March 1, 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. Dillingham              David Ramsay, City Counselor

Mr. Davis                                 Councilman Wayne Beer

Chairman Hill                            Councilman Carol Rudi

Ms. McGuire                           

Ms. Newsom

Mr. Revenaugh

Mr. Steffens

Mr. Whitton


Absent:           Ms. Lowe

                        Mr. Kiser



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 February 2, 2004 Minutes.


Mr. Dillingham noted two corrections.  On page forty-nine “Mr.” Newsom should be changed to “Ms.” Newsom.  On page sixty-four, line twenty-two the sentence after “Mr. Ramsay, we have a tie vote” should be what Mr. Ramsay said to Chairman Hill. 


Motion by Ms. Newsom, second by Mr. Dillingham to approve the February 2, 2004 transcription as corrected.   


The minutes were approved as corrected.                    


Item 4 on the Agenda:  Communications from the Audience.




Item 5 on the Agenda:   PUBLIC HEARING:  Consideration of a Special Use Permit at 6615 N. Antioch.  Applicant:  MBW Construction  (#1218).       






Mr. Wingerson reported that the applicant tonight is requesting a Special Use Permit that would allow the operation of a building contractor’s office.  The site is on Antioch Road, north of St. Andrews and north of property commonly known as Johnson Farms.  The parcel contains about 1 ½ acres.  There is a house on the property that has been renovated under a valid building permit and the applicant proposes to build an accessory barn with a separate driveway to service that.  Typically, there is not a large volume of traffic in these kind of things.  There are a lot of staff conditions, something like twenty-four.  Most of which are typical to a Special Use Permit.  Mr. Wingerson said that he would like to call the Commission’s attention to the last few conditions.  Fire hydrants shall be installed within 150’ of all portions of the structure.  A gravity sewer shall be installed in accordance with City specifications.  There is some question as to whether or not that will be required or a septic tank, given the location of existing sanitary sewer mains in the area.  He believes there is a 300’ limit.  If sanitary sewer is available within 300’, then it would be the applicant’s responsibility to tie into that.  A little more research needs to be done on that.  Payment shall be made in lieu of requirements to construct curb, gutter, storm and sidewalk.  That is a pretty typical requirement; however not often seen in a Special Use Permit because they are temporary.  In this case it may be necessary, because of the investment being made by the applicant.  That dollar amount hasn’t been calculated yet, but it can certainly be done and reported back to the Commission.   


Ms. Alexander said that she lives right across Antioch to the west from the property in Meadowbrook Townhomes and the Board had looked at this and had a question as to whether there would be construction equipment on the property.  If so, could it please be either in a building or behind fencing?


Mr. Wingerson answered by saying that the applicant will talk about it more in his presentation, but his understanding is that yes, there will be construction equipment.  One of staff’s recommended conditions is that any construction material be stored inside a building. 


Ms. Alexander noted that the applicant has made a major improvement in that building.


Mr. Davis asked what the appropriate zoning would be for a building contractor’s office.  He also wondered why we aren’t changing the zoning. 


Mr. Wingerson said that it is always a question.  The applicant wanted to do a zoning change.  Antioch Road is primarily residential in nature, with the school to the south, Comprehensive Plan and R-1 zoning over to Johnson farms and then residential generally all the way north except for Wayne Croy Automotive which is the only commercial.  Not knowing what would occur on the south, commercial zoning didn’t make a lot of sense to him, using the Comprehensive Plan as a guide.  That is why there is a Special Use Permit application.


Mr. Davis said that a Special Use Permit theoretically means that we consider this use temporary and assume it’s coming back.  He would feel more comfortable considering a zoning change.  It seems like we are almost in denial that this is a commercial use.  Putting in a contractor’s office with vehicle storage is not an appropriate use of R-1. 


Mr. Wingerson said that is right, it is not an R-1 use, that’s for sure.


Ms. McGuire asked what zoning the Baldwin property has.


Mr. Wingerson said that is a commercial zoning, but right off he doesn’t know which one.  Probably C-2.


Ms. McGuire asked if this would application would apply for the same zoning.


Mr. Wingerson said it could be appropriate if the Commission desired and the Council supported it.


