EDWARDSVILLE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS

690 SOUTH 4^TH STREET P O BOX 13738

EDWARDSVILLE, KANSAS 66113

Members Present:  Bryan Smith, Kelli Curry, Jeff Martinek, Gerald Pappert and Robert Craven

Members Absent:  Tim Sweeten and Harold Berry

PUBLIC HEARING

I-435 OVERLAY DISTRICT (PROPOSED)

Chairman Martinek: We’ll open the public hearing for the I-435 Overlay District. Dan do you have a staff report on this?

Dan Van Patten: Yes I do. (Please refer to Item A attached.)

Chairman Martinek:  Is there anyone from the floor who has a comment about this overlay district. If so, please state your name and address for Michelle.

Diane Overby: 13648 Willard Avenue, Bonner Springs KS, My first question is this: You published an ad in the newspaper and it does not say anything about this overlay district. So how are we supposed to know that it pertains to Ordinance 639?

Chairman Martinek: That is a separate public hearing.

Diane Overby: So what are we talking about?

Gerald Pappert: The overlay district.

Diane Overby: The overlay district. So this is what we are having the public hearing about?

Chairman Martinek: It is the next hearing.

Diane Overby: It says 7 pm.

Mike Webb: We are having three public hearings tonight.

Diane Overby: Well this is the one I’m talking about, the amending ordinance 639.

Mike Webb: That will be on the next public hearing

Diane Overby: So you have it down as 7pm and it doesn’t start at 7pm?

Mike Webb: They follow one another.

Diane Overby: Okay, for my understanding, where are you right now on this map?

Dan Van Petten: It is the shaded area that goes along I435 up to Riverview Avenue.

Diane Overby: Okay this is what you are talking about now, the overlay district. Okay, well that is what my questions are about. It doesn’t really say that in the publication.

Secretary: This is the publication for the I435 Overlay. I think you may be looking at the publication for Ordinance 639.

Mike Webb: The 639 Ordinance is a different issue.

Diane Overby: The 639 Ordinance is a different issue? So what ordinance are you working on now?

Dan Van Petten: It hasn’t been passed yet so it does not have a number.

Diane Overby: Okay, well can I make comments? This is like totally confusing because you are saying that the 639 ordinance is another ordinance?

Chairman Martinek:  That is correct. The I435 overlay district is something we have purposed. It doesn’t have anything to do with an ordinance that already exists?

Diane Overby: So it is just coming up with ideas?

Gerald Pappert: It is purposed to regulate what goes into that particular district along with the K32 district.

Diane Overby: Then I’ll hold my questions until then. Thank you.

Chairman Martinek: Anybody else?

Dave Hackathorn: 432 S 102^nd Street, Edwardsville KS. First I wanted to tell Gerald thank you very much for helping those people in Greensburg KS get their home down there. It was really a great thing. My question I have on the overlay district is do you have people who want to develop for commercial?

Chairman Martinek: What we are trying to do on this overlay district is protect a space as development comes in - which it will. It started with Raintree with the initiation of sewers. Once that starts, development begins to occur. Well what we are trying to do in an overlay district is protect the area from becoming just a scattered, discombobulated development with no way to control it with no protection for property. So this is not being done for anyone specific it is being done for the future. Does that answer your question?

Dave Hackathorn: Yes, I live at the corner of Kansas Avenue and 102^nd and there have been word throughout the years that I know of, of Kansas Avenue being made into four lanes. Is there any word on that or coming to fruition soon?

Chairman Martinek: That is something we are going to be working on in the new comprehensive plan that will be in development over the next year here in the city and the land use plan which all the issues like transportation, size of roads, tributaries, traffic patterns all these things are going to be in that research in the next nine months to a year and it never stops but it is the next stage of just what you were asking. Development is going to be coming to our city on a larger scale than it has ever before. How the transportation is going to work how the infrastructure is going to go together for the whole city. We have to develop it. We have to put it together. That is what is in process. Do we have the road identified as a four lane road? No, we don’t. But it is possible in six months, to nine months that that will exist.

