PLANNING COMMISSION
GLADSTONE, MISSOURI
June 5, 2006
7:30 pm
Present: Council & Staff Present:
Ms. Newsom Scott Wingerson,
Assist. City Manager
Ms. Alexander David
Ramsay, City Counselor
Mr. Boor Melinda
Mehaffy, Economic Dev. Admin.
Mr. Reynolds Becky Jarrett, Admin.
Assist
Mr. Stanley Carol Rudi,
Councilman
Ms. Suter* Wayne
Beer, Councilman
Mr. Whitton
Ms. Abbott
Mr. Steffens*
Chairman Hill
Mr. Shevling
Mr.
West
Absent: None
*arrived
after roll call
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 May 15,
2006 minutes.
Ms. Alexander said that on
page 11 of the May 15 minutes, the word “Ferrell” (referring to cats) should
not be capitalized.
MOTION: By Ms. Newsom, second by Mr. West to approve
the May 15, 2006 minutes as corrected.
The motion carried.
Item 4 on the
Agenda: Communications
from the Audience.
Anna Ryan, 509 NW 10th
Street, Blue Springs, addressed the Commission. Ms. Ryan stated that she is here tonight to ask the City for help
with the feral cat problem behind her business (N. Oak Garden Center). This past weekend she caught two people
feeding the cats and told them to stop.
She called Public Safety and they came out but they didn’t talk to
her. She was told to file a police
report, but when she went to do that on Saturday, they wouldn’t take it.
Ms. Alexander asked her
to explain some of the damages they (the cats) have caused her.
Ms. Ryan explained that
they have urinated all over the topsoil, mulch and flowers that she sells at
her garden center. They have also tore
open bags of fertilizer and destroyed parts of her storage area. She has often loaded plants or flowers into
a customer’s vehicle and been overwhelmed by the smell of cat urine. The cats are hurting her sales and causing
her a lot of unnecessary expenses. She
has been dealing with this for the last five or six years but this is the worst
it has ever been.
Chairman Hill thanked Ms.
Ryan for her comments.
Item 5 on the Agenda: CONSIDERATION: of a request for a Special Use Permit at 6822 N. Charlotte Street. Applicant/Owner: Lisa Jo Sink. File # 1273.
Mr. Wingerson reported that the site visit for this application was conducted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 and attended by Ms. Abbott, Ms. Suter, Mr. West, Mr. Steffens and Ms. Alexander. The group discussed how clean and well organized the area appeared and recommended approval.
Mr. Boor said he would be rucusing himself from the vote, as stated at the last meeting.
MOTION: By Ms. Abbott, second by Ms. Alexander to approve the Special Use Permit at 6822 N. Charlotte Street.
Ms. Abbott commented that she was impressed with Ms. Sink’s set-up and how organized it was.
Ms. Newsom noted that business owners in Gladstone need to be aware of the rules and regulations of City licenses prior to opening a business. It is their responsibility to check into these things first, not wait until several years later when they are “caught”.
Chairman Hill said he would like to add additional verbage that would eliminate the possibility of the business ever have outside signs.
VOTE: Ms. Newsom Yes
Ms. Alexander Yes
Mr. Boor Abstain
Mr. Stanley Yes
Ms. Suter Yes
Mr. Whitton Yes
Ms. Abbott Yes
Mr. Steffens Yes
Chairman Hill Yes
Mr. Shevling Yes
Mr. West Yes
The motion carried. (11-1 abstain)
Item 6 on the Agenda: CONSIDERATION: of a Final Plat at 307/309 NW 55th Terrace. Applicant: John G. Pileggi. Owner: John Pileggi and Alice Daniels. File # 1275.
Mr. Wingerson reported that the same site visit committee reviewed this property, with the exception of Mr. Steffens who is related to the property owner. The committee agreed that this looked like a good use of the property and recommended approval.
Ms. Alexander said that it was an excellent site visit and appeared to be a good use of the land; therefore, she will be voting in favor of it.
