March 15, 2004
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 Lynn McClure, Econ. Dev. Administrator
Mr. Davis David Ramsay, City Counselor
Chairman Hill Councilman Wayne Beer
Absent: Ms. Lowe
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 March 1, 2004 Minutes.
Motion by Mr. Dillingham, second by Ms. Alexander to approve the February 2, 2004 transcription as corrected.
The minutes were approved as submitted.
Item 4 on the Agenda: Communications from the Audience.
Item 5 on the Agenda: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Special Use Permit at 7 NW 72nd Street. Applicant: Gary Howard (#1220).
Mr. Wingerson reported that the applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit to allow the operation of a limited car sales office at 7 NW 72nd Street. The current zoning of the property is CP-1, C-3 is required for automobile sales. Overall, it is a minimal request. There are several conditions listed in the staff report and draft ordinance. Basically, they limit attention-attracting devices, vehicle window signage; limits the use to two stalls only at the facility and overall it should have a limited impact. Mr. Wingerson added that he has a couple of other things he would like the Commission to consider. First, are there any implications or precedence set by the Commission by allowing the sale of cars on a property zoned less than C3? Second, he needs to draw their attention to some code enforcement activity that’s been on the property going back to 2002. The details are in the Commissioners’ packets. At this point, Mr. Wingerson stated that staff is recommending that the request be denied based on the code enforcement activity; however, he would encourage the Commission to have the policy discussion as it relates to the sale of cars from property zoned less than C3.
Ms. Newsom referred to the staff report and noted that the “parking required” and “parking provided” numbers were not filled in. She asked what those numbers might be.
Mr. Wingerson said that staff did not have the exact square feet of the building so it was not possible to calculate it accurately; but he believes that based on the scale and general size of the building, there are four additional parking spaces beyond code.
Ms. Newsom also asked about number eleven on the recommended conditions: total signage for each vehicle shall not exceed four square feet. Is staff talking about signage on the vehicle?
Mr. Wingerson answered yes.
Mr. Steffens questioned the hours of operation, 8:00 am to 8:00 pm, Monday through Sunday.
Mr. Wingerson said that is just a typical condition. That question hasn’t been specifically asked of the applicant. The applicant may wish to address that in his presentation.
Mr. Davis asked if the Commission has the precedence of allowing special use permits rather than a rezoning.
Mr. Wingerson replied that this application was filed prior to the Commission’s discussion of two weeks ago. It was applied for with the idea of allowing a limited use, a conditional use, in a zoning district that is lower than is usually required. In this case, it requires C3 and it’s C1, so the special use permit basically jumps that gap. Another way to do it would be a zoning change to C3.
Mr. Davis said that he guesses what he was going after was the precedence. He knows they did this for one property. Does the City have other precedence?
Mr. Wingerson said that to his knowledge, there are no other special use permits that allow vehicle sales from any property that is not appropriately zoned. There are numerous special use permits: dance studios, an accounting office, a couple of landscaping companies and then there are several home-based business special use permits.
Ms. McGuire said that Mr. Wingerson mentioned some citations and asked if Mr. Howard was current or if there are any fees involved.
Mr. Wingerson answered that the violations indicate a variety of different violations. To the applicant’s credit, it appears that all the violations were abated rather quickly.
Chairman Hill asked if the applicant would like to come forward.
Gary Howard, 2418 NE 79th Street, Kansas City addressed the Commission.
Chairman Hill asked if this was going to be a continuous thing or just occasional.
Mr. Howard answered that it would be occasional; and that he wouldn’t necessarily have two vehicles up there all the time. It would be more of just a hobby; a part-time job that he has been doing in the past. He didn’t realize that he didn’t have the correct zoning, so that is when he went to Mr. Wingerson in December and talked about it…when he got the last two violations. Those two violations were given to him on the same day, when he had two different vehicles up there. The violations stated that he had to have the right of the owner to sell the cars off the property. Obviously, he is the owner…or a family-owned business, so he called the inspector and told him about that. The previous citation that he had was a year before that when a car didn’t have the proper registration, so he put the tags back on the car after he talked to the zoning person. Mr. Howard stated that those are the only three citations that he has received. If there were more, on different cars, he did not receive them.
Chairman Hill asked if Mr. Howard had a dealer’s license.
Mr. Howard said that no, but he was in the process of getting that when he found out that he didn’t have the proper zoning.
