MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY JUNE 26, 2006
PRESENT: Mayor
Bill Cross
Mayor
Pro Tem Les Smith
Councilman Carol Rudi
Councilman
Wayne Beer
Councilman
Mark Revenaugh
City Manager Kirk Davis
City Counselor David Ramsay
City Clerk Cathy Swenson
Mayor Bill Cross
opened the Regular June 26, 2006, City Council Meeting at 7:30 PM in the
Gladstone City Council Chambers.
Item 3. on the Agenda. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
Mayor Bill Cross led the Pledge of Allegiance, in
which all joined.
Item 4. on the Agenda. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR JUNE 12, 2006, CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES.
Councilman Carol
Rudi moved to approve the Regular June 12, 2006, City Council Meeting Minutes
as presented. Councilman Mark Revenaugh
seconded the motion.
The vote: All “aye” – Councilman Mark Revenaugh,
Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Carol Rudi, Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith and Mayor
Bill Cross.
Item 5. on the Agenda. CONSENT AGENDA
Following the
Clerk’s reading, Councilman Wayne Beer moved to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented. Councilman Mark Revenaugh
seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilman Mark Revenaugh,
Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Carol Rudi, Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith and Mayor
Bill Cross. (5-0).
Councilman Wayne Beer moved to approve RESOLUTION R-06-35, authorizing execution of a contract with Bulk
Storage, Incorporated for Design/Build services of a new Salt Storage/Covered
Parking Building; Project 046087.
Councilman Mark Revenaugh seconded.
The vote: All “aye” – Councilman
Mark Revenaugh, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Carol Rudi, Mayor Pro Tem Les
Smith and Mayor Bill Cross. (5-0)
Councilman Wayne Beer moved to approve RESOLUTION R-06-36, authorizing a Cooperative Agreement between
the City of
Councilman Wayne
Beer moved to APPROVE A NEW TAXI CAB
PERMIT, for Northland Taxi,
Incorporated, with a business office to be located at
Councilman Wayne Beer moved to APPROVE A NEW CLASS “D” AND “H”
7 DAY BEER/WINE LICENSE, for Georgeno’s
Pizza,
Councilman Wayne Beer moved to approve ANNUAL LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS for:
·
Margarita’s, 7013 North Oak Trafficway, Class A&B Liquor by the
Drink License
·
Aldi #62, 7604 North Oak Trafficway, 7 Day Package Liquor License
·
KC Northland Elks, 7010 North Cherry, Class A&B Liquor by the Drink
License
·
Kwik Shoppe, 7603 North Oak Trafficway, 6 Day Package Liquor License
·
Kyle’s Tap Room, 6825 North Oak Trafficway, Class A Liquor by the Drink
License
Councilman Mark
Revenaugh seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilman Mark Revenaugh,
Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Carol Rudi, Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith and Mayor
Bill Cross. (5-0)
Councilman Wayne Beer
moved to approve the FINANCIAL REPORT FOR MAY
2006. Councilman Mark Revenaugh seconded. The vote:
All “aye” – Councilman Mark Revenaugh, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman
Carol Rudi, Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith and Mayor Bill Cross.
REGULAR AGENDA
Item 6. on the Agenda. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE.
David Peironnet, 6204 North Park, stated he had written a
letter to the City about illegally placed advertising signs, and believes this
is something the Gladstone City Council can address either formally or
informally. Mr. Peironnet said that as
he is a candidate for public office, he is concerned about people who claim to
represent the public, and then break the law by placing their signs in the
public right-of-way. Mr. Peironnet said
Mr. Peironnet said he is hoping the City Council
will by formal action, or will informally encourage City staff to take action
on this issue, by notifying each of the candidates, whose districts may include
part of Clay County and/or the political central committees, of the laws inside
the City of Gladstone, and request all candidates respect the laws of this
community. If the signs are put up
anyway, Mr. Peironnet suggested a friendly warning be issued saying the signs
will be ripped down, ripped up, and thrown in the trash. Mr. Peironnet said by stopping the problem
before it starts, the City will be able to maintain control, and speaking as
someone that has bothered every City Council member about his concerns about
advertisements for insurance scams, tattoo parlors, and so forth, he hopes
Council will continue to give the usual support to keep
Councilman Wayne Beer stated this issue is something
that the Council and City staff deals with in every election cycle. It is an ongoing issue with which the City
does a good job in monitoring, although, it is sometimes very difficult to keep
up with all the signs placed illegally.
