that initially special use permits were for two years with a review and then extension for five years.  Now most are for an indefinite period.  She stated the permit could have a time frame or there could be stipulations added for lighting and hours.  She asked Ms. Carlson to again review what would be permitted outright with the existing zoning.  Ms. Carlson said an auto repair shop, the uses that are in Heartland Meadows, office uses and mini-storage are among the permitted uses in this zoning district as it is one of the most intense business designations.  Mrs. Gentrup continued, saying that if the applicant doesn’t handle issues, the City will address them, based on what’s in place at the time.  She stated that the K-Mart shopping center had been handled well.

 

Council Member Parker moved to approve the special use permit.  Council Member Robertson seconded the motion.  Council Member Hester moved to amend the special use permit to add a stipulation requiring eight trees be planted on the site along Progress Drive.  Council Member Martin seconded the motion, which carried 7-1-0.  Council Member Collins voted in opposition.

 

Council Member Brenton asked if the City has an adequate noise ordinance.  Mrs. Gentrup said that could be added as a stipulation.  Mayor Hawkins cautioned that previous experience suggests it doesn’t help to state decibel levels.

 

Council Member Hadden said this is an M-1 location, which includes many uses that are not as desirable as this one.  She said she hopes that, with the family orientation, people will be glad to have it in the neighborhood.  Council Member Brenton said he would have to vote against it because it is in his ward and 45 residents are opposed.  Council Member Collins said he believes this is a really good deal but there is a better location for it.

 

The resolution carried 5-2-1.  Council Member Collins and Brenton voted in opposition and Council Member Martin abstained.  The resolution is inscribed in Resolution No. 2197.

 

IX.       ORDINANCES, CONTRACTS AND RESOLUTIONS

 

A.                 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF VENDOR PAYMENTS FROM JANUARY 7, 2005 THROUGH JANUARY 21, 2005 – ORDINANCE

 

Council Member Robertson asked that Check No. 86690 be removed and voted on separately.  Document No. 6312 was read.  Council Member Robertson moved to approve the ordinance.  Council Member Hester seconded the motion.

 

Council Member Hadden asked about payment to Grand Communications.  Mrs. Gentrup stated that it was for economic development advertising and would provide additional information.  Mrs. Hadden said that was something she would like to see discussed in light of things being done, when more information is available.

 

Vote on the motion was as follows:  Council Member Collins – yes; Council Member Martin – yes; Council Member Hester – yes; Council Member Parker – yes; Council Member Hadden – yes; Council Member Coe – yes; Council Member Brenton – yes; Council Member Robertson – yes.  The motion carried unanimously; it was approved by the Chair and inscribed in Ordinance No. 8772.

 

Council Member Hester moved to approve Check No. 86690.  Council Member Brenton seconded the motion.  Vote on the motion was as follows:  Council Member Collins – yes; Council Member Martin – yes; Council Member Hester – yes; Council Member Parker – yes; Council Member Hadden – yes; Council Member Coe – yes; Council Member Brenton – yes; Council Member Robertson – abstain, due to conflict of interest.  The motion carried 7-0-1; it was approved by the Chair and inscribed in Ordinance No. 8772.

 

B.         *CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 100 N. MAIN STREET, LIBERTY SQUARE HISTORIC DISTRICT [HDRC CASE NO. 04011LS; Applicant: Jeff Price] – RESOLUTION

 

Preservation Planner Kate Egan was introduced to Council by Mrs. Gentrup.  Ms. Egan stated this is an application for a commercial structure on the northwest corner of the square.  She said it had been built in 1887 as the First National Bank building.  The building was remodeled in the 1960s.  For safety reasons, the building was demolished following extensive damaged in the 2003 tornado.  The Historic District Review Commission (HDRC) voted unanimously to recommend approval of the new construction.  She noted the proposed structure is reminiscent of the original First National Bank building, prior to the addition of the metal sheathing, but is not a replica.  There is potential for retail space.  Ms. Egan noted the entrance will be oriented at an angle to the corner and is compatible with buildings on the square.  She stated the building will fit within the footprint of the earlier building and will be flush against the Tribune building to the north.  She added that, while the cast stone is technically considered artificial masonry, which is contrary to the HDRC Design Guidelines, it is in common use around the country; staff believes it is appropriate and it is acceptable to the HDRC.

 

Council Member Hadden asked about the basement level use.  Ms. Egan stated there is nothing designated at this time, but with no entrance on that level, it is not likely it will become retail space.  The door is for egress according to fire safety standards.

 

Council Member Robertson asked why this did not go to the Planning & Zoning Commission.  Ms. Carlson stated that structures less than 15,000 sq. ft. can be approved administratively, and the plan has been approved by staff.  Mr. Robertson said he believed, because of the location, this should have gone to the Planning & Zoning Commission.  Mayor Hawkins said that may be changed with the Unified Development Ordinance.

