PLANNING COMMISSION
GLADSTONE, MISSOURI
April 7, 2003
Item 1 on the
Agenda: Meeting called to order –
Roll Call.
Present: Ms. Abbott
Council & Staff Present:
Mr.
Bone Councilman Carol Rudi
Mr. Kiser Councilman
Shirley Smith
Mr. Dillingham Councilman Wayne Beer
Mr. Evans Scott Wingerson, Assist. City Manager
Chairman Hill David Ramsay, City Counselor
Mr. Kiser
Ms. Newsom
Mr. Revenaugh
Ms. Wild
Absent: Ms. Alexander
Ms. Lowe
Mr. Steffens
Item 2 on the
Agenda: Pledge of Allegiance.
Chairman Hill led the group in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
Item 3 on the
Agenda: Approval of March 17, 2003
Minutes.
Mr. Wingerson stated
that Ms. Alexander called and said she would not be able to attend the meeting,
but she did have a correction to the minutes.
One page 3 where she spoke of the additional lighting on Antioch, she
had stated “planned” lighting along the Antioch curve.
Ms. Newsom made a motion to approve the March 17, 2003 as corrected. Mr. Revenaugh made the second to the motion. The motion was carried.
Item 4 on the
Agenda: Communications from the
Audience.
None.
Item 5 on the Agenda: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, 5940 N. Flora. Applicant: Creative Kids Learning Center. (#1189) City Council Public Hearing April 28, 2003.
Chairman Hill called on
Assistant City Manager Scott Wingerson for the staff report.
Mr. Wingerson reported
that the applicant is requesting to change ownership on the Special Use Permit,
since they are non-transferable by ordinance.
The facility has been a day care for approximately 25 years and
operating under a special use permit since 1997. All the conditions in the draft ordinance are they same as
previously approved by the City Council
except the ownership has changed.
The recommended term is five years.
Mr. Dillingham asked that
regarding the five years, is that the way it was on the prior permit.
Mr. Wingerson answered
that it was for five years and only four of those years had passed, so it would
be a new five year term.
Chairman Hill asked if
anyone representing the applicant was present.
Tina Dillon, 7511 N.
Kentucky, Kansas City, Missouri addressed the Commission. Ms. Dillon explained that she is in the
process of trying to purchase Creative Kids.
She would like to continue to keep it in Gladstone and keep it a part of
the community. She would like to run it
the same as it is with some improvements.
It needs to be painted and the yard needs to be cleaned up. It will still be a licensed facility for
under 50 children in a residential area.
Gay Byrom, 1764 Claywoods
Parkway, Liberty, Missouri addressed the Commission. Ms. Byrom stated that not only is she her realtor handing this
transaction, but she is also her friend.
She knows that Tina’s heart is with kids. Tina has an elementary education degree and has been a director
at a daycare. Her desire now is to not
only be a director, but a director at a daycare that she owns. Ms. Byrom hopes that the Commission extends
this special use permit.
Mr. Evans enters the
meeting at approximately 7:37 pm.
Chairman Hill closed the
public hearing.
Ms. Abbott made a motion to approve the Special Use Permit for Creative Kids Learning Center. Mr. Kiser made the second to the motion.
Roll Vote: Ms.
Abbott Yes
Mr. Bone Yes
Mr. Kiser Yes
Mr.
Dillingham Yes
Mr.
Evans Abstain
Chairman Hill Yes
Ms. Newsom Yes
Mr. Revenaugh Yes
Ms. Wild Yes
(Yes-8, Abstain-1)
Item 6 on the
Agenda: Communications from the
City Council and City Staff.
Councilman Beer
reminded everyone to vote tomorrow. He
also stated that he is here tonight as a member of the Gladstone American
Legion Post 626. He told the story of
the blue star service banner that was designed during WWI to recognize families
that had members of their families on active duty. The American Legion has now undergone an effort to resurrect use
of the blue star banner. He encouraged
anyone who has family on active duty to contact him and he will be sure that
they are presented with a blue star banner.
Councilman Rudi
added that the American Legion does accept donations. She also reminded everyone to vote tomorrow.
