METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 15, 2000 The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was held Thursday, June 15, 2000, at 1:00 p.m. in the Planning Department Conference Room, 10th Floor, City Hall, 455 North Main, Wichita, Kansas. The following members were present: Ronald Marnell, Chair; Chris Carraher; Bud Hentzen; Bill Johnson (late arrival); Richard Lopez; Jerry Michaelis; Susan Osborne-Howes; George Platt; Harold Warner, Jr.; and Ray Warren. Frank Garofalo, James Barfield and John W. McKay, Jr., were not present. Staff members present were Marvin S. Krout, Secretary; Dale Miller, Assistant Secretary; Donna Goltry, Principal Planner; Scott Knebel, Senior Planner, Barry Carroll, Associate Planner, and Karen Wolf, Recording Secretary. RON MARNELL, Vice-Chair, read the following zoning procedural statement which is applicable to all City of Wichita zoning cases: Before we begin the agenda, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome members of the public to this meeting of the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission. Copies of the agenda for today's meeting, the public hearing procedure, and copies of staff reports on zoning items are available at the table nearest to the audience. The Commission's bylaws limit the applicant on a zoning or subdivision application and his or her representative(s) to a total of ten minutes of speaking time at the start of the hearing on that item, plus up to two minutes at the conclusion of that hearing. All other persons wishing to speak on agenda items are limited to five minutes per person. However, if they feel that it is needed and justified, the Commission may extend these times by a majority vote. All speakers are requested to state your name and address for the record when beginning to speak. When you are done speaking, please write your name and address, and the case number, on the sheet provided at the table nearest to the audience. This will enable staff to notify you if there are any additional proceedings concerning that item. Please note that all written and visual materials you present to the Commission will be retained by the Secretary as part of the official record. If you are not speaking, but you wish to be notified about future proceedings on a particular case, please sign in on that same sheet. The Planning Commission is interested in hearing the views of all persons who wish to express themselves on our agenda items. However, we ask all speakers to please be as concise as possible, and to please avoid long repetitions of facts or opinions which have already been stated. For your information, the Wichita City Council has adopted a policy for all City zoning items, which is also available at the table with the other materials. They rely on the written record of the Planning Commission hearings and do not conduct their own additional public hearings on these items. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Item taken out of order: 2. DR 99-10 - Wireless Communication amendments to the October 28, 1999 Edition of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Unified Zoning Code as adopted by City Ordinance #44-427 and County Resolution #248-1999 and adoption of the Wireless Communication Master Plan as an element of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan. MARNELL “Scott, would you like to make a brief opening statement. We are going to do the agenda a little different today. We are going to go straight to Item No. 2.” SCOTT KNEBEL, Planning staff “Good afternoon. Item No. 2 on the agenda is the consideration of a Wireless Communication Master Plan for adoption as an element of the Comprehensive Plan for the community and the related amendments to the Unified Zoning Code, in order to implement the recommended changes. In this presentation today, I am going to go over for you a history of the wireless issue as it has unfolded here in this community. I will basically address why a staff task force was created after the last hearing you had on this item; how that task went about its work. I am going to give an overview of the current regulations just as a reminder for everyone as the starting point that we are coming from, and then I will go over the recommendations that we have before you today and why we think these recommendations are a significant improvement over the system that is in place currently. As I am sure everyone will remember, the spark that started this process was an application for a communication tower in the College Hill neighborhood. While some may choose to focus on that spark, I think it is important to remember that really the larger issue of the deployment of infrastructure for the wireless service industry is the real issue that we need to address. Having said that, as you will recall, the history of how we got here today is that in July, the City Council passed a moratorium for 6 months that prevented any new towers from being applied for and constructed in the community. The City and County retained Kreines and Kreines to develop a plan which was presented to you back in November of 1999. It was not very well received, and the City and County Managers established a task force of staff members to work with stakeholders on this issue to see if the plan could be modified and improved. Johnson arrived at the meeting at 1:20 p.m. The task force was specifically charged to take a look at the consultant’s plan and reconsider the impact it has on the wireless communication industry; to meet with the stakeholders and to provide a revised or new plan as appropriate. In order to do this, the task force developed an approach that was designed to include all of the impacted parties to the greatest extent possible. The task force met initially amongst themselves, just staff members to start with a draft with the plan to discuss the concerns that all of the parties involved had addressed at the previous public hearings and informal meetings that had been held with the stakeholders on the issue. We took that information and drafted a matrix of the issues involved and the positions of each of the parties on those issues. With that, we drafted a plan and ordinance revisions to what was prepared by the consultant and reviewed that with the stakeholders, revised it five times, and came up with the final document that you have before you today. In this approach, we held two rounds of meetings with the stakeholders, which we divided into three groups, one being the wireless service providers--or what most people would call the cellular telephone companies; another being tower developers and roof top managers--those that are in the business of providing towers and other types of structures for lease by wireless service providers; and then the neighborhood association representatives. I also shared these drafts electronically, which was a great assistance, with the stakeholders, and sent them back and forth as we discussed recommended changes. Before I explain the recommendations that are before you today, I think it is important to review the current requirements of the Unified Zoning Code so that you know where we are today and where we would like to go. Currently, towers are permitted with a Conditional Use in the rural areas, basically the ‘SF-20’ and the rural residential districts, or by right in the General Commercial and more intensive zoning districts. As far as mounting antennas on other structures other than towers, those are treated as accessory uses, however there is really not anything in the Code that guides staff’s decisions on those. The Code looks to minimize the number of towers by requiring that before you can construct a new tower, the applicant must demonstrate that they cannot locate on an existing tower or other structure. The current Code has limits on color, lighting and signs for towers. It requires co-location for three users on each new tower; requires that towers be rebuilt for additional users if that is necessary in the future; it requires the removal of abandoned towers and towers are also subject to a compatibility height standard, which is quite stringent when they are adjacent to or close to duplexes or single-family zoning. At the beginning of this process, many in the industry stated that the current system was working fine. We didn’t really need to change the current system, that this was a knee-jerk reaction to a single tower. Staff doesn’t believe that. We think that the current system has several short-comings and we believe that they are addressed with the recommendations that are before you today. These shortcomings are listed on the slide here. Basically, it limits tower sites, especially in the incorporated area, where General Commercial zoning is required. Then when you do go to that General Commercial zoning, you can end up with unnecessary zone changes, which basically create a commercial zoning district that is created for another purpose, just so you can put another tower there. If any of the applicants want to modify the development standards, such as the compatibility height standard, a variance is required, which is quite a difficult test to meet. The current system focuses on towers. It assumes that all of the antennas will be placed on towers and really doesn’t provide any guidance for how to address issues where towers would be placed on buildings or other types of structures that they are being placed on today. Quite frankly, the Comprehensive Plan does not provide any policy guidance at all, other than to state that low cost utility services should be encouraged in the community. I will now change my focus and talk about this specific work product that you have before you today. We have developed a Wireless Communication Master Plan and a set of ordinance revisions that will be necessary to implement that plan. What I will go over today basically starts on Page 12 of the Wireless Master Plan. Before that is primarily information about the wireless communication industry as background for you. We have selected this approach of developing a Master Plan, which we feel should be adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan, in order to provide the policy guidance that is really not there today. Specifically, the plan develops policy guidance in six areas. The first is related to location and height, which I will go over in quite a bit of detail in a minute. The second is design guidelines. We will also talk about requirements for structural design and co-location requirements and recommended changes to what is required today. We have a new policy recommendation regarding siting antennas on utility poles and other types of structures that are located in the right-of- way. We have developed a set of submittal requirements which are really not present today, and so most of the applications are kind of hit and miss as to whether or not the material that staff needs to review the application is there or not. And then we have some operational standards which are really more focused on removal requirements of unused facilities. The location and height guidelines are the heart of the recommended changes that are before you today. It is these location and height guidelines that are shown in the proposed changes to the Unified Zoning Code, and they would be the portion of this Master Plan that actually would be formally adopted in City and County Code. These location and height guidelines provide for greater administrative approval than what is available today, and provide for administrative approval of antennas on or attached or even in existing buildings or on structures, and provide for a 25% height increase of existing structures if necessary to place antennas on those. To provide for administrative approval of new disguised towers up to 85 feet and for administrative approval of undisguised towers up to 65 feet in any zoning district, and up to 150 feet in the General Commercial and more intensive zoning districts. They also provide administrative approval to reduce the compatibility height setback to a distance equal to the height of the tower, and if those conditions aren’t able to be met for administrative approval, all other applications for towers would be approved for a Conditional Use rather than, in most cases, a zoning change, which is the way it is today. Also, if an application does not meet the design guidelines or the development standards for whatever reason that can be demonstrated by the applicant, those can be waived by the Planning Commission through a Conditional Use. The new system provides basically the same limits on lighting and signs, although it clarifies the community’s position on those. It provides the same co-location and rebuilding requirements, with the exception that the co-location requirements are changed such that only two co-locations are required if a tower is 80 to 100 feet and three if it is over 100 feet. Actually, no co-location is required if a tower is under 80 feet. That is different than today, which requires three co- locations, regardless of the height of the tower. The removal requirements are modified slightly in that they require partial of removal of towers, as we expect in the future that some towers will be built and their antennas need to be lowered on that tower, and you may have tops of towers that are unused, and those would be required to be removed if they are unused for a period of 12 months. And then we are also looking to avoid the flight paths of our airports. We are encouraging that new wireless communication facilities locate on buildings and camouflage their antennas to look, as much as possible, like the surroundings. If they are on the side of a red brick building, we would like to see red antennas. We are encouraging that utility poles and the right-of-way be rebuilt or used, or that parking light poles or stadium light poles be used. We are looking for the continued use of existing towers that are used by other wireless service providers. We are encouraging those to be located in wooded areas or on city owned or other public properties. I will now discuss the specific guidance that will be used in reviewing these applications for both administrative approval and for Conditional Use approval. The objective of these design guidelines is to minimize the aesthetic impact of the facilities. Primarily in that we are looking for reduced visibility. To accomplish that, we would like to be able to preserve the existing character of the area. If it is an industrial area, you obviously have different visibility requirements than you would if it is a residential area. We are looking to minimize the height and mass of a tower so that it is only as high and as big as necessary. To minimize the silhouette, preferring monopoles over a lattice tower and flush mounted antennas over a top hat antenna. We are looking to use colors and textures that blend with the background. We are looking for camouflage structures, such as flag poles and steeples that we don’t see being used in the community today, and we are looking at screening by using existing buildings and plantings. We would also like to see, when existing building are used, that the antennas be mounted flush to the wall or set back to the roof and not exceed a height of 20 feet above the roof. We are looking for equipment cabinets to be screened or hidden or buried or landscaped, something along those lines, and to limit the lighting to only that required by federal regulations or permitted by a variance, in the case of strobe lights. We feel that the recommendations before you today represent a significant improvement over the current system. Specifically, these recommendations provide for the following: 1) It permits wireless communication facilities in all zoning districts, which is a radical change from what the current system permits. 