Mr. Davis said that one of the concerns with that is by maintaining this property as R-1, we’re implying that we are opposed to any flexibility on Antioch Road and that lot is probably questionable in terms of if it’s an appropriate use for R-1.  It’s across the street from multi-family; it’s a major traffic artery.  Mr. Davis said that he always has a concern about spot-zoning, but the proposed use seems to be most compatible with it’s location and the traffic volume on the street.  That is why he would feel more comfortable giving an honest vote if he were voting on a permanent use.  He asked if the Planning Commission could change the application to what they  feels is a more appropriate action.


Mr. Wingerson said he doesn’t believe that the Commission can change a special use permit to a zoning change; however the Commission could recommend that and the applicant could apply for that.  He could use the deposit from the special use permit to cover the costs of the zoning change.  He would caution the Commission that it is 1.5 acres out of several hundred that is developed residentially.  The only commercial uses being the building in the triangle at Pleasant Valley Road and 65th Street, the cemetery, if you consider that commercial, and Mr. Baldwin’s property and then Wayne Croy and that entire corridor.  Johnson farms directly to the south of this property is the largest undeveloped tract left in the City.  He would caution the Commission to consider very thoroughly commercial zoning adjacent to what could be a very, very nice residential development.


Ms. Newsom said that to follow-up on the rezoning, that would need to be re-advertised for neighbors and property owners.  She doesn’t think the Planning Commission could initiate that.


Ms. Alexander said that she would prefer a temporary permit.  She has no objection to what they have done; they have improved the property, but she would like to see what is going to develop around it.


Mr. Steffens said he would like to see it stay residential as well.  Just for the case that what might develop around it, since there is such a big tract of land. 


Ms. Abbott said that she would like to know more about the size of the building and if it would be a permanent structure or a temporary one if this special use permit is not extended to a permanent category.


Mr. Wingerson answered that the applicant will cover the size of the building in his presentation, but he is guessing that the proposed barn might be 25’X60’. 


Ms. Newsom noted that the Commission is still in the public hearing gather information, and this is not the time for the Commission to be giving opinions.  That comes under discussion, does it not?


Chairman Hill said that is correct.  He called on the applicant for his presentation.


Keith McConnell, 7819 N. Chestnut, President of MBW Construction.  Mr. McConnell said that basically his vision is to…when you drive by there and he’s operating his business you will not know that they are a construction business.  You  won’t see any equipment outside.  It’s his company’s opinion that when they have clients come, they don’t want them to know that there are bobcats, dump trucks and other vehicles that are there.  They would all be parked inside the barn during non-operating hours.  Their basic conception would be some type of a carriage barn that would fit into the area.  He said that he understands some of the concerns, but he has the same concerns because as you know there is the Peterson property directly adjacent to the Johnson farm and also to his property that he has.  He is one of the anchor builders in that subdivision, where there will be estate-sized homes.  In the future if he was denied the continuing permit…he thinks that what he has done will fit in with everything around there.  Mr. McConnell said that if you look at the house now, it doesn’t look like a $150,000 home.  The carriage garage will have the same concept.  Right now if you drive by you will see a temporary approach put in that he uses to drive some of the larger equipment in there when they pour the garage out back.  That approach will be taken out as soon as that is done.  Mr. McConnell said that he and his brother have operated a business in this area for close to twenty-two years.  They have had offices in Gladstone out of their homes.  He doesn’t believe they have ever had any negativity back towards them.  They are a big participant in the community, from building observation towers for Winnetonka High School, for Oak Park High School, concession stands for Oak Park High School.  They are getting ready to do a concession stand for the baseball team over there.  He thinks they have given back as much as they have taken from the community.  He thinks they would be a good applicant.


Chairman Hill asked where on the site he proposes to build the carriage house/barn.


Mr. McConnell said it is directly south of the existing house and set back.


Chairman Hill said that staff has proposed several recommended conditions and asked if Mr. McConnell is familiar with them.


Mr. McConnell said yes, there are twenty-four of them.  He has concerns on six of them; most of which have already been addressed.  The biggest hurdle right now is the septic system.  They were notified when they came out to set a new water meter that they were going to have to hook up to the sewer system.  He called whoever it was in City Planning…or water and sewage control and talked with someone and told them that he would love to but there is no sewer within 300’ of him.  The closest one is about 600-700 feet away from him.  The gentleman he spoke with told him that was fine.  He said he would be glad to hook onto sewer as soon as it comes up the street. 


