STATE OF KANSAS )
WYANDOTTE COUNTY ))SS PLANNING & ZONING SESSION,
CITY OF KANSAS CITY, KS ) THURSDAY, MAY 25, 2006
The Unified Government Commission of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas, met in regular session Thursday, May 25, 2006, with eight members present: Gilstrap,
Commissioner At-Large First District; DeSeure, Commissioner At-Large Second District;
Barnes, Commissioner First District; Miller, Commissioner Second District; Mendez,
Commissioner Third District; Mitchell, Commissioner Fourth District; Pettey,
Commissioner Sixth District; Cooley, Commissioner Seventh District; Kane, Commissioner
Fifth District; Ellison, Commissioner Eighth District; and Reardon, Mayor/CEO presiding were absent. The following officials were also in attendance: Dennis Hays, County
Administrator; Casey Boudreau, Deputy Chief Counsel; Tom G. Roberts, Unified
Government Clerk; Doug Bach, Deputy County Administrator; Rob Richardson, Director of
Urban Planning; Janet Parker, Administrative Assistant; and Captain Tyrone Garner,
Sergeant-At-Arms.
MAYOR PRO TEM GILSTRAP called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL: DeSeure, Barnes, Miller, Mendez, Mitchell, Pettey, Cooley, Gilstrap.
INVOCATION was given by Alberta Wallace, First Baptist Church.
THE AGENDA FOR MAY 25, 2006, was presented. Mayor Pro Tem Gilstrap asked if there were any revisions to the agenda. Tom G. Roberts, Unified Government Clerk, stated we have a request for a postponement from John Gilman, which is Item No. 3 on the
Consent Agenda. They are requesting a postponement trying to get information to present the plans for 2202 S. 39 th
Street. He says he intends to make substantial improvements if it makes sense financially. They’re asking for it to be continued until the Planning and Zoning meeting next month on June 29 th
. Commissioner DeSeure stated this was denied at the
Planning and Zoning meeting 9 to 1. Would there be any reason for us to acknowledge the

request to hold this over? Rob Richardson, Planning Director, stated he is working on it to resolve some of the issues and I think that might shed a different light on the case.
Commissioner DeSeure stated it only takes six Commissioners to acknowledge the denial.
Would there have to be a motion and a second to hold it over? Casey Boudreau, Deputy
Legal Counsel, stated yes and I thought it would be appropriate to take it off of the Consent
Agenda because maybe there are some people here in opposition and would like to speak but can’t be here next month. If someone desires to hold this over or to consider that issue, one of you should ask that it be taken off of the Consent Agenda and consider it at that time.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Roberts asked if any members of the Commission wished to disclose any contact with proponents or opponents. Commissioner Mitchell stated I’ve talked with the petitioner on
Change of Zone Petition #2880 and a proponent on Special Use Permit #2005-45.
Mayor Pro Tem Gilstrap asked if there were any set-asides on the Consent Agenda . John
Gilman, 15220 Melrose Drive, asked to set-aside Change of Zone Petition #2879. Curtis
Holland asked to set-aside Special Use Permit #SP-2005-45.
Rob Richardson, Planning and Zoning Director, stated Miriam Rivera, who doesn’t speak English very well wants to set-aside Change of Zone Petition #2877. Commissioner Pettey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell, to approve the Consent Agenda, excluding the set-asides.
Roll call was taken and there were eight “Ayes,” DeSeure, Barnes, Miller, Mendez,
Mitchell, Pettey, Cooley, Gilstrap.
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATIONS
ITEM NO. 1 – 060099…CHANGE OF ZONE PETITION #2876 – GLENN
DARROW/B&A ARCHITECTURE FOR RDK, LLC
SYNOPSIS: Change of Zone from A-G Agriculture District to RP-3 Planned Townhouse
District including a Master Plan Amendment from Suburban Residential to Mixed Density
Residential at 735 North 89 th
Street. This is a complex application. There are four requested and necessary actions, they are: 1) Amend the Master Plan to allow for a mixed density development; 2) Change the zoning to allow for the townhomes and senior duplex
May 25, 2006