There is a process that has to take place prior to removal of some of
the signs, but if they are in the right-of-way, they are removed when they are
found. Councilman Beer said Council
members sympathize with Mr. Peironnet’s concerns, and the City staff will try
their best to stay on top of this issue.
Mr. Peironnet said he feels City staff should be
recognized for doing a far better job with this issue than is done by other
nearby areas. Mr. Peironnet said he
wanted to encourage the City to continue to treat these signs as a high priority
and to send letters warning people not to place illegal signs. Mr. Perironnet stated he wished to offer to
personally go out and rip down illegally placed signs and if anyone says their
First Amendment rights are being violated, he would tell them he would meet
them in court.
City Manager Kirk
Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith stated it is refreshing to
have a candidate come forward and be on the record that he supports following
the Ordinances of this City.
Mayor Cross stated Mr. Peironnet would be surprised
if he went with Building Official Alan Napoli and saw the amount of signs that
are removed.
Mr. Peironnet said although he harasses City staff,
he also thanks them for some of the fastest follow-up on problems that can be
found in this area.
John Garner, 111 Heatherton Court, suggested the Public Safety
mobile speed monitoring trailer be placed at the schools in
Mr. Garner stated he met with Assistant City Manager
Scott Wingerson approximately two weeks ago about the bank being able to do
work in his area. Mr. Garner said later
on that day there was work being done in his area by the bank, and he was
informed by Mr. Wingerson that the stop work orders were in effect then. Since then, he and Mr. Wingerson have visited
and they agreed to go ahead and let the bank do the work so two houses may be
sold. Since then, the bank has been
doing more work such as surveying, and Mr. Garner said he had a copy of a
letter dated April 17, 2006, to Mr. Jim Campbell who works for NorthStar Bank,
in which the City listed 7 to 8 items that need to be done in the area before
the property can be sold. Mr. Garner stated
that only one item has been partially done.
The lots are being mowed, but the back of the area is not being weeded
and the hill needs to be sodded and weeded, due to drainage problems. No trash has been removed, because they
cannot find a place to dispose of it, or they do not want to pay to dispose of
it.
Mr. Garner reported there was a meeting at his home
on May 31, 2006, with Mr. Campbell and the area residents. Mr. Campbell informed them that the bank was
not going to do anything more, and that it was up to the residents to sue Heatherton
Custom Homes or go without. Mr. Garner
said since that meeting, he has had a meeting with Mr. Wingerson to discuss
arranging another meeting with Mr. Campbell and one of the Board of Directors
of the bank in order to get in writing that the bank will conform to the
conditions set by the City. Mr. Garner
said Mr. Campbell told him “at this time, we don’t need to have another meeting
with you people”. Mr. Garner said he felt
that in order to do work on the two houses, the bank needed to have the $500
building permit, along with the $50 fee per vacant lot that is there. Mr. Garner said he does know if this has been
enforced, and wants to know how far the City intends to go in regard to the
letter, and what the residents can expect in the near future. There have been a couple of potential buyers
in the area, to whom Mr. Garner has spoken, and the bank seems to not be
mentioning anything to them that was listed in the letter, other than the hill.
Mr. Wingerson said Staff has been working fairly
closely with the bank in an effort to get this project moving. Council will remember the project had
stopped. The bank has shown some
reinvestment to complete punch list items in the two units that are near
completion, so they can be sold to recoup some of the bank’s loss towards
making the improvements that are not yet done.
Last Wednesday, the bank was taking to their Board an engineering plan
to fix the biggest of the problems, which is uphill from the retaining wall
that collapsed. The retaining wall has
been repaired, but there is still a problem up the hill. Mr. Wingerson said he believed the bank was
going to approve the engineering for that problem to be solved. That is important because then the bank can
explain to buyers the cost associated with that repair.
Mr. Wingerson reported that he had spoken with Mr.
Campbell at least twice since the last time he and Mr. Garner visited. Mr. Campbell is trying to facilitate with a
Board of Directors member and the homeowners’ association; however, the bank’s
desire is to have as much information and a plan in place to explain to the
association, and right now they do not have enough information to do that. Mr. Wingerson said he believes the bank is
working hard to move this project forward, and last week he had conversations
with two potential buyers who are very interested and were aware of the letter
with items to be addressed; in fact they were reading the letter back to Mr.
Wingerson. Mr. Wingerson said the bank
is trying; it is a very complex issue, and there is a lot of money
involved. Mr. Wingerson stated that
Staff will remain very vigilant with this project, and with patience, he
believes there is “light at the end of the tunnel”.
