PLANNING COMMISSION
GLADSTONE, MISSOURI
October 4, 2004
7:30 pm
Item 1 on the
Agenda: Meeting called to order –
Roll Call.
Present: Council & Staff Present:
Ms. Abbott Scott Wingerson, Assist. City Manager
Mr. Davis Mayor Wayne Beer
Mr. Dillingham
Chairman Hill
Mr. Kiser
Ms. McGuire
Ms. Newsom
Mr. Revenaugh
Mr. Steffens
Mr. Whitton
Absent: Ms. Lowe
Ms. Alexander
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 September 7,
2004 Minutes.
Motion by Ms.
Newsom, second by Mr. Revenaugh to approve the September 7, 2004 minutes as
submitted. The minutes were approved
as submitted.
Item 4 on the
Agenda: Communications from the
Audience.
None.
Item 5 on the Agenda: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Special Use Permit at 2201
NE 56th Terrace.
Applicant: Joyce Vogt. (#1236)
Chairman Hill asked for
the staff report.
Mr. Wingerson reported
that this is a renewal for a special use permit that was approved in 2003 for a
period of one year to allow operation of a nail salon from the home. He drew their attention to a letter placed at
their seats tonight from the applicant which explains her business. The key point in that letter is that her
neighbors are asking when she is going to start the business. There was one call of concern; the resident
didn’t really have any reasons for the concern and was invited to attend the
public hearing tonight. He is not sure
she is present. Staff recommends
approval of the request for a term of five years.
Chairman Hill asked the
applicant to step forward.
Joyce Vogt, 2201 NE 56th
Terrace addressed the Commission. Ms.
Vogt stated that she was not aware that someone called in opposition because as
far as she knew all her neighbors are fine with it. Most of them do not even have a clue that she
works there. She stated that she is
seeing one client at a time; her parking is pretty much hidden from everyone
and she stays within the hours. Business
is really bad so she is working a lot less hours. Ms. Vogt added that she has done a lot of
work to the house and it looks much better than it did before, therefore she
thinks she is an asset to the neighborhood.
She would like to have a term of at least five years before the next
renewal.
Ms. Newsom asked the
applicant if there are any other proposed changes to the conditions other than
in the staff report.
Ms. Vogt said she hasn’t
seen the report, but there are no changes.
Mr. Wingerson replied
that the conditions are the same as last year.
Ms. McGuire said that she
knows Ms. Vogt personally and has been friends with her for many years. She watched her through the process; she sold
her the house. She has done a fine job
and she has done what she said she would do.
She has painted the house, worked on her deck, cuts the yard and takes
care of it and the neighbors seem happy.
Mr. Revenaugh announced
that he knows the applicant and therefore will be recusing himself from the
vote.
Ms. McGuire said that it
is her understanding that because she a friend to the applicant and not related
to her she doesn’t need to recuse herself from the vote. She asked if that was true. She remembers going over that in one of her
training classes.
Mr. Wingerson said that
although Counselor Ramsay is not present he believes that if there is any
perception of personal gain or benefit on behalf of the Commissioner or the
applicant then the Commissioner should recuse themselves. That is not necessarily the legal opinion,
although in this case he would recommend that both Commissioners recuse
themselves and Counselor Ramsay can clarify that at a future time.
Chairman Hill asked for
anyone in favor of the application to step forward. Seeing no response he asked for those in
opposition to come forward. There was no
response. He then asked if there was any
further discussion from the Planning Commission. The public hearing was closed.
Ms. Newsom said that
seeing that things have gone well this last year, there have not been any
complaints from neighbors and conditions remain the same she would make a
motion.
MOTION: By Ms. Newsom, second by Ms. Abbott to approve the Special Use Permit at 2201 NE 56th Terrace with the recommended conditions stated in the draft ordinance for a period of five (5) years.
Chairman Hill stated that
it appears we have an in-house use here that has not negatively impacted on the
neighborhood therefore, he will voting in favor of it.
VOTE: Ms.
Abbott Yes
Mr.
Davis Yes
Mr.
Dillingham Yes
Chairman
Hill Yes
Mr.
Kiser Yes
Ms.