units; 3) Establish a preliminary plan for the same; and 4) Establish a preliminary plat for the same. These approvals will allow the development of 185 single family homes, 139 townhome units, and 120 senior housing units. The development would have immediate connections through the existing subdivisions to the north, with future connections proposed to the south and east that would eventually connect to 86 th Street and 94 th Street respectively. The Planning Commission voted 9 to 0 to recommend approval of the Master
Plan Amendment from Suburban Residential to Mixed Residential. The Planning
Commission voted 9 to 0 to recommend approval of Change of Zone Petition #2876 and the preliminary plan, subject to:
Urban Planning and Land Use comments:
1. Traffic generation through the existing subdivision will be a concern. According to estimates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, this development will generate approximately 300 to 400 peak hour trips.
2. A development of this size should include a swimming pool.
3. The townhome design should incorporate significant elements of the “Big House” concepts. Option C provides for the end garages to be turned so that a shared driveway could serve 4 units. This option should be utilized.
4. Side and rear elevations of all townhomes and duplex units must be provided along with a materials palate.
5. Significant masonry construction elements are required on all units. At least 50 percent of all front facades should be brick, real stucco or stone.
6. Conservation District comments do not need to be addressed at this time and will be included at a later date.
7. Traffic calming needs to be included in all straight street segments over 600 feet in length at 400 foot intervals or at such intervals as agreed to with staff.
8. All cul-de-sacs and bulb outs must have islands.
9. Trail construction material needs to be specified.
10. Green areas to be preserved should be mapped and a protection plan identified.
May 25, 2006

Public Works comments (These comments have been discussed with the applicant and changes will be reflected on final plans and plats)
A) Items that require plan revision or additional documentation: None
B) Items that may be resolved by condition of approval (stipulation):
1) A capacity analysis of off-site sanitary sewer in the Ann Avenue alignment will be required during platting. Contact Engineering to establish the scope and extents of the study. Under capacity sewer must be mitigated by off-site improvements or rerouting.
2) Pump station 11 to be replaced with a gravity main. This is already shown on the submittal.
3) No additional flow of pump station 11 will be allowed on a temporary basis.
Construction of the main sewer extension will be the responsibility of the developer.
4) 90 th
Street must be improved to Collector standard from State Avenue through the development. This improvement will be the responsibility of the developer.
5) The southwest corner has two points where the maximum cul-de-sac length is violated: near lots 84 to 89 is a block long chock point and lots 129-143 form a long dead end.
6) Too many temporary cul-de-sacs will be required. Re-configure the area near lots
100-111 to eliminate the need for temporary cul-de-sacs on the connecting streets.
7) Provide a street connection from the SE portion of the site to the east.
8) Improve the natural traffic calming to the westerly townhome street. The curve that is introduced at the end of the 800’ long tangent has insufficient deflection to function as a natural calming element.
9) Lots 1-16 are too short to accommodate the future meander of the large stream bed behind them.
10) CPTED issues with Area B. Narrow, uninviting, little natural surveillance is likely.
11) Excessive stream cutting near the center of the site is observed on aerial photos.
Erosive soils may be present. These must be identified as part of the erosion control plan.
May 25, 2006

C) Comments-advance information relative to construction plan review or other information that the developer may wish to consider, but are not conditions of plan approval, and need not be in the final staff write up:
1) Layout is insensitive to the natural drainage; there will be excessive reliance on large diameter storm sewers. Note that all open channels that drain more than 2 acres of tributary area cannot be in easement but must be in commonly maintained tract. Note the 55+ units on the cul-de-sac displace a significant drainage way.
2) Landscape plan comments: a) Shrubs selected for typical senior unit will overgrow the allotted space b) Redbud is low branching and not appropriate in the narrow strip between two driveways. c) Note 9: while the depth of the planting hole should allow the root ball to set on undisturbed earth, common nursery practice now is to top off the root ball.
K-State extension recommends exposing the top feeder root as a first step and measuring the depth of the ball from the feeder root. d) Note 12: since both synthetic and treated burlap are becoming common, new recommendations call for complete removal of the fabric.
Action: Commissioner Pettey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Mitchell, to approve Change of Zone Petition #2876, subject to the stipulations.
Roll call was taken and there were eight “Ayes,” DeSeure,
Barnes, Miller, Mendez, Mitchell, Pettey, Cooley, Gilstrap.
ITEM NO. 2 – 060100…CHANGE OF ZONE PETITION #2877 – MIRIAM RIVERA
SYNOPSIS: Change of Zone from R-1(B) Single Family District to R-2 Two Family
District for a duplex at 945 Armstrong. The petitioner has acquired the older, two story residence at 945 Armstrong Avenue. She states that the Building Inspection office has asked her to remove a kitchen on the second floor, and that she wishes to retain the kitchen and rent the house as a duplex. (In photographs submitted by the petitioner, the kitchen appears to be in as-new condition, and some appliances were not yet in place at the time the pictures were taken.) Hence the requested change of zone. The residence in question
May 25, 2006

