April 7, 2008
Present: Ms. Newsom Council & Staff Present:
Ms. Alexander Les Smith, Mayor
Ms. Babich Carol Rudi, Councilman
Mr. McCullough Carol Suter, Councilmember
Mr. Garnos Wayne Beer, Councilman
Mr. Shevling Scott Wingerson, Assistant City Manager
Mr. Whitton David Ramsay, City Attorney
Ms. Abbott Melinda Mehaffy, Economic Dev. Admin.
Mr. West Becky Jarrett, Administrative Assistant
Absent: Mr. Steffens
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 March 17, 2008 minutes.
MOTION: By Ms. Newsom, second by Mr. Whitton to approve the March 17, 2008, minutes as submitted. The motion carried.
Item 4 on the Agenda: Communications from the Audience.
Item 5 on the Agenda: PUBLIC HEARING: On a request for a Special Use Permit at 5940 N. Flora. Owner/Applicant: Creative Kids Learning Center. File #1313.
Mr. Wingerson reported that this application is for a renewal of an existing Special Use Permit to allow the operation of a daycare. The subject property on Flora is near an elementary school and a City park and has been used as a daycare, at minimum, for twenty-five years; however, that history may go back closer to forty years. It is a single-family home being used solely for the purposes of a daycare. In 2003 the applicant, Ms. Dillon, came to the Planning Commission and City Council and requested a special use permit. That permit was granted for a period of five years under a set of circumstances and conditions. Mr. Wingerson said that it is now renewal time and the applicant has requested a twenty-year special use permit; however staff is slightly uncomfortable with the duration of that request. Mr. Wingerson suggested that a ten-year time frame would be more appropriate. There have been no complaints on the property from neighbors or from customers. Staff is recommending approval for a period of ten years subject to the same conditions that were approved in 2003.
Chairman Hill asked if there were any questions for Mr. Wingerson.
Ms. Newsom asked if the permit Ms. Dillon received in 2003 was her first permit.
Mr. Wingerson answered that it was the first permit for her; however, there have been two previous five-year special use permits to a previous owner and prior to that a special use permit was not required.
Chairman Hill asked if there is any signage on site.
Mr. Wingerson replied that there is a small sign that indicates the name of the business.
Chairman Hill asked if something should be added to the ordinance that states what signage is permissible.
Mr. Wingerson said that the Planning Commission could add a condition about signage.
Chairman Hill asked the applicant to come forward.
Tina Dillon, 7511 N. Kentucky Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64158, addressed the Commission. Ms. Dillon stated that she is the owner of Creative Kids Learning Center and has owned it since 2003. She is requesting a ten-year special use permit this time because she has no desire to be leaving the facility anytime in the near future. She said that she had an opportunity to meet someone from the family who had the house built and was told that when her family sold the house over forty years ago it was sold to two sisters who used it for a Montessori school. Ms. Dillon added that there are no houses immediately on either side, front or back of her daycare. She offered to answer any questions.
Hearing no questions, Chairman Hill asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in favor of the application. There was no response. He asked if there was anyone to speak in opposition. Hearing no response, he closed the public hearing.
MOTION: By Ms. Newsom, second by Ms. Alexander to approve the Special Use Permit at 5940 N. Flora for a period of 10-Years with the addition of condition #10 that would address the signage and state that it should not exceed the existing square feet and height of the current sign, have no interior illumination and meet applicable setbacks.
VOTE: Ms. Newsom Yes
Ms. Alexander Yes
Ms. Babich Yes
Mr. McCullough Yes
Mr. Shevling Yes
Mr. Whitton Yes
Ms. Abbott Yes
Mr. West Yes
Chairman Hill Yes
The motion carried. (10-Yes, 0-No)
Item 5 on the Agenda: PUBLIC HEARING: On a request for a Site Plan Revision at 6450 N. Prospect (Tower Plaza Lot 1). Owner: Northlander Properties, LLC. Applicant: Zone Equities, LLC. File #1311.
Before the staff report, Mr. Wingerson briefly reviewed the items in the Commissioner’s packets. In addition, he informed them that the applicant had distributed a handout regarding potential alternate uses for the site should it be approved.