Chairman Hill asked if anyone would like to address the Commission in favor of the application. Hearing no responses, he asked for those opposed to come forward. He then asked for discussion among the Commission.
Ms. Alexander said that she has a problem with used cars at that location. It doesn’t fit the area. She stated that she will vote against it.
Ms. Abbott said she has the same problem and will vote no as well.
Mr. Davis remarked that he would like some clarification. It appears that there have been ten citations, but Mr. Howard said that he has only received three of them. Does that imply a previous property owner was cited?
Mr. Wingerson said that Mrs. Howard has owned the property for quite some time. It may be that there could have been similar violations on the same day, two different vehicles.
Mr. Davis asked if Mr. Howard could comment on the disparity between the City’s records and his.
Mr. Howard said that he was not the only one using the property at the time; there were other tenants in the building that would sell cars that they owned. If they received citations, he was not aware of it.
Mr. Davis asked if they had his authorization to sell cars there.
Mr. Howard said yes, they did.
Ms. Alexander reiterated that they had his permission, but he did not have a dealer’s license.
Mr. Howard answered that was correct. The vehicles were their own personal vehicles.
Mr. Whitton said that he would kind of disagree; he doesn’t really see any problem with this. If you look across the street, a new car lot just opened this weekend. It’s C-3 and if you stand there you can see it from Howard Realty. This gentleman has four more spaces that he needs to run his business already. A businessman in this day and age needs a little help…if he can make a little money doing something in order to pay the high costs in taxes. Last week, the Commission allowed a construction company to go in a R-1 district…this is already commercial. He thinks you will find that you can sell cars in C-2 if it’s in with a new car dealership, which is only one category off instead of two. The C-3 is actually for the storage of vehicles, not actually a car lot and also for the repair of vehicles. Storage would fall in there, because you’re storing them until you sell them. Actually this gentleman is not asking for anything too much out of hand. He would say that the City has a problem with him doing this and has had for a while, but he’s just trying to make a living. If you walk out Mr. Howard’s front door and look up the street, you can see a car lot with probably 65 cars on it. Mr. Whitton stated that he will be voting in favor of the application.
Ms. Newsom said that she is not in favor of this particular proposal. The reason being, number one, is that that Mr. Howard has already said that this is an occasional use and it’s a hobby. Second point being, we are working very hard to revitalize this community to make it a strong business community and with that comes some constraints in order to put businesses where they are going to best serve the community and patch-working businesses throughout the City really bothers her. There are a number of used car lots all over the community and she thinks if Mr. Howard wanted to sell cars as a hobby he could consign it to some other lot and not use office property for used car sales. Ms. Newsom remarked that it is an inappropriate use of this parcel and she will be voting in opposition to it.
Mr. Whitton asked if the City has eliminated the used car lots…or the guy who sells cars on 72nd Street out of his house.
Mr. Wingerson asked where.
Mr. Whitton said just east past N. Troost. If we’re not going to allow a businessman in a commercial area to sell them, we sure as heck shouldn’t let people in their houses sell them.
Mr. Wingerson answered that the Council did pass more stringent requirements and he thinks that those situations have been greatly improved.
Ms. McGuire asked what the time frame on the special use permit would be.
Mr. Wingerson said that time frame would be at the Commission’s discretion.
Mr. Revenaugh said that while he is not really crazy about the idea. He thinks that there is possibly a natural prejudice against people selling used cars. It’s a mind-set. Everyone uses that term “he’s worse than a used-car salesman”. He thinks that with used cars comes some amount of natural prejudice whether we like to admit it not. He has really been on the fence on this. Mr. Revenaugh added that personally, there would not be a lot of harm letting him sell two cars off of the lot. He understands why it is distasteful to a lot of folks, but he’s just having a hard time with this one.
Ms. Newsom said that her thought is that they are setting precedence. The Commission hasn’t done this kind of very minuscule two-parking space, special use permit things over the last fifteen years or so that she remembers. What’s to keep everyone who has a parking lot from wanting to put two or three cars up for sale? Ms. Newsom said that it seems we are opening a can of worms that we don’t want to open up.
Mr. Dillingham said that he agrees with Ms. Newsom. It seems the Commission would be setting a terrible precedence if they were to vote in favor of it. The City has spent a lot of time working on the “face” of Gladstone and bettering it. This application does not seem to follow what the City has been working on. He will be voting no on this application.
Chairman Hill closed the public hearing.