Dave Hackathorn: Thank you.

Tom Overby: 13648 Williard Avenue, Bonner Springs KS. As you may or may not know. We are working on a major development for the city at the present time Kansas Landmark Tornado Tower and basically mine is for clarification on your overlay district. Does your overlay district have height restrictions?

Mike Webb: The under laying zoning district has height restrictions. There are no new height restrictions by the overlay district. There are height restrictions on all our zoning categories that are existing today this is not purposing or implementing any restrictions to what is already on the books.

 Tom Overby: So I guess my comment as public is I have worked for 30 years in economic development. President of a certified development company, I understand the need to have planned orderly development. I think that is a great thing. To have restrictions until restrictions are needed, I think is a detriment to any city. Any new building that would come into your county must come through planning. But just to pass an overall height restriction on business could defer business from coming to your community. So I think it should be done on a case by case basis. I don’t think you have any buildings in Edwardsville that I have seen that are over 45 feet tall. But we are very much aware that there are other developers out there who have contacted us that their developments are much larger than 45 feet tall. So to have restrictions, it is just something for you the planning commission to consider when developers come to your city, if they see a city of restrictions, ordinances, things that are difficult to work with, it is not a plus, it is a minus. Developers look for user friendly cities. So to create restrictions, where no restrictions are needed, that is just my comment to the planning commission.

Gerald Pappert: Right now it is just a purposed zoning district for overlay. Won’t individual cases be judged as they come in? I don’t think you have a problem.

Robert Craven: Mr Overby, I think you are kinda talking about the second and third phase of the public hearing. We are still talking about the overlay district.

Tom Overby: It could very well be.

Gerald Pappert: I don’t think there is a restriction on the height.

Mike Webb: There are no additional restrictions purposed by the overlay district that relates to the height of a structure. But every zoning district in the city which is typical of every city I’ve been in, has some level of restriction on the height of structures and it varies by district. And our second two items, without going into them, talk about yes, we already have restrictions, but is there an option that we can go around those restrictions and what would the process be to get a variance to that. That is what the next two items are. But, in the overlay district nor in any of our overlay district they do not have any additional height restrictions, it’s based on whatever: if it is C-2 it is one thing, if it was residential-1, it would be something else.

Chairman Martinek: Okay anyone else out there with thoughts?

Wymond Meredith: 1651 South 94^th St. and 1625 South 94^th St, KCK. First question: I’m KCK resident, not Edwardsville, all this overlay, how is it going to affect me? Two, are you working with KCK on this overlay? Those things that you guys are going to be doing for your Edwardsville city, is it going to benefit me or on the east side of the road or be a detriment? And not just me there are 12 residents, all KCK residents, how is that going to affect us? I have 1100 feet of pure 435 frontage - how is that going to affect me? I kinda need to know that kinda stuff because if you guys are not. . . it would almost be beneficial to have a KCK representative to be a part of you alls planning so that KCK knows what is kinda going on. Don’t you think? Maybe to the point that you don’t have the fiasco kinda like with the apartments, ‘cause KCK didn’t always know what was going on. And if I remember right, they even got a little bit upset sometimes because they were used and their word was given and they had no knowledge of it.

Chairman Martinek: Dan to you have anything, it seems that we did have a procedure on the Raintree development that did cross over with KCK. One department was aware of it and the other was not aware of it. Was there any communicative development in that with KCK that you are aware of?

Dan Van Petten: The communications between KCK and Edwardsville were handled by the former city administrator. I was not at any of those meetings or privy to any of those meetings. So, I can’t comment. Sorry. But, this is just for Edwardsville which is the only thing we can actually provide and it is because of Raintree that we are putting this overlay district in to have additional level of reviews so that we can see more of what is happening of the development at a earlier stage so that we can get better input from the planning commission, from citizens. It provides for more review, it doesn’t change the zoning, anybody who wants to develop in that zone with the overly, still have to go through zoning. Or if they have a subdivision, they still have to go through subdivision. But it brings it out earlier.