2) It provides for administrative approval or Conditional Use approval rather than a zoning change or a variance, which is a much easier task to be met by the applicant. 3) It provides for policy guidance for all wireless communication facilities rather than just towers, and it outlines specific policy recommendations to guide the review and approval of all applications. We feel like we have taken great care and spent a considerable amount of time to develop a system for addressing the community’s needs for wireless communication. We have involved the stakeholders and all sides have made compromises to come up with this plan. Quite frankly, I don’t believe there is anybody that got everything they wanted out of this plan, but I think it is something that everyone can live with, even the wireless service industry. The plan does encourage the low in height approach, basically keeping things as low as possible and camouflaging them as much as possible, which was recommended by our consultant. It also provides a case-by-case review process with specific design guidelines and policies to guide those decisions. The action that we recommend to you today is that you hold the public hearing, which you are undertaking currently, and that you take comments from the public and feedback from the industry who we have worked with in the development of this plan, that you approve the Wireless Communication Master Plan as an element of the community’s Comprehensive Plan and approve the related amendments to the Zoning Code and the filing fee ordinance and resolution to implement the recommendations, and that you recommend approval of the same to the City Council and the County Commission, who we expect to hear these items on July 11 and 12 of this year. That concludes my formal presentation. You also have quite a bit of correspondence. I don’t know if you have had a chance to read all of that. Most of it was received just this morning, so I think I will go through that with you and address staff’s position on that. I am sure you would want to know what that is, and that will alleviate any questions and answers that we might have to go back and forth on. The first item I will address is a letter from Ferris Consulting regarding visually and environmentally sensitive locations. There is a memo from Marvin Krout that addresses that. We do agree that there does need to be a better definition of what those visually and environmentally sensitive locations would be. We have proposed a process which basically would direct the Planning Director to develop a map for presentation and approval by the Planning Commission, which identifies these locations, so that all applicants would know what those are and know what to expect if they were to locate a tower in or near those locations. Another memorandum you received is from Tim Austin. If you will look at Page 3 on that, he provides a setback narrative analysis which basically does a good job of defining what can be done with the one-to-one setback that can be received with an administrative approval on an application by the applicant. What it does not mention is that the setback could be even less than that if the applicant chose to apply for a Conditional Use permit. On Page 4, Tim Austin is proposing to basically include Limited Commercial zoning rather than General Commercial zoning as the zoning district where towers are permitted up to 150 feet with administrative approval. Staff has discussed this and feels that the Limited Commercial zones are more neighborhood, oriented and it is more appropriate for a tower of that height to receive public scrutiny and be approved with a Conditional Use in those zoning districts. On Page 5 Mr. Austin is recommending that we remove the requirement that an applicant demonstrate that antennas cannot be placed on an existing tower and rather than basically any tower that is proposed not be considered unless that there is no option to constructing the tower, that the review should just be a yes based on the design of the tower, with no consideration as to whether or not the tower is even necessary. We feel like that will lead to a significant increase in the number of towers in the community and that some of those additional towers will certainly be unnecessary. On Page 6 of Mr. Austin’s memo, it mentions that the application for administrative permits should be to the Zoning Administrator with concurrence by the Planning Director rather than the other way around. We are not really sure exactly what that would accomplish, but the reason that it is proposed the way it is is that we feel like these are land use decisions rather than enforcement decisions. The final memo that I will go over with you was received from Curtis Holland. It goes through several components of the Master Plan and the ordinance that you have before you. I think I can address nearly every one of these. I will start with Subsection 1b. where it says that antennas should be inserted after structures. The intent of Section 1b is to permit the replacement of or attachment to existing structures, such as light poles. The attachment of antennas, or the replacement of them, with height increases up to 25%, the issue of adding antennas to existing structures or towers or those types of things is handled by Subsection 1c, which is immediately below that in the Master Plan and the code revisions. Then Subsection 4, where he mentions that strobe lights should be left to the FAA, we feel that currently, and even under the proposal, the strobe lights are permitted by a variance, and we feel that that is sufficient if they are required. Subsection 7 deals with the requirement up front of leasing land. We discussed this during our stakeholder meetings and actually removed a requirement that had been in there previously, proposed by staff, to require leasing sufficient land for not only the tower, but also the other structures that are placed at the base of the tower. We have removed that requirement and in lieu of that have required that the property owner acknowledge that that may be a requirement in the future in order to meet the co-location requirements of the Zoning Code. Subsection No. 9 deals with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). We feel like it is important to have this statement in there, since the community may want to have more stringent requirements than what the FAA does, as far as protection of the local airports. Subsection 10 is a statement that applications shall meet all federal, state and local requirements, and it is implied that those cover the other sections, and we don’t feel like they do adequately address the community’s interest in those issues. As far as the submittal requirements are concerned, I think we are probably still going to have some disagreement, especially on Subsection 3. Staff still feels that we are going to need assistance in probably at least one-third of the cases for review by a professional engineer to determine whether or not the application is meeting the requirements of the Master Plan and design guidelines. As far as the ‘vicinity’ term which is listed under Subsection 2a, I think that that probably could be more narrowly defined. I think that is a good point. On Page 3 of the memo, on bullet point No. 5, our intent is that the tower would be removed after it has been unused for more than one year, and if the wording is unclear to that effect, then we agree that it should be changed to make sure that everybody understands that we do intend that it would only be removed after being unused for a year. On bullet point No. 6, there is some general language in the Code revisions that are before you regarding all types of Conditional Use applications, and even zoning change applications that involve an access road and whether or not that access road should be included as a portion of the site for determining the radius of the notification area. We do agree that in nearly every instance, if not every instance, for communication towers, that the access road would not need to be included in that area for notification purposes. The bullet point No. 7 regarding setbacks says that most of the setbacks should be no more than 1 to 1. I think I have adequately addressed that that is certainly capable under the proposal that is before you today with simple zoning adjustment application and administrative approval, and the setback could be even less than that through a Conditional Use permit. Then Article 8 is regarding the fact that there should not be able to be additional conditions placed on administrative approval and we feel like, in certain instances, there certainly will be cases where applications will be submitted that perhaps do not entirely meet the design guidelines, but if there are conditions placed on that that provide for those design guidelines, that will prevent these applications from having to just be outright denied and then appealed through a conditional use permit process. That concludes my remarks. If there are any questions, I would be happy to answer them.” MARNELL “I don’t see any at this time, Scott, thank you. We will now hear from members of the public. Oh, Commissioner Hentzen, I’m sorry.” HENTZEN “In reading the agenda for today, on this No. 2 DR 99-10. Is this a public hearing?” MARNELL “Yes, it is.” HENTZEN “Then why don’t we say that? Is it a public hearing?” MARNELL “Yes, it is.” HENTZEN “Well, shouldn’t we have put that on the agenda? It is the public hearing, or a public hearing.” MARNELL “Marvin, would you like to address that?” HENTZEN “Maybe we got something that said it was going to be today.” KROUT “We could have said public hearing. Sometimes we identify another items as saying public hearings, but the Planning Commission opens up all of your items to public discussion. We did meet the requirements of the law in advertising this in the newspaper and also provided notice to all the parties that we were aware of that this would be a public hearing. So I don’t think there would have been much question about it.” HENTZEN “Okay. If you think it is a public hearing, so be it.” MARNELL “Thank you. Okay, let’s start the public hearing. Before we get started, how many people here want to speak on this issue? I see only three, no four at this time. Okay, let’s get started.” TIM AUSTIN “I am with Austin Miller. I did fax over, this morning, a kind of a position on our perception of what the Wireless Master Plan does. Just in reviewing it very quickly, first, staff should be commended. They did put a lot of time and effort into it. They did accomplish a lot of things. Unfortunately, it is like running a quarter mile drag race, you don’t stop at the quarter mile, sometimes you go past that in line. I think that is what has happened here. We may have taken the plan a little bit too far. I would like to say that I am not sure that all of the stakeholders were represented in the plan. We certainly had industry representatives from the wireless industry as far as cellular phone usage and for paging companies, but there is another group that was not present at the table and that was the people who are going to provide wireless internet. There are at least four of those entities in the market right now and they were not aware of this. The other group that was not present at the table was the end users of the technology. Many of you probably saw the article in the Wichita Business Journal on May 6 that talked about how Wichita was going to be studied as a high-tech manufacturing center. Unfortunately, when we want to accomplish the high-tech manufacturing, we often rely on other technology, and certainly we will be relying on the technology that is dependent on the wireless towers, so we have to be aware of what that impact is. We are of the opinion that, again, the plan has gone too far. It