Docstoc

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

Document Sample
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Powered By Docstoc
					                          CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

                                  AUGUST 9, 2004

                                     MINUTES

The City Planning Commission met in regular session on Monday, August 9, 2004, at 6:30
p.m., in the Commission Chamber of the Municipal Office Building with the following
members present: Mr. Brad Ratliff, Chairman Presiding, Mr. Michael Davis, Vice
Chairman, Mr. David Angelotti, Mrs. Ann Dercher, Mrs. Joanne Huey, Mr. David Locke,
Mr. Wayne Walden, and Mr. Robert Watson. (Not Present: Huggins, Penson and Walker.)
Mr. Robin H. Richardson, Director of Planning, Ms. Janet L. Parker, Administrative
Assistant, Mr. Steven A. Speise, Manager of Urban Planning and Land Use, Mr. Larry K.
Hancks, Principal Planner, Mr. Scott Murray, Planner, and Mrs. Delia York, Assistant
Counsel, were also present.

Recording Secretary Parker read the Planning Commission Statement. She then read
the following items listed on the Consent Agenda:

Consideration of the July 12, 2004 Minutes.

990421 SPECIAL PERMIT PETITION #SP-2004-36 – JAMES MONTEIL, SR. –
SYNOPSIS: Renewal of a Special Use Permit for a flea market and outdoor swap
and shop at 1274 Merriam Lane

020133 SPECIAL PERMIT PETITION #SP-2004-37 – HARRY BOHRER –
SYNOPSIS: Renewal of a special use permit for an earthen fill at 4311 North 47th
Street

020198 DELWARE RIDGE SECOND PLAT REPLAT – SYNOPSIS: Replat to
correct technical problems with plat at 13006 Everett Court

000179 MARSHALL MALLOWS REPLAT – SYNOPSIS: Final Plat consisting of ten
(10) single-family lots at 11700, 11802 and 11810 Hollingsworth Road

040202 KUGLERS AZURE ACRES, Final Plat consisting of two (2) single-family lots
at 5415 North 115th Street

040180 PLAN REVIEW PETITION #PR-2004-31 – MARK L. ABELIN, ABELIN AND
ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS, P.A. – SYNOPSIS: Plan Review for a Dollar General
Retail Store at 8144 Parallel Parkway

040238 PLAN REVIEW PETITION #PR-2004-41 – CALVARY CHAPEL OF KANSAS
CITY, INC. - SYNOPSIS: Plan Review for a new gymnasium/fellowship hall for
Calvary Chapel at 2614 South 18th Street




                                          1
040221 PLAN REVIEW PETITION #PR-2004-44 - SHAN ALI – SYNOPSIS: Plan
Review for an addition to the existing Burger King at 3610 State Avenue

040222 PLAN REVIEW PETITION #PR-2004-45 – FOCUS ENTERPRISES, INC. –
SYNOPSIS: Plan Review for a 95 room Holiday Inn Express Hotel at 10300 Troup
Avenue

040192 PLAN REVIEW PETITION #PR-2004-46 – YMCA OF GREATER KANSAS
CITY – SYNOPSIS: Plan Review for the YMCA recreation facility at 8601 Parallel
Parkway

040027 PLAN REVIEW PETITION #PR-2004-47 – RIDGE POINTE PARTNERS LLC
– SYNOPSIS: Plan Review for a senior independent living development consisting of
40 units restricted to households age 55 and over at 6609 State Avenue

040027 PLAN REVIEW PETITION #PR-2004-48 – DAVIDSON DESIGN GROUP –
SYNOPSIS: Plan Review for office/warehouse buildings for Traffic Marking Company
– propose to alter location of a couple of buildings at 626 North 47th Street

980072PLAN REVIEW PETITION #PR-2004-49 – THE PUB AT VILLAGE WEST,
LLC – DBA W. J. MCBRIDE’S IRISH PUB – SYNOPSIS: Plan Review for revisions
to the original plans approved for the restaurant at 1340 Village West Parkway

040210 PLAN REVIEW PETITION #PR-2004-50 – BRAD STRITTMATTER –
OLSSON ASSOCIATES – SYNOPSIS: Final Plan for a retail, dining and
entertainment complex at 1801 Village West Parkway

040162 PLAN REVIEW PETITION #PR-2004-51 – TIM KITCHENS – GOULD
EVANS GOODMAN – SYNOPSIS: Plan Review for The Legends Theaters at 1801
Village West Parkway

Ms. Parker stated that the followings items should be included as part of the record for
all of the petitions on the consent agenda:

   1. The City’s currently adopted zoning and subdivision regulations;
   2. The official zoning map for the area in question;
   3. The City’s currently adopted Master Plan for the area in question;
   4. The staff report and attachments dated August 9, 2004;
   5. The application and other documents, plans, pictures and maps submitted by
      the applicant in furtherance of the case and contained in the official file;
   6. The Notices to adjacent property owners;
   7. A letter in opposition to #SP-2004-36 – James Monteil, Sr., which was received
      on August 9, 2004 and distributed to the Planning Commission this evening.




                                           2
Ms. Parker asked if any member of the Planning Commission had any contact to
disclose concerning the items on the consent agenda. No one responded in the
affirmative.

Ms. Parker stated that all of the items just read are on the consent agenda and the
Planning Commission will vote in one vote to follow the recommendation of the staff
unless someone comes forward and asks that an item be heard separately.

Chairman Ratliff asked if any member of the Planning Commission had any items to
remove from the Consent Agenda? No one responded in the affirmative.

Chairman Ratliff asked if anyone in attendance had any items to remove from the
Consent Agenda? Mr. Brett Johnson, Ridge Pointe Partners LLC, stated that he
would request that #PR-2004-47 be removed from the consent agenda for discussion.

On motion by Mr. Walden, seconded by Mr. Davis, the Planning Commission voted 7
to 0 to approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda:

Ms. Parker stated that the one item removed from the Consent Agenda would now be
heard.

040027 PLAN REVIEW PETITION #PR-2004-47 – RIDGE POINTE PARTNERS LLC
– SYNOPSIS: Plan Review for a senior independent living development consisting of
40 units restricted to households age 55 and over at 6609 State Avenue

Mr. Brett Johnson, Ridge Pointe Partners, LLC, petitioner, and Mr. Reggie King,
partner, appeared in support of this petition. Mr. Johnson stated that they would like
to discuss the safe room issue. They presented a PowerPoint presentation to the
Commission (Exhibit #PR-2004-27 - #1). He stated that this is a tax credit project and
the safe room issue was something that was brought to them after their allocation to
the State for tax credits. It would affect their construction budget by a quarter of a
million dollars. They are looking for a way to provide the safe rooms for the tenants
and at the same time preserve their budget. This also coincides with an issue with
BPU recently. The Unified Government would like for them to put in a safe room in
each unit. They have a single-story, eight building complex that will have 5 units per
building. That would be a room that would be constructed of double stud wood walls
with 14 gauge steel on either side of it as well as a 24 gauge steel lid on top of the
room. Some of the features that they would like to provide with that room that are also
affecting the cost would be double sided steel doors with six points of attachment with
three being the hinges and three being deadbolts. This would be the bathroom door
for each unit. While they do not feel that it is aesthetically pleasing for what they are
offering in their community, it is also a challenge for some of the tenants to work with
the deadbolts. They have been working with Storm Shelters of Kansas and they
would like to propose an underground shelter. The per unit safe rooms that the
Commission recommended are FEMA rated up to F-3 tornadoes, and the ones they
propose would be underground and be up to F-5. From a safety aspect they feel that



                                            3
this is a much better alternative. At the same time, they can reduce costs. There is a
single steel door with a piston access and it is also tied down by six 2,000 pound
concrete blocks which anchor this underground storage and shelter unit to the base.
It is very easy to manipulate the piston for the door for virtually everyone. Storm
Shelters of Kansas provides a safety program, which they would run through their
management company on a quarterly basis with their tenants and show them the
routes to the facilities. There are benches inside to sit on and they will hold up to thirty
people. They are proposing to put 4 of these on their site, one between each building.
There are eight buildings and they would put four of them on each site and also keep
two of the safe rooms in two of the units on the property for ADA or handicap tenants
if the need arises. He stated that they have FEMA specifications and they feel that
they are much safer and more aesthetically pleasing. The yellow on the slide
indicates where the interior safe room would be for handicap. The residents would
exit through the front of their units and continue on down and meet in the middle. The
underground shelters have lighting in them and pathways leading to them. He stated
that this is a cost overrun and they have been back to the State and told them what
the money would be to build the safe rooms. It is questionable whether or not they
would approve an increase in their allocation. They are awaiting the meeting tonight
to see what they need to ask for. There will still be an additional cost to put in the
underground shelters, but they will know what they are working with when they go
back to the State. Chairman Ratliff asked if there were families in the units, would
there be enough room for them to get in the shelters? Mr. Johnson stated that this is
a senior housing project, 55 and over, and they do not anticipate a lot of families.
Each shelter will hold up to 30 people. He stated that they assume double occupancy
in the units so they assume there will be 80 people and they will have occupancy for
120 in the shelters. They are also putting weather alert radios in each one of the units
at their expense, aside from the sirens that would be going off. The radios will turn on
in the event that there is severe weather in the area and can alert the tenants to
proceed to the shelter. Chairman Ratliff asked who would maintain the shelters? Mr.
Johnson stated the management company. Commission Member Davis stated that
he has been out of town but he knows that his staff (Emergency Management) has
spoken with Rob Richardson (Planning Director) about this issue. At this point the
Emergency Management staff does not support, other than the ones built within the
structure, the proposal for the shelters. He knows that there are other developments
that have been approved that are meeting the requirements. Unless they want to take
the community shelter and improve it, there are some ways to meet the FEMA
stringent requirements and do a place that would be available for all the residents in
that unit. The underground/below ground unit is still being researched by Emergency
Management and his staff supports the FEMA requirement for the built-in rooms.
They have been tested by Texas Tech for FEMA. He further stated that they would
work with the petitioner. He is not sure that the price being given is correct. Mr.
Johnson stated that their proposal has also been tested at Texas Tech and they have
the FEMA specifications as well and Storm Shelters of Kansas also provides the
above ground shelters and they can provide that as well. He stated that their labor
costs would be affected by the safe rooms as the contractor would have to cease
while the steel rooms are put in. They have tried to factor in all aspects of the shelters



                                             4
in each unit and they have been offered some above ground pods that they could put
one per building. They look like grain silos outside and they did not feel that with the
amenities that they are offering that it would look good to have them next to the units.
Mr. Davis asked what the average age of the tenants would be? Mr. Johnson stated
that it is restricted to 55 years and older. It is not an assisted type of facility. They have
addressed the handicap issue. Chairman Ratliff stated that the safe rooms are being
required by the Commission since the tornado last year when numerous homes were
lost, injuries sustained and two people lost their lives. Any of the developments that
the Commission has reviewed, that did not have basements, were required to have
safe rooms. It is still in development as to what is considered “safe”. Does it have to
be inside the unit, etc. Emergency Management has looked at this issue and has said
that it usually costs around $3,000. There have been other requirements on other
developers that they have been required to have the safe rooms on any development
that did not have a basement. Mr. Johnson asked how that would be addressed in an
apartment building with slab on grade? Mr. Rob Richardson, Director of Planning,
stated that it could be done with a basement in the unit. Multi-story buildings and
mobile home parks are different than slab on grade units. The staff has not had any
proposals for mobile home parks, but some in the City have used systems similar to
the one proposed. In an apartment structure, it would be an option to put in a small
portion of a basement that would serve as a storm shelter for each of the units. On
the third floor of an apartment there will not be a safe room. Mr. Johnson stated that
this is their argument. They are providing virtually what a multi-family complex would
provide. Mr. Davis stated that FEMA has a program for community shelters. In
apartment complexes there is the option for community shelters or basement. The
community shelter could be two-fold. There are other options out there. Mr. Johnson
stated that they would be happy to put a community shelter in their club house, but he
felt it would be better to have them closer to the buildings than walking to the club
house. Mr. Richardson stated that at some point it becomes difficult to walk outside in
a storm to get to the shelter and with the age restriction, it needs to be inside the
building where it can be accessed internally. The staff has been talking with the
Emergency Management staff on this issue.

No one appeared in opposition to this petition.

Mr. Richardson stated that there are two items being presented this evening by the
petitioner. One is a change in the site plan. Previously they had two units on the
south end of the drive and they have moved them to the north and put them along the
existing drives. That helps them in their grading and infrastructure costs. The staff
recommends approval of that. The second item they are asking for is a change in the
safe room requirement from having an internal unit to allowing them to have the
underground units outside. Those are the two issues at hand in this case. The
Commission could adopt one without the other or both of them. The staff
recommends in favor of the site plan and for the keeping the safe rooms internal.

On motion by Mr. Locke, seconded by Mr. Angelotti, the Planning Commission voted 7
to 0 to approve the changes to the site plan and keeping the safe rooms internal.



                                              5
Ms. Parker stated that the Commission will now consider the Non-Consent Agenda.

030105 CHANGE OF ZONE PETITION #2798 – SOUTHWEST CONTRACTORS,
INC. – ATTENTION – JIMMY HOWELL – SYNOPSIS: Change of Zone from CP-1
Planned Limited Business and C-3 Commercial Districts to CP-1 Planned Limited
Business District to consider removal of the masonry requirements previously
approved as 1251 Central Avenue

Recording Secretary Parker stated that she received an e-mail from the petitioner
today and this matter has been withdrawn and will not be heard this evening.

040223 CHANGE OF ZONE PETITION #2790 – PINECREST DEVELOPMENT LLC
ROGER SCOTT – SYNOPSIS: Change of Zone from A-G Agriculture District to R-1
Single Family District for a single family residential development at 11630
Leavenworth Road

040223 THE PAVILIONS OF PIPER – SYNOPSIS: Preliminary Plat consisting of 210
single-family lots on 80 acres at 11630 Leavenworth Road

Ms. Parker stated that the followings items should be included as part of the record for
these cases:

   1. The City’s currently adopted zoning and subdivision regulations;
   2. The official zoning map for the area in question;
   3. The City’s currently adopted Master Plan for the area in question;
   4. The staff report and attachments dated August 9, 2004;
   5. The application and other documents, plans, pictures and maps submitted by
      the applicant in furtherance of the case and contained in the official file;
   6. The Notices to adjacent property owners dated June 16, 2004 and July 1, 2004
      for the change of zone petition and July 2, 2004 for the plat.
   7. The Notice to The Wyandotte Echo published on June 16, 2004 for the change
      of zone petition.

 Ms. Parker asked if any member of the Planning Commission had any contact to
disclose concerning the change of zone petition. Chairman Ratliff stated that he knew
this matter was coming before the Commission before he received his packet, from
neighbors.

