MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY JULY 10, 2006
PRESENT: 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
ABSENT: Mayor Bill Cross
Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith opened the Regular July 10,
2006, City Council Meeting at 7:30 PM in the Gladstone City Council Chambers.
Item 3. on the Agenda. PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE.
Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith led the Pledge of
Allegiance, in which all joined.
Item 4. on the Agenda. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR JUNE 26, 2006, CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES.
Councilman Carol Rudi moved to approve the Regular June 26, 2006, City Council Meeting Minutes as presented. Councilman Wayne Beer seconded the motion. The vote: All “aye” – Councilman Mark Revenaugh, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Carol Rudi, and Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith. (4-0)
Item 5. on the Agenda. CONSENT AGENDA
Following the Clerk’s reading, Councilman Wayne Beer moved to accept the Consent Agenda as presented. Councilman Mark Revenaugh seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilman Mark Revenaugh, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Carol Rudi, and Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith. (4-0)
Councilman Wayne Beer moved to adopt RESOLUTION R-06-38, authorizing acceptance of a proposal from Cargill, Incorporated for the purchase of Snow Removal Salt. Councilman Mark Revenaugh seconded. The vote: All “aye” – Councilman Mark Revenaugh, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Carol Rudi, and Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith. (4-0)
Councilman Wayne
Beer moved to adopt RESOLUTION
R-06-39, authorizing acceptance of work under contract with Larkin
Excavating, Incorporated for the
Councilman Wayne Beer
moved to adopt RESOLUTION R-06-40, authorizing execution of a
contract with Bohnert Construction Company in the total amount not to exceed
$554,720.00, which includes alternate Bid Items One and Three, for the
Gladstone Public Works Improvements Project 046083. Councilman Mark Revenaugh seconded. The vote:
All “aye” – Councilman Mark Revenaugh, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman
Carol Rudi, and Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith.
(4-0)
Councilman Wayne Beer
moved to adopt RESOLUTION R-06-41, authorizing acceptance of a
proposal from Vellar Consulting in the amount of $25,000 for Neighborhood Development Consulting
Services in the Bolling Heights Subdivision within the City of Gladstone, Missouri. Councilman Mark Revenaugh seconded. The vote:
All “aye” – Councilman Mark Revenaugh, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman
Carol Rudi, and Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith.
(4-0)
Councilman Wayne
Beer moved to approve ANNUAL
LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS for:
·
TEZ, Inc. dba The End Zone, 7632 North Oak Trafficway, Class A Liquor
by the Drink License.
·
Big Stones, Inc. dba Stone Canyon Pizza, 6433 North Prospect, Class
A&B Liquor by the Drink License.
·
Senor Tequila, 6502 North Oak Trafficway, Class A&B Liquor by the
Drink License.
·
Gasmart, USA, Inc., 7303 North Oak Trafficway, 7 Day Package Liquor
License.
·
Wasahi, LLC, 328 NE 72 Street, Class A&B Liquor by the Drink
License.
·
Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar,
·
Mark & Michelle’s Bar & Grill, 7102 North Oak Trafficway, Class
A Liquor by the Drink License.
·
The Hide Out Bar & Grill, 6948 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, and Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith. (4-0)
REGULAR AGENDA
Item 6. on the Agenda. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE
AUDIENCE.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith introduced Josh Johnson and his
mother Connie Johnson. Mayor Pro Tem
Smith invited Mr. Johnson to step forward and tell the audience about
himself.
Mr. Johnson stated he is a Boy Scout in Troop 180,
sponsored by
Mayor Pro Tem Smith thanked both Mr. Johnson and his
mother for attending the meeting.
James Pfaff, 1505 Northeast 58th Street, began by thanking Council
members for taking the time to listen to his concerns this evening. Mr. Pfaff stated he would like to address
three points that have caused him to come forward to this Council meeting. Mr. Pfaff said he would first like to let
Council know who is standing before them; secondly, he would like to explain
the issues that he and his wife would like to discuss, and finally, he would
like to hear from the Council, if anything, can be done to resolve this
situation.
Mr. Pfaff said he has been a member of this
community since 1962, when his parents moved here. His wife, Gloria Scott, has been a resident
of the Northland since 1965. For the
last three years they have been renovating an 1880’s home in
Mr. Pfaff stated he was present at this meeting to
present an issue that he has been unable to resolve in ten months. Mr. Pfaff said this issue is in regard to the
property at 5711 North Flora, currently owned by J.C. and Christine Ellis, and
Council may be familiar with the property; it is a beautiful white colonial on
the hill, formerly owned by Art Piburn. Mr.