Mr. Wingerson began his presentation by stating that originally in Tower Plaza there were three or four total parcels. One parcel is at the corner of 64th and N. Prospect and is currently BankLiberty. Directly behind or to the west, is a second out-parcel with another building that is currently occupied partially by Tiffany And. Further to the west and to the back is where there is planned to be two separate strip retail-type buildings. He said that the last lot, and the subject of tonight’s site plan revision, is to the north of BankLiberty, fronts on Prospect and sides on the main drive through Tower Plaza.
Mr. Wingerson continued by explaining that on the parcel that is the subject of tonight’s discussion was planned a fast food restaurant. It was a fairly typical fast food restaurant that contained a building, a drive thru and parking. The request tonight is to change that specific lot from a suggested and approved fast food restaurant to a retail store that will provide retail auto parts. The Planning Commission considered a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance several months ago and the Council considered that same amendment which ultimately leads to a site plan revision today.
Mr. Wingerson reported that the request itself is to build a retail auto parts store and the associated parking, signage and landscaping. From a technical perspective it complies with the current Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Wingerson said that in the time that he has served as staff to the Planning Commission this is one of the most difficult recommendations for him to make. The reason is because it draws very clearly two separate perspectives. One perspective has to do with neighborhood compatibility and how the impact of this development impacts property owners and single-family homes to the north. When you compare the currently approved plan to what is proposed for a retail auto parts store there is a big difference on how they impact the neighborhood to the north.
Mr. Wingerson went on to explain the second perspective which has to do with the compatibility of this use and this building in the Tower Plaza development and the greater Gladstone community as a whole. Ultimately, those two perspectives are what will need to be blended in order for the Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council.
Mr. Wingerson highlighted overall building compatibility. The current development plan is characterized by buildings with primarily synthetic stucco and natural stone highlights. The current proposed building is a textured masonry product; the colors are very compatible with the rest of the site.
Mr. Wingerson turned back to the staff report and some of the proposed conditions. Many of the fifteen recommended conditions are drawn directly from the ordinance that approved the Tower Plaza overall development. Those include hours of operation, trash pick-up, overnight storage, dumpster enclosures, rooftop and ground level equipment, retaining walls and signage. The new conditions added for this request have to do with landscaping and the free-standing monument sign being compliant with City Code. He said that staff is recommending approval of the request and offered to answer any questions at this time.
Ms. Newsom asked about condition #1, hours of operation from 6:00 AM to 12:00 Midnight. She said that when they thought it might be a restaurant she knows that would have been a proper time frame, but with an auto parts store she doesn’t see that those hours would be necessary.
Mr. Wingerson replied that it is certainly in the Planning Commission’s perview to recommend to the City Council a change in hours.
Ms. Babich asked if there is a traffic impact at the location.
Mr. Wingerson answered that during the original Tower Plaza development project there was a traffic study and the improvements to M-1 that occurred prior to any buildings being constructed were implemented. Because of the reduction in traffic projected between a fast food restaurant and an auto parts store, staff didn’t think that an additional traffic analysis would be warranted.
Chairman Hill asked the applicant to come forward.
Pete Hall, 5621 Clinton Place, Gladstone, addressed the Commission. He stated that he is here tonight representing Zone Equities, the purchaser and developer of the property. He introduced David Bentley an architect from AutoZone in Memphis. Mr. Hall stated that the after market business has really changed over the years. The industry has become very, very sophisticated. The investment in an auto parts store today is approximately $2,000,000. These folks have models and it is imperative to them, before they spend two million dollars, to make certain this is the right location for an auto parts store. Mr. Hall said from personal research that AutoZone stores have always been well stocked and very well lit. They are clean stores. They have very friendly employees that are well trained. He explained a little bit about the industry. AutoZone is a publicly traded Fortune 500 Company. There aren’t a lot of those in Kansas City; but this one is. It is very customer-oriented; that is their mainstay. They are very charitable givers to 501(C)3 and the communities that they serve. That doesn’t mean the City is going to get a lot of money out of them, but it’s good to know that big corporations can do that as well.
Mr. Hall continued by saying that AutoZone is the largest retail outlets of a sixty-five billion dollar industry. They have about four thousand stores. He reported that their stores average fifteen to twenty employees and they make between $12.00 and $16.00 an hour. Their sales average between $1.5 and $2 million dollars annually.