Ms. Abbott expressed her concern with the detached accessory structure. The structure needs a lot of work and is very dilapidated. It doesn’t coincide with the rest of the neighborhood. She suggested that the ordinance specifically states that the accessory structure be demolished.
MOTION: By Ms.
Abbott, second by Ms. Alexander to approve the Final Plat at 307/309 NW 55th
Terrace. The word “removed” shall be
changed to “demolished” on recommended
condition #7 in the staff report.
VOTE: Ms. Newsom Yes
Ms. Alexander Yes
Mr. Boor Yes
Mr. Stanley Yes
Ms. Suter Yes
Mr. Whitton Yes
Ms. Abbott Yes
Mr. Steffens Yes
Chairman Hill Yes
Mr. Shevling Yes
Mr. West Yes
The motion carried. (12-0)
Item 7 on the Agenda: PUBLIC HEARING: On a request for a correction to the official zoning map at 7100 N. Antioch Road. Applicant: City of Gladstone. Owner: Merle W. & Mildred M. Croy. File #1277.
Mr. Wingerson reported that in October of 2005 the City Council, with recommended approval from the Planning Commission, approved a new official Zoning Map for the City of Gladstone. At that time, staff stated that they were really sure about the information being presented, but that there were going to be some mistakes due to the nature of the project. The owner of Wayne Croy Automotive produced an original certificate of occupancy indicating a C-3 zoning. The newly adopted Zoning Map currently shows this property as C-1. Through further research, staff was unable to verify the C-1 zoning and therefore, at this time is recommending that the zoning be changed to CP-3. The property has consistently been used as a C-3 zoning for an automotive repair shop for many years.
Wayne Croy, 7505 N. Baltimore, addressed the Commission. Mr. Croy stated that he has been running a business there for thirty years and it was zoned C-3 when he started there and as far as he knows it has never been changed. He thinks it should stay C-3.
There was no one in favor or opposition of the application.
Mr. Whitton said that the certificate of occupancy states that it is C-3, not CP-3. He thinks that the “P” would not be good for Mr. Croy.
Mr. Wingerson said that the Planning Commission can certainly make that change should they desire. The “P” simply requires site plan approval for major revisions to the site. Staff was trying to make it more consistent with what the City does today.
Mr. Whitton asked if anyone had explained this to Mr. Croy. Mr. Whitton remarked that it seems like down-zoning to him.
Mr. Wingerson understands what Mr. Whitton is thinking. By making it a CP-3 zoning, it brings the zoning classification into the 21st Century. From the owner’s perspective it actually provides more flexibility in future re-development of the property because they have the avenue of coming to the Commission and Council to make changes to the site plan. In straight zoning, it is strictly “by the book” as far as setbacks and building size.
Mr. Whitton said that it seems like if they had C-3 back in 1977, it should stay the same. He also thinks someone should explain it to Mr. Croy.
Mr. Croy asked if the zoning stays with him or the property should he decide to sell.
Mr. Wingerson replied that the zoning stays with the property. He also explained the difference between CP-3 and C-3 to Mr. Croy.
Chairman Hill closed the public hearing.
Ms. Newsom recommended that the Commission stick with the CP-3 zoning as proposed. She realizes that wasn’t done in 1977, but that’s what is happening today and if the community is going to move forward there needs to be consistency.
Mr. Boor asked if this zoning change would have any immediate effect on the property.
Chairman Hill answered no.
Mr. Reynolds said he agreed with Mr. Whitton in that he would like to make sure that Mr. Croy has a clear understanding as to what this zoning change means. Mr. Reynolds repeated the proposal: The C-3 is not a very flexible zoning. It’s the “letter of the law.” If he would want to make changes to that property, there is no wiggle room.
Mr. Wingerson agreed with that explanation and added that there would be no flexibility in terms of site design…it either meets the setbacks, parking ratios or height requirements or it doesn’t.
Mr. Reynolds asked that by adding the “planned” in there, that would indicate that the property could have some alterations if it meets the plan.
Mr. Wingerson explained that if there was an application filed for a site plan revision to add to the building, add parking or add further functions of the building, after the Planning Commission makes a recommendation and if the City Council would approve the site plan, then there can be flexibility in designing the site.