has made it too aggressive, which would make it difficult for Wichita to have that future growth in technology. The other thing the Plan does, as we have characterized it, it is a knee-jerk reaction to the growth in the cellular industry. It doesn’t really address, quite frankly, where the future of wireless technology is, and that is in data transfer, again as it relates to manufacturing and how businesses communicate with each other. I don’t know if any of you say the article in the Wichita Eagle, in yesterday’s business section, but it talked about a company that is going to provide application service via the high speed Internet access, and basically you outsource your file servers, your communications. We do that internally at our company. Our E-mail is not internal to our computer system, it is outsourced through an account service provider. There are a lot of areas in this town that don’t have access to Road Runner. They don’t have access to digital subscriber lines, and the only way they are going to be provided economical access to the Internet and high speed data transfer is through wireless providers. Again, those people were not at the table. Their technology is different than the cellular technology, or it can be, and quite frankly, some of the cellular technology will be used in that fashion as well, and that change is coming. The impact is kind of a hidden or unseen impact. If you make the development of that technology and the infrastructure too onerous, the private sector will take their investment dollars, they will invest them in other communities. It is a cost we don’t see as a community, but it is very real. In business we look for our bang for our buck, so to speak, and if they don’t get it in Wichita, they will get it elsewhere. They have limited investment, limited capital in which to make those kinds of improvements. The rules, as we proposed, if you saw those, and Scott did an accurate job. We realize that we could have the setbacks reduced through a Conditional Use process, but really what the difference is, and I think it is a fundamental difference, between what is being proposed and the rules that we have proposed is really the ability of somebody to go pull a building permit. Under the rules as they are proposed, virtually every application, every desire for a new tower is going to go through the Conditional Use process. The industry does not want 65-foot towers. That is just a fact. And I think we have a fundamental disagreement on that. The ‘GC’ zoning, if you look at the inventory of properties that are zoned in this community and this county, the ability to have ‘GC’ zoning is very limited. I don’t know what the percentage is, but it is definitely not out there. That is why we proposed ‘LC’ zoning. Quite frankly, the people that are going to use the Internet access are small companies like myself, they are located in ‘LC’; they are located in narrow corridors along East Central, in the downtown area, and you have to have that ability to get them that type of service. I think that is the fundamental difference. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have about that.” PLATT “Tim, is there a city in the general population comparable to Wichita that has a flawless Master Plan that you recommend to us as ideal?” AUSTIN “When we first started this, and I don’t know that there is an answer to that, Dr. Platt, but there are two schools of thought to that. We talked about that at a meeting I was at earlier this week at the Chamber. That very question was raised and there were two schools of thought. One school of thought was the question as you presented it. You know, what is Omaha doing, what is Kansas City doing, what is Tulsa doing? The other school of thought, though was if Wichita is to be, as the Business Journal phrased it, the next Silicone Valley, what are those areas that depend on technology, what are their rules? They may or may not be comparable in size to Wichita. I think fundamentally we need to step back and take a look at not so much where we have come from and where we are today, but to look a year from now, five years from now. What is the technology going to be? What is the need of industry and business in this community? Does this plan fit that? I would tell you, as someone who follows trends and technology very closely because we are involved in it, I am not sure that this plan does.” PLATT “In other words, you don’t know of a plan that would meet your requirements?” AUSTIN “I think for as many communities as there are out there you are going to find different plans. I will note and I can distribute it to you at a later date if we choose to set this aside for a time. There is the National Association of Counties on their web site. We downloaded just a brochure that had a recommendation from a consultant that talked about how to plan for towers in your county, and again this is a governmental association. The Wireless Master Plan that we have done has accomplished, to a certain extent, some of the recommendations that this web site had, but it doesn’t meet all of the things they recommended. I might make one other note. I did have a photograph, but one of the things on height I think we tend to forget, and it just occurred to me that I had this in my pocket, is utility poles. I have a picture of some power poles, transmission lines that are down at 55th Street and Rock Road. Those things are 120 feet tall. They are every 400 feet for 2 miles. I guess they can do it by right. Just for comparison’s sake.” HENTZEN “Tim, I think you inquired of the National Association of Counties. If you inquire, why wouldn’t we also inquire of the National League of Cities that the Mayor is the President of, because you could either frame the question in a population of 500,000 to a million, and you might find some cities that have some pretty good plans.’ AUSTIN “I know that Scott did a considerable amount of research on the Internet. Like I said, there are a lot of different rules and ways that communities have approached it. Maybe he can address it as far as is there somebody that has adopted rules that we have apparently approached it here.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Tim I was just curious. You said that the industry was not interested in 65 foot towers, and you also mentioned that a lot of the small businesses located in the neighborhoods could be using this, and I am trying to imagine why a 65 foot tower or less would not meet their needs.” AUSTIN “They could probably answer that better, but understand that at 65 feet it kind of contradicts the desire to co- locate as well. If you have somebody at 65 feet and then somebody else wants to be there, they are at 55 feet. The other thing is that, as we have talked about in the past, is with the taller tower, typically with cellular technology, you get greater coverage area from a physical standpoint in that in shorter height, it is going to take a significant number more towers. When you look at the cost to develop a 65 foot tower versus a 150-foot tower, really the only difference is in the cost of the tower. The equipment is the same for both of those. If it takes ten 65-foot towers to accomplish the 150-foot one, then you have increased the capital investment by 10 fold, essentially.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Can you provide documentation on that?” AUSTIN “I would be happy to, yes.” WARREN “Tim, it seems quite obvious that you have some problems with this and would like to see some changes, and have subjected us to the fact that there may have been some more input that maybe should have been into this. Do you feel that that additional input in time would maybe bring us to a little more workable document?” AUSTIN “I think so. When I mentioned the two stakeholders that I felt weren’t present in those workshops, I think there is some interest in the business community for them to maybe have some input and to look at that. Any time you can get additional input, I think you come up with a better document, or at least you satisfy everybody. I am not sure everybody has had the proper opportunity to provide input.” WARREN “Make a guess. How much time do you think maybe would be required to accomplished this?” AUSTIN “I would say maybe a series of meetings, 30 to 60 days.” MARNELL “Tim, I have a question for you with regard to the wireless data applications. Don’t those tend to be point to multi-point applications?” AUSTIN “Yeah.” MARNELL “Are you seeing a problem with the end users on that?” AUSTIN “There are some problems in the community with that, yes. And also, some of the technology is different from the Cellular PCS. There is different technology in that field, but for instance, some of it is based on microwave, which is more line of sight. So obviously, at 65 feet, when you are barely clearing the treetops and buildings, you have a problem achieving that line of site. I think what your question asked is really one of the reasons why we need to take a step back and study it further, because they really haven’t had an opportunity to address those kinds of issues.” MARNELL “Do you see, the way the plan is written now, that an end business could put a 20-foot structure on any of their buildings and still be underneath this ordinance?” AUSTIN “It depends on the height of their building.” MARNELL “I am only speaking in regard to complying with the ordinance, not whether or not it would technically work. There will always be those kind of circumstances.” AUSTIN “And that is one of the problems with the ordinance. I can’t interpret the ordinance enough to tell you whether they could or couldn’t. It depends on the height of the building, it depends on the building’s proximity to rear yards, side yard setbacks, and adjacent zoning. The plan is very subjective and open in interpretation, and really, the only the only one that can answer that question is Marvin on a case-by-case basis.” MARNELL “Marvin, do you have a response?” KROUT “We would be glad to sit down with Tim and explain to him so things are a little clearer. But I guess I just want to ask you Tim, and I know that you have participated in behalf of the segment of the industry that represents the tower developers who are not all that excited about it, but if you were to compare what we have on the books today to what is being proposed, which would you say was more onerous?” AUSTIN “I would say they are equally onerous.” KROUT “You don’t see any improvement in what is being proposed?” AUSTIN “No, I don’t really see any improvement. I think 99% of any new towers or sites that are going to be desired in this market to meet the needs of the wireless community whether it is cellular phone or wireless Internet is going to go through a Conditional Use process, a public hearing process. To that extent, I think they are equally onerous. We have to go through that same process today. I don’t see really any difference. I do see a difference that we have allowed it by right in all zoning districts, and that is a positive change, but the reality is that the restrictions are so aggressive and we have gone so far past the end line, and the reality is that no one can meet that test and everything is going to be a Conditional Use process. You have four wireless service providers for Internet that are coming into this market, there are three PCS cellular carriers that have licenses in this market that haven’t even started their build-out, and they all want the same space. They all want to be at the same height. There are going to be a lot more new towers and the question becomes, can they go in, can we make rules such that we can protect the neighborhoods? I think that is a very noble goal and I don’t have a problem with that, but can we make a rule as such that they can go in and pull a building permit, or does everybody and every application have to come through this body and through the governing body for a Conditional Use? I think there is a philosophical difference. I think 99.9 % of them are going to.” MARNELL “Thanks, Tim. Next speaker, please.” CURTIS HOLLAND “Good afternoon. I am a land use and zoning lawyer. I mainly operate from Kansas City, but I have done quite a bit of work down here in Wichita and Butler County. I represent Southwestern Bell Wireless and Sprint PCS in these markets and have done extensive work with Marvin Krout and his staff in regards to this proposal that you are considering today. I did provide a letter to Marvin, I tried to send it last night but I understand he didn’t receive it. I hope that maybe you all have received it in your packets. If not, I have extra copies for you. Scott Knebel did go through that with you and address some of the points I made and some of the concerns I had. I would like to back up and say, like Tim Austin, congratulate the Planning staff here as well as the task force that was put together. From where we started to where we are now is a vast improvement. I will tell you that. In all sincerity, the staff has been very professional in terms of sitting down with us, listening to our concerns and being willing to make some concessions on our part. I will agree that in the end, not everybody is happy, not everybody got everything they wanted to in the plan or these regulations. I think, in a negotiation that is probably the way it ends up most of the time. But all in all, I do think we are at a better position today than we were when we first started. Having said that, there are a couple of things that I still have some concern about. I did point those out in my letter, so I will try not to go back over that all over again. Some of the language can be a little bit tighter, but that is the way it tends to come out sometimes in these regulations. Oftentimes that leads to interpretations and implementations, really, on the part of the zoning