Wymond Meredith: Well I understand that, but because I’m KCK, okay, I’m not going to be dealing with you all, If there is anything that has to do with my side of the street, it is going to be with KCK, unless you guys are working with KCK on the overlay district against I435.

Mike Webb: It is a good comment. And quite honestly it is one that is not unique to here. From a legal standpoint, we can’t control land use and zoning, etc on the KCK side anymore than the KCK side can control on this side. And we can’t have board members that aren’t residents of our city. Now can there be ex officios come to our planning and zoning meeting, can we do a better job of letting them know when there are cases along that corridor, I think the answer is yes. We could take steps to make sure somebody there is aware. I can’t control what is built in KCK, I mean if they want build something that is detrimental, we can comment on the cases, but ultimately our city cannot control what is built on your property in KCK even if it is a detriment to our city.

Wymond Meredith: But your boundary lines is covering my property. There is about 13 properties. My property is pure KCK.

Robert Craven: Our overlay district is called I435 Overlay District, but it does not actually contact 435 until it gets further to the north.

Mike Webb: I can tell you that our overlay district will not apply to any property in KCK.

Wymond Meredith: In other words, when you are starting to do modifications like road, sewer, water and such things like that on 94^th street, you gonna take into affect for us on our side? ‘caus like for instance the gas I get and the water I get, those line are on you alls side of the street. If you guys redo all that, how is that going to affect me?

Mike Webb: I don’t think I have an answer to that. Any time you have border roads and border utilities, we work with the utility to get a resolution.

Chairman Martinek: The utilities are generally done in districts and not by city lines. If it was something where the line was being redone for the development for the I435 overlay district, if it was being redone for that, and the question is that they could redo for that and disconnect you, no that could not happen.

Wymond Meredith: I just what to make sure, that what you guys do to benefit your side of the street is going to benefit my side of the street. And it is not going to be detrimental. It is not going to lower my land values and it’s not going to hurt me, it’s not going to be based on KCK taking a look at what you guys are doing.

Chairman Martinek: Theoretically it should increase your property value. We don’t have a specific developer that is knocking on the door. We are trying to set up some boundaries to prevent poorly done development, but that is only in the concept, the details, we cannot define.

Wymond Meredith: But you guys are working with KCK?

Chairman Martinek: No, we are not. We are not working with them. As Mike pointed out, it’s not a bad idea. But we do not have any authority over them. What we are doing here should increase the value of your property. But, is it something we are doing for the benefit of KCK, no.

Wymond Meredith: I’m not concerned with KCK benefiting, I’m concerned with me benefiting or being a detriment by what you guys do.

Brian Smith: There is no benefiting whatsoever here, all we are doing is imposing restrictions on how they build structures, materials they use. For instance, here’s a situation, Raintree proposed this nice facility, everybody bought off on it. It looks great. When they actually build it, they put up something that doesn’t look very well at all. There is a developer’s agreement that takes care of it being aesthetically pleasing. The future developments they are going to have to go through this, and for instance, they can’t use metal painted siding on 50% of the structure. That is a restriction. And that is what this is going to do. It’s just more teeth to try to make a holistic development, make it look nice. Does that help at all?

Wymond Meredith: No, but I understand what you are getting at. I just want to make sure that those of us on the east side of the road, that we are not going to be hurt by whatever you guys are going to be doing. And I understand you guys are wanting to do developments and stuff like that. And I can almost guarantee you guys are going to have to redo 94^th Street. Half of that road is mine. So whatever you guys decide to do, is going to have an affect on me. Now how it’s going to relate to KCK, I don’t know.