Councilman Smith
said that in three years she has maybe missed one or two meetings but that she
has really enjoyed coming to the Planning Commission meetings. They are really the “heartbeat” and future
of the City. At the next meeting, the
Commission will have a new City Council liaison.
Item 7 on the
Agenda: Communications from the
Planning Commission Members.
Ms. Abbott said it
was nice to have Becky back.
Mr. Evans apologized
for his tardiness. He encouraged
everyone to vote tomorrow.
Ms. Newsom reminded
everyone to vote tomorrow.
Mr. Dillingham
welcomed Becky back and congratulated her.
Chairman Hill asked
Mr. Wingerson what the status was of the dance studio and their sod.
Mr. Wingerson
replied that Chairman Hill is referring to Classical Ballet at 64th
Street and N. Prospect. He explained
that for the longest time they had trouble obtaining permits from the Missouri
Department of Transportation to install stormwater detention facilities
underneath the parking lot on the east side of the building. That work has since been done and they are
being very slow at restoration. Staff
has worked with them endlessly on the erosion control to keep the mud off of N.
Prospect and the side street. Mr. Wingerson
said that last week they were measuring for sod.
Chairman Hill said
that his concern is that we haven’t had much rain and the few times it has
rained there has been significant silt on N. Prospect. He closed by reminding everyone to vote.
Ms. Abbott asked Mr.
Wingerson what the City is going to do about the Bell’s driveway. There was water in their driveway this
morning. She asked if the builders are
going to replace the drive because they were supposed to.
Mr. Wingerson
answered that he is not sure of the current status, but that he will find out
and give her a call.
Item 8 on the
Agenda: Other Business: Detached Building Ordinance.
Mr. Wingerson
reported that there was a memo in the Commission’s packets dated April 2, 2003
regarding detached buildings. This is a
follow-up to a study session that came before the City Council. The purpose of the memo was to continue the
thought process. Primarily the Council
is interested in five areas which are outlined in the memo. The first one has to do with a method of
calculating the maximum size of a detached building as a percentage of lot area
to address issues of scale and equity.
Second, the Council would like to exclude gazebos from the definition of
detached building.
Mr. Wingerson
explained that the third point is that the Council would the Commission to
consider increasing the side and rear yard setback requirements based on
size. Mr. Wingerson cited some
examples. Fourth, the Council suggested
adjusting the definition of maximum height to reduce the likelihood of
two-story or 1 ½ story structures.
Finally, the Council asked the Commission to consider applying side yard
setbacks to the placement of concrete or asphalt. Currently, a driveway or patio may extend to the side property
line. The entire ordinance also needs
some general “cleaning up” which will be done when it reaches final stages.
Mr. Wingerson also
made reference to a letter that Ms. Abbott presented to the Commission earlier
tonight that provides some additional information. (see attached) He mentioned
that Ms. Abbott may want to go over her letter.
Ms. Abbott said that
she didn’t see any point in elaborating on the letter she passed out. She really feels that we have a percentage
of lot size now and it’s not working.
She expressed her feeling that the City needs a stricter code regarding
the size of a detached building. If
anyone wanted anything larger than 144 square feet, they can always ask for a
variance.
Mr. Wingerson said
that he wants to be as clear as he can be on the five points that the Council
brought up. What Ms. Abbot just referred
to is a lot coverage requirement. A
percentage of the entire lot can be covered by structures. Currently that amount is 30%. He agrees that it is not satisfactory. What was suggested in September, and is an
option for the Commission to consider, was to scale the size of a detached
structure to the size of the house. Mr.
Wingerson cited some examples. If a lot
has a house that is 900 square feet, and the scale amount is 10%, that lot can
have an accessory building that is 90 square feet.
Mr. Wingerson added
that regarding Ms. Abbott’s point number three which suggests that staff
doesn’t have the time to investigate these applications. He remarked that staff would rather
investigate the applications on the front end rather than process a variance
request that involves board and community volunteers, significance expense to
the applicant and a significant more amount of staff time than calculating the
lot square footage or size of a building.
Ms. Newsom mentioned
a structure that has been erected on N. Prospect, just north of the fire
station. To her, it flies in the face
of everything we are trying to do in Gladstone. She asked Mr. Wingerson what regulations would we have in place
if all this were passed to prevent something like that from being accepted.