Mr. Hall remarked that the auto parts industry has experienced a 5 ½% increase annually for the last five years running. They carry about half a million dollars worth of inventory at cost. One of the reasons he is here to request this revision is to take advantage of an opportunity to be less intrusive into the immediate neighborhood…less intrusive than the platted use. He said that through the cooperation of AutoZone the building will become a sound and light buffer to the neighborhood. AutoZone has agreed to put no doors, or lights or windows on the rear of their store. It will be constructed of the same rough-textured masonry material and colors as the remaining three sides. With the heavy wooded area, the retaining wall that exits there today and the building buffer, there should be very little light at night or sound from the shopping center into the residential portion of the neighborhood. In addition, the numbers that were discussed earlier about the industry and AutoZone, are much higher contributor to the economic well-being of the City than the platted use for it. The parking and the setbacks exceed or meet the codes. The intent is to make this one of the best locations that AutoZone has.
Mr. Hall referred to some drawings that he brought and stated that they have enhanced the building just a little bit from the Commission’s packets. He noted some of the things he spoke about such as no lights on the rear of the store. He explained that AutoZone, like many large retailers, spend tens of millions of dollars in creating an image and their image is gray buildings. They want to be here and they want to be good neighbors, so they have agreed to enhance their building and to make the colors work with the existing shops. He asked if the Commission had any questions of him or Mr. Bentley.
Mr. West said he thought there was an AutoZone at Vivion and Antioch.
Mr. Hall answered no. He believes it is Advance Auto.
Ms. Babich asked if there is anything between the back of the store and the neighborhood besides the widely separated small trees.
Mr. Hall replied that there is a very dense, wooded area and a rather large hill with a retaining wall and a creek.
Ms. Newsom said she would like some further explanation about painted rough textured masonry.
Mr. Hall said that the easiest way to answer that is to say that Westlake on Antioch Road has the same texture.
Ms. Abbott remarked that she has a problem with the orange stripping. It looks a little commercial for the shopping center and the residential area. She asked if there was any way to eliminate some of the orange.
Mr. Hall answered that in the back would be something that could easily be eliminated. He also added that all of the other criteria that has been set forth, AutoZone has been more than willing to do.
Ms. Newsom asked what AutoZone’s normal hours of operation are.
Mr. Hall said that they vary substantialy from place to place, but certainly within the criteria that is there. Inaudible. He said that if it is changed for AutoZone it is going to have to be changed for everybody.
Ms. Newsom again asked what the normal hours of operation are for AutoZone.
Mr. Hall repeated that it varies substantially from place to place. They have twenty-four hours, they have some that close at 7:00 pm, some that close at 8:00 pm. Mr. Hall said that Mr. Bentley could maybe address that question better.
David Bentley addressed the Commission. Mr. Bentley stated that AutoZone’s usual hours are 8:00 am to 9:00 pm. They do have some twenty-hour stores; they would love to have every store a twenty-four store, but it just doesn’t make sense at every location. They may adjust the store hours depending on what their customer’s needs are. If they have people waiting outside at 8:30 in the morning, they’re probably going to open at 8:30 am. If they don’t need to be open as late, they’ll probably close earlier or stay open later.
Mr. Whitton remarked that this store is a retail auto parts store. He asked how their prices compare with O’Reilly and Carquest.
Mr. Bentley answered that they are natural competitors.
Mr. Whitton asked him if they sell for the same price.
Mr. Bentley said that in having a small margin it is extremely competitive.
Mr. Whitton said that would mean that they sell for the same price as their competitors, which is actually wholesale. He stated that they just don’t cater to shops and they don’t deliver.
Mr. Bentley replied that he is not in their merchandising and he doesn’t price the products so he can’t answer that directly. Yes, they are competitors with O’Reilly, Advance and Carquest. How they do their pricing, he doesn’t know. He’s not that familiar with his own pricing. He knows that, at worst, it’s comparable.
Mr. Whitton said that is wholesale. He said there was one on N. Oak for a few years, a very short time, that didn’t make it. He wondered if the reason they didn’t make it was because they were actually retail or if they were competitive with the other stores.
Mr. Bentley said he can’t speak directly to that store because he doesn’t know. He said that’s surprising that they closed. The reason it’s surprising to him is because they haven’t closed that many stores over the years in their history. They have made some acquisitions of some stores and had to close some. He explained that if you buy 100 stores somewhere and you have others that sit so close to each other it doesn’t make sense to keep both of them open. He doesn’t know if that was the case here…he can’t speak to it.