Ms. Newsom asked Mr. McConnell to show her on the site plan where the barn would be placed.  Mr. McConnell proceeded to do so.  She asked how large the structure would be.


Mr. McConnell said it would be about 25’ deep and anywhere from 40’-60’ long. 


Ms. Newsom asked what materials it would be constructed of.


Mr. McConnell answered that it would be the same thing as the house is.  It will look exactly similar to the house except it will have garage bays on the front and a garage bay on the north end. 


Mr. Steffens asked if all the equipment would be parked in there.


Mr. McConnell said yes, it will be.  There will be no construction equipment parked outside at any time.  You will see no bobcats and hopefully you won’t see any vans or dump trucks.  He doesn’t think the vans and the truck are that big of an eyesore as much as the dump truck and the loaders and all the equipment that attaches to those. 


Ms. Newsom said that in Mr. McConnell’s letter it said something about erecting and installing a business sign within the guidelines, etc.  She asked where and what kind of sign he had in mind, because normally with a special use permit signs are not allowed. 


Mr. McConnell said it would be at the north side of the driveway and it would probably be inset in stone with some brass or stainless steel letters with “MBW Construction”.


Chairman Hill asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of the application.


Alana McConnell, 7819 N. Chestnut said that she had some photos of the structure that she would like to show the Commission, if anyone had not had a chance to see it yet.  In her never-be-humble opinion, she thinks it is very attractive and it is very appealing from the street. Their ultimate goal is…they are very low volume…is to be an asset to the community.  They certainly don’t have any desire to be a detriment at all.  They strived really hard in the rebuilding of Carriage Hills through the tornado…they are very active in the Gladstone community and Clay County.  They would like to just take this opportunity to enhance the City of Gladstone.  Ms. McConnell handed the pictures to the Commission.  She said that she would also like to stress that they are very low volume.  Her sister-in-law and herself are the office help.  It’s really just them that are in the office.  One concern she does have is that the recommended conditions stated the hours of operation as 6:30 am to 7:00 pm.  She wants to be forthright in saying that on occasion they do have to meet with clients after 7:00 pm, sometimes as late as 9:00 pm.  She appreciates the Commission’s consideration.


Chairman Hill asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission in favor of the application.  Hearing no response, he asked for those in opposition to the application to come forward.  There were no responses. 


Chairman Hill closed the public hearing and asked for discussion from the Commission. 


Ms. Newsom said that she would begin by stating that she is appreciative of the work the McConnell’s have done in Gladstone and with the tornado restitution and definitely the structure looks better than what it did.  He concern is, in almost direct opposition to what Mr. Davis was proposing earlier…they are working on the strategic plan in the City and they are talking about concentrating commercial, concentrating residential.  The more we spread commercial areas out, the more likelihood we have of not having a central commercial area.  That be said, a business like this does not lend itself to a normal strip mall, downtown type deal, it’s a different kind of business as Mr. Baldwin has shown across the way.  Her concern is that the property all around there is destined to go to some very nice home sites, she thinks, in the future when the Johnson farm chooses to sell and develop; therefore, rezoning this property to commercial level would not be appropriate at that point and time.  She has a feeling that as business continues to move further north and further north the applicant may have another place and time they would move and then we would be stuck with a commercial property.  Ms. Newsom said she has some heartburn about a special use of this permit of this magnitude…installing a barn and a big structure.  She said she could probably live with it as an individual, although she is not extremely excited about the land use of the property.  She has no problem with the business operation, the people who are running it…that’s all fine, it’s just the use of the land bothers her at this time.  Considering how things she’d like to see go in that area as far as land use to nice residential lots, she can see doing this as a special use permit, however she would like to change it to a two year permit and see how things fly.  If we compare apples to oranges, Mr. Baldwin’s property was in a commercial area when it was built.


Ms. McGuire asked if Baldwin’s property was already zoned commercial when they bought it.


Mr. Wingerson said that Mr. Baldwin’s property started as a special use permit.  Mr. Baldwin purchased it from Lasko Builders and wanted to make some changes.  That is when the zoning change came forward; being adjacent to the maintenance area of the White Chapel Cemetery.