McGuire Abstain
Mr. Revenaugh Abstain
Mr. Steffens Yes
Mr. Whitton Yes
8- Yes, 2-
Abstain
Chairman Hill announced that this application would move forward to the City Council on October 11, 2004 with a positive recommendation.
Item 6 on the
Agenda: Other Business (The posted agenda was changed shortly before the
meeting began making item 6A: Creative
Arts Academy.)
6A. Creative
Arts Academy
Mr. Wingerson said
he would go ahead and start with an update so that everyone is starting at the
same place. There are three issues at
Creative Arts Academy that currently exist.
One is the banners that are located on a privacy fence that was
constructed on the north property line.
Mr. Wingerson said that the banners will be removed at some point in the
future. He would caution the Planning
Commission, City Council and residents since the actual use of banners is
allowed under the City’s current sign ordinance, however, Ms. Raisher has
agreed to remove those. The second item
is the recycling dumpsters located in the parking lot. Those actually belong to the Church and have
been used as a fundraiser for youth activities.
The Church has agreed to work with Ms. Raisher to find another location
that is better screened from public view.
Mr. Wingerson continued by saying that the third issue, the gate, is a
lot more complicated that it appears.
The gate would go through the privacy fence from Creative Arts Academy
to some residences to the north for access to their rear yards. He has met with
Ms. Raisher probably four times and spoke with her on the phone an additional
four times and she is willing to seek to solve this issue, however right now
she is not able to obtain property insurance that would allow that free passage
between the properties. Mr. Wingerson
said that he knows like that doesn’t sound difficult, but in her business,
gymnastics training, there are only two companies in the country that will
insure that type of business. There are
serious and even deaths associated with her business, so it’s not something
that most insurance companies will even consider. Ms. Raisher is not opposed to the money of a
gate or even the access of the neighborhood; it’s an insurance issue.
Mr. Davis said that the motion that the Planning Commission approved in
April required a significant buffer and there was a lot of discussion on what a
significant buffer was. The minutes
mention the fact that they talked about a buffer wide enough so that the
parking could be a good distance away from the rear yards of the
residents. They also talked about the
possibility of trees and shrubbery and other things in that buffer. Instead of those things, there is a fence
that is on her property line roughly the length of a lawn mower away from the
lots that adjoin it. You can run a
lawnmower most of the distance, but not the entire distance, behind it, but you
can’t turn it around. It’s clear that
the fence violates the intent of their discussion regarding a significant
buffer. He has had a chance to discuss
this at length with the adjoining property owners and they have told him that
in their opinion the major issue is the gate.
Their concern is that in discussions before this and when Ms. Raisher
discussed the special use permit the neighbors agreed not to oppose it, in fact
one of them even supported it, because they were assured that there would be
gate provided that would be wide enough for a truck to go through it. When she made that commitment to the
neighbors she did not say “If I can obtain insurance...” She just said that she would do it. Mr. Davis said the second thing is the issue
of the buffer which is obviously inadequate and does not comply with what they
approved. He’s not concerned about the
other two issues because Mr. Wingerson assures him that the signage will be
corrected and the recycling will be corrected.
He hopes that we can resolve this to the satisfaction of the neighbors
which means that he would recommend to his fellow Commission members that if
Ms. Raisher would agree to provide the access that she promised maybe they can
be satisfied with a buffer that obviously meeting their conditions. There are only two issues here: Who protects the neighbors when an applicant
makes a commitment to the Planning Commission and it becomes a part of the
motion? When an applicant makes a
commitment to adjoining property owners, who protects the adjoining property
owners? Ms. Raisher is out of compliance
with what she promised to do. Mr. Davis
believes we have reached the point where somebody needs to look at this
proposal and realize that we approved this six months ago, it’s obviously not
in compliance and it’s time to withdrawal the special use permit.
MOTION: By Mr. Davis, second by Mr. Kiser to initiate the action needed to withdraw the special use permit.
Mr. Kiser stated that he seconds this motion because both himself and Mr.
Davis were at quite length involved with the discussion that took place with
the neighbors and he agrees that he left that evening with the understanding
that the desire of the neighbors would be satisfied.
Ms. McGuire asked if a gate causes that much trouble for insurance, her
concern is that if a gate is put in…we all think we live in a nice
neighborhood…but couldn’t someone hide behind that and be able to get access to
the parking lot fairly easily? She’s
seen the fence and you can’t see through it.
