January 3, 2006

7:30 pm





Present:                                                          Council & Staff Present:

                        Ms. Newsom                           Mayor Carol Rudi

                        Ms. Alexander                          Councilman Wayne Beer

Mr. Boor                                  Scott Wingerson, Assist. City Manager

                        Mr. Stanley                              Melinda Mehaffy, Econ. Dev. Admin.

                        Mr. Shevling                             David Ramsay, City Counselor

                        Ms. Suter                                 Becky Jarrett, Admin. Assist

                        Mr. Whitton                                                    

Mr. Revenaugh

Ms. Abbott

Mr. Steffens

Chairman Hill


Absent:           Mr. Reynolds




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 December 5, 2005 minutes.


MOTION:  By Ms. Newsom, second by Mr. Whitton to approve the December 5, 2005 minutes as submitted.    The minutes were approved as submitted.


Item 4 on the Agenda:  Communications from the Audience.




Item 5 on the Agenda:  PUBLIC HEARING:  On a request for a Special Use Permit and Site Plan Revision at 7514 N. Oak Trafficway.  Applicant:  Ron Goens.  (File #1266).


Mr. Wingerson reported that this request contains two actions.  One is a site plan revision which would allow construction of a 9,400 sf retail building.  The other is a special use permit which would allow use of the property in a way that is more intense that the existing zoning allows.  The property is generally located at the southwest corner of 76th Street and N. Oak Trafficway and is the vacant Ryan’s Restaurant.  There is an abundance of parking that served Ryan’s Restaurant. 


Mr. Goens is proposing to move parts of his existing businesses into this location which includes a rental business and offices for a painting contractor.  Mr. Goens will explain more in his presentation.  On the site plan there is an enclosure shown which will be a masonry wall with wrought iron gates.  There will be outdoor storage in this area along with a propane refilling station.  The construction of the retail building is not expected to be constructed immediately; however, staff did include a condition that states that the building will be constructed and occupied prior to the expiration of the special use permit (5 years). 


Mr. Wingerson explained that there are approximately fourteen conditions to each of the requests.  He highlighted two of them.  One is the construction of the retail building.  The second is the dedication of right-of-way on N. Oak for planned improvements by the City.  Overall, staff is recommending approval of the special use permit for five years and conditional approval of the site plan.


Ms. Newsom asked about the parking in the staff report which states that 275 spaces are required and 133 are provided.


Mr. Wingerson thought the 275 was a mistake and he would refigure the amount of spaces needed during the meeting.


Ms. Newsom asked what type of zoning this business needs.


Mr. Wingerson answered C-3 or CP-3.


Ms. Newsom asked why it would need C-3 rather than C-2.


Mr. Wingerson said it would be because of the outdoor component of the business.


Mr. Revenaugh asked for clarification on the last paragraph of the analysis which states that: “Clearly the equipment rental business alone would not be the highest and best use for this facility.  However, combined with the retail expansion which utilizes existing parking, the project more closely maximizes land use.” 


Mr. Wingerson answered that a typical Ryan’s Steakhouse is a large building with a massive field of parking, much more than is required by most cities.  In more modern times the parking at the Ryan’s Steakhouse would be allowed to construct would be less because it takes up so much land.  In re-use of a facility like this you want to try and more closely match the needs of the business to the parking requirements.  By itself, the rental portion would be a moderate to low volume; however, combined with the retail building, which would be a moderate to high use, it will fill the parking lot and result in better land use. 


Mr. Revenaugh asked what type of business is going to utilize the future retail building.


Mr. Wingerson said it is being built as a spec building, so we won’t know what type of tenant will be there.


Ms. Abbott asked if there will be a water run-off study done with the construction of the retail building. 


Mr. Wingerson answered that there is a stormwater detention basin that exists on the north side of the property.  Staff would assume that because the entire area is asphalt now that the demand on the stormwater basin wouldn’t increase, but when the building permit is applied for it will be looked at again.


Mr. Boor asked what the intention is for the retail building.