Pfaff stated that in September 2005, his wife made an anonymous complaint in
regards to code violations on Mr. Ellis’s property. His wife explained that they wished to remain
anonymous, and did not want to cause a rift with their neighbors. Mr. Pfaff said the procedure that was
explained was that this complaint would be kept confidential, and there would
not be anyone on their land and if violations were found, then Mr. Ellis would
be cited and required to conform. Mr.
Pfaff said this was not the case, and after reporting the violation, Mr.
Reyburn (Neighborhood Services Coordinator) was sent to observe if there were
any codes violations at this residence.
Mr. Pfaff said in a conversation with Mr. Reyburn, he discovered that he
was very familiar with Mr. Ellis and his family, and he explained that Mr.
Ellis had been cited at a different location for similar violations before
purchasing this property. Mr. Pfaff said
he was also informed that Mr. Reyburn lived next to Mrs. Ellis’s father, which
made him and his wife very uncomfortable, because this was supposed to be an
anonymous complaint. Mr.Pfaff stated Mr.
Reyburn then said he was going to speak to Mr. Ellis, and he apparently did
speak to Mr. Ellis and also let him know where the complaint originated.
Mr. Pfaff said before the complaint was
investigated, he explained to Mr. Ellis that he would have a survey taken and
wanted to erect a privacy fence on the property line, which was and is in
dispute. Mr. Pfaff stated that he and
his wife were away from home for two weeks, and when they returned, Mr. Ellis
was in the process of erecting a privacy fence.
Mr. Pfaff said when he reiterated his position that he did not agree
with Mr. Ellis’s choice of boundaries, Mr. Ellis became very aggressive and combative
towards his wife and him, which is when he became aware of his reasoning for
erecting the fence and his anger towards him and wife.
Mr. Pfaff stated Mr. Ellis had been made aware of
his complaint via Mr. Reyburn, and his anger was toward him and his wife for
having to conform to the City codes and ordinances. Mr. Pfaff said that from that point on there
has been animosity and aggression towards his wife and him from Mr. Ellis. Mr. Pfaff reported that Mr. Ellis was cited
and fined for his ordinance violations and told to apply for a business,
occupational and building permit. The
building permit was for a building that he had already constructed without a
permit. Mr. Pfaff said he knows that Mr.
Ellis has now paid his fines and has applied for and been granted a
business/occupational license, but still no building permit. Mr. Pfaff stated this is not a choice that he
made when he moved into Gladstone and appropriately applied for and conformed
to the codes and ordinances. This is
what he has and continues to do is proceed to the point where he is caught and
must do something and then do the least that is possible until the next time he
is cited. All the while continuing to
operate a business making profit and not conforming to any of the rules that
are set before him.
Mr. Pfaff said he has not seen any changes to his
operating style nor does he expect to.
If anything, this has become worse.
He now employees three people who do not live in the residence as
required by code. His nightly maintenance
of his equipment is ongoing, lasting 2 to 3 hours in the evening. The noise level is on a consistent with that
of a commercial property, but this is not a commercially zoned area. Mr. Pfaff stated he does not want a garden
service business in his neighborhood, and Mr. Ellis does not use a ½ ton
pick-up truck with an 8-foot trailer with a lawnmower on the back that can be
pulled into a driveway. Mr. Pfaff said
Mr. Ellis has ¾ ton flatbed trucks with a fifth wheeler trailer for hauling
commercial mowers, commercial weed eaters, a motorized cart for hauling,
multiple commercial chainsaws, and various other pieces of commercial
equipment. The hauling of cut limbs and
over-hanging debris on his trailers and the wood chipper to dispose of these
limbs are not that of a home business.
Mr. Pfaff said he and his wife are protesting that Mr. Ellis was given a
license to operate in a residential neighborhood and has operated illegally
before actually receiving his license.
Mr. Pfaff stated that Mr. Ellis has chosen to skirt the laws and
ordinances of this community for over two years, and they believe and see on a
daily basis that Mr. Ellis will continue to operate in an illegal manner.
Mr. Pfaff continued by saying this has gone on long
enough – his wife and he have followed the procedures required by this city and
its own municipal codes that the community has chosen to adopt. Simply being cited is not an option any
longer. Mr. Pfaff said the City has
observed Mr. Ellis’s violations from his property and he has continued to
provide photos of his ongoing illegal business.
Mr. Pfaff said Mr. Ellis chooses to operate illegally and his property
and well-being suffers because of inaction.