together with the adjoining residences was included in a neighborhood downzoning in 2001.
Prior to that, the zoning was RP-5 Planned Apartment District, and those residences that were in use as duplexes or apartments at the time of the downzoning could continue as legal nonconforming uses. However, other than the second-floor kitchen, there is no evidence that the residence in question in recent years has been anything other than single-family, and a Rental License was issued in 2004 for one unit. Consequently, a Nonconforming Use
Permit is not an option. The Planning Commission voted 9 to 0 to recommend denial of
Change of Zone Petition #2877.
Miriam Rivera, 945 Armstrong, stated I’m asking to change the zoning from a single family home to a two family apartment house.
Mayor Pro Tem Gilstrap asked is there anyone in support of this petition? There were none.
Mayor Pro Tem Gilstrap asked is there anyone in attendance in opposition of this petition?
There were none.
Commissioner Pettey asked why do you want to change it from single family to two family? Miriam Rivera stated it’s a big house and I want to do an apartment house.
Commissioner Pettey stated you have a single family house and you want it to become a two family house? Miriam Rivera stated yes.
Commissioner Barnes asked is the necessary parking already available for a two family house? Rob Richardson stated I believe the only parking is on the street.
Bob Laubsch, 908 Lyon Avenue, Chairman Riverview Neighborhood Group, stated I have members here with me and we’ve actively worked on this with our Commissioner, some people from Planning and Zoning and Michael Snodgrass. We’ve worked very diligently to get the area down zoned to R-1 Single Family. This is the third time that we’ve had to go through this process because of people appealing to change it. A large percentage
May 25, 2006

of this area is rental property and those of us who own homes in the area would like it to stay single family without any more multiple family dwellings. That’s why we are here this evening and we hope we don’t have to come back and fight for this again.
Rob Richardson stated I want to state she could provide additional parking off the existing alley. It does not have to be on the street.
Henry Rivera, 928 Northrup Ave., stated she does have parking available for both apartments. It has two kitchens one upstairs and one downstairs. The rest of the homes there are apartments on that block. I believe that was a double apartment at one time.
Commissioner Miller stated I do want to recognize the Riverview Neighborhood Group.
Fortunately, a part of the downzoning process is, we are going to have parcels where people try and revert back to a different use. On this particular item, it’s pretty clear, the Planning
Commission voted 9 to 0 to recommend denial of the change of zone petition. Under the staff comments and suggestions, it’s very clear that other than property owners’ desire to increase the number of rental units in the existing structure, there would seem to be no clear rational for the proposed change of zone.
Action: Commissioner Miller made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
DeSeure, for denial of Change of Zone Petition #2877. Roll call was taken and there were eight “Ayes,” DeSeure, Barnes, Miller, Mendez, Mitchell,
Pettey, Cooley, Gilstrap.
ITEM NO. 3 – 060101…CHANGE OF ZONE PETITION #2879 – JOHN GILMAN
SYNOPSIS: Change of Zone from R-1 Single Family District to RP-4 Planned Garden
Apartment District for the continuation of a four-plex at 2202 South 39 th
Street. This is a request to rezone a structure that has been used as a four-unit structure for many years, although it was originally permitted in 1959 as a duplex. We note that the applicants are certain that the structure was occupied from the outset as a fourplex. The Planning
Commission voted 9 to 0 to recommend denial of Change of Zone Petition #2879.
May 25, 2006

John Gilman, 15220 Melrose Drive, Overland Park, KS , stated I would like for this to remain as a fourplex because it was built as a fourplex in 1957 by my stepfather. It has always been a fourplex and I would like for it to remain a fourplex. Unfortunately, there was either an administrative error or something, I’m not sure what it was, but as you can see in your packet, he applied for a duplex but built as a fourplex. It has always been that way and we’ve paid taxes and occupational license on a fourplex. I would like that to continue that way and I’m asking for a variance in that particular building.
I’ve inherited these properties in the past 90 days from the passing of my mother and I have several properties that need a lot of attention. To take that fourplex away would be a hardship. I intend to increase the parking. There are about five places to park now in the fourplex. I plan to build a retaining wall and extend the parking so there would be substantial parking. There was an issue with the trash cans and I’ve already contacted the trash company to bring out a canister. I would like for you to continue it and I will bring you what I plan to do with the property.
Commissioner Barnes stated he made mention that he pays taxes on a fourplex, is there a different taxing structure based on this being single family versus a fourplex? How and who initiates that process to downsize the taxing entity on this ? Doug Bach, Deputy County
Administrator, stated I believe the Appraisers Office taxes it according to use and not at what it is zoned as. Property that is being used as a fourplex then that is how they’re going to appraise it.
John Gilman stated in the cluster of the nine homes, we own seven of them and then there are trees all the way around either side or fields.
Commissioner DeSeure asked Rob, do you have any information to the question that was asked during Planning and Zoning about the rental license? When they applied for a rental license for four units, do they have a rental license for four units and if they do, when was it applied for? Rob Richardson stated they have a provisional license at this time for four
May 25, 2006