Mr. Pete Opperman, land planner and landscape architect, representing the petitioner,
Mr. Roger Scott, petitioner, Mr. Roger Cassity, Phelps Engineering, and Ms. Linda
Coleman, marketing agent, appeared in support of these petitions. Mr. Opperman
showed the Commission the site plan (Exhibit #2790 - #1). He further stated that this
is an 80 acre site that they are rezoning to R-1 Single Family District for 210 single-
family lots, which will have a density of 2.6 lots per acre. They have over 12 acres of
open space that would be used for everyone. The subdivision has been laid out so
they maximize the property. They have saved the drainage area and as many of the



                                           6
trees as possible and the existing pond that will also be used as a detention facility.
He stated that the issue that the staff had in their report was the fact that they share
the 119th Street Parkway with the west owner and Roger Scott has been talking with
that property owner and he is interested in cooperating. It is laid out in such a way that
they can build the south half of the parkway and when they are ready to develop, they
can build the rest to the north. He further stated that Mr. Scott spoke with BPU and
they stated that they intend to put the overhead power lines on the south side of
Leavenworth Road. The staff report says the north side. Chairman Ratliff stated that
they are discussing options. Mr. Opperman stated that if that becomes an issue and
the plan needs to be revised, the final plat would reflect that. He stated that the issue
of the 1600 square foot minimum for the houses is accepted. Mr. Scott stated that
they are constructing maintenance-free villas. They will maintain the paint, yard and
snow. The villas will be reverse ranches with different elevations. The square footage
will be 1700 to 3000 square feet. The price range will be begin at $210,000 or
$220,000 to $350,000 and $400,000. He has built some $500,000 houses in
Whispering Pines Subdivision. Commission Member Davis asked if the big issue is
the streets? Mr. Scott stated that he met with the adjacent property owner and he has
no problems with it and they are working on a legal document now. Mr. Davis asked if
they are in agreement with a four-lane divided roadway and landscaped median on
both sides? Mr. Scott stated he does not think that it will be a problem. Mr. Rob
Richardson, Director of Planning, stated that the staff has discussed several things
with them. One is building two lanes now and the other developer building two lanes
in the future. The staff will work it out with them prior to final platting. Chairman Ratliff
asked if 119th Street will deadend into the property? Mr. Richardson stated that it will
go halfway through the section between Leavenworth Road and Donahoo and then it
will have to connect with development south.

Mr. Reid Roberts, 11620 Leavenworth Road, appeared concerning these items. He
stated that he thought some of the development was for multi-family; has that been
changed? Chairman Ratliff stated yes, the multi family has been removed. Mr.
Roberts stated that his property adjoins to the east of this property and he is
concerned about erosion as he has a pond that could be affected from this
development. He stated that it appears the size of the homes will be very nice and
they would like to keep the existing tree line along his west property line in place. He
further stated that according to the master plan in the past this was supposed to be a
larger lot development and he has no problem with it going into neighborhood
residential type setting but he would like to keep his larger lot seclusion. He would
ask the developer to put in a berm where his house sits and some pine trees. That
would be on the Lots 175 to 180. Mr. Craig Merrick, 3250 North 115th Street, stated
that his property adjoins this property and Mr. Roberts’ property. He is in favor of the
project and has the same concerns that Mr. Roberts has. They built their home about
three months ago and it is on 80 acres. The pond comes back on his property also
and would be affected by erosion. Mr. Al McComas, 2717 North 119th Street, stated
that he is one-half mile south of the proposed development. He stated that he would
like to know about sewers or septic tanks. He stated that the last he knew from the
City it would be five years before the sewers would be in this area. 118th and 119th



                                              7
Streets are 1 ½ lane streets from State Avenue to Leavenworth Road. If 210 houses
are put in direct line with the entrance of I-70, there will be a freeway. These two
streets will not accommodate the 210 house traffic. They almost do not accommodate
the 50 cars a day. If there are 400 more cars on the short track to get to I-70, there
will be a big problem in front of his house. He asked what the City plans to do about
widening 119th Street. There will be 210 houses with 420 cars and he assumes that
they will have kids so if you put one car per kid and now the issue is being multiplied
and now it needs to be addressed rapidly.

No one appeared in opposition to this petition.

Mr. Opperman stated that there will be appropriate erosion control protection taken so
the pond does not get silted downstream. He is sure that is a requirement of the City.
They intend to address the concerns about the trees. They will save all the trees
along the east property line and back yards. Hopefully, the City will allow them to put
utility easements that would go in the back yards in the front yards. Otherwise the
trees would have to be removed in the back yards. They will cluster the utility boxes
in the front yard and will landscape around it. With regard to 119th Street to be
improved to the south, he knows that it is proposed as a parkway and at what point
that is done will depend when the property is developed. There is an existing sewer
running across the property right now. All of the houses would be hooked up to
existing sanitary sewers and there would be extensions throughout the subdivision.
He stated that if they save the trees, he is not sure that they can build a berm. He is
sure that Mr. Scott would be willing to plant some trees. He stated that they will have
street trees and a heavy buffer along the parkway on their west property line as that is
the main entrance to the property. They will also have landscaping along
Leavenworth Road.

Mr. Richardson stated that when this was originally proposed and the reason that
there was some R-2 zoning included in the notices that were mailed, the proposal
included some duplexes on the south end of the property and having a gated
community. Both of those items have been removed by the applicant. As Mr.
Opperman stated, there is a sewer line that runs through the property and the City
does require erosion control measures. The additional stipulation can be added that
there may be some enhanced measures that need to be taken for the pond and to
keep the tree line, and to work with the adjacent property owner (Mr. Roberts) on Lots
175 to 180 to either plant additional trees or construct a berm, whichever one they
want to do. The final issue related to traffic concerns and as the Planning
Commission is aware, 115th Street is on the CMIP to be improved over the next
couple of years and he would anticipate that the traffic from this development would
use Leavenworth Road to 115th Street. There will be some improvements to
Leavenworth Road that will be necessary. As far as the main traffic, it should go
Leavenworth Road to 115th Street as 115th Street is being improved. He is not sure
when 119th Street will be improved. Mr. Richardson stated that with the additional
stipulations and the stipulations in the staff report, the staff recommends approval.




                                           8
On motion by Mr. Walden, seconded by Mr. Angelotti, the Planning Commission voted
7 to 0 to recommend approval of Change of Zone Petition #2790, subject to:

   1.     North 119th Street Parkway and the three access points shown for the
          proposed development along it cannot be located or constructed as
          proposed without the involvement of the adjoining property owner on the
          west. There is also the question of road design. The Master Plan calls for
          the proposed parkway to be a four-lane divided roadway with a landscaped
          median and intensive landscaping along both sides. These issues will need
          to be resolved before the submission of the final plat.

   2.     If the proposed BPU Piper substation is built as now planned, one of the
          stated options for the location of a high voltage power line is along the north
          side of Leavenworth Road. While the timing of this is uncertain, the
          proposed line may need to be taken into consideration in terms of additional
          right-of-way that may be needed, the placement of landscaping in the buffer
          area, and the arrangement of the southern tier of lots, prior to the
          submission of the final plat.

   3.     The Master Plan calls for a minimum square footage for single family
          residences in Area 1 of 1600 square feet. This requirement will need to be
          reflected on the final plat.

   4.     Consider enhancement erosion control measures for the pond on the
          adjacent property.

   5.     Maintain the tree line between the property in question and Mr. Roberts’ and
          Mr. Merrick’s property.

   6.     Work with Mr. Roberts on landscaping (trees or berm) between his property
          and Lots 175 to 180.

On motion by Mr. Walden, seconded by Mr. Angelotti, the Planning Commission voted
7 to 0 to approve The Pavillions of Piper preliminary plat.

040224 CHANGE OF ZONE PETITION #2792 – SITE RITE CONSTRUCTION –
SYNOPSIS: Change of Zone from R-2(B) Two Family and CP-3 Planned Commercial
Districts to M-2 General Industrial District for a construction equipment storage yard at
929 South Coy Street, and 922, 926, 928 and 930 South Pyle Street

040225 CHANGE OF ZONE PETITION #2793 – SITE RITE CONSTRUCTION –
SYNOPSIS: Change of Zone from R-2(B) Two Family District to M-2 General
Industrial District for an office and car storage at 742 and 744 Cheyenne Avenue

040224 ALLEY VACATION PETITION #A-2004-9 – SITE RITE CONSTRUCTION –
SYNOPSIS: Vacation of the north/south alley at 929 South Coy and 920 South Pyle



                                            9
Ms. Parker stated that the followings items should be included as part of the record for
these cases:

   1. The City’s currently adopted zoning and subdivision regulations;
   2. The official zoning map for the area in question;
   3. The City’s currently adopted Master Plan for the area in question;
   4. The staff report and attachments dated August 9, 2004;
   5. The application and other documents, plans, pictures and maps submitted by
      the applicant in furtherance of the case and contained in the official file;
   6. The Notices to adjacent property owners dated July 15, 2004 for the two
      change of zone petitions and June 18, 2004 and June 28, 2004 for the vacation
      petition.
   7. The Notice to The Wyandotte Echo published on July 14, 2004 for the change
      of zone petitions and June 23, 2004 for the vacation petition.

 Ms. Parker asked if any member of the Planning Commission had any contact to
disclose concerning these petitions. No one responded in the affirmative.

Mr. Daniel Anderson, representing the petitioner, appeared in support of these
petitions. He stated that they wish to have a construction yard at this address. They
are purchasing the property from Mr. John Bichelmeyer who is a landowner in the
area. They have purchased eight lots on Coy and three lots on Pyle. They
understand that the eight lots on Coy are CP-3 Planned Commercial and the three lots
on Pyle are residential. They understand the staff’s concerns about the landscaping
around the fence and they think that they can screen the fence. There is one
residence in question (Lopez) and they signed their alley vacation petition. They will
provide screening for their house. On the north side of the Lopez’s property, the lot is
zoned M-2 General Industrial District. The south corner across the alley is zoned M-2.
Truck traffic is already heavy on Cheyenne, Coy and Pyle. He stated that they are not
a trucking concern, they want a storage yard. Chairman Ratliff asked if he could
accommodate items I through 7 in the staff opinion? Mr. Anderson stated yes, they do
projects for the Unified Government and BPU and they know what the codes and
requirements are. He stated that they have cleaned up the three lots and the alley is
passable. They will be developed as light industrial. He stated that Mr. Michael
Morse owns the two lots to the south of the Lopez’s and he is in agreement. Mr.
Bichelmeyer is the property owner to the north of this lot and he is in agreement.
Commission Member Davis asked how he would resolve the additional screening
along the property line? Mr. Anderson stated a 6’ hedge to match the top of the fence.
He stated that they would do it as a condition of zoning approval. He stated that they
operate from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and they are very rarely in the storage yard. It is
only for storage.

No one appeared in opposition to these petitions.




                                           10
Mr. Richardson stated that as the Planning Commission is aware, the site on the
screen was before the Commission last Fall to be rezoned CP-3 for mini-warehouses.
At that time the staff felt that that was a stretch for the area given the existing
residential communities around there. When you put an industrial storage yard in
there, and it pops up without being reviewed, such as this one has, it is not conducive
to helping that residential area at all. The yard there now is in place without zoning or
permits and there is code enforcement action pending against it. Mr. Richardson
stated that he will address these properties together. Along to the south where the
slide shows the automobiles, all the automobiles have been removed, but basically
that was not rezoned. They had a rezoning petition that was denied and they came in
and put an auto repair facility on this property. He stated that he is not sure how this
owner is related to this. He believes that the owner has a contract to buy this property.
Basically, there is a temporary accessory building, when he drove by, there were
hoods of cars up and they were working under the cars. There is a house next to this
and there were air wrenches going and there are elderly folks in the area and as
testified before, their health is not the greatest. He further stated that the real issue is
how you plan and develop an area. When the Armourdale Land Use Plan
contemplated some of these areas shifting into a more industrial or heavier
commercial use, it was to be done as tracts. The plan did not project leaving a single
residential house surrounded by industrial properties. That is what is going to happen.
What is going to happen on Pyle. The house that is there will be surrounded by
industrial land. The houses on both streets will be impacted by the storage yard. He
stated that a 6’ tall hedge is not solid screening and he does not know how long it will
take to develop that hedge. The fence would need to be solid and the hedge would
be a minimal amount that would need to be there. Part of the conditions are no
outside storage of parts or materials. Obviously, the picture shows a significant
amount of storage of parts, materials, piping, etc. outside at this time. There are
several significant issues as listed in the staff report with each of these petitions. If
both of these changes of zone petitions were approved for M-2 zoning, it would be
detrimental and has been detrimental to the neighborhood. They basically came in
and established the use and are now trying to make the use legal after it has been
established illegally. That is not the proper way to go about planning and zoning in
this community. The staff recommends denial of both Petitions 2792 and 2793 and
with recommending denial of those, the vacation petition would be unnecessary until
such time as a proper application recommended by this body would go forward. If the
Commission chose to recommend approval of the change of zone petitions, the
vacation would be OK. If they are not recommended for approval, the alley should be
left in place until unified development can take place. He stated that he does not
consider an open storage yard with gravel thrown down a development of any kind.
The gravel does not meet the surface requirements for areas for storage yards. There
are many issues with each of these sites and the staff believes that they will be
significantly detrimental to the neighborhood and these issues should be removed
immediately. They are scheduled for Court either Tuesday or Wednesday pending
the outcome of this meeting.




                                             11
On motion by Mr. Walden, seconded by Mrs. Huey, the Planning Commission voted 7
to 0 to recommend denial of Change of Zone Petition #2792.

On motion by Mr. Walden, seconded by Mrs. Huey, the Planning Commission voted 7
to 0 to recommend denial of Change of Zone Petition #2793.

On motion by Mrs. Huey, seconded by Mrs. Dercher, the Planning Commission voted
7 to 0 to recommend denial of Vacation Petition #A-2004-9.

040226 CHANGE OF ZONE PETITION #2794 – KELLY WALKER – SYNOPSIS:
Change of Zone from A-G Agriculture District to RP-3 Planned Townhouse District for
a multi-family residential (tri-plexes and duplexes) development at 9105 Parallel
Parkway

Ms. Parker stated that the followings items should be included as part of the record for
this case:

   1. The City’s currently adopted zoning and subdivision regulations;
   2. The official zoning map for the area in question;
   3. The City’s currently adopted Master Plan for the area in question;
   4. The staff report and attachments dated August 9, 2004;
   5. The application and other documents, plans, pictures and maps submitted by
      the applicant in furtherance of the case and contained in the official file;
   6. The Notices to adjacent property owners dated July 16, 2004;
   7. The Notice to The Wyandotte Echo published on July 14, 2004;
   8. The comments from The Wyandotte County Conservation District received
      today and distributed to the Commission this evening.

 Ms. Parker asked if any member of the Planning Commission had any contact to
disclose concerning this petition. No one responded in the affirmative.

Mr. George Higgins, architect, 2540 Espenlaub Lane, and Mr. Kelly Walker, 3925
Independence, petitioner, appeared in support of this petition. Mr. Higgins stated that
Mr. Walker wants to develop 20 acres with 80 age restricted units (55 and over). The
units are designed to be affordable for the elderly. He further stated that they have
met with staff and the plans before the Commission are the result of those meetings.
They have reduced the amount of units as well as providing a connecting street to the
south property with a temporary turn-around. They have also agreed to conserve
many of the trees that are on the property. In reading the staff comments, they could
not find any negative comments other than the plan does not conform with the Prairie-
Delaware-Piper Master Plan. They are also addressing retention on the property.
The southwest portion of the property is heavily treed and they are proposing to create
a park-like setting. There will be FEMA approved safe rooms in each individual
dwelling unit. Commission Member Davis asked what is proposed for this property in
the plan? Mr. Rob Richardson, Director of Planning, stated that this area is planned
for suburban residential, which would not allow attached housing in this area. Mr.



