PLANNING COMMISSION
GLADSTONE, MISSOURI
April 19, 2004
7:30 pm
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 Lynn McClure, Econ. Dev. Administrator
Chairman Hill David Ramsay, City Counselor
Mr. Dillingham Mayor Wayne Beer
Mr. Kiser Councilman Carol Rudi
Ms. Lowe
Ms. McGuire
Ms. Newsom
Mr. Revenaugh
Mr. Steffens
Mr. Whitton
Absent: None
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 April 5, 2004
Minutes.
Ms. Newsom said that
Councilman Rudi needed to be added to the list of people present at the last
meeting. Motion by Mr. Dillingham,
second by Mr. Whitton to approve the April 5, 2004 minutes as corrected. The minutes were approved as submitted.
Item 4 on the
Agenda: Communications from the
Audience.
None.
Item 5 on the Agenda: CONTINUATION: Consideration of a Special Use Permit and Rezoning at 1900 NE Englewood Road. Applicant: Creative Arts Academy (#1223)
Mr. Kiser read the Site
Visit Report dated April 9, 2004. (see attached)
Ms. Alexander said that
she thinks this is an excellent use of existing buildings. She is very much in favor of it. She is not in favor of rezoning it to
commercial. To protect the applicant she
would like to see a five year special use permit so the investment she makes in
the property is protected.
Ms. Newsom said that with
everything that the Commission is faced with it is a land use issue. She concurs with Mr. Kiser’s advisement on
the site visit report about the rezoning.
She thinks that rezoning this to any commercial use within an R-1
property is inappropriate and unacceptable.
She realizes that the applicant is looking to secure her investment, but
the Commission is not in the market of land speculation, they are in the
business of land use. Ms. Newsom said
she would be in opposition of the rezoning.
Secondarily, is the special use permit.
It would be great to keep a business such as Creative Arts Academy in
the Gladstone area, but her personal feelings are that this is not an
appropriate use for this because there are too many “ifs” and “buts” in this
whole situation. There is a drive that
goes nowhere that’s going to cause traffic congestion because people habitually
do not use things as they are directed to do.
It is contingent on dividing this parcel and using the parking lot in an
agreement with another entity. As much
as she would like to see the church maximize what they need to do to make a go
of it, she is not in favor of putting a special use permit with a high volume
thing such as a dance studio in the middle of a residential area on this busy
street with ingress and egress being as difficult as it can possibly be;
therefore she will be voting in opposition.
Mr. Davis said that he
believes that there are two very different issues here and he would like to
separate them.
MOTION: By Mr. Davis, second by Mr. Kiser to approve the rezoning request.
Mr. Davis said he would
make a recommendation to his fellow Commissioners to deny the request.
Mr. Revenaugh asked what
the term of the proposed agreement is that Creative Arts Academy made with the
church.
Mr. McClure said that the
last time he visited with the applicant it was fifty years plus a twenty-five
extension. He said that the church
representative may choose to clarify that.
John Ellis, 5160 N.
Washington, addressed the Commission.
Mr. Ellis asked if they were talking about the lease on the parking lot.
Mr. Revenaugh said that
was correct.
Mr. Ellis said that it is
a lease on the parking lot in addition to the sale of the property. A fifty-year lease would be acceptable to the
church. He wanted to add that there is
parking on the other side of the education building. It’s not as large of a lot as the church
parking lot but there is parking available.
Mr. Revenaugh asked if
that is the lot that has access directly off of Englewood Road.
Mr. Ellis said that is
correct. That drive leads to existing
parking next to the education building.
Mr. Revenaugh asked if
the intent was to use the church parking lot and that driveway.
Mr. Ellis said that is
his understanding but that the applicant may wish to answer that. He would think she would use both parking
facilities. He believes Ms. Raisher’s
intent is to use the Englewood drive for staff.
Ms. Abbott said that she
is opposed to a commercial business in a residential neighborhood; however, if
there is any possible way this could be a done deal that it would be an asset
to the neighborhood, the church and all the improvements she is making would
make her be in favor of whatever it takes to be able to get her established.