units. If somebody applies for a provisional license, they give them the license while they are going through the process of determining the actual. Commissioner DeSeure asked can you find the date that was applied for? John Gilman stated we just paid about $700 for those licenses just recently. Commissioner DeSeure asked for all of the units? John
Gilman stated yes. I just want to reiterate this building has always been a fourplex.
Commissioner Pettey stated the information we have, in 1959 it was zoned as a duplex.
You’re saying it has been built as a fourplex but we’ve only had rental licensing for about eight years. So if you don’t presently have a permanent rental license, your still a provisional. Is that correct Rob? Rob Richardson stated yes. As you’ll recall, a few months ago we had the issue of provisional licenses and we’re due to report in June or July back to the Commission on the status of all of the outstanding provisional licenses in the city. What generally happens is when there is a request for provisional licenses, they send that to us to check the zoning and then it gets kicked backed as not having proper zoning.
That’s where several Change of Zones and Non-conforming use permits have come before this Commission. Commissioner Pettey stated so I’m assuming that’s how this came to be because it’s not properly zoned for a fourplex.
John Gilman stated I’m finding that out just now myself. It’s not something where there were great records through the county in the past years. So I’m not sure if anyone would’ve noticed it other than now through this application and what they’re attempting to do.
Commissioner Pettey stated we want all rental properties in the city to have rental licenses and that is one way that it comes up whether properties are properly being used for the use that they are determined for. I live close to this area and it doesn’t seem appropriate to me that a fourplex is an appropriate use there. It is single family. John Gilman stated it is single-family, however, the building next to it was at one time built as a duplex and was a duplex until my mother converted it to a single family. She did that because she chose to. It’s worked out very well up there and I don’t know that we’ve had a lot of issues.
Commissioner Pettey stated the seven properties of the nine on the street that your family owns, how many are single family? John Gilman stated they’re all single family except for this one.
Commissioner Barnes asked do you want to hold this over? John Gilman stated yes.
Commissioner Barnes asked in the process of holding this over, what do you hope to
May 25, 2006

accomplish? John Gilman stated I hope to show the council this property is going to work as a fourplex. There isn’t anyone complaining about it.
Commissioner Barnes asked is there anyone here tonight complaining about this or in opposition to this? I don’t see anyone. You own seven of the nine houses there, is that correct? John Gilman stated yes.
Commissioner Barnes stated this issue wouldn’t have came about if it wasn’t for the provisional licenses being issued to you and defining the fact this is a single family area and you’re operating a fourplex. You volunteered that information so it wasn’t like you were trying to sneak and do something. John Gilman stated I do want to reinterate, once again, this has always been a fourplex and to take that away from us seems somewhat unfair because it will change the structure of that. Commissioner Barnes stated I think you have some people here that are thinking the same way. How long has this been in your family?
John Gilman stated it was built by my family. It’s been 50 years and my mother made her living from that. Commissioner Barnes stated so you’ve made some into fourplexes and those that were actually duplexes, you’ve turned them back into single family? J ohn
Gilman stated yes, one of them. All of them were single family except for one.
Commissioner Barnes asked all you’re wanting is to have time to work this out because if three rental incomes were taken out of your portfolio it would hurt you real bad. John
Gilman stated right. Keep in mind these are very small units and the rent is very low and it provides low income families to afford $425 a month rent. Commissioner Barnes asked you haven’t been cited on codes or anything?
John Gilman stated I think my mother had some problems years ago, but that has been taken care of. I don’t have direct information on that so I can’t really attest to it, but I do know that right now I don’t have any problems.
Commissioner Pettey asked where are the entrances to the four units? Rob Richardson stated I believe they’re all through the front door. Commissioner Pettey stated it was suggested in the staff’s report that a parking lot could be provided at the back, is that correct? Rob Richardson stated yes. Commissioner Pettey asked actually this could be a duplex? Rob Richardson stated it would take significant modifications to the interior of the structure, but technically yes. Commissioner Pettey asked is there sufficient parking for a duplex. Rob Richardson stated I think the issue is somewhat similar either way. If it’s a duplex, you could have a double driveway and park two cars off of it. If it’s a
May 25, 2006