Mr. Wingerson explained the building permits were
issued prior to the adoption of the erosion and sediment control
Ordinance. Because the Ordinance was not
in effect when those homes were built, it was not applied to the two specific
homes Mr. Garner mentioned. The work
being done was punch list items, such as plumbing and electrical, and physical
construction. When there is a new
developer of the property, then the City will apply the developer and
subsequent builder permit fees for erosion control. Mr. Wingerson said as it rains, Staff would
continue to monitor the subdivision and ask the bank to clean it up as
necessary.
Councilman Wayne Beer asked if the provisions of the
prior Ordinance regarding erosion control, that has been repealed and replaced
with a new Ordinance, still applies to this project.
Mr. Wingerson replied the technical part still
applies, but the permit fees do not apply.
Mr. Garner said he believed the new rules should go
into effect because of the ownership change.
Mr. Garner continued by saying another issue he is concerned about is that
the home owners’ association has gone defunct, and he is concerned the bank
will allow another developer to build some other type of housing, and the home
owners’ association by laws would not remain in effect. Mr. Garner said the bank does not seem to be
in a big hurry to reinstate the home owners’ association, and he asked Mr.
Wingerson to push this issue with the bank, and if there are changes, the bank
would meet with the homeowners to address those changes.
Councilman Beer asked City Counselor Ramsay to what
extent are some of the homeowner association restrictions actually deed
restrictions.
Counselor Ramsay replied he believed they are all
deed restrictions. The fact that the
homes association may not be in good standing presently, would affect the
homeowners association’s ability to act, but would not affect the individual
homeowner’s right to enforce the restrictions.
Mr. Wingerson stated the bank is serving as the
majority property owner and therefore can and may amend those covenants. City staff will watch for that and there are
more steps for the City to go through in the permit process and the platting
process, and hopefully Staff will see those.
Mr. Wingerson said he believed there is a provision to advise all
homeowners of an amendment, so the private homeowners should be apprised of any
amendment.
Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith agreed with Mr. Wingerson
and said generally a developer will retain a majority of votes until the last
lot is sold, and asked if there are any provisions in the rezoning Ordinance
for an active homes association.
Mr. Wingerson said he did not know if there is a
provision in that specific Ordinance; if there was, it would refer to
consistency in platting, use, setbacks, roofs and all City type requirements,
so it would not govern the private part of the association or the physical
characteristics.
Mayor Bill Cross inquired into the status of the
Public Safety mobile traffic trailer.
Councilman Carol Rudi stated it was parked in front
of her house. Councilman Rudi inquired
into why it is parked at that location.
Public Safety Director Adamo replied he was not
certain as to the answer to Councilman Rudi’s question at this time.
Mayor Cross stated he thought it would be a good
idea to have the mobile traffic trailer at each school a week before the new
school zone Ordinance would go into effect.
Director Adamo stated this is already done each
year.
Item 7. on
the Agenda. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.
Councilman Mark Revenaugh had no comments at this
time.
Councilman Wayne Beer had no comments at this time.
Councilman Carol Rudi stated she was surprised to
see the mobile traffic trailer in front of her house. She wondered if someone in the neighborhood
had requested it, as it is in a strange location, as it is on a curve. It would seem that 67th Terrace
would be a good place to place the trailer, as traffic goes quite fast on that
street.
Councilman Rudi complimented Public Works Director
Chuck Williams on the work on 68th Terrace, and said the street
looks very nice. The work was done
quickly and the barricades were not up long at all. Councilman Rudi thanked Director Williams.
Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith stated he received a call
from a resident who was surprised to learn that our City will not be enforcing
the fire works Ordinance on personal property this year. There is a rumor that the City has repealed
or not going to enforce the fireworks Ordinance, and some folks have bought
their fireworks. Mayor Pro Tem Smith
suggested notice be made to the public that the City will be enforcing the ban
on fireworks.
City Manager
Mayor Pro Tem Smith said he noticed in a community
in
Councilman Rudi suggested there is a digital sign in
Mayor Bill Cross encouraged everyone to join in the City
sponsored July 4th festivities at
Item 8. on
the Agenda. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE CITY
MANAGER.
City Manager Kirk
Item 9. on the Agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: for
consideration of a Special Use Permit subject to certain conditions to T-Mobile
for operation of a Communications Tower Facility on property located at
Mayor Bill Cross
opened the Public Hearing and explained the hearing process that the applicant
would make their presentation, followed by a presentation by the Staff and
finally comments from those in Favor and those Opposed.