Ms. McGuire said that she
feels about the same way. She has heard
wonderful things about the applicant; however, that is not the real issue. She thinks that rezoning could be a problem
for that area; therefore she does not support it.
Mr. Whitton asked if the
applicant would go through with this if she had a long term special use permit
without the zoning change.
Pamela Raisher, 7209 NW
Prairie View Road, addressed the Commission.
Ms. Raisher said that if the special use permit were long enough to
basically amortize the building out after a period of time, ideally she would
like to have it for as long as she could get, but yes, she would very much like
to be in this facility. She thinks it’s
a great marriage. It would be good for
the facility. It would be wonderful for
her. It’s right around the corner from
where she is and it gets her out of Kansas City and back in Gladstone. She would certainly entertain the idea of a
longer term special use permit.
Mr. Whitton asked how
long she would like.
Ms. Raisher joked that
100 years would be fine. She said 50
years…25 years. She would love to have
as long as a term as she could get. She
would like a minimum of 10 years because it is a large investment. It is going to require additional monies to
be put into it to do the landscaping and the exterior things that she thinks
need to be done to beautify that space and to make it as pretty as it can
be.
Mr. Whitton said he
doesn’t know how the Commission would approach that. He doesn’t think from what he is hearing that
the zoning is going to go through. Just
like everybody else he would like to see it work. He knows she is doing a great job. He would be in favor of a ten or fifteen year
special use permit. He asked if he needs
to make a new motion.
Chairman Hill said that
at this point there is a motion on the table that needs to be voted on.
Mr. Dillingham said that
he agrees with what has been said with the zoning. He doesn’t feel the City should go forward
with a commercial use in an area that has been residential for that long. He would be in favor of a long term special
use permit.
VOTE: Ms.
Abbott No
Ms.
Alexander No
Mr.
Davis No
Mr.
Dillingham No
Mr. Kiser No
Chairman Hill No
Ms. Lowe No
Ms. Newsom No
Mr. Revenaugh No
Mr. Steffens No
Mr. Whitton No
(0-Yes, 12-No)
The motion failed.
MOTION: By Mr. Whitton, second by Ms. Abbott to approve a special use permit for a period of 15 years including the recommended conditions in the staff report.
Mr. Dillingham asked if
the Commission needed to include the recommendations in the site visit report.
Mr. Davis said that he is
quite concerned and not as supportive of the decision of a 15 year special use
permit. There is a bad situation on the
west side of the property where there is a large parking lot that has a lot of
traffic today. Evening traffic is going
to be facing into the yards of several single family homes. It’s a nuisance today. By allowing a special use permit they are
going to take a bad situation and make it worse. He would much prefer to go to a longer term
that allows the possibility of the developer to get the funding she needs for
improvements because he thinks that a significant improvement needs to be made
in the area where the parking lot faces the rear yards of the property. The parking lot is just in the wrong
place. You don’t put a parking lot for a
semi-commercial structure with a lot of night traffic in the back yards of
single family houses with the lights shining into the rear of those
houses. He’s not sure how, but there
needs to some improvements made. His
direction to the City would be that the Commission direct the City to try and
find some permanent buffer between the two properties. Maybe it’s moving the parking lot ten
feet. It might mean building a fence and
putting a tree line in. Right now what
the Commission is doing is encouraging a special use permit that will take a
bad situation and make it worse. He
thinks there is a opportunity to correct it.
In his opinion is it much more than a simple wooden fence. It’s trying to find a way to build a
permanent buffer that allows the two businesses to co-exist with out being a
nuisance to the adjacent properties.
Ms. Newsom said that she
thinks the Commission needs to remember to look at the total parcel of
land. When they tag a 50 year parking
lease agreement on to the special use permit that ties the church and the
church property to providing “X” number of parking spots for this facility as
long as the special use permit is in effect, she thinks they are possibly
hobbling the church from doing things that they may wish or may wish not to do
down the line. This is an awfully big
obligation. Ms. Newsom said that she
still has a strong feeling about the traffic situation. The comings and goings are not what that area
needs. It is not the business or the
individuals. It is strictly looking at
the land situation and she thinks that by putting a business in the midst of
this residential area they are headed toward spot zoning. She is extremely opposed to it.