 

Council Member Martin asked how far the alley would be paved.  Ms. Egan said it would be paved all the way, including behind the Tribune building.

 

Council Member Robertson moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness.  Council Member Parker seconded the motion, which carried unanimously and is inscribed in Resolution No. 2198.

 

C.         ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND CONSENT OF CITY FOR ASSIGNMENT - REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR LIBERTY TRIANGLE – ORDINANCE

 

Document No. 6313 was read.  Council Member Martin moved to waive the rules and consider the ordinance on first reading.  Council Member Hadden seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

 

Council Member Hadden moved to approve the ordinance.  Council Member Brenton seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.  It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 8773.

 

D.        DISCLAIMING AND ABANDONING A SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT FOR WITHERSFIELD, 4^TH PLAT – ORDINANCE

 

Document No. 6314 was read.  Council Member Robertson moved to waive the rules and consider the ordinance on first reading.  Council Member Coe seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

 

Council Member Brenton moved to approve the ordinance.  Council Member Hester seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.  It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 8774.

 

E.         SPORTS COMPLEX

 

1.         AGREEMENT WITH GREATER KANSAS CITY UMPIRES ASSOCIATION IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $20,000 FOR SOFTBALL OFFICIATING SERVICES – ORDINANCE

 

Document No. 6315 was read.  Council Member Martin moved to waive the rules and consider the ordinance on first reading.  Council Member Coe seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

 

Council Member Coe moved to approve the ordinance.  Council Member Hester seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.  It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 8775.

 

2.         AGREEMENT WITH METRO OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $100,000 FOR BASEBALL OFFICIATING SERVICES – ORDINANCE

 

Document No. 6316 was read.  Council Member Martin moved to waive the rules and consider the ordinance on first reading.  Council Member Hadden seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

 

Council Member Hadden moved to approve the ordinance.  Council Member Hester seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.  It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 8776.

 

3.         PURCHASE OF CONCESSION TRAILER FROM CUSTOM CONCESSIONS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,013 – MOTION

 

Council Member Martin moved to approve the purchase.  Council Member Hadden seconded the motion.  Council Member Robertson asked if this purchase is in the budget.  Mrs. Gentrup said it is.  Council Member Hester asked about the two existing stands.  Sports Complex Manager Dennis Dovel said there are two permanent concession stands and there are no plans to make this one permanent.  Its use has the approval of the health department.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

4.         PURCHASE OF CONCESSION PRODUCTS FROM AMERICAN FOODSERVICE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $60,000 – MOTION

 

Council Member Martin moved to approve the purchase.  Council Member Coe seconded the motion.  Council Member Hadden asked if the other companies wouldn’t deliver.  Mr. Dovel said that is correct and one would have charged an additional 15% to do so.  Council Member Hester asked if what was being purchased took care of the two stands last year.  Mr. Dovel said the usage in the two stands last year was used to determine what was needed this year.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

X.         OTHER BUSINESS

 

A.        PURCHASE OF REPLACEMENT TRUCK FROM CHUCK ANDERSON FORD IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,427.09 – MOTION

 

Council Member Martin moved to approve the purchase.  Council Member Hadden seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

 

Mayor Hawkins requested a motion to authorize the executive session immediately following the February 7 Study Session, as allowed by Section 610.021(3).  Council Member Martin moved to authorize the executive session for the new date and time.  Council Member Hadden seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

 

XI.               MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS FROM CITY ADMINISTRATOR – None.

 

XII.            MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS FROM MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

 

Council Member Hester asked what the council members’ participation was expected to be in C.H.A.T.  Mrs. Gentrup stated they would all be taking part in focus groups and a luncheon was scheduled.  She said more information would be provided in future packets.  Council Member Hadden stated she would be out of town the three days identified for this process.

 

Council Member Brenton said he hoped the Council planned to revisit the comprehensive plan soon and asked how that might take place.  Mrs. Gentrup stated this was a new direction that had not been received before.  She said a process for its review would be developed.  Mayor Hawkins said he would like the process to occur as soon as possible and, certainly, before another application comes forward.  He suggested there be a joint study session with Council and the Planning & Zoning Commission.

 

Council Member Hester said she appreciated receiving the article about the Fountain Bluff Sports Complex.  She was pleased to see it getting national recognition.

 

Council Member Robertson asked why the attorney had required Planning & Zoning Commission members to state why they changed their votes regarding the Future Land Use Plan amendment.  Mrs. Gentrup said this had not been stated as a requirement but was suggested by legal counsel and was to be stated before the vote was taken.  Staff did not get that information to the Commission before the vote.  Mr. Robertson asked for the legal counsel’s reasoning for suggesting that be done.  Mrs. Gentrup said she would get that information from legal counsel and provide it to Council.

 

XIII.     ADJOURNMENT

 

The meeting adjourned at 11:17 p.m.

 

 

 

                                                                                    __________________________________

Mayor

 

Attest:

 

 

 

_____________________________________

Deputy City Clerk