Mr. Reynolds added that he will be voting in favor of this application simply because it seems to be a “win-win” for both parties. It allows some flexibility to the owner of the property as well as some protection to the City so we will know what is going on.
MOTION: By Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Newsom to approve the zoning change at 7100 N. Antioch Road to CP-3.
VOTE: Ms. Newsom Yes
Ms. Alexander Yes
Mr. Boor Yes
Mr. Stanley Yes
Ms. Suter Yes
Mr. Whitton Yes
Ms. Abbott Yes
Mr. Steffens Yes
Chairman Hill Yes
Mr. Shevling Yes
Mr. West Yes
The motion carried. (12-0)
Item 8 on the
Agenda: PUBLIC HEARING: On a request for a Special Use Permit at
2013 NE 72nd Street.
Applicant: Selective Site
Consultants, Inc. Owner: KC Power & Light Company.
Mr. Wingerson reported that this request is to allow the applicant to construct a wireless communications tower that is 120’ in height. Staff has set this up to either be a special use permit, which is the ultimate recommendation , or as a zoning change. Should the Commission prefer to go the zoning change route, he will explain in greater detail how to proceed.
The overall construction of these facilities is based largely on the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Federal law provides a lot of restrictions on the things that the Commission and Council can look. It does say that municipalities can continue to retain their zoning authority and can order removal, construction and changes. It also prohibits any action that would be shown to be discriminatory between various wireless providers. Specifically, approval moves forward, but denial needs to be in writing and supported by evidence provided by staff, the Commission or testimony provided in the public hearing. Another important point is that any evidence or discussion about frequency emissions should not enter into the Commission’s decision-making process.
Mr. Wingerson continued by stating that the proposed facility is located north of and adjacent to an existing Kansas City Power and Light (KCP&L) substation and south of and adjacent to City operated tennis courts. This is generally in the facility of NE 72nd Street and North Euclid. Approximately 125’ to the west are residential uses. Approximately 150’ to the east are office uses. The substation includes general industrial scale electrical distribution equipment and communication equipment. As a side note, Mr. Wingerson mentioned that there is an existing communication facility on the side that is 110’ in height. The proposed facility is located within a 45’X45’ fenced compound. Within the area is communication equipment, a large generator and the monopole structure. The compound area is surrounded by a 6’ wood privacy fence and accessed by a 12’ wide gate. General access to the property is accessed by a 12’ wide drive.
The maximum height of the tower is 120’ and designed to accommodate two different communication company users, which would be the applicant plus a second. One question staff would ask the applicant to answer in his presentation would be what the diameter of the tower at the base is. Mr. Wingerson said there are three different choices in term of the style of the tower itself: halo-type (platform), close (flush) mount, and canister type. The applicant has provided additional information at the Commissioner’s places tonight describing the three types.
Mr. Wingerson ended his presentation by stating that from an overall telecommunication policy this proposal appears to be very well located. There are additional opportunities at the Linden and Antioch water towers, as well as the federally controlled tower at 68th Street and N. Troost. Should this request be approved, staff feels that the City will be very well served for telecommunications services from NE 64th Street north to the City limits, but a little less served NE 64th Street to the south, so there may be something in the future having to do with that area. There is a very high capital costs to a project like this which is why staff’s recommendation is a special use permit, along with the recommended conditions, for a period of 15 years. Most of the recommended conditions are detail-oriented having to do with the address and construction plans. Staff is recommending a close-mount type of tower. Mr. Wingerson highlighted several other conditions listed in the draft ordinance such as the submitted landscape plan be implemented and maintained in perpetuity.
Chairman Hill asked the applicant to come forward.
Bob Herlihy, Selective Site Consultants, Inc., 8500 W 110th Street, Overland Park, Kansas, addressed the Commission. He stated that he is representing T-Mobile Central this evening and is accompanied by the Planning and Zoning Director and the Engineer for T-Mobile. He is also the agent for KCP&L under a consent to zone so that they don’t have to take time out to come to all these hearings. He began by stating that his firm is the site acquisition specialists. What they do is go out and look for a site within the search range where deficiencies have been determined by the provider’s customers. Mr. Herlihy gave examples of how the industry of cell phones has changed from a novelty back in 1995 to an essential part of our everyday life. We use them night and day. They have gone from a few thousand in 1996 to 200 million users today.