Applicant Presentation
Bob Herlihy, Selective Site Consultants, 8500 W 110th
Street, Overland Park, Kansas, stated his business has filed an application for a
Special Use Permit to place a 120-foot monopole that will hold at least one
additional carrier at the substation on
Mr. Herlihy stated his company is bound by
contractual relationships with KCPL to make sure the towers are taken down and
the property restored to at least as good of a condition as when his company
came onto the property, and the affidavit included in the application packet
states that T-Mobile has agreed that should the site be abandoned by all the
carriers, they will remove the tower.
Mr. Herlihy stated T-Mobile would be willing to place a performance bond
or letter of credit with the City in an amount that the Zoning Administrator
would deem sufficient. Mr. Herlihy said
he believes his company has complied with all the provisions of the Ordinance
and he believes the proposed site is a good location, and he appreciates Mr.
Wingerson’s help in getting through the process.
Councilman Rudi asked if the tower being discussed
is a platform type tower.
Mr. Herlihy replied that was correct. Another type is a flush mount, which is
against the tower and the other is a flagpole style, where the actual antennas
are inside the pole in a fiberglass tubing, which gives the impression of a
single pole.
Councilman Rudi stated it is her understanding what
is being proposed is a platform type tower because it has the potential of the
addition of at least two other carriers.
Mr. Herlihy replied that is correct, and that type
was chosen because of the inflexibility of the two other types of towers. They cannot be moved, and they do not have
the special diversity required. This
proposal would allow room for two additional carriers. The platform would have to be above the tree
line, but that would allow for three carriers opposed to two or one
carrier. Mr. Herlihy stated the Planning
Commission unanimously approved going with the platform type tower, as they
understood that sooner or later someone would need another tower in the same
area, and the thought is to try to keep that from happening.
Councilman Rudi asked if the lowest platform would
be approximately 90 feet high, and if there are carriers interested in this
site at that level.
Mr. Herlihy replied yes to both questions.
Councilman Rudi asked what would happen if the trees
grow higher than the 90 or 120 feet that is being considered.
Mr. Herlihy replied the trees are mature now and are
60 to 65 feet tall, and to grow another 25 feet might take 30 years.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked if this proposed tower
would allow for the sale of space to another carrier.
Mr. Herlihy replied that was correct.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked if the tower could be
retrofitted in the future if the opportunity arises - if the Council chose not
to approve a platform tower and an antenna was constructed, and Mr. Herlihy’s
company wished to provide space for more users in the future, could that same
antenna be retrofitted to a platform?
Mr. Herlihy replied he believed a platform tower
could be retrofitted.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith, asked, for clarification, if he
was correct that from the standpoint of providing a tower for T-Mobile, which
is the issue at this point, a platform is not needed at this time.
Mr. Herlihy replied that was correct, however,
having worked with towers all over the metropolitan area and several states for
all of the carriers, there is probably not a single tower site that has been
built in the last five years that doesn’t have multiple carriers on it. This might work for six months, but if a
Verizon, Cingular or Cricket came into the area and wanted to use the tower,
there would only be room for one carrier at the bottom, because T-Mobile will
take the top two.
Councilman Beer asked in regard to signal area
coverage, is the platform tower a more efficient propagation of signal than the
other two types of towers?
Mr. Herlihy replied yes.
Councilman Beer asked if he understood correctly
that a platform tower is more likely to limit any requests for new towers in
the future.
Mr. Herlihy replied that was correct; a platform
tower adds another position, and if a carrier knows he will only get one
location, he might opt for something else.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith inquired from Mr. Wingerson the
justification for the recommended condition in the Staff report of a close
mount antenna.
Mr. Wingerson replied that before the Planning
Commission hearing, there is no public input, and the way he understands the
issue, the most aesthetically neutral installation would be the canister type
inside the flagpole type tower. The
tower that has the most aesthetically impact is the platform type tower. The close mount type tower is in the middle –
it provides some flexibility to the carrier and provides some relief from an
aesthetic standpoint, so it is just a compromise position between the
flexibility and aesthetics. Mr.
Wingerson continued by saying given this installation adjacent to an electrical
substation with existing towers nearly as high, he felt this was a secondary
consideration from a Staff perspective.
Councilman Rudi asked when the tower is erected with
a platform, would there be one platform in the beginning, and if the other two
are needed, they are added later.
Mr. Herlihy replied the other carriers would buy
their own platforms. Some platforms are
ones that a person can stand on and others are just arms. Each carrier has its own style.