Mr. Wingerson said he does not know at this time.


Mr. Boor asked if that would have to be approved at the time it is constructed.


Mr. Wingerson answered that the specific use wouldn’t have to be.  It could contain anything allowed in this zoning district, which is CP-2.


Chairman Hill had questions about the recommended conditions.  What is meant by outdoor?  Number thirteen refers to outdoor storage of trucks and number five (spr) refers to the outdoor storage of goods. 


Mr. Wingerson said that how he was defining outdoor in those conditions was if it was outside of the brick enclosure.


Chairman Hill questioned number thirteen which talks about outdoor storage of trucks in excess of one ton or heavy equipment in excess of 2.5 tons being prohibited.  He felt that stating no trucks in excess of one ton would cover both instances.


Mr. Wingerson said that the thought process behind that condition was to make sure that, if approved, the business could still function. 


Chairman Hill asked if the brick enclosure could be extended a few spaces to the west and then make it required that any trucks or heavy equipment be stored behind the brick enclosure.


Mr. Wingerson said there would be no physical reason why that couldn’t be done.


Chairman Hill said that his concern with this project is having bulldozers and trucks sitting in the parking lot, when it could be screen and be more appropriate for the zoning classification. 


Ms. Abbott commented on number five of the site plan revision conditions.  (No outdoor storage and/or sale of goods and merchandise is allowed on the premises.)  She said if they are going to sell propane tanks they can’t sell them inside the building. 


Mr. Wingerson said what he tried to do is take two ordinances, the site plan revision and the special use permit, and combine them making them as consistent as possible.  In writing this, he was assuming enclosed meant behind the masonry wall which is where the propane tanks would be. 


Mr. Goens said that the tanks are stored outside where they are going to be filling them.  The customer pays inside and then goes outside to get the tank. 


Mr. Boor asked what type of painting Mr. Goens business does.


Mr. Wingerson said Mr. Goens could probably answer that in more detail, but he believes it is painting contracting, not on-site painting.


Ms. Newsom said that number seven (sup) and number ten (spr) regarding signage seem to be in conflict with each other.


Mr. Wingerson replied that is just the difference between the very specific special use permit ordinance and the more general site plan ordinance.  In this case, the freestanding sign that is proposed refers back to the special use permit condition. 


Ms. Newsom also asked about hours of operation in condition number eight (sup), 6:00 am to 10:00 pm.  In number two (spr) it refers to trash pickup being limited to 8:00 am to 6:00 pm, which conflicts with number eleven (sup) which states that all business deliveries and trash deliveries shall occur during allowed business hours only.


Mr. Wingerson suggested taking “trash pick up” out of number eleven of the special use permit conditions.


Mr. Stanley asked how tall the enclosure will be.


Mr. Wingerson answered that it has to be a minimum of 6’, maximum of 8’.


Chairman Hill asked the applicant to come forward.


Ron Goens, 6114 NW 101st Terrace, Kansas City, addressed the Commission.  Mr. Goens said he owns Goens Brothers Rental over on 76th Street.  He has been in business since 1969 in the Gladstone area.  Since he moved to 76th Street, he has spent about $600,000 on renovations and improvements.  He encouraged everyone to go by there and take a look.  Mr. Goens said his intent with the new property is to get more exposure.  He spends a lot of money on advertising in the yellow pages and still people in Gladstone do not know where he is located.  As far as the painting operation, it will just be the offices that are going to be relocated to the new building.  This will help pay for the property.  Mr. Goens said the rental company cannot withstand the entire load of the expense. 


Ms. Newsom asked if Mr. Goens plans to continue to occupy the 76th Street building.


Mr. Goens answered that he will occupy part of it and rent out the remainder.


Mr. Boor asked Mr. Goens what the spec building will be suitable for.


Mr. Goens said he has interest from a few people.  Sherwin Williams had shown interest in it as their outlet store, but no one particular is in mind.


Chairman Hill asked Mr. Goens if he had read the recommended conditions and if they were acceptable to him.