Mr. Whitton said there were a lot of stores on N. Oak, but not a lot on Antioch. He said he just wondered about the pricing…if that was the reason that particular store didn’t make it because they wouldn’t come off their pricing.
Mr. Bentley said that they are in business to make money just like every other business is.
Mr. Whitton wondered if that was the reason the store didn’t make it because they weren’t competing with the other stores.
Mr. Bentley said hopefully that wasn’t the case. They are used to the competition. They are a national company.
Chairman Hill asked Mr. Bentley if delivery is done at this store.
Mr. Bentley said they do have a commercial program. It’s not in every store. They would love to have it in every store…it’s one of those things. They have been doing that part of the business for only a few years. Their bread and butter is to sell it to the “do-it-yourselfer.” That’s their core business. That is what they spend 95% of their attention on. Mr. Bentley explained that is what they grew from and that is what they want to stay. He can’t say absolutely yes or absolutely no, but usually what would happen is the store will open and not have the commercial business and then if the need is there, they will look at the opportunity for it. If the need is not there- they won’t, obviously.
Chairman Hill asked if there would be delivery vehicles parked there overnight.
Mr. Bentley answered that what they would typically do is have a white Ranger pick-up truck and that is it. There is no advertisement on it.
Chairman Hill confirmed that the vehicle would be there overnight.
Mr. Bentley said that usually yes. There have been cases where the store manager will drive it home if need be. It depends on the needs of what’s allowed as well.
Chairman Hill commented that the bank property to the south has their lawn maintained and sprinkeled. He asked if that would be the same for this site. He also asked if the area along N. Prospect is a common area with a merchant’s association or by AutoZone.
Mr. Hall answered that a sprinkler system is not proposed, but it will be maintained as common area with the bank. Inaudible.
Chairman Hill said he was curious about the location of the sign.
Mr. Bentley said he doesn’t like the location of the sign, but the reason it is there is because there are existing utility easements. In order to meet existing ordinances and stay out of the easements, that is the best they could do.
Chairman Hill commented that it looked like there was about 11’ behind the building before it gets to the retaining wall. Without any lighting, he asked if that would create any kind of security issues.
Mr. Hall remarked that he would think that area would be difficult to get to. From a security standpoint, they couldn’t run off because of the wall which is a pretty tall- about 35’. Inaudible.
Chairman Hill asked about the north end of the parking lot and asked if there was going to be any vegetation along the top of the retaining wall to prevent someone from stepping out of their car or driving over the retaining wall.
Mr. Bentley said there is nothing proposed, but that would be a good suggestion.
Chairman Hill said he would prefer it be landscaping or vegetation rather than a chain link fence.
Mr. Shevling asked if the material surrounding the dumpster would be the same as the building.
Mr. Bentley answered yes.
Chairman Hill asked if there was anyone in favor of the application.
Mark Limpic, 6500 N. Wabash, addressed the Commission. Mr. Limpic stated that he is directly to the north of this property. In fact he looks back up there and sees the wall and number one he would say that he’s in favor of this versus a restaurant or that type of establishment going in there. He said he would beg to differ just slightly with Mr. Hall who said that there is dense vegetation back there; it’s pretty sparse especially in the Winter time. He said that paint the backside of the building to comply with the other…he thinks it will look okay. The no lighting issue- that was a big deal with him. He has spoken with Scott a number of times and that was a concern. Mr. Limpic commented on something that just came up when they were talking about the 11’ or so behind the building and going up to the retaining wall. He has a grandson that comes over and plays and there are other kids that play and he’s wondering…you know how kids are…they’re going to have that building right there…11’ of grass or whatever but then you have that retaining wall and they mentioned 35’ down. He wondered if there is going to be any kind of a protective…and that’s a concern because if it’s dark back there, kids being kids. He’s walked along the wall before with his grandson and he’s come around the corner and there’s been some kids smoking and stuff, but the fact is kids are going to be kids. If it’s dark back there they are going to sit back there in the evening and do whatever, but if somebody falls that’s a big deal. He knows if his wife were here that she would bring that up. Mr. Limpic an issue that he has always had is the run-off back there. It has gotten worse and worse. He has been talking with the City to try and come in and do something because he is losing property because the channel is gotten five or six feet deep now and it’s carried over into his property and it just keeps dropping off. Other than that, he says he is more of a proponent of this thing right now because he agrees that there is going to be a buffer from all the traffic noise and so on. It is, to him, the lesser of two evils; however, there are still some other concerns. Right now he is getting a lot of trash coming over the wall and no one is taking care of that so they have to go over there and police that about once every couple of weeks. There is a drainage pipe with stone, but it’s a mud pit. It’s pretty ugly back there. Mr. Limpic asked if anything else is going to be done with it. He said that may go beyond AutoZone. There is a lot of erosion that has happened. Again, he is probably more positive for this than negative. He is really glad there isn’t going to be any lights back there and so on, but again that issue with the children and somebody back there falling off could be a big deal.