Councilman Rudi said her understanding is the type
Mr. Herlihy is proposing is triangular and 12 feet on a side.
Mr. Herlihy replied yes, and said they would all be
similar to that for the special diversity.
Staff Presentation
Councilman Rudi stated she had seen three different
addresses for this tower and asked if the address on the Ordinance is correct.
Mr. Wingerson replied the address on the Ordinance
is correct.
Councilman Rudi stated she noticed in the proposal,
there were references to
Mr. Wingerson replied that was correct, it should
state the City of
There was no one to speak in Favor or
Opposition to the Application.
Mayor Bill Cross closed the Public Hearing.
Item 9a. on the Agenda. FIRST READING BILL
06-20, granting a Special Use Permit to T-Mobile to operate a
Councilman Wayne Beer moved to place Bill 06-20 on
First Reading, with the addition of Condition Number 17 to provide a
performance bond in a sufficient amount as determined by
Councilman Beer stated one of the issues that this
City has always had in regard to the placement of cell phone towers has been
aesthetics, especially given the location where the tower is proposed to be
built, and the impact upon neighborhoods.
Councilman Beer said with this particular location, he could not think
from a practicality standpoint and in meeting the goals of the City and
preserving
neighborhoods, of another place in town that might
be a better location, especially since the spaces on the existing water towers
and other towers seem to be out of the question in this regard. Councilman Beer said given the immediate
surroundings with Kansas City Power and Light equipment, the easements in place
because of the placement of the equipment, and overhead lines, this is probably
the best place in town. Councilman Beer
stated from an aesthetics standpoint, he does not see much difference when one
looks at all the other pieces of equipment that surrounds the area, that there
is much difference in aesthetics between the platform, the post mount, and the
flagpole. Councilman Beer continued by
saying if the City is looking to prevent the construction or installation of
any further towers that could be intrusions on neighborhoods, he believes the
platform tower at this location makes good sense.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith inquired into the mile radius
that this tower will serve.
Mr. Herlihy replied the coverage is based upon
terrain, foliage, and quite a number of other things. If one is on an interstate highway, towers
may be 14 miles apart, where the signals will stretch seven miles. In town, it might be two miles or three
miles. The capacity of a tower is
similar to a sponge. The more you use,
it shrinks, so during different times of the day there are different
coverages. The usage tends to make it
shrink. The Wal-Mart store, the Hy-Vee
store, and the traffic along
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated he agreed with Councilman
Beer about the immediate area surrounding the tower; however, if this tower is
intended to serve a wide area in the community, it is obviously taking the
topography into consideration. Mayor Pro
Tem Smith said sitting next to a substation, what is one more pole, but he has
the sense that the platform will be seen perhaps as far away as 72nd
Street and North Troost, so his concern is not just what it looks like at the
base, or from the townhomes, it will be visible from some distance in order to
cover some of the hills in the area, including the Wal-Mart and Hy-Vee area on
the east, 72nd Street and Troost on the west, 76th Street
to the north, and some of the Northaven neighborhood to the south. Mayor Pro Tem Smith said this is his concern;
not what it looks like from the base, but what it looks like from a long
area. The City has spent a long time
trying to convince people that the tower at 64th and North Oak
Trafficway did not belong to our city.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith said he did not know that he wanted to vote to
approve one of those designs here, because he felt the visibility would be a
lot greater than just the immediate surrounding area.
Councilman Beer said his comment had to do with the
computer-generated photographs, one of which Council was reviewing at the
meeting. Councilman Beer stated when he
looks at the towers in the three proposals, he does not see much
difference in terms of aesthetics degrade; however,
Councilman Beer said he knows that Meadowlane homes are in the backyard of this
proposal.
Mayor Pro Tem
Smith asked if another user came along, is there any guarantee they can come to
an agreement to be included on the pole, or is there always an opportunity for
them to propose to put a tower beside the existing tower.
Mr. Herlihy said
all the carriers have master lease agreements between themselves, so if his
business builds a tower, Verizon would come on the tower, and Cingular would
come onto T-Mobile’s tower. If T-Mobile
needs a site in an area where there is a Verizon, Sprint or Cingular tower,
they will go on that tower. T-Mobile
would rather pay the carrier the rent than pay $200,000 capital costs right out
of their budget. You can co-locate on a
lot of sites, before you build a tower.
Councilman Beer
asked when Mr. Herlihy mentions co-locating, he is talking about co-locating on
the same tower and not the same site, or piece of ground.
Mr. Mr. Herlihy
agreed, he is talking about the same tower.
