PLANNING COMMISSION
November 21, 2005
7:30 pm
Present: Council & Staff Present:
Ms. Newsom Scott
Wingerson, Assist. City Manager
Ms. Alexander Melinda Mehaffy, Econ.
Dev. Admin.
Mr. Stanley David
Ramsay, City Counselor
Mr. Shevling Mayor Carol Rudi
Mr. Whitton Councilman Wayne
Beer
Mr. Revenaugh Becky Jarrett, Admin. Assist.
Ms. Abbott
Mr. Steffens
Chairman Hill
Mr. Boor
Mr. Reynolds
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 the October 17,
2005 minutes.
Ms.
Abbott made a correction to the last paragraph on page two. She stated that she was referring to the parking
lot being changed to CP-1, not the car lot.
Motion by Ms. Newsom, second by Ms. Alexander to approve the October 17,
2005 minutes as corrected. The minutes
were approved as corrected.
Item 4 on the
Agenda: Communications from the Audience.
None.
Item 5 on the Agenda: PUBLIC HEARING: On a request to renew a Special Use Permit at
Chairman Hill asked for
the staff report.
Mr. Wingerson reported
that the applicant is requesting renewal of a special use permit that would
allow the continued operation of a nail salon at
Chairman Hill asked if
anyone in the audience would like to speak in favor of the application. Hearing no response he asked for those in
opposition. Again there was no response.
MOTION: By Ms. Abbott, second by Ms. Alexander to
approve the Special Use Permit at 5008 Old Pike Road for a period of 5 years.
Chairman Hill asked if there was any discussion from the Commission.
Mr. Reynolds noted that #7 states that a backflow assembly shall be installed. He asked if that has been done.
Mr. Wingerson replied that has been completed and needs to be removed from the conditions.
Ms. Newsom noted that the recommended conditions reflect Ms. Rammelsburg’s maiden name. Staff noted the correction and said that the ordinance did reflect the correct name.
Chairman Hill called for the vote.
VOTE: Ms. Newsom Yes
Ms. Alexander Yes
Mr. Shevling Yes
Mr. Whitton Yes
Mr. Revenaugh Yes
Ms. Abbott Yes
Mr. Steffens Yes
Chairman Hill Yes
Mr. Boor Yes
Mr. Reynolds Yes
The motion passed. (11-Yes, 0-No)
Chairman Hill
announced that the motion passed and will be forwarded to the City Council on
Monday, November 28, 2005 with a positive recommendation from the Planning
Commission.
Item 6 on the Agenda: PUBLIC HEARING: On a request for a Rezoning and Site Plan
Revision at 5720 N. Oak Trafficway.
Applicant/Owner: Donald D. Perry
II, N. Oak BP. (File #1262).
Chairman Hill asked for the staff report.
Mr. Wingerson reported that the applicant is requesting two
actions, a zoning change and a site plan revision. The property is currently zoned C-2 (the
existing service station), C-1 (an existing commercial building and vacant
property) and R-1, which is a small strip on the west side of the site. The request is to change all those zonings to
a single zoning of CP-3. The second
action, a site plan revision, is being requested to redevelop the property to
include a new convenience store, service station with gas pumps and canopy, a
car wash, an automobile repair building and a secured automobile storage
lot. To make all of that happen, the
applicant is proposing that the existing service station, car wash and
commercial building be removed to create a single developable parcel. The proposal contains a 3,200 square foot
convenience store together with a gasoline pump canopy covering six pump
islands. To the west of these
improvements is a proposed single bay automated car wash exiting onto
Mr. Wingerson explained that this application is designed simply to seek the Commission’s consideration of the site plan and rezoning. Certain studies have not been required to this point. The first is a stormwater study; however, if this were to be approved by the Commission and City Council, a full stormwater study would be performed. The results of that study would be implemented by the developer/owner. In this application a significant area of the development is reserved on the south side of the property for stormwater detention. A total landscape or signage plan has not yet been submitted. Mr. Wingerson anticipated that the applicant would have more on those two issues in his presentation. In looking at the traffic patterns, the site fronts N. Oak Trafficway, which currently has heavy traffic volumes; therefore staff did not request a traffic study.
Mr. Wingerson referred to the recommended conditions in the
draft ordinance. Most of these are very
typical; however, two are specific to this application. One is the strip that accesses N. Grand. Condition #11 states that area not be
improved for any business usage or construction activity. Condition #8 states that a 35’ buffer shall
be maintained at the west and south property lines adjacent to the fenced
lot. Staff is also suggesting that the
specific drive to the vehicle storage lot that accesses
Ms. Alexander asked if this plan fits the N. Oak Corridor Study.
Mr. Wingerson answered that it does. The 1993 Comprehensive Plan and the N. Oak Corridor Study both envisioned this part of N. Oak being automobile related given the existing uses.
Mr. Boor asked if there is an existing car wash now.
Mr. Wingerson answered yes.
Mr. Boor asked where the water from the car wash goes.
Mr. Wingerson said that the wastewater from the car wash goes into the sanitary sewer system.
Mr. Boor asked if the water is treated first so that the oil and chemicals are removed.