                                           12
Davis asked if it would allow for lesser square footage and detached housing? Mr.
Richardson stated that all of the development has to average 1,600 square feet if it is
detached. The proposal would not fit that requirement either.

No one appeared in opposition to this petition.

Mr. Richardson stated that this development is similar to other three and four plex
developments that have been approved lately; however, as the master plan process
has just been completed and looked at areas in the community that the Commission
felt were appropriate for attached and detached housing, this area is shown as
suburban residential, which does not provide for any attached housing. Being that the
plan is very new and fresh, this development does not comply with it and the staff
would recommend denial and hope that they would come back with a plan that would
comply with the master plan.

On motion by Mr. Angelotti, seconded by Mr. Walden, the Planning Commission voted
7 to 0 to recommend denial of Change of Zone Petition #2794.

040227 CHANGE OF ZONE PETITION #2796 – STEVEN D. WEATHERS –
SYNOPSIS: Change of Zone from R-2 Two Family District to R-5 Apartment District
for existing five (5) dwelling units at 2 South 20th Street

Ms. Parker stated that the followings items should be included as part of the record for
this case:

   1. The City’s currently adopted zoning and subdivision regulations;
   2. The official zoning map for the area in question;
   3. The City’s currently adopted Master Plan for the area in question;
   4. The staff report and attachments dated August 9, 2004;
   5. The application and other documents, plans, pictures and maps submitted by
      the applicant in furtherance of the case and contained in the official file;
   6. The Notices to adjacent property owners dated July 16, 2004;
   7. The Notice to The Wyandotte Echo published on July 14, 2004.

 Ms. Parker asked if any member of the Planning Commission had any contact to
disclose concerning this petition. No one responded in the affirmative.

Ms. Parker stated that the petitioner came into the office today and submitted a written
request to hold over this petition. She further stated that the petitioner is supposed to
be present this evening to verbally request the hold over.

Mr. Steven D. Weathers, 2 South 20th Street, petitioner, appeared in support of this
petition. He stated that he is requesting a holdover to investigate into this a little more
and to seek counsel on this issue. Chairman Ratliff asked if he will be ready by the
September meeting? Mr. Weathers stated yes.




                                            13
Mr. Paul Soptic, 65 South 24th Street, appeared in opposition to this petition. He stated
that he is not sure that the square footage of this building can support five units. He
would like to have someone look into that. There are no fire escapes. There is one
entrance and exit for each of the apartments. There is no off-street parking and it has
been creating a problem for a number of years. The property is unkempt. There are
trees overgrown in the back yard. The tenants have caused a high number of calls for
service to the Police Department. There have been ten calls for service in the last six
months. Mr. John Kraly, 1924 Park Drive, appeared in opposition to this petition. He
has lived here for 30 years and houses have been well kept. The family dwellings
need to be kept intact. He stated that for the past 30 years people have come and
gone from this apartment building. Ms. Kimberly Kraly, 2342 Park Drive, also
appeared in opposition to this petition. She stated that he also has issues with police
calls to this property. Ms. Sheila Hulbert, 2020 Park Drive, appeared in opposition to
this petition. She is totally against more people coming to this building; it is not well
kept. There are problems with the tenants and they have seen suspicious activity on
this property. There is a building next to this apartment house and two of her relatives
witnessed some of the tenants breaking into that building. They have tried to contact
the owner (left him messages on his answering machine) and he does not return calls
and would not do anything about the problems with the people. Ms. Lynn Frenick, 56
North Thorpe, appeared in opposition to this petition. She sated that she is a member
of Wyandotte Countians Against Crime. They patrol this area and there have been
numerous calls for service to this property. The trees on the property are overgrown
and there is some damage to the fencing. She stated when she heard it was on the
agenda, she went by the property and it is not kept up. She understands that it is
zoned for two family and there are three or four families in there now. There is no
parking for this facility.

Mr. Weathers stated that he works with the police officers and he has to go through
due process to get people out when they commit crimes. He has done that and those
people are no longer there. He does not know anything about the break-ins next to
this building. There was one person there that may have been doing some of that and
he is no longer there. There is that potential in any apartment complex or duplex in
having a renter that is not the greatest person. With regard to the property not being
kept up, he has gone through the City inspections and he has done all the work on all
five units that was required. It is not a converted house; all of the units have been
there for 80 years. He has not made any modifications. Those five units have always
been there and the previous owner can testify to that as he owned it for 15 years. The
people they bought it from also had it like that. Chairman Davis asked how long he
has know it was five units? Mr. Weathers stated at least 15 to 20 years. He has
owned it for five years and the people before him had it for 15 years. He has paid his
rental licensing fees for five units and they have been inspected. Right across the
street is Security Bank and there is also Casa De Hernandez, which are commercial
operations. With regard to the property not being kept up, he has the records from
Rental Licensing that the work has been done up to code. Chairman Ratliff asked
about parking. Mr. Weathers stated that there has never been a parking lot. He has
never had a problem and there is parking on the street available. There is a lot of



                                           14
traffic driving through there because people cut through as they do not want to go
through the light at 18th Street. That occurs during rush hour traffic, which is twice a
day.

Commission Member Dercher stated that she went by there about 8:00 a.m. to check
out the facility and she is very concerned about the fire issues. There are steps going
upstairs and downstairs there are two exits. On the back end of the property she saw
one exit. If there was a fire or problem, how will the people get out of there? She
does not feel that there are proper exits. Mr. Weathers stated the same way as any
other apartment building. He has never had anyone say what he needed to do and no
one has told him that he needed to do anything different to the building. Mrs. Dercher
stated that the fence on the north side of the house has one-third of it damaged and is
down and the existing fence is being held up by the trees and brush. If there are
children in the structure, that is not good. Mr. Weathers stated that he would have to
look at a legal description to see if the fence goes with the property. He stated that
there is brush and vines on the fence but he does not know how that is against code
or is illegal.

Mr. Rob Richardson, Director of Planning, stated that in the staff report on page 9
there is a document from the License Division stating that on April 6, 1998, there were
four units. It was signed by Vernon Hayes on April 27th that the above information
was correct. The Hayes were the previous owners Mr. Weathers mentioned and they
signed the document stating that there were four units at the time. That is partially
what the staff has based its information on. There is also a letter from Mr. Speise on
page 7 to the Code Enforcement Department stating that this was zoned R-2. He
stated that the staff’s records show that there have been four units there for some time
and four units would be legally nonconforming and that is why the staff has issue with
the fifth unit. He stated that he would like for the applicant to describe where the five
units are located in the slide if that is possible. With respect to the hold over, he
stated that he is not sure that he is supportive with the testimony from the neighbors
this evening. He further stated that he is curious where the five units are located and
how they are accessed. Mr. Weathers stated that there are two units on the top and
there is a door on the left and another door by the bottom of the stair case for the units
on the first floor. There is one unit in the back that is accessed from a staircase in the
back. Mr. Richardson asked if it is a basement unit? Mr. Weathers stated yes. Mr.
Richardson asked if there are egress windows? Mr. Weathers stated yes. There are
regular size egress windows in the bedroom, kitchen, bathroom and living room area.
Mr. Richardson asked if the windows are as big as the ones on the upper level? Mr.
Weathers stated yes. Mr. Richardson stated that the staff recommends denial as four
units have been previously stipulated by a previous owner. Those would be legally
nonconforming and should remain.

On motion by Mr. Angelotti, seconded by Mr. Davis, the Planning Commission voted 7
to 0 to deny the holdover request.




                                            15
On motion by Mr. Davis, seconded by Mr. Angelotti, the Planning Commission voted 7
to 0 to recommend denial of Change of Zone Petition #2797.

040228 CHANGE OF ZONE PETITION #2799 – CITY PLANNING COMMISSION –
SYNOPSIS: Change of Zone from C-3 Commercial District to CP-2 Planned General
Business District to allow a paving setback of 4.5’ to accommodate ordinance required
parking at 807 Quindaro Boulevard

Ms. Parker stated that the followings items should be included as part of the record for
this case:

   1. The City’s currently adopted zoning and subdivision regulations;
   2. The official zoning map for the area in question;
   3. The City’s currently adopted Master Plan for the area in question;
   4. The staff report and attachments dated August 9, 2004;
   5. The application and other documents, plans, pictures and maps submitted by
      the applicant in furtherance of the case and contained in the official file;
   6. The Notices to adjacent property owners dated July 16, 2004;
   7. The Notice to The Wyandotte Echo published on July 14, 2004.

 Ms. Parker asked if any member of the Planning Commission had any contact to
disclose concerning this petition. No one responded in the affirmative.

Mr. Philip Hall, 809 Quindaro Boulevard, petitioner, appeared in support of this
petition. He stated that he was before the Commission for the property at 807
Quindaro Boulevard a few months ago. This property is being requested for rezoning
to address the parking and setbacks that will make the site function better.

No one appeared in opposition to this petition.

Mr. Rob Richardson, Director of Planning, stated that the staff recommends approval
subject to stipulations.

On motion by Mr. Locke, seconded by Mrs. Dercher, the Planning Commission voted
7 to 0 to recommend approval of Change of Zone Petition #2799, subject to:

        1. A covenant being executed that specifically excludes a used car lot and any
           of a few other uses that evoke serious concern.
        2. There should be no access from Haskell Avenue.
        3. Freestanding retaining walls should use decorative masonry.
        4. At least 3 shade trees should be planted and be at least 2’ caliper when
           planted.
        5. All parking areas must be paved with asphalt or concrete and include curbs
           or continuous wheel stops around the perimeter.
        6. One of the parking spaces must be van accessible.
        7. Continue the existing limitations on the hours of operation.



                                           16
CHANGE OF ZONE PETITION #2800 – ROBERT E. LITTLE – C/O PETE
PETERSON – SYNOPSIS: Change of Zone from A-G Agriculture District to CP-1
Planned Limited Business District for a bank at 10840 Parallel Parkway

Ms. Parker stated that the followings items should be included as part of the record for
this case:

   1. The City’s currently adopted zoning and subdivision regulations;
   2. The official zoning map for the area in question;
   3. The City’s currently adopted Master Plan for the area in question;
   4. The staff report and attachments dated August 9, 2004;
   5. The application and other documents, plans, pictures and maps submitted by
      the applicant in furtherance of the case and contained in the official file;
   6. The Notices to adjacent property owners dated July 14, 2004;
   7. The Notice to The Wyandotte Echo published on July 14, 2004.

 Ms. Parker asked if any member of the Planning Commission had any contact to
disclose concerning this petition. No one responded in the affirmative.

Mr. John Peterson, attorney representing the petitioner and Security Bank, 748 Ann
Avenue, appeared in support of this petition. He stated that Mr. Tommy Wells,
Executive Vice President of Security Bank, Mr. Ken Frazier, architect, and Mr. Phil
Gibbs, engineer, also appeared in support of this petition. Mr. Peterson stated that
the bank wants to erect a branch bank. They are in agreement with the staff opinion
and would like to thank staff for their cooperation and availability throughout the
process.

Mr. Dan Burke, 4520 Main, representing the adjoining property owner to the west,
appeared concerning this petition. He asked what the improvements will be for
access from 109th Street and Parallel Parkway. There is currently a median. Mr. Rob
Richardson, Director of Planning, stated that the applicant is going to do a half street
improvement to 109th Street to make that suitable for access. He stated that he
understands that previously there was an issue with access regarding a previous
application to the west and now it seems more likely with two parcels accessing 109th
and improving the whole street, it may work better. He stated that the staff would be
happy to work with them on this issue.

Mr. Richardson stated that the staff recommends approval subject to stipulations.

On motion by Mrs. Huey, seconded by Mr. Davis, the Planning Commission voted 7 to
0 to recommend approval of Change of Zone Petition #2800 to the CP-1 Planned
Limited Business District subject to 109th Street being improved according to Public
Works agreement.




                                           17
040230 CHANGE OF ZONE PETITION #2801 – ED AND JANET REED (C/O PETE
PETERSON) – SYNOPSIS: Change of Zone from A-G Agriculture District to CP-1
Planned Limited Business District for a two-story office building at 2035 North 109th
Street

Ms. Parker stated that the followings items should be included as part of the record for
this case:

   1. The City’s currently adopted zoning and subdivision regulations;
   2. The official zoning map for the area in question;
   3. The City’s currently adopted Master Plan for the area in question;
   4. The staff report and attachments dated August 9, 2004;
   5. The application and other documents, plans, pictures and maps submitted by
      the applicant in furtherance of the case and contained in the official file;
   6. The Notices to adjacent property owners dated July 14, 2004;
   7. The Notice to The Wyandotte Echo published on July 14, 2004.
   8. Comments from The Wyandotte Conservation District received on August 6,
      2004 (after the packets had been delivered) and distributed to the Planning
      Commission this evening.

 Ms. Parker asked if any member of the Planning Commission had any contact to
disclose concerning this petition. No one responded in the affirmative.

Mr. John Peterson, attorney representing the petitioner and Security Bank, 748 Ann
Avenue, appeared in support of this petition. He stated that this property is
contiguous to the previous petition and they request approval to build a two-story
office building. There were five persons present in support who did not speak.

No one appeared in opposition to this petition.

Mr. Rob Richardson, Director of Planning, stated that the petitioner requested CP-1
Planned Limited Business District and as an office building is the intended use, CP-O
Planned Non-Retail Business District would be the best zoning. The staff would
recommend approval to the CP-O Planned Non-Retail Business District subject to
stipulations.

On motion by Mr. Davis, seconded by Mr. Locke, the Planning Commission voted 7 to
0 to recommend approval of Change of Zone Petition #2801 to the CP-O Planned
Non-Retail Business District, subject to 109th Street being improved according to
Public Works agreement.




                                           18
040231 CHANGE OF ZONE PETITION #2802 – OM RATTAN – SYNOPSIS:
Change of Zone from A-G Agriculture District to CP-2 Planned General Business
District for a combination service station/convenience store/branch bank and retail
liquor store at 9910 New Jersey Avenue

Ms. Parker stated that the followings items should be included as part of the record for
this case:

   1. The City’s currently adopted zoning and subdivision regulations;
   2. The official zoning map for the area in question;
   3. The City’s currently adopted Master Plan for the area in question;
   4. The staff report and attachments dated August 9, 2004;
   5. The application and other documents, plans, pictures and maps submitted by
      the applicant in furtherance of the case and contained in the official file;
   6. The Notices to adjacent property owners dated July 14, 2004;
   7. The Notice to The Wyandotte Echo published on July 14, 2004.
   8. Comments from The Wyandotte Conservation District received on August 6,
      2004 (after the packets had been delivered) and distributed to the Planning
      Commission this evening.

 Ms. Parker asked if any member of the Planning Commission had any contact to
disclose concerning this petition. No one responded in the affirmative.