Mayor Pro Tem
Smith asked if Council were to approve a certain type of tower at this
location, and it maxed out its usage, and wanted to come back and build another
one, has the City Council set a precedent in approving a platform type tower,
and probably could not do otherwise with a second tower.
City Counselor
David Ramsay replied it would depend on the specific facts of the second
application. It would be difficult to
turn down another tower on this site, because Council would be finding that
this is an appropriate location with this application. Counselor Ramsay said he believed the design
gives more flexibility if there is reason to say the City does not want that
many towers with platforms on them. For the second tower, the City would not be
necessarily bound to approve a platform tower.
Counselor Ramsay said it is speculative at this point, but he thinks if
the facts were appropriate, Council could limit a second tower.
Mayor Pro Tem
Smith asked how the 12-foot arm on this proposed tower compares to the tower at
Mr. Wingerson replied
he did not know.
Mr. Herlihy
stated the platform may be 12 feet, but a company tries to normally get at
least 10 feet across. The size looks
different depending on the size of the tower.
Councilman Mark
Revenaugh stated he felt the citizens would be more concerned with getting
adequate cell phone coverage then they are worried about the aesthetics. People accept them just like the power
towers. Councilman Revenaugh stated he
felt that people are going to want to communicate, so that is the overriding
public concern.
If there is some
pressing need for a performance bond for removal of the tower, is it only going
to be used if the tower is abandoned as a communications tower, or will it be
used for removal in the event, as listed in Condition Number 16, “any violation
of these conditions may result in the cancellation of this Special Use Permit”,
which would void the tower, and the City would want it removed. Councilman Revenaugh asked if the performance
bond would be limited to just the abandonment of the tower, or extend to any
infraction that triggers Condition Number 16, and the rejection of the Special
Use Permit.
Councilman Beer
stated he felt that would also precipitate abandonment, if the Special Use
Permit were rescinded, the tower could not be used, and would have to be
abandoned.
Mayor Pro Tem
Smith suggested Council consider the application with the intent of being all
encompassing, and allow Counselor Ramsay to work out the final language.
Councilman Beer
said that would be the intent of his motion.
Mayor Pro Tem
Smith stated he does not want to suggest he does not support a tower at this
location, but he is concerned about aesthetics.
The tower is unattractive and there is a reason why these companies have
developed stealth technology, and that is because people are concerned about
the aesthetics.
The vote: All
“aye” – Councilman Mark Revenaugh, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Carol
Rudi, Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith and Mayor Bill Cross. (5-0).
The Clerk read the Bill.
Councilman Wayne
Beer moved to accept the First Reading of Bill 06-20 as amended, Waive the Rule
and place the Bill on Second and Final Reading.
Councilman Carol Rudi seconded.
The vote: “Aye” – Councilman Mark
Revenaugh, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Carol Rudi, and Mayor Bill
Cross. “Nay” - Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith.
(4-1).
City Counselor Ramsay explained that as there was
not a unanimous vote to Waive the Rule, this matter would need to be taken up
again at the next City Council meeting.
An alternative would be to consider the waiver of the rule as a separate
vote from the action.
It was decided by City Council members to place the
second reading of this Bill as an item on the next City Council meeting agenda.
Item 10. on the Agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: on a request to rezone from C-1 (Local
Business) to CP-3 (Commercial Planned) on property located at
Mayor Cross opened the
Public Hearing and explained the process would be the same with this Public
Hearing as explained with the previous Public Hearing.
Applicant Presentation
Assistant City Manager Scott Wingerson stated in this application,
the City of
Mr. Wingerson stated that part of the complication
is that the draft Bill indicates that it is zoned C-2, and asked that Council
members please make that correction in their notes for Bill Number 06-21 that
it is currently zoned C-1. The request
is to change the property to a C-3 zoning, which is based on documentation
provided by Mr. Croy in the form of a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Wingerson stated that Staff could not
find any contrary evidence, and the existing use indicates that it probably was
zoned C-3. Staff added in the staff
review process the “P” designation as part of the application request. The intent of adding the “P” designation, the
Planned zoning, was to provide the property owner with flexibility in future
use, redevelopment, and expansion of the existing business in terms of the
normal things talked about in planned zoning – surface ratio, setbacks,
heights, fencing, parking, and those sort of concerns. The Planning Commission discussed this at
length, and Mr. Croy seemed in agreement.
Mr. Wingerson said last week he spent some time
explaining the pro and cons of C-3 zoning and CP-3 zoning to Mr. Croy. Today Mr. Croy has asked that C-3 zoning be
approved, which would put it back to its original condition before the change
in the official Zoning Map of the City.