Mr. Herlihy explained that the original system established for these communication devices has now left tremendous holes in coverage in communities everywhere. He is mandated by all the carriers to look first for a co-location. The bankers certainly like it better and it saves the budget of the carriers. As these systems develop and every co-location has been exhausted, he then tries to find the most appropriate place to build a tower that fits within the guidelines of the jurisdiction. In this case, Mr. Herlihy continued, Gladstone’s ordinance asks for public or semi-public property. He has done that. He tried to find areas where there are existing tall structures that would tend to shield the new tower. He feels that his company has met the terms of the ordinances in every way and has found an appropriate place. They have also tried to keep it as short as possible while still maintaining room for an additional carrier. Mr. Herlihy referred to the photos that were placed at the Commissioner’s seats which depict what the different tower types will actually look like.
Chairman Hill asked Mr. Herlihy if he has seen the recommended conditions and agrees to them.
Mr. Herlihy replied that yes they are acceptable. Obviously, they would prefer the platform-type tower because of the space that would allow for better coverage farther out. But as a compromise and because he worked with staff on this application, the conditions would be acceptable as is.
Chairman Hill asked what effect that would have on the ability to add more carriers.
Mr. Herlihy said it will have an effect. The fact is if you put the platform up, you have special diversity. The capacity will be cut down by one-half with flush mounting.
Ms. Newsom asked if that would mean that there would be a need for another tower in close proximity to accomplish the same job that this one tower would with the other mounting.
Mr. Herlihy answered that was correct. They can still handle the two carriers, but the bottom two are going to be a lot lower than if you use the platform. A platform could potentially hold three carriers.
Ms. Newsom asked about ice resistance.
Mr. Herlihy replied that all the towers are certified. They are based upon a certain wind speed and a certain amount of build-up ice and each one is mandated by the tower manufacturer. In this area, you will have 80 mph winds and ˝” ice. He has never hard of a monopole failing. The foundation is 35’ in the ground, 8’ wide, reinforced.
Ms. Newsom asked if there is any more concern with ice building up on top of the halo-type mount.
Mr. Herlihy said that the mount would collapse at 40’ and basically “tether” the pole. It won’t fall over and away from the tower. The cables inside the tower would hold the mount on.
Ms. Suter said in the application it states that there are six other locations in the area. She asked how those six are mounted.
Mr. Herlihy answered that this is the first raw land build that he has done in the City of Gladstone. All the others are co-locations.
Chairman Hill asked what the radius at the base of the tower will be.
Mr. Herlihy said that it will probably be about 48”; however, each tower is manufactured specific to that location. After the approval process, they will go out and start doing the environmental work, core-drilling, foundation design and based upon what is underneath the ground it, it will be manufactured.
Chairman Hill asked what radius he would like to have in the ordinance.
Mr. Herlihy said that it would not be more than 54”, so that would be fine to put in the ordinance.
Mr. West asked if the brand name would be allowed on the dish, since the draft ordinance states that there will be no signage allowed.
Mr. Wingerson said that he is sure there is some identification of the manufacturer, but there would be no advertising signage allowed.
Mr. Herlihy added that the only signage they do is for the benefit of workers coming into the site, which is required by the FCC.
Mr. Shevling asked if there was a reason that staff recommended the halo-type of mount. What was the thought process?
Mr. Wingerson answered that the platform mount provides more flexibility; however, does tend to have more aesthetic implications within the community. The canister has the least amount of flexibility and the least aesthetic impact on the community, so the flush mount seemed to be a good compromise.
Mr. Shevling asked if the recommended mount would necessitate having an additional tower built in Gladstone at a later date.
Mr. Herlihy said he doesn’t know for sure, but it does give less flexibility for everyone in this area that they are looking at. If he can be told to build the platform type mount that would allow him to build a stronger tower where three carriers could be.