Mr. Pfaff stated he is protesting that Mr. Ellis was given a license to
operate a business in a residential neighborhood, and they do not think this
should have been granted. This is a
commercial business, not a home based residential business. Mr. Ellis has operated in Gladstone for a
number of years, and a City employee is and has been aware of his business and
occupation, and he continues to operate.
Mr. Pfaff continued by saying he was at the meeting
to register a complaint, not only about the business at 5711 North Flora, but
also with the City of Gladstone as a whole.
Mr. Pfaff gave to Council packets of information with photos of Mr.
Ellis’s residence and business that is being operated on his property. Mr. Pfaff said that included in the packets
were printed e-mails of his correspondence with Building Official Alan
Napoli. Mr. Pfaff said his third point
is what can and will be done about this situation, and said he is in the
process of retaining bids and hiring a surveyor for what he feels was an
illegally constructed fence. Mr. Pfaff
stated the bids he has received so far have not been cheap, and it is his
understanding that even after they do this, Mr. Ellis can choose to ignore the
survey and they must then hire an attorney and take him to court in order to
get action to have the fence removed.
Mr. Pfaff concluded by saying he and his wife have placed their time,
energy and money into this process, and now would like the City Council to
enforce the laws of their land.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked City Manager Kirk Davis if
he had any comments at this time.
City Manager Davis said he would need to review the
matter, and would defer at this time to Assistant City Manager Scott Wingerson,
who is also the Director of the Community Development Department, who handles
these issues. City Manager Davis said he
would like time to review the issues, read the document Mr. Pfaff provided, and
learn more details about this concern.
Assistant City Manager Scott Wingerson agreed with
City Manager Davis in that he would need some time to review these concerns,
and would suggest as a first step that he and Mr. Pfaff meet this week to
discuss some of the issues. There are
some limitations as to what the City can and cannot do, especially with a
history of citations. Mr. Wingerson said
a meeting with Mr. Pfaff would allow him to better understand the issues and a
course of action could then be determined.
Mr. Pfaff said he would appreciate meeting with Mr.
Wingerson. Mr. Pfaff said he and his
wife have been trying for 10 months to get these concerns resolved, and
unfortunately had to bring it before the City Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated Council members
appreciate Mr. Pfaff’s approach in allowing Council members to communicate to
him through proper channels. Mayor Pro
Tem Smith said it is a resident’s right to come before the City Council when
they have concerns, and he respects the manner in which Mr. Pfaff approached
the Council. Some people do not address
the City Council in such a respectful manner.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith said he felt that after Mr. Pfaff met with Mr. Wingerson,
he would better understand the City process and the City will have a better
understanding of Mr. Pfaff’s concerns.
Councilman Mark Revenaugh asked that Council members
receive a follow-up report regarding this matter.
John Garner, 111 Heatherton Court, began providing to Council
members copies of a letter sent to Jim Campbell of NorthStar Bank on April 17,
2006, from the City of Gladstone. Mr.
Garner asked for specific answers this evening to each one of the eight items
contained in the letter, and if they are legally and binding in a court of
law. Mr. Garner stated he wanted each
item to be addressed specifically at this time.
City Counselor David Ramsay stated he would not be
able to give a legal opinion immediately at the time of the meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked Assistant City Manager
Wingerson if there were any updates on Heatherton Court.
Mr. Wingerson replied the bank is working very hard
to dispose of the property, but that was the only update he had at this time.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated to Mr. Garner he
understood why Mr. Garner wanted answers to the items, but he believes it would
be unfair to ask the City Counselor to respond to each item at this time, and
asked if a written response would be agreeable.
Mr. Garner said his wife spoke to a lawyer who said
the only item that the City can legally make the Bank adhere to is the
application for building and land use, which is in the new ordinance with the
$500 for new houses under construction.
Mr. Garner said he wanted to know at this time if this has been done and
addressed with the bank. Mr. Garner
asked if the letter doesn’t mean anything, why did Mr. Wingerson write it? Mr. Garner said he has waited long enough for
action to take place, and he has had no communication from Mr. Wingerson since
the last meeting, nor has he heard from the bank. Mr. Garner said he feels the City or the bank
are dragging their feet, and the City has bent over backwards for the bank, and
he is not seeing any response. Mr.
Garner said his neighbors were present at the meeting, and they would like to
see some action.
Mr. Wingerson stated, as Council is aware, this is a
complicated issue. The very vast
majority of the concerns at Heatherton Court are civil in nature, between
individual property owners. Mr.