Mr. Davis said that he will be voting in support of this application because he thinks that it would be appropriate for the land.  He will vote reluctantly because he thinks that approving it as a special use permit more or less says that we consider the improvement to be temporary.  In his opinion, 24’X40’ outbuildings are not appropriate for R-1.  The investment that is going to be made does not imply anything less than permanent.  The question is: “Does it belong here or doesn’t it?”  It appears that a vote for a special use permit is more or less saying we can tolerate commercial in that location as long as we call it something else.  Mr. Davis said he finds that to be an inconsistent message from the City.  He would much more prefer to vote for the appropriate zoning, but he does not care to penalize the developer.  For one, he thinks he has a legitimate proposal for that piece of land.


MOTION:  By Mr. Davis, second by Ms. Newsom to approve the Special Use Permit for MBW Construction at 6615 N. Antioch for two years and also including the twenty-four conditions that staff proposed.


Mr. Wingerson asked if there is any desire to extend the hours of operation to 6:30 am to 9:00 pm.


Mr. Dillingham asked about adding a condition regarding the sign. 


Discussion ensued regarding which conditions would be added and changed.


Ms. Alexander said that she would like to see the permit be for five years since they are making such an investment in the property.  By the time five years is up, they can see about the rezoning.


Ms. Newsom said that the only reason she went for the two years is because the improvements were made without the special use permit in place.  They stuck their necks out and made the improvements without the special use permit or the zoning in place.  That doesn’t figure into the land use in her interpretation. 


Mr. Steffens agreed that they should stay with the two years.  If there are no problems in those two years, it should sail straight through.


Ms. McGuire asked if the applicant is willing to go to that expense for two years. 


Mr. McConnell said he is not sure what improvements Ms. Newsom was saying that he made without the special use permit.  Right now it is basically still set up for a home. 


Ms. Newsom said that is just it, he has made it a very livable home and that’s fine.  The improvements have been done, he can still use it as a single-family home, he hasn’t lost anything should the special use permit be turned down tonight. 


Mr. McConnell said that is correct, but they are giving him a two year permit and he is going to invest another $100,000 into the property.  That’s a two year gamble; then the Commission is going to decide that it doesn’t fit the area. 


Ms. Newsom replied that it currently doesn’t fit the land use for that area.


Mr. McConnell said that when you drive by and you see that house you’re not going to know it’s an office.  If they develop $350,000-$450,000 homes right next to it, you’re not going to know.


Ms. Newsom said that remains to be seen.


Mr. McConnell said that you’re not going to rip that house down because you’re building houses $450,000 homes next to him.  What he is saying is that the buffer factor is not there; he doesn’t see it.  He said he knows the Commission is concerned about it and he can understand it, but he thinks that a two year permit is kind of a gamble for him to invest $100,000.  If the Commission is saying that they don’t want him to put a 25’X60’ barn in there, then that’s fine.  He is up for their suggestions.  He can go 40’X40’.  He thinks that he is more of a positive thing for the community than any houses that would be built next to him, than the apartments across the street.


Ms. Newsom said that she is not argueing that point, she is arguing the land use issue for that total parcel of property.  His parcel from the water tower on through Johnson farms.  She said she isn’t going to argue with him.


Mr. McConnell said he doesn’t mean to be argumentative, he just trying to think that if he’s going to drop another $100,000 on the building, he would like to have a little more than two years.


Mr. Davis asked if he had asked for five years or if it was suggested by staff.


Mr. McConnell answered that it was suggested by staff.


Mr. Davis asked if the Commission could get clarification from staff as to why they proposed five years.


Mr. Wingerson said that the term wasn’t specified in the application, but anticipating the level of investment five years seemed like an appropriate amount of time to him.


Mr. Revenaugh said that Mr. McConnell had stated that he will be an anchor builder in the neighborhood around his property on Antioch?


Mr. McConnell replied that yes, directly adjacent is the Peterson land that they own.  The homes are estate-sized, running about $750,000-$1,000,000.  He already has like five build jobs in there.  There are only about thirty-five lots.  His new home that he is building in there is directly connected to his property.  He wouldn’t be building a million dollar home in there himself thinking that this property wouldn’t fit into the community.  He assumes the Johnson farm will be developed some day and if he could talk her into selling it today, he would buy it. 