fourplex, you have to have more than just that driveway. Commissioner Pettey stated you have to have parking for eight. Rob Richardson stated six. It’s a car and a half per bedroom. Commissioner Pettey asked what are the sizes of these units? John Gilman stated each unit is about 600 sq. ft. There is two bedrooms and one bath. They’re very small. There are families of two that live in there and or perhaps a baby but not more than that. They’re single mothers and one has just moved from there. It’s not like a lot of people live in each unit by any means.
Mayor Pro Tem Gilstrap asked is there anyone here opposing this item? There were none.
Mayor Pro Tem Gilstrap asked is there anyone here in favor of this item? There were none.
Mayor Pro Tem Gilstrap asked what was you’re recommendation earlier? Rob
Richardson stated staff’s recommendation is for denial.
Action: Commissioner Barnes made a motion to hold over Change of Zone
Petition #2879. Motion died for lack of a second.
Action: Commissioner DeSeure made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Mendez, for denial of Change of Zone Petition #2879.
Commissioner Cooley asked if this has been a fourplex for a number of years, why isn’t this a legal non-conforming use? Rob Richardson stated they didn’t make that application.
It was illegal to begin with and to be a legal non-conforming use, it would’ve had to have been legally established. The zoning has always been a duplex and the building permit was for a duplex. It could never be legal non-conforming use because it was never legal.
Roll call was taken and there were seven “Ayes,” DeSeure, Miller, Mendez, Mitchell,
Pettey, Cooley, Gilstrap. Commissioner Barnes voted no.
May 25, 2006

ITEM NO. 4 – 060102…CHANGE OF ZONE PETITION #2880 – ALCARDIO
JACKSON
SYNOPSIS: Change of Zone from R-2(B) Two Family District to C-1 Limited Business
District for a restaurant at 1216 North 12 th
Street. At one time a small restaurant, Grant’s
Bar-B-Que, was built on to the front of the existing residence. The request is in preparation for a new restaurant in the existing building at this location. The Planning Commission voted 9 to 0 to recommend approval of Change of Zone Petition #2880 for a special use permit for the temporary use of land and commercial purposes for two (2) years, subject to:
1. 15 parking spaces being provided
2. Installing grease trap
3. Parking agreement approved by Public Works and The School for the Blind.
These documents would have to be signed and submitted to staff before a building permit can be issued.
Action: Commissioner Pettey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Mitchell, for approval of Change of Zone Petition #2880, subject to the stipulations.
Roll call was taken and there were eight “Ayes,” DeSeure,
Barnes, Miller, Mendez, Mitchell, Pettey, Cooley, Gilstrap.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
ITEM NO. 1 – 060045…SPECIAL USE PERMIT #SP-2005-45 – SELECTIVE SITE
CONSULTANTS, INC. – ROBERT M. HERLIHY
SYNOPSIS: Special Use Permit for a 50’ by 50’ lease area to encompass the required radio equipment and a 120’ stealth monopole type tower for T-Mobile at 2900 Minnesota
Avenue. This special use permit request is for 120 foot tall mono-pole for a cellular tower with one carrier designated for this tower. The tower could contain a second and third carrier. The location is the northwest corner of the property of First Baptist Church. The
Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend denial of Special Permit Petition #SP-
2006-45.
May 25, 2006

Curtis Holland, 6601 College Blvd. Ste. 500, Overland Park, Kansas, Attorney representing T-Mobile and Selective Site Consultants, stated my request tonight is to hold this over. I understand there is a recommendation for denial, but in my legal view, since three members of the Commission are unavailable to hear the discussion and cannot participate in the discussion, I do believe the applicant is at a disadvantage. There is a lost opportunity for a more full discussion to be had on the application. No one has been in opposition to this application at any of the hearings and I don’t think you’ll find anyone here in opposition. I don’t think Rob is in opposition to having this held over and I think the only one’s that would be disadvantaged is the applicants. I ask for a hold over so we can have the opportunity to have all of the Commissioners hear our case.
Commissioner Pettey asked was this held over from March. Rob Richardson, Planning
Director, stated yes it was. They were going to do more research and they have and I believe are ready to present that. Commissioner Pettey stated one of the criteria’s that’s been used is the number of dropped calls. There significantly are not very many dropped calls in this area. Is this correct? Rob Richardson stated the standard that we had used in the past was the drive test for dropped calls. Their drive test shows no dropped calls. Their computer system shows dropped calls within that area on a weekly basis but I don’t believe that’s been pinpointed to the sectors of the cells that would apply to where this would go. I don’t know that it’s fair to say that there aren’t any, but they have not been able to pinpoint where those were. The drive test showed no dropped calls. Commissioner Pettey stated this has been held over from March and now it is requested by the petitioner to hold it over again. Is that in anyway affect the number of votes? Casey Boudreau, Deputy Legal
Counsel, stated no it doesn’t.
Casey Boudreau stated I just want to point out when the court review this, it’s not only the state zoning laws but there’s also the issue of the federal telecommunications act. That act requires that any final action be based upon written record and you have to have a written decision. That is a difference from most of the other type of zoning cases. If the applicant is
May 25, 2006