Wingerson said in terms of an opinion another lawyer gave on whether these
items are enforceable or not, he cannot answer, but he is certain that he and
City Counselor Ramsay can work together and arrive at an opinion. Mr. Wingerson said he believes the letter is
valid and believes that each of the items is administratively enforceable; in
fact some of the items have already been completed. Mr. Wingerson stated, in terms of City staff
or anyone in City Hall dragging their feet on this issue, that is simply not
the case. Mr. Wingerson said Staff is
working as diligently as they feel their role allows with the bank, as well as
the property owners in Heatherton Court to achieve a reasonable solution. The gist of the matter is that it is a civil,
private concern with which City staff is seeking to assist, and to that level
of response, Staff is doing an “above the call of duty” level of effort.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated in this instance, the
City has tried to assist with some issues that are probably civil issues, and
has probably pressed those as far as possible.
If the City has made a mistake, it is in giving the impression that the
City could help with more than it can.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith said we do need to continue to try to assist the residents
with everything we can, and he does not have the impression that anyone is
dragging their feet on this issue.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith said he visited with Mr. Garner
after the last Council meeting, and he tried to get assistance from someone he
knows at the bank, but the bank is also in an awkward position. Mayor Pro Tem Smith said the bank will lose
money on this deal, and they are trying to mitigate their losses, which is
their right to do. Mayor Pro Tem Smith
said he believes this issue is on Assistant City Manager Wingerson’s mind every
day, but he does want Mr. Garner to feel the City is being responsive to his
concerns and questions. Mayor Pro Tem
Smith asked that Mr. Wingerson provide to Mr. Garner a brief written response
to his questions, and to stay in contact with Mr. Garner.
Mr. Garner stated a building permit has been issued
and the bank has paid the money to keep the area clean. There are still weeds in the outside area,
and the hill needs to be re-sodded and the weeds removed in that area. Mr. Garner said someone did remove the hay
bales that were in front of the sewer drains, but there is still mud on the
street, and there needs to be more hay bales or put some plastic along the
sides of the street.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith said the City has some ability
to mow weeds and assess a lien against the property, and he does not know if
those avenues have been exhausted.
Councilman Mark Revenaugh stated this is not the
first time, in the short time he has been a member of the City Council, where a
case came up where truly as much as the City and Council would like to be able
to do something right away to make an issue better for the residents, there are
legal limitations as to what can be done.
Councilman Revenaugh stated he would like for City Counselor Ramsay to
give some clarification to City Council members and the Heatherton Court
residents as to where the City can assist the residents and where it cannot, so
residents will have that clarification and know how to proceed with legal
action or other action. Councilman
Revenaugh suggested a letter from Counselor Ramsay would help everyone
understand exactly where the City’s legal ability to remedy this situation
lies, and apparently this has not been done, as Mr. Garner keeps coming to the
Council meetings asking for something to be done. Councilman Revenaugh said he would like to
see the City clarify for Council members and the residents what can be done and
cannot be done regarding the issues that have been brought before City Council
Mayor Pro Tem Smith agreed and said if there are
things we can do, we need to do them, such as mowing, erecting erosion control
devises or assessing a lien against the property. Mayor Pro Tem Smith said it is time for
clarification to be made, and then the residents can pursue whatever avenues
are available to them, and the City can do what it can.
Mr. Garner pointed out that attached to the packet
he distributed was a return letter to Mr. Wingerson from James Campbell, Senior
Vice President of the bank. The letter
states that the bank has contracted to have the debris removed from the bank
property, which should be done when weather permits. Mr. Garner said this letter was dated May 1,
2006. The debris is still piled up, and
with the weather being dry this work could have been done on any day. No work has been done on this issue. Mr. Garner stated in regard to the notes from
the meeting with Jim Campbell that was included in his packet, he accidentally
left off one page, and if Council members would like that page, he would
provide it to them. Mr. Garner said
these are his notes from a meeting that was held with some of the Heatherton
Place homeowners and Mr. Campbell.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked if Mr. Garner would please
provide that copy to City staff before Thursday, so it could be included in the
City Council packets of information they receive each week.
Mr. Garner agreed to provide the information. Mr. Garner stated the play at the park Friday
night was excellent, and he wished to thank everyone for their work on it, and
he hopes more people will attend.
Item 7. on the Agenda. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.
Councilman Mark Revenaugh extended congratulations to
the Parks and Recreation Department and the City staff involved with putting on
another fabulous July 4th celebration. Councilman Revenaugh said many residents have
told him how spectacular our City’s fireworks were. Councilman Revenaugh said there was a
complimentary letter in the Kansas City Star, and people are coming from
out of town to see our fireworks.
Councilman Revenaugh congratulated Parks and Recreation Director Sheila
Lillis and her staff for a great event.