Mr. Wingerson stated, with Mr. Croy’s decision, he would defer to his
judgment and would suggest that a straight C-3 zoning be approved.
Mr. Wingerson explained that the Planning Commission
is recommending unanimously a CP-3 zoning; however, please note that was based
on Mr. Croy’s discussion in the Public Hearing format. Since then Mr. Wingerson has explained to Mr.
Croy in more detail the differences, and Mr. Croy’s request is for the straight
C-3 zoning. Mr. Wingerson pointed out
that Mr. Croy provided a brief letter to Council indicating his preference.
Councilman Beer
asked if Staff is in agreement with the C-3 zoning opposed to the CP-3 zoning.
Mr. Wingerson replied that Staff is in agreement as
it puts the zoning back to where it was before the new official zoning map was
approved a few short months ago. If this
was an application today, that would not be the case, but in fairness to the
property owner, to put it back to the way it was since the 1960’s or early
1970’s would be the appropriate thing to do.
Comments from those in Favor of the
application.
Wayne Croy, 7505 North Baltimore, stated he is the property
owner of the property at
There was no one to speak in Opposition to
the application.
Mayor Cross closed the Public Hearing.
Item 10a. on the Agenda. FIRST READING BILL 06-21, amending
Ordinance No. 2.292 being an Ordinance relating to Zoning Ordinance Regulations
and the establishment of Use Districts within the City of Gladstone, Missouri.
Councilman Carol Rudi moved to place Bill 06-21 on
First Reading, with the amendment that the property is rezoned from C-1 to
C-3. Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith
seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilman Mark Revenaugh,
Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Carol Rudi, Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith and Mayor
Bill Cross. (5-0). The Clerk read the Bill.
Councilman Carol
Rudi moved to accept the First Reading of Bill 06-21 as amended, Waive the Rule
and place the Bill on Second and Final Reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith seconded.
The vote: All “aye” – Councilman
Mark Revenaugh, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Carol Rudi, Mayor Pro Tem Les
Smith and Mayor Bill Cross. (5-0). The Clerk read the Bill.
Councilman Carol
Rudi moved to accept the Second and Final Reading of Bill 06-21, as amended,
and enact the Bill as Ordinance 3.999.
Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith seconded.
Roll Call Vote:
All “aye” – Councilman Mark Revenaugh, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman
Carol Rudi, Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith and Mayor Bill Cross. (5-0).
Item 11. on the Agenda. FIRST READING BILL 06-22, amending Ordinance
Numbers 2.325, 2.767 and 2.956 relating to School Zone Speed Limits and Times
under Schedule IX of the Model Traffic Ordinance (Gladstone Municipal Code
Section 4.100.020).
Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith moved to place Bill 06-22 on
First Reading, with the amendment added that states that each sign designating
the School Zones shall bear an additional notice stating “No Tolerance”,
indicating strict enforcement of the speed limit within the school zone. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated the amendment to the Bill
is the “No Tolerance” language, which should help the City to ensure the
ability to enforce the 20 miles per hour speed limit in the School Zones.
The vote: All
“aye” – Councilman Mark Revenaugh, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Carol
Rudi, Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith and Mayor Bill Cross. (5-0).
The Clerk read the Bill.
Mayor Pro Tem Les
Smith moved to accept the First Reading of Bill 06-22 as amended, Waive the
Rule and place the Bill on Second and Final Reading. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded. The vote:
All “aye” – Councilman Mark Revenaugh, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman
Carol Rudi, Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith and Mayor Bill Cross. (5-0).
The Clerk read the Bill.
Mayor Pro Tem Les
Smith moved to accept the Second and Final Reading of Bill 06-22, as amended,
and enact the Bill as Ordinance 4.000.
Councilman Wayne Beer seconded.
Roll Call
Vote: All “aye” – Councilman Mark
Revenaugh, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Carol Rudi, Mayor Pro Tem Les
Smith and Mayor Bill Cross. (5-0).
Item 12. on the Agenda. RESOLUTION 06-37, authorizing execution of a
contract by and between the City of Gladstone, Missouri, and the Kansas City
Area Transportation Authority to provide Public Transportation for the period
July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007.
Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith
moved to approve RESOLUTION 06-37, authorizing
execution of a contract by and between the City of Gladstone, Missouri, and the
Kansas City Area Transportation Authority to provide Public Transportation for
the period June 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007.