Mr. Revenaugh asked if the size of the outbuilding would meet the guidelines of the draft ordinance that the Commission has been working on.


Mr. Wingerson said that when Mr. McConnell told him the size of the building, that is the first thing he thought of.  The size he is talking about would be appropriate for a 1.5 acre lot. 


Ms. McGuire said that she too lives in the area and has seen what they have done so far.  She thinks that she is in support of the application; however she would prefer that it be a rezoning.  She would also like to see the permit for five years…it sits next to the water tower!  What they have done is a huge improvement.  She asked Mr. McConnell if he had a drawing of what the outbuilding might look like.  


Mr. McConnell answered that he did not.  He was planning on submitting it when he applies for the building permit.


Ms. Alexander said that with the investment they are making, she would like to see the permit for five years. 


Mr. Davis asked Mr. McConnell if two employees was all he was going to need to have. 


Mr. McConnell said that 90% of his employees is family and staff had indicated to him that family does not usually qualify as employees. 


Mr. Wingerson said that is correct. 


Mr. Davis said that he didn’t know why the Commission would be opposed to growth and if the company grows they may need more than two employees.    He would prefer we remove the stipulation or increase the number of employees.


AMENDED MOTION:  By Mr. Davis, second by Ms. Newsom to amend the motion as follows:


To approve the Special Use Permit for MBW Construction at 6615 N. Antioch for five years.

Change condition #3, numbers of employees to six.

Add to #6, The detached building shall be compliant with the detached building ordinance.

Change condition #9, hours of operation to 6:30 am to 9:00 pm.

Change condition #21, Staff will research the City requirements on the sewer and where it 

                                       is actually located.

Add a sentence to condition #23 “The existing approach shall be removed within one year”.

Condition #24, add a sentence that says “Payment shall be due at time of accessory

                                      building permit receipt”.

Add Condition #25 which permits a single compliant monument sign.


Chairman Hill said that he will be voting for this.  He has confidence in the McConnells that it is going to be an attractive site.  It will be an asset to the community and not in any way, a negative use of the land.  He realizes that around it will probably be estate-sized homes, but also across the street you have multi-family.  This is not going to be an intensive use, he thinks it will be a fairly minimal use.  Chairman Hill said that he believes it will actually create some type of a buffer.  He asked if there was any further discussion.  Hearing none, he called for the vote.


VOTE:            Ms. Abbott                Yes                 

                        Ms. Alexander           Yes     

                        Mr. Dillingham           Yes

Mr. Davis                   Yes

Chairman Hill Yes

Ms. McGuire             Yes                                         

Ms. Newsom              Yes

Mr. Revenaugh          Yes

Mr. Steffens               Yes

Mr. Whitton               Yes


10- Yes, 0- No


Chairman Hill announced that the application would be forwarded to the City Council with a positive recommendation on March 8, 2004.


Item 6 on the Agenda:  CONSIDERATION OF A FINAL PLAT:  Santerra at Shady Lane, Shady Lane and N. Oak Trafficway.  Applicant:  Reveda Development, LLC.  (#1219) 


Mr. Wingerson reported that that this is the project behind Gladstone Plaza.  It has been officially named Santerra at Shady Lane.  The purpose of this plat is to dedicate streets and easements and begin the development process.  In effect, there are several tracts created.  The tracts will be further subdivided in the future as foundations are installed and the units are ready for individual sale.  The overall plat is extremely consistent with the planned development approval from a couple of months ago.  There are three recommended conditions:


1.      Covenants and declarations be submitted for staff review.  The reason for this is to make sure that the setbacks are consistent with the Commission’s recommendations and the Council’s approval.   Mr. Wingerson said that one thing staff is requesting in the covenants is that one side of each street be required “no parking”.

2.      Fire hydrants shall be spaced no more than 300 feet apart.  Fire Department turnarounds shall be installed where required.  All of that is provided for in the construction plans. 

3.      Additional easements shall be provided based on final construction plan review.  Some of the stormwater is continuing to evolve towards it’s final form. 


Mr. Wingerson ended his presentation by saying that Mr. Eisner and Mr. Greble are in the audience if anyone has any questions for them.  Staff is recommending approval.