Chairman Hill asked for anyone in favor of the application to come forward. Hearing no response, he called for those in opposition.
Anna Crossley, 7062 N. Garfield Avenue, addressed the Commission. Ms. Crossley said that she has been a resident of Gladstone for 33 years, the past 17 in the Meadowlane Townhouses. After listening to the representative tonight, she can say she is almost in favor of it, but she wanted to go ahead and tell the Commission what she has been thinking about ever since receiving her notification. When she purchased her property in Meadowlane the realtor told her the small forest behind North Garfield would be there forever. It is a wonderful green privacy and sound barrier. If more of the forest is cut away, the humming sound of the power plant will increase. That small forest sustains life for birds, squirrels, rabbits, raccoons, fox, groundhogs, deer and many others…and she has seen them all. It is her understanding that every piece of greenery destroyed increases the temperature of the area. She doesn’t know how everyone feels in her neighborhood, but she is certainly glad to see many of them here. Ms. Crossley said that these residents of Gladstone are proud of their five star ranking and she thinks that part of that is because the City of Gladstone listens to it’s residents. She would hope that T-Mobile will listen to it’s customers regarding this issue. She closed by suggesting two alternative sites: the hill north of Happy Rock Park next to the animal shelter or next to the Gladstone water tower between N. Broadway and 169 Highway.
Bill Butler, 7063 N. Woodland, addressed the Commission. Mr. Butler had a few questions. The first one is where is the exact location of the tower.
Chairman Hill answered that it will be north of KCP&L and south of the grove of pine trees.
Mr. Butler’s other question regarded co-locating. He asked if one tower goes in, won’t there probably be demand for additional co-locating in that same area. The representative sited the fact that almost 80% of the towers have co-locating. Would this same thing be happening three or four years down the road.
Mr. West remarked that it was his understanding that co-locating means putting the second company’s satellite on the same tower; not building a separate tower.
Mr. Butler asked if this would open the door for more towers to be applied for and eventually replace all the trees with towers.
Chairman Hill said that there could always be the possibility that someone could apply for another tower, but that is a totally different issue. The co-locating as Mr. West mentioned, is sharing this one tower so you don’t have to have multiple towers.
Mr. Butler asked if there would be a strobe light on the tower.
Mr. Herlihy said no, there will not be a light.
Mr. Butler asked if Mr. Herlihy could talk about the effect this may have on property values.
Mr. Wingerson explained that the exhibit that was provided in the registered letters shows the entire area. The actual pole will be located between the tennis courts and the KCP&L sub-station. In terms of property values, in the application itself there is quite a bit of information and basically the conclusion is that over time, there is very little if any degradation in property values as a result of a cell tower. In this particular location, given that there is industrial uses already existing on the site, he would anticipate that there would be very little, if any impact. Mr. Wingerson also elaborated on the landscaping. The plan provides for approximately 12-15 evergreen trees along the border outside of the fenced area. Through the process, only two or three trees are lost, two of those being transplanted and placed on the site. As far as the water tower at 69th Street west of Broadway, it is actually located in Kansas City, Missouri, so that would not be an option for Gladstone.
Mr. Herlihy addressed the concern of property values. He said that historically, when new technology issues are raised, people get really upset. When telephone service in the 1940’s really got hot and they started putting up huge microwave towers with cones….talk about an eyesore! Then television towers starting popping up…they’re 1,000 feet tall. He explained that the license he has is for low power; for the safety of the people who use them. The towers they are placing are only emitting 100 watts, which is why they are so low. Mr. Herlihy said that it seems that new technology often creates havoc until people get used to seeing it and block it out of their system. People are using their cell phones not only on the road anymore, but in their homes. Many developers are realizing this and are supportive of new towers because they want the people buying their homes to have cell phone access. There is no study that he is aware of that states there is any degradation of homes near cell towers.
Ms. Crossley asked how this would effect people with satellite dishes.
Mr. Herlihy said that satellite dishes are so far out of the frequency spectrum…so small…that there will be no effect at all.