Councilman Wayne Beer had no comments at this
time.
Councilman Carol Rudi thanked Parks and
Recreation Director Sheila Lillis for the great July 4th event. Every year she thinks the fireworks cannot
get any better, and every year they are better.
Councilman Rudi said she was at the Theatre in the Park presentation of Oklahoma
on Sunday, and it was excellent and she hopes more people will attend the
Theatre in the Park presentations.
Councilman Rudi asked Director Lillis to talk about upcoming events in
the park.
Parks and Recreation Director Sheila Lillis reported
that the next event at the Gladstone Amphitheatre is the movie, Charlotte’s
Web, which is scheduled for 8:30 PM, on July 21st. Director Lillis stated it is hoped the young
children will attend this movie. The
next event will be the second Theatre in the Park production of Anything
Goes. Director Lillis reported that
the attendance estimate for the Oklahoma production was 12,400. There were huge crowds on Friday and
Saturday.
Mayor Les Smith extended cudos and expressed appreciation to
the Parks and Recreation Department and the Public Safety Department for the
July 4th activities. Mayor
Smith said he thought there were fewer renegade fireworks this year than have
been in the past, and that is probably because the enforcement and education
has increased. Mayor Smith said to
Public Safety Director Bill Adamo that he may give his staff a hard time on
occasion, but when they do a good job, he also want to express a “job well
done”, and they did do a good job over the July 4th holiday.
Item 8. on the Agenda. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE CITY MANAGER.
City Manager Kirk Davis stated he wished to tell the Parks and Recreation Department what a nice job they did on the July 4th event. It was a great display and a great crowd. City Manager Davis said the Public Safety Department handled the crowd well, and to all “kudos” on a good job.
Item 9. on the Agenda. SECOND READING BILL 06-20, granting a Special Use
Permit to T-Mobile to operate a Communications Tower facility at 2013 NE 72nd
Street. Applicant: Selective Site Consultants,
Incorporated. Owner: Kansas City Power and Light Company. File No. 1278.
Councilman Wayne Beer moved
to place Bill 06-20 on its second and final reading. Councilman Carol Rudi seconded.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith pointed
out that at Council members places was an updated photograph of the cell tower
that is proposed, and asked that Council notice that the platform antenna shown
in the picture has all three platforms shown.
The picture presented to the Planning Commission and to the City Council
did not show all three platforms, it only showed the top platform. Mayor Pro Tem Smith said he requested that
some accurate photos be presented to show what the tower could look like when
completely erected. Mayor Pro Tem Smith
said he still feels very strongly that if the two pictures are compared side by
side, one can see a definite difference between the platform type pole and the
flush mount pole, a picture of which was also provided. The flush mount pole has three antennas
mounted closer to the pole.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated
he knows that Council members have seen the tower in the Village of Oakview at
64th and North Oak Trafficway, and while they may not think it looks
too bad, he would disagree. Mayor Pro
Tem Smith reported that Oakview is in the process of perhaps adding another 25
feet to the tower, which will make it a 150-foot tall tower with three
platforms on it. Mayor Pro Tem Smith
said he recalled when Oakview approved their tower, and our City did not take
kindly to it, because we were criticized
by our residents for allowing such an ugly structure in our City, to an
extent that one of our Council members suggested writing an open letter to the
editor explaining it was not our tower.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith said his
mother has often said “don’t curse the dark, when you can light a candle”, and
he felt there is an opportunity to light a candle in this instance, while after
cursing Oakview, we now have it in the palm of our hands whether or not to
approve a very similar structure. Mayor
Pro Tem Smith said he does not know whether our City should turn its back on
the aesthetic argument of the tower.
Councilman Wayne Beer said
knowing that there is no tower that would be considered pleasing, and there is
no location that is going to be ideal if it is visible to anyone, he
understands that. In these particular
cases, he does not find that the platform tower is any more objectionable than
is the flush mount tower. Councilman
Beer said neither one of the towers is pristine nor ideal; however, the
location of this tower versus the Oakview tower is significantly different in
that this is already an industrial location, as it is a Kansas City Power and
Light site that has other towers and a substation. Councilman Beer said, in fact, the substation
creates a great deal of noise, which he would find to be significantly more
objectionable than the aesthetics of either of the two towers.
Councilman Beer said the
tower at Oakview is placed in a location where it is impossible to be anything
other than the eyesore that it is, as it is so close to Gladstone Plaza and
North Oak Trafficway. The towers being
proposed to our Council are a greater distance off of a major thoroughfare, and
given that the platform tower is much more likely to result in someone not
coming forward at a later date for another tower is something that has to be
looked at very closely.