asking for additional information, that’s a factor you may want to consider, whether to hold it over or to decide it tonight, I would emphasize this is not the simplest case.
Mayor Pro Tem Gilstrap asked is there anyone in attendance who opposes this item?
There were none.
Mayor Pro Tem Gilstrap asked is there anyone in favor of this item?
Reverend Alberta Wallace, First Baptist Church, Kansas City, Kansas, 557 Freeman
Avenue, stated I’m here representing our church. Our pastor, Robert Southers couldn’t be here and we are in favor of this. We know the church would benefit and the other four ministries that are housed in our building will also benefit and be able to carry out their businesses. The majority of them do rely on cellular services versus land line to carry out the business of their ministries. It is our understanding that T-Mobile is in full compliance, which is why we are in favor of this.
Action: Commissioner Pettey made a motion, to hold over for 30 days Special
Use Permit #SP-2005-45. Motion died for lack of a second.
Action: Commissioner Barnes made a motion, to approve Special Use Permit
#SP-2005-45. Motion died for lack of a second.
Commissioner Mitchell stated I want to hear from the petitioner on why we would want to approve this.
Curtis Holland stated I want to object for the record and make it known that I did ask for this to be held over. Given the legal structure of the Federal Telecommunications Act and the fact there are only eight commissioners here, I believe we are being legally disadvantaged by moving forward with the application tonight. There is a lot of information to go over tonight. I did think it would benefit everybody to hear it. In terms of this application, I’m personally a little bit surprised to be here. You have seen me many times on
May 25, 2006

these applications, but I’ve never represented T-Mobile in terms of an application. I was a bystander on this application and had been in the audience at the Planning Commission meeting when they made the presentation. It’s surprising that I’m here before you tonight on this application. I’m surprised where the case is relative to the recommendation of both the Planning staff as well as the Planning Commission, given the information that has been presented on this case.
As you know in these applications a lot of it is driven by whether or not there are any neighbors opposing a particular cell site. I have done a number of these applications in this community and I usually win when there is no one opposed and I sometimes win when there are people opposing. It does make a tremendous difference in terms of your reception to these applications whether or not there is opposition. It’s fair to take into account what the neighborhood thinks of a site and application. No one in the neighborhood is opposed to this site. We have had a neighborhood meeting, two Planning Commission hearings, and public hearings and not one person has spoken out against the site itself. I do find that significantly in favor. I also argue the other side that even though there is opposition, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t approve it. I do think it is noteworthy in this case that no one is opposing this site that the Planning Commission has recommended denial of the case. I’ve read through the record and know what has transpired between the applicant and staff in terms of the type of information that was provided. There was some information that needed to be developed in a more thorough manor from our side of the table to assist Rob and staff in their analysis of whether or not there is a need for the facility. In these types of applications, it does come down to the applicant being able to show clearly that they have a need for this site. Since the application, and since it was heard by the Planning Commission the last time we have sat down with Rob on a number of occasions and we have tried to provide the kind of information Rob was seeking. I have radio frequency propagation maps and I will go through them. We do have some members of the team here. Garth Adcock, T-
Mobile Real Estate Zoning Manager, Dennis Francis, T-Mobile RF Engineer and Bob
Herlihy, Selective Site Consultant, who done the site acquisition on the site. Now getting back to the maps, these are radio frequency propagation maps and what we have here is the before and after pictures and another map which shows what the coverage would be if we
May 25, 2006