MOTION: By Mr. Whitton, second by Mr. Dillingham to approve the Special Use Permit at 7 NW 72nd Street for a period of two years and to include the conditions listed in the draft ordinance.
Chairman Hill said that he too will be voting against this application for the reasons stated by Ms. Newsom and Mr. Dillingham. He thinks it is totally inappropriate to be taking parking spaces out of a commercial office building and dedicating them to used car sales. He can see where every business owner along N. Oak, 72nd Street and N. Antioch would love to have a little extra income by taking their front two parking spaces out and dedicating them to used car sales.
VOTE: Ms. Abbott No
Ms. Alexander No
Mr. Dillingham No
Mr. Davis No
Mr. Kiser No
Chairman Hill No
Ms. Newsom No
Mr. Revenaugh No
Mr. Steffens No
Mr. Whitton Yes
1- Yes, 10- No
Chairman Hill announced that the application would be forwarded to the City Council with a negative recommendation on March 22, 2004.
Item 6 on the Agenda: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a zoning change east of and adjacent to M-1 and north of 72nd Street. Applicant: Liggett Construction, Inc. (#1221)
Mr. Wingerson reported that the applicant is proposing to construct a single-family residential subdivision. The proposed subdivision will contain twenty-two (22) separate detached buildings. The area is characterized primarily by 3-plexes and 4-plexes and is located on about 23.5 acres. Overall, it is generally located north of Wal-Mart, next to M-1, west of Happy Rock Park and south of the Shoal Brook area. The property itself is difficult in terms of terrain and at one point was considered marginally undevelopable. The primary and only means of public access is provided by N. Indiana; however, the developer is proposing to construct an emergency access roadway from M-1. That issue has been discussed with the Fire Department and they support the concept. It has also been preliminarily discussed with Mo-Dot. Staff is recommending approval of the request. Mr. Wingerson highlighted some of the conditions in the proposed ordinance. The front yard setback is proposed at 25’ and side yard setbacks are not less than 9’ or 18’ between buildings. Stormwater plans shall be developed and approved by City staff. Trees marked for removal shall be inspected by City staff prior to removal. All of that is to preserve the outer ring (of trees) of the project. Staff is asking that trees be re-planted; one tree in the front yard, one in the rear yard. Yard lighting or street lights shall be installed by the developer. Mr. Wingerson explained that staff is currently negotiating with the developer to construct a walking trail from the end of the existing walking trail at Wal-Mart along M-1, around the project and then connecting up with the walking trail in Happy Rock West. There are some unknowns, but the plan is to provide a pedestrian-friendly environment that’s accessible for local shopping as well as recreational activities. Mr. Wingerson asked for questions.
Ms. Alexander asked how the developer is planning on keeping residents from using the emergency access at any time.
Mr. Wingerson said that there are several strategies in mind. Basically it will have a gravel base with pavers stones that would allow grass to grow through them. It will be a hard surface capable of supporting a fire truck, yet esthetically pleasing. There will also be a gate installed with a knox box which the fire department would have access to.
Ms. Newsom said she had a question regarding the terrain. She asked how it fairs during rainy or flood times.
Mr. Wingerson said that there is a labeled flood plain at the north end of the site. The proposed subdivision is a good distance away from that. In addition, the site also rises pretty dramatically to the south to a plateau. The development is in the most level part. He said that he didn’t see any flooding concerns.
Ms. McGuire asked if a water analysis has been done.
Mr. Wingerson answered that he wasn’t sure if the developer had gotten to that at this time. That would certainly be a requirement to protect downstream residents.
Ms. Abbott asked if they were planning a retention basin.
Mr. Wingerson said that possibly the developer could address that in his presentation.
Chairman Hill asked the applicant to come forward.