Councilman Beer said having
to give consideration to another tower in this City, especially when one looks
at the locations that have been suggested, with regard to signal propagation,
that there is no other place in town that would be suitable for another
tower. Councilman Beer said given this
tower’s location and the fact that people expect cell phone reception and
signal propagation, he thinks this has to be considered favorable.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith said he
does not disagree, and from a land use standpoint he feels this is a very
appropriate location for a cell tower, and may be the best in the City, and he
definitely understands the cell phone reception issues. Mayor Pro Tem Smith said in the 1996 Federal
Telecommunications Act, Section 704 states very significantly that no
discrimination shall be made in preference for one carrier over another
carrier, and one of his concerns is that if Council approves this platform
tower, will the City be in a position where the next people who apply for a
tower say a tower was granted before and the City cannot discriminate against
them, and therefore the City must also give them a platform tower. Will the City be in a position of setting a
precedent by the fact that the first tower the City approves would be a
platform tower. Mayor Pro Tem Smith
invited a representative from Selective Sites to step forward to answer some
questions from Council members.
Councilman Revenaugh asked, for clarification, what the two pictures Council members were provided represent. Councilman Revenaugh said he knows there are three platforms on the proposed tower, and asked if there were three on the other one?
Mayor Pro Tem Smith replied the other picture is of
a flush mount tower with three antennas on it, with only two carriers on it, as
T-Mobile will take the top two.
Jess Louk, of Selective Site Consultants, 8500 West 110th
Street, Overland Park, Kansas, said he was representing T-Mobile, USA and
stated the next carrier will probably try to take the next two spots on the
flush mount tower being discussed.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith said on the platform antenna T-Mobile will only take one site, so therefore there would be two spots available, so there would be a net gain in that location on that pole of one carrier. Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked Mr. Louk if the City granted approval for a flush mount pole, could that in the future be retrofitted to a platform antenna.
Mr. Louk replied the answer to that question is “it depends”. It depends on if the City approved a flush mount antenna facility, his company typically would order a tower that is capable of holding flush mounts structurally, and what would probably be perceived as a business decision from T-Mobile USA is whether they would want to spend the extra capital dollars to order a “beefier” tower that is capable of holding the mounts, even though they are not approved to do so. So, effectively, they would be spending money for something they technically cannot use.
Mr. Louk stated regarding the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Mayor Pro Tem Smith pointed out that the site being discussed is an ideal location for a telecommunications tower - it is an industrial use, and he asked if this location is not right for a standard tower with platform antennas, then what is? Mr. Louk said what is being seen in the
telecommunications industry is that more and more people are demanding service in their homes. It is no longer just driving in the car or just being in the office at work. People want it in the basement while they are watching their big screen television, text messaging their friends about a game, or sending some sort of data.
Mr. Louk said more and more often they are finding themselves in residential neighborhoods looking for pieces of ground where they can get vertical real estate in the air, and service the network. What that means is, in a lot of cases, they are finding churches and other nonconforming uses and bringing them to the cities for their consideration. Mr. Louk said that is when they really pull out all “the bells and whistles” and do what they call stealth installation. Mr. Louk said the difference would be if he were here a month from now representing T-Mobile on a church, he would bring stealth installation with something that would make sense for the use. In this particular instance, the best use for this facility is a platform tower. Mr. Louk said this tower will be filled up pretty quickly. There is a coverage need in Gladstone across all the carriers. Mr. Louk said there was a radio frequency engineer in the audience, Luke Lowenbrink, who was present to answer any technical questions that do not involve the real estate acquisition.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked if there is such a need
for this, then chances are a net gain of one space isn’t necessarily
enough. Other carriers are going to be
looking for a place to come to town.
Mr. Louk replied what will most likely happen is
that his company would build this as a three carrier monopole or, if approved,
as a platform tower, and order a three or four carrier pole – probably a three
carrier. It will hold three carriers
with a full loading. A fourth will come
along, and have to typically do some sort of structural modification in order
to make the tower work. They would put
something on the tower to make it work, using smaller lines and beefing it
up.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith said he understood vertical
stacking on a tower, but for example is it possible to locate another tower in
this same area being discussed.