Ms. McGuire asked how many units there are going to be, the price range and if they will be owned or rented.


Richard Eisner, 11605 Pawnee Lane, Shawnee Mission, Kansas answered that there are 124 living units, the price range is from $130,000-$200,000 and they are for sale.


MOTION:  By Ms. Newsom, second by Ms. Alexander to approve the final plat of Santerra at Shady Lane.


VOTE:            Ms. Abbott                Yes                 

                        Ms. Alexander           Yes     

                        Mr. Dillingham           Yes

Mr. Davis                   Yes

Chairman Hill Yes

Ms. McGuire             Yes                                         

Ms. Newsom              Yes

Mr. Revenaugh          Yes

Mr. Steffens               Yes

Mr. Whitton               Yes


                        10- Yes, 0- No


Chairman Hill announced that this application will proceed to the City Council next week, March 8, 2004.


Item 7 on the Agenda:  Other Business.




Item 8 on the Agenda:  Communications from the City Council and the City Staff.


Mr. Wingerson said that the Commission can probably tell by the mailings, that they are going to be busy for the next couple of months with public hearings.  City Attorney Ramsay had a good idea to look at ZAPO as it relates to detached buildings and see what areas around where detached buildings would fit, and could probably be adopted at the same time.  A really big portion of ZAPO, with the exception of the new members, Mr. Whitton, Ms. McGuire and Mr. Davis, have already seen and had study sessions on ZAPO and could probably be adopted.  The exception would be landscaping and overlay, which have different notice requirements.  Staff is contemplating, rather strongly, bringing the very significant part of ZAPO to the Commission in a study session perhaps as early as the next meeting for a quick review, publish the thing and move forward if that’s acceptable.  It’s been talked about and reviewed for ten years; it’s maybe time to move forward.  Mr. Wingerson said he is open to the Commission’s input.


Ms. Alexander said she has had very strong feelings about the size of the outdoor buildings and the way that a lot of them are too large for the lot and they don’t fit the décor, but she was in a meeting this afternoon talking about Cheryl Delmont’s….it’s on Indiana and N. Bales…she has a saltbox with weathered wood and they obviously owned a lot and a half and they had built a two-car garage for his antique cars in this same material.  It fits the area.  It’s very attractive and from what the McConnell’s are talking about on the barn, that will fit too.  There are some large outdoor buildings that will work, but most of them on these smaller lots…the size needs to be regulated.


Mr. Wingerson thanked the Commission for their input.  The last thing is regarding a brochure from MARC.  They are putting on a series of workshops.  He thinks they really took some of the input from the last one that a lot of the Commission went to.  They made the workshops in the evening, from 6:00 pm to 8:30 pm.  Their presenters look to be outstanding; people most of us know.  For example on March 11, 2004 the workshop is about the duties and responsibilities and ethical considerations and quorums and all of those kinds of things.   It’s led by Steve Chinn, who is one of the best land use lawyers in the country.  On the 11th, Ms. Newsom has offered to serve as one of the question and answer panelist during that discussion.  She would certainly appreciate the Commission’s support.  He asked that anyone interested let him know. 



 Item 9 on the Agenda:  Communications from the Planning Commission Members.


Mr. Davis said that he remains concerned about the action the Commission took this evening.  He still thinks it projects an image that commercial is acceptable as long as we call is something else.  He knows that at least one of the Planning Commissioner’s agreed with his position, so he would like to make a motion.


MOTION:  By Mr. Davis, second by Ms. McGuire that the Commission encourage changes in land use that are permanent to be zoning changes rather than special use permits, unless the use is clearly temporary.


Ms. Newsom said that she doesn’t like special use permits and never have been fond of them, but there seems to be a niche and a need at different time for special use permits.  She guesses what is scary in the kind of evolution they are looking at is trying to re-green Gladstone is that zoning can be so permanent and special use permits do give you the option of pulling it if something doesn’t work out, especially if there may be neighborhood opposition.  Each case is an individual case.