Jim Kraatz, John F. Lutjen & Associates, 8350 N. St. Clair, Kansas City, addressed the Commission. Mr. Kraatz introduced himself and the other representatives of the project, Terry Liggett, Chris Liggett and Maggie Jones. He explained that they are proposing a subdivision that consists of eighty-seven (87) single-family attached units and it’s generally located northeast of the Wal-Mart. Mr. Kraatz referred to his map. He said that they have a right of easement through previous deeds to connect to existing N. Indiana. The development would consist of a loop road with emergency access to Mo-1. Mr. Kraatz reported that he has correspondence with MoDot on the access and they have granted them preliminary approval for that connection. They have also met with the Fire Department about that access and their intention at this point is…there are a couple of different materials out there: one is grass pave and one is grass crete. Basically, they load-bearing structures that are placed under the ground and then covered up by grass. They will support weight that is designed for it, but it will look like it is just paved. The Fire Department has indicated that they are fine with that. Access would be controlled with a gate with a lock on it that only the Fire Department has the code to. He would imagine the developer would have to remove a section of guardrail and extend some guardrail at the top of the slope. There is a 3:1 slope on each side. This would be at the same level as the highway and provide an access. Mr. Kraatz said that it is his intention to preserve trees along the edge of the property to provide a buffer. He pointed to some areas on the map where they will be doing grading. A yellow line on the plan indicated where the trees would remain. It is their intention to provide yard lights instead of streetlights. These would be attached to the house and provide a nice decorative and secure environment and not provide a lot of excess light that is typical of other subdivisions.
Mr. Kraatz said that he would like to address the walking trail. Currently the existing walking trail ends at the end of the Wal-Mart property- he indicated this area on the site plan. Some of the issues involved in connecting these trails are: two areas along the proposed trail are steep…20-33% slopes…so they would have to build a trail to connect. There is a grade difference for about 30-40 feet in one area. He believes they will be able to work with the City on how to make the trail meet up. He would hope to have more answers by the City Council meeting.
Mr. Kraatz reported that the developer met with the adjacent property owners on March 9, 2004. He was not in attendance, but was informed that they were of general consent. In fact, some of the residents showed an interest in purchasing one of the proposed homes. Mr. Kraatz submitted photos to the Commission of examples of other developments that were similar to this one. One was Meadowlane, at 72nd & Brooklyn. One is Stoneridge, at 67th & Grauer. One is at Stafford Place, which is at 101st & N. Oak. He asked if the Commission had any questions of him.
Ms. Abbott asked if the homes would have basements.
Maggie Jones, 121 W. Woodlands Drive, addressed the Commission. Ms. Jones answered that the homes would have basements. She is marketing similar units now at Stoneridge, which is at 67th & N. Grauer. Those market from $175,000 to $192,000. All of the units are ranch units with double-car attached garages, full basements; everything is two bedroom and two bath. Ms. Jones said that the homes usually appeal more to the more mature person; either the singles or people that have retired. Approximately half of our people are still working. All of the units are 100% owner occupied; they have no rental units. These have been pretty successful when done in other neighborhoods…Stratford Place. Mr. Liggett was in partnership with Larry Mitchell there in Meadowlane. Those were built late 80’s and are still very beautiful and well kept.
Ms. Alexander asked if she built the ones between I-29 and Waukomis.
Ms. Jones said that is Stoneridge. Those are the ones they are just finishing up now. They are very pretty and will finish similar to the ones proposed tonight because of a rather large hill.
Ms. Newsom asked if maintenance will be provided.
Ms. Jones answered yes, lawn care, snow removal and exterior maintenance will be provided.
Mr. Davis asked what the square footage of the units would be.
Ms. Jones said they will be from about 1,210 to about 1,317 square feet. There are four basic plans.
Chairman Hill asked Mr. Kraatz what the grade of the emergency access would be.
Mr. Kraatz said he is looking at a range of about 8%.
Chairman Hill asked how snow removal would be handled.
Mr. Kraatz said that it will just be grass, so the trucks would drive over it. The Fire Department said that isn’t an issue. They have chains if they seem to get stuck, but they didn’t seem concerned about it. He continued by saying that he didn’t really address the storm drainage. There is a flood plain north of the property on the base of the cliff. Mr. Kraatz pointed to the site plan and stated that the property is about forty (40) feet higher than the flood plan area. He doesn’t envision detention on the site. They are located adjacent to a floodway and typically you do not want to detain the water at that point, you just want it to move into the floodway and move out. Mr. Kraatz said that he has not looked at a drainage study yet at this point, but it is one thing that will have to be done although it doesn’t seem as though it will be a problem.
Chairman Hill asked Mr. Kraatz if he has done any kind of a traffic study; thinking mostly of 72nd and N. Indiana where the traffic will all come out.
Mr. Kraatz replied no.
Mr. Davis asked Mr. Kraatz if he had commented on how he planned to handle all the open space in the project. He is impressed with the amount of open space and asked if there will be a homeowners’ association.