Robert Craven: Of course the city is not doing any development. The city is basically telling anyone who is a property owner, the city will consider rezoning to develop something different, just kind of giving a hint to developers. Raintree is going in there and they have changed their zoning. This probably didn’t really start with Raintree, it started when they built I435. It is letting people know that the city will consider rezoning and development in that area. Even in K32 and Riverview Overlay Districts, it has not been a watershed of change in those areas, it is going to be a gradual change. If this is approved tonight, if the City Council approves it, it is not going to be a big change.

Michael Webb: On your road thing. When you got roads on two borders, the two city’s are going to have to work together on how they fund that, how it’s built, what the design criteria will be. We have Woodend Drive as an example, part of that is the city, part of that is KDOT control, part of that is Unified Government control. We really have three parties working in there and quite honestly they all have different standards. A road like 94^th street where the city limit line falls down the middle, is one of those where we have to come together. I think we have a good relationship. I personally have a good relationship with their city manager and we communicate on a regular basis and so it is not like we are not having any discussions.

I think another thing, when we talk about the overlay district as it would relate say to your property. If they come in with a site plan, it talks about consideration of surrounding uses, building materials, styles and size, the relations of buildings to the existing site features. It requires adequate consideration of pedestrian, bicycle circulation, at a minimum shall include provisions of sidewalks along all public roadways. So those are the kinds of things that whoever is going to develop this property is going to have to address.  They can’t come in and say we’re going to talk about building materials but we are only going to look at this little piece.  We are going to ask them to look at the area. Yes, we can only control what is on our side and we can’t control what is on the other side. It also doesn’t prevent you to come when there is a zoning case or any other case and speak as a landowner that is adjacent or near a proposed project.  I think generally, this planning commission and this council while you may not be a resident of Edwardsville will take in to consideration your comments when you are immediately adjacent.

Wymond Meredith: I just kinda remember what took place with that fiasco with those apartments up the street from me.

Mike Webb: Right, I think this is trying to address and eliminate some of those fiascos.

Wymond Meredith: Thanks.

Chairman Martinek: Did you want to say something?

Clarence Mumma: 10700 Riverview, Edwardsville, KS 66111. I just was commenting that we have a representative by the name of Tom Cooley. And I’ve not ever met or seen him or heard from him. And I’ve been to about all the meetings. He is supposed to be a representative between Edwardsville and KCK. I voted for him and we up on Riverview are a little bit mystified that nobody really knows that person. Do you know anything about Tom Cooley? He is never at any meeting and he is supposed to be the communicator between the two cities.

Gerald Pappert: He used to be here in Edwardsville, didn’t he?

Mike Webb: He used to be the City Administrator.

Gerald Pappert: What is his role?

Mike Webb: He is the commissioner that covers Edwardsville, he is not an at large commissioner. He represents the people in this city before the Unified government.

Clarence Mumma: How does he do that without ever making contact with anybody?

Mike Webb: I think you would have to address that question to him.

Clarence Mumma: Okay, thank you.

PUBLIC HEARING

TO CONSIDER AMENDING ORDINANCE 639, SECTION 47.4

SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO INCLUDE:

A.     OPEN AIR FLEA MARKETS

B.    LOTTERY GAMING FACILITY LICENSED BY THE STATE

   OF KANSAS IN THE COMMERCIAL EXTENSIVE DISTRICT (C-2)

Chairman Martinek: Okay we are going to close the public hearing on the I435 overlay. We will open the public hearing on the Ordinance 639. Now, Dan, do we want to discuss Ordinance 639 in two parts?

Dan Van Petten: That is correct. It would be my recommendation that they be handled as two separate items receiving testimony, if you will and comment on them, because they can be approved individually, or both can be approved because we are changing two different things. We are allowing a new special use and we are allowing heights to go above 45 feet, if they have a special use permit under the provisions of the special use.  As of now, it is capped with the zoning district and if you don’t like the height, you go to the board of zoning appeals.