She asked if it might be better just to move that fence to the south to
allow enough space that a guy could travel carrying some logs or lumber or
whatever you have to do for firewood…or mow it.
Mr. Davis said that the concern was getting a truck in there, so a gate
allowed that. If Ms. Raisher could move the
fence 10’ so that you could get a truck in there that would be fine, but he
doesn’t think she wants to move the fence.
Chairman Hill said that there was a neighbor in the audience that would
like to speak.
Christine Selig, 1807 NE 57th Street addressed the
Commission. Ms. Selig said that she is
directly behind the Church. She stated
that she has never been opposed to Ms. Raisher’s being there. Ms. Raisher has always been very nice, but
the first night they met she told her that she didn’t have a problem with a
fence and a gate and that would in fact be better for her so her people don’t
bother them. Ms. Selig said that she
feels like they’ve been lied to by Ms. Raisher.
They feel as though she got the neighbors to agree to it and now she’s
just doing this…and she has the fence there…she got what she wanted but she
doesn’t feel like the neighbor’s needs have been met. Her next door neighbor, Nancy, has firewood
that is delivered. They have to either
throw it over the gate or they have to carry it all the way from the front to
the back and that costs a lot more money when you hire somebody to do
that. Ms. Selig said that when she
borrows her father-in-law’s mower they can’t get it in the backyard because
they always came through the back gate since their side gate isn’t wide
enough. It’s just kind of a hassle. If you walk down that, there is any alley-way
that goes all the way down, but there’s not enough room to get anything in and
out. They are very disappointed and feel
that they have been neglected. They are
willing to work with anything, but they feel like their needs need to be met
also.
Chairman Hill thanked Ms. Selig for her comments. Without legal counsel here tonight, Chairman
Hill said that he is at a little bit of a loss.
He does not think that they are in a position to make any motions or
take any motions because there has not been appropriate notice given to the
holder of the special use permit. He
suggested deferring this and letting City legal counsel provide the Commission
with advice. His own thoughts are that
his understanding of the transaction is that Creative Arts Academy bought a
portion of the premises. The fence is
not located on the premises that they own.
Mr. Wingerson stated that it is.
Chairman Hill asked if Ms. Raisher bough the parking lot.
Mr. Wingerson said they did.
Chairman Hill and other Commissioners said that they thought they were
going to have some kind of 50-year agreement with them.
Mr. Wingerson said that turned out to not be acceptable to either party
and after the Planning Commission’s recommendation they negotiated a purchase
and it was presented to the City Council as Ms. Raisher would own an “L-shaped”
piece of property (about half of the north parking lot).
Ms. Newsom suggested that the discussion be terminated and at the next
Planning Commission (or what’s legally appropriate) they be provided with the
minutes from those meetings and public hearings being discussed. She feels about a bit blind-sighted by
this. Ms. Newsom said that she did call
in to City Hall about the banner on the fence, but she didn’t know any of the
rest of this was coming up. She thinks
that it is inappropriate for them, as a body, to move forward on something
without the applicant present to provide her side of the story and get everyone
up to speed on what exactly took place.
Ms. Newsom said she voted against it because she thought it was a poor
use of the property at that point and time, so she did not attend to some of the
details like she would have if she would have voted yes.
Mr. Wingerson said that is absolutely what will be done. He was going to take Chairman Hill’s comments
a step further and suggest that the Commission not take action on the motion
made by Mr. Davis and Mr. Kiser because there is a 15-day notice period. The motion tonight would authorize a public
hearing. It will be at least two
Planning Commission meetings from now should they vote on that motion tonight. His suggestion would be for staff to provide
the Commission with the information Ms. Newsom requested but for them not to
take action on the motion, with permission of Mr. Davis and Mr. Kiser, and give
staff two more weeks to update Ms. Raisher on the Planning Commission’s
conversation tonight. At that point if
the Commission would like to move forward with revoking the special use permit,
they can make that motion in two weeks and staff will publish it for public
hearing.
Mr. Davis said he is comfortable with that if Mr. Kiser is. Mr. Kiser agreed.