Mr. Wingerson said that given the age of the facility he’s sure those mechanisms aren’t up-to-date; however, a new car wash would certainly comply with today’s code. Mr. Perry may be able to answer that question further.
Ms. Newsom asked if the existing fuel tanks will remain.
Mr. Wingerson answered that it is his understanding that those will be removed, but Mr. Perry can address that in his presentation. It will comply with all State and Federal Codes.
Ms. Newsom said she is having trouble understanding why there is a need for a 95-space parking lot.
Mr. Wingerson replied that a majority of that lot is to be used for vehicles needing repair or having completed repair. A portion of the lot would be used for the applicant’s existing towing business. Cars that are towed would be housed there until they are repaired or picked up.
Ms. Newsom said that it is not only a repair shop, but a tow lot.
Mr. Wingerson stated that yes, it is also a tow lot. The towing portion of the business is an accessory use to the existing business.
Ms. Abbott stated that there are some very nice homes near the area that will be the vehicle storage lot.
Chairman Hill asked the applicant to come forward.
Donald D. Perry II, 6913 N. Pennsylvania,
Ms. Newsom asked if he does towing now.
Mr. Perry answered yes.
Ms. Newsom asked where he stores his towed vehicles now.
Mr. Perry said that right now he doesn’t have any contracts that require secured towing, so he just tows them to the shop and he has a couple of other shops that pick them up.
Ms. Newsom asked if the service building is just for engine work or will they be doing any bodywork.
Mr. Perry said there will not be any bodywork done. There could be some detailing, possibly, but he hasn’t decided.
Ms. Newsom just wanted to verify that there would not be any noxious fumes.
Mr. Perry said no, there would not be.
Mr. Boor asked if they were going to do away with the old oil separating system.
Mr. Perry said yes, he will be excited to get rid of a lot of headaches that go along with the old building.
Mr. Steffens asked if he has to take up the tanks that are in the ground since he is transferring.
Mr. Perry answered no. The tanks that are in the ground are fiberglass. They’ve only been in the ground about eight years and they are a thirty-year tank. He has been dealing closely with Delta Environment and BP. Amoco and BP are responsible if anything with the tanks needs to be done.
Chairman Hill asked about the elevations.
Mr. Perry showed the Commission a color rendering of the station.
Chairman Hill asked about the remainder of the land behind the station.
Mr. Perry said that right now it is up on a hill and it will need to be graded. There is a storm sewer at the southeast corner of the lot with an inlet; and there will be a detention area. Mr. Perry said that the drawing he gave them is just an example, it is not an exact replica of what his facility will look like.
Ms. Alexander asked about the sign.
Mr. Perry said he has an existing sign that he may be able to leave there.
Chairman Hill asked if Mr. Perry had reviewed the City’s recommended conditions.
Mr. Perry said he has read them a couple of times. He said the curb cut on NE 58th Street would make the traffic flow across his lot a little easier, instead of cutting across the car wash lane. Mr. Perry showed the Commission a preliminary landscape plan.
Mr. Newsom asked if the layout of the carwash parcel is engraved in stone in his mind.
Mr. Perry answered no. His architect helped him design the plan based on something he drew up.
Ms. Newsom suggested that if it (the carwash) were located closer to some of the other proposed buildings it may mitigate some of the noise towards the neighbors.
Ms. Abbott asked if the car wash will be the brushless type with the blowers.
Mr. Perry said it will be a brushless car wash, which is what he has now. He does not have blowers now and he had not considered the noise factor.
Chairman Hill asked if it is feasible not to have the entrance from NE 58th Street for the tow vehicles.
Mr. Perry said that each mechanic has $100,000 worth of tools and he doesn’t want just anyone wandering through there. He needs the tow truck driver staying out of that area. Without the curb cut he would probably have them go through the car wash lane. He asked if he could enlarge the curb cut that exits the car wash, so the tow truck could enter/exit through it.
Chairman Hill said that issue would need to be discussed with staff.
Chairman Hill asked for those in favor of the application to speak. Hearing no response he asked for those in opposition to come forward.
Galen Neil, 6010 N. Wyandotte, addressed the Commission. Mr. Neil stated that he and his wife own property legally described as part of Lot 1, Commissioners Plat of Palmer Home, more easily described as the corner lot at NE 58th Street and N. Grand. Mr. Neil said that the City knows this location, as they have used this property to store equipment and materials when improvements were made to the City. This was done without any cost to the contractors or the City. This was made as a donation by his wife and himself. Mr. Neil said that he is very much opposed to the CP-3 zoning abutting residential housing. This brings down property values. As one member of the Commission previously stated, these are nice homes. He would ask the members of the Commission if they would want this type of facility in their back yards. He would encourage them to vote no.
David Naylor, 5711 N. Grand, addressed the Commission. Mr. Naylor said that his property is south of the strip that is being rezoned from residential to CP-3. His concern is that this area will be used for a driveway now or in the future. His property sits will below the level of the ground behind them. From his experience, tow lots have cars that are left for an undermined amount of time in all kinds of condition that attract rats and animals. He is also concerned about the run-off. Mr. Naylor said that even with the 35’ buffer area and a 6-foot high fence it will not be covered up. He has grandchildren that come to visit often and it wouldn’t be a good environment for them. On the N. Oak side it would be fine, but all repair facilities run on air tools and that would be quite loud. If there are blowers on the car wash, that is more noise. There will also be increased traffic on N. Grand. Him and his wife and he believe most of his neighbors on N. Grand would like them to turn this proposal down.
Chairman Hill asked Mr. Perry what the hours of the repair shop and the tow lot would be.
Mr. Perry said there would be an “A” and a “B” shift. That would be 7:00 am-3:00 pm; and 1:00 pm-9:00 pm. Right now he only runs his tow truck until 9:00 or 10:00 pm, but if he negotiates the police contract he’s not sure what the hours would be. If the hours would be an issue, he could tow cars to the service station after a certain hour and then move them to the back lot during normal business hours.
Mr. Steffens asked what the strip of land between the houses would be used for.
Mr. Perry said it would not be used for anything. They will just keep it mowed. As far as rezoning, it can remain an R-1 zoning if necessary.
Ms. Newsom asked what the hours of the gas station are.
Mr. Perry said it will stay a 24-hour operation like it is now.
Chairman Hill suggested that the Commission conduct a site visit to gather some more information.
It was decided that a site visit would take place on Saturday, December 3, 2005 at 10:30 am. The public is invited to attend. Parking is available in the strip center parking lot.
Item 7 on the Agenda: Other Business
None.
Item 8 on the Agenda: Communications from the City Council and the
City Staff.
Mayor Rudi reminded
everyone of the Mayor’s Holiday Tree Lighting tomorrow night at
6:00 pm at the First
Bank of Missouri. Bring your donations
for the Northland Christmas Store. She
wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving.
Councilman Beer
announced that the next meeting regarding the downtown development will be on
December 1, 2005 at 7:00 pm. It will be
held at the Antioch Bible Baptist Church on NE 72nd Street. He encouraged all residents of Gladstone to
attend.
Item 9 on the
Agenda: Communications from the Planning Commission Members.
Ms. Abbott said that it doesn’t look like the contractor working on the Priscilla’s parking lot is installing the walkway/steps on the south side. There is also mud piled everywhere with no barrier for run-off.
Mr. Wingerson said that he will run by there on his way to the office tomorrow. He explained that the issue was raised about sedimentation into the detention basin during the hearing on Mr. Myers development. At that hearing, staff had answered that was a planned sedimentation. The detention basin is over-excavated to allow a certain amount of sediment to filter into the detention basin during construction. When the ground cover is restored, the basin is properly sized. As part of the parking project, staff had asked the contractor to excavate part of bottom of the basin to get the sediment out and also to increase the capacity of that basin. Mr. Wingerson said that he does remember a ramp being a part of the parking lot proposal for ADA purposes and he’s sure that will come when the final elevations are determined for the parking lot.
Ms. Abbott said that basin takes 8.9 cubic feet per second. When you multiply 7.3 that’s about 56 gallons of water per second that basin releases, so it’s no wonder that East Creek gets flooded.
Mr. Wingerson stated that detention basins are sized for nearly catastrophic 100-year storms. That is a massive storm that we have probably not seen for 3-5 years. That basin will only hold water when a 50,75 or 100-year storm event is approaching. The remainder of the time the water is flowing through. It is not designed for a normal springtime rain.
Ms. Abbott said that the afternoon that East Creek was out of it’s banks, there wasn’t any water in the retention basin either.
Ms. Newsom referred to the Zoning Bulletins that were in the Commissioner’s packets. One of them discussed a Comprehensive Plan that had never been incorporated into the Zoning Code. She asked if Gladstone’s was.
Mr. Wingerson answered that they are linked together. The Commission will see that in ZAPO the link is very clear.
Ms. Newsom said another one she was reading was regarding landscaping screening. Part of the regulation included 5 years of monitoring to ensure the screening was effective. She said that is something the City hasn’t included in it’s ordinances. She asked if that is something we can monitor and possibly prevent problems in the future.
Mr. Wingerson said that typically staff adds some phrases in the recommended conditions which relate to that. In Mr. Perry’s application, condition #2 states that all landscaping and related improvements shall be maintained for the duration of this approval. Another thing staff uses is perpetuity language. Monitoring is not something that is always followed up on years down the line.
Ms. Newsom said that one example is Osco. They came in with a landscaping plan, and then the plants didn’t even make it through the summer. Osco is on one of our main corridors and it doesn’t put the face on our community that we want.
Mr. Wingerson will have staff work on a way to monitor that and possibly put the burden of that responsibility back on the property owner.
Ms. Newsom invited everyone to an open house at her house after the next Planning Commission meeting on December 5, 2005.
Ms. Alexander wished everyone Happy Holidays.
Item 10 on the
Agenda: Adjournment.
Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 8:27 P.M.
Respectfully submitted:
______________________________________ Approved as submitted _____
Becky Jarrett, Recording Secretary
______________________________________ Approved as corrected _____
Brian Hill, Chairman