co-located on a communication tower that is located at Wyandotte High School. That particular location is out of our search range and is not something that we could use for our coverage in this area. It had been raised by staff as to whether or not that could be a suitable site for collocation. I have the map here to essentially represent that it does not cover the area that we are seeking.
I do want to take some exceptions to staff’s report. Commissioner Pettey is correct, it does say the information we had provided showed no dropped calls. The confusion at the beginning of this application was we presented radio frequency propagation maps and a drive test data which was a field test that confirmed what the propagation maps were telling us. These maps are based on computer models and what we provided later to Rob is a drive test, which confirmed in the field what our maps already told us, that we had a hole in coverage in this particular area and we needed to fill that with a new site. I’m not sure if
Rob is convinced at this point whether or not we do have a significant issue in this area.
Absolutely 100% we would not be before this body if we didn’t believe we have a significant coverage issue in this area. These facilities cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to put up a site. It’s not to our business advantage to waste money by putting up sites that aren’t necessary. We do have a significant coverage gap issue in this particular location.
The dark green areas on the map are existing sites in the city and the coverage area we’re trying to fill is along 24 th
& Minnesota Avenue and 29 th
Minnesota Avenue. If we are successful and able to put the site up, you will see that we do fill in the coverage gaps along this stretch of the road and ties our network between the existing site which is off Parallel and down to another site to the south off Ridge Road. We do have a significant coverage issue. Rob had focused on dropped calls and these maps don’t show you dropped calls and neither does the drive test data that we presented earlier. We had to present that to Rob separately in some follow up meetings and we did give Rob some data. We had tested the site on two separate weeks and in each of those tests we had over 1800 dropped calls in this particular area the last week of February. In the first week of May we ran the test again and we had over 2700 dropped calls in this area. I mentioned before this is an issue of coverage and an area of issue in capacity. It’s not to say that we don’t have some coverage in the
May 25, 2006

area, but it is very unreliable and certainly not up to the standards of T-Mobile or it’s customer and what they expect to receive in the terms of service when they’re paying for it.
We clearly have a coverage gap issue and we have the RF Engineer if you’d like to ask more questions about that.
In each of these cases we always try to co-locate wherever we can and that’s no less true with this particular site. We did analyze this site at Wyandotte High School. That’s a
Cingular site, but again it’s too far outside the seaching. The elevation difference between
Wyandotte High School and our site here at First Baptist is 40 ft. There is a 40 ft. drop in elevation, which makes a significant difference in terms of what we can cover. We have always attempted to co-locate wherever we can. T-Mobile really has done a better job than anybody because they have 20 sites in Wyandotte County and of those sites 16 are collocation sites. The sites on Parallel and Ridge are collocation sites and a third site is a rooftop. The three sites that we interface with are collocations. 80% of T-Mobile sites in
Wyandotte County are co-location sites, but when we have an issue of when we can’t find a tall structure within the search ring for us to cover, then we have to unfortunately propose a new tower site.
We have tried to minimize the impact of this particular site with the structure itself. The structure itself is called a stealth monopole. It is a single pole and will not have a triangular platform on the top with antennas hanging off. The antennas are going to be housed in containers on top of the tower. There will not be anything sticking out or away from the tower. When we first made this application, we wanted it to be 150 ft. tall, which would still be better for us. Because of some of the resistance we’ve gotten from staff, lowered this height to the bare minimum that we could be at, which is 120 ft. We are proposing a 120 ft tall monopole. That is not that unusual in terms of other applications that have been before this body and that I have represented and have been at churches. On those applications we done mono-crossed poles and that’s not to say we wouldn’t do that here, if that’s what everybody thought would’ve been necessary. We showed our design to the church and everybody felt it was a good use for this site at this church.
May 25, 2006

Curtis Holland stated in the staff report, the surrounding zoning for the property is C-3.
This isn’t like this is surrounded by residential areas. If you’d look at the aerial map, the red arrow is highlighting where the pole will be located on the property. The First Baptist
Church is located below the red arrow and where the tale of the arrow is touching, the white building immediately to the north is an O’Reilly Auto Parts store. The church to the west is called the Faith Deliverance Family Worship and we have had no issues with the church being there or them complaining about the proposal. We have a seminary associated with the Baptist Church. There’s a park and a youth center to the north. The only residential in this area that is nearby is the area to the south and east of the site. If you’ve been to this location, you’ve seen this church. Due to the relationship of where those houses are, that church structure is going to block a significant portion of this monopole structure. They’re not really going to be able to see the pole and apparently they don’t have a concern for it because all of these people were notified of this hearing and the neighborhood meeting and no one showed up. This is about as good as it gets for us in the industry. We don’t have anyone opposing this site, we have surrounding zoning that’s C-3 Commercial.
We think we have provided all the information that Rob needed to evaluate the site. We do have a significant issue in terms of our coverage in this area. Today I provided Rob a copy of the affidavit from Russ Polk, our RF Manager. I do want to submit that affidavit for the record.
Mayor Pro Tem Gilstrap asked for us to override this denial, how many votes are needed?
Rob Richardson stated eight. I’ll just note that he’s given you one copy of the 12 or 13 page report for all of you to share as evidence tonight.
Curtis Holland stated it would be eight to override and six to send me back. I didn’t get an opportunity to talk to the Planning Commission. I do think that relative to these kinds of matters in this community and the fact that we do meet all of the City’s standards set forth in your code for these types of applications. I think we should be approved. If this case did not have merit, I wouldn’t have taken it because I got into it at the tale end of it. We would
May 25, 2006