Chairman Martinek: Okay let’s do it that way. We have the first one, amending Ordinance 639, in reference to the open air flea markets and the lottery gaming. It was published in the Chieftain August 23, 2007, and let’s go ahead and do the staff report on that.

Dan Van Petten: Thank you Mr. Chairman. (Please see attached Item B attached).

Chairman Martinek: Do we have any comments from the floor on this issue?

Diane Overby: 13648 Willard, Bonner Springs, KS. Ordinance 639, now that is a city wide ordinance? It is for the whole city. Well, than on your 47.4 Special Use Permits to include: You have what on the books right now, open air flea markets? So now you are adding b. Lottery Gaming Facility?

Dan Van Petten: That is correct.

Diane Overby: As my husband had stated before about the Kansas Landmark Tower, we would like to have another special use in there as, c. The Kansas Landmark Tower. And then also, I hate to get into the next one, the public hearing on the height restrictions, is just to have it apply to 47.5 that all the structures should not exceed 45 feet unless permitted under provisions of special use. So if you allow the Kansas Landmark Tower, we would be in there as a special use. So that is my suggestion.

Gerald Pappert: What would be C?

Diane Overby: C would be the Kansas Landmark Tower.

Chairman Martinek: I’m not real clear on this, I don’ think we would want to do that.

Robert Craven: We are not being specific about what the specific business is going to fall under here. I don’t think it would be proper to be specific.

Diane Overby: Well, you could come up with the Landmark Tower. The reason I said the Kansas Landmark Tower is because if something else comes in they have to go through your zoning board of appeals. So that is why I’m suggesting it, because you are putting in the lottery gaming facility. Are you going to get one or not, you have no idea? That is in the future.

Robert Craven: It means a lottery gaming facility. Just like when we get to 47.5, the Landmark Tower may fall in that, but I don’t think we should put the Landmark Tower into the ordinance book.

Chairman Martinek: It is not an ordinance issue.

Mike Webb: If I might add something to this. Because the reason it came up was for this particular special use is we first looked at permitted special uses and under permitted special uses, it refers to things such as retail commercial, entertainment, food and drink those types of things. I think the Landmark Tower at least conceptually has been thought of as an entertainment. And we actually thought of why wouldn’t a casino be an entertainment? And I think after a lot of discussion and legals, the problem was simply that this use, that is a casino facility, was not a legal use at the time of the adoption of the ordinance. Where as the Landmark Tower, or other types of entertainment, a water park, any of those types of things, were legally permitted uses in the state and specifically we would look at that as a permitted use today. I don’t think we have any discussions regarding the Landmark Tower that it would be not an already permitted use. We have already considered that if that project moves forward, that C-2 is the appropriate zoning category for that. Obviously there will still be a rezoning application and because it is an entertainment type of use, then it would be subject. And then under the maximum height, I believe that refers to any structures whether they are permitted or special use. There would still have to be a special use for the height?

Dan Van Petten: This special use is only for these two items. As the Landmark Tower, you could still apply for variance from the board of zoning appeals on your height and that at 600 or 800 ft. There have been numerous variances given to the ordinance over the years. But that is what you make a case for with the board of zoning appeals. This was done by the gaming facility because that is permitted by a state agency. We can approve it, but unless they grant that license, what the city says, does not really matter.

Chairman Martinek: This particular thing would not discourage the height process for the Landmark Tower, nor would it discourage the possibility of gambling for the Landmark Tower.

Diane Overby: I just wanted to clarify it.

Mike Webb: I do think it is important too, because I know there has been a lot of discussion around that a new height restriction is being added. We’re not recommending the addition of any height restriction. The height restrictions are existing as they are. You either make a casino a permitted use or a special use.

We feel the special use provides more control over the project because in a special use you have far more discretion in your decision making, where as a permitted use, it is permitted, by law. Obviously they still would have to get their licensing. If they get licensing from the state, they could come to any C-2 district and not have to have a special use. Quite honestly, it puts more restrictions on a casino than it would a entertainment use.