Ms. Alexander asked Ms.
Newsom what she would find an acceptable to the up-keep of these buildings so they don’t become derelict
buildings.
Ms. Newsom answered that
originally those buildings were built to house a school and a school-type
situation. Also, they are looking as
this as the applicant is looking to lease a part of this to another
entity. This is something that the City
has never done with special use permits in her recollection. She thinks that this property is set up to be
some kind of church or church-school type operation. If the church should cease to exist there,
that is a prime piece of property that that something else can be done with
without it being commercially zoned.
Mr. Revenaugh said that
it seems to him that he is hearing the delineation between church and business
and in his view the church is a business.
It might be a not-for-profit business but those neighbors that bought those
houses around the church bought them knowing that there was a business right in
their back yards, across the street and it hasn’t stopped anybody from buying
or living in those houses. He doesn’t
believe the City has a pile of complaints on hand, unless it goes back several
years, about the traffic at the church.
To penalize the church for finding a way to partner with another
school-type business, which is real compatible with what the church’s mission
is anyway which is education, simply because the Commission is afraid that the
additional traffic or the ability of the church to maximize their
profitability. He can see where it would
have been a bad deal to rezone the property.
He thinks the use is compatible and the City will be getting a nice
business in Gladstone that is now in Kansas City. Mr. Revenaugh said he will be voting in favor
of the motion.
Ms. Lowe said that with
respect to all of the opinions expressed so far she agrees partially with both
of them. She does have great concern for
the residents of that area. She thinks
that is very important for the Commission to consider. With the plan that Gladstone has she likes
the fact that a business is relocating within Gladstone and also the fact that
the church is doing partnering. In her
opinion, this is a real plus for the community.
She believes there is some common ground among all of the opinions and
it may be that the Commission looks at just adding conditions to the special
use permit. Perhaps the applicant can
come back with some type of re-adapted plan to address the buffer situation
with the houses. She really would not
like to lose this opportunity for the City of Gladstone but she still would
like to be responsive to the needs of the residential neighborhood.
Ms. Abbott said that when
she was there and looked at the parking lot it struck her that if the
headlights and parking were such a problem in that parking lot when the people
who owned those houses along there put up fences; why didn’t they put a privacy
fence up instead of chain link?
Chairman Hill said that
he has concerns as far as bringing a business a residential area and yes, it is
education. He doesn’t have any
reservations about the applicant. It is
strictly a land use issue. He is
concerned that this is a little different from a five-year special use permit
for a home daycare center where no one is planning on making some significant
capital improvements. He doesn’t think
it is fair to the applicant to allow them to make the improvements without it
being a long-term special use permit but then again without any history as to
how the traffic flows around this location he can kind of see where the
Commission can get into problems with traffic and neighbors with the increased
traffic. He is torn as to how to
vote. Chairman Hill said that if maybe
there was more refinement as to the parking plan or insulation from the
adjacent residences and maybe some kind of a change in the front loop driveway
it would help him make a decision. He
has concerns about approving a 10 or 15 year special use permit when there’s no
history. The City could be creating a 15
year headache.
Mr. Revenaugh said that
if the intention of the side drive off of Englewood was for it to be restricted
to just staff that would severely cut back on the amount of traffic off of
Englewood Road. Also, maybe there is
something the City can do where if they are planning on pouring a lot of money
into it maybe the Commission can do a one year trial renewable special use
permit where the applicant would hold off on any major investments to the
property and bring it in, let the traffic flow and let the neighbors see how it
is. He isn’t sure if there is a way to
do this, but brining the application back in maybe one year would give the Commission
a chance to see if it works.
Ms. Raisher said that the
only issue she has with that is that she has been located in the Antioch
Shopping Center for 27 years and her facility is very clean and very neat and
very well done. Her clientele is accustomed
to that. To do no improvements in that
space would ruin her business. She would
not put her people in that situation.