staff on how this all comes together in the end. So I think there might be some room for improvement in terms of tightening up some of the language. Just to address a couple of quick things. I like the idea of this two-tier kind of review, or this two-level approval step process that has been set out. One being an administrative permit. I will tell you, having worked in this industry for six years now and in other communities, I am familiar with what is going on in other communities, we frequently have two levels of review. One being a) you go right to a building permit or b) you go through a Conditional Use permit process or special use process, depending on where you are. The way we have done it and set it up here as it is proposed, there is really kind of a three-level process if I understand this correctly. I guess I would like to have some clarification. I will ask Marvin to clarify this for me. But as I understand it, co-locations, which are kind of a generic term can mean a lot of different things to different people, but what I mean now specifically is being able to locate your antennas on an existing tower structure that already exists. I think that, according to my understanding, and Marvin, I wish you would clarify this, is permitted again still by building permit, is that true?” KROUT “No, I think it requires an administrative permit, but it has a reduced fee because we realize that it is a simpler review and it won’t ever require engineering kinds of review.” HOLLAND “I was under the impression, and maybe you can look at this again and help me understand it, but in terms of the proposed zoning amendments, it would be point No. 4 on the second page. I thought that took care of co-location on existing facilities. I was trying to find it, really, up in the earlier subsection 2 and I couldn’t exactly fit what I am talking about now into any of those criteria, either A, B or C, but I thought No. 4 might take care of it. But again, this is where we are taking an existing tower structure, a communication tower that is already in place and simply adding equipment to the base of it and putting our antennas on the structure itself. Most often, in other jurisdictions, that is a building permit-type application. I am hoping that would be the case here, but I understand that is not.” KROUT “In this type of permit, there is a review. We are still concerned about the equipment at the ground and the landscaping, and all of that.” HOLLAND “Okay. Well, then we do have what is a two levels of approval, one being the administrative approval process and one of them being this Conditional Use permit approval process. I am real familiar with the Conditional Use permit processes here and in other jurisdictions, because most frequently that is what we are having to go through anyway. But this administrative review process or administrative permit is different. I am not quite used to that. So my questions are how that is going to be implemented and how these criteria are, in fact, interpreted in actuality.” MARNELL “Mr. Holland, do you need additional time?” HOLLAND “I would like to take a couple of minutes. I didn’t realize I went this long.” MOTION: That the speaker’s time be extended 3 minutes. CARRAHER moved, HENTZEN seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. HOLLAND “I will try to go quickly. The point that I was getting to, in terms of the implementation of the administrative permit process, I am a little bit concerned with some of the later regulation proposals at the end where it allows for the Planning Director to impose additional conditions, not knowing what those conditions might be. What my thought process was here is that if we, and sometimes we have to modify our own plans to get an expeditious approval, we might do that and sacrifice some sort of greater coverage to go get an administrative permit, and in doing so, I would hope that if we are willing to make those sacrifices and fit our facilities within these administrative permit approval guidelines, that we ought to just really be approved. If we can do that, and I don’t know what these conditions might be, and that is what tends to scare me a little bit. It is a little bit of the unknown. I am hoping, and I think that Marvin and his team will be reasonable about those, but really my concern is about implementation of this administrative permit type of process. I did want to have clarification from Marvin or someone on the Planning staff about the compatibility standards. Are they or are they not applicable in a Conditional Use permit application?” KROUT “You can waive them as part of your Conditional Use application.” HOLLAND “So you are starting from the premise that they are, in fact, applicable, and that we are going to try to reduce that through that process?” KROUT “As part of an administrative permit, you could ask to reduce them up to the 1 to 1 ratio. If you need to go beyond that, then you can ask for that further waiver as part of your Conditional Use.” HOLLAND “I do think that having dealt with other zoning codes in other jurisdictions, the compatibility standard, the setback here in Wichita is a bit larger, more burdensome than we are used to seeing in other communities. I don’t know exactly what the rationale for having it is. I don’t think it is a safety issue, I think it might be some sort of aesthetics issue, but again, that is kind of an arbitrary distance. I think it is a little greater than what we are used to seeing in other jurisdictions. But all in all, again, from where we started to where we ended up, we are much happier with the plan. Finally, I would like to talk about the requirement that we provide radio frequency engineering justification for our facilities. I think that is fine, to some extent. We are used to having to explain the need for our facilities. I think we must start with the basic premise that we aren’t in here constructing towers because we like to construct towers. They are very expensive and we try to avoid that at all cost. What we would like to do is do things like administrative-type permits and those kinds of things, so I think that if the staff is fair with us on the RF justifications, I would like to avoid having to go outside as much as I can to third parties who don’t know anything about our systems and aren’t intimate with our network design. With that, I conclude. I am here to answer any questions you might have, and I do appreciate the opportunity to give you these comments.” MARNELL “Thank you, Mr. Holland. Are there any questions from the Commission?” WARREN “I think what I am hearing and you would probably be coming more from the legal standpoint than maybe some of the other responses we are going to have, but I am hearing from you, what I believe you are saying is maybe a little unpredictability, maybe it is a little ambiguous objective, maybe it is a little ill-defined in some cases.” HOLLAND “I do think that the language could be tightened up a little bit in some of the areas. I am a little concerned about ultimate implementation, particularly with regards to the administrative permit process. I do like the idea, and I like being able to have an approval process that is easier to go through. I would just like to know that if I am going to go through that process and in many occasions I am re-designing my system, maybe to do something easier and something more in line with the goals of the city as reflected in the Master Plan and these amendments, that if I do that, I get approved. I want to have some more certainty about that. Without knowing how in the end it is going to be interpreted and implemented, I don’t that just yet. But I would be more comfortable if you said, for example, that if we fit within 2a through 2e of 2f, you get approved, that would be my preference.” WARREN “You see, then, the possibility of maybe some variable standards that could lend themselves to a little discrimination?” HOLLAND “I don’t know. That is all implementation. I think historically, the staff has been fair when they have reviewed these. I know that the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which really kind of overshadows this entire process here, prohibits discrimination against functionally equivalent services, so I don’t think, and hope, at least, that that doesn’t come about. I do think, though, that if you are, and I do understand that you have to have some flexibility and discretion here, but that also may open the door for some sorts of discrimination. I don’t like the word discrimination, but maybe some treatment that is maybe a little bit different than for another. I don’t know. But there is a door open there, though.” HENTZEN “Let me ask, do you understand the administrative application and approval. Supposing you can’t get approval administratively. What is the alternative? Do you go directly to the courts, do you come to this body or the City Council or what? Is there an appeal process?” HOLLAND “Yes, there is, and it is really the Conditional Use permit process. You would have to exhaust your remedies and that remedy is the Conditional Use permit review process. In my legal opinion, we couldn’t get into the court house until we did that. If Marvin, for whatever reason, say we fit within one of these criteria here, but ultimately he decides, and it appears to me that there is room for him to deny an application for an administrative permit, even if you fit within these criteria. Then our next step would be, then, to really appeal his decision to the ultimate, which would be you, the Planning Commission, who hears Conditional Use permits. Then once we have exhausted that remedy, we would have the courts available to us. Obviously, that is the very last resort. We would try to avoid that at all costs.” MARNELL “Thank you, Mr. Holland. Next speaker, please.” GREG FERRIS “I represent AT&T Wireless services. I have represented AT&T through the entire process from the day that Mr. Kreines came on board and embarrassed us all, and then to the point we are at today. I would like to say that staff has been very accommodating, has worked very hard to meet the issues that AT&T has brought forward, and I think even demonstrated today when the issue that I raised in a letter to each of you that I hope you received, and they addressed that even further at this late hour. So from that standpoint, AT&T believes that we have made great progress as Mr. Holland has said. Obviously, if AT&T was to have sat down and written this plan in its own corporate headquarters and sent it to you for approval, it would not appear as it does today. Obviously, if I would have gotten everything that I requested from staff, it would not appear as it does today. AT&T has a relative level of comfort that we can work within the guidelines that are in this plan, but we wouldn’t mind if the Commission would see fit to reduce the setbacks, for example, the 1 to 1. We believe that, as Mr. Austin stated, that that is most appropriate. We are willing to try to work within this plan, knowing that if we find that it is not compatible with the types of things that we are trying to do, that I will be one of the first people in this building meeting with different individuals to tell them that the plan is not being implemented as we believed it was to be. Having said that, I do have a couple of questions because Mr. Holland’s testimony raised a couple of issues. I believe that I had talked to staff and we evidently had a difference of opinion on how this was the outcome. Under No. 2 on the ordinance, Mr. Krout, I see where it says ‘the following wireless communication facility shall be approved by administrative permit in any zoning district, etc.’. As I read that, my understanding was that if we come in and we meet the criteria that we will get a permit. That while there is some objectivity and subjectivity that will go on if we meet the guidelines, it will be very similar to the process that we went to under the moratorium, where while we were allowed to get a building permit, Mr. Krout still reviewed those, and instead of applying for them in the Central Inspection Department, we applied for them in planning. Once we had that administrative permit, that guarantees us then the building permit, but it is the ‘shall’ that unless we do not comply with the conditions that are set forth, that we will get a permit. Is there some…?” KROUT “No, you are right, it is just that there is some subjectivity. Members of the Commission, I don’t think we could ever write out all of the subjectivity. But I think there is some subjectivity in those criteria, so there may be an occasion where there is a disagreement about whether or not you are complying with these criteria. But we used the word ‘shall’ to say, and I think that gives a stronger basis to the applicant to say, that we can’t arbitrarily deny this case because we don’t like it.” FERRIS “Well, not only arbitrarily, but you have to have some cause that you would have to spell out to us as to what criteria we don’t meet.” KROUT “Yes, what you don’t meet and why.” FERRIS “I happened to pull some 35 building permits during the moratorium and during that process, we did go through this review as stated, and with one exception, we had absolutely no problem. I think it was one in the historical district that we corrected. So I am not overly concerned with the process. I believe that if that is the process, that we can work within that structure. Just as a matter of clarification, Scott, on the third page, the third from the last paragraph, is that where we changed it to 25% and you still have it as 20%? On the actual ordinance itself on the third page.” KNEBEL “No.” FERRIS “It is not? Why isn’t it?” KNEBEL “The question that Mr. Ferris is asking is referring to Item 2b where it talks about increasing the height of existing structures by