Chairman Martinek: It is my understanding that all the participating municipal government cities are going through this same procedure. So we need to identify these areas.

Mike Webb: And it has been handled a little different in the different cities and counties. After we looked at it, we felt it was the most reasonable and most simplistic way to do it, versus the creation of a whole new zoning district and a whole new set of standards and trying to figure out what may or may not be in such a proposal.

Tom Overby: 13648 Willard, Bonner Springs, KS. I had no intention of commenting on this. But something strikes me as something you might want to consider, like I said I’ve been in the business of development for a long time. Has the city contacted the attorney general’s office in regards to what it would like for these cities to do? Because the first thing that comes to mind is a state owned casino, on state owned ground and that supercedes your local ordinances and restrictions and none of them make any difference. Power comes down federal, state, county, city and if that is on state owned ground and it is a state owned casino, your ordinances and codes and everything else do not apply. State law supercedes all of that.

Mike Webb: I’m not sure that it is state owned land, two, the state specifically says that in order to get an endorsement from the city, it has to be in compliance with the local land use, ie, zoning. That is where it came up. We’re taking that dictation from the state, they specifically say that the land has to be properly zoned for the use.

Dan Van Petten: The state will not grant a license to an applicant that does not have the approval of the city to locate that in.

PUBLIC HEARING

TO CONSIDER AMENDING ORDINANCE 639, SECTION 47.5,

MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN THE COMMERCIAL EXTENSIVE DISTRICT (C-2).

THE HEIGHT OF ALL STRUCTURES SHALL NOT EXCEED FORTY-FIVE (45) FEET UNLESS PERMITTED UNDER PROVISIONS OF SPECIAL USE.

Chairman Martinek: Any other thoughts from the floor? We will close the public hearing on that aspect of Ordinance 639 and open the other public hearing on the height. Dan, do you have any further staff report on specifically the height issue Ordinance 639?

Dan Van Petten: Only to indicate that if it will be allowed there will be more than 45 feet on any particular part of that gaming facility. The facility where the casino is will probably not be more than 45 feet, however, within the development of the casino of the master planned facility there is doubtless going to be something in excess of four stories. Therefore, since it is being permitted as one entity, we want that to be able to apply to that whole special use for the Kansas gaming facility as licensed by the state. It is all new ground how we are trying to look at it. I think whichever city gets it is going to have quite a bit of development put into that one particular site. (Please refer attached Item B attached.)

Chairman Martinek: Any further thoughts from the floor on this issue of the 45 foot height ordinance. Okay we will close the public hearing.

 REGULAR MEETING 

Chairman Martinek: We’ll call the regular meeting to order. Anyone had a chance to look at the secretary’s report? Can we get a motion on this?

Gerald Pappert: I make a motion to approve the secretary’s report as submitted.

Brian Smith: Second.

Kelli Curry: Abstain. Motion carried.

NEW BUSINESS 

Chairman Martinek: On I-435 Overlay District, do we have any thoughts on this from the planning commission? If not, we need a motion. (Please refer to Item A attached.)

Brian Smith: I make a motion to approve the I-435 Overlay District.

Kelli Curry: Second. Motion carried.

Chairman Martinek: The next issue is on the 639 Flea Market, Lottery Gaming Facilty. Do we have any questions on this, any discussion? If not, we need a motion. (Please refer to Item B attached.)

Gerald Pappert: I make a motion that we approve section 47.4 Special Use Permit to include in addition to, a. Open Air Flea Markets, we include, b. Lottery Gaming Facility licensed by the state of Kansas in the commercial extensive district (C-2).

Kelli Curry: Second. Motion carried.

Chairman Martinek: The second part of Ordinance 639 in reference to height. Do we have any questions or discussions? (Please refer to Item B attached.)