Mr. Goens said he has reviewed them and he believes they are acceptable to him.


Chairman Hill asked if he is agreeable to expanding the brick enclosure as he had mentioned earlier to include vehicles and heavy equipment.


Mr. Goens answered that the only time they have a truck there is when it is loading and unloading. 


Chairman Hill spoke of condition number twelve (sup), “All materials, products, or other items offered for sale or lease shall not be displayed in any parking area or parkway.”  In addition, number thirteen (sup) also speaks of heavy equipment storage.  He thought that if there was something for lease, it would probably be displayed in the parking area, such as trucks for rent.


Mr. Goens said that he does not rent trucks such as U-hauls. 


Chairman Hill asked if those two conditions would be okay with him.


Mr. Goens replied that he has no problem with those conditions.  If for some reason, he had a big truck he would just take it over to his 76th Street location.


Mr. Whitton said that this type of exposure should probably triple or quadruple his business, which will bring in a considerable more amount of sales tax money for the City.  He said he thinks it is a nice project and a good use for the property.  He asked Mr. Wingerson if it fits the plan for the North Oak Corridor.


Mr. Wingerson replied that both the North Oak Corridor Study and the Comprehensive Plan indicate this property for general commercial.  It’s probably not ideal, but with the addition of the retail space it comes a lot closer to center.


Mr. Whitton remarked that it is a nice brick building and he thinks it would be an asset to the City. 


Mr. Steffens asked if the bobcats and the snorkel trucks that he rents out would be kept at the N. Oak location.


Mr. Goens said that some of them would, but they would be behind the fence; what equipment can’t go behind the fence will go back to the 76th Street location.  He understands the Commission’s concerns with a bunch of unsightly equipment sitting out there, and that is not his intent.


Chairman Hill asked for those in favor to come forward.


Tom Sims, 1904 NE 76th Street, addressed the Commission.  Mr. Sims said that he owns the warehouses next to Mr. Goens current business.  He said Mr. Goens is a very good neighbor.  He has been in Gladstone for thirty-five years and he would like to keep him in the City.  He is neat and clean.  He never has stuff out in front of his building now, all the rental equipment stays in the back of the building.  He pays his bills, he treats people good.  He has one of his trailers on Kansas City property to advertise and he has tried to buy that property in the past.  If he buys that property and moves, he’ll be out of Gladstone.  We need to try and keep some small businesses.  He has good credibility and that is important to the community. 


Chairman Hill asked for those opposed to come forward.  There was no response.  He asked for further discussion from the Commission.  The public hearing was closed.


Chairman Hill asked Mr. Wingerson about the additional right-of-way that was being dedicated to the City.  He wanted to make sure that with that dedication, the property would still conform to the N. Oak streetscape. 


Mr. Wingerson replied that approximately a 10.3’ right-of-way is requested along with a 5’ temporary construction easement.  One tree is planned to be removed, which the City is required to replace. 


Chairman Hill asked if a condition could be added regarding the tree.


Mr. Wingerson asked if that would be added to the site plan or the special use permit.


Chairman Hill said that probably he would add it to the site plan.


Chairman Hill asked what control the City has in regards to the appearance of the spec building.


Mr. Wingerson answered that the City has site and design standards that would govern that as well as the building permit that is approved by the City Council.


Ms. Newsom asked if Mr. Wingerson recalculated the parking requirements.


Mr. Wingerson said the correct calculations are 75 required and 133 are provided.


Mr. Wingerson suggested a condition number fifteen (spr), “Required streetscape trees and landscaping shall be maintained in perpetuity.”


Chairman Hill said that would be fine.  He also noted that number ten (sup) is missing.


Mr. Wingerson said he would also clarify the language to differentiate the outdoor storage from the screened area.


MOTION:  By Mr. Revenaugh, second by Mr. Whitton to approve the Special Use Permit and Site Plan Revision at 7514 N. Oak Trafficway.