as much as 25% for the placement of wireless antennas on that structure.” MARNELL “Where is this?” KNEBEL “It is in the ordinance, the two page one.” FERRIS “Not the plan, just the ordinance.” KNEBEL “Yeah. The Proposed Amendments to the Wichita-Sedgwick County Unified Zoning Code for wireless communication facilities, on the first page where it says Item 2b. On the third page, the third paragraph from the bottom where it refers to Article V.i.2 that has to do with increasing the maximum height permitted by the zoning district. That can be waived by up to 20%, and that actually refers to structures other than wireless communication facilities. What we are doing here is modifying it. That article had to be modified in order to pull out and add the compatibility height standard.” FERRIS “So we will still be allowed the 25% to rebuild any existing structure?” KNEBEL “Right.” FERRIS “Thank you. That was just a question that I had. Finally, Mr. Holland’s statements where he asked for some clarity on some issues; we certainly believe that if the plan can be as clear as possible that it will save the Planning Commission, the industry, and staff the greatest amount of time, so in those areas that he has pointed out where clarity can be achieved, we at AT&T would agree that those should be implemented, and that would be in the interest of the community, not just in the interest of AT&T. I would be glad to answer any questions at this time.” WARREN “A couple of speakers before you, one very emphatically, the other questionably, suggested that probably the way this thing is written right now, we are going to wind up with every application being a Conditional Use permit. You have read this as good as anybody, how do you feel about that? Do you think we are going to wind up with Conditional Use permits as a condition of application?” FERRIS “Let me first say that Mr. Austin and Mr. Holland both know more about this industry than I do. They have been in it much longer than I have, so I am going to give you my opinion. My opinion is that no, not every case will come to you as a Conditional Use permit. In fact, far less will come to you today as a Conditional Use permit than would have under the current ordinance. AT&T believes that this has given us some flexibility that we didn’t have before. AT&T will be building 65 foot towers in residential areas. Now, when Mr. Austin speaks of some of the new industries that are coming, they will not be able to. I will be representing before you, possibly in the near future, a company that is doing a lot of the microwave technology. They are looking at 150 and 190 foot towers. We will be trying to focus, obviously, in commercial areas, knowing that it is much easier to do. I believe that when you get to that height, the requirement for the number of towers goes down dramatically. So I disagree with the whole premise that staff has on this is that we should be encouraging shorter towers, because taller towers do limit the number of towers. So if you want less towers, you build taller towers. It doesn’t matter what you do, you build taller towers. But if the community has decided that the premise is that we want shorter towers, there will be some industries that will still need taller towers. There is no question about that. I completely agree with that because I am going to be representing one of those. But as we have gone through an analysis, we are finding that it is not impossible for us because on an AT&T cell tower, we have about a quarter of a mile variance and that is it. When we are in a search ring, you’ve got a quarter of a mile and that is it. You can get a little bit outside of that in just extreme circumstances, but you really need that much clarity in your coverage. In the microwave industry that I am looking at, we are looking at differences of three-quarters of a mile to a mile and a quarter, so you can see right then, as you expand the size of that search ring. I don’t know whether that answered your question, Mr. Warren.” WARREN “No. I think what I am hearing from you is that as long as you want to stay in the 65-foot range, you are going to be all right without a Conditional Use permit. If you get above that you are probably going to need one.” FERRIS “No, well I mean it depends on what you want to do. We have identified areas where we can put up 150-foot towers, for example.” WARREN “Without a Conditional Use permit?” FERRIS “Absolutely.” MARNELL “Are there any other questions from the Commission? Thank you, Mr. Ferris.” FERRIS “Thank you.” MARNELL “Is there anyone else in the audience that wants to be heard on this matter?” TIM LEBLANC “I am an engineer with the local wireless internet service provider here in town. We are a locally owned company that just kind of entered the business here at the first of the year. That is probably why we are not involved with any of the original discussions. Typically, the equipment we are using right now is using a low-power frequency. It is an unlicensed band and we are only allowed by FCC to push about half a watt. Currently we can only push so far with the limited power requirements that we are using. The equipment that we are using also is fairly small. The radios are small and we are trying to find decent places to put our equipment right now. But the Master Plan eventually is to provide total roaming capabilities for data, for your laptop, so you basically can go anyplace in town and have Internet connection or using virtual private networks access your office network or anything like that. We are doing some experimentation right now, basically on the west side of town, putting up 60-foot towers, which we are able to get permitted under the Office of Central Inspection into apartment complexes. We are able to fall into those categories right now and they are allowing us to put those up. We are having some problem with that height with the equipment we are using. We are not able to get very far. At one time, we thought we could probably be every half-mile to provide total roaming. It looks like we are going to have to cut those distances down a little bit. So the higher we get, the farther we can go. That was just basically clarifying what you probably have already heard. The commercial areas that we are trying to hit, we have kind of stumbled with Central Inspection being able to put any kind of a tower in those locations. The zoning doesn’t allow us to put up even a 60 foot tower right now, and we have looked at areas like Reflection Ridge, the northwest fast-growing area. They are not able to get the Roadrunner or DSL. It looks like Southwestern Bell’s DSL isn’t even going to be available to them for years. We are not able to put a tower up out there at this time. We are looking at, down at Harry and Webb, southeast, and again they are not able to get those same services and again we have gotten into this limitation where we can’t put up any towers, so we are not able to provide service to the customers there. I heard about this meeting at about 11:30 today, and I came up here mainly to introduce ourselves and let you know that we are in town. Tim was talking about the new industry of the wireless internet service. We have done some research and right now, Wichita is probably as far along as any other city in the United States, providing wireless internet service, and so we are kind of on the cutting edge. We have been talking with the Wichita Business Journal. They have done a couple of articles on us and things. You may have heard of us before, and that is kind of where we are at right now. Any help in making things easier for us is always a plus. I haven’t had a chance, really, to study the moratorium or the plan that you guys have. As I said, I just heard about this earlier today. Do you have any questions?” MICHAELIS “This may be a question for both you and the wireless people, but can you, or to your knowledge can you co- locate on towers that, for example, may be a wireless? Will your technology work on theirs without interfering with each other?” LEBLANC “It appears so, yes. We are not co-located anywhere on a tower close. Our main site right now is up on the old Holiday Inn Building where we are co-located with a lot of paging companies and we are not having trouble.” MICHAELIS “If they had a 150-foot tower, you could co-locate on that 150-foot tower and it is going to benefit both of you and reduce the total number of towers equally?” LEBLANC “Yes, if it is financially feasible for us.” KROUT “Hasn’t your firm been in discussion and maybe even had an agreement with KG&E to use their facilities?” LEBLANC “Yes, but basically to get on top of utility poles and we are still dealing with the City on getting a franchise agreement with the City. KG&E has given us a preliminary okay on doing that, but we have kind of hit a brick wall with the City right now and are waiting on approval from them.” KROUT “You had some franchise issues, and some of the questions I think we are talking about here with regulations. But I guess the point I was trying to make was that as we understood your system, it was largely going to the existing utility poles; then if they are 80 feet or 100 feet or whatever height they are, they could be used without Conditional Uses.” MICHAELIS “My question, I guess, was mainly more would the technology be compatible with each other.” KROUT “To put it on the same pole?” MICHAELIS “Yeah.” LEBLANC “We are using different frequencies, so we should be able to, as long as we don’t interfere with what is already on there.” MARNELL “Are there any additional questions? Are there any additional speakers to be heard on this item?” CARLOS RICHARDT “I represent Connectivity Services here in town. We offer Internet services. We do all type of services. We are also a cell provider. The size of the antenna will be a severe problem for us because we are also trying to reach some of the smaller towns that are around Wichita. We want to be able to bring them into the Internet. It is very difficult for them to get services because of the phone companies. To be able to reach these smaller communities is basically based on distance and how high you can go. So for us, doing that type of business and also smaller businesses out and around the county, they don’t have access to the Roadrunner and some of the other services from the cable companies. It is very difficult to try to give them the services if you cannot get high. We just found out about this meeting about 12:30 today. We didn’t have any idea that it was happening. Right now, we are trying to set up some communications with some businesses where we are going to need to get at least 100 to 120 feet high to be able to reach the businesses that we are trying to reach. The reason that you need to get that high is because there is a very simple formula that you need to use that depends on the obstacles that are in the way. Most of the problem is given because of the trees. The trees, when you get rain, you get some retention of water and that creates a problem with your frequencies, so you have to be able to clear even the treetops at an altitude for a given distance. We also would like to be able to have a little bit more time to be able to see these, to get time for our company to take a look at these, because it will affect us quite a bit. We are looking at doing business in Wichita, too, with the wireless, and as we understand the technology right now, we will have to be mostly in the 100-foot range to be able to meet our requirements here in the Metro area. That is basically all I have.” MARNELL “Are there any questions of the speaker? Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak?” MICHAEL DUDLEY “You will have to excuse my voice, ladies and gentleman. I am with CMS, Communications Management Specialists, and I really only have one thing to add here. We are the wireless world; we are the new utility. If it were possible for us to bury our signals under the ground, we would do so because then we would not have a single problem. I think Tim, who I have just met once, made a very good point. We have utility poles that are well over 100 feet all over the place, we have light poles all over the place. Of course, we would like to mount on those whenever possible. They often don’t go where we go. They often are not high enough for our uses. But my general philosophical point is that nobody wants to live nowadays without electricity, except perhaps those people on the desert island that are on television. Nobody wants to live without water, sewer and telephone, and a lot of us in this room, including those sitting on the other side of the table, I am sure are fairly dependent on wireless service by now. Unfortunately we cannot bury our facilities. We would like nothing better than to do so, so as not to be obtrusive. We have to have height because of the nature of the radio waves, and as we go into the Internet world, we are getting higher in frequency. As we go higher in frequency, we have weaker waves that penetrate less. The trees that the previous speaker was talk about, the gigahertz frequencies he was talking about will literally eat his signal and put him out of business. So if you can’t be above the trees, you have no business when you are dependent on gigahertz. That is really all I have to say, unless you have any questions.” MARNELL “Are there any questions of the speaker? Thank you. Is there anyone else to be heard on this item?” JOE PAJOR “I am with the Public Works Department of the City of Wichita. I served as the chairperson of the staff Task Force that was dropped into this process at what I think everyone would agree was its low point, which was when Mr. Kreines’ plan went to a joint workshop of the governing bodies. The City Manager and the County Manager realized that it was not a plan that was based on truly