Mr. Don Ray, architect, representing the petitioner, appeared in support of this
petition. He stated that Mr. Robert Wessel with Landmark Engineering, civil
engineering and land planning consultant, and Mr. Rattan’s son are also present this
evening. Mr. Ray stated that the petitioner wants to develop the property into a
convenience store, gas station, branch bank and retail liquor store. They have
reviewed the staff’s recommendation and are in agreement with the stipulations. They
will submit a plan for the balance of the 30 acres. They have agreed to the stipulation
on the elevations on the building with the architecture set forth on the three elevations
submitted, i.e. south, west and east elevations, will be carried to the north elevation.
They are in agreement with the driveway approach off of 98th and New Jersey and will
work with the City modifying that approach. He further stated that they will work with
the City on the spill retainment requirements to prevent any fuels from entering the
watershed. There was a question about the column size on the canopies. They are
concerned about the requirement when other developments do not appear to have the
same types of columns. They will agree with the monument sign, but would like some
definition as to what the limitation of the monument sign might be. Chairman Ratliff
asked if the street is New Jersey or France Family Drive? Mr. Steve Speise, Manager
of Urban Planning and Land Use, stated that Mr. Rattan’s street is New Jersey since
he was already there. When the commercial development comes, it could be on
France Family Drive. Commission Member Davis asked how many acres the tract is?
Mr. Rob Richardson, Director of Planning, stated that Mr. Rattan has approximately 30
acres. Mr. Davis asked if it was a larger tract or if 30 acres was the one owner tract?




                                           19
Mr. Ray stated that it was a one owner tract. Mr. Richardson stated that Mr. Rattan
has lived on the property for some time.

No one appeared in opposition

Mr. Richardson stated that the column dimensions in the staff report were taken off
the petitioner’s plans. If they want to change their plans, they need to let staff know
specifically what they want to do. If they are the metal columns proposed, the
dimensions were taken from the plans. Mr. Ray stated that there may have been
some misunderstanding on the plans. Basically there could have been some
confusion as to the gasoline terminal itself being confused with the column. There will
be a column going up. Right now they have shown cladding around it of
approximately that size, but not necessarily the column being a solid 2’ by 4’. Mr.
Richardson stated that was what was being addressed with the comment. If they
have other support posts, they can do that. The comment was directed towards the
column on the plans. Mr. Davis stated that if they can get the plans in and work with
staff, then it will not be an issue. Mr. Richardson stated that is correct. Mr.
Richardson stated that the staff recommends approval, subject to stipulations.

On motion by Mr. Locke, seconded by Mrs. Huey, the Planning Commission voted 7
to 0 to recommend approval of Change of Zone Petition #2802, subject to:

      1. A limited overall plan for the 30 acres should be submitted no later than with
         the final plan approval request, that includes a traffic and access concept
         and a drainage concept that would serve the entire 30 acre property. This
         would be part of the final plan for this site and might change the current
         layout if appropriate. It is likely that cross easements should be part of the
         final plans.

      2. The design of the buildings is critical to the acceptability of this proposal.
         The building elevations submitted are acceptable as submitted. Since no
         north building elevation is submitted, the commitment is that it will use the
         same materials and features as the side elevations. Signs will be individual
         letters. Canopy columns will be attractive masonry or if metal will have
         minimum dimensions of 4 feet by 2 feet.

      3. A sidewalk is required along New Jersey Avenue.

      4. The detached sign should be limited to a monument sign

      5. The driveway approach on 98th Street will need to be modified or the
         existing drainage inlet will need to be relocated.

      6. A proposal needs to be submitted and approved by the Public Works
         Department that provides appropriate spill containment to help protect the




                                           20
          Marshall Creek watershed. Fueling areas should not discharge directly to
          storm drainage facilities.

040232 CHANGE OF ZONE PETITION #2803 – SALI’S INC. – SYNOPSIS: Change
of Zone from C-1 Limited Business District to C-2 General Business District for a
service station/convenience store at 4810 Parallel Parkway

Ms. Parker stated that the followings items should be included as part of the record for
this case:

   1. The City’s currently adopted zoning and subdivision regulations;
   2. The official zoning map for the area in question;
   3. The City’s currently adopted Master Plan for the area in question;
   4. The staff report and attachments dated August 9, 2004;
   5. The application and other documents, plans, pictures and maps submitted by
      the applicant in furtherance of the case and contained in the official file;
   6. The Notices to adjacent property owners dated July 14, 2004;
   7. The Notice to The Wyandotte Echo published on July 14, 2004.

 Ms. Parker asked if any member of the Planning Commission had any contact to
disclose concerning this petition. No one responded in the affirmative.

Mr. Jerald Pruitt, 6223 Slater, representing the petitioner, appeared in support of this
petition. He stated that this site has been used for a convenience store/service station
for a number of years. It has fallen into a state of disrepair. Commission Member
Davis asked if he has read the staff recommendation with regard to the key issues?
Mr. Pruitt stated that the owner did not want to upgrade; he wants to tear it down and
put up a new building. Mr. Davis asked if he has read the staff report? Mr. Pruitt
stated no (and he was given a copy). Mr. Davis stated that the staff is recommending
approval to CP-2 zoning subject to plans being submitted showing an upgraded
appearance for the building and existing canopy. Mr. Pruitt stated that the building will
be removed and the parking lot, drive and canopy will be updated. He stated that the
canopy is in poor condition and the architect has said that it can be repaired without
being replaced. Mr. Rob Richardson, Director of Planning, stated that the staff wanted
to make sure that it is repaired and brought up to the same standards as the new
building. The building is a wood sided building and it does need some architectural
detail. A representative for the petitioner, 1947 Northeast Monroe, Topeka, Kansas,
appeared in support of this petition. He stated that this is a concrete block and brick
building. The canopy had to be repaired; there is one corner that was badly damaged.
He suggested to the owners that they tear down the building and build a new
expanded building. He stated that he drew up a lot of the plans for the owners. There
was concern by a neighbor that the station did not need to be here because there is a
new station that has gone in.

The Manager of Super Speedway Store, Inc. appeared in support of this petition. He
stated that he does not have a problem with them building a gas station. He controls



                                           21
the majority of the island. The address of the Speedway gas station is 4746 and is a
first-class gas station that was built from the ground up. They just added a new
laundromat in the back. He further stated that one person talked about rebuilding and
the other about renovation. Chairman Ratliff stated that they are rebuilding the gas
station and renovating the canopy. He stated that they want something nice back
there. They are not present because they do not want to compete or have the
Commission deny the zoning. The operation was closed down because it was unfit
and there is already experience as to the type of operation they ran in the past. They
are asking for something nice and decent back there.

Ms. Glenda Smith, 7231 Aspen Drive, appeared in support of this petition. She stated
that her sister lives at 4810 Parallel Parkway so the address on the agenda is
incorrect. The address of the gas station is 4828 Parallel Parkway. She was the
manager there for ten years. She cleaned the parking lot. She worked with the police
department; she ran kids off the property. She is for the gas station because there are
a lot of customers that want to come back. They were trying to get it cleaned up. She
cleaned the lots several times a day with trash that comes from the other service
station. They have been closed since the 3rd and her lot is filthy. She wants to get it
back the way it was. There were two other persons present in support that did not
speak.

Mr. Richardson stated the staff needs to make sure that the structure going in and the
remodel of the canopy look attractive. The staff recommends approval, subject to the
revised plans showing upgrades to those two facilities.

On motion by Mr. Locke, seconded by Mr. Watson, the Planning Commission voted 7
to 0 to recommend approval of Change of Zone Petition #2803 to the CP-2 Planned
General Business District, subject to new plans being submitted showing an updated
appearance to both the proposed building and the existing canopy.

040194 SPECIAL PERMIT PETITION #SP-2004-28 – SEAN BYERS – DBA
TRANSPORTATING ANGELS – SYNOPSIS: Special Permit for a temporary
commercial use of land for a non-emergency medical transportation provider (office
and the keeping of two vans) at 807 North 83rd Street

Ms. Parker stated that the followings items should be included as part of the record for
this case:

   1. The City’s currently adopted zoning and subdivision regulations;
   2. The official zoning map for the area in question;
   3. The City’s currently adopted Master Plan for the area in question;
   4. The staff report and attachments dated August 9, 2004;
   5. The application and other documents, plans, pictures and maps submitted by
      the applicant in furtherance of the case and contained in the official file;
   6. The Notices to adjacent property owners dated July 18, 2004 and August 2,
      2004;



                                           22
   7. The Notice to The Wyandotte Echo published on July 16, 2004.

Ms. Parker stated that this petition was returned to the City Planning Commission on
July 29, 2004 for further consideration.

Ms. Parker asked if any member of the Planning Commission had any contact to
disclose concerning this petition. No one responded in the affirmative.

Ms. Elizabeth Ervin, 807 North 83rd Street, representing the petitioner, appeared in
support of this petition. She stated that they are a service for medical transportation
for the elderly that do not otherwise have transportation to get to their appointments.
She further stated that they are also a transporter for young females who have
children and do not otherwise have transportation to and from the doctor, hospital,
mental health facilities, etc.

Chairman Ratliff asked if the Commissioners sent this petition back so the vans could
be parked in the driveway? Mr. Rob Richardson, Director of Planning, stated that that
is correct. At the Board of Commissioners hearing, a significant amount of discussion
was heard as to where the vans are parked. The vans are not currently parked on or
adjacent to this property. They are parked across the street, and as the Commission
heard before there is significant neighborhood concern. At the Board of
Commissioners hearing the applicant stated that the primary reason that the vans are
parked in the street are because those are the only vehicles that have comprehensive
insurance, so they are insured if they are hit while on the street.

Ms. Ervin stated that she has parked the vans on the same side as the house. She
stated that she talked to her neighbor that lives next to her. Her neighbor told her that
if they were parked in front of her house they block the neighbor’s view out of her
driveway. She talked to her after the July 12th meeting; she told her that if she kept
them parked on the right hand side of the street, it would be OK. The house on the
right hand side of the street where they park the vans is facing the other street and
they have a driveway in front of their house. She stated that where they park their
vans there is no house facing her house. She further stated that they have had their
cars stolen out of their driveway on three occasions. The house next to her was
broken into on several occasions before the new owner moved there. She stated that
they had a surveillance camera put in front of the driveway. The vans are parked on
the street so they can keep their cars (that only have liability) in the driveway. She
has two Tahoes that are just as tall or wide as the vans. What would be the difference
if she parked the vans or the Tahoes there? She wants to be able to monitor what
goes on in her driveway as she lives there. She wants to park her personal vehicles
in the driveway and the vans on the street as no one would want the company
vehicles. Commission Member Davis stated that the use is not the issue; it is where
the vans are parked. He asked if she has looked at locating the two vans at some
commercial establishments that would not charge a lot? Ms. Ervin stated that they are
in the process of moving and she had asked about having this petition withdrawn so
she could seek another location, but she was told that it would not be feasible to do



                                           23
so. Mr. Richardson stated that the request was to transfer the address of the petition.
That would require this petition being withdrawn and a new application being filed. If
this petition is approved and they moved, they will need to file a new application. Mr.
Davis asked if they are going to move? Ms. Ervin stated that they have a “for sale”
sign in the yard. Mr. Davis asked if it would be appropriate to find a place for the vans
while they try to move. Can’t they find a temporary location for the vans? Ms. Ervin
stated that they have sought out other locations, but have not come up with a solid
location. She stated that she has talked to the neighbor about the van and what
would be acceptable. Mr. Davis stated that the problem is that if she satisfies one
neighbor, there may be other neighbors with concerns and the issue of a traffic
concern. He stated that he thinks that it would be better for the vans to be at another
location. He stated that he knows of other businesses that operate out of the home
and have their vehicles parked at other locations. Ms. Ervin stated that they have a
petition in favor of this operation. There are also other business vans parked on the
block and they haven’t had problems. There is a church van, a locksmith van across
the street (he signed the petition), etc. There are customers that use their vans that
live on the block and they are definitely for this petition. She stated that she has sold
some of the vehicles and has parked one of the vans in the driveway. She is doing
everything that she can to satisfy the situation. She further stated that Mr. Richardson
told them last month that they are allowed two parking spaces in front of their home.
That van is only taking up one space. Chairman Ratliff stated that at the last meeting
she stated that she had one van there because she had an employee that was taking
one of the vans home. Ms. Ervin stated that did not work out and they are not going
to let the drivers take the vans home.

There were four persons present in opposition to this petition, including the following
that spoke. Mr. David Falscroft, 801 North 83rd Street, stated that the van in question
is parked across the street in the grass and on the sidewalk. About one month ago,
he went to the store and when he pulled out of his driveway there were children
behind the van playing. He was going less than five miles an hour and a four year old
stepped in front of him. He has noticed cars driving 40 miles an hour up the street.
He does not want to see children hurt or the vans on the street. They can park them
in the driveway. Ms. Rayetta Lanham, 801 North 83rd Drive, stated that she is across
the street. The vans do block the view. There is a lady that comes down the street in
a wheel chair that has to go around the vans and if a car is coming the opposite
direction, they do not see her. When she mows the grass, she has to mow around her
vans. She has told her that she can come and get her to move them; she does not
feel that that is her place. There was an incident with a basketball goal. They wanted
to keep it on her property and she was not sure that it was her property. She called
the police and he told her that she was responsible for the property. There are ruts in
the grass from the tires on the vans. When the weather is bad and the streets need to
be plowed, it will be a problem. There are children in the area and she feels that this
situation is very dangerous. Ms. Kye McMillan, 828 North 83rd Drive, stated that she
is concerned about the vans. She has a paper route and drives this route every
morning and it does obstruct her view. It is hard to get her van through there when
there are cars on one side and the vans on the other side. Lately she has had one



                                           24
van gone and the other parked in the driveway and it has been good. The people
driving the cars cannot see people walking or riding bicycles when the vans are
parked there.

Ms. Ervin stated that the family that has the children that Mr. Falscroft spoke about are
customers of their business. They signed the petition in favor of this operation. He
has a truck as big and long as her van and if kids were behind his vehicle, it would
have the same obstructed view. She cannot control the traffic on the street. They
have not had any accidents or anyone hit on the street. She would ask for approval
with a time frame to see how it goes. They did not know that they needed a permit to
operate and they have been there for almost two years.

Mr. Richardson stated that the staff recommends denial due to the traffic issues and
the concerns expressed tonight and those in the staff report.

On motion by Mr. Angelotti, seconded by Mrs. Huey, the Planning Commission voted
7 to 0 to recommend denial of Special Permit Petition #SP-2004-28.

040234 SPECIAL PERMIT PETITION #SP-2004-32 – MICHAEL AND PEATRICE
GORDON – SYNOPSIS: Special Permit for an earthen fill at 4646 Sortor Drive

Ms. Parker stated that the followings items should be included as part of the record for
this case:

   1. The City’s currently adopted zoning and subdivision regulations;
   2. The official zoning map for the area in question;
   3. The City’s currently adopted Master Plan for the area in question;
   4. The staff report and attachments dated August 9, 2004;
   5. The application and other documents, plans, pictures and maps submitted by
      the applicant in furtherance of the case and contained in the official file;
   6. The Notices to adjacent property owners dated July 14, 2004;
   7. The Notice to The Wyandotte Echo published on July 14, 2004.

