METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 24, 2001 The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was held on Thursday, May 24, 2001, at 1:30 p.m., in the Planning Department Conference Room, 10th floor, City Hall, 455 North Main, Wichita, Kansas. The following members were present: Jerry Michaelis, Acting Chair; James Barfield (late arrival); Elizabeth Bishop; Frank Garofalo; Bill Johnson; Richard Lopez; George Platt; Harold Warner; and Ray Warren. Dorman Blake; Kerry Coulter; Bud Hentzen; Ron Marnell; 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; Bill Longnecker, Senior Planner, Neil Strahl, Senior Planner; and Karen Wolf, Recording Secretary. 1. Update Transportation Improvement Program (TIP2000) - Presentation by Jamsheed Mehta, Transportation. JAMSHEED MEHTA, Planning staff "Good afternoon. This item is where you will wear your MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) hats. This is for the purpose of federally funded projects and other significant projects in a TIP. Unlike the last time, when we talked about the TIP, it lasted over two hours and we talked about one project, this one is a quick amendment to the last years' TIP. Everything that I have mentioned in the cover memo is what it is. Every project has its local funding already approved by the governing bodies. It had been in an application stage for the most part through the last year or so. It is important that these projects be in the official TIP for the use of federal funds so that some of these programs can get scheduled or funded. I could go over them, but I could also wait for any questions from you if you have some specific questions to any of these 21 or 22 projects." MICHAELIS "Are there any specific questions? Okay." MEHTA "I will need a motion so I can put it into the TIP." MOTION: That the 2000 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment be adopted. GAROFALO moved, JOHNSON seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (8-0). -------------------------------------------------------- 2. Approval of the MAPC minutes for April 5, 2001; April 12, 2001; and April 19, 2001. MICHAELIS "What I would like to do here is to just take a motion to approve all three sets of minutes and then if you have any corrections to them, make sure that you give them to the secretary." MOTION: That the minutes for April 5, 2001, April 12, 2001; and April 19, 2001 be approved as amended. WARREN moved, LOPEZ seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (8-0). ----------------------------------------------- 3. Consideration of Subdivision Committee Recommendations MICHAELIS "Are there any items that we need to pull for discussion?" STRAHL "Items 3/1 and 3/4." MICHAELIS "Okay. We can take a motion to approve the other items." Subdivision Items 3/2, 3/3, 3/5, 3/6 and 3/7 were approved subject to the subdivision recommendations. WARNER moved, JOHNSON seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (8-0). 3/2. SUB2001-22 - Final Plat of HEARTLAND CHURCH ADDITION, located at the southwest corner of Maple and 162nd Street West. A. Since sanitary sewer is unavailable 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. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval. The applicant proposes the use of holding tanks, until sanitary sewer is available. B. The site is currently served by Rural Water District No. 4. 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. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for petitions for future sanitary sewer services. A No Protest Petition for future sanitary sewer extension is requested, D. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. E. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan has been approved. F. Complete access control along Maple is required by County Engineering. County Fire has requested two openings along 162nd Street West. G. The applicant shall submit a guarantee for the paving of 162nd St. West to the church entrance. H. County Engineering needs to comment on the need for additional right-of-way. A 35-ft half-street right-of-way is required for 162nd St. West. The requested right-of-way has been platted. I. The applicant needs to revised the legal description to accurately portray the land being platted. J. County Surveying requests a better description for the benchmark. K. 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. L. 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.) M. 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. N. 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. O. 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. P. 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. Q. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. R. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. S. 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. T. 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. SUB2001-52 - One-Step Final Plat of STARWOODS FIRST ADDITION, located on the northeast corner of 79th Street South and Maize Road. 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. 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 designated. The plattor's text shall denote the creation of the floodway reserves in addition to including the standard floodway language. A flood study is required. An application to FEMA is needed for Letter of Map Amendment. A minimum pad elevation needs to be established. D. The benchmark needs a better description. E. County Engineering needs to comment on the need for access controls. The final plat tracing shall reference the access controls in the plattor's text. County Engineering has required access control except four openings on 79th St. South and 103rd St. West. 500 feet of complete access control is needed from the north line. One opening is permitted within the south 1,200 feet. F. The plat needs to indicate a contingent 50-ft half-street right-of-way on 103rd St. West and 79th St. South and reference the dedication in the plattor's text. G. The plat should dedicate additional right-of-way for a temporary turnaround along 79th St. South. The temporary turnaround shall be established by separate instrument. H. County Engineering has requested street dedication necessary for a major intersection right-of-way. I. The property line boundaries need to be indicated with a bold line. J. The location of the pipeline easement needs to be indicated. K. Railroad right-of-way needs to be indicated that is located within the southeastern portion of the plat. L. The applicant shall submit a copy of the instrument which establishes the pipeline easements on the property, which verifies that the easements shown are sufficient and that utilities may be located adjacent to and within the easements. M. The applicant's agent shall determine any setback requirements for the pipelines by researching the text of the pipeline agreements. If a setback from the pipeline easements is provided for in the pipeline easement agreements, it shall be indicated on the face of the plat. N. Based upon the platting binder, property taxes are still outstanding. Before the plat is scheduled for City Council consideration, proof shall be provided indicating that all applicable property taxes have been paid. O. 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. P. 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.) Q. 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. R. 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. S. 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. T. 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. U. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. V. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. W. 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. X. 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 3/5. DED2001-11 - Dedication of Access Control from R.P. and Sharon Lansdowne for property located on the southeast corner of Second Street and Tyler Road. OWNER/APPLICANT: R.P. and Sharon Lansdowne, 2516 E. Central, Wichita, KS 67214 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block 1, Lansdowne's Addition. PURPOSE OF DEDICATION: This Dedication is a requirement of Zoning Case No. ZON 2000-37, and being dedicated for access control, except for one opening, along Tyler Road.. Planning Staff recommends that the Dedication be accepted. ---------------------------------------------------- 3/6. DED2001-12 - Dedication of a 20-foot Utility Easement from the Huntington Corporation (Keith Anderson) for property located o the south side of West Central, west of Hoover. OWNER/APPLICANT: Huntington Corporation, C/O Keith Anderson, 1125 S. Rock Road, Wichita, KS 67207-3317 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The east 20 feet of the south 196.54 feet of Lot 1, Block A, J. Rogers Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. PURPOSE OF DEDICATION: This Dedication is a requirement of Lot Split No. SUB 2001-46, and is being dedicated for the construction and maintenance of public utilities. Planning Staff recommends that the Dedication be accepted. ------------------------------------------------ 3/7. DR2001-05 - Request for a street name assignment of Boston Heights to an alley located north of Harry, west of Broadway. OWNER/APPLICANT: City of Wichita Addressing Committee, C/O Mark Jenkins, Fire Department, 455 N. Main - 11th Floor, Wichita, KS 67202 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The alley platted in Boston Court Addition, adjacent to Lots 9-16 and adjacent to Lots 1-17 (Odd), Shirks Fourth Addition. REASON FOR REQUEST: Street name assignment of an alley. CURRENT ZONING: "MF-29" - Multi-Family District Note: The property owners of this alley have requested that the alley be named Boson Heights and officially recognized as such by the City. The Wichita-Sedgwick County Address Committee was created in 1994 to avoid and correct street naming and addressing problems that were being discovered as a result of increasing growth in the county and of using the new Geographic Information System (GIS) maps and databases. A meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Address Committee was held on March 13, 2001, and it was recommended to assigned the name of Boston Heights to this alley. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Item taken out of order: 3/1. SUB2000-123- One-Step final plat of HIGH POINT WEST ADDITION, located on the east side of 151st Street West, South of Maple. A. The applicant shall submit a petition for the extension of sanitary sewer. B. The applicant shall submit a petition for the extension of City water. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. D. A concept plan has been provided indicating a resubdivision of this plat in the future to urban-scale lots. The final plat contains a contingent street dedication along the common property line and special building setbacks in accordance with the concept plan. E. MAPD recommends that the contingent street dedication should be extended to the east property line for future connection to the adjoining unplatted property and increased to the standard 64 feet for through streets. The plattors text shall reference the contingent street dedication and indicate that it shall be effective upon the lot split or replatting of an adjoining lot. F The plat proposes two access openings along 151st St. West. Traffic Engineering and MAPD recommend a joint access easement for a shared opening. The access controls should be referenced in the plattor's text. G. The joint access opening shall be established by separate instrument. Initial construction responsibilities and future maintenance of the driveway within the easement should also be addressed by the text of the instrument. H. City Engineering has approved the drainage plan and has requested the platting of a drainage reserve for the existing pond. The reserve may be owned and maintained by the owner of Lot 2. An off-site drainage easement/agreement needs to be submitted. I. 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. J. The bench mark needs a better described location. K. The lot depth-to-width ratio exceeds 2.5 to 1 and a modification from the Subdivision Committee will be required. A modification has been approved. L. Due to the excessive lot depth, City Fire Department needs to comment on the need for a maximum building setback to accommodate fire prevention equipment. City Fire Department has required a 20-ft access drive if structure is located beyond 150 feet from the front property line. M. 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. N. The year "2000" should be revised to "2001". O. Traffic Engineering has required the dedication of an additional 20-ft of right-of-way for 151st St. West. This right-of-way needs to be denoted on the face of the plat and referenced in the plattor's text. P. City Engineering has required a No Protest Petition regarding the paving of 151st St. West. Q. The 10-ft KGE easement needs to be located. R. The Surveyor's Certificate needs corrected to represent the party responsible for the survey. S. The contingent street dedication needs length and curve data. T. The plattor's text needs corrected to reference "Lots and a Block". U. On the final plat tracing, the MAPC signature block needs to reference "J.D. Michaelis, Acting Chair". V. 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. W. 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.) X. 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. Y. 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. Z. 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. AA. 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. BB. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. CC. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. DD. 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. EE. 