listening to the industry and listening to the concerns of that industry. The Task Force, therefore, was created specifically to take the plan that had been recommended by the consultant; to sit down again with the affected parties to listen again with them; and by design, the Task Force only had minority representation from the Planning Department. Other departments were used across city and county government so that we truly could, even though it was that late in the process at that point, we truly could have a step taken back and a fresh look and new people listening to the concerns that were being expressed by the industry. I will tell you that the plan that you have in front of you today, that the ordinance revisions that you have in front of you today represent that process. I will also tell you that in my opinion, there is a diminishing return effect of stepping back again and listening to the affected parties, and that I have a concern that while industry is well represented today, the neighborhoods that we were trying to balance the concerns of in our process are not represented here today. But let me assure you the results you have heard today are the results of a compromise process which several of the speakers alluded to, that got us this far. If we take today’s work product and take it as a benchmark and go back into another step-back process and another round of hearings, I don’t know that the needs of our community are going to be better served by that, because again, it is like resetting the zero point, resetting the reference point and starting over from the compromised positions that we already took to get to the work product that you have today. The second point I want to make is that I hope that you will understand that it is the nature of these industries, and I am using plural very specifically, it is the nature of these industries and their technology that I do not think that you are going to be able to put this to bed today or 60 days from now and just worry about it the next time the Comprehensive Plan comes up. It is obvious to me from listening to the speakers this afternoon that Mr. Ferris is a relative old-timer in the industry, and as he pointed out, he hasn’t been in the industry very long. I think that is indicative of the fact that this industry is evolving, it is changing; technology is changing. It is an industry in which long-term planning is two quarters out. Whatever you do, whether you choose to accept the work product in front of you today, if you sent it away for another 30 or 60 days, it is going to require, at some point, that we put a plan in place, that we let the staff work with the applicants through the process that is established, either now or later, to see whether or not it needs to be fine-tuned. I think it is a good point that we don’t have a model that we can go to and ‘yeah, they got it right in XYZ Oklahoma and we need to model that’. We don’t have that, or we haven’t found it at least. I would be happy to answer any questions.” MARNELL “Are there any questions of Mr. Pajor?” PAJOR “Thank you.” MARNELL “Are there any other speakers?” GLEN WILTSE “I am the Director of Sedgwick County Code Enforcement. The first thing I want to do is to thank everybody who has worked on this Task Force for all of the time they have put into it. The biggest thing, as an enforcement officer, that we have problems in enforcing are rules that are not laid out in black and white basically. Building Codes are black and white. Inspectors all the way down to the clerks can take that Code, technically, and come up with pretty much the same item, hopefully, each time. Industry, I realize, needs flexibility. Maybe this is the best way of doing it, by doing the administrative approvals. There has been a lot of work put into this and a lot of different industry members have looked at it. I have looked at it a much less length of time than they have, but on an enforcement side, there may be some arbitrary issues in there that may be difficult to determine on an administrative permit. Maybe that is the direction we need to go with a Conditional Use, but I just wanted to let it be known that on the enforcement side, there may be some issues that may be difficult to actually determine whether it should be granted administratively or through the Conditional Use. “ MARNELL “Are there any questions?” WARREN “Let me ask, as this is drafted now, would most applications come into your department first for an actual permit, or would they come to the Planning Department first?” WILTSE “I believe they will go through Marvin to start with for administrative permits. Is that not correct, Marvin?” KROUT “We process, between CUPs and zoning adjustments and landscape adjustments, we probably do about 100 of those a year. That is the way the process is established in all of those cases: the application comes to the Planning Department, and when the Zoning Code was set up it said ‘Planning Department approval with the concurrence of Central Inspection or the County Building Inspection’. So we usually end up with the brunt of the work and draft a letter of approval. Sometimes, as Glen knows, those letters contain some conditions to try to clarify exactly what it is they approved. I think it is important that you have that process with the ability to attach conditions.” WARREN “So it comes here, you would review it, set conditions if necessary, and then send it on over to Glen’s office for a permit?” KROUT “For concurrence. If he concurs, then it is permitted.” PLATT “I have a question, and maybe Mr. Pajor would like to respond to it and that is: where did the heights of 65 feet and 85 feet come from? Did you consider adjusting those, or do you think they are adequate?” PAJOR “The height levels were, as Scott referred to, the heart of the matter, and they were extensively discussed with all of the parties. In my opinion, it was a compromise in which we tried to strike a balance, not only between the aesthetic and neighborhood impact versus the needs of industry, but also to strike a process in which the process would be workable and most of these would not end up in front of the Planning Commission and the governing bodies; that staff would be able to address them. Also, the intent was to make sure that as we went through that process that we did try to make the pathway for short towers that were disguised easily and the pathway for taller towers that were undisguised more difficult so as to encourage industry that direction when it made sense with their deployment.” WARREN “There have been three proposals here that would amend what we are looking at as a final draft. Were those submitted to you prior, or did you have knowledge of these requests prior to the final draft? Have you considered these things that we are looking at today?” PAJOR “I would tell you that we sat with all of those parties in the meetings and went through the compromise process. The document that you have as proposed represents that consensus building and now it is kind of like on appeal in the course of this public hearing. The industry is coming to you saying ‘no, we need more still’, even after we felt we had them to a point in which they said, as Mr. Ferris said, it is not what they would write, but it is what they could live with.” DALE MILLER “Marvin and Joe can help on this too, but as I recall, to answer Mr. Platt’s question, one of the agents, it may have been Mr. Ferris, specifically said in the meeting that utility poles average ‘X’ height. I think that was 60 feet. Everybody kind of said ‘this is how tall light poles and electric poles are’, and that is kind of where we arrived at the 60 foot. The question was how tall are those and why can’t we get to that height by right?” PAJOR “That is a good point, Dale. It is an excellent example as to we were going through that process in our meetings and now we are talking about the transmission lines being the benchmark to go up higher.” OSBORNE-HOWES “You said you reached a consensus? There was no minority opposition or anything within your committee?” PAJOR “I will tell you that my understanding when we got done with the process was that we had reached a consensus. And I will certainly admit to you that based on the information that we have received earlier today, you and us, it doesn’t appear that way.” OSBORNE-HOWES “But for the people who were in the committee…” PAJOR “Yes, but these are the same people.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Yes, I remember that.” PAJOR “The signatures at the bottom of the letters are on the attendance sheets when we met with industry.” MARNELL “Mr. Pajor, that is with the exception of a couple of new companies that were here today, right?” PAJOR “Yes. And I am referring specifically to the written documents that you have received, not to the last two or three speakers that were talking about the new technology.” MICHAELIS “I would just like to make a comment on that. Mr. Ferris, I am going to pick on you for a minute. I guess I have a hard time understanding why they would have a consensus to 65 feet because as long as I have been sitting on here, I don’t remember Mr. Ferris ever coming in requesting permission to put up a 65-foot tower. They have all been fairly extensive overlap. I think that is something we need to clarify.” FERRIS “Are you asking me to answer that question, Mr. Michaelis?” MICHAELIS “Yes.” FERRIS “Thank you. You are right, Mr. Michaelis, we came in for five towers, one was 90 feet, two were 120 and two were 150 feet. A considerable amount of our infrastructure throughout the city that we did not come here for that was done through the ‘administrative building permit-type process’ during the moratorium were between 50 and 120 feet. So we did have some of those. While Mr. Miller is right that we said that a 65-foot tower would be equal to a light pole, we had requested at that time that a 65-foot tower be approved by right in residential areas, and that a higher tower be approved by right in Office or Light Commercial , and that a higher tower then be approved in General Commercial. So Mr. Pajor is right, there was an enormous amount of compromise and 65 feet did become the low standard. Frankly, if you wanted to really simplify this process, I think that most of the wireless industry, and I can’t speak for the new technologies that are now emerging, but most of the carriers like 80 to 100 feet; so if you wanted to put 80 feet instead of 65, it certainly would accomplish a lot of the issues that are before us. But that is where we started, but we wanted it in residential at 65; we wanted 80 in office; 100 in light commercial and 150 in general commercial. They didn’t like all of those different levels. We thought it might be easy. There was a lot of different discussion that went on.” MICHAELIS “The reason I am asking that question is because this is a very important issue to this community as well as to the future and the future of other industries wanting to locate here. I think it is terribly important that we make sure that we establish a height that does work for everybody and that would ultimately end up with less people coming in here for Conditional Use permits, less towers around the city, and even though they may be taller, it is very hard for the naked eye, driving down the street, to distinguish whether this tower is 100 foot tall or 120 feet tall, or even 65 feet tall. I just think that is something that we really, really need to look at. If it requires a little more time, with all due respect to Mr. Pajor, I don’t disagree with it and you hate to take steps backwards, but I think this is one we have got to be right on.” FERRIS “We have no problem with that, either. We at AT&T know that under this ordinance we are going to be able to do some administratively, but we are going to be doing some with Conditional Use permits. We recognize that fact.” MICHAELIS “Thank you.” WARREN “I agree totally with comments from Mr. Michaelis. No. 1, in the people I talked to, given a choice of two or three 65-foot towers or one 130 foot tower, they will take the one 130-foot tower every time, so I am not sure where this is coming from that we are getting a hue and cry from the public against a 150-foot tower, unless they are thinking of the old lattice-built tower that we rarely see anymore. We are now seeing the monopole-type tower. I think there is maybe a misconception out there as to what the public is thinking. I agree that a little more time, 30 to 60 days, particularly in consideration of some of these later on requests, would be in order.” MARNELL “Thank you. In the interest of time, we do have other public hearings, I think what we will do for the moment on this item is suspend the public hearing and go through the rest of our agenda. Time permitting, we will open this back up and bring it to the Commission, and if there is no one else from the public to be heard, and try to complete it today. If not, we will reschedule it for a future date.” LOPEZ “Instead of suspending this, why don’t we just either approve it or defer it. Take some action. All of these people will have to come back?” OSBORNE-HOWES “Oh, are they going to have to come back?” MARNELL “If they want to hear it. That is the prerogative of being chairman. Let’s roll right on, and if we can finish it later, we will do so.” LOPEZ “May I have permission to make a motion to overrule the Chair?” CARRAHER “A point of clarification. Commissioner Lopez is right, the Chair does have the prerogative to make that decision, but it is up to the individual Commissioners if they feel that there is enough support to override the ruling of the Chair, they can do so, but it must be by a 2/3 majority of the entire Commission. That would be my point of clarification.” MOTION: That a decision be made on the item. LOPEZ moved, CARRAHER seconded the motion. MICHAELIS “Just as a point of clarification. He said 2/3 of the entire Commission. Does that mean 2/3 of the 14 or 2/3 of the members here?” KROUT “Two-thirds of the members here.” WARREN “Mr. Chair, was your intent again in going ahead with the agenda and to bring this back at the end of this meeting?” MARNELL “Yes. Time permitting. If we can, in fact. This could get long. There is a lot to do on it and we may be able to get through the rest of the agenda that there are people here for public hearings on that have been announced. We may be able to dispense with those fairly rapidly. They don’t look complex, and then we could go right back to this item and hope to complete it today.” WARREN “So your concern, basically, is the amount of time that we should go ahead and exercise on this and it should be a little more than what we have right now?” MARNELL “Yes. More than what we may have.” OSBORNE-HOWES “You know, if there is a lot of time left on this, I am just thinking that maybe we ought to defer it. I am just concerned that we have a lot of people who have spoken here today and now they are not sure whether they need to hang around the rest of the afternoon. I am like you, we have a long agenda and I am not so sure that we want to discuss this for an hour at this particular point. I am just wondering whether a deferral would be more appropriate to the next meeting. I also have a question as to whether we were closing the public hearing or not.” KROUT “That wasn’t what the Chair said.” OSBORNE-HOWES “It happened so fast I didn’t get it.” MARNELL “Is there any further discussion on the motion?” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion failed with 3 votes in favor (Lopez, Carraher and Osborne-Howes), and 7 in opposition Warren, Michaelis, Platt, Marnell, Hentzen, Warner and Johnson. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Item taken out of order: 1. Approval of meeting minutes for April 13, 2000; April 27, 2000 and May 11, 2000. KROUT “Are there any comments on the minutes for these three meetings?” MARNELL “Hearing no comments, I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes.” MOTION: That the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission approve the minutes for the meetings of April 13, April 27, and May 11, 2000 as submitted. CARRAHER moved, MICHAELIS seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (10-0). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Consideration of Subdivision Committee recommendations. KROUT “Commissioners, on Items 3/1 through 3/9, you don’t have to take any of those items off for individual consideration unless you have questions on them. We should also see if there are speakers on those items. We do have an off-the-agenda item which we are calling Item 3/10, but I think you could take a motion to take 3/1 through 3/9 in one motion.” MARNELL “Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to be heard on any of the items 3/1 through 3/9?” STRAHL “I need to make one clarification on Item 3/9.” MARNELL “All right, we will pull it.” MOTION: That Subdivision Committee items 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, 3/5, 3/6, 3/7 and 3/8 be approved subject to the Subdivision Committee recommendations. JOHNSON moved, OSBORNE-HOWES seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (10-0). 3/1. SUB2000-25 - Final Plat of METRO EAST BAPTIST CHURCH ADDITION, located on the southwest corner of 143rd Street East and Kansas Turnpike. A. As this site is adjacent to Wichita’s city limits, the Applicant shall submit a request for annexation. Upon annexation, the property will be zoned SF-6, Single-Family Residential. B. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for guarantees or easements. The Applicant shall provide a guarantee for the extension of City water along the plat’s frontage of 143rd St. East. C. The applicant shall guarantee the extension of sanitary sewer to serve the lots being platted. This guarantee shall be with the County for service through the Four Mile Creek sanitary sewer system. On the final plat tracing, appropriate wording shall be added to the Mayor’s signature block indicating the City’s agreement to allow a County sewer district to be formed within the City. D. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. E. City/County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. The Applicant shall provide a letter from the Kansas Turnpike Authority indicating their willingness to accept drainage. F. County Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat proposes one access opening along 143rd St. East with 90 feet of complete access control from the south line of the plat. County Engineering has approved the access controls. G. County/Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the need for any improvements to perimeter streets. No improvements are required. H. The name of the owner shall be corrected on the owner’s signature block. I. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. J. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) K. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. L. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. M. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. N. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. O. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. P. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. Q. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. R. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. S. County Engineering requests the dedication of 20-ft of additional right-of-way from the concrete drainage structures to the Turnpike and complete access control along this segment. The requested right-of-way has been dedicated. T. City Fire Department has required an emergency access easement unless and until a street is platted adjoining this plat to the south. ------------------------------------------------------------ 3/2. SUB2000-30 - Final Plat of Auburn Hills 11th Addition, located east of 151st Street West, north of Kellogg Drive. A. The Applicant shall guarantee the extension of City water and sanitary sewer to serve the lots being platted. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for any additional guarantees or easements. A utility easement shall be provided for the sanitary sewer extension across Lot 2, Block 1. An off-site utility easement shall also be provided. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. An off-site drainage easement shall be submitted. A drainage guarantee is required. A Floodway Reserve shall be platted in Lot 2, Block 1, for stormwater detention in addition to accommodate drainage from the properties to the south. D. Provisions shall be made for ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves. The applicant shall either form a lot owners’ association prior to recording the plat or shall submit a covenant stating when the association will be formed, when the reserves will be deeded to the association and who is to own and maintain the reserves prior to the association taking over those responsibilities. E. For those reserves being platted for drainage purposes, the required covenant which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves shall grant, to the City, the authority to maintain the drainage reserves in the event the owner(s) fail to do so. The covenant shall provide for the cost of such maintenance to be charged back to the owner(s) by the governing body. F. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the extension of a proposed cul-de-sac, Sandwedge Circle, from another cul-de-sac. Due to identical 29-ft roadway widths, the street layout is acceptable. G. The township needs to be added to the surveyor’s certification. H. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the need for additional right-of-way for Kellogg Drive. No additional right-of-way is required. I. City Fire Department should comment on the acceptability of the width of Sandwedge Circle located north of Reserve A. The right-of-way width north of Reserve A shall be increased to 20 feet. The right-of-way width has been increased to 20 feet. J. City Fire Department should comment on the plat’s street names. Sandwedge Circle shall be the name of the new street. K. Lot 2, Block 2 does not conform with the 50 foot lot width requirement at the front property line. A building setback should be platted at a minimum of 50 feet measured from the side lot lines. City Fire Department has required a fire hydrant placed at the front of this lot. The building setback has been platted as requested. L. The Applicant shall guarantee the paving of the proposed interior streets in addition to Kellogg Drive. M. The 10-ft easement dimension on Lot 3, Block 1, needs corrected. N. City Fire Department should comment on the length of Sandwedge Circle (700 ft) which exceeds the 600 ft maximum for a cul-de-sac. City Fire has approved this street length with the addition of a second point of access. In the event the second point of access does not occur through Fawnwood, the northern segment of Fawnwood abutting this plat should be vacated. O. Since this plat proposes the platting of narrow street right-of-way with adjacent 15-foot street, drainage and utility easements, a restrictive covenant shall be submitted which calls out restrictions for lot owner use of these easements. Retaining walls and change of grade shall be prohibited within these easements as well as fences, earth berms and mass plantings. P. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. Q. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. R. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) S. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. T. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. U. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. V. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. W. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. X. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. Y. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. Z. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. ------------------------------------------------------------- 3/3. SUB 2000-13 - Final Plat of ALFIERI ACRES ADDITION, located on the east side of 143rd Street East, south of 79th Street South. A. Since neither municipal water nor sanitary sewer is available to serve this property, the applicant shall contact the Environmental Health Division of the Health Department to find out what tests may be necessary and what standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage facilities and water wells. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval. Health Department approval has been obtained. B. The site is currently served by a Rural Water District. The applicant shall contact this water district to determine the ability of this property being platted to connect to their water line and submit a letter from the water district to that effect. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. D. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. A dedicated Floodway Reserve is required along the south line of Lot 8. The drainage easements should be labeled as “Floodway Reserves”. The Applicant shall coordinate the modification or removal of terraces with NRCA. A revised drainage plan is needed. E. The final plat shall contain the standard floodway language in the plattor’s text. F. The centerline of 143rd St. East shall be denoted. G. County Fire Department needs to comment on the plat’s street names. The street names are acceptable. H. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. I. The Applicant shall guarantee the installation of the proposed interior streets to the suburban street standard. J. The south line of the contingent right-of-way dedication should be denoted with a dashed line. The east and west line of the contingent right-of-way dedication should be denoted with solid lines. K. The contingent right-of-way dedication shall be referenced in the plattor’s text. L. Lot 6 does not contain the required 200-ft lot width at the front property line. An increase in the distance of the building setback from the road is needed to meet the standard. M. The dimensions should only include two decimal places. N. A radius is required on the northeast corner of Lot 11 and the southeast corner of Lot 10. O. The outparcel should be included as part of the plat. The Subdivision Committee has approved a modification regarding lot size for this lot (4.34 acres). The Applicant shall submit a request for an Administrative Adjustment to the Zoning regulations for lot size. The Administrative Adjustment shall be approved before the plat is released for recording. P. The distances and degrees on the drawing need to coincide with those in the legal description. Q. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. R. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) S.. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. T. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. U. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. V. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. W. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. X. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. Y. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. Z. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. AA. The Subdivision Committee requests that utility easements be included within the area currently designated as drainage easements. -------------------------------------------------------------- 3/4. S/D 99-87 - Final Plat of SAWMILL CREEK ADDITION, located on the northeast corner of Rock Road and 45th street North. A. Since this property is adjacent to the City of Wichita, the Applicant shall request annexation into the City. Upon annexation, the property will be zoned SF-6, Single Family Residential and thereby permit the lot sizes being proposed. The final plat shall not be scheduled for City Council review until annexation has occurred. B. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for guarantees or easements. The applicant shall provide a guarantee for the extension of municipal water and sewer. A sewer layout is requested. An off-site sewer easement is needed. Utility easements shall be added to Lot 1, Block 8. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. D. City/County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. County Engineering requests a drainage plan for review. The minimum pad elevations need elevations. City Engineering has approved the drainage plan. A drainage guarantee is required. E. The plat has dedicated complete access control along perimeter streets with the exception of two openings for the commercial lot located at the southwestern corner of the plat, and one opening for the lot in the southeastern corner of the plat. In accordance with the Subdivision regulations, access points are limited to right turns only within 250 feet of the intersection and should be denoted on the face of the plat; or a guarantee provided for the future construction of a raised medial. F. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. G. City Fire Department needs to comment on the plat’s street names. The final plat tracing shall contain revised street names as required by City Fire Department. H. The right-of-way widths for perimeter streets shall be denoted. I. Provisions shall be made for ownership and maintenance of the proposed reserves. The applicant shall either form a lot owners’ association prior to recording the plat or shall submit a covenant stating when the association will be formed, when the reserves will be deeded to the association and who is to own and maintain the reserves prior to the association taking over those responsibilities. J. For those reserves being platted for drainage purposes, the required covenant which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves shall grant, to the City, the authority to maintain the drainage reserves in the event the owner(s) fail to do so. The covenant shall provide for the cost of such maintenance to be charged back to the owner(s) by the governing body. K. To improve access to Reserve C from the lots in the southern portion of the plat, it is requested that the Applicant plat access strips between lots. The final plat has included the requested access strips. L. Additional street stubs should be platted to the north or to the north and east for increased mobility when development occurs in these locations. The Applicant has included two street stubs to the east and one stub to the north. M. Traffic Engineering should comment on the need for improvements to perimeter streets. A guarantee shall be provided for decel lanes. N. The applicant shall guarantee the paving of the proposed interior streets. The paving guarantee shall provide for sidewalks on at least one side of all through, non-cul-de-sac streets. O. The benchmark elevations should be checked. P. Reserve B needs to be located. Q. Road rights-of-way near Reserve B, Reserve F, Reserve H, and Reserve I need to be dimensioned. R. Curve data at the west end of Saw Mill Road on the north side needs to be labeled. S. The utility and drainage easement labeled on Lot 9, Block 1, needs to be changed to 40 feet. T. The following items need to be labeled: easements on Lot 13, Block 7; Lot 27, Block 2; Lots 29-34, Block 7; road right-of-way on the northwest corner of the plat; curve data near Reserve H on the east and west sides of the road; property line information on Reserve G; point of intersection (P.I.) on Lot 14, Block 4 bearing southwesterly; P.I. on the northwest line of Lot 1, Block 8 bearing southwesterly; and widths of Access Control along Lot 1, Block 8 and Lot 52, Block 6. U. The following items need to be located: easement in Reserve C near Lot 16, Block 7; easement on Lot 38, Block 5; easement in Reserve C near Lot 38, Block 7; easement in Reserve E near Lots 38 and 39, Block 2; V. Reserve H needs to be dimensioned. W. The applicant shall submit a covenant which provides for four (4) off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit on each lot which abuts a 58-foot street. The covenant shall inventory the affected lots by lot and block number and shall state that the covenant runs with the land and is binding on future owners and assigns. X. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. Y. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) Z. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. AA. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. BB. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements [specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147] for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. CC. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. DD. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. EE. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. FF. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. Southwestern Bell and KGE have requested additional easements. GG. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in Release 13 version of AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3/5. SUB2000-36 - One-step final plat of LATIMER ADDITION, located west of Tyler Road, south of 87th Street South. A. Since neither municipal water nor sanitary sewer is available to serve this property, the applicant shall contact the Environmental Health Division of the Health Department to find out what tests may be necessary and what standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage facilities and water wells. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval. Standard soil testing is required. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. D. Access to the property is currently obtained by existing private street which also serves three other lots. The Subdivision regulations limit private streets to serving no more than three lots. However, in approving the Rooney’s First Addition – located to the south of this plat - the Subdivision Committee approved this street for five total lots. A private street agreement needs to be established by separate instrument which includes these two additional lots in addition to addressing maintenance responsibilities. E. The Applicant shall guarantee the installation of a 24-ft wide road to County standards extending from Rooney’s First Addition to this plat. F. A turnaround will need to be established for the private street. G. The 50-ft private street adjoining the plat shall be denoted. H. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. I. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. J. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) K. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. L. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. M. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements [specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147] for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. N. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. O. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. P. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. Q. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. R. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. ------------------------------------------------------------ 3/6. SUB2000-39 - One-step final plat of SCHRAFT 5TH ADDITION, located on the east side of Meridian, south of 34th Street South. A. Prior to this plat being heard by the MAPC, a zone change shall have been submitted and approved. This plat will be subject to approval of the associated zone change and any related conditions of such a zone change. B. Municipal services appear to be available to serve the site. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for any guarantees or easements. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. D. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. The plat will need to establish lowest floor elevation. E. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the need for access controls. The plat denotes two existing access openings along Meridian. Distances should be shown for all segments of access control. The final plat tracing shall reference the access controls in the plattor’s text. The Subdivision Committee approved access control except for two openings. The south opening shall be limited to right turns only. F. A guarantee is required for the closure of the street return along St. Clair. G. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. H. This property is within a zone identified by the City Engineers’ office as likely to have groundwater at some or all times within 10 feet of the ground surface elevation. Building with specially engineered foundations or with the lowest floor opening above groundwater is recommended, and owners seeking building permits on this property will be similarly advised. More detailed information on recorded groundwater elevations in the vicinity of this property is available in the City Engineers’ office. I. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. J. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) K. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. L. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. M. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. N. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. O. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. P. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. Q. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. R. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3/6. SUB2000-35 - One-Step final plat of ALLEN ESTATES ADDITION, located on the southwest corner of 117th Street North and Hydraulic. A. Since neither municipal water nor sanitary sewer is available to serve this property, the applicant shall contact the Environmental Health Division of the Health Department to find out what tests may be necessary and what standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage facilities and water wells. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval. Standard soil testing is required. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. A Floodway reserve needs to be platted within the north half of Lot 2 to follow the existing drainage pattern. A revised drainage plan is required. D. County Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat proposes 200 feet of complete access control from the intersection. MAPD recommends three joint openings. Three joint access easements shall be platted and established by separate instrument. E. The plat shall indicate the dedication of additional right-of-way. 75 feet of half street right-of-way is required within 250 feet from the intersection of the street centerlines, tapering to 50 feet of half street right-of-way at a distance of 350 feet. F. The plattor’s text shall specify that the contingent dedication of right-of-way will become effective upon the platting of an adjacent subdivision having a connecting street. G. The plat legend should reference “CM”. H. The right-of-way width denoted east of Lot 1 needs to be revised to “50’”. I. The southeast section corner needs labeled as “SE”. J. In accordance with the Zoning regulations, the building setback from County section line roads needs to be increased to 35 feet. K. Based upon the platting binder, property taxes are still outstanding. Before the plat is scheduled for County Commissioners consideration, proof shall be provided indicating that all applicable property taxes have been paid. L. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. M. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) N. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. O. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. P. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. Q. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. R. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. S. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. T. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. KGE has requested additional easements. U. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. V. County Fire Department has required 20-ft wide driveways. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3/8. DED2000-12 - DED 2000-12 -- Dedication of a Utility Easement from Dr. Ron Fiegel, O.D., and Dr. Michael Reno, D.D.S, for property generally located north of 21st Street north and east of Ridge Road. Dr. Ron Fiegel, O.D., and Dr. Michael Reno, D.D.S, 2020 W. 13th Street, Wichita, KS 67203 . LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Lot 5, Lake Ridge Commercial Second Addition. This Dedication is a requirement of Lot Split No. L/S 1034, and is being dedicated for construction and maintenance of public utilities. Planning Staff recommends that the Dedication be accepted. -------------------------------------------------------------- 3/9. DR 00-06 - Request for a Street Name Change from St. Francis to Greenway Circle. APPLICANT: Wichita/Sedgwick County Addressing Committee, 455 North Main Street, Wichita, KS 67202 LOCATION: St. Francis extending north of Wassall. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: St. Francis Avenue as platted in the Bell’s Replat of Part of Reserve A in Purcells Fourth Addition. REASON FOR REQUEST: Renaming of St. Francis due to separation from the northern segment of street. CURRENT ZONING: TF-3, Two-Family Residential NEIL STRAHL, Planning Staff “This is a Street name from St. Francis, located about half a mile north of 31st Street South. At last weeks’ Subdivision me