After discussion of the current city height restrictions, special use permits, fire department equipment limits and public safety:

Kelli Curry: I make a motion to approve Ordinance 639 Section 47.5 Maximum Height in the commercial extensive district to the height of all structures shall not exceed forty-five (45) feet unless permitted under provisions of special use.

Robert Craven: Second. Motion carried.

OLD BUSINESS 

Chairman Martinek: Under old business we have a change of zoning, 9701 Kaw Drive, Applicant, Gerald Currie. Is there anything new on that?

Dan Van Petten: We have received the plans on that. They have had initial review, there is going to be a developer review committee to get everybody around the table to talk about the plans and what is being proposed there. So there is not a recommendation on it. It needs to be continued to at least the next meeting. It is moving forward in the fact that we now have plans to review. But we need to determine if there is reasonableness to them.

Brian Smith: I make a motion to table the issue of changing zoning at 9701 Kaw Drive to the next planning commission meeting on October 17, 2007.

Gerald Pappert: Second. Motion carried.

Items from the Planning Commission 

Brian Smith: We need to have a work session next time to review the fence ordinance and plan the public hearing.

Mike Webb: I know the fence ordinance has been a hot topic.

Dan Van Petten: You don’t have enough time for a public hearing to be published.

After discussing the options for meeting the requirements of a public meeting for the fence ordinance, the following motion was made:

Brian Smith: I make a motion to have a special public hearing on October 24, 2007, at 7 pm in regards to the new fence ordinance.

Kelli Curry: Seconded. Motion carried.

Chairman Martinek: Okay, so we don’t need to have a work session. What about the comprehensive plan. Can we include that in the new business portion on the next agenda?

Mike Webb: Yes, we hope to have the scope of services and get the council to approve the funding of that. And then come back with a schedule and what the work steps will be.

I don’t know if you want to cover this under five or six. You did request at your last meeting an update on the Kaw Valley Plat. As you know, you all approved that plat. It has gone to the city council. They did make all the corrections that were required. However, they have now, on two occasions, requested that the plat be tabled. Because they are now considering a withdrawal of the plat, apparently they have had some discussions with their attorney, and now they are considering selling the land in its current configuration. I advised their attorney today, that if we did not receive a letter of withdrawal prior to our council meeting on Monday night, that I would recommend approval of the plat as submitted. That is my update.

Items from the Floor

Chuck Adams: 10429 Riverview, Edwardsville, KS. Speaking as a council member and a concerned citizen, I want to thank you for your work on the overlay district and your foresight looking forward. Because Jeff you addressed it very well, we are going to have some interesting times in the next few years with development along our valuable properties. I would even encourage you to even take a long view and look at some of the thoroughfares like Kansas Avenue, it maybe twenty years before something like that would happen, but if you could put that in a master plan, if that is what you want to do. So that if somebody does come and say they want to put a development in, that the land is shown and really take a very, very long view and it may not be practical for twenty years, but if we can lay that land aside for any of those thoroughfares. I know one of the complaints I hear from citizens is there is no way to get to 7, officially. And that is a real concern. Another issue you may want to consider is Senator Steineger has talked to me about a possibility of having a road that goes right along the river that defers all the industrial traffic off of 32. So that 32 becomes more of a residential road with the railroad crossing where they are, that they are very antiquated. And as residential traffic picks up, that that may be something to be considered is having a more commercial type of road between 435 and 7 right along the river to dump off that heavy traffic.

Chairman Martinek: Well, that is something we are going to be working on.

Chuck Adams: More than anything I want to say as a council member I really appreciate you all looking far into the future because we need long sightedness.

Chairman Martinek: Well Brian is the one who started this.

Chuck Adams: Well thank you all I appreciate it.

Adjournment

Chairman Martinek: Okay, anything else, I need a motion to adjourn

Brian Smith: I make a motion to adjourn

Gerald Pappert: Second. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:25 pm

Next regularly scheduled meeting is October 17, 2007.

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle Bounds

Secretary