Mr. Wingerson
answered that first and foremost is the need for a building permit, which does
not exist on that property. That is the
first tool. The second being that the
building is painted a dark blue on pressed board and the roof pitch is
extremely high. All the mentioned areas
would be addressed in the proposed ordinance.
Unfortunately if the resident does not get a building permit we would be
in the same situation as today.
Ms. Abbott had a
hypothetical questions. She would like to
build a garage in her back yard. She
comes into Community Development with a sketch of her lot, which is 105’ X
90’. The house and the garage are drawn
on the sketch. The house is 1450 square
feet, her garage would be 144 square feet.
Ms. Abbott asked if that in that situation if she would be issued a
permit at the time the application was submitted.
Mr. Wingerson
answered that she would need reasonable documentation showing that she is the
owner of the property and that the measurements are somehow correct. She probably would be issued a building
permit over the counter; however, upon inspection if it was found not to comply
or the application was mistaken in some way, it would be taken up at that time. Either a variance would have to be applied
for and granted or the structure would have to be relocated or whatever else
would need to be done to make it comply.
Mr. Dillingham asked
if the variance would go to the Planning Commission or the Board of Zoning
Adjustment.
Mr. Wingerson said
that the way it is set up now it would be an appeal to the Board of Zoning
Adjustment unless the Commission and Council would authorize a review period
that involves a public hearing.
Chairman Hill
explained his thoughts. On the first
item, as far as utilizing some method.
His suggestion would be to have some kind of two-step restriction where
a lot that is a certain size or below has a set size building that they can
have as an out-building. That way it
simplifies enforcement because most residential lots would fall into that
category. Chairman Hill said that
regarding gazebos, he feels that they can be excluded as long as they are under
a certain size. He commented that regarding
the setbacks, if you qualify for the larger building, then the setbacks should
definitely increase. One way to resolve
the issue of concrete driveways and patios would be to have the setback
requirement apply to the concrete if there is an out-building.
Chairman Hill asked
Mr. Wingerson if he was wanting to come back with a draft ordinance for the
Planning Commission to submit to the City Council.
Mr. Wingerson said
that there is some more work to do and it is up to the Commission on how to
proceed.
Chairman Hill
suggested that possibly Mr. Wingerson could go to the City Council with some of
the general ideas that have been presented tonight and see if that resolves
their concerns.
Mr. Wingerson
answered that he will get a memo to the City Council for their review noting
the Commission’s ideas.
Ms. Newsom asked
Chairman Hill if what he was proposing when he was talking about the driveways,
is it if a driveway is leading to an out-building that it is okay to encroach
upon the side yard setback.
Chairman Hill
answered that no, that was not was he was saying. He stated that his thought was that if the garage was in the
residence, then you would not look at if the driveway encroaches upon the side
yard setback. However, if someone’s
going to building an out-building with a driveway leading to it, then the
setbacks would apply.
Ms. Newsom said that
a concern of hers is that when people pour a driveway to their side yard
property line to park an RV on, it becomes very close to their neighbor’s
house. It could end up being parked
there all winter long, impairing accessibility to the home for fire
protection. In addition, it would not
be very appealing to look at.
Mr. Wingerson said
that is a very valid point to look at.
From a zoning standpoint, it is an issue that staff talks with residents
quite often about to help them resolve conflicts. Open space is an important part of a neighborhood.
Mr. Dillingham asked
that if we have a restriction on the lot and someone is building an
out-building, wouldn’t another driveway really be pushing it. He asked if the concrete would be included
in the restriction on the size of the lot.
Mr. Wingerson
answered yes.
Chairman Hill
reviewed what the next step would be.
Mr. Wingerson would put something together to present at the next City
Council study session. Based on their
feedback, then he can put together a draft ordinance, if there are still
concerns with the Council, Mr. Wingerson can bring those concerns back to the
Commission.
Item 9 on the
Agenda: Adjournment.
Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 8:12 P.M.
Respectfully submitted:
______________________________________ Approved as submitted _____
Becky Jarrett, Recording Secretary
______________________________________ Approved as corrected _____
Brian Hill, Chairman