The rooms need to be divided; they need to be insulated. To keep the same reputation she has had all
these years she couldn’t move in and do little or nothing to improve that
facility to stay in keeping with the reputation she has. That is her gut feeling. She can’t really use the facility as-is.
Mr. Revenaugh asked Ms.
Raisher if what she is saying is that the largest part of her capital outlay is
going to be before she starts taking kids in.
Ms. Raisher answered
yes. She added that the timing is so
critical because she really doesn’t have a beginning and an end to a
season. She runs year round. She is however, coming to a time where she
has spring dance recitals and the students have a two week break where they do
national competitions. During those two
weeks it is the intent to start moving the first part of June. She would like to start improvements as soon
as this issue gets decided.
Mr. Revenaugh asked if there
is a shorter time span that might be agreeable.
Ms. Raisher said that in
order for her to move into the space improvements have to be made. The sidewalk is unsafe; she would not put the
children in that situation. If she’s going
to offer the services that she offers now, a canopy should really be put over
that building. It needs to be
painted. The interior needs to be
re-done. The tumble-jungle that she has
now needs to be reconstructed in the new space.
There’s a lot of money that’s going to go into the new location before
her students are transferred over. Her
hope is to continue the Antioch location and stay there while she is doing
construction and then make the transition.
Ms. Lowe said that she
would like to ask the applicant if there is any opposition on her part to going
back with the concerns that have been expressed here tonight and coming up with
something more substantive to address those concerns.
Ms. Raisher answered that
she would definitely be agreeable to that.
This is a very major change in her direction. It’s a lot of money to invest and she feels
positive it would be a wonderful thing for the community, but she does think
there are some issues to address. She
does not want to step into a situation where she is upsetting neighbors. Ms. Raisher said she did want to address Ms.
Newsom’s concern about the driveway. Her
idea was chain the drive off “staff only” and put up a direction sign pointing
other traffic around to the other drive for the remainder of the traffic.
Mr. Davis asked Chairman
Hill if he would accept a substitute motion.
Chairman Hill said that
first they will need to vote on the motion that was made by Mr. Whitton.
Mr. Davis said that he is
not really prepared for a “yes/no” for the motion that is on the floor but he
thinks that what he has heard tonight is that the majority of the Commission
seem to be amiable to a different direction so he was going to suggest that the
Commission expresses support for a working relationship between the church and
the business and that the Commission ask staff to work with the business to
develop a special use permit that addresses their concerns for the Commission’s
reconsideration at a future time.
Ms. Lowe asked if Mr.
Whitton would want to withdraw his motion.
Mr. Revenaugh asked if
the motion could be tabled.
Chairman Hill said that
what might be more appropriate for Mr. Whitton, if he desires to, is to
withdraw his motion and table this matter for a future meeting for staff to
work through this and try and work something out with the applicant.
Mr. McClure said that
time is probably a question for the applicant.
Charles Small, 1152 White
Oak Lane, Liberty, Missouri, addressed the Commission. Mr. Small said that time is critical and
they’ve gone to this point, and that’s not the Commission’s fault by any
stretch, that’s just the process that they have to go through. They would like to move forward and maybe the
approval and then the interim during the week that they have between now and
the City Council hearing to work with staff to come up with those
conditions. They are certainly aware, as
is the church, that the parking is probably the greatest issue. They have had the conversation with regards
to the parking lot to the east of the education building. Their plan the whole time was to put an
employee only parking in that location because it’s just not conducive to in
and out traffic. If at all possible, if
would be great if the Commission could suggest approval and allow them to work
with staff during the next week. Mr.
Small said that even with their approval or denial tonight, it is still going
to require a renegotiation and a reconstitution of all the language that the
church has done up to this point. He
understands that they may not have all the facts to vote a complete yes, but
maybe they can do it with the parameters set out that the staff will then come
up with a solution to the parking, lights and the buffer between the neighbors.