Chairman Hill said that he would also like to see the minutes from the
City Council public hearing. He would
also be interested in seeing the documents regarding the sale of the parking
lot to Ms. Raisher, which opens up other issues like the recycling dumpster and
the Church’s parking requirements. He
also strongly cautioned all the Planning Commissioners that if the Commission
is considering any type of an action affecting this special use permit there
should be no contact with the applicant or the neighbors outside of public hearings. What is considered needs to only be done at
meetings and the Commission should proceed very carefully and very formally in
this matter. This makes all actions a
part of public record.
Mr. Davis said that he was not aware of the purchase of the parking lot
by Ms. Raisher. He also has great
concern regarding the tax status of this.
He wants to make sure the City is at least obtaining a property tax
value from the Creative Arts Academy since it’s now apparently on private
property. She was renting church
property, which is tax exempt.
Chairman Hill asked Mr. Wingerson if staff could even give appropriate
notice for the next meeting.
Mr. Wingerson said that would not be enough time for a public hearing
notice. It would require 15 days
notice. If the Commission would just
like a report back in two weeks that would be fine, but the public hearing
would have to take place in four weeks.
Chairman Hill agreed to have staff report back in two weeks and at that
time the Commission can decide how they would like to proceed.
Mr. Wingerson said that if the Commission should choose to proceed to a
public hearing at that point it would be four weeks from then (six weeks from
tonight).
Mr. Davis said that he would like to make it perfectly clear that he is
concerned with getting the problem resolved.
He’s not concerned with penalizing this person. If Ms. Raisher finds a way to comply with
what she committed to the property owners and to the Planning Commission then
he’s satisfied and he would not make a motion to revoke the special use permit.
6B. Rules of Procedure
Mr. Wingerson said that he provided the Commission with an updated draft
at the places this evening which Counselor Ramsay provided based on the
comments at the last meeting. When the
Commission is ready to discuss it further, staff is prepared to do that.
Chairman Hill asked if staff had copies of other cities rules of
procedures that might be similar.
Mr. Wingerson answered that he believes the draft was modeled after
Independence, but he would have to check with Counselor Ramsay. He did a lot of research on these types of
things based on the City Council’s input as well as what other Planning
Commissions are doing. There’s a limited
number of Planning Commissions out there like Gladstone’s, so not all cities
rules would apply.
Ms. Newsom said she would like to have some time to read it before she
discusses it.
Item 7 on the
Agenda: Communications from the City Council and the City Staff.
Mayor Beer said that
he believes we had a pretty successful Gladfest although no official numbers
have come in.
Mr. Wingerson drew
the Commission’s attention to a memo placed at their seats tonight regarding a
follow to items discussed at their last meeting. There are also some public hearings coming up
as well. He thanked Chairman Hill and
Ms. Newsom for taking leadership roles during Gladfest and also to others who
volunteered over the weekend.
Ms. Newsom had a
question for Mr. Wingerson. She quoted
from the memo regarding Burnett’s Lighthouse “… appears that the area is well
maintained and reasonably safe…” After
dealing with the School District for all these years and having playground
standards, impact areas, etc…
Mr. Wingerson said
that because he is not the safety advisor it looked reasonable safe to him.
Ms. Newsom asked if
their liability insurance covers the playground.
Mr. Wingerson said
it does; he did ask.
Item 8 on the
Agenda: Communications from the
Planning Commission Members.
Ms. Abbott said that
the Bell’s driveway is not fixed, the curbs aren’t in yet and the trees are
still there from the tornado.
Mr. Davis said that
he would like to apologize in advance, but he will not be able to attend the
next meeting.
Chairman Hill asked
what the deal was with the Hobby Lobby trailers parked out front.
Mr. Wingerson said
that staff talked to them and they were supposed to be gone.
Chairman Hill said
they are gone now. He also asked what
the status of the construction trailer was in Prospect Plaza.
Mr. Wingerson said
that is for Sheridan’s and it is gearing up to start again. The contractor just has the trailer there
waiting.
Item 9 on the
Agenda: Adjournment.
Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 8:10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted:
______________________________________ Approved as submitted _____
Becky Jarrett, Recording Secretary
______________________________________ Approved as corrected _____
Brian Hill, Chairman