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. NEIL STRAHL, Planning staff "This is on the east side of 151st Street West, south of Maple. It is an unplatted site, located within the City, encompassing two lots, each containing three acres. The applicant has submitted a concept plan, identified here that indicates a re-subdivision of the plat in the future to urban scale lots. As you can see, this concept plan shows a cul-de-sac extending east from 151st Street. It provides access to 6 smaller lots that range in size from 26,000 to 35,000 square feet. As denoted on the final plat, the applicant has denoted a contingent dedication between both lots as such. There are also special setbacks along that contingent right-of-way. Front set-backs north and south of that contingent right-of-way. That is in conformance with the concept plan. However, the final plat consists of two lots as opposed to the five lots that is indicated in the concept plan. Platting to urban scale lots is a requirement in our current Subdivision Regulations, which has been reinforced by our Comprehensive Plan Committee. In this case, the Subdivision Committee recommended that the applicant should plat the lots as indicated on the concept plan, which would be the five total lots. A Restrictive Covenant would be provided, tying those lots together, as is specified in the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant is appealing that condition today. He desires only to plat those two lots. The applicant has explained to staff that he will be, however, extending sewer and water across the frontage of the site. The typical situation of the 'leap-frog effect' won't occur in this case, since the utilities will be available. The applicant has, as I said, platted the contingent right-of-way. The only thing the applicant really will not be doing is platting the special building set-backs between the new lots. So it is these six lots right here (indicating) which will require the side lot line set backs. The applicant is not platting those due to his uncertainty at this time where he wants to locate his dwellings. Staff is in support of this recommendation, mainly due to the extension of utilities. We need a discussion from the Planning Commission, since-as I explained, the Subdivision Committee last week required that the applicant plat these into six lots as opposed to two. That concludes staff's comments, are there any questions for staff?" MICHAELIS "Are there any questions?" PLATT "Neil, I am not sure what you are supporting." STRAHL "The current request is a two-lot plat with the contingent right-of-way with the set-backs from the contingent right-of-way." PLATT "Is that what you are supporting?" STRAHL "Yes." PLATT "You are changed positions from last week?" STRAHL "That is correct." PLATT "Okay. I just wanted to be sure." WARREN "Did you say they have changed their position since last week?" MICHAELIS "That is what he is saying." GAROFALO "They are supporting the applicant's request." MICHAELIS "Are there any further questions of staff? Thank you, Mr. Strahl. Could we hear from the applicant, please?" TIM AUSTIN "I am with Austin Miller. As Neil said, we have just met with them and I think we are in agreement with them. The only thing I might just clarify was on the two lots. The two lots will share the opening. We will just have one access point, which will be at the contingent street dedication. We do have the contingent street dedication across there. Maybe to rehash real quickly-the thought process was that if he is guaranteeing the utilities across his frontage as Neil said, you don't have that 'leap-frog' effect, which was always a concern that you are extending your utilities across property that is not helping pay for that cost. He is willing to pay for it. We have run the cost estimates and he understands what those special assessments will be and he is willing to pay for that cost. Also, in 'SF-6' zoning, there is no upper limit on lot sizes, so if you looked at it from that standpoint, there wouldn't be anything other than the lot width to depth ratio, which would be a concern. This is kind of a compromise position. I think, as Marvin has said, it still meets the intent of the plan that if it needs to be further subdivided, it will be able to be subdivided, but it does meet his ability to sell that into two lots and develop it." MICHAELIS "Are there any questions of the applicant?" WARREN "Is the primary reason, then, for not wanting to follow through on the concept plat was that he didn't know where he was wanting to put his house? Is that it?" Barfield arrived at the meeting at 1:42 p.m. AUSTIN "The guy that owns it-one of these lots is going to be his own residence and he did not want to further subdivide the land. He is still not sure where, on the property, he wants to put the house. He doesn't really want to put it off-you know, extend and guarantee streets across and down the middle. He would really rather be further back. He might be a little bit restricted. It also affects on how you position it. If you did the further lots and you wanted to position your house so the frontage would be back off of your main street, you would want your house to face west, but if you are on lots further to the east and the street was there and the normal density was there, you would probably would face your house to the north or the south. So, it affects it a little bit about how you set your house on the lot-on the property." WARREN "Tim, I think you are familiar with the recommendation that came to us two weeks ago from the committee that made this recommendation for further subdivision. What you had originally in the concept plan fit exactly with what we are talking about, and I think in the future we are going to be looking at that." AUSTIN "I don't know that that is necessarily true. It could be. I think the argument, as I have always understood it about not wanting to do large tract development was two-fold. One, we didn't want to have to drag utilities across frontage for which people weren't helping to pay for that cost, and he is willing to do that. The second thought process was that cost-especially on like an 80-acre section-if somebody had 80 acres, that that cost for the street improvements and the utilities would be such that if the owner wants those specials kicked in, wouldn't be able to afford that cost because it would be on probably a per acre basis. He wouldn't be able to afford that. In this case, we are dragging the utilities across that, he has looked at the numbers as far as the special assessments and believes that they are not going to be such a burden that he can't pay those as an individual. So it kind of negates that argument that we have used on the large tracts. That coupled with the fact that 'SF-6' zoning doesn't have an upper lot size limit." WARREN "Well, I think there is a third issue here and that is that we would be getting contingent dedications, at least, for streets and for utilities that we are not getting now." AUSTIN "That is true. You would get those." WARREN "That is a very important part of it." KROUT "And front and rear set-back lines, establishing what the pattern is going to be if there is future subdivision." AUSTIN "Right. I think we have been able to work out a position that we didn't have the benefit of a couple of weeks ago." WARREN "This is one Commissioner that is very much in agreement with that concept." MICHAELIS "Are there any further questions of the applicant? Thank you, Mr. Austin. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition? If not, I will bring it back to the Commission." MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the revision to the subdivision of Item 3/1, as requested by the applicant be accepted. PLATT moved, JOHNSON seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (8-0). -------------------------------------------------- 3/4. SUB2001-49 - One-step Final Plat of SPOTSWOOD ADDITION, located on the north side of MacArthur Road, West of Greenwich Road. STRAHL "This item has been requested to be deferred by the applicant. He was to have submitted a site layout to the Health Department regarding the location of the sewage lagoons on the sites. That has not been done, so he requested a two-week deferral to get that submitted." MICHAELIS "Okay. We will need a motion to that effect. Before we do that, is there anyone here in the audience wishing to speak on this item? Okay." MOTION: That the item be deferred for two weeks. GAROFALO moved, BISHOP seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (9-0). --------------------------------------------------------- JERRY MICHAELIS, Acting 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 and vacation 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. I would like to remind the members of the Planning Commission that our bylaws require you to disclose any ex-parte contacts that you may have had regarding any of the applications on today's agenda. So I would ask you to please remember to disclose the nature of any such contacts you have had before we open the hearing on each case, and what if any impact that information may have on your opinion of the request. ZONING: 4/1. VAC2001-00018 - Request to vacate two 16-foot utility easements and a 10-foot KG&E easement. OWNER/APPLICANT: Fugate Enterprises c/o J Larry Fugate AGENT: Austin Miller LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Two 16-ft utility easements established by instrument filed in Misc. Book 231, page 381, over the south 16-ft of Lots 25 & 26 and the south 16-ft of Lots 34 & 35, all in Block4, Quincy Addition. One 10-ft KG & E Urban Easement established by instrument filed in Misc. Book 532, page 569, over the north 10-ft of the south 22-ft of Lots 41 & 42, Block 4, Quincy Addition. LOCATION: Generally located northeast of the West Street - University intersection. REASON FOR REQUEST: The applicant proposes to redevelop the site. CURRENT ZONING: Subject property is zoned LI Limited Industrial. Properties to the north, south, east and west are zoned LI Limited Industrial. The applicant is requesting consideration to vacate two 16-ft utility easements and a 10-ft KG&E Easement. The applicant proposes to demolish existing development and redevelop the site. The redevelopment of this of property (a Taco Bell spanning Lots 26 & 25, a combination Blockbuster and retail spanning Lots 34 & 33 and Lots 42 & 41) will encroach on the three easements. The easements are not dedicated on the plat (The Quincy Addition, recorded 03-05 1887), but dedicated by separate instruments; the two 16-ft utility easements dedicated to the City of Wichita, 06-15-1951 and the 10-ft urban easement to KG&E, 01-21-1964. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Wichita Eagle of notice of this vacation proceeding one time May 3 2001, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above described utility easements and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of the easements described in the petition should be approved subject to the following conditions 1. Applicant shall dedicate 20-ft utility easement for existing sanitary sewer line located in vacated alley. 2. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 3. All improvements shall be according to City Standards SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Subdivision Committee recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall dedicate 20-ft utility easement for existing sanitary sewer line located in vacated alley. 2. Any relocation or reconstruction of utilities made necessary by this vacation shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 3. All improvements shall be according to City Standards. 4/2. VAC2001-00021 - Request to vacate complete access control. OWNER/APPLICANT: Bryan Lagaly Homes AGENT: PEC c/o Rob Hartman LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The west 38-ft of Lot 98, Block 2, the Courts II Addition. LOCATION: Generally located between Edgemoor Drive and Pembrook Circle REASON FOR REQUEST: The applicant proposes to connect Edgemoor Drive with Pembrook Circle. CURRENT ZONING: Subject property is zoned SF-6 Single Family Residential. Properties to the north, east and west are zoned SF-6 Single Family Residential. Property to the south is zoned SF-6 Single Family Residential and MF-29 Multifamily. The applicant is requesting consideration to vacate complete access control of the west 38-ft of the south side of Lot 98, Block 2, The Courts II Addition. The vacation would provide access to undeveloped Block 3 and an undeveloped section of Block 2, The Courts Addition II, with a proposed extension of Edgemoor Drive (Ex II), through Lot 98. Lot 98 is a vacant single-family lot. The vacation would allow Edgemoor to be extended north to the 24-platted lots in these two blocks. Block 3 and this undeveloped section of Blk 2 (to be referred to as Blk 2) are bordered on the east, west and north sides by drainage easements and undeveloped MF-29 Multi-family on the south. The properties to the north, east and west are developed single family residential. The applicant's request will provide the only access to Blks 2 & 3, as the proposed access will allow the applicant to avoid bridging Pembrook Circle across the drainage easement on the west, which is presently the platted access into Blks 2 & 3. Currently Pembrook Circle ends at the west side of the western drainage easement (Ex I, B) and Edgemoor ends (Ex I, A) at Lot 98. Per Plat(s), there is a 15-ft x 75-ft temporary street turnaround easement (Woodlawn Place Add, recorded 04-23-74, Ex III) where Edgemoor ends at Lot 98. The Plat (Ex III) shows that the temporary street turnaround easement will be void at the time Edgemoor Drive is extended to the north. There is a 20-ft (south end) to 12-ft (north end) emergency access easement (Ex I, D, per plat, The Courts II Add, approved WCC, 07-12-88) on the east side of the drainage easement, abutting Lot 98, into Blks 2 & 3. The proposed extension of Edgemoor will not affect access to the currently developed areas around Blocks 2 & 3, but merely allow access to Blocks 2 & 3. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Wichita Eagle of notice of this vacation proceeding one time May, 3 2001, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above described access control and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of complete access control described in the petition should be approved subject to the following conditions 1. Dedicate 32-ft right-of-way for extension of Edgemoor Dr through Lot 98, Block 2, The Courts II Addition, to Pembrook St. 2. Dedicate 15-ft utility - drainage easement on both sides of the 32-ft Edgemoor Dr right-of-way BILL LONGNECKER, Planning staff "The Subdivision Committee considered the request to vacate on these two items at their May 17 meeting and recommended approval with the conditions you have in your staff report. The conditions that you have with your staff report have not changed since the May 17 meeting. Do you have any questions for staff on these two items?" MICHAELIS "Are there any questions? Thank you. May we hear from the applicant, please?" ROGER BROOKS "I have a hand-out I would like to circulate to the Board. I am the architect for the proposed development, speaking on behalf of the applicant. What we are projecting on the screen here is the depiction of the existing condition, showing the existing Taco Bell here (indicating) and the existing Auto Service Shop here, and the old Higgins Rental location and building to the north. As you might note, due to street widenings in the past and the fact that this was developed early, probably before annexation to the City, the major street setbacks are not observed by two of the buildings and the proposed redevelopment will bring that situation into conformance. The present owner of the Taco Bell is the developer in this case, and they will be rebuilding essentially on the premises. This second exhibit indicates the proposed redevelopment. Taco Bell is in this location (indicating), a Blockbuster Video is anchor tenant to a retail building that sets back on the site. The location of the buildings is such that it really will enhance the open feeling along West Street that now, in certain areas, it seems very closed in and tight to the street. The existing easements that we are asking to be vacated are shown with the hatched lines, and as you can see, they do interfere with the new development, of course. We are able to serve the proposed buildings with city utilities without utilizing those existing easements. In fact, the easements have been in existence for some 40 to 50 years and there are no major lines in those easements. We have in process-in fact we have submitted a draft-an easement grant to the City for the existing sanitary sewer on the property, which currently has no easement at all. So we have got that process started. We worked out the utility arrangements with KG&E as far as electrical power. That would be two transformers on site here and here (indicating). Those easements and agreements are already in place with KG&E. (Indicating) This is an elevation of the proposed retail building and Taco Bell is similar, in fact the development will be coordinated where the same colors and materials will be used on both buildings. So I think it is a redevelopment proposal that will really enhance almost an entire block long area of West Street. And I might add, it is all privately funded. I would be glad to answer any questions if you have any." MICHAELIS "Are there any questions for Mr. Brooks?" GAROFALO "Are you going to re-plat this?" BROOKS "No, sir." GAROFALO "Doesn't it have to be?" KROUT "Well, it is sort of a judgment call on the part of the staff as to whether or not the issues that someone who is redeveloping the site becomes so complicated that it should really be replatted instead of just vacations. I wasn't involved in the discussion when we took in the case, but I guess the feeling was that because these are just three utility easements-and I assume the north/south alley is already vacated?" BROOKS "Yes, it is." KROUT "That it was simple enough that it could be handled through a vacation process." MICHAELIS "Are there any further questions?" LOPEZ "On the plat, aren't you supposed to indicate when there are utilities in the easements? I remember at the meeting that Southwestern Bell stated that they had a line in there, and then the sanitary sewage for 20 foot." BROOKS "There is an existing sanitary sewer in this area (indicating) with the end manhole here, and it is flowing to the south. I believe there was also an existing Southwestern Bell line in there, yes. We will be happy to work with Southwestern Bell in terms of the relocation of that line, but in order to satisfy the sewer easement situation, we have drafted and have on file now with the Water Department, an easement as shown here (indicated) for that sewer line." MICHAELIS "Okay. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak on this item in favor of? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to? If not, we will bring it back to the Commission." MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved, as recommended by the Subdivision Committee. PLATT moved, WARNER seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (9-0). LONGNECKER "I was under the impression that I had presented the two vacation items to be considered and approved by the Planning Commission at one time." MICHAELIS "How about if we do this-unless anybody has any questions on Item 4/2, VAC2001-00021 that we just take a motion on it?" LONGNECKER "The Subdivision Committee considered the request to vacate at their May 17 meeting, and they recommended approval with staff's recommended conditions. These conditions have not changed since the Subdivision Committee met." MICHAELIS "Okay. Is the applicant here wishing to speak on this item? Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition to? If not, we will bring it back to the Commission." MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved, subject to the Subdivision recommendations. JOHNSON moved, WARREN seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (9-0). ---------------------------------------------------------- 5a. Case No. CUP2000-00021- Kiser Properties, LLC, c/o John L. Kiser (Owner); Ritchie Associates, Inc. c/o Rob Ramseyer (Applicant), MKEC Engineering Consultants, Inc. c/o Greg Allison (Agent) request the creation of the Kiser West Community Unit Plan (DP-254); and 5b. Case No. ZON2000-00022 - Kiser Properties, LLC, c/o John L. Kiser (Owner); Ritchie Associates, Inc. c/o Rob Ramseyer (Applicant), MKEC Engineering Consultants, Inc., c/o Greg Allison (Agent) request zone change from "LC" Limited Commercial and "SF-20" Single-Family Residential to "LC" Limited Commercial, on property described as: CUP2000-00021 A tract of land lying in the Northeast Quarter, Section 16, Township 27 South, Range 2 East of the 6th Principal Meridian, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of the Northeast Quarter, Section 16, Township 27 South, Range 2 East, thence South along the East line of said Northeast Quarter on an assumed bearing of S01degrees 03'27"E, 50.00 feet; thence S88 degrees 53'55"W, 50.00 feet parallel with the North line of said Northeast Quarter to the point-of-beginning; thence S01 degrees 03'27"E, 2095.00 feet parallel with the East line of said Northeast Quarter; thence S88 degrees 53'55"W, 260.00 feet parallel with said North line; thence N01 degrees 03'27"W, 1834.80 feet; thence S88 degrees 53'55"W, 334.80 feet; thence N00 degrees 32'23"W, 260.01 feet to a point 50.00 feet South of said North line; thence N88 degrees 53'55"E, 592.45 feet to the point-of-beginning. ZON2000-00022 A tract of land lying in the Northeast Quarter, Section 16, Township 27 South, Range 2 East of the 6th Principal Meridian, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of the Northeast Quarter, Section 16, Township 27 South, Range 2 East, thence South along the East line of said Northeast Quarter on an assumed bearing of S01degrees 03'27"E, 50.00 feet; thence S88 degrees 53'55"W, 50.00 feet parallel with the North line of said Northeast Quarter to the point-of-beginning; thence S01 degrees 03'27"E, 2095.00 feet parallel with the East line of said Northeast Quarter; thence S88 degrees 53'55"W, 260.00 feet parallel with said North line; thence N01 degrees 03'27"W, 1834.80 feet; thence S88 degrees 53'55"W, 334.80 feet; thence N00 degrees 32'23"W, 260.01 feet to a point 50.00 feet South of said North line; thence N88 degrees 53'55"E, 592.45 feet to the point-of-beginning. Generally located at the southwest corner of 13th Street North and Greenwich Road. SCOTT KNEBEL, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. He reviewed the following staff report: BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting to create the Kiser West Community Unit Plan on a 13.71 acre unplatted tract located at the southwest corner of 13th Street North and Greenwich. The applicant is also requesting to rezone a portion the subject property from "SF-20" Single Family Residential to "LC" Limited Commercial. The remainder of the subject property is currently zoned "LC" Limited Commercial. The surrounding area is characterized by a three-square mile industrial complex for Raytheon to the north, south, and west and a developing suburban area with significant amounts of remaining undeveloped property for both residential and commercial use to the east. Undeveloped property east and northeast of the site across Greenwich has been approved for commercial development under the 59 acre Gateway Center CUP and the 20 acre Dillons 13th and Greenwich CUP. Undeveloped property zoned for residential development also is located east and northeast of the site. The nearest properties developed with residential uses are located in the Preston Trails subdivision that is located southeast of the site across Greenwich. Due to the subject property's close proximity to the runway at Raytheon, planning staff encouraged the applicant to work with Raytheon to limit their proposal's impact on the operations of the runway. Planning staff understands that the applicant has reached an agreement with Raytheon on the sale of land south and west of the subject property and that the land will be incorporated into Raytheon's industrial complex. This land sale limits the commercial development to a depth of 250 feet along 13th Street North and Greenwich, which limits the impacts of the proposal on the operations of Raytheon's runway. To further limit the impacts of the proposal on the operations of Raytheon's runway, planning staff recommends that residential development not be permitted on the site and that buildings be limited to 25 feet in height unless an Airport Hazard Zoning Permit for Area A is granted. As shown on the development plan (attached), the applicant proposes to divide the subject property into nine parcels. All parcels are proposed for "LC" Limited Commercial zoning and all uses permitted by-right in the "LC" district except correctional placement residences; group residences; group homes; halfway houses; and night clubs including adult entertainment, taverns, and drinking establishments. The proposed uses also include microbreweries when associated with an eating establishment; however, a microbrewery is first permitted in the "GC" General Commercial district and is not permitted in the "LC" district requested by the applicant. All parcels are proposed for a maximum 30% building coverage and a maximum 35% gross floor area ratio. The maximum building height proposed is 35 feet for all parcels. Landscaping is proposed per the City of Wichita landscape code. Signs are proposed to be monument type with a height not to exceed 20 feet. Sign square footage is proposed to be limited to 80 percent of street frontage with signs spaced at least 150 feet apart. Building setbacks of 35 feet on the front and 20 feet on the rear are proposed. Architectural control is proposed for all parcels. Access controls line up with the access points to the property across Greenwich to the east. No off-site traffic improvements are proposed. CASE HISTORY: The site is unplatted. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: "LC", "SF-20", & "GI" Undeveloped, Raytheon SOUTH: "SF-20" Raytheon EAST: "LC" & "SF-20" Undeveloped WEST: "SF-20" & "LI" Raytheon PUBLIC SERVICES: The site has access to 13th Street North, a four-lane arterial, and Greenwich, a two-lane arterial. Traffic volumes on 13th Street North are approximately 5,700 vehicles per day and are projected to increase to approximately 17,500 vehicles per day in the 2030 Transportation Plan. Traffic volumes on Greenwich are approximately 3,500 vehicles per day and are projected to increase to approximately 16,500 vehicles per day in the 2030 Transportation Plan. The estimated traffic volumes in the 2030 Transportation Plan do not include the impact of the 59 acre Gateway Center CUP, which is estimated to generate an additional 23,600 vehicles per day. As proposed, commercial development on the subject property would generate another 8,900 vehicles per day; therefore, planning staff is recommending access controls and traffic improvements to mitigate negative impacts on the through-traffic capacity of the adjoining arterial streets. The site is not currently served by public water or sewer service; however, public water and sewer are available to be extended to the site. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Wichita Land Use Guide in the 1999 Update to the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site is appropriate for "Industrial" development. The proposed commercial development is compatible with the "Industrial" designation in the Land Use Guide. The Commercial Locational Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that commercial uses be located adjacent to arterial streets; in compact clusters; and have site design features that limit noise, lighting, and other aspects of commercial activity that may adversely impact surrounding residential areas. The proposed commercial development conforms to the Commercial Locational Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information available prior to the public hearing, planning staff recommends the request be APPROVED subject to the following conditions: A. APPROVE the zone change (ZON2000-00022) to "LC" Limited Commercial subject to platting within one year. B. APPROVE the Community Unit Plan (DP-254: Kiser West CUP) subject to platting within one year and subject to the following conditions: 1. Microbreweries shall be removed from the list of permitted uses. 2. Service stations, convenience stores, drive-in/drive-through restaurants, and vehicle repair shall be prohibited on Parcels 7, 8, and 9. 3. Residential uses shall be prohibited on all parcels. 4. Buildings shall not exceed 25 feet in height unless an Airport Hazard Zoning Permit for Area A is granted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. All utilities shall be installed underground. 6. Off-site and portable signs shall not be permitted. 