Chairman Hill asked staff about the height of the wall. He remembers dealing with that with the Home Depot site. He wondered if building codes would require something on top of retaining walls.
Mr. Wingerson commented that should the Planning Commission and Council approve the request then it will go through the building permit process. He said that there is no railing on the wall now because staff wasn’t sure how it was going to develop and so now that they know, they will look at the railing issue. He said the height of the wall is approximately ten or twelve feet.
Chairman Hill asked for any others in favor of the application to come forward. Hearing none he asked for those opposed.
Jesse Valenciano, 6503 N. Wabash, addressed the Commission. Mr. Valenciano stated that he lives directly behind the subject property. He said that he, like Mr. Limpic, agree that something should be done with the wall other than a fence. He said that dense woods is a far cry…he can see through his windows the Tiffany And building. If they were to put trees or bushes that would have been a great improvement, but there are no dense woods there; a lot of the trees have been cut. As far as the construction, Mr. Valenciano said he would commend the Wheelers for doing a nice job. He thinks it has turned out beautiful. He would just like to see some up-scale shops go in there rather than auto parts. There are three auto parts stores on North Oak. He asked if anyone knew how many auto-related shops there are in Gladstone…as far as repair shops, parts, sales and service. There are almost sixty. He has the list. Mr. Valenciano ran down the list:
Starting at about 77th Street you have O’Reilly, Sturgis Leather (motorcycle attire), off 76th Street you have B&H Auto Body, Klassy Auto Detail, Wholesale Auto Paint, back to North Oak on 75th Street you have Enterprise Auto Rentals, Tint Master, Government Auto Fleet Sales, Gladstone Auto Sales with a window tint business, at 73rd Street is Hertz Rent-A-Car, Brad’s Automotive Repair, KC Custom Trucks, Ming Auto Detail, Dr. Dent, the car wash at 72nd, Dentsmith and Tintsmith, along 72nd Street is Northland Kawasaki (probably moving), Hardcore Motorcycles, Gil’s Body Shop, Bill and Larry’s, Kev’s Muffler Shop, RAD Performance Shop. Down the street is Kurt’s Automotive and Gladstone Auto Repair. At 72nd and North Oak is Royal Transmission, Jiffy Lube, The Maintenance Shop, Carrel Brothers Auto Paint, car wash at 69th, S&S Auto Sales, Binswinger Auto Glass. At 67th is Gladstone Rental Tow and Storage, Hyundia Car Sales & Service, Northtowne Volkswagon Sales & Service. At 66th is Worth Harley and Gladstone Auto Trim. At 65th is Advance Auto Parts. At 64th is Pete’s Auto Service, Enterprise Auto Sales. Another car wash at 61st. Another window tint and stereo at 61st. Northland Auto Sales at 61st. At 59th is Northtowne Mazda Sales and Service. At 58th is Above and Beyond Auto Service and Carquest Auto Parts. At 57th is BP Service Station and Certified Transmission. At 56th is Gladstone Dodge Sales and Service (they also have a body shop). On 59th Street behind the Mazda store is Northtowne Lincoln Mercury Body Shop.
Mr. Valenciano continued on to Antioch Road. At 56th is Jim’s Sales and Service. At 60th is Midas Muffler and Brake Shop. At 61st is Cottman Transmission Service. At 72nd and old Antioch is Wayne Croy Car Care and then Wal-Mart Auto Service. He said he thinks that Gladstone is pretty well set and that it’s getting to look like Truman Road, Noland Road and Raytown… Gladstone needs to change. He’d like to see some up-scale shops. He’s for keeping his car in good condition, but do they really need another auto parts store?
