PLANNING COMMISSION
GLADSTONE, MISSOURI
June 16, 2003
Item 1 on the
Agenda: Meeting called to order –
Roll Call.
Present: Ms. Abbott Council
& Staff Present:
Ms. Alexander Scott Wingerson,
Assist. City Manager
Mr. Davis David
Ramsay, City Counselor
Mr. Dillingham Mayor Pro-Tem Wayne Beer
Chairman Hill Councilman Carol Rudi
Mr. Kiser
Ms. Lowe
Ms. Newsom
Mr. Revenaugh
Mr. Steffens
Ms. Wild
Absent: Mr. Bone
STAFF NOTE: The recording device malfunctioned during this meeting. These minutes were created from staff notes.
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 May 5 and 19,
2003 Minutes.
Ms. Alexander noted
that on page 9, last paragraph, first sentence (May 6, 2003 minutes), her
driveway “faces” Antioch. Also, on Page
4, second paragraph, third line from the bottom, it should probably read “Now
he is sitting in the audience, frantically, trying to make notes”,
rather than panically. (Both changes
were made in the May 5, 2003 minutes directed by the Commission. Review of the tape indicates that the draft
phrases were reflected accurately.)
Ms. Abbott said that
in the May 6, 2003 minutes N. Broadway should probably be referred to as Old
Pike Road.
Mr. Wingerson said
that the tape could be reviewed for those corrections; however the referenced
to N. Broadway could have been his error.
(Mr. Wingerson did use N. Broadway, when Old Pike Road is accurate.)
The minutes were
approved as corrected.
Item 4 on the
Agenda: Communications from the
Audience.
None.
Item 5 on the Agenda: PUBLIC HEARING:
Consideration of a Special Use Permit at 203 NE 73rd
Street. Applicant: Amanda Ratcliffe. (#1192) City
Council Public Hearing July 14, 2003.
Chairman Hill announced
the above application and asked Mr. Wingerson for the staff report.
Mr. Wingerson reported
that this request is for a Special Use Permit to have a daycare in the residence
at 203 NE 73rd Street and is similar to other daycare permits in
nature. He highlighted a couple of the
recommended conditions: the maximum
number of children in care on the premises at any one time shall be limited to
ten (10) full-time, non related; the hours of operation shall be limited to
5:00 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday.
He suggested that the Commission perform a site visit.
Ms. Newsom asked if the
fire inspection had any comments on the request.
Mr. Wingerson explained
that after City Council approval the inspection would be performed in
accordance with state law.
Amanda Ratcliffe, 203 NE
73rd Street addressed the Commission. Ms. Ratcliffe stated that in the process of obtaining her state
licensing, she has had three inspections.
Ms. Lowe questioned the
recommended condition which states the maximum number of children will be
limited to ten.
Ms. Ratcliffe stated that
ten children is the maximum that she can take care of at one time according to
State licensing. The State has several
ratios depending on the age of the children which are acceptable. The State requires her to have an assistant
for emergencies; however, she is also requesting an assistant who would come in
a couple of days a week for a few hours so that she could run errands.
Ms. Newsom said that her
definition of an assistant would be someone working side by side with Ms.
Ratcliffe, but it seems as though she is speaking of an assistant as a
substitute or a relief assistant.
Ms. Ratcliffe agreed that
was what she was referring to; however the State just defines it as an
assistant.
Mr. Revenaugh asked her
if the State has any problem with one adult being responsible for ten children.
Ms. Ratcliffe answered
that she has the correct ratio for a daytime license by State daycare
requirements.
Chairman Hill asked if
anyone in the audience would like to speak in favor of the application. Hearing no response, he asked if anyone in
the audience would like to speak in opposition of the application. Hearing no response, he closed the public
hearing.
Chairman Hill asked Ms.
Newsom if she would chair a site visit.
Ms. Newsom accepted and
the time and day of the visit was discussed.
It was decided that the site visit would take place on Tuesday, June 24th
at 5:30 pm. She asked Mr. Wingerson if
other Special Use Permits for daycares in Gladstone allow for assistants.
Mr. Wingerson answered
that they typically have an assistant for emergencies, but not for relief such
as what Ms. Ratcliffe has requested. In
the case of Special Use Permits, the impact on the neighborhood must be looked
at for things such as traffic interruptions.