Chairman Hill said that
the applicant understands that whether the Commission approves or disapproves
the application tonight it still goes to the City Council and they will make
the final decision. He suggested that
the Commission vote on Mr. Whitton’s motion.
Mr. Davis asked if Mr.
Whitton could add to his motion something about it being contingent upon a
significant improvement of the buffering between the parking lot and the
residential properties and addressing the issue of the appropriate use of the
entrance on Englewood Road.
Chairman Hill asked Mr.
Whitton if he was agreeable to that.
Mr. Whitton agreed; as
did Ms. Abbott who had the second.
Mr. Revenaugh asked what
a “significant” improvement is.
Mr. Davis said he would
leave that to City staff to determine.
He would hope it will be more than a wooden fence. He sees some negotiating room there.
VOTE: Ms.
Abbott Yes
Ms.
Alexander Yes
Mr.
Davis Yes
Mr.
Dillingham Yes
Mr. Kiser Yes
Chairman Hill No
Ms. Lowe Yes
Ms. Newsom No
Mr. Revenaugh Yes
Mr. Steffens No
Mr. Whitton Yes
(9-Yes, 3-No)
Chairman Hill announced
that the application would be sent to the City Council with a positive
recommendation on April 26, 2004.
Item 6 on the
Agenda: Other Business.
Mr. Wingerson asked
the Commission to take a look at the sign-up sheet again for the MARC workshop
on May 18, 2004 and encouraged everyone to sign up.
Ms. Newsom said that
something came to her mind today when she was driving on N. Oak and she saw the
contractors working on the new Walgreen’s and she could see the old brick,
colonial style façade that had been covered over by the unattractive blue,
standing seam siding. It brought to mind
something that she used to present to kids in the school district. She went through a series of drawings of a city
that start about 1875 and goes to 1990.
As she went through the drawings she explained that signs changed and
evolved, building architecture changed and trees seemed to disappear. Near the end of the drawings she noted how it
seems that they begin to go back to a look that promotes green space and places
for people to congregate. Ms. Newsom
said that as she attends Gladstone on the Move meetings they talk about their
vision for Gladstone. It made her think
about a saying: “Good enough isn’t good
enough”. She thinks that the Commission
has been entrusted with the City Council and the citizens of Gladstone and that
they need to think about what “can be” and shoot for a higher goal.
tem 7 on the
Agenda: Communications from the City
Council and the City Staff.
Mayor Beer thanked
Anita for her presentation. He noted
that cities evolve and through the years the changes were considered to be
improvements. It’s easy for us to stand
here today and look back and indict previous “improvements” as being wrong and
impractical, but the fact remains that they believed it made sense at the
time. He thanked the Commission for
their work and again thanked Anita for her presentation.
Councilman Rudi
apologized for being late. She was in a
meeting with the Arts Council. She
thought that the Commission would be interested to know that one of the things
they would like to see is a “downtown” area.
They were told it was something that is being talked about and
considered and they are very interested in it.
Mr. Wingerson
thanked Ms. Newsom for going to the effort to share her presentation
tonight. He thanked the Commission for
their great discussion this evening. It
is very helpful to staff to hear their concerns. He then followed up on some questions from
the last meeting. The potholes on M-1
are continuing to be discussed with MoDot.
He spoke with the management of Whispering Oaks Apartment complex about
the ruts where cars drive through there.
They are still committed to doing something but they just aren’t sure
what. He will continue to
follow-up. Mr. Steffens had asked about
water in the road on 64th Street.
The preliminary indication is that it is probably ground water seeping
up through the asphalt. Public Works
will continue to monitor it and if it persists in a dry time they will test it
for chlorine.
Mr. Wingerson said
that at the last meeting Ms. Abbott asked about Englewood Vista and the
pond. The City is being lead to believe
that the pond is the responsibility of Mr. Sharhag. That is different from what the City
thought. They believe that since the
pond serves as stormwater detention, there is an easement from Mr. Sharhag to
the developers of Englewood Vista and the City believes that part of that
easement agreement was the maintenance and care for the pond. The City is trying to get a hold of that
document. Mr. Wingerson continued by saying that sort of related to that is the
Leimkuler pond. The pond has silted in
over time. The City thought they had a
solution with a development application on land that the City calls “Fata”
property. There was a developer from
Illinois that was interested in purchasing all of that for dense
residential. That is not going to occur
so they are back to square one.