Ms. Parker asked if any member of the Planning Commission had any contact to
disclose concerning this petition. No one responded in the affirmative.

Mr. Michael Gordon, 4646 Sortor Drive, petitioner, appeared in support of this petition.
He stated that the photo slide being shown this evening does not reflect his property;
he is about one-quarter mile from that site. His nearest neighbor is one-quarter mile
away. He has a big ravine that he wants to fill and level to the rest of his property. He
thinks that he needs about 35,000 cubic yards of fill. He wants to use concrete, etc. to
fill it. Chairman Ratliff asked how long he thinks it will take to get the fill completed?
Mr. Gordon stated that it depends on the availability of the fill, but should take about
six months. He has some fencing and gates to put up. Commission Member Davis
asked if he has an engineer working with him? Mr. Gordon stated yes. He submitted
the plans when he filed his application. He does not remember the name of his



                                            25
engineer. Mr. Davis stated that the staff needs plans that are stamped and sealed.
He needs to show his engineer the staff opinion so the plans can address the issues.
Mr. Gordon stated that he made copies of the plans so it did not have the seal on it.
He stated that he thinks that he can provide this information to the staff tomorrow. He
stated that he has a petition of 26 names of persons in the area in support of this
petition. He plans to operate 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., five days a week. He will not
operate when the weather is bad. There was one person in favor who did not speak.

No one appeared in opposition to this petition.

Mr. Rob Richardson, Director of Planning, stated that most of the comments and
concerns relate to engineering issues. The staff would need to have stamped and
sealed drawings showing the grading plans, existing and future contours of the land,
etc., being able to secure the permits from Building Inspection. In the staff report there
is a letter from Al Greenwood related to this petition that the existing street network is
not adequate to support this type of truck traffic and the Public Works Department
objected to the petition. He has spoken with Mr. Greenwood since the staff report was
published and they can work out some arrangement with regard to a street bond to
make sure that if the streets are torn up, they can get fixed. That would include doing
a survey of the street network in the area and doing a similar survey after the work
was completed to determine if the trucks had done any damage to the street.

On motion by Mr. Davis, seconded by Mr. Locke, the Planning Commission voted 7 to
0 to recommend approval of Special Permit Petition #SP-2004-32, subject to:

       1.     Submission of adequate plans bearing an engineer’s stamp or seal.

       2.     Approval by the Public Works Department of the drainage and erosion
              control plans. Once adequate plans have been submitted and
              approved, appropriate drainage and erosion control measures shall be
              put in place.

       3.     Securing of grading and excavation permits from the Building Inspection
              Department, and hauling permits from the Public Works Department.

       4.     Approving the project for six (6) months as per the petitioners’ letter.

       5.     Hours of operation would be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday
              through Friday.

       6.     The petitioners agreeing to remedy, repair or clean up any damage to
              adjacent property owners occasioned by the washing of silt or other
              earthen material upon adjacent property owners.




                                            26
020184 SPECIAL PERMIT PETITION #SP-2004-33 – L&B BREIT, INC. DBA
BREIT’S STEIN AND DELI – SYNOPSIS: Renewal of a special use permit for a
pub/restaurant with alcoholic beverages and food at 412 North 5th Street

Ms. Parker stated that the followings items should be included as part of the record for
this case:

   1. The City’s currently adopted zoning and subdivision regulations;
   2. The official zoning map for the area in question;
   3. The City’s currently adopted Master Plan for the area in question;
   4. The staff report and attachments dated August 9, 2004;
   5. The application and other documents, plans, pictures and maps submitted by
      the applicant in furtherance of the case and contained in the official file;
   6. The Notices to adjacent property owners dated July 15, 2004;
   7. The Notice to The Wyandotte Echo published on July 14, 2004;
   8. The letter from John Peterson, attorney for the petitioner dated August 6, 2004,
      requesting that this petition be continued for one month.

Ms. Parker asked if any member of the Planning Commission had any contact to
disclose concerning this petition. No one responded in the affirmative.

Commission Member Dercher excused herself from the hearing on this petition.

Mr. John Peterson, 748 Ann Avenue, attorney representing the petitioner, appeared in
support of this petition He stated that they have requested a holdover until the
September meeting. There are numerous reasons for this. It was not until mid-point
last week that they realized that this would not be on the consent agenda. There was
one letter received from an adjoining landowner complaining of various problems. He
stated that he will not go into that now, but they plan to submit to the Commission and
staff prior to August 27th multiple documents, one of which hopefully will address a lot
of the parking issues and other documents that will support their position. Mr.
Breitenstein and his family are present this evening. They have invested thousands of
dollars in this enterprise. They have operated the establishment for two years. Those
of the Commission who were present two years ago know that there were a hundred
people supporting Mr. Breitenstein in his endeavors. He has certainly fulfilled all of his
obligations. They want to address the concerns that have been raised and that is why
they are requesting the holdover.

There were three persons present in opposition to this petition, including the following
that spoke. Ms. Gretchen Lynch, 431 North 5th Street, stated that she would like the
Commission to consider denial of this petition, as an immediate neighbor, homeowner
and a voice for a few other homeowners around the area. She stated that the actions
by the owner and the patrons are detrimental to the welfare of this neighborhood. She
feels that the property values are declining and will continue to do so if this
establishment continues. She further stated that with regard to the parking, the
patrons park up and down Sandusky, 5th Street, Elizabeth Street, etc. They park in



                                            27
front of their homes and sometimes in the handicapped designated parking areas for
the neighbors. They force the neighbors to carry their belongings through all kinds of
weather to get to their front door. Patrons have been seen urinating in the front yards
and properties. There are large busloads of people that park in front of their homes,
have loud music from the bus and go party at this establishment. The music can be
heard a block away. Drug deals or some kinds of deals are going on. There is
hazardous driving when the patrons leave the bar. She has seen people drive up on
the sidewalks to leave the establishment. She saw someone last week drive up on
the sidewalk and drop someone off in a Unified Government vehicle two feet from the
door. There are broken beer bottles and litter up and down the street. There have
been windows broken and the retaining wall behind the establishment was broken.
They are not anti-business, but they feel that Breit’s has been less than forthcoming in
their attempts to operate in a harmonious manner. They ask the Commission to
recommend denial of this petition.

Commission Member Huey stated that there is a bar directly across the street from
Breit’s. She asked if some of the problems regarding parking, public urinating, etc.
could have come from that establishment? Ms. Lynch stated no, because there have
been witnesses who have seen them walk to this establishment. Mrs. Huey asked if
she has called the police? Ms. Lynch stated yes, there is documentation on the public
record.

Mr. Peterson stated that he did not hear any reason why this petition should not be
held over. He further stated that they will adequately address to the Commission’s
satisfaction if this is held over all of the concerns that have been raised, most of which
if not all, can be denied and proven. He stated that he has a letter of agreement for
additional parking spots for Mr. Breitenstein’s establishment a block to the south. That
will all be submitted. They are asking for a month’s holdover. It will allow everyone to
be heard.

Commission Member Davis asked if this is held over, will they attempt to talk to the
neighbors in opposition? Mr. Peterson stated yes, he will get their phone numbers
and set up a meeting.

Mr. Rob Richardson, Director of Planning, stated that the staff recommends a
holdover of this petition.

On motion by Mr. Davis, seconded by Mr. Angelotti, the Planning Commission voted 6
to 0 to hold over this petition for one month (September 13, 2004 hearing) as per the
petitioner’s attorney’s request.

Commission Member Dercher rejoined the Commission.

040235 SPECIAL PERMIT PETITION #SP-2004-34 – RALPH, PAMELA AND
THERESA JOHNSON – SYNOPSIS: Special Permit for a beauty shop as a home
occupation at 5032 Gibbs Road



                                            28
Ms. Parker stated that the followings items should be included as part of the record for
this case:

    1. The City’s currently adopted zoning and subdivision regulations;
    2. The official zoning map for the area in question;
    3. The City’s currently adopted Master Plan for the area in question;
    4. The staff report and attachments dated August 9, 2004;
    5. The application and other documents, plans, pictures and maps submitted by
       the applicant in furtherance of the case and contained in the official file;
    6. The Notices to adjacent property owners dated July 14, 2004;
    7. The Notice to The Wyandotte Echo published on July 14, 2004.

Ms. Parker asked if any member of the Planning Commission had any contact to
disclose concerning this petition. No one responded in the affirmative.

Ms. Pam Johnson and Ms. Theresa Johnson, 5032 Gibbs Road, petitioners, appeared
in support of this petition. Chairman Ratliff asked if they have seen the staff’s
recommendation? Ms. Johnson states yes, and they are in agreement.

No one appeared in opposition to this petition.

Mr. Rob Richardson, Director of Planning, stated that the staff recommends approval
subject to stipulations.

On motion by Mr. Watson, seconded by Mr. Locke, the Planning Commission voted 7
to 0 to recommend approval of Special Permit Petition #SP-2004-34, subject to:

   1.      No advertising signs shall be used.
   2.      No employees other than the operator
   3.      Customers park off the street
   4.      Operation during normal business hours only
   5.      Two year renewable permit

040235 SPECIAL PERMIT PETITION #SP-2004-35 – CANDIDA ROSA MORRAN –
SYNOPSIS: Special Permit for a temporary use of accessory building as a residence
at 2449 South 12th Terrace

Ms. Parker stated that the followings items should be included as part of the record for
this case:

    1.   The City’s currently adopted zoning and subdivision regulations;
    2.   The official zoning map for the area in question;
    3.   The City’s currently adopted Master Plan for the area in question;
    4.   The staff report and attachments dated August 9, 2004;
    5.   The application and other documents, plans, pictures and maps submitted by
         the applicant in furtherance of the case and contained in the official file;


                                           29
    6. The Notices to adjacent property owners dated July 16, 2004;
    7. The Notice to The Wyandotte Echo published on July 14, 2004.

Ms. Parker asked if any member of the Planning Commission had any contact to
disclose concerning this petition. No one responded in the affirmative.

Ms. Candida Rosa Morran, petitioner and Mr. Morran, her son, appeared in support of
this petition. He stated that his mother needs to have a permit for the house behind
the house that she owns. Mr. Davis of the Commission asked if the house is currently
being rented? Mr. Morran stated no; he used to live there. He did not know that a
permit was needed for a family member. Now she wants to rent the house. He stated
that no one lived in it before he did. Chairman Ratliff asked if he has seen the staff
recommendation? Mr. Morran stated yes, she has seen it. He stated that he thought
by law everyone could have two dogs. Both of the dogs are male. Chairman Ratliff
asked if they could agree to one dog? Mr. Morran stated that they have two grown
male dogs and one puppy. He stated that they agree that there will be no more than
two people occupying the unit.

Ms. Wendy Wilson, Rosedale Development Association, 1403 Southwest Boulevard,
appeared concerning this petition. She stated that one of the people in her office lives
behind this family. As long as they abide by the ordinances, they do not have a
problem with this. There have had female dogs in the past that kept having puppies.
They request that they reduce the number of dogs and have the remaining dogs
spayed and neutered.

Ms. Ellen Cunliff, 2447 South 12th Street, appeared in opposition to this petition. She
stated that this house was used for quite some time by several residents. It is a
garage behind the house and she has fought this for a number of years. She has
dealt with the Police Department, Code Enforcement and utility companies because
her address was used for this house. She has called it an illegal house because it
was established without any notification. When a new renter was moved in, the
utilities in her house were turned off in her name and turned on in the renter’s name.
Then she had to go to the utilities and explain to them that people were trying to take
her services and go to the police for theft of services. Finally the utilities came up with
the idea of having her name with a code password so if someone tried to do that in the
future, they couldn’t. She had different occasions when the gas company came out
for a gas leak at her address, but it was at the “illegal” house. Their address is 12th
Terrace and her address is 12th Street. She has had the children’s welfare services
come to her house and insist upon searching her house that she had children being
kept there. They searched her house room for room and she was telling them to go
over to the next street. The child was found in that home. She has had dogs left at
her house and the tags have her address. She has had people from the correctional
facilities come to her home looking for people. She has had mail from the prisons and
correctional facilities delivered to her. She has had her checks delivered to the other
house. She further stated that if this is established as a residence, and understand
there is no house, it is a garage, to not have a corresponding address on 12th Terrace.



                                            30
She stated that she has three addresses on her lot and she is only using one address.
She stated that she was told by the utilities companies that the only way that this
house could have had utilities was to bootleg them off the house in front. That is not
up to code.

Mr. Morran stated that the house has been inspected by the City and it is not a
garage. There has never been a garage there. It is an apartment house. It was a
house when they acquired the property three years ago. It has a bathroom, living
room, and bedroom and it has been inspected by the City. They got rid of the dogs
and only have two male dogs remaining. He stated that a member of the Planning
staff has inspected the house.

Mr. Rob Richardson, Director of Planning, stated that in light of the comments this
evening, the petition should be held over for further investigation. He stated that they
need to find out what is going on with the utilities. The staff cannot tell where the
utilities are coming from by walking through the house.

On motion by Mr. Davis, seconded by Mrs. Dercher, the Planning Commission voted 7
to 0 to hold over Special Permit Petition #SP-2004-35 for one month (September 13,
2004).

040237 SPECIAL PERMIT PETITION #SP-2004-38 – CHIP BECKER, BECKER
TELECOMMUNCATIONS SERVICES, LLC – SYNOPSIS: Special Permit for a
telecommunications tower at 4601 Rainbow Boulevard

Ms. Parker stated that the followings items should be included as part of the record for
this case:

    1.  The City’s currently adopted zoning and subdivision regulations;
    2.  The official zoning map for the area in question;
    3.  The City’s currently adopted Master Plan for the area in question;
    4.  The staff report and attachments dated August 9, 2004;
    5.  The application and other documents, plans, pictures and maps submitted by
        the applicant in furtherance of the case and contained in the official file;
    6. The Notices to adjacent property owners dated July 15, 2004;
    7. The Notice to The Wyandotte Echo published on July 14, 2004;
    8. Resolution in Opposition from the Planning Commission of the City of
        Westwood, Kansas (received on August 6, 2004 after the Planning
        Commission packets had been delivered) and distributed to the Commission
        this evening.
    9. Coverage map submitted by the petitioner (received on August 6, 2004 after
        the Planning Commission packets had been delivered) and distributed to the
        Commission this evening.
    10. Communication in opposition from the President of the Hanover Heights
        Neighborhood Group.




                                           31
Ms. Parker asked if any member of the Planning Commission had any contact to
disclose concerning this petition. No one responded in the affirmative.