Ms. Newsom said that she has concerns over the site plan as it stands now.  She really appreciates Mr. Goens and his business and the good community neighbor that he has always been, but her concern is passing out a special use permit for a business that should be a C-3 business and not a C-2 business…the ambiguity of the parcel to come later and how it fits into the plan and the traffic flow in general...the five-year leeway to build the building.  She will not be able to vote in favor of this application as it stands now.


Mr. Revenaugh said he would like Ms. Newsom to explain in greater detail what her objection is to leaving the five-year window open to the building.  He would like to try and understand.


Ms. Newsom said that not knowing the type of business that’s going to go in there and the traffic flow that would come in and out of it and how it would mesh with everything else is what causes her concern.  The intersection at 76th & Oak is horrid.  She doesn’t feel it is a good fit for this property.


Mr. Revenaugh asked if isn’t it true that the type of business is regulated by the zoning.


Ms. Newsom said the type is regulated by the zoning, but as far as the site plan and the traffic flow, it’s the site plan that they are approving tonight.  She asked Mr. Wingerson if that was correct.


Mr. Wingerson replied that the use is regulated; however, the specific tenant to determine further issues that Ms. Newsom speaks of cannot be determined yet.


Mr. Revenaugh asked isn’t that true with just about anything that the Commission approves, such as 64th & Prospect.  There were no specific tenants there, but they went ahead and approved it.


Ms. Newsom said she voted against it too because of the ambiguity.


VOTE:            Ms. Newsom              No                  

                        Ms. Alexander           Yes     

Mr. Boor                    Yes     

                        Mr. Stanley                Yes

                        Mr. Shevling              Yes                 

                        Ms. Suter                   Yes

                        Mr. Whitton               Yes                             

Mr. Revenaugh          Yes

Ms. Abbott                 Yes

Mr. Steffens               Yes

Chairman Hill Yes


The motion passed.  (10-Yes, 1-No)



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


Mayor Rudi welcomed everyone back from the Holidays.  She thanked the Commission for all their discussion on this hard application.  She said that there is some training coming up for Planning Commission members and she hoped that everyone would be able to make time in their schedules to attend it.


Councilman Beer reminded the Commission of some important upcoming dates at the City:  January 12- Community Center preliminary planning open house (5:30-7:00).  January 24- Gladstone on the Move update meeting (still preliminary).  February 2- Downtown visioning session at Antioch Bible Baptist Church, 7:00 pm.


Mr. Wingerson welcomed Ms. Suter to the Planning Commission.  Ms. Newsom and Chairman Hill had requested City Council minutes be provided in the packets at previous meetings.  Mr. Wingerson asked the Commission to be patient while staff is getting on the correct timing schedule for providing those.



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


All the Commissioners welcomed the new member, Ms. Suter.


Ms. Suter said she was looking forward to serving on the Commission. 


Ms. Alexander thanked staff for their help in making decisions.



Item 8 on the Agenda:  Other Business


A.                 Election of Officers


Ms. Alexander nominated Mr. Hill for Chairman.  Ms. Newsom nominated Mr. Revenaugh for Chairman.  Mr. Revenaugh made a motion to close the nominations.  The Commissioner’s recorded their votes on paper.  The votes were read by Mr. Wingerson.  Mr. Hill- 6 votes, Mr. Revenaugh- 5 votes.  Mr. Hill would remain Chairman.


Mr. Whitton nominated Mr. Revenaugh as Vice-Chairman, Mr. Boor made the second. 


Ms. Alexander made a motion to cease all nominations and Mr. Revenaugh be elected by acclimation.  All said “Aye”.


Ms. Alexander nominated Ms. Newsom as Secretary.


Mr. Boor made a motion to cease all nominations and Ms. Newsom be elected by acclimation.   All said “Aye”.




Item 9 on the Agenda:  Adjournment 



Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 8:30 P.M.




Respectfully submitted:


______________________________________    Approved as submitted _____

Becky Jarrett, Recording Secretary



______________________________________    Approved as corrected   _____

Brian Hill, Chairman