Mr. Louk replied it would be tight, and their main
objective is to be off the road and away from the tennis courts, and stay in
the industrial part. At the rear of the
Kansas City Power and Light facility there is not a lot of room. Their first preference was to put it back
even further, but what happens is it gets closer to housing, and the topography
slides down a little bit, so they had to live with the front. Mr. Louk said he does not know if there is
room. There is room for another tower,
if Kansas City Power and Light would allow for a tower to be built within its
fenced facility. They do not allow
towers within their fenced facilities, unless they are owned by Kansas City
Power and Light, and they do not allow carriers inside them.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith said he understands the
aesthetic concern and placing the tower back off the road, and a limited number
of residents around it, but the fact is his guess is there are probable 12,000
to 15,000 cars per day that traverse 72nd Street. Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated as Councilman Beer
said at the last meeting, these tend to become invisible, and that might be
right if one looks at them all the time, but he does not know that for people
coming from out of town if it would become invisible to them. Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked if there might be
room for another antenna on the property.
Mr. Louk replied there is not room for another tower
- there is room, but he does not believe it is viable because the landlord, the
person who owns the tower, will not lease space within the compound
facility. If the City of Gladstone wants
to bulldoze its tennis courts and erect a tower facility there, then, yes, but
of course that is owned by Kansas City Power and Light, also.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated the reason for stealth
technology is because communities are preferring not to have these types of
towers in their community. Mayor Pro Tem
Smith said he has heard of trees (telecommunication antenna tree masts that look like trees) and he understands as of today that they even come
in different species.
Mr. Louk replied they do come in different
species. They are significantly more
expensive and cumbersome to build, and a tree in this location doesn’t really
make sense outside the substation. In
some cases it is absolutely something that T-Mobile and some of the other
carriers are willing to do. In this
instance, it is something that would have to go to the corporate level to be
approved, because the cost difference is so much, and it will not be approved
within a substation. Mr. Louk asked if
there was any neighborhood opposition to the tower. It is his understanding that to date, there
has not been any neighborhood opposition, and the reality is no one comes out
to support towers, unless there is a landlord that is receiving the
revenue. Mr. Louk said the public has
had an opportunity to provide feedback, and for a telecommunications tower near
residential neighborhoods, there has been no opposition at all. Mr. Louk asked that be considered in
Council’s decision.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked if residents call after
the tower is erected, they may be given Mr. Louk’s home phone number.
Mr. Louk replied to please give them his office
number and he would be happy to have a neighborhood meeting with residents to
explain some of the benefits.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated by then it would be too
late.
Mr. Louk stated it is an interesting economy, and it
is true it is not the most beautiful structure in the world, but for everyone
who comes in to explain, know that 90 percent of the population in the United
States has a cell phone, and they use it in one way or another. The industry trend nationwide is for more
towers. Mr. Louk said that is not
something that as a City Council you want to hear, but when one makes a phone
call, the voice takes up
room on the network, and when one sends a picture or
a video stream, it takes up much more room, and there is only so much band
width that each carrier has and can use.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith said he does not wish to give
the misconception that he does not want a tower and a tower in this location,
but this community does not allow someone to build an ugly building in the
City, and this is the same thing. We are
asked to grant a Special Use Permit to allow one to build a structure. Mayor Pro Tem Smith said we don’t allow ugly
buildings and he does not know that we should allow ugly cell phone towers, and
that is his position. Mayor Pro Tem
Smith asked if the primary user on the proposed antenna is T-Mobile?
Mr. Louk replied that was correct.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith said if they have a platform at
the very top, that is what they want more than anything, and it allows some
other spaces to lease.
Mr. Louk said that was correct.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked what is the practicality
of a pole with a platform at the very top and flush mount below that, as a
compromise position. Such towers do
exist, as there is one in North Kansas City.
Mr. Louk stated, as a T-Mobile representative, they
have no problem with that. Mr. Louk
continued by saying the problem may be when a second carrier comes in to make a
building application, the building permit department is going to have to review
the Special Use Permit approval and see that they can only be flush mounted,
because he guarantees when the next person comes along, sees the existing
vertical real estate, he will say, “ah, no new tower needed, let’s go to
T-Mobile and do a lease with them”. When
they come in to file the building permit, most likely what will be seen is the
full antenna rate proposed.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked if this will serve
T-Mobile’s need in our area, or will they need other locations in this
immediate area.
Mr. Louk replied that is an interesting conversation
that he and City staff could sit down “off line” and discuss the master plan
for Gladstone. Mr. Louk said the
Northland in general, and especially Gladstone and some of the neighboring
communities are underserved compared to some of the other jurisdictions in the
area, such as Kansas City, Missouri, the Johnson County metropolitan area, and
some of the areas in Wyandotte County.