Chairman Hill asked for further questions before closing the public hearing.
Ms. Newsom asked for clarification on the parameters on recent zoning amendment change that would prevent people from buying a six-pack of oil and running a pan under a car and trying to change it in the lot.
Mr. Wingerson answered that the intent of the amendment was to separate retail auto parts from the sale of petroleum products. To the extent the Commission wants to recommend that all vehicle service is prohibited- that would be a suggested condition from the Planning Commission.
Ms. Newsom would like to make sure that something is in place as this moves forward so it cannot happen.
Mr. West said that when he was on the Capital Improvements Committee he, as well as others on the Commission, dealt with a lot of stormwater issues and despite all of the engineering he always saw a strong positive correlation between putting up new rooftops and asphalt and stormwater run-off problems. He asked if this would be an appropriate place for them to talk about the stormwater problem that one of the guests presented.
Mr. Wingerson said that certainly it is in the Commission’s judgment. In general terms, the engineering for this site was accomplished prior to the development. There are primarily two detention basins on the development site. One is directly west of this proposal. This particular site is designed to wholly drain to the west and into that detention basin and then exit to an existing creek channel that does have some moderate erosion to the east. The developer will continue to have restoration and stormwater responsibilities that are complete yet. As the site continues to develop the stormwater system will mature and then the issues that are causing mud and rock will largely solve themselves. Mr. Limpic is accurate, they have been discussing a possible erosion control project that is downstream to the east of Mr. Valenciano’s house where the City did a stormwater project many years ago, to see if they can reduce the impact. The erosion that the Limpic’s are experiencing is primarily caused by two things: they are at the bottom at a rather large sub-basin for the stormwater system and as the homes and school around there developed additional water at a higher velocity is traveling through that channel.
Ms. Abbott commented that she has been on the receiving ends on two different fairly substantial developments and during the construction period it was pretty bad, but as soon as it all gets finished it’s a whole lot better. She has no problems now and she had eight inches of water in her basement to begin with.
Chairman Hill closed the public hearing.
Ms. Newsom addressed condition #11, which mentions enhancing the landscaping around the monument sign. She would suggest including language about maintaining it in perpetuity. Also, she would like to add a condition that would prohibit the maintenance and service of cars on the site. She has heartburn about the hours, but generally she wasn’t real tickled about this project when she heard it coming about, but selling auto parts isn’t really that different than selling shoes if they aren’t going to maintain it on the site. Like Mr. Valenciano, Ms. Newsom too would like to see something up-scale here like Chico’s or Dean and Deluca or Whole Foods, but it’s what the market is demanding or seems to work…so those who live here have to drive elsewhere to buy things like that. She is not totally sold on the exterior finish but it’s better than gussied up cinder block.
Ms. Babich remarked that in the interest of going green she would like to see that any future retail establishment that come into Gladstone not be permitted to use plastic bags for people to carry out their purchases.
Chairman Hill agrees with what has been said…he would rather see something more up-scale, but it’s market driven. By requiring the building to have an irrigation system it would maybe bring up that site and the rest of the center and maintain it on a higher tier of retail which might lend itself to, in the future, being developed into the type of stores that we want. He continued by suggesting that the recommended conditions be changed to include the irrigation system and to remove the strip on the back. Another suggestion might be to add a condition stating that no overnight parking of vehicles so it doesn’t evolve into a commercial delivery center. Chairman Hill said that he would agree with Ms. Newsom on adding something prohibiting the servicing of vehicles and potentially some increased landscaping on the back of the building. They have heard from two neighbors that the woods really aren’t that dense so perhaps some more evergreens or something it might be a little more aesthetically pleasing.
Mr. Shevling commented that he would be abstaining from voting since he is a neighbor there, but he would agree with everything Chairman Hill just said.
Mr. Wingerson summarized the additional conditions that had been suggested:
-All landscaping to be maintained in perpetuity. (added to #11)
-#16, Prohibit all maintenance and service of any vehicle or equipment on the site.
-Hours of operation (#1) – left open at this time.
-No corporate identification on the North side.
-Lawn irrigation system.
-No overnight parking of the vehicles.
-Enhanced landscaping to the North.
-Railing, curb-cut, landscaping at the northeast corner of the site.