Generally, if the business introduces additional employees, it has
become too large for a neighborhood. He
replied that it is certainly the Commission’s right to vary from past permits.
Chairman Hill noted a
correction to the draft ordinance. In
section 1, the word “renewal” should be deleted.
Mr. Wingerson noted the
correction.
Ms. Lowe asked why the
recommended conditions did not allow for an assistant.
Mr. Wingerson said that
in the past the assistant has always been a closely related family member and
only in the case of an emergency.
Ms. Lowe asked if it has
been more of a policy, rather than a rule or an ordinance.
Mr. Wingerson answered
yes.
Item 6 on the Agenda: PUBLIC HEARING:
Consideration of a Special Use Permit at 7513 N. Highland. Applicant: Gladys Morrison. (#1193) City Council Public Hearing
July 14, 2003.
Chairman Hill announced
that this application has been continued to the July 7, 2003 Planning
Commission meeting at the request of the applicant.
Item 7 on the Agenda: OTHER BUSINESS: Consideration of Northaven Village 6th Final Plat at 68th Street and Olive Street. Applicant: Neil Rose. (#1194)
Mr. Wingerson reported
that this was the 6th phase of Northaven Village Condominiums. This proposed the ability to sell each of
the 18 unites individually. This
request is identical to the other phases.
Mr. Wingerson offered to answer any questions the Commission might have.
Ms. Newsom made a motion to approve Northaven Village 6th Final Plat at 68th Street and Olive Street, Mr. Revenaugh made the second to the motion.
Roll Vote: Ms.
Abbott Yes
Ms.
Alexander Yes
Mr.
Davis Yes
Mr.
Dillingham Yes
Chairman
Hill Yes
Mr.
Kiser Yes
Ms.
Lowe Yes
Ms.
Newsom Yes
Mr.
Revenaugh Yes
Mr.
Steffens Yes
Ms.
Wild Yes
(Yes-11,
No-0)
Item 8 on the Agenda: Detached Buildings.
Mr. Wingerson distributed
a revised copy of the draft ordinance to the Commission. He explained that this draft was a
combination of the Planning Commission’s concerns and the ideas of the City
Council. He read from the ordinance the
following:
Performance Standards
Definition:
For the purposes of this section, a Detached Accessory Structure shall
be defined as: Any structure of any
size reasonably determined to be accessory to the primary use, detached from
the primary structure and permanent in nature.
Examples include storage sheds, hobby shops, pool houses, equipment
sheds, gazebos and garages. Excluded
from this definition are fences, in-ground and above-ground swimming pools.
For any single or two-family dwelling there shall be
permitted one detached accessory structure.
Such structure shall be:
(i) A
maximum of 144 square feet
(ii) Single
story with a maximum height of 15’
(iii) Side and rear setbacks shall be eight (8) feet
(iv) The
detached structure shall be no closer than 10 feet from the primary structure.
For detached accessory structures greater than 144
square feet, the following additional requirements apply:
(i)
The
maximum size and setbacks of any detached accessory structure shall be
determined as follows:
Lot Size Maximum Size Side/rear yard setback
Less than 7500 SF 400 SF 10
Feet
7501-10,000
SF 450 SF 15 Feet
10,001-20,000
SF 500 SF 25 Feet
20,001-unlimited 3% of lot with a 25 Feet
max.
of 1,000 SF
(ii)
The
maximum height shall be 28’.
(iii)
The
roof pitch and materials shall match that of the primary structure.
(iv)
Exterior
materials and colors shall match that of the primary structure.
(v)
The
detached accessory structure shall be no closer than 10’ to/from the primary
structure.
(vi)
A
stormwater plan shall be submitted and approved by the City indicating no
adverse impacts.
(vii)
No
imperious surfaces shall exist or be installed within 8’ of any side or rear
property line.
(viii)
A
manufacturer product sheet or architectural elevations shall be submitted and
approved by the City.
Final determination of compliance shall rest with
the Board of Zoning Adjustment in accordance with provisions governing that
body.
Ms. Abbott asked if a
resident came in and applied for a building permit for a shed larger than 144
square feet would it be issued at the counter.
Mr. Wingerson said that
is what would happen as the ordinance is written now.