There is a lot of building and money coming into this area right now
from the cell phone industry to get it up to par. Mr. Louk said it is not something he would
want to talk about on public record, but would like to sit down in a private
meeting and discuss. Mr. Louk said it
can be seen on the map where the holes are in the coverage.
Councilman Beer said his house sits in one of those
holes. Mayor Pro Tem Smith said he does
too. Councilman Beer said this tower
will not help him one bit.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith said the tower would help him,
and he still does not want it.
Councilman Rudi asked if this pole had a platform on
top and it allowed the two flush mounts below, will those two flush mounts be
usable by two other carriers?
Mr. Louk replied, probably,
he is not a frequency engineer, but what will happen is there won’t be a lot of
flexibility or choice, and at the end of the day the engineers will have to
accept the limited and reduced coverage because it is his only option. In reality, a second tower will not be
approved by this body, so they will have to live with a second installation.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith said all
the carriers have coverage in Gladstone, if nothing else they have them on our
water towers, so these are secondary. It
is not that the City is denying access to anyone, because they would have
limited usage of that. Mayor Pro Tem
Smith said Staff did recommend a flush mount antenna, and he does not care at
all for the platform at all, but thinks it would help to have the platform on
the top and flush mount under that. It
can be seen by the picture provided today versus the picture provided last
week, that this is three times as obnoxious as the picture Council members had
previously seen. Anything to eliminate
those halos would be aesthetically beneficial, and the users are getting the
same thing, they will gain the two that are requested instead of just one.
Councilman Mark Revenaugh
stated he had taken an informal poll since the last City Council meeting, and
without exception, all the Gladstone residents he has asked if this is an
aesthetics problem or a communications issue, have all said they want to
communicate. Councilman Revenaugh said
we don’t want to be a community that people drive into and can’t
communicate. We have primary coverage,
but like Mr. Louk said, people want to be able to talk in their homes and they
want better coverage. We are going to
get excellent coverage by having the three platform tower and without tying
T-Mobile’s hands. Councilman Revenaugh
said they are going to look for other locations, because people want to be able
to communicate, so he does not see a benefit in tying one hand behind their
back and say we will only accept one platform and two flush mounts, because it
will cause a reduced capacity. The other
carriers that use the tower will be at a reduced capacity, so they will be
looking elsewhere.
Councilman Revenaugh said
aesthetically, they look a little like the ornaments at Bartle Hall. There were a lot of derogatory comments when
they were first put up, but over time people have grown to like those pieces of
art. Councilman Revenaugh said he was
not comparing a cell phone tower with a piece of art, but there is a
similarity.
Councilman Beer said
telecommunication towers are becoming prevalent enough now that people, while
they don’t like having a tower in their back yard, accept the fact that the
towers are there and that the towers are necessary for communication. Councilman Beer said he does not know how we
can avoid them.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated
the argument is not whether there should be a tower at this site, but what type
of tower should be there and weighing the aesthetics, because there are people
in our community who don’t think we should have an antenna like the one at 64th
Street and North Oak Trafficway, and believes there are people that think they
are nothing less than hideous. Mayor Pro
Tem Smith said if we can get three carriers total, what is the downside of at
least addressing the aesthetics of this.
Councilman Revenaugh replied
he believed the aesthetics have been addressed, and he thinks the majority like
the platform tower.
Councilman Rudi stated both
poles are ugly, and neither one is less ugly than the other, and she would
rather see one ugly pole that has full coverage, so we don’t have three
carriers that apply for another location.
Therefore, until they come up with the technology that allows for the removal
of the poles altogether, she is in favor of this particular location,
and this particular tower with the platforms.
There being no further
discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Smith called for a vote.
“Aye” – Councilman Mark Revenaugh, Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Carol Rudi. “Nay” – Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith. (3-1) The Clerk read the Bill.
Councilman Wayne
Beer moved to accept the Second and Final Reading of Bill 06-20, and enact the
Bill as Ordinance 4.001. Councilman
Carol Rudi seconded.
Roll Call
Vote: “Aye” – Councilman Mark Revenaugh,
Councilman Wayne Beer, Councilman Carol Rudi.
“Nay” – Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith
(3-1).
Item 10. on the Agenda. OTHER BUSINESS.
There was no other business.
Item 11. on the Agenda. QUESTIONS FROM THE NEWS MEDIA.
There were no questions from
the News Media.
Item 12. on the Agenda. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further
business to come before the July 10, 2006, Gladstone Regular City Council
Meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Les Smith adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted:
___________________________
Cathy Swenson, City Clerk
Approved
as submitted: ___
Approved
as corrected/amended: ___
______________________________
Mayor Bill Cross