He asked if that was an accurate summary of the Commission’s discussion.
Chairman Hill said it was accurate. He added that they do not want a chain-link fence on top of the retaining wall. A railing would be okay.
Mr. Wingerson said he would have to look at Ms. Babich’s issue as part of land use.
Mr. Whitton said that he would probably be the only one voting against this plan. It caters to do-it-yourself people. Do-it-yourself people will fix it where they break. They break when they’re there. They leak oil and fuel. Those things will run off into this creek. He doesn’t like the orange strip around the top of the building. It doesn’t fit with the other building. That is a nice project going over there and some nice buildings. He thinks they messed up by allowing that zoning into a lesser zoning because if you’re going to work on a car that is C-3. If they think this is going to be all sweet and pretty…they’re wrong. It’s not going to happen. They think they’re going to come in with one truck and supply all the auto repair shops that Jesse said are in town and they can’t do that with one truck and they can’t be competitive with the others and if they can’t do that they probably are not going to make it like they didn’t make it up on North Oak.
Mr. West said the City might ask the developer to put in a cistern for run-off that could then be used to provide a source of water for an irrigation system. He’s not sure of the cost. It might be cost-prohibitive, but it could certainly reduce run-off and be a source of water.
MOTION: By Mr. West, second by Ms. Abbott to approve the request for a Site Plan Revision at 6450 N. Prospect including the proposed conditions and additional conditions as summarized by Mr. Wingerson.
Mr. Garnos said that he agrees with all the conditions but he doesn’t understand the overnight parking prohibition. He’s not sure that causes him a concern. They have twenty-five parking spots and if they need a vehicle to do their delivery…he’s not sure he understands.
Chairman Hill responded that his thought was rather than getting into the nature of the vehicle or the number of the vehicles…number one this is supposed to be a retail site and not a distribution center and if you allow delivery vehicles to be parked there overnight it could evolve into that. He doesn’t think that with ideas that have been envisioned for this site they don’t want a couple of 5-ton trucks sitting out there overnight.
Ms. Newsom said she feels as though a gun is being held to their heads. She thinks this is so much better for the neighbors than the fast-food restaurant…or you could vote no for this because it’s not the kind of business they want in there. It has all the bad effects that Mr. Whitton has talked about. It gives her great concern and it is a difficult decision to make. She goes back to the quote from last the meeting , “….what’s permanent and beneficial. What’s best for our City.” Ms. Newsom said she would be voting no.
Ms. Abbott said the only thing good about this project is that it’s not a drive-in for the neighbors up there. She’s not real happy about several things, but it could be a lot worse.
Chairman Hill said he shares Ms. Newsom’s concerns but he’s still trying to decide how to vote.
VOTE: Ms. Newsom No
Ms. Alexander Yes
Ms. Babich No
Mr. McCullough No
Mr. Shevling Abstain
Mr. Whitton No
Ms. Abbott Yes
Mr. West Yes
Chairman Hill Yes
The motion carried. (5-Yes, 4-No, 1-Abstain)
Item 6 on the Agenda: Communications from the City Council and City Staff.
Mayor Smith said that he was reading the minutes from some of the meetings and the conditions that were placed on the project when it was approved by the Council in 2005. Many of the issues the Commission was concerned about tonight were actually addressed at that time. He commended them for good work tonight and said that he understands that it was a difficult decision. He also reminded them to vote tomorrow and that Gladstone has been named as a finalist for an All America City Award.
Item 7 on the Agenda: Communications from the Planning Commission Members.
Ms. Babich asked what that status of the clutter ordinance is.
Mr. Wingerson said that staff is still researching the issue in other cities.
Ms. Abbott reported that she went to a workshop at MARC regarding NIMBY’s and wasn’t sure what they were. She said that their recommendations on the subject were just what Gladstone was doing, so she was quite pleased. Staff will distribute information she received in the next packet.
Ms. Newsom asked if staff could check on Pepper’s Hot Tubs on North Oak. They have a large truck parked in their lot all the time. She also expressed her disappointment in not utilizing the technology that the City has.
Item 8 on the Agenda: Adjournment.
Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 9:00 pm.
______________________________________ Approved as submitted _____
Becky Jarrett, Recording Secretary
______________________________________ Approved as corrected _____
Brian Hill, Chairman