Mr. Chip Becker, petitioner, appeared in support of this petition. He stated that he
represents Sprint PCS and Kansas City Youth Front in Sprint’s efforts to put up a 100’
monopole. Measuring to the top of the lighting rod it is 100’. He was under the
impression that they only measured to the top of the tower. As noted in the staff
report, they are proposing this tower to address a site deficiency in coverage, which at
this time is small. He stated that Hector Hernandez, representing Sprint PCS, is
present this evening. Mr. Hernandez stated that the first map that was submitted to
the Commission shows the existing coverage. The blue and orange reflected the call
range of calls in their wireless network. At this moment yellow and red show the areas
where there is limited car service but in-building service. The green area is where
they have the proper coverage for cars, buildings and on-street. They are proposing
to improve the grade of service and correct the non-service problem. The other
prediction service map will be the new service that they have with this new facility.
They will improve the existing call network to the surrounding areas. It also allows
them to benefit an estimated 50,000 people. Mr. Becker stated that he would like to
address the staff report as the staff has put forth a negative recommendation. The
staff stated that the tower does not accommodate three carriers as required by code
for a tower this height. He stated that he misinterpreted the code as he thought that it
was to the top of the tower and their tower is 100’. The code reads that towers over
100’ must accommodate three carriers. They are willing to accommodate three
carriers or lower the height of the tower. The second issue is setbacks from
residential structures. The code has two requirements. One is that the tower be
setback at least 100% of the height of the tower from any residential structure and it
must be setback twice the height of the tower from any residential structure. He stated
that it was his understanding from talking to staff prior to filing the petition that the
200% was not always enforced with all towers, but the 100% should be met and this is
what resulted in part with this petition. He further stated that the third item on the list
is that the site does not meet the landscaping requirements as required by City Code
and they felt that landscaping was inappropriate in the middle of a concrete parking
lot, but if that is something that the Commission would like them to address, they will
landscape to the extent that they can. They do have a small area that they were able
to lease from the Kansas City Youth Front because they lease the majority of the
lower parking lot to different entities. However, they could accommodate four parking
spaces for the installation of this tower. The fourth issue is aesthetics and they are
willing to work with the aesthetics and they do need a 100’ tower. They would discuss
flush mounting if necessary. He stated that he took issue with a number of things in
the findings of fact portion of the staff report as many of them appear to be opinions
and he did not think it appropriate to include them in the record. Mr. Becker stated
specifically, Section 1 regarding the character of the neighborhood does discuss the
residential portions of the neighborhood but there is quite a bit of commercial
development in the area. In addition, the last sentence describing an attractive
neighborhood appears to be an opinion. The second section is the zoning of the
properties nearby and the proposed use’s compatibility with them. It indicates that it



                                            32
will not mesh with the uses in place today and he is not sure what that means but he
is sure that it is not a finding of fact. Commuters going to businesses, dentist, etc.
often use their cell phones and he does not think that it necessarily does not mesh
with the uses in the area. Regarding the third point, he submitted excepts from
technical reports detailing the impact of cellular communication facilities on property
values in surrounding areas.

Commission Member Davis asked what other sites they considered in the area that
would meet their coverage areas? Mr. Becker stated that the circle in the middle of
their map is the search area that he was given by Sprint PCS which constitutes
primarily residential areas, The City of Westwood City Hall, the tennis facility and a
number of commercial entities along Rainbow and up on 47th Street. Those are areas
with predominately lot sizes that would not accommodate a 100% setback. Mr. Davis
asked it the site they selected was based on using the 100% setback? Mr. Becker
stated that topography plays a large role in the site selection. He stated that once
there is an established network and signals shooting area, sometimes you don’t want
to go too high to interfere. If they move into Westwood, they probably could have put
up an 80’ tower and as noted in the report the City of Westwood has an ordinance that
essentially prohibits towers in the City of Westwood. Mr. Davis stated that if they
lower the height of the tower based on elevation, could they cover the area by going to
an area that might be more suitable and have less aesthetic problems? Mr. Becker
stated that what limits his locations is where they ask him to look. He stated that the
map shows the sites that they reviewed in making a site selection. They do strive to
use existing locations if they can. Mr. Davis asked if the circle ring went to Shawnee
Mission Parkway where Sprint has their existing building? Mr. Becker stated no. The
search ring was basically a quarter mile radius just to the east of 47th and Rainbow.
He was very limited in his search. Mr. Davis stated that his concern is that if they are
trying to infill coverage with a smaller tower, there will be a lot more towers. Mr.
Becker stated that he is not qualified to respond. This is the first time that he has
been asked if a large tower would be better. Mr. Davis asked if they could accomplish
what they wanted to by going to an area outside the search ring and using a larger
tower? Mr. Hernandez stated that they looked at different areas and locations. This
location was chosen because this is where most of the population is located and if
they would locate in another place they would need a tower in excess of 300’. The
best location for the tower is at this location and using this height. They are trying not
to have the tower too high or too low. Mr. Davis asked if they went with a higher
tower, could they go outside this search ring and still meet their coverage? Mr.
Hernandez stated no, because the topography of the area would not allow it. Mr.
Davis stated that if they have a higher tower, they can make up for some of the
topography. Did they look outside the search ring at having a higher tower? Mr.
Hernandez stated that they would have to have a 300’ to 350’ tower and they would
have deficiencies in the area. Mr. Davis asked if they looked at any 150’ potential
towers that were already up and might cover the site? Mr. Hernandez stated yes. It is
always easier for them to go on an existing tower. Mr. Davis asked if the staff would
target areas within a two mile radius, could they say that they looked at those sites?
Mr. Hernandez stated yes.



                                            33
Ms. Wendy Wilson, Rosedale Development Association, 1403 Southwest Boulevard,
appeared in opposition to this petition. She stated that staff should be in receipt of
several letters in opposition to this petition (Hanover Heights Neighborhood
Association, Kate White, Ira Wheeler and Jim Holendorf – who was present this
evening and had to leave). She stated that she has seen pictures from many years
ago when telephone poles went up and everyone had their own poles and there was a
huge maze. Finally it was decided that everyone would use the same pole and there
would be several sets of wires. She stated that she thinks that this is what they have
with the cell towers now. There are a number of towers in Rosedale. Why can’t it go
on top of K. U. Medical Center or Rosedale Towers? That is eight blocks from this
location. It is incompatible with the existing residential and commercial mix. Most of
that is office space. There is a nice car wash at 47th and Rainbow. There is the 47th
Street Corridor Plan that is a cooperative venture between Westwood, Kansas City,
Kansas and Roeland Park. If you go east on 47th Street the main thing that will be
seen is the cell tower. There are proposed condominiums to be built on the
Westwood side that would back up to this tower. How will this affect future
redevelopment in this area? They are working on a master plan for the area and
there are other developers interested in high end condos in this area. She stated that
with the technology available, she would hope that the towers do not have to be every
quarter mile and maybe the way to get them to look into this is to deny some of these
towers. Rosedale Park would be a great place for a larger tower.

Mr. Bill Plant, representing the Mayor of Westwood, appeared in opposition to this
petition. He stated that he would like to read the following into the record from a July
21, 2004 letter to Scott Murray of the Urban Planning and Land Use Department. “For
a number of years we have worked with the Rosedale Community, Kansas University
Medical Center and other municipalities to re-green and redevelop the Rainbow/47th
Street Corridor. A great deal of investment has been made in residential areas along
both sides of the County line. Additionally, commercial redevelopment projects are
underway in both Westwood and Kansas City, Kansas and more are proposed based
on the current residential/retail-office character of the area. The cities of Roeland
Park, Westwood, and Kansas City, Kansas are continuing a cooperative project
started some years ago, to jump start new business activity at 47th and Mission Road.
Finally, 47th Street itself will be rebuilt between Rainbow Boulevard and Elledge Street
in Roeland Park representing a $1.7 million public investment in this area. The
industrial addition of a monopole in a most unfortunately conspicuous location is
completely incompatible with the character of the community and deleterious to the
years of effort and millions of dollars of both private individuals and public entities in
re-greening this area.” Mr. Chuck Steward, Chairman of The City Planning
Commission of Westwood, 4700 Rainbow Boulevard, appeared in opposition to this
petition. He stated that the Commission sent a resolution to the Planning Commission
last week outlining the action that they took. He stated that it is always a balancing
challenge between the applicants and the citizens that are affected. He stated that
the Planning Commission’s concern is the economic development. In the past ten
years they have seen remarkable re-greening of neighborhoods on both sides of the
County line, specifically the increase in homeownership in the Spring Valley



                                            34
neighborhood east of Rainbow Boulevard and north of 47th Street and the increased
single family, owner-occupied ownership in the Frank Rushton neighborhood on the
west side of Rainbow Boulevard north of 47th Street has been gratifying. They work
holistically with the other jurisdictions. That effort has brought forth a lot of gains. The
influence of the University of Kansas Medical Center has been significant in that
corridor. He stated they work actively with them in terms of their master plan of the
Rainbow Boulevard corridor. He stated that they are aware of one condominium
project in Westwood. There is a condominium project not before the Planning
Commission here on Rainbow Boulevard within 1 ½ blocks of this project that they are
aware of. He stated that he would respectfully request consideration of the resolution
passed by the Westwood City Planning Commission. In Westwood they have several
overlay districts for future redevelopment activity and this tower is adjacent to one of
their redevelopment overlay districts. The site this is proposed on is a prime
redevelopment site. The site north and contiguous to the County line immediately to
46th Street is part of a larger project at some point in the foreseeable future, possibly
office and mixed residential that will be beneficial straddling the County line. Mr.
David Gomoletz, 4422 Lloyd, appeared in opposition to this petition. He stated that he
has a house in the Frank Rushton neighborhood and he is in opposition to this
petition. It does seem that there would be other alternatives that might not be in
Sprint’s best interests. He has been encouraged by the way Wyandotte County has
been going in this area and he is glad to be involved and invested in it. He would like
to see the improvements continue and this seems to be a step in the wrong direction.

Mr. Becker stated that Ms. Wilson bought up a good point. Someone he knows was
researching telephone poles and they found an article back when telephone poles
were being put in and the article very much opposed putting telephone poles in and
electrical poles being put in. The comparisons were remarkable as far as a telephone
pole back then and a cellular tower now. Now people drive down the street and hardly
notice telephone poles but somehow we notice cell phone towers, which he is not sure
that people notice them. He would like to go back and address Mr. Davis’ question
about moving one mile or so one way or another. The site depicted on the map Sprint
already has a number of sites in this area. He showed the Commission the sites on
the map. They have looked at other alternatives and this is the only alternative that
they could come up with.

Mr. Rob Richardson, Director of Planning, asked what the blue and orange mean on
the map? He stated that Mr. Becker stated that it is bad, but what does that mean?
Mr. Hernandez stated the blue and orange indicate the areas that the users are not
going to use the service on a continuous manner to keep mobile in the network. The
area is most of the time out of network and not able to place calls. If they are able to
place calls, they are being dropped. Pretty much for any purpose, there is a hole
there on the wireless network. Mr. Richardson stated that if he looks at the map, if he
drew a quarter mile circle they would probably need eight or nine other sites. Is that
correct? Mr. Hernandez stated that this site was selected because this is where most
of the people are located as well. This will be a benefit to about 15,000 people. Mr.
Becker stated that the circle is not the only people who benefit from the added



                                             35
coverage. There is quite a bit surrounding the circle. It works with other sites.
Conceivably there may be other sites that might be needed but he does not know
where they will be or what the character of the area is. Mr. Richardson stated that he
stated that if they had to accommodate other carriers, they could do that. Will that be
able to be accommodated with Youth Front and the four parking spaces that they
have given them? Mr. Becker stated that the tower can be designed to accommodate
three carriers immediately. He stated that they can accommodate themselves and
one other carrier. It would depend on the installation each carrier desires. Sprint
sometimes uses one antennae and a small repeater cabinet that can fit in a 10’ by 10’
area. They could conceivably put three carriers on this tower. Mr. Davis asked what
the separation would be between the carriers? Will there be enough for it to be
feasible for another carrier to go on there? Mr. Becker stated that if they were locating
on another carrier’s tower they would need 10’ separation. Mr. Davis asked if that
would work on this tower? Mr. Becker stated probably not, but there are more than
just wireless carriers that put antennas on these towers. Some of them operate at 50’
and 75’. Mr. Richardson asked if he is aware that many cities are going back and
locating power and telephone lines underground in older neighborhood to make them
more aesthetically pleasing? Mr. Becker stated that he is not unaware of it. Mr.
Richardson asked him about his comments regarding Findings of Fact number 2. Mr.
Becker stated that it seems to be an opinion to him and not a fact. He stated that he
is unclear as to what uses this tower will not mesh with that are in place today. The
uses are commuter uses that people are using their cell phones every day. In that
respect, he stated that he feels that it does mesh. Mr. Richardson stated that the
tower is the land use and not people driving up and down the street talking on their
phones.

Mr. Richardson stated that the comments from The City of Westwood are very
pertinent. He stated that he thinks that the two cities should work together to find the
best locations within the area that they are jointly planning even if their ordinance has
to be changed. With regard to Findings of Facts, under number 1, the applicant
objected to statements that he felt were opinion as to whether the neighborhood was
attractive and that there were commercial uses in the area. Certainly there are
commercial uses in the area and people do use their cell phones in this area.
Regarding number two and meshing with the area, the tower itself is the land use and
a pole is being put up in an area that does not meet the code and he does not see
how it could mesh with the area. It does not meet code nor the residential setback
requirements. The land use is not people driving up and down the street using their
cell phones. With regard to key issues, they have said that they can accommodate
three carriers as required by code. However, it does not meet the setbacks required
by the City Code although those could be modified by the Planning Commission,
although that is not the recommendation of the staff. They would need to comply with
the landscaping requirements and other requirements of the code if it were approved.
Based on the comments and suggestions and key issues outlined in the staff report,
the staff would recommend denial of this case.




                                           36
On motion by Mr. Walden, seconded by Mr. Angelotti, the Planning Commission voted
7 to 0 to recommend denial of Special Permit Petition #SP-2004-38, based on the
comments and suggestions and key issues in the staff report.

040237 SPECIAL PERMIT PETITION #SP-2004-39 – CURTIS HOLLAND –
SYNOPSIS: Special Permit for a telecommunications tower at 5946 County Line
Road

Ms. Parker stated that the followings items should be included as part of the record for
this case:

    1. The City’s currently adopted zoning and subdivision regulations;
    2. The official zoning map for the area in question;
    3. The City’s currently adopted Master Plan for the area in question;
    4. The staff report and attachments dated August 9, 2004;
    5. The application and other documents, plans, pictures and maps submitted by
       the applicant in furtherance of the case and contained in the official file;
    6. The Notices to adjacent property owners dated July 14, 2004;
    7. The Notice to The Wyandotte Echo published on July 14, 2004.

Ms. Parker asked if any member of the Planning Commission had any contact to
disclose concerning this petition. No one responded in the affirmative.