Terry Liggett, 130 The Woodlands, addressed the question. Mr. Liggett said that there will be an association to take care of the land. He will probably try to leave them as natural as possible. Mr. Liggett gave the Commission some background on himself. He has been building in Kansas City and Gladstone since 1971, starting in Gladstone with Christopher Heights and Heiden Estates and 72nd and N. Indiana is quite familiar with him because he lived there for twelve years and developed that subdivision. Mr. Liggett said he didn’t think there is a traffic problem there since the City re-designed the street in that location. As far as the emergency road…they have an emergency road in the Woodlands right next door to Maggie’s house…because there is only one way in and one way out of the Woodlands. You don’t know it’s there because it’s covered with grass. Mr. Liggett continued by saying that his original conversation with Scott and the City was that they would cooperate in every way possible; providing easements and that sort of stuff. Then the staff report came out asking them to build it. Due to the terrain, it’s going to be an expensive proposition to get it built. He’s not so sure they are interested in doing that.
Mr. Davis asked if someone is buying a property in the subdivision, are they buying a percentage of the open land.
Mr. Liggett said no, there is no percent of open land; it belongs to everyone in the subdivision. Normally he tries to give the rear twenty-five (25) feet of the unit to the owner so if they want to fence it for a dog, they can.
Mr. Davis asked if the homeowners association would hold the common land.
Mr. Liggett answered yes. That was the way it was in Meadowlane, Stratford Place and some of the other developments he has been involved in.
Mr. Davis said he was trying to compare it to Brooktree because that is the one he is most familiar with.
Mr. Liggett said that is a different deal because in Brooktree they have a lot more amenities than what his development has. He just has vacant ground, but no pool or clubhouse. His property is mowed, plowed and maintained unlike Brooktree.
Mr. Davis asked if after Mr. Liggett builds the subdivision, he is out of it.
Mr. Liggett said that he sets up the association from the get-go and they run it for a certain period of time. It is usually limited by time and number of votes and they do it for nothing.
Ms. Alexander asked what the homeowner’s dues will run.
Mr. Liggett answered about $75.00 a month.
Chairman Hill asked for anyone in the audience in favor of the application to come to the podium.
Barbara Bowers, 7257 N. Indiana, addressed the Commission. Ms. Bowers said that she is a little concerned about the traffic. It’s a dead end street at this time and she is concerned about the traffic that she will have to contend with. She asked for clarification on what type of housing it will be.
Mr. Liggett said they will be 3 and 4-plexes. He said there might also be some duplexes in the project and asked Ms. Bowers doesn’t she live in a duplex.
Ms. Bowers said yes, that she doesn’t have any objections, she guesses, about a duplex. Her biggest concern is traffic because she has been spoiled and has such a quiet neighborhood. She said that with eighty-seven (87) units, there will be 87 automobiles coming down the street…that’s a lot of traffic.
Floyd Jones, 7300 N. Indiana, addressed the Commission. Mr. Jones said he has the ten acres that adjoins this property on the south. He said that he knows the applicants and have been business associates with him. They do good work. He has gone out and inspected the houses that they are building right now off of Grauer and this is a neighborhood that he can probably live with. Mr. Jones pointed out that he does have a little concern about not having a traffic signal at N. Indiana, which will probably end up being put in sooner or later. That intersection is a bear. It’s not so bad now since the City has taken it down, but if you don’t mush right along when you come out of there, it can be a problem. Overall, he is in favor of the project.
Marilyn Ahnefeld, 7325 N. Bellefontaine, addressed the Commission. Ms. Ahnefeld said she is not opposed to this application from what she has viewed; however, she would like to have a better look at the parameter of the trees that was mentioned. Mr. Kraatz showed Ms. Ahnefeld the yellow-highlighted area on the site plan. She said she is aware that the City of Gladstone recently received the designation of “Tree City USA” and the City can be very proud of that. In that vein, that is something that she personally feels so strongly about and would encourage the retention of as many trees as possible and the re-planting of as many trees as possible. She recalls that the developer mentioned one in the front and one in the back; she asked that additional trees be considered for each property. Ms. Ahnefeld said one other comment she would make with reference to the traffic is that if you have eighty-seven (87) units you don’t just have eighty-seven (87) cars because you have two garages for each of the units and each one may not have two vehicles, but you would probably have half again as many. There will be an impact on traffic. She ended by saying that she does believe it is a good plan from what she had viewed and her family would have no objections.
Chairman Hill asked if anyone would like to address the Commission in opposition of the application.