7. A plan for a pedestrian walk system to link proposed buildings with the entrances and sidewalks along 13th Street North and Greenwich shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. The shared access openings between Parcels 1 and 2, Parcels 2 and 3, and Parcels 6 and 7 shall be limited to right-in/right-out only. 9. Traffic improvements shall be guaranteed at the time of platting. The required traffic improvements are anticipated to be: an accel/decel lane along the entire 13th Street North and Greenwich frontage, a left turn lane at all openings not restricted to right-in/right-out only, and a portion of the cost of signalization at the major opening along Greenwich. 10. Prior to publishing the resolution establishing the zone change, the applicant shall record a document with the Register of Deeds indicating that this tract (referenced as DP-254: Kiser West CUP) includes special conditions for development on this property. 11. The applicant shall submit 4 revised copies of the C.U.P. to the Metropolitan Area Planning Department within 60 days after approval of this case by the Governing Body, or the request shall be considered denied and closed. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The subject property is surrounded on three sides by industrially-zoned property located within the three-square mile Raytheon industrial complex. The size and intensity of this industrial complex, including an airfield runway located immediately west of the subject property, dominates the existing character of the neighborhood. East of the subject property is undeveloped land approved for extensive commercial development. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The subject property is currently zoned "LC" Limited Commercial and "SF-20" Single-Family Residential. Due to the site's proximity to the Raytheon runway where aircraft accidents are most likely to occur and noise from the airfield will significantly impact adjacent uses, the site is not suitable for residential uses. The site is most suitable for commercial or industrial uses. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The recommended conditions of approval, including the limitation on the proposed uses, and the applicant's proposed signage restrictions, architectural control, and landscaping requirements should mitigate detrimental affects on surrounding properties. 4. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: The Wichita Land Use Guide in the 1999 Update to the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site is appropriate for "Industrial" development. The proposed commercial development is compatible with the "Industrial" designation in the Land Use Guide. The Commercial Locational Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that commercial uses be located adjacent to arterial streets; in compact clusters; and have site design features that limit noise, lighting, and other aspects of commercial activity that may adversely impact surrounding residential areas. The proposed commercial development conforms to the Commercial Locational Guidelines. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The proposed commercial development will increase the traffic on the two arterial streets which serve the site. However, the recommended access controls and traffic improvements should mitigate the negative impacts on the through-traffic capacity of the adjoining arterial streets. KNEBEL "The applicant is asking to create the Kiser West Community Unit Plan on nearly 14 acres at the southwest corner of 13th street and Greenwich. It actually has most of its frontage along Greenwich. The applicant is also requesting to rezone the portion of the property which is shown on the slide that is currently zoned 'SF-20' to 'LC' Limited Commercial. The largest neighbor to this particular property is the Raytheon Industrial complex, which is located in three directions from this site. The site is currently undeveloped. To the northeast is undeveloped property which has been approved for commercial development in a Dillon's CUP. To the east is a very large commercial tract which has been approved within the last couple of years, called the Gateway Center CUP. To the south is some undeveloped property on the west side of Greenwich, and then further south of that is some residential neighborhoods that have developed within the last 5 to 10 years. The applicant is proposing to divide the tract into 9 parcels. He is proposing that all 9 parcels be zoned Limited Commercial. One item of note-the applicant did include micro-breweries as a permitted use on these parcels-however did not request General Commercial zoning, which is the first zoning district in which that use is a permitted use. One of the conditions that I will go over later is to remove that particular use. I think the applicant may address that, but this particular hearing was not advertised to consider that particular zoning district, which is more intense than the Limited Commercial that was requested. So, it would not be able to be granted today without going through a new public notification and public hearing process. The conditions that the applicant proposes are relatively standard. There is not really anything in them that is unusual. They are very similar to the conditions that are on the Gateway Center CUP that is to the east of this particular property. I won't go through those point by point unless someone is interested. This particular site has access to two arterial streets, 13th Street North and Greenwich. Most of the frontage is along Greenwich. The Planning staff is recommending that access controls and traffic improvements be determined through the platting process in order to mitigate any impacts that this proposal would have on the through traffic capacity of those arterial streets. The site does not currently have public water and sewer service; however it could be extended to the site. We are recommending that guarantees for that be handled through the platting process. This particular property is identified as appropriate for industrial use in the Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan. The commercial uses that are requested by the applicant are actually less intense than the industrial designation in the Land Use Guide. We also feel that the nature of the request and the design requirements that the applicant has proposed for the CUP caused this particular request to meet with the commercial locational guidelines in terms of compatibility with neighboring properties that are used for residential or other less intense uses. The Planning staff is recommending that this request be approved. We are recommending approval of the zoning, subject to platting as well as the Community Unit Plan subject to platting within 1 year. We are recommending a number of conditions, which are listed on Page 4. I will go through those and try to explain them. The first one is the removal of the microbreweries, which I explained previously--since the zoning district will not be in place to support that particular use. We are recommending that the southernmost three parcels, which are immediately across the street from residential property, those uses that are less compatible with the residential properties in terms of the amount of traffic and noise and trash, etc., that they tend to generate be restricted from those three parcels on the south end. Those being service stations, convenience stores, drive-in or drive-through restaurants and vehicle repair. We are recommending that residential uses not be permitted on any of these parcels. That is due to the close proximity to the airfield runway, which you can see on the aerial. We don't think that residential uses is a wise land use in that particular location, so we are recommending that it not be permitted. It is also given the site size and the orientation of all of the lots-really is probably not a very viable use given the size and orientation of those lots either. The property is within what is termed 'Area A' of the Airport Hazard Zoning permit map, which requires that buildings over 25 feet in height receive a zoning permit exemption. We are recommending that that condition be placed in the CUP. It is going to be a requirement anyway, but we are recommending that we put it in the CUP language so that it is known up front to anybody who might purchase one of these properties and develop it in the future. We are recommending that all utilities be installed under ground and that no off-site or portable signs be permitted. We are recommending that a plan for a pedestrian walk be approved prior to the issuance of building permits. As far as the access controls, we are recommending that those access controls very near the intersection (indicating) in these locations here be right in/right out only and then to line up with the access to the Gateway Center, if you will look at the drawing, the access between Parcels 6 and 7 lines up with the right-in/right-out only access on the east side of Greenwich. It really doesn't make any sense to us to have right-in/right-out on the east side but not on the west side. So we are recommending that for the west side as well and we are recommending that the traffic improvements be guaranteed at the time of platting. We have made a list of what those might be, subject to change, based on the additional review at that time. These are based on the findings on Page 5 of your staff report, and I can answer your questions." MICHAELIS "Are there any questions of staff?" GAROFALO "I just want to make this clear in my mind on the accesses. Will you repeat what you said about the right-in/right-out on all of the accesses." KNEBEL "On the access between Parcels 1 and 2 and Parcels 2 and 3, we are recommending it, due to the close proximity to the intersection. On Parcels 6 and 7, it lines up exactly with an access to the tract on the east. That access to the tract on the east is right-in/right-out only, and it really defeats the purpose to have the west side of the street be full movement and the east side be right-in/right-out only." MICHAELIS "Are there any other questions of staff? Thank you, Mr. Knebel. Applicant please." GREG ALLISON "I am with MKEC, here representing the applicant. We are in general agreement with all of the staff comments. We have talked with staff and worked through several items, and also with the adjacent landowners. I felt that we came up with a pretty good plan. I just wanted to point out a couple of items in the staff comments. I think Scott clarified them pretty well. On the traffic improvements, we do want to make sure that those items are defined at platting time and not necessarily at the zoning time, which we feel will happen. Also, we did discuss a micro-brewery situation. We really want to be able to use that in a situation where you have a restaurant, not necessarily a micro-brewery where it is just producing the beer. I am not sure if that is something that ought to be addressed in the future with zoning regs, but that is a different subject. Dale helped us a little bit on that, talking with OCI. They feel that we probably need to come in for a zone request based on the way the regs are written now, but the only sense we wanted to use that for was in the sense of a restaurant. Other than that, I feel like we worked through a lot of issues on this for several months and we would be happy to get your approval today." MICHAELIS "Are there any questions of the applicant?" WARREN "I understand that you are in agreement with all of their conditions except for No. 1, which you kind of question?" ALLISON "Right. I'm not sure that we can really work through that today." WARREN "Except if it becomes part of the CUP, you would have to come back and amend it later. I guess that is what they are recommending." ALLISON "Right. They are recommending removing microbreweries…" WARREN "Oh, be removed." ALLISON "Yeah, based on conversations with Scott and Dale and their conversations with OCI, I don't think there is any way we can get around that. But it is kind of unfortunate because I think the intent of what we want to do is just to use it in a restaurant situation." WARREN "Let me clarify microbrewery. We have one in Old Town. Is that what we are talking about?" ALLISON "Right. Like the River City Brewery." WARREN "I don't know that I object to that. Generally speaking, that is going to be a part of the restaurant, a kind of feature of the restaurant. I would be all for eliminating that requirement, I think." PLATT "We can't." WARREN "We can't…in a CUP?" KROUT "No. The Zoning Code lists that as a specific use and says that use is first permitted in the General Commercial district. So you would have to deal with that issue by amending the Zoning Code." WARREN "But he doesn't have to have a CUP then. In case we move allow it later, he wouldn't have to amend his CUP." KROUT "If you change the Code in the future to allow it as a permitted use, it would either be permitted or adjusted to be permitted, depending on how you wrote this without his having to amend the CUP." MICHAELIS "Are there any further questions of the applicant? Thank you, Mr. Allison. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak on this item in favor of? Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition to? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission." MOTION: Having considered the factors as contained in Policy Statement No. 10; taking into consideration the staff findings (The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The subject property is surrounded on three sides by industrially-zoned property located within the three-square mile Raytheon industrial complex. The size and intensity of this industrial complex, including an airfield runway located immediately west of the subject property, dominates the existing character of the neighborhood. East of the subject property is undeveloped land approved for extensive commercial development. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The subject property is currently zoned "LC" Limited Commercial and "SF-20" Single-Family Residential. Due to the site's proximity to the Raytheon runway where aircraft accidents are most likely to occur and noise from the airfield will significantly impact adjacent uses, the site is not suitable for residential uses. The site is most suitable for commercial or industrial uses. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The recommended conditions of approval, including the limitation on the proposed uses, and the applicant's proposed signage restrictions, architectural control, and landscaping requirements should mitigate detrimental affects on surrounding properties. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: The Wichita Land Use Guide in the 1999 Update to the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site is appropriate for "Industrial" development. The proposed commercial development is compatible with the "Industrial" designation in the Land Use Guide. The Commercial Locational Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that commercial uses be located adjacent to arterial streets; in compact clusters; and have site design features that limit noise, lighting, and other aspects of commercial activity that may adversely impact surrounding residential areas. The proposed commercial development conforms to the Commercial Locational Guidelines. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The proposed commercial development will increase the traffic on the two arterial streets which serve the site. However, the recommended access controls and traffic improvements should mitigate the negative impacts on the through-traffic capacity of the adjoining arterial streets.) I move that we recommend to the governing body that the request be approved, subject to the following: APPROVED subject to the following conditions: C. APPROVE the zone change (ZON2000-00022) to "LC" Limited Commercial subject to platting within one year. D. APPROVE the Community Unit Plan (DP-254: Kiser West CUP) subject to platting within one year and subject to the following conditions: 1. Microbreweries shall be removed from the list of permitted uses. 2. Service stations, convenience stores, drive-in/drive-through restaurants, and vehicle repair shall be prohibited on Parcels 7, 8, and 9. 3. Residential uses shall be prohibited on all parcels. 4. Buildings shall not exceed 25 feet in height unless an Airport Hazard Zoning Permit for Area A is granted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. All utilities shall be installed underground. 6. Off-site and portable signs shall not be permitted. 7. A plan for a pedestrian walk system to link proposed buildings with the entrances and sidewalks along 13th Street North and Greenwich shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. The shared access openings between Parcels 1 and 2, Parcels 2 and 3, and Parcels 6 and 7 shall be limited to right-in/right-out only. 9. Traffic improvements shall be guaranteed at the time of platting. The required traffic improvements are anticipated to be: an accel/decel lane along the entire 13th Street North and Greenwich frontage, a left turn lane at all openings not restricted to right-in/right-out only, and a portion of the cost of signalization at the major opening along Greenwich. 10. Prior to publishing the resolution establishing the zone change, the applicant shall record a document with the Register of Deeds indicating that this tract (referenced as DP-254: Kiser West CUP) includes special conditions for development on this property. 11. The applicant shall submit 4 revised copies of the C.U.P. to the Metropolitan Area Planning Department within 60 days after approval of this case by the Governing Body, or the request shall be considered denied and closed. LOPEZ moved, GAROFALO seconded the motion. BISHOP "I have a question. I would like some clarification as to microbrewery or restaurant. It says in the condition that microbreweries would be removed from the list of permitted uses. That mean that a restaurant would be permitted, just not a microbrewery?" KROUT "Yes." BISHOP "Okay." VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried unanimously (9-0). --------------------------------------------------------------- 6. CUP001-00017 DP-222 Reed Commercial CUP - 21/127 L.C. (Ritchie Associates, owner/applicant) c/o Greg Allison request to amend the Reed Commercial Community Unit Plan to increase the overall size of the CUP and increase pad sizes. MICHAELIS "The applicant has requested the deferral of this item. We will need a motion." MOTION: That the agenda item be deferred for 2 weeks. JOHNSON moved, WARNER seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (9-0). ---------------------------------------------------- 7. CON2001-00029 - Tim and Grace Simon (Owner/Applicant) request a Conditional Use to allow a Riding Academy or stable on property described as: That part of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 20, Township 26 South, Range 3 West of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas described as: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Southwest Quarter; thence South 90 degrees West, along the South line of said Southwest Quarter, 1289 feet for a place of beginning; thence North 00 degrees 44'08" West, 509 feet; thence North 29 degrees 34'21" East, 764 feet; thence North 30 degrees 51'43" East, 354 feet; thence North 30 degrees 00'44" East, 383 feet; thence North 45 degrees 05'12" East, 59 feet; thence North 28 degrees 50'21" East, 182 feet; thence North 31 degrees 59'27" East, 275 feet; thence North 53 degrees 48'55" East, 96 feet; thence North 81 degrees 08'06" East, 165 feet to a point in the East line of said Southwest Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 44'40" West, along the East line of said Southwest Quarter, 326.54 feet to the Northeast corner of the Southwest Quarter; thence 89 degrees 59'57" West, along the North line of said Southwest Quarter, 1319.12 feet to the Northwest corner of the East Half of said Southwest Quarter; thence S 00 degrees 44'08" East along the West line of the East Half of said Southwest Quarter, 2652.55 feet to the Southwest Quarter corner of the East Half of said Southwest Quarter; thence North 90 degrees East along the South line of said Southwest Quarter, 30.54 feet to the place of beginning. Generally located north of 45th street North and east of 295th Street West. DALE MILLER, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. He reviewed the following staff report: BACKGROUND: The application area is a 34.11 acre un-platted tract that is located north of 45th Street North and approximately ¼ mile east of a 295th Street West. The property is triangular shaped with a creek forming the eastern property line. The creek is heavily treed. There is also a significant tree row and pond along the north property line. The applicants have also planted an estimated 30-foot wide tree row along the west property line. Access to the site is via a private drive off of 45th Street North. The property is currently developed with a residence, stable and corrals. The applicants propose to develop a 200-foot by 50-foot horse barn, an outdoor arena (200 feet by 100 feet) and a practice track. These facilities are to be located south of the applicant's current residence and corrals. Parking is shown to the north and west of the proposed barn and arena. The site plan also depicts restroom facilities. No bleachers or permanent seating are shown, nor is any outside lighting depicted. (The applicant will need to contact appropriate agencies - e.g. City-County Health, County Code Enforcement, etc. - to ascertain minimum development standards regarding number of parking spaces, type of parking surface, restroom and building standards, etc.) Access to the site is via 45th Street which is a two-lane sand and gravel township maintained road. The private driveway connects to 45th Street just west of a bridge and just east of a neighbor's home. All adjoining land is zoned "RR" Rural Residential and is used for crop production. There are scattered large lot residence and farmsteads in the area. The closest home to the proposed barn and arena is approximately 700 to 1000 feet away. A neighbor's home is located near the drive to the application area and will be aware of any increase in traffic levels. CASE HISTORY: None ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: "RR" Rural Residential; pond and cropland SOUTH: "RR" Rural Residential; cropland and residences EAST: "RR" Rural Residential; creek, crop land WEST: "RR" Rural Residential; crop land PUBLIC SERVICES: 295th Street West is a paved two-lane county highway. 45th Street North is a two-lane sand and gravel Sherman Township maintained road. No public sewer or water services are available. The applicant utilizes a lagoon for the current residence. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The "Sedgwick County Development Guide" map depicts this site as appropriate for "rural" uses. The "rural" category denotes land that is located beyond the 2030 urban service boundary for Wichita and is also beyond the growth areas for any of the smaller communities located within Sedgwick County. The rural designation is intended to accommodate agricultural uses, rural based uses that are no more offensive than normal agricultural uses, and large lot residential subdivisions with provision for future water and sewer services. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon information available prior to the public hearings, planning staff recommends that the request be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: A. The site shall be developed and maintained in general conformance with the approved site plan. Construction of facilities approved by this Conditional Use permit shall be begin within one year of the approval of this request or the Conditional Use shall become null and void. In addition to those uses permitted in the "RR" Rural Residential district, the site shall be limited to the following uses: boarding and breeding of horses and training of horses and riders. B. All applicable permits and licenses shall be obtained prior to accepting horses not owned by the applicant or holding any events for the general public (e.g. on-site sewage and water wells, building permits, zoning and animal waste handling and disposal). C. Animal wastes from areas where the animals have been confined shall be gathered as needed and as weather permits to prevent flies and odor. The gathered waste shall be disposed of in a manner acceptable to the Wichita-Sedgwick County Health Department. D. The horse stable facility shall be maintained free of rodent harborage, including but not limited to improperly stored materials, enclosed partition walls and wooden floors closer than 12 inches to the ground. Grain or protein feed shall be stored in tightly covered rodent-proof metal container or rodent-proof bins. Use shall be made of rodenticide and insecticides for control of rodents and flies. The horse stable shall be cleaned at least once each week, or more often if necessary, to prevent or control odors, fly breeding and rodent infestation. E. Weeds and grass around the stable and corral areas shall be controlled and kept at a height that they do not provide a fire hazard or harbor vectors such as mosquitoes or vermin. F. The horse stable and any associated board fences or wooden horse shelters shall be protected from deterioration by an appropriate water proofing method. The stable building, fences and shelters shall be constructed of dimensioned building materials. G. The maximum number of horses to be boarded at any one time is 50, plus any foals which may be stabled with the mare for a period of one year, at which point they would be stabled separately and count toward the specified limit of 50 horses. The limit of 50 horses includes the applicant's horses. In addition to the 50 horses that may be boarded on-site, an additional 50 horses may be permitted for equestrian events. Additional non-boarded horses may be permitted for equestrian events so long as the total number of horses on-site at any one time does not exceed 100. H. All equestrian facilities associated with the applicant's ownership shall be used by the applicant, the applicant's customers and the guests of these users. I. The buildings and structures associated with the horse stable shall be open to unannounced inspection by Sedgwick County Department of Code Enforcement and Health Department personnel during reasonable hours to insure continued compliance with the requirements of this Conditional Use. J. All outdoor arena related activities shall cease by 11:00 P.M., and any arena related outdoor lighting shall be turned off by 11:30 P.M. Outdoor arena activities shall not begin before sunrise. K. The number of non-resident employees shall not exceed five persons. L. No public address systems can be employed in a manner that permits the sound to be heard beyond the applicant's property boundaries. M. Any violation of the conditions of approval of this Conditional Use shall declare the Conditional Use permit null and void. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood. All surrounding land is zoned "RR" Rural Residential. There are scattered large lot residences and farmstead located in the general area. The character of the area is agricultural with crop production as the predominant land use. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted. The site is zoned "RR" Rural Residential which permits agricultural pursuits as well as large-lot residential uses. The site is well screened to the north and east. Additional screening has been planted along the west. Riding academy and stables are permitted by Conditional Use permit in the "RR" district. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Approval will introduce a more intense use than crop production and residential uses, however the site is well screened and has adequate distance from existing residences to minimize detrimental impacts. Also, the conditions placed on the development by the Conditional Use and various code requirements further minimize negative impacts. 4. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan: The "Sedgwick County Development Guide" map depicts this site as appropriate for "rural" uses. The rural designation is intended to accommodate agricultural uses, rural based uses that are no more offensive than normal agricultural uses, and large lot residential subdivisions with provision for future water and sewer services. Equestrian activities are appropriate for rural areas and would be consistent with the Plan's recommendations 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: Traffic will increase along 45th Street. MILLER "This item is a request for a Conditional Use to permit a Riding Academy, stables and a riding area. The application area is located north of 45th Street North and just east about a quarter of a mile from 295th Street West. Andale is about 2 miles to the northeast. This is a triangular shaped tract. They have approximately 34 acres of ground. There is a creek that winds its way along the southern boundary and it has quite a bit of natural tree cover. There is a pond area that forms part of their northern boundary and there are quite a few trees along there as well. The applicants have also planted a tree row. The plot plan is in your staff report as an attachment so that you can kind of get an idea of the dimensions. The site plan is also attached and as you can see, the access would be off of 45th Street. There is currently an existing drive that comes back and circles around. Their existing home and personal barn and corrals are back in this area (indicating) and an existing lagoon. The closest house is just to the south along the hedgerow on their west property line, and there is a house across the street to the south and a little bit west from the other house. What they are proposing over time is to add stables for horses that would not be theirs, a riding arena area and then a practice track. They plowed up a portion of the area where the arena would be. Most of the property is either used for agricultural use or some of the large-lot homes. Forty-Fifth Street is a two-lane sand and gravel township maintained road. The township was sent notice of this and we have not received any information from them indicating that they have any concerns so far. Staff is supportive of the request and recommends approval, subject to the conditions found on Pages 3 and 4. We did go out to Andale last Thursday night and the Andale Planning Commission recommended approval unanimously and no one showed up to speak in opposition. I would be happy to answer any questions." PLATT "In similar situations, Dale, have we ever put any restrictions on the number of times a year the events could be held in an outdoor arena like that?" MILLER "I think we might have in some early on, possibly. I used two or three of the older ones to model this one off of and I don't remember seeing that, but it is possible that we did." MICHAELIS "Are there any further questions? Thank you, Mr. Miller. May we hear from the applicant, please?" TIM SIMON "Hi, there. I am the owner of this property. Like he said, it used to be an outdoor arena and maybe later on in the year, or maybe in a year from now, we would like to put in an indoor arena for pretty much all-year-round horse events. It is quiet out there, there are plenty of trees around the area. The neighbors we talked to really didn't have a problem with it. They felt that the public needs it for school kids. We have Andale, Colwich, Garden Plain, and St. Joseph kids that are willing to come to these events and maybe a saddle club for the schools. We just wish to have your approval." MICHAELIS "So you are in agreement with all staff comments?" SIMON "Uh huh." MICHAELIS "Are there any questions?" GAROFALO "Sir, on Item J, on Page 4, could you explain for us, do you have to have any of these operations going that late? I think 11:00 and 11:30 is late." SIMON "We are hoping not to go that late, more like 9:30 or 10:00." GAROFALO "Is there a reason why you would have to?" SIMON "Only if it was a rodeo, and we are not really planning on having rodeos. It would be more of a horse show. Most of those are during the day events and they usually are over by 6:00 or 7:00 o'clock." GAROFALO "That is the only thing in the whole list of things that kind of bothers me a little bit is having something to 11:00 or 11:30 at night. I don't know anything about running horseshows or anything, but it just seems pretty late to me." SIMON "Rodeos usually go to 10:00 or 11:00 o'clock." BARFIELD "On Item K, it says 'the number of non-resident employees should not exceed five'. Are you comfortable with that?" SIMON "I think so. My wife and I are going to do it for now, and maybe some of our kids, but if we have anything to do like cleaning stalls or something like that, we can handle it ourselves, we hope." MICHAELIS "Are there any further questions? Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak in favor of this item? Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition to? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission." MOTION: Having considered the factors as contained in Policy Statement No. 10; taking into consideration the staff findings (The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood. All surrounding land is zoned "RR" Rural Residential. There are scattered large lot residences and farmstead located in the general area. The character of the area is agricultural with crop production as the predominant land use. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted. The site is zoned "RR" Rural Residential which permits agricultural pursuits as well as large-lot residential uses. The site is well screened to the north and east. Additional screening has been planted along the west. Riding academy and stables are permitted by Conditional Use permit in the "RR" district. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Approval will introduce a more intense use than crop production and residential uses, however the site is well screened and has adequate distance from existing residences to minimize detrimental impacts. Also, the conditions placed on the development by the Conditional Use and various code requirements further minimize negative impacts. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan: The "Sedgwick County Development Guide" map depicts this site as appropriate for "rural" uses. The rural designation is intended to accommodate agricultural uses, rural based uses that are no more offensive than normal agricultural uses, and large lot residential subdivisions with provision for future water and sewer services. Equestrian activities are appropriate for rural areas and would be consistent with the Plan's recommendations. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: Traffic will increase along 45th Street.) I move that we recommend to the governing body that the request be approved, subject to the following: A. The site shall be developed and maintained in general conformance with the approved site plan. Construction of facilities approved by this Conditional Use permit shall be begin within one year of the approval of this request or the Conditional Use shall become null and void. In addition to those uses permitted in the "RR" Rural Residential district, the site shall be limited to the following uses: boarding and breeding of horses and training of horses and riders. B. All applicable permits and licenses shall be obtained prior to accepting horses not owned by the applicant or holding any events for the general public (e.g. on-site sewage and water wells, building permits, zoning and animal waste handling and disposal). C. Animal wastes from areas where the animals have been confined shall be gathered as needed and as weather permits to prevent flies and odor. The gathered waste shall be disposed of in a manner acceptable to the Wichita-Sedgwick County Health Department. D. The horse stable facility shall be maintained free of rodent harborage, including but not limited to improperly stored materials, enclosed partition walls and wooden floors closer than 12 inches to the ground. Grain or protein feed shall be stored in tightly covered rodent-proof metal container or rodent-proof bins. Use shall be made of rodenticide and insecticides for control of rodents and flies. The horse stable shall be cleaned at least once each week, or more often if necessary, to prevent or control odors, fly breeding and rodent infestation. E. Weeds and grass around the stable and corral areas shall be controlled and kept at a height that they do not provide a fire hazard or harbor vectors such as mosquitoes or vermin. F. The horse stable and any associated board fences or wooden horse shelters shall be protected from deterioration by an appropriate water proofing method. The stable building, fences and shelters shall be constructed of dimensioned building materials. G. The maximum number of horses to be boarded at any one time is 50, plus any foals which may be stabled with the mare for a period of one year, at which point they would be stabled separately and count toward the specified limit of 50 horses. The limit of 50 horses includes the applicant's horses. In addition to the 50 horses that may be boarded on-site, an additional 50 horses may be permitted for equestrian events. Additional non-boarded horses may be permitted for equestrian events so long as the total number of horses on-site at any one time does not exceed 100. H. All equestrian facilities associated with the applicant's ownership shall be used by the applicant, the applicant's customers and the guests of these users. I. The buildings and structures associated with the horse stable shall be open to unannounced inspection by Sedgwick County Department of Code Enforcement and Health Department personnel during reasonable hours to insure continued compliance with the requirements of this Conditional Use. J. All outdoor arena related activities shall cease by 11:00 P.M., and any arena related outdoor lighting shall be turned off by 11:30 P.M. Outdoor arena activities shall not begin before sunrise. K. The number of non-resident employees shall not exceed five persons. L. No public address systems can be employed in a manner that permits the sound to be heard beyond the applicant's property boundaries. M. Any violation of the conditions of approval of this Conditional Use shall declare the Conditional Use permit null and void. BARFIELD moved, WARREN seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (9-0). ----------------------------------------------------------------- 8. CON2001-00027 - Verizon Wireless/Steve and Wanda Molina request a Conditional Use for a wireless communication facility on property zoned "RR" Rural Residential, described as: Lease description A tract of land located in the southeast quarter of section 22, township 28 south, range 2 west, Sedgwick County, Kansas, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said southeast quarter; thence south 88 degrees 57 feet 12 inches west along the south line of said southeast quarter a distance of 180.07 feet; thence north 01 degrees 02 feet 48 inches west perpendicular to said south line a distance of 142.59 to the point of beginning; thence south 88 degrees 57 feet 12 inches west a distance of 75.00 feet; thence north 01 degrees 02 feet 48 inches west a distance of 75.00 feet; thence north 88 degrees 57 feet 12 inches east a distance of 75.00 feet; thence south 01 degrees 02 feet 48 inches east a distance of 75.00 to the point of beginning. Contains 5,625 square feet or 0.129 acres, more or less. Generally located northwest of the S 55th W 151st Intersection. BILL LONGNECKER, Planning staff, pointed land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. He reviewed the following staff report: BACKGROUND: The applicant, Verizon Wireless LLC, is requesting consideration for a Conditional Use to allow a 150-ft wireless monopole on property zoned "RR" Rural Residential. Wireless Communication Facilities over 65-ft in the "RR" Rural Residential zoning may be permitted with a Conditional Use. The site (5,625 sq-ft, 75-ft x 75-ft) is not platted. The site is located approximately 165-ft west of the W 151st and 95-ft north of S 55th and approximately 1/3 of a mile south of K-42. The applicant has submitted a site plan showing the proposed use of the subject property. The site plan shows a 75-ft x 75-ft compound with a 6-ft chain link fence (topped with three strands of barbed wired) around it. Inside the fenced compound the 150-ft high tower sits in the middle flanked by an (11-ft, 5-in x 30-ft) equipment shelter. The site plan also shows the location of up to five (12-ft x 20-ft) future carrier equipment shelters. The compound has a proposed 6-inch deep all weather surface on the ground (extending 1-ft around the outside the compound), with the same being used for the drive and parking area. No landscaping is shown on the site plan. There are no existing trees or bushes on the site. The applicant indicates (see attached memo) that the proposed wireless communication facility is needed for Verizon Wireless to provide coverage towards Clearwater along Kansas State Highway 42 and S 135th St W. The same memo indicates that the applicant had unsuccessfully attempted to co-locate on the Southern Kansas Telephone's (SKT) tower, located at the southeast corner of S 63rd St - W 135th St intersection, approximately one mile from the proposed site. Staff is in the process of verifying this contact. The SKT tower was built in 1985. The subject property is located in the vicinity of Mid-Continent Airport; therefore, planning staff contacted airport staff to receive their input on the proposed tower. The airport staff has indicated that a form 7460-1 must be filed. Staff will not be certain of any negative impacts on the operations of Mid-Continent until the FAA has reviewed the location of the requested monopole. Therefore, the airport staff requested to review the FAA's decision regarding this monopole prior to the issuance of a building permit so that the airport staff may ask the FAA modify their decision if the airport staff feels the FAA has reached their decision in error. The site and the surrounding area are rural, with most of the property in the surrounding vicinity being used for agriculture. The site and the surrounding properties are all zoned "RR" Rural Residential. The owner's residence is located to the west of the proposed facility. The owner's residence is the closest to the proposed facility. There is a residence to the southwest and residences (5) fronting W 151st on the northeast and southeast corners of the S 55th - W 151st intersection. All residences are located within approximately 250-ft - 600-ft of the proposed facility. Moving the facility north to be closer to K-42 would not lessen the impact of the facility on the existing residences; the facility would be closer to the residences on the northeast section of the S 55th - W 151st intersection. The current site is approximately in the middle of the existing residences in the area. CASE HISTORY: The property is being used for agriculture and is unplatted. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: "RR" Rural Residential Agriculture EAST: "RR" Rural Residential Single family residences SOUTH: "RR" Rural Residential Agriculture & farm related residence WEST: "RR" Rural Residential Single family residence PUBLIC SERVICES: No municipal supplied public services are required. The site has access to W 55th St S, an unpaved county road, and is less than a mile from K-42. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Wireless Communication Master Plan is an element of the Comprehensive Plan that outlines the guidelines for locating wireless communication facilities. The Location Guidelines of the Wireless Communication Master Plan indicate that new facilities should be located: 1) on multi-story buildings or other structures; 2) on existing poles in street rights-of-way, parking lots, or athletic fields; 3) on existing towers for personal wireless services, AM/FM radio, television, school district microwave antennas, and private dispatch systems; 4) in wooded areas; 5) on identified city and county properties; or 6) on highway light standards, sign structures, and electrical support structures. The Design Guidelines of the Wireless Communication Master Plan indicate that new facilities should: 1) preserve the pre-existing character of the area; 2) minimize the height, mass, or proportion; 3) minimize the silhouette; 4) use colors, textures, and materials that blend in with the existing environment; 5) be concealed or disguised as a flagpole, clock tower, or church steeple; 6) be placed in areas where trees and/or buildings obscure some or all of the facility; 7) be placed on walls or roofs of buildings; 8) be screened through landscaping, walls, and/or fencing; and 9) not use strobe lighting. The Unified Zoning Code requires wireless communication facilities to comply with a compatibility height standard of one foot of setback for each foot of structure height from adjoining properties zoned "TF-3" or more restrictive. This compatibility height standard can be reduced or waived through a Conditional Use or a Zoning Adjustment. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the application be APPROVED, subject to platting within one year and to the following conditions. A. All requirements of Section III.D.6.g. of the Unified Zoning Code shall be met. B. The applicant shall obtain all permits necessary to construct the wireless communication facility, and the wireless communication facility shall be erected within one year of approval of the Conditional Use by the MAPC or governing body, as applicable. C. The support structure shall be a "monopole" design that is silver or gray or a similar unobtrusive color with a matte finish to minimize glare. D. The monopole shall not exceed 150 feet in height and shall be designed and constructed to accommodate communication equipment for at least four wireless service providers. E. A landscape plan shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Director that provides 4" caliper shade trees to be planted and maintained every 40 feet along the perimeter of the site; a minimum of 2 shade trees per side. F. The applicant shall obtain FAA approval regarding "objects affecting navigable airspace" and "impacts to terminal instrument procedures" for the proposed wireless communication facility and shall comply with all conditions of FAA approval. The applicant shall submit a copy of FAA approval to the MAPD, Office of Central Inspection, and Director of Airports prior to the issuance of a building permit. G. Approval of the Conditional Use constitutes a waiver of the Compatibility Height Standard for the wireless communication facility. H. The site shall be developed in general conformance with the approved site plans and elevation drawings. All improvements shall be completed before the facility becomes operational. I. The site shall be developed and operated in compliance with all federal, state, and local rules and regulations. J. Any violation of the conditions of approval shall render the Conditional Use null and void. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood. The applicant's site and the surrounding area is zoned "RR" Rural Residential. Use of the surrounding area is agricultural with single-family residences or farm related residence located approximately 300-ft - 600-ft of the proposed facility. The proposed site's owner's house is west of the proposed site and is the closest residence. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The site is zoned "RR" Rural Residential and is currently undeveloped. Wireless communication facilities in excess of 65-ft in height in "RR" Rural Residential zoning may be permitted as a Conditional Use. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property. Any detrimental affects would be mitigated by the recommended condition of approval and code required development standards. 4. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and Policies: The proposed wireless communication facility conforms to the Location Guidelines of the Wireless Communication Master Plan since there are no other towers or tall structures in the vicinity of the site which can accommodate the communication needs of the applicant. The proposed wireless communication facility conforms to the Design Guidelines of the Wireless Communication Master Plan by minimizing the height, mass, proportion, and silhouette of the facility through its monopole design; by utilizing an unobtrusive color with a matte finish to minimize glare; by being placed in an area where trees obscure some of the facility; and by being screened through landscaping. The proposed wireless communication facility does not comply with the compatibility height standard of the Uniform Zoning Code since it is located less than 150 feet from the nearest lot line of property zoned "TF-3" or more restrictive; however, the applicant owns the adjoining property and it is undeveloped, so there should be no compatibility issues concerning the proposed wireless communication facility. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: FAA approval should ensure that the proposed monopole does not detrimentally impact the operation of airports in the vicinity. PLATT "As the owner of a building that actively leases space to the cell tower business, and as President of the Board of Directors who govern the building, I will step down from Item Nos. 8 and 9." LONGNECKER "This item is a request for a Conditional Use in Rural Residential zoning for a wireless communication facility. The location of this facility is northwest of the 55th Street South and 151st West Street intersection. The applicant is Verizon Wireless; they are requesting this to provide wireless services throughout the Clearwater and K-42 area. The applicant submitted a site plan, which showed a 75 x 75 site compound. The site shows a 6-foot chain link fence going around with 3 strands of barbed wire. Inside the fence compound there is a 150-foot monopole tower, flanked by an 11 ft. x 5 x 30 foot equipment shelter. The site plan also shows the location of up to 5 future carrier equipment shelters on this site. No landscaping was shown on the plan and there are no existing trees or bushes on the site. Again, the applicant proposes to have this communication facility built for coverage for the Clearwater and K-42 area. The applicant tried unsuccessfully in a memo, which I believe is attached to your staff report, to co-locate on a Southern Kansas Telephone tower, located at the southeast corner of 63rd Street South and 135th Street West intersection. That is approximately 1 mile from this proposed site. Staff has called the Southern Kansas Telephone Company, but have not been able to verify that yet, even though we have left several messages. The site is undeveloped agricultural properties. The applicant is looking to use the property of the homeowner-which is the closest residence to the proposed site. There is agricultural land to the south; to the southeast there is a residence and behind this residence further south along 151st Street is another residence. To the northeast of the intersection, there are several other residences. All of the property in this area is zoned Rural Residential and again, it is either being used for agricultural use or for single-family residential use. Staff contacted Mid-Continent Airport because the proposed site is located in the vicinity of the airport. The staff at Mid-Continent indicated that they needed to file a Form 7460-1. This form needs to be reviewed by the FAA and then Mid-Continent in turn would review the FAA comments. The airport staff requested that any decision on the site or any permits on the site be delayed until they had a chance to get input to the staff on this particular issue. Short of waiting for the Mid-Continent Airport and the FAA to comment on the suitability of this site, staff recommends approval of this Conditional Use, subject to the conditions A through J on Pages 3 and 4 of your staff report. The staff's reasoning on arriving to this recommended approval on Pages 4 and 5 of your staff report. Are there any questions?" MICHAELIS "Are there any questions of staff? Thank you, Mr. Longnecker. Applicant please." JAMES HAWKINS "I am here for Verizon Wireless. This is Theresa Edwards, also an agent for Verizon. We are in agreement with the staff's recommendations and the conditions placed thereon. What we have brought to show you, if you would like to see it on the overhead, is an example of propagation studies before, and as proposed, that would show the additional coverage we would get in southwest Wichita by adding this tower at that location." MICHAELIS "Does anybody wish to see it? I think we have seen those plenty of times and we do understand it." HAWKINS "Okay." EDWARDS "Would you like a copy for the file?" KROUT "Bill, do we have a copy for our file?" LONGNECKER "Yes, sir, we do." MICHAELIS "Are there any questions of the applicant? Okay. I would like to make a comment. I like the way you put the future locations on the site plan. To my knowledge that is the first one we have seen like that and I think that is looking to the future." HAWKINS "Thank you." MICHAELIS "Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak in favor of this application? Okay." THOMAS CREEL "I live at 5590 South 151st Street West, right across the street from this. We have been the victims of the Southern Kansas Telephone Company for 20 years. I personally have been. I can't call the first house across K-42 without it being long distance. We have been using cell phones and calling cards-and it is really inconvenient with the calling cards because you have to punch about 50 numbers to call home, but my wife can't even go to the store in Clearwater, and if she forgets something, I can't call her. It won't reach Clearwater. That is a real shame. The main reason people get cell phones is for emergencies, like when people work nights. You wonder, can they get through or not. We lose communications with Wichita at about 135th Street and K-42. It is a sad thing when we can talk to people on the moon but can't call Wichita without it being long distance. That is all I have to say. Thank you." MICHAELIS "Thank you. Are there any questions for the speaker? Is there anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this? Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition to?" GENE LAYMAN "I live at 11806 West MacArthur Road, and I own the property directly across the road east of this facility. What type of screening will be provided at this facility. I didn't see anything on the overhead about evergreen trees. It is open farm land there. That is the only question I have." LONGNECKER "On Page 4 of the staff report, Item E states that staff requests a landscape plan be submitted for approval by the Planning Director that provides a 4" caliber shade trees to be planted and maintained every 40 feet along the perimeter of the site, a minimum of two shade trees per side." MICHAELIS "Are there any other speakers? If not, I will bring it back to the Commission." BARFIELD "I have a question for staff. Did Mid-Continent or the FAA give you any timetable as to when they might get back with you?" LONGNECKER "We received a communication from Mid-Continent approximately 10 days ago. I have not contacted Mid-Continent to find out what they found out. At the time of the communication, they did not give a timeframe. I will find out what that timeframe is. Except for that one issue, I don't see any reason why this is not a good site for this particular use." BARFIELD "I probably would agree with you, but I would also be inclined to say that I think that is probably a pretty good reason why we should not rush to a decision on this. That is my take on it." MICHAELIS "Isn't this quite a ways from the airport? If an airport is down to 150 feet this far from the airport, they have serious problems." KROUT "It is not just a question of height-it is also a question of communications. Mr. Hentzen didn't ask that question, he made a statement similar to that at your last meeting, but they are as concerned with the potential for disrupting communications as they are with the issue of height. It is not just a question of is this an obstruction to a landing path." BISHOP "Am I correct in assuming that Condition No. F would mean that this FAA form would have to be completed and filed with the Planning Department?" LONGNECKER "Yes, ma'am. We would have to receive documentation saying what the conditions are. The applicant themselves would also receive those conditions and apply them to this particular site development." MICHAELIS "That would have to happen before they could get a permit?" LONGNECKER "Yes, sir." JOHNSON "I just wanted to second what the one gentleman said about the cell phone. I live at 167th Street and MacArthur and have an office at Maize Road and MacArthur, and my phone will go dead between the house and the shop. This is really needed. I am going to move to approve it." MOTION: Having considered the factors as contained in Policy Statement No. 10; taking into consideration the staff findings (The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood. The applicant's site and the surrounding area is zoned "RR" Rural Residential. Use of the surrounding area is agricultural with single-family residences or farm related residence located approximately 300-ft - 600-ft of the proposed facility. The proposed site's owner's house is west of the proposed site and is the closest residence. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The site is zoned "RR" Rural Residential and is currently undeveloped. Wireless communication facilities in excess of 65-ft in height in "RR" Rural Residential zoning may be permitted as a Conditional Use. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property. Any detrimental affects would be mitigated by the recommended condition of approval and code required development standards. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and Policies: The proposed wireless communication facility conforms to the Location Guidelines of the Wireless Communication Master Plan since there are no other towers or tall structures in the vicinity of the site which can accommodate the communication needs of the applicant. The proposed wireless communication facility conforms to the Design Guidelines of the Wireless Communication Master Plan by minimizing the height, mass, proportion, and silhouette of the facility through its monopole design; by utilizing an unobtrusive color with a matte finish to minimize glare; by being placed in an area where trees obscure some of the facility; and by being screened through landscaping. The proposed wireless communication facility does not comply with the compatibility height standard of the Uniform Zoning Code since it is located less than 150 feet from the nearest lot line of property zoned "TF-3" or more restrictive; however, the applicant owns the adjoining property and it is undeveloped, so there should be no compatibility issues concerning the proposed wireless communication facility. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: FAA approval should ensure that the proposed monopole does not detrimentally impact the operation of airports in the vicinity.) I move that we recommend to the governing body that the request be approved, subject to platting within one year and to the following conditions: A. All requirements of Section III.D.6.g. of the Unified Zoning Code shall be met. B. The applicant shall obtain all permits necessary to construct the wireless communication facility, and the wireless communication facility shall be erected within one year of approval of the Conditional Use by the MAPC or governing body, as applicable. C. The support structure shall be a "monopole" design that is silver or gray or a similar unobtrusive color with a matte finish to minimize glare. D. The monopole shall not exceed 150 feet in height and shall be designed and constructed to accommodate communication equipment for at least four wireless service providers. E. A landscape plan shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Director that provides 4" caliper shade trees to be planted and maintained every 40 feet along the perimeter of the site; a minimum of 2 shade trees per side. F. The applicant shall obtain FAA approval regarding "objects affecting navigable airspace" and "impacts to terminal instrument procedures" for the proposed wireless communication facility and shall comply with all conditions of FAA approval. The applicant shall submit a copy of FAA approval to the MAPD, Office of Central Inspection, and Director of Airports prior to the issuance of a building permit. G. Approval of the Conditional Use constitutes a waiver of the Compatibility Height Standard for the wireless communication facility. H. The site shall be developed in general conformance with the approved site plans and elevation drawings. All improvements shall be completed before the facility becomes operational. I. The site shall be developed and operated in compliance with all federal, state, and local rules and regulations. J. Any violation of the conditions of approval shall render the Conditional Use null and void. JOHNSON moved, WARNER seconded the motion, and it carried with 8 votes in favor, Barfield opposed. Platt abstained. ------------------------------------------------- 9. CON2001-00028 - Bob and Anna Haley (Owners); Verizon Wireless LLC (Applicant); Communication Equipment Specialists, Inc. c/o Teresa C. Edwards (Agent) request a Conditional use for a wireless communication facility located north of 101st Street North and west of Broadway, described as: A tract of land located in the southeast quarter of section 17, township 25 south, range 1 east, in Sedgwick County, Kansas, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said southeast quarter; thence north 01 degrees 00'13" west along the east line of said southeast quarter a distance of 859.96 feet; thence south 88 degrees 59'47" west leaving said east line a distance of 179.99 feet to the point of beginning of the tract of land to be described; thence continuing south 88 degrees 59'47" west a distance of 75.00 feet; thence north 01 degrees 00'13" west a distance of 75.00 feet; thence north 88 degrees 59'47" east a distance of 75.00 feet; thence south 01 degrees 00'13" east a distance of 75.00 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 5,625 square feet or 0.129 acres, more or less. Generally located north of 101st Street North and west of Broadway. SCOTT KNEBEL, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. He reviewed the following staff report: BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a Conditional Use to permit the construction of a 150-foot high monopole tower (see attached elevation rendering) for use by Verizon Wireless LLC. The proposed site is zoned "RR" Rural Residential. Wireless Communication Facilities over 65 feet in height in the "RR" Rural Residential zoning district may be permitted with a Conditional Use. The proposed tower would be sited on a 5,625 square foot area located north of 101st Street North and west of Broadway. Access to the site is proposed via an existing gravel drive. The applicant's site plan (attached) depicts a 75-foot by 75-foot compound with the tower shown in the center of the compound and the initial ground-level equipment shown in the western portion of the compound. The compound is shown as being enclosed by a six-foot high chain link fence with barbed wire. No landscaping is shown on the site plan. The applicant indicates (see attached memo) that the proposed wireless communication is needed for Verizon Wireless to provide improved wireless telephone coverage in Valley Center and along I-135. The applicant indicates they attempted to locate their antennas on a water tower located approximately one mile to the east; however, Rural Water District #2 would not grant permission to locate the antennas on the water tower. The character of the surrounding area is rural, with most of the property in the vicinity used for agriculture. The owner's house and farm buildings are located to the north on the parent tract of the subject property. With the exception of a mobile home park located approximately 1/3 of a mile to the west that is zoned "GC" General Commercial, all property surrounding the site is zoned "RR" Rural Residential. The nearest residence not owned by the applicant is located approximately 250 feet east of the site across Broadway. CASE HISTORY: The site is unplatted. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: "RR" Farm-related residence SOUTH: "RR" Agriculture EAST: "RR" Single-family residence WEST: "RR" Agriculture PUBLIC SERVICES: No municipally supplied public services are required. The site has access to Broadway, a four-lane County arterial street. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Wireless Communication Master Plan is an element of the Comprehensive Plan that outlines the guidelines for locating wireless communication facilities. The Location Guidelines of the Wireless Communication Master Plan indicate that new facilities should be located: 1) on multi-story buildings or other structures; 2) on existing poles in street rights-of-way, parking lots, or athletic fields; 3) on existing towers for personal wireless services, AM/FM radio, television, school district microwave antennas, and private dispatch systems; 4) in wooded areas; 5) on identified city and county properties; or 6) on highway light standards, sign structures, and electrical support structures. The Design Guidelines of the Wireless Communication Master Plan indicate that new facilities should: 1) preserve the pre-existing character of the area; 2) minimize the height, mass, or proportion; 3) minimize the silhouette; 4) use colors, textures, and materials that blend in with the existing environment; 5) be concealed or disguised as a flagpole, clock tower, or church steeple; 6) be placed in areas where trees and/or buildings obscure some or all of the facility; 7) be placed on walls or roofs of buildings; 8) be screened through landscaping, walls, and/or fencing; and 9) not use strobe lighting. The Unified Zoning Code requires wireless communication facilities to comply with a compatibility height standard of one foot of setback for each foot of structure height from adjoining properties zoned "TF-3" or more restrictive. This compatibility height standard can be reduced or waived through a Conditional Use or a Zoning Adjustment. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon information available prior to the public hearings, planning staff recommends that the request be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: K. All requirements of Section III.D.6.g. of the Unified Zoning Code shall be met. L. The applicant shall obtain all permits necessary to construct the wireless communication facility, and the wireless communication facility shall be erected within one year of approval of the Conditional Use by the MAPC or governing body, as applicable. M. The support structure shall be a "monopole" design that is silver or gray or a similar unobtrusive color with a matte finish to minimize glare. N. The monopole shall not exceed 150 feet in height and shall be designed and constructed to accommodate communication equipment for at least three wireless service providers. O. The monopole and its foundation shall be designed and constructed in such a manner that permits future height extensions of up to 25% of the structure height and future loading expansions to accommodate communication equipment for at least four wireless service providers. P. A landscape plan shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Director that provides 4 inch caliper shade trees to be planted and maintained every 40 feet along the eastern boundary of the parent tract as near as possible to Broadway from the southern edge of the access drive to the southern edge of the lease area. Q. The applicant shall obtain FAA approval regarding "objects affecting navigable airspace" and "impacts to terminal instrument procedures" for the proposed wireless communication facility and shall comply with all conditions of FAA approval. The applicant shall submit a copy of FAA approval to the MAPD, Office of Central Inspection, and Director of Airports prior to the issuance of a building permit. R. Approval of the Conditional Use constitutes a waiver of the Compatibility Height Standard for the wireless communication facility. S. Revised site plans and elevation drawings indicating the approved location and design of the wireless communication facility shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Director within 60 days of approval of the Conditional Use by the MAPC or governing body, as applicable. T. The site shall be developed in general conformance with the approved site plans and elevation drawings. All improvements shall be completed before the facility becomes operational. U. The site shall be developed and operated in compliance with all federal, state, and local rules and regulations. V. Any violation of the conditions of approval shall render the Conditional Use null and void. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The character of the surrounding area is rural, with most of the property in the vicinity used for agriculture. The owner's house and farm buildings are located to the north on the parent tract of the subject property. With the exception of a mobile home park located approximately 1/3 of a mile to the west that is zoned "GC" General Commercial, all property surrounding the site is zoned "RR" Rural Residential. The nearest residence not owned by the applicant is located approximately 250 feet east of the site across Broadway. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The site is zoned "RR" Rural Residential and is currently undeveloped. Wireless communication facilities in excess of 65 feet in height in the "RR" Rural Residential zoning district may be permitted as a Conditional Use. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The site is currently undeveloped. The closest developed property not owned by the applicant is a single-family residence located approximately 250 feet to the east across Broadway. The only impact to be noted at the time this report was prepared is the visual impact of a tower, and the visual impact should be reduced by the landscaping required by the conditions of approval. 4. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan: The proposed wireless communication facility conforms to the Location Guidelines of the Wireless Communication Master Plan since there are no other towers or tall structures in the vicinity of the site which are available to accommodate the communication needs of the applicant. The proposed wireless communication facility conforms to the Design Guidelines of the Wireless Communication Master Plan by minimizing the height, mass, proportion, and silhouette of the facility through its monopole design; by utilizing an unobtrusive color with a matte finish to minimize glare; and by being screened through landscaping. The proposed wireless communication facility does not comply with the compatibility height standard of the Uniform Zoning Code since it is located less than 150 feet from the nearest lot line of property zoned "TF-3" or more restrictive; however, the applicant owns the adjoining property and it is undeveloped, so there should be no compatibility issues concerning the proposed wireless communication facility. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: FAA approval should ensure that the proposed monopole does not detrimentally impact the operation of airports in the vicinity. KNEBEL "This is a request for a communication tower by the same company, located at 101st Street North and Broadway. This case was heard by the Valley Center Planning Commission on Tuesday night. There were concerns-this gentleman here in the