Chairman Hill said that he agrees with Ms. Newsom.  Tonight the circumstances with the McConnells and MBW…he is very comfortable with.  One of the first conditions is that if there is any change in ownership, the permit is gone;  that’s not the case with a zoning change.  A zoning change is forever.  As long as the McConnells are in there, there’s not going to be a conflict.  It’s a unique operation that fits the property.  We can go ahead and vote on the motion, but that’s his take.


Mr. Davis said that is why the “Planned”  provision is in the Zoning Ordinance, so that we approve that specific site plan.  A zoning decision is supposed to be regarding buildings and structures on the land, not the person involved.  Tonight’s debate says that the majority of the Commission agree that this use is an appropriate use.  To say that this use is only appropriate as long as this particular gentleman owns it, that really goes beyond what you try to do in the Zoning Ordinance.


Ms. Newsom said that if it would have been a rezoning tonight, she would have been a resounding “no”.


Mr. Davis asked if she would have voted no if it was a “P” zoning.


Ms. Newsom said yes.


Ms. Alexander agreed she would have voted no as well.


Mr. Steffens agreed.


Mr. Whitton said that he lives right there and he came here tonight he was highly opposed to it.  He was going to vote no for it.  As far as he is concerned, it should have to be C-3 zoning in order to have storage of equipment there.  Mr. Whitton said that he has C-3 zoning…he has been in business for 34 years.  You have to have C-3 zoning to store vehicles.  He said he had a hard time voting for it as a special use permit.  He said that he has never seen anybody give a special use permit in this City for something where vehicles are going to be stored and construction equipment…it’s always been daycare or a dance studio.  He was going to vote against it, but thank God he votes last.  He can’t imagine the Commission even considering this…the way this City has always been and with the houses that are going in over there.  Mr. Whitton said that he doesn’t know Mr. McConnell from Adam, but everyone says he does a great job and he obviously does, the house looks beautiful, but he’ll be the first guy up here throwing a fit if he has a dozer sitting outside.  He was on the Council when the Baldwin property came through…and if Mr. Baldwin isn’t C-3, he should have to be.  Mr. Whitton said that he, for one, has taken a lot of flack from the City over vehicles in a C-3 zoning, which he is zoned for and paid highly for.  He doesn’t like somebody to just go in and say “here you go, you can have it in the middle of a residential area”.  He has a problem with that.


Ms. Alexander said that since they are building the outbuilding to look like the house, it could be sold as residential if they decided to be elsewhere later. 


Mr. Whitton said that actually a $100,000 investment is no investment for a commercial piece of property in Gladstone.  That’s a drop in the bucket.  If he can get by with $100,000 and run a commercial operation, he’s not going to be hurting at all for five years.


Mr. Davis said that the decision tonight was it is a good land use and if so, why not make it permanent?


Mr. Whitton said he wouldn’t have voted for it permanently.


Mr. Davis said that what Commissioner’s have said here tonight is that they will accept it on a temporary basis, and he doesn’t agree with that. 


Chairman Hill asked if Mr. Davis would like to vote on his motion.


Mr. Davis said that it looks like it is 2-10 against what he said.


Ms. Abbott said that she is not in favor of issuing special use permits, but there are extenuating circumstances.  She would hate to say that the Commission would not issue any more special use permits in lieu of zoning changes because it depends on what the use is and where it is.


Mr. Davis said he thinks it’s clear, we’re 2-10, so he’ll withdraw the motion.


Chairman Hill asked if there were any further comments.


Ms. Newsom said that it is always interesting to read the transcription when the court reporter does it, versus Becky, because Becky makes us sound nice.  We’re not interrupting each other and talking over each other the way the court reporter made us look.  She appreciates having Becky here to do the minutes.


Ms. Alexander thanked the McConnell’s for the work they have done so far.  It certainly is an improvement.


Chairman Hill said that one thing he wanted to mention is the apartments that back up to 70th Terrace and 70th Place and Indiana.  They are getting to where they almost have a driveway up to the back of those apartments over the grass.  There are ruts that are right next to the sidewalk.  There is no effort by the apartment owners to require it’s tenants to use their parking lot.  Something needs to be done to restrict access. 


Mr. Wingerson said he will check on it.


Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 8:41 P.M.


Respectfully submitted:


______________________________________    Approved as submitted _____

Becky Jarrett, Recording Secretary


______________________________________    Approved as corrected   _____

Brian Hill, Chairman