Ms. Newsom asked if the
ordinance should reference deed restrictions so that homeowners know that they
need to check with their association first.
Mr. Wingerson answered
that the City has tried to stay away from mentioning deed restrictions because
it is a private matter.
Ms. Newsom asked how it
is going to work if someone who has a large lot wants to add a detached tool
shed and a gazebo.
Mr. Wingerson said that
the way the draft is currently presented, only one detached structure would be
allowed per lot; however the Commission could change that if they would like.
Mr. Revenaugh said that
it seems as though a large lot should be allowed to have more than one detached
structure.
Chairman Hill commented
that he likes the way the ordinance is set up according to how large the lot
is. He suggested that on larger lots,
the maximum size of the structure should be able to include multiple structures. Chairman Hill also liked the idea of putting in a sentence or two about
applicable deed restrictions.
Mr. Davis suggested
re-wording the last sentence regarding the BZA. The way it reads it sounds like the BZA will be hearing all the
applications.
Mr. Wingerson reviewed
the requested changes:
1. Detached structures will “add up” to the total
square feet allowed.
2. Gazebos would not be required to be the same color
as the primary structure.
3. The requirement of stormwater plans would be at
staff’s discretion.
4. Covenants of homeowners associations should be
mentioned on the application or permit.
Mr. Wingerson explained
that it might be difficult for the stormwater plans to be at staff’s discretion
simply because staff is not going to know how the lot lays; therefore, he may
suggest that condition stays as a requirement.
Ms. Abbott agreed that
she would like to see the stormwater plans remain as a requirement.
Chairman Hill asked what
the next step with the draft ordinance would be.
Mr. Wingerson said that
he would make the changes as the Commission suggested and see if the City
Council would like to look at it in their next study session.
Item 9 on the
Agenda: Communications from the
City Council and City Staff.
Councilman
Rudi announced that the Bluesfest was this weekend, June 20 and 21. She also
announced that there will be an Chamber after-hours meeting at the Amphitheater
on Thursday evening and invited the Commission to attend.
Item 10 on the
Agenda: Communications from the
Planning Commission Members.
Ms. Abbott
asked who was responsible for cutting the weeds on the Scharhag property.
Mr.
Wingerson answered that part of it is Mr. Scharhag’s responsibility and part of
it he has an agreement with AHM Development to maintain. He explained that last week a letter went to
both Mr. Scharhag and AHM Development regarding the tall weeds and grass.
Ms. Wild
asked about the boat that is sitting on the empty lot next to Commerce
Bank.
Mr. Wingerson said that a
call was made to the owner of the boat today and it should be gone shortly.
Mr. Steffens asked about
the tall grass at that same lot.
Mr. Wingerson said that a
letter was sent to the owners (in Texas) and it should be mowed shortly.
Ms. Alexander asked when
Larry Whitton is going to clean up the cars in his lot. She also asked about 6212 N. Antioch, as it
appears they are running a business out of a residentially zoned lot.
Mr. Wingerson replied
that the Code Enforcement Officer has taken pictures of the cars in front of
6212 N. Antioch; however when approached, they denied running a business
there. Staff will continue to monitor
it. Concerning Mr. Whitton, staff will
continue working with him to reduce the number of cars in the front of his
building.
Chairman Hill asked if
Ballet North is ever going to finish their landscaping.
Mr. Wingerson explained
that in the beginning the delay was with MoDot. They were supposed to get the lot seeded; however, now since it
will be impossible to seed, they need to order sod. Right now the ballet studio is functioning on a Temporary
Occupancy Permit until the sod and a few other things are completed.
Chairman Hill asked if
Wal-Mart is going to do the canopy addition that they had planned.
Mr. Wingerson said that
they are going to paint the entire building, and he thinks they are waiting
until that time to enclose the garden center.
Chairman Hill asked what
the status of Tommy’s is.
Mr. Wingerson replied
that they are waiting for an insurance settlement to decide how to
proceed. There has been some interest
in the property from outside parties.
Item 11 on the
Agenda: Adjournment.
Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 8:42 P.M.
Respectfully submitted:
______________________________________ Approved as submitted _____
Becky Jarrett, Recording Secretary
______________________________________ Approved as corrected _____
Brian Hill, Chairman