Mr. Curtis Holland, petitioner, appeared in support of this petition. He stated that he
would also like Special Permit Petition #SP-2004-19 to be heard with this petition. He
stated that he represent Cingular Wireless as well as the property owners in both
cases.) (040233 SPECIAL PERMIT PETITION #SP-2004-19 – CURTIS M.
HOLLAND – SYNOPSIS: Special Permit for a telecommunications tower at 5816
County Line Road). The property owner in the first case is Leo and Rosie Rieke and
the second Mr. Lee Bourquin. He stated that they have two applications, but Cingular
only needs one of the sites. He stated that Shawn Wyrick, radio frequency engineer
for Cingular, is also present. He stated that they have been working on this for two
years and the staff has alluded to that fact. Cingular Wireless has determined that
there is a significant coverage gap in their wireless network system in this area. The
intersection is 59th and County Line Road (also known as 47th and Nieman). They
generated a search ring that determined that they needed a communication facility,
not necessarily a tower, but a facility where their antennas can work and provide
service to an area. They hired site acquisition consultants to search the area to
determine how they can construct a facility where they are searching. He submitted in
the packets a site justification report that essentially addresses the search for a site in
this particular area so they could provide coverage. He stated that either site will work
from an RP perspective for their system. He stated that they are requesting just one
site. He further stated that the search map in the packets of the Commission, it is a
mile radius. The search ring was one-half mile from this intersection. It is half of the
size of the circle on the map. He further stated that there are no existing
communication tower facilities for Cingular to co-locate on either within their one-half



                                            37
mile search ring or within this one mile radius. Mr. Holland stated that Cingular always
does attempt to utilize existing structures. The common similarity is that they have to
be tall to get the antennas up in the areas. In this area they did look in the half-mile
radius and they also looked at a mile and determined that there were no existing
structures within those areas that would provide co-location areas. There are not any
tall structures in the area. He stated that half of the search areas is in Wyandotte
County and half of it is in the City of Shawnee. Like Westwood, the City of Shawnee
does not allow communication towers in areas that are zoned for residential so that
essentially struck half of their search area and they were focused in looking at areas
north of County Line Road. The Rieke family and their relations own quite a bit of land
in this area. Both landowners in their two applications are part of the Rieke family. He
stated that they came upon Mr. Bourquin’s property first and even though it is the
second application tonight, that is the first site that they settled on. He showed the
Commission the two sites on the aerial map. They were trying to find a large tract of
land where there were not a lot of residential properties. He knew that this was going
to be a challenge because of the residential around the Bourquin property. They
looked for another site and specifically spoke to the Rieke family since they owned so
much property. They were not successful. He stated that Mr. Bourquin lives on his
property and he understands that there have been some code enforcement issues on
this property. He was concerned about that also. He has received one call from an
adjoining property owner and he gave him the information requested. He stated that
they met with staff and they reiterated that it would be difficult for them to support the
application. He asked his people again to try to find another site and this time they
were successful with Leo and Rosie Rieke, who own a 35 acre tract of land at the
northwest corner of this intersection. The area is zoned agriculture and one of the
unique things about the property outside of not having residences within a great
distance is that there is a high voltage transmission line on the upper third of the tract.
Transmission line poles receive the same transmissions as cell phone towers. They
are not well received by the public but in this case, they had one. They figured that
whatever harm would be caused by the use or the perception of these facilities, there
is already the high voltage transmission lines. In fact, they have located
communication towers in or near transmission line facilities or substations because
they are compatible with those kinds of uses. He stated that they have secured a
lease with Mr. Rieke and have submitted an applicant for special use permit. He
stated that he would like the Commission to decide which property they think is most
appropriate. He feels that the Rieke property is the best property at this time. They
have been asked why they couldn’t use the existing transmission poles. It is easier
said than done and in this case it is not well received KCP&L. The utilities do not like
to have transmission lines on their poles as they are dangerous and they do not like
people on them. If you do locate on them, you have to be below their lines. Because
of the separation requirements, that would only give them a height of 30’ on these
poles. The tower height that they are seeking on the Rieke property is 120’ and on
the Bourquin property is 150’ because of the difference in elevation. If they were
higher in elevation, they could go lower on the tower height. There are setback
requirements for the towers. In both of these applications they meet the full setback
requirement, two times the height of the tower structure. With regard to the Rieke



                                            38
property, they are 400’ to the north property line and to the south they are 893’ to the
right-of-way of the street. To the east they are 685’ and to the west they are 595’.
They have a significant buffer between where the communication tower is located and
where adjoining property lines are. On the Bourquin property they have a setback on
the north of 600’, on the south 327’, on the east 150’ and on the west 336’. He stated
that in looking at these issues, he proceeded with the special permit for the Rieke
property. He has submitted studies and propagation maps of their co-location efforts.
There are several communication towers beyond the one mile area. They have done
propagation studies for each of them. They have a coverage gap in the area and the
only sites that cover that gap is the Bourquin property and Rieke property. They
already have towers near the Sprint tower, ACT tower and Team Mobile tower. It
does not work efficiently for them to have overlapping coverage where they already
have towers. It does not serve the target area. Going north there is a large terrain
change for them and usually that means they need two towers (one on each side of
the hill). If you are on top of the hill you shoot over the coverage area. He stated that
they hear that these communication towers have an impact on residential property
values. Lots of studies have been done on that issue and he stated that he has four
of them with him. He submitted them for the record (Exhibit SP-12004-39 - #1). They
indicate that these communication towers have little or no impact on residential areas
as in most cases they are closer to the residential areas then the petitions tonight. Mr.
Holland stated that they hear that communication towers do not fit into residential
areas. He submitted pictures showing towers in residential areas (Exhibit SP-2004-39
- #2). He further stated that in the Rieke petition, there really are no residential
homes, however he would concede that there are homes around the Bourquin tract.
They put antennas on churches, parks, etc. that are non-residential but in residential
areas. In these cases, they have put towers right next to homes (in the pictures) and
in some cases there are other utility structures. He stated that they are in agreement
with the staff’s recommendation and understand that they support the Rieke site and
appreciate the staff’s comments on that application. He stated that it is his job to
challenge staff on the Bourquin site and he thinks that it could be a possible site if the
Commission does not choose to approve the Rieke site. He further stated that if one
of the sites is approved, he will withdraw the other site.

Commission Member Davis asked if he said that Shawnee prohibits towers in
residential neighborhoods? Mr. Holland stated yes, they cannot be placed in
residentially zoned property. The Team Mobile site in Shawnee is in the electrical
substation. It is possible in those cases. Mr. Davis stated that if Kansas City, Kansas
had the same requirement, under the Telecommunications Act, would they be able to
provide coverage? Would it be difficult to put up a tower to meet this coverage area?
Mr. Holland stated that it would be impossible. In the case of the Rieke property, it is
zoned agriculture and he thinks that it could be put there. However, there isn’t any
agriculture property in Shawnee. The industry would claim, under the
telecommunications act, that laws such as those that prohibit wireless facilities to
cover certain areas, may be subject to a challenge under the communications act. He
stated that he would not know what the final decision would be. Mr. Holland stated




                                            39
that there really is no large tract of land in Shawnee except for one owned by one of
the Rieke family members and he is aware that she is in opposition.
Mr. Rob Richardson, Director of Planning, asked if the studies address property
values increasing in value with the ongoing rate of inflation as a factor? Mr. Holland
stated yes. Commission Member Locke asked if he can locate any further north? Mr.
Wyrick stated that he did look at moving north today and the coverage along 47th
Street to the west of Nieman and into Shawnee does get worse. He would be
concerned about the call quality in those areas. Chairman Ratliff stated that it would
seem that they would want to put the tower on a higher ground because the coverage
would be better? Mr. Wyrick stated that in more rural areas that would be the case.
In this case the target area is around 47th and Nieman and that location plays well with
the other existing sites. Moving north, it would sacrifice coverage to the south and
west of 47th Street. Higher is not always better because you can interfere with some
other sites.

There were 13 persons present in opposition to this petition, including the following
that spoke. Ms. Donyce Moore, 11123 West 47th Street, stated that she is directly
across the street from the Rieke property and she objects to both sites. She stated
that she has done a lot of research. She stated that she would like to quote Noam
Chomsky. He states, “If you assume that there is no hope, you guarantee there will
be no hope. If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, there are the
opportunities to change things.” He also said, “I think people should take a close look
at telecommunications act of last year that was passed without public discussion. It
was treated as a business story though it is surely a public interest story. It has to do
with the nature of the news media and the future of democracy.” She stated that a
year later there is an article in the Columbia Journalism Review about it pointing out
that the only measurable detectable effects so far are the increased concentration of
the media and narrowing of control. She further stated that that is pretty predictable
and will continue unless people do something about it. There is no reason why these
are handed over to private tyrannies and controlled. She stated that at the time the
act was being debated, most people, including many legislators voting on it, thought
that it was only about complex deregulations. Within its pages in Section 704 there
was a clause about the siting of cell phone towers and that is creating a planning and
zoning nightmare and perhaps a public health problem according to some scientists,
journalists and activists. It was inserted at the behest of the telecommunications
conglomerates whose representatives helped write the legislation. Section 704 states
that although communities reserve their rights over the general placement,
construction and modification of towers, they cannot ban them outright. Zoning
officials today are caught behind a rock and hard place when it comes to siting cellular
phone towers or other antennae installations mounted on or in pre-existing buildings.
Legally they can’t refuse them or design zoning regulations based on health effect, no
matter how convincing the scientific evidence or how militant community members
become. She further stated that the situation is dividing communities around the
country. When one is tempted by the licensing revenues of siting such a facility on
their property while adjacent landowners raise concerns about property devaluation
and health endangerment. Communities used to be able to turn down such towers,



                                           40
but now it is no longer so. Critics say that it is the biggest land grab in one industry’s
favor at the Federal level since the railroads at the turn of century. Other say that it is
flagrant challenge to the amendments of the United States Constitution. She further
stated that those that are silenced in public hearings are now speaking out about
health effects. She stated, in paragraph three in the site justification submitted by Mr.
Holland, in the initial review of the revised search area it was determined that the
south portion of the ring had no viable candidates due to the City of Shawnee
prohibiting telecommunication towers in residentially zoned areas. Consequently,
Cingular focused its search area efforts in Wyandotte County. That is a blatant lie.
She stated that she contacted Mr. Paul Chaffe, Shawnee’s Planning Board Director
and when she read that paragraph to them, he said that was not true. They have
many towers in Shawnee and they push co-location on existing towers. Cingular is
establishing a tower on Blue Jacket in Shawnee. She further stated that in paragraph
one, Mr. Holland states that there is a significant gap in its cellular service and there is
in fact no significant gap in cellular service. There was a three judge panel in the U. S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the Town Planning Board of Ontario
found that holes or dead spots within coverage areas are insignificant gaps. They
stated that once an area is significantly serviced by a wireless service provider, the
right to deny applications becomes broader. State and local governments may deny
subsequent applications without violating subsection BI2. So now the courts seem to
be saying that if some other carrier is already there, there is no significant gap.
Further they seem to be saying that a local government may deny a local carrier trying
to extend its coverage without violating the subsection that forbids prohibition of
service. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit picked up the ball and ran with it
and stated that the provider must show that the facility will fill an existing significant
gap in the ability of remote users to access the national telephone network. In this
context, the relevant gap, if any, is a gap in the services available to remote users.
Not all gaps in particular provider service will involve a gap in the service available.
The providers will have to show evidence that the area with the new facility will serve
the area not already served by another provider. There aren’t too many areas in the
United States outside of Montana and North Dakota that meet the significant gap test,
particularly for PCS denials. That is because cellular has probably already been there
and it is close enough to have a signal, however weak, so that some other carrier is
already providing the service. When another wireless service exists, weak signal or
not, then the significant signal gap goes away. Even if there is a significant gap, local
governments can deny a tower according to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second
and Third Circuits if it isn’t the least intrusive method. In order to prohibit service
according to those U. S. Appellant Courts and possibly the Fourth Circuit, the local
would have to deny the least intrusive means to close the significant gap. Three short
masses are less intrusive than one tall tower. But six dictionary size units on existing
utility poles such as PCS carriers are deploying in California are even less intrusive.
In paragraph four Mr. Holland goes on to say, as it does any time a new site is
necessary, Cingular reviewed the search ring area to determine if any existing tall
structures were available for possible co-location opportunities. Cingular also always
attempts to co-locate its antennas on existing structures to avoid the time and
expense of zoning and constructing a new tower. In this case there were no co-



                                             41
location opportunities within the search ring as there are no existing tall structures
within one-half mile of the proposed new cell site. She stated that with that he
provided grid maps with already existing towers owned by Team Mobile, Sprint and
ATC. She stated that she would ask that an independent study be conducted as to the
coverage as to co-location or already existing towers. Since Mr. Holland has already
blatantly lied about towers in Shawnee, she finds the report submitted to be biased in
favor of Cingular. Chairman Ratliff stated that he has spoken to the other members of
the Commission and they have heard enough. He asked her to complete her
presentation in one minute. She stated that she would like to suggest an area two
miles north that is 180’ lower than the Rieke property but it is 1700 acres of
undermined ground on the bluffs that will never had a residential building on that land.
It is wide open and no one would be there to approve or disapprove. She would like
to comment on the location of the tower and saying it would be alright because the
high wires are already there. Those poles are 40 to 50 feet tall and they are proposing
a tower of 120’. There is no way that the two can be compared. It is like comparing
apples to oranges. She stated that she has spoken with Cheryl Wilkerson who is
charge of OETRF with FCC, attorney Jean Taylor with the FCC, and she asked that
the point be made that since there are so many towers already located in that area
that there becomes a real issue with e911. These towers start interfering one with the
other and it causes a great concern for homeland security. That is the FCC’s opinion.
She stated that she has also spoken with head of Biotechnology and physics for FCC
and he states that there are precautionary principles that they all need to watch out for
in relation to where these towers are placed and the fact that they should be placed as
far from people as they possibly can be placed. She submitted a list of questions that
she would like Mr. Holland to answer (#SP-2004-39 – Exhibit 3). These questions are
also attached to medical concerns and she apologizes for that. Mr. Davis asked if she
is against both locations? Ms. Moore stated yes. It is a lovely area and this request is
also pitting neighbor against neighbor and family member against family member.