Mr. Wingerson said
that the Planning Commission meetings for May seem light, but staff is trying
to coordinate an orientation that the Council has requested for the themselves,
the Commission and the Board of Zoning Adjustment.
Item 8 on the
Agenda: Communications from the
Planning Commission Members.
Ms. Abbott asked if
Mr. Sharhag is responsible for all the downed trees from the tornado around the
pond.
Mr. Wingerson said
that is kind of the root of the issue.
It’s leftover tornado damage but it’s lack of maintenance just as much. What AHM is explaining to the City is that it
is ultimately Mr. Sharhag’s responsibility; however, that is completely
different from anything the City has been lead to believe so far. The City is trying to mediate that situation.
Ms. Lowe said that she
did not mean to show any disrespect last meeting when she had to leave early
but she needed to get her granddaughter home.
She asked for the Commission to forgive her. She also wanted to note that it seems like
the last two applicants have been in a rush to get their application pushed
through. She thinks that has a tendency
to make the Commission feel pressured to make it work because of the
deadline. Ms. Lowe wondered if there was
anything that the Commission could do to alleviate that. Maybe it’s not a normal thing, but the
Commission should be able to take time to make the right decision.
Mr. Revenaugh said
that he agrees with Ms. Lowe’s comment and he would like to see the staff tell
future applicants about the process and that there will be no guarantee that
the Commission will decide in one meeting or two meetings so that they do not
feel that kind of pressure.
Mr. Wingerson
commented that staff is extremely process friendly. They are always very open to different
business conditions but at the same maintaining the legal publication
requirements. Every applicant is
provided with a calendar of how the schedule goes. Every applicant is advised that the Commission
may or may not make a recommendation at the first or second meeting. In addition, the applicants are advised that
the City Council usually holds their public hearing and votes that night;
however, that’s not a promise or a guarantee.
Mr. Wingerson said that he would say that it is not normal, but business
conditions are tough right now and people are in a hurry once they make that
decision.
Ms. Newsom said that
not all our best decisions are made in a hurry and she refuses to be held
hostage.
Ms. Alexander said
that she had several things. She said
that we get so frustrated with MoDot but she just got a paper from N. Carolina
and that area is growing like mad. They
are constructing a highway. Currently
they have a 6-lane highway that is leading into a 2-lane highway. MoDot isn’t quite as bad as we think. Ms. Alexander said that as far as Anita’s
presentation on doing the best at the time.
She goes to St. Mary’s Episcopal Church and they found that after they
removed the tiles around the alter that they were glued to a marble floor. So, yeah they do the best they know at the
time, but sometimes it creates headaches.
Ms. Alexander
thanked staff for putting the minutes on both sides of the paper. It’s a small savings but a good one. Lastly, she said that she has always felt
that the strength of any group was the diversity. It is so nice to have the disagreements and
not have it be personal. She thanked her
fellow Commissioners for that.
Ms. Abbott said that
N. Central looks gorgeous.
Chairman Hill asked
if the dance studio at 64th and Antioch is ever going to be done.
Mr. Wingerson said
that they are functioning on a temporary occupancy permit and there has been a
fairly lengthy documentation trail of asking and requesting that they
finish. The last he remembers they said
they would do it in the spring.
Mr. Revenaugh asked
if there were any legal remedies.
Mr. Wingerson said
he is sure there are. He asked them to
be patient.
Chairman Hill asked
about the fountain at Wal-Mart.
Item 9 on the
Agenda: Adjournment
Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 8: 30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted:
______________________________________ Approved as submitted _____
Becky Jarrett, Recording Secretary
______________________________________ Approved as corrected _____
Brian Hill, Chairman