Mr. Steffens suggested that if approved, it should be the platform type mounting, simply for the fact that it may not be necessary for future towers to be proposed.
Chairman Hill closed the public hearing.
Chairman Hill said that he was thinking the same thing that Mr. Steffens was. It seems that doubling up on the tower will benefit everyone because it eliminates the need for multiple towers.
MOTION: By Mr. Shevling, Ms. Newsom to approve the
Special Use Permit at 2013 NE 72nd Street, adding the condition that
it may also be a platform mount. In
addition, condition #7 will state that the tower radius at the base shall be
limited to 54”.
Ms. Newsom commented that the special use permit is the way to go at this time. As seen this evening, technology changes very rapidly. Fifteen years from now, we may not even need these towers. If this tower should cease to exist the special use permit will go away, rather than have a permanent zoning in place. She also added that it is unfortunate with all the technology that City Hall has it wasn’t used to show the residents some of the exhibits. The exhibits explain in detail, why the coverage in this area is low.
Ms. Suter stated that she remembers in Iowa in 1981 clients came in because a company wanted to put up a tower on their property that would be for telephones and cars. She spent some time researching the topic and was amazed at the concept and thought to herself, “This will never work unless there are towers everywhere in America!” Sure enough, she remarked, there are now towers everywhere. She thought that this recommendation and proposal was particularly appropriate in using the KCP&L property. The fact that it has trees around it also speaks well for the property. She also thinks that the idea of the platform makes a lot more sense. The applicant and City staff has done a good job of protecting the interests of the citizens.
VOTE: Ms. Newsom Yes
Ms. Alexander Yes
Mr. Boor Yes
Mr. Stanley Yes
Ms. Suter Yes
Mr. Whitton Yes
Ms. Abbott Yes
Mr. Steffens Yes
Chairman Hill Yes
Mr. Shevling Yes
Mr. West Yes
The motion carried. (12-0)
Item 10 on the Agenda: Communications from the City Council and the
City Staff.
Councilman Rudi and Beer reminded everyone of Bluesfest this weekend, June 9 and 10.
Ms. Mehaffy said that she placed the most recent copy of the Commercial Journal magazine at the Commissioner’s places this evening. Gladstone was featured on the cover along with a two-page article inside. She also provided them with a copy of the new Gladstone map which the Chamber produced.
Mr. Wingerson remarked that Ms. Mehaffy and Sergeant King worked very hard on the article for the Commercial Journal. He also commented that today and last week there were some very productive meetings on the community center. He thanked everyone who participated in that process. Finally, the Ryans have been so patient to sit through the public hearings this evening. He is still learning about this issue regarding cats and seems to be more involved than you can imagine. He assured the Ryans that the City will certainly try to work toward a solution.
Discussion ensued regarding the feral cats.
Item 11 on the
Agenda: Communications from the Planning Commission Members.
Mr. Steffens asked if Classical Ballet has permits for their temporary signs.
Mr. Wingerson said that sign is correctly permitted.
Ms. Alexander encouraged everyone to look through the MARC Idea Book. She read about some very good ideas for making changes to Post WWII homes; however, when she mentioned it to Mr. Wingerson he reminder her that the new ordinance regarding detached structures would not allow many of the designs. She also wondered if many of those designs would take up more than 30% of the land. She realizes what they have been so insistent upon changing, now may not be able to be done.
Mr. Wingerson said that staff is planning on brining back the detached accessory building draft ordinance at the next meeting.
Chairman Hill said that if the root of the feral cat problem is the feeding, he would suggest that staff look at ordinances in Colorado, for example, that restrict persons from feeding wild animals. He also said that the Commissioners might have noticed that on the special use permit tonight he specifically wanted verbage added to restrict signage. Based on what has happened with another special use permit, he is going to push for that on all of them.
Item 12 on the Agenda: Adjournment
Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 9:09 P.M.
Respectfully submitted:
______________________________________ Approved as submitted _____
Becky Jarrett, Recording Secretary
______________________________________ Approved as corrected _____
Brian Hill, Chairman