Scott Demoss, 7328 N. Bellefontaine, addressed the Commission. Mr. Demoss said that he bought his house two years ago and it’s probably just something realtors say, but he was told it was a green space behind them. It wasn’t in writing or anything. The yellow highlight line representing the tree line corresponds very nearly to his back fence, so it looks like the closest unit will be about 100-120 feet to the northeast of this back fence. Part of what he thought about is wildlife too. He knows this is about money and there’s no money in wildlife, but there’s a lot of wildlife. There’s wild turkey, deer, raccoons, groundhogs and he’s seen their habitats being diminished because of the development to the west of M-1 and that’s a natural process. He’s sure that when the neighborhood he lives in was developed that they displaced animals and things, but he did think someone ought to mention that they are there and they’re not going to be there any more after this comes about. The idea of the walking trail…it sounds like that is going, going gone, but it was a nice idea. Mr. Demoss said that he is going to miss having the timber behind his house and it was a consideration for buying his house less than two years, but he doesn’t have a better alternative. This is progress, he’s sure. As the conservation people and the hunters will tell you, there’s too many deer and not enough people.
Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. He announced that a site visit would probably be appropriate in this case and discussion ensued regarding when it would take place. It was decided that the Commission would meet at 10:00 am on Saturday, March 20, 2004. Mr. Jones said the group could park at his property up by the barn. Chairman Hill thanked him for his offer.
Chairman Hill explained to Mr. Wingerson that he feels this is a good development, but he does have concerns about traffic at 72nd and N. Indiana and he also has the feeling that because of the site, this isn’t a development that has a lot of budget and a lot of profit in it, so he doesn’t want to overburden it with a traffic study. He doesn’t want to get into some kind of a problem at 72nd and Indiana. He would rather not waste the developer’s money on a traffic study, if there’s some way it can be economical; maybe have that (money) go towards the walking trail or something.
Mr. Wingerson said that he can have some basic traffic information for the Commission at their next meeting.
Chairman Hill said that even beyond that, this will probably be more of a retirement-like community, he would guess, and so it’s not like you’re going to have two cars leaving every house at 8:00 am and getting back at 6:00 pm. That’s another consideration.
Ms. Bowers said that there are not guarantees that this will be a retirement community because the developer did indicate that there were some working people. Even if you had one car per unit, that’s eighty-seven (87) cars…she just can’t hardly feature that.
Ms. Alexander asked if there is any other access area other than M-1 that could be used.
Mr. Liggett said that about three weeks ago he had a discussion with Ben Rose who has an option to buy Mr. Pipen’s ground which is just to the north of the existing duplex subdivision…he’s not sure of the name…but it’s basically designed for one street to take you all the way to N. Indiana from Antioch Road. Eventually that street will provide some relief at least in that direction.
Item 7 on the Agenda: Other Business.
Mr. Wingerson said that at their last meeting, the City Council asked staff to combine the detached building ordinance with ZAPO. In the interim, the Council allowed staff to adopt the detached building ordinance as policy so there will be some staff training done soon to make sure everyone understands. Hopefully, this new policy will catch some of the building being started this Spring.
Item 8 on the Agenda: Communications from the City Council and the City Staff.
Mr. Ramsay reported that he attended the MARC forum last week and that it will be repeated in May. He said it would be very informational for new members.
Mr. Wingerson reported to Chairman Hill and Mr. Whitton that the ruts at the apartments on N. Indiana have been addressed. He spoke with the manager at the complex and she is supportive of putting up some decorative rail or fence to deter cars from that area. He also mentioned that Mr. McClure, Economic Development Administrator, is here this evening. As part of his development plan, he is going to be allowed to present some of the planning applications to the Commission to learn what it’s like to sit in a different spot with a different level of exposure. At the next meeting Mr. McClure will present an application for a zoning change and a special use permit at Englewood Baptist Church.
Item 9 on the Agenda: Communications from the Planning Commission Members.
Chairman Hill asked Mr. Wingerson if he could have some one visit Home Depot about their parking lot. He noticed that they are starting to “move out” into their parking lot and it seems to be causing a lot of traffic congestion.
Ms. Newsom asked if there is weekend code enforcement for all the cars popping up for sale.
Mr. Wingerson answered yes.
Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 8: 35 P.M.
______________________________________ Approved as submitted _____
Becky Jarrett, Recording Secretary
______________________________________ Approved as corrected _____
Brian Hill, Chairman