Ms. Arisha Smith, 4818 Nieman, stated that she lives within 200 ‘ of the property of
the telecommunications towers. Being an immediate descendent of the original
property owner, she is great-granddaughter, she feels that she has a genuine concern
for the property. She is speaking in opposition for herself, husband and two children.
She stated that her concern extends to how this proposed tower site would affect
them if passed. She stated that her life long dream has been to raise her children with
the same opportunities and beautiful farm experiences. These places are becoming
so few and far between due to perceived advancements or what people are calling a
step ahead. Malls, buildings and towers are being built on those properties. To those
of them who love their homes and the reasons why they love, they feel that this is a
genuine and this is no step forward but rather a big step backwards. She stated that
she feels that Cingular is asking for the right to place their tower on this property for a
stated price. Someone like her so closely connected to this property feels that it is a
abomination and it is a great disservice to her family’s legacy and memory. Her point
is that the petition warranted notification to the landowners within 200’ of the proposed
towers, one would get the impression that the addition of this tower in some way
would impact the way they conduct their daily lives. There are many ways that this



                                            42
tower will affect daily living to those not only living within the 200’ but expanding much
further. Those living within miles of the tower will see it every day and be exposed to
the radio frequency emission affecting health and safety. Also the addition the tower
would make would be completely incompatible with the residential, agricultural and
park area. It will not be a blemish but an everlasting scar on this property. She stated
that she would ask the Commission to please vote in opposition to this tower. Ms.
Pam Johnson, 5740 County Line Road, stated that she is against both towers. She
and her husband would be impacted by both towers. Since they are within 200’ of the
proposed tower at 5816 County Line, their comments are primarily focused on that
tower. They are against the tower because it will have a significant negative effect on
the area based on aesthetics, economic and possibly health safety reasons.
Cingular’s arguments that this tower is needed in this area are not good enough to
outweigh their concerns. Her husband works for the Board of Public Utilities as a
Superintendent of the Nearman Water Treatment Plant and she is a stay-at-home
mom with four kids between the ages of 2 and 10 years old. She stated that they
have owned and lived in their current house since 1995. It is an old house with a
really big yard and their goal is to stay here for a long time. They recently expanded
and doubled their space. There is a big deck that her husband just finished. They sit
on the deck and watch the sunset and they did not build the deck to sit on the porch
and look at the cell tower. The scale and height of the monopole is sufficiently out of
character with the neighborhood. The 150’ tower and surrounding building would be a
terrible eyesore. Plans indicate that the tower will be surrounded by a 60’ square 6’
chain link fence and there will be a gravel access drive, all of which they will all see
from their properties. Over time other carriers will co-locate on the tower, which will
make the view even more unsightly. There are 30 to 40 houses that will see the tower
from the back or front yards. The area is zoned residential and many of the homes on
the Wyandotte County side that will look at the tower back up to pasture or wide open
spaces. The tower will reduce property values and make resale of their homes much
more difficult. Do we really want to allow these eyesores in the back yards of the
residences? If the land has to be used for something, wouldn’t it be better to have the
option of developing single family dwellings in the future in this area? The landowner
on which the property will reside will receive rent income from Cingular, while their
financial situations will be made worse by lower property values and she is speaking
for the other people in the area also. She further stated that Mr. Bourquin is single
with no children and he uses his property to conduct his land excavation business and
it doesn’t surprise them that he is willing to have the tower on his property and collect
the lease payments for it when his property is already not well kept. He also does not
have to be concerned about the decline of his property because the lease payments
from Cingular would increase the value of his property. In addition they have health
and safety concerns regarding the tower. Their children play in the back yard and
they will be within 200 to 300 feet of the tower. The tower at the other location is also
too close for comfort. She stated that she knows that towers cannot be denied
because of concerns of rf emissions as long they meet standards set by the FCC.
However the FCC and FDA have both said that they are not able to conclude whether
mobile phones or microwave towers are absolutely safe. Non-thermal effects are
recognized by experts on rf and health to be potential health hazards and it is too



                                            43
early to tell about safety. Further other towns in the United States have had cases
where towers have fallen over and antennas have fallen in people’s back yards and
other objects falling from towers compose a health and safety risk. While the
Commission may discount her health concerns but that cannot stop her from saying
that she is very concerned about possible health effects, especially her children. She
is not the only one that has concerns over health effects of telecommunication towers
or high voltage power lines, etc. Whether the health threat is proven or not is not
really the point; people still have the concerns and that keeps them from buying
homes in those areas. If either tower is allowed, especially the one within 200’ of their
home, they will start looking for another place to live. Cingular’s arguments that they
need a tower in either location along County Line Road are not strong enough to
outweigh the concerns that the residents have. They could consider other locations
for the tower that have minimal impact on residential homeowners. They desire these
locations because of the optimum coverage. They could co-locate on the existing
Team Mobile tower at 51st and Shawnee and there is also uninhabitable land north of
the proposed site they can use. They contend that these sites are not optimal.
Evidently Cingular cares more about having an optimal location than choosing a site
that will still work and yet not affect the lives of so many citizens. It appears to be an
effort to grab up land and it is interesting to note that their optimal location has
changed three times depending on who will allow them to put the tower on their land.
There are different letters talking about a different search ring and how it has moved
each time. She stated that she believes that local governments believe that Section
704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 gives them no choice but to allow these
towers to go up wherever the company says there is a need for improved service. This
is not true. Federal Appeals Courts are building case laws for issues relating to this
act and they are indicating otherwise. In Sprint Spectrum versus Town of Ontario
Planning Board, the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the
only tower applications that cannot be denied by local governments are those that are
the least intrusive means for closing a significant gap to remote users to reach a cell
site. Holes or dead spots within coverage areas are not considered significant gaps.
Cingular’s letter to the Commissioners explain why the station at 5816 County Line is
needed to serve the growing demand and help Cingular be more competitive by
improving its coverage in the area. The letter justifying the 5946 County Line station
indicates that there is a significant gap in its cellular service. Whether service is
needed or not is in the eyes of the beholder. According to a consultant firm out of
California that works with local governments to plan wireless issues in a way that is
best for the citizens, they say that coverage is not required by the FCC or any other
government agency. Coverage is about as hard to define as quality of life. She
stated that she wants proof that these towers are the least intrusive means of closing
a significant gap in coverage. She stated that she has a Team Mobile cell phone and
her husband has a Cingular cell phone and a neighbor across the street has a Sprint
phone and they do not have problems with coverage where they are located. She
stated that she would like to note that Stan Elliott is an individual who came to be
opposed and he is within 200’. He left because of the length of the meeting.




                                            44
Mr. Durwood Johnson, 5740 County Line Road, stated that he is opposed to both
tower locations. The coverage to the north as it may or may not be higher ground; the
question was whether or not it fills the gap. He has Cingular service and his wife has
Team Mobile and they drive this area in both Wyandotte County and Shawnee and
they do not have a loss of coverage. Maybe it is not the best coverage but it is not a
gap in his opinion. He would like to see proof that it is a gap. As the staff suggested
with the last tower, they recommended that the two cities, Kansas City, Kansas and
Westwood, find an equitable site, he would like to see Kansas City, Kansas, Shawnee
and Merriam work together to find an equitable site. The first search ring that they had
from staff showed that the search ring was located directly at the intersection of 47th
and Switzer. That is County Line Road and 55th Street and that is the intersection of
the three cities. If that was the search area, it seems that they can move this quite a
distance, so why not to the north. Mr. Holland spoke about utilities not liking to co-
exist with microwave towers on power lines. He stated that he cannot speak for BPU
as he does not work on the power side, but he does know that consulting firms such
as Burns and McDonnell and Black and Veatch have designed microwave towers on
existing or replaced power transmission lines. There is one in the vicinity and he is
curious as to whether or not Mr. Holland has investigated that situation. Maybe BPU
could benefit from the leasing of their pole. He spoke with Johnson County Water
District No. 1 and they have a water tower at 51st and Quivira. That water tower has a
pump station and would be an optimal location potentially for a tower. He asked if they
had any opposition to locating telecommunication towers at their site and they stated
that they do not and they encourage them because they can utilize them as well. He
stated that he spoke with the Councilman in Shawnee who spoke to the City Manager
to see if they had any restrictions to towers residing at that location and the City
Manager stated, no they would not have opposed a tower at that location.

Mr. Charles Scott, owner of property at the northeast corner of 59th and County Line
Road. He stated that he is adjacent to the Bourquin property and his concern is
primarily with that property and increased commercial use of that property. It would
increase the amount of commercial traffic at that location.

Ms. Peggy Trodd, 4705 Ballentine, stated that she moved there three years ago from
California. She stated that she likes the area and has been around three times in
California and she came back here to spend the rest of her life without having to look
at something like this. She is against both towers completely.

Mr. Holland stated that he will try to address the land use questions that were raised.
With regard to the Bluejacket location in Shawnee, that is a roof top location and
another site that they need. It is a co-location site. He stated that he is not going to
address the references to the case laws. It was mentioned that co-location was
available in the three communication towers and he did address those in his report.
Those are not available for them to co-locate on. They do not serve their target area.
They are too close to other Cingular sites that would cause interference with other
sites and so they are unavailable. They would not use those sites for co-location. Mr.
Holland stated that he is not going to address the health issues. A point of clarification,



                                            45
some property owners mentioned that they are within 200’ of the tower. They may be
within 200’ of the parent property, but they are not within 200’ of the communication
tower. He has already mentioned the setbacks on both sites. With reference to the
south, on the Rieke property it is 893’ to the north right-of-way line of County Line
Road and they would have to add some distance to get across the right-of-way line
and back to where their houses are located. On the Bourquin property to the south,
the property line is 327’ and the Johnsons do live 150’ from their property. On both
sites, neither are park land and there is no park there. The Leo Rieke property is used
for agricultural and has the high voltage line through it. In terms of property values, he
did submit studies and he would submit that those are issues that have been studied
by experts and there is evidence in opposition to that. He has never convinced
anyone that they do not create a decrease in property values. There was an
indication that communication towers fall over. He stated sometimes they do and they
are usually guy towers with lines on them. They are sensitive to high winds or some
ice storms. Monopole towers such as proposed have not fallen over in the United
States and they have been in this country for sixty years. There is no evidence of any
monopole that has fallen over. They will abide by all construction standards with
regard to monopoles and think that it is safe. With regard to the traffic issues, these
are unmanned sites and there will be visits maybe once or twice a month to make
sure the equipment is running. There is some traffic during construction but it will not
cause an impact on the existing streets.

Chairman Ratliff stated that a lot of people brought up going north. Mr. Holland stated
that they addressed that issue. They cannot do that from a technological reason and
the engineers do this on a daily basis. Even if it could be done, he would end up with
other property owners that would be upset. It is usually a no win situation.
Commission Member Walden asked how he responds to those who say that their
phones work quite well in this area? Mr. Holland stated that he would say that they
have lots of complaints from customers who say that their phones do not work well.
Mr. Walden asked what the cost is to build a tower like this? Mr. Holland stated that it
is proprietary information; however, it is several hundred thousand dollars. Mr.
Walden stated that it seems that they would co-locate if they could because it would
be less expensive. Mr. Holland stated yes. Mr. Walden asked which site he feels is
better from looking at the map he provided? Mr. Holland stated that the Bourquin
property would be better. Mr. Walden stated that they are selecting the Rieke
property to try to eliminate as much opposition as possible. Mr. Holland stated that is
correct. Mr. Davis stated there was a question about proof of coverage. Would they
spend the money and time that they have expended if they felt the coverage was fine?
Mr. Holland stated no. They do not build towers and spend money just for the sake of
doing so. When the company reviews its budgets and needs, they are very cost
conscious and that is why for several years, there have not been many applications.
Now they know that there are gaps in the area and they have to spend some money.
They try to provide the best possible coverage and look at land use compatibility.
They think that they have done this. Commission Member Locke asked where the
closest tower is to their proposed sites? Mr. Holland stated that the Team Mobile site
is just outside the one mile range.



                                            46
Mr. Richardson stated that #SP-2004-39 meets the code requirements that the City
has established and the staff would recommend approval of this site and given that
recommendation, if approved by the Commission, would respectfully request that Mr.
Holland as he said, withdraw #SP-2004-19.
On motion by Mr. Walden, seconded by Mr. Angelotti, the Planning Commission voted
7 to 0 to recommend approval of Special Permit Petition #SP-2004-39.

Mr. Davis asked if the other special permit will be withdrawn? Mr. Richardson stated
that it could either be continued until the September meeting or recommend denial of
it. Mr. Holland would like to discuss both of them at the Board of Commissioners’
meeting.

On motion by Mr. Davis, seconded by Mrs. Dercher, the Planning Commission voted 7
to 0 to recommend denial of Special Permit Petition #SP-2004-19.

970123 QUAIL CREEK ESTATES 5TH PLAT – SYNOPSIS: Preliminary Plat
consisting of two (2) single family lots on 8.15 acres

Ms. Parker stated that the followings items should be included as part of the record for
this case:

    1. The City’s currently adopted zoning and subdivision regulations;
    2. The official zoning map for the area in question;
    3. The City’s currently adopted Master Plan for the area in question;
    4. The staff report and attachments dated August 9, 2004;
    5. The application and other documents, plans, pictures and maps submitted by
       the applicant in furtherance of the case and contained in the official file;
    6. The Notices to adjacent property owners dated July 15, 2004.

Mr. Curtis Holland, attorney representing the petition, and Mr. Mike Neighbors,
developer, appeared in support of this petition. Mr. Holland stated that this is a two-lot
plat. He further stated that the Commission has previously reviewed this plat and
denied the plat. There were questions raised by the property owners about the
legality of the fact that this land was at one time contemplated to be a golf course.
What was suggested was that they were promised that it would be a golf course and
they would have a free membership in the golf club. They still felt that they had the
right to keep the land from being developed. Mr. Holland stated that he submitted
information to the staff concerning this plat. The property is in complete compliance
with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Since the last meeting the staff and Legal
Department have reviewed this matter to see if these properties could be platted and
developed. He stated that the tract will be divided in half to formulate two, four-acre
lots that would have access to the public streets on either side of them. He stated that
Mr. McSpadden did try to develop the golf course and a lot of the golf course was
never platted for a golf course. There are some of the fairways that have already
been platted and developed. He stated that precedent has been set to develop on
these tracts of land. He further stated that when Mr. Neighbors planned to develop on



                                            47
the land, he initially proposed 16 lots and met with some of the neighbors and the
homeowners association. They were concerned about the number of homes that he
wanted to develop. Mr. Holland stated that Mr. Neighbors would like to get out of the
ownership of this property and have two lots developed. He further stated that
subdividing could be done without coming back to the Commission in the form of lot
splits. Under Kansas Law, you can have one additional lot split without coming back to
the Planning Commission. There is a 100’ gas easement along one side of the
property and a home cannot be constructed there. There was a stipulation by the staff
that if further dividing was to occur, they would have to come back before the Planning
Commission. They will agree to that stipulation. He is not interested in doing that.

Mr. Norman Hackathorn, 12505 Pine Valley Drive, appeared concerning this plat. He
stated that when he looked at the plat, there are two houses proposed. He would like
to have on the plat that no other houses can be built on the four acres. If they will do
that, he will not have any problems with the plat. He would also like to have Mr.
Neighbors have a meeting with the neighbors so everyone can look at the plat and
know what is proposed. Most of them do not know what was going on before the final
plat goes before the Commissioners. Chairman Ratliff asked why the neighbors are
not present this evening? Mr. Hackathorn stated that he does not know. Mr. Holland
stated that they will agree to both items before they get to the final plat process.

Mr. Rob Richardson, Director of Planning, stated that the staff recommends approval
subject to stipulations.

On motion by Mr. Locke, seconded by Mrs. Dercher, the Planning Commission voted
7 to 0 to approve Quail Creek Estates 5th Plat, preliminary plat, subject to any lot split
requiring a replat unless the developer would like to resolve how the property could be
split and development controlled at this time and meeting with the neighbors.

MISCELLANEOUS:

Recording Secretary Parker distributed information concerning a Planning and Zoning
Commissioners Workshop on September 29, 2004. If any members are interested in
attending, please let her know.

Mr. Rob Richardson, Director of Planning, stated that a communication from himself
and Delia York, Assistant Counsel, addressing the issue of Planning Commission
disclosures has been distributed to the Commission. The purpose of disclosure is so
when information is received outside this forum, other Commission members are
aware of what that information is so that everyone is using the same body of
knowledge to make the decision. It is not that they care who or what the member
talked about. It is so everyone has the same information available to them when




                                            48
making a decision. That means detailing the conversation, not just conversation with
petitioner or opponent. It is a very important part of the public process. Discussion
ensued and concluded with Mr. Richardson stating that anyone who just says that
they spoke with an opponent or proponent is not saying enough.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m.




                                          49

				
DOCUMENT INFO