Councilman Wayne Beer seconded.
Councilman Carol Rudi
inquired into the publicity for ridership, and the number of people
participating since last year.
Councilman Rudi stated when she first began serving on the City Council,
the City’s cost was just over $20,000, and this contract indicates the City’s
share is appoximately $77,000, which is a large increase in four years. Councilman Rudi inquired into the large
increase in cost.
City Manager Davis reported
that a big issue with this contract is the Metroflex program added to the
contract, which is approximately $50,000, and is a Gladstone on the Move
objective. City Manager Davis explained
with the Metroflex component removed, the cost is only approximately $27,000.
Councilman Rudi stated City
Council approved a new taxi cab permit this evening for Northland Taxi, and
Metroflex is a little bit of a competition with the taxi cab service, so she
would like some ridership information, if not tonight, in the future.
Assistant City Manager Scott
Wingerson stated that Mark Swope from the Kansas City Area Transportation
Authority (KCATA) was expected to be present at this meeting, but unfortunately,
he was unable to attend. Mr. Wingerson
stated that publicity for ridership has been a Council priority for the last
couple of years in discussion of this contract.
KCATA has pledged the $50,000 Metroflex contribution from the City to
promote that service throughout the metropolitan area, so a focus will be seen
on publicity and public relations for the Metroflex program, which has been
provided by KCATA since it started about seven months ago.
Mr. Wingerson stated that
ridership has increased, and the $27,000 cost City Manager Davis mentioned is
slightly less than last year by approximately $1,000, which is directly offset
by fare revenue, so there is additional ridership on the fixed route lines
throughout Gladstone. Mr. Wingerson
reported there are four lines to which the City contributes, and there are two
others that serve Gladstone that are paid for by Federal, State, and the City
of Kansas City, Missouri funds. Mr.
Wingerson stated he would provide the ridership numbers to Council members.
Councilman Rudi asked if
fares have been increased. Councilman
Rudi stated she observed a bus traveling on North Broadway at a speed much
greater than the speed limit, and she would like that that type of activity to
stop and for the busses to obey the City’s speed limits.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated,
in his opinion, in “comparing apples to apples” the level of service compared
to the annual subsidy is about the same, and more importantly this is another
recommendation and objective from Gladstone on the Move. Mayor Pro Tem Smith said it is always
difficult each year to approve the subsidy when he sees busses with four or
five people traveling on them, but he believes this is truly an
economic development tool,
hoping that economic development will catch up to the tool. Mayor Pro Tem Smith said he would not want to
see the City give up this service at this point, and for some people in our
community it is a convenience and a cost savings, but for others it is a
definite need. Mayor Pro Tem Smith said
in weighing these factors, with the Gladstone on the Move objective being the
overriding factor, he is prepared to support this issue tonight.
Mayor Cross agreed with
Mayor Pro Tem Smith, and said when he attends the Mid- America Regional Council
Board meetings, where this is discussed, it makes him feel good that Gladstone
supports this service.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated
with some of the potential development in the future, whether it be a larger
than anticipated residential component to Gladstone Plaza or work with the
Village Center, it might not only bring customers to the City, it might also
bring more workers to the City. There
may be a greater ridership in the future, which would reduce the City’s costs. Mayor Pro Tem Smith suggested “staying the
course” at least for a bit longer.
Councilman Rudi stated she
had no problem approving this tonight; this is just information she usually
requests each year.
The vote: All
“aye” – Councilman Mark Revenaugh, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Carol
Rudi, Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith and Mayor Bill Cross.
Item 13. on the Agenda. OTHER BUSINESS.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated it was determined at the last City Council
meeting that Council was awaiting Kansas City’s recommendation from their ad
hoc committee regarding the red light cameras.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith said it was his understanding that today the
committee did recommend to the City Council of Kansas City that they move
forward with the red light cameras.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith said he feels it is time to bring this forward in
our community, as Council has discussed.
Item 14. on the Agenda. QUESTIONS FROM THE NEWS MEDIA.
Jeff Strait introduced
himself and said he was representing the The Kansas City Star at this
meeting, as the regular reporter, Mike Rice, was on vacation.
City Council members
welcomed Mr. Strait to this meeting, and any future City Council meetings.
Item 15. on the Agenda. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further
business to come before the June 26, 2006, Gladstone Regular City Council
Meeting, Mayor Bill Cross adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted:
___________________________
Cathy Swenson, City Clerk
Approved
as submitted: ___
Approved
as corrected/amended: ___
______________________________
Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith