June 19, 2006

7:30 pm





Present:                                                          Council & Staff Present:


                        Ms. Newsom                           Scott Wingerson, Assist. City Manager

Ms. Alexander                          David Ramsay, City Counselor

                        Mr. Boor                                  Melinda Mehaffy, Economic Dev. Admin.        

                        Mr. Reynolds                           Becky Jarrett, Admin. Assist

                        Mr. Stanley                              Carol Rudi, Councilman           

Ms. Suter                                

Mr. Whitton

Ms. Abbott

Mr. Steffens

                        Mr. Shevling

                        Mr. West


Absent:           Chairman Hill




Item 2 on the Agenda:  Pledge of Allegiance.


Vice-Chair Shevling led the group in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.


Item 3 on the Agenda:  Approval of the June 5, 2006 minutes.


MOTION:  By Mr. Steffens, second by Mr. Whitton to approve the June 5, 2006 minutes as corrected.   


Mr. Boor said he abstained from the vote on the daycare on Charlotte at the last meeting.  Ms. Jarrett made note of the correction. 


The motion was amended to include the correction.  The motion carried.


Item 4 on the Agenda:  Communications from the Audience.




Item 5 on the Agenda:  Other Business


a.      Detached Accessory Structure Ordinance-  Building Official Napoli presented a revised draft of the detached accessory structure ordinance.  He began by stating that in the revised draft he added a definition of detached garages and divided it into attached and detached.  A larger change is in section 9.2300.050, which states requirements for detached accessory structures.  Mr. Napoli said that he did away with the chart that was in the last draft.  He highlighted some of the requirements:


1.      Only one detached accessory structure shall be permitted per lot, parcel or tract.

2.      Detached accessory structures greater that 200 sq. ft. shall have an approved footing and foundation.

3.      Comply with land disturbance as required by Title IX Building and Construction Ordinance (BACO), Chapter 2200 Erosion and Sediment Control.

4.      Be a minimum of 35 feet from front property line, but in no case shall it be constructed forward of the front line of the primary structure.

5.      Be a minimum of 25 feet from adjacent street property line on corner lots.

6.      Be no closer to the primary structure than 10 feet.

7.      Be no closer to adjoining properties primary structure than 20 feet.

8.      No more than 30% of lot can be covered with structures; this includes the primary structure, decks, pools and detached accessory structures.

9.      Detached accessory structures shall not be established prior to the primary structure being present or under construction.

10.  Detached accessory structures shall not be located within an easement.

11.  A site plan shall be submitted indicating existing structures and locations of proposed detached accessory structures.

12.  A manufactures product data sheet, or architectural plans and elevations shall be submitted.


More specifically, detached garages must comply with the following:


1.      The maximum square footage shall not exceed 5% of the lot size.

2.      The rear and side yard setback shall be a minimum of 9 feet.

3.      The maximum height shall be 10 feet, measured from the floor surface to the underside of the ceiling member.

4.      Exterior materials, colors and roof pitch must match the primary or be closely similar thereto.

5.      Driveway shall be constructed with approved materials and be installed so as to not adversely affect adjoining properties.


Detached accessory structures must comply with the following:


1.      The maximum square footage shall not exceed 10% of the primary structure.

2.      The rear and side yard setback shall be a minimum of 9 feet.

3.      The maximum height shall be 15 feet, measured from the floor surface to the ridge peak, but no taller than the primary structure.

4.      Exterior materials, colors and roof pitch must match the primary structure or be closely similar thereto. Exception: Sheds and storage structures 120 sq. ft. or smaller and no taller than 8 foot.

Ms. Alexander said that she has been an advocate of accessory structures and getting these rules ready, but she kind of “shot herself in the foot” recently because of the building additions that are illustrated in the MARC Idea Book.  She really likes the idea of the one car garage opening up three sides so you can drive through to a detached two-car garage.  She asked if that plan would take up more than 30% of the lot.


Mr. Napoli answered that it would depend on the size of the lot.  Typically, in most cases, a two-car garage would not exceed the thirty percent. 


Ms. Alexander asked about the houses in Bolling Heights.


Mr. Napoli said those houses are on fairly large lots and most would probably be able to fit it.  If not, the resident would always have the option to apply for a variance through the Board of Zoning Adjustment.


Mr. Boor asked about the definition of “easement” on page 2300-2.  He asked if the term “agency” is referring to the City in that definition. 


Mr. Napoli answered that agency in that case could mean a real estate agency or a corporation.  It would not include the City; they are covered elsewhere.


Mr. Boor asked what the “average height of the highest roof surface” was referring to on page 2300-3.


Mr. Napoli said that often times a roof will have three or four different roof pitches.  In a case like that you would take the average of those three elevations to come up with the building height. 


Mr. Boor also made a typographical correction:  page 2300-2, definition of an attached garage- “manor” is misspelled. 


Ms. Abbott asked about the definition of easement on page 2300-2, which reads “The easement shall be permitted to be for use under, on or above a said lot or lots.” 


Discussion ensued and Mr. Napoli said he would take a look at the wording.


Ms. Abbott said on page 2300-4 in the definition of “front” there is a typo on the second line.  She also asked if the current code requires structures over 144 square feet to have a footing and foundation.


Mr. Napoli answered that currently structures over 200 square feet require a footing.


 Mr. Shevling noticed on page 2300-5, under detached garages and detached accessory structures, item three refers to two different maximum heights.  He asked why that was.


Mr. Napoli replied that on a shed or detached accessory structure he would be measuring the overall height of the structure.  In a garage he would be measuring from the roof peak, because it has to match the main structure, so it might be higher than 10’.  In his research, he discovered that other cities seem to do the same thing - measuring from the inside.


Ms. Abbott asked if there is any way to add a recommendation that would require residents to have the accessory building painted or sided at the same time their house is.


Mr. Wingerson said staff can take a look at that before taking the draft to City Council, but his feeling is that it wouldn’t work.  The focus of this ordinance is scale and architecture. 


Ms. Newsom said that property maintenance should cover a structure that is in disrepair.


Mr. Wingerson said that property maintenance would cover that, but he is thinking about a time when code enforcement requires the house to be painted, but the shed is fine.  The house gets painted purple, but the shed is pink.  It is hard for the City to enforce something like that.


Mr. Whitton said that if the maximum height of a detached garage is 10’ that would eliminate two stories.  That would also keep a car enthusiast from putting in a rack.


Mr. Napoli said potentially, someone could still do it, but they’d have to get up into the roof space to get the height they would need.


Vice-Chair Shevling thanked Mr. Napoli for his presentation. 


Mr. Wingerson said staff will work on the Commission’s comments and probably look at taking it to the City Council as a study session in July.


b.      Comprehensive Plan Process-  Mr. Wingerson reported that the last comprehensive plan for Gladstone was done in 1993; the plan should be revised about every 10-15 years.  Gladstone on the Move spent a lot of time talking about the need to look at some specific things in our community through the comprehensive plan.  When the property tax passed, one of the issues involved was completion of a new comprehensive plan.  To help staff out, the City employed Olsson and Associates.  Olsson help draft the RFP that was at the Commissioner’s seat this evening. 


The RFP includes some background as well as thoughts and ideas behind the need to do a new comprehensive plan.  The first issue to be addressed is the changing demographics.  Over the next ten or fifteen years, Mr. Wingerson thinks that will be the biggest challenge that Gladstone faces as a community.  Some of the other issues are:  housing and neighborhood viability, transit, basic infrastructure, stormwater, telecommunications and technology, integration of redevelopment opportunities and the integration of he Village Center development.  Mr. Wingerson made note of the telecommunications and technology issue, which isn’t generally seen in a comprehensive plan.  The point is to have the conversation and decide how Gladstone needs to position iteself over the next 10-15 years to be ready for the next wave of technology.


Mr. Wingerson said that the process of creating the comprehensive plan would take about two years.  The budget allows for $50,000 in funding starting in July 2006.  Staff anticipates that money going towards data collection and analysis.  The following fiscal year would be all the public hearings, public meetings and the actual drafting and writing of the plan based on the data that is collected.  Potentially a third year would go into more advanced data collection such as enhanced mapping.  The entire project is somewhere in the neighborhood of $150,000 to $200,000.


Mr. Wingerson announced that this issue will be heard by the City Council next week at a study session and asked the Commission to let him know about any concerns they might have. 


Mr. Reynolds asked what year the comprehensive plan would be completed. 


Mr. Wingerson said it would probably be calendar year 2007 or 2008.


Mr. Reynolds said that is not a three-year time frame.


Mr. Wingerson said he wouldn’t really count the third year, which would be enhancing data.


Mr. Reynolds asked who would be sending out the RFP.


Mr. Wingerson answered that it would be Olsson and Associates.


Mr. Reynolds asked if it would be sent to just the Kansas City Metropolitan area or nationwide.


Mr. Wingerson replied that the focus would be in the metropolitan area because the term of the project is pretty long; however, it will be posted on the American Planning Association’s website.  His guess would be that they will have one team selected that is lead by a Kansas City firm with consultants from all over the region, if not the County.


Mr. Reynolds asked when a consulting firm might be selected.


Mr. Wingerson said it would probably be September or October of this year.


Mr. Reynolds asked when the RFP would go out.


Mr. Wingerson said once staff gets the Council’s input and they authorize it, the RFP should go out….July or August.


Ms. Abbott said that she would assume that this group (Olsson) would work with Gale Communities.


Mr. Wingerson said that Olsson and Associates is under contract to only help the City draft and then send out, receive, and screen the proposals.  Olsson is not eligible to bid on the comprehensive planning itself.  Their job will basically be done after it is bid to a consulting team.  Staff will probably recommend to the Planning Commission and City Council that the village plan be amended into the City’s existing 1993 Comprehensive Plan.  That will allow staff to move that project forward and have it moved into the new comprehensive plan.


Mr. Boor asked if Gladstone has an on-going or previous relationship with Olsson and Associates.


Mr. Wingerson replied that Olsson and Associates is primarily a civil engineering firm.  On the civil side, they have designed some public improvement projects.  Recently they have started a public administration consulting group and a sub-planning group within that.  Patty Gentrup, the former Liberty administrator, is the head of that group for Olsson.


Vice-Chair Shevling asked what action Mr. Wingerson is looking for from the Planning Commission. 


Mr. Wingerson said if any of the Commissioners have any input he would need it by next Monday. 


Item 6 on the Agenda:  Communications from the City Council and the City Staff.


Councilman Rudi thanked the Commission for coming tonight to speak about these two important items.  She appreciates their time.  She said that there are a lot of great things going at Oak Grove Park and encouraged everyone to try to get out there.  A new sign has also been erected at the park. 


Mr. Wingerson said there should be a Capital Improvements Committee appointment made at the next meeting.  This would be to fill Mr. Revenaugh’s place.  Also, there is no July 3, 2006 meeting.


Item 7 on the Agenda:   Communications from the Planning Commission Members.


Ms. Alexander thanked staff for all the exciting things going on in Gladstone.


Ms. Newsom thanked everyone who helped with Bluesfest.  It was a very successful and well attended event.  That being said, Gladfest is a mere 90 days away.  July 11, 2006 there will be a kick-off meeting for Gladfest at City Hall if anyone is interested in getting involved.  It’s a great way to become part of the community




Item 8 on the Agenda:   Adjournment


Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 8:05 P.M.




Respectfully submitted:


______________________________________    Approved as submitted _____

Becky Jarrett, Recording Secretary



______________________________________    Approved as corrected   _____

James Shevling, Vice-Chair