ask for your consideration. Given the fact that no one is here to oppose it, we would ask that it be approved.
Commissioner Mitchell stated you’re showing a certain test and Rob is asking for a different test, are you familiar with the test Rob is asking for? Curtis Holland stated traditionally we’ve provided you with propagation maps. I have never provided the type of information Rob is asking for, which is dropped call data. We don’t have maps that represent dropped call data. We’ve provided drive test data and I have in my other application, again all that is, is field verification of what we know to be the case here to confirm that we do have a whole in coverage. We know what Rob wants and it’s dropped call data. We have since met with Rob personally and confidentially and provided him with dropped call data. I’ve mentioned earlier that we do have testing that shows we have had in two different weeks 1700 dropped calls and 2700 dropped calls in a week on this particular location. We do have dropped call data if that is important consideration for you because it really hadn’t been in the past. It does buffer what we’re telling you. We do have a significant issue here and we’re trying to correct it with this relatively invisible monopole.
It is tall but I would also tell you, and I failed to mention it, there are huge cottonwood trees and one of them has to unfortunately be removed. The older grander tree is going to stay and it’s probably 70 to 80 ft. tall. It is right next to the pole and the leaves from the tree branches would probably go between our poles because it’s that close. There is some shielding of the facility. Before you say no, go look at it is all I ask. It is a commercial area with some residential to the southeast and you can’t see it and no one has complained about it.
Rob Richardson stated on their poles, it has sectors that go out in three different directions on each of the poles. The dropped calls he talked about include all of those sectors, including the ones that don’t point to this area. On page five of the staff report, in the fourth paragraph under D155 it says, they have 280 minutes of use per dropped in this area. If I had that much service out of my cell phone, I would think that was pretty good. I don’t think anyone in this room gets that kind of service. I don’t deny there’s some kind of need here, but basically they gave us the dropped call drive test and there weren’t any on the
May 25, 2006

drive test and their data shows they get 280 minutes of use in their system per dropped call.
Curtis Holland stated I don’t know if a dropped call test is accurate, but I would say that the drive test that we did was provided to you and has been provided in this case is a field verification of what this computer model map shows is our problem in the area. I don’t know of the particular drive test map that Rob is referencing that may have said there are dropped calls in the area. That test would have had to be added or over laid on that map. It was not a test of dropped calls in the area. What we have provided subsequent to providing this information to Rob, in private because they don’t like handing out their dropped call data, is the dropped call data that shows that we have 1700 and 2700 dropped calls in two different weeks. Rob’s point that 288 without a dropped call is good, isn’t good in the industry. The industry averages 310 minutes without a dropped call and we’re well below that. I will tell you this is a very fiercely competitive business. Our competitors are going to walk all over us in Wyandotte County if we provide that kind of service to our customers.
It is not good and I repeat we are not going to build a site that costs a couple hundred thousand dollars if we don’t need to. We do co-locate wherever we can. If we could colocate here, we would. The three sites around it are co-locations. I would think that T-
Mobile should be given some credibility as to that issue.
Commissioner DeSeure asked do we as Commissioners get to decide as to what type of coverage and how much coverage we would allow in our community. Because if that’s the case, there’s still a lot of areas that don’t have the dark color green and there is still some white. Do we have any right as Commissioners to say that you can have 70, 80 or 90% or if you want 100% and the entire map be dark green, do we not have any say as
Commissioners? I’m trying to understand what our role as Commissioners is or do we have a right or any legal role as Commissioners to say 70% is acceptable or 50% is acceptable.
I’m not sure of what we’re shooting for here. Casey Boudreau stated your role as a
Commissioner here is basically deciding a zoning issue. The coverage is an issue, but under the Federal Telecommunications Act you have to look at the city as a whole and where the cell service is denied in a particular area of the city. You also cannot discriminate against one provider against another and no one provider is guaranteed a particular level of service throughout the government. Commissioner DeSeure stated when I look at the map that he
May 25, 2006

has provided, it doesn’t look like service is being denied to the community. There are spots that don’t have coverage and there is always going to be spots that don’t have coverage unless we don’t have any right to say no to a tower. That way they’ll keep building towers until there is no area that doesn’t have coverage. Do we have that ability to say that area looks like it has good coverage, that’s acceptable to me and I’m not going to approve that.
Casey Boudreau stated it’s a combination of factors. I think there also has to be other reasons on the zoning factors to turn it down and there’s no issue of having coverage. One cell tower may not be as attractive as another, there’s also this particular location may not be the best location simply because it is zoned residential. There are surrounding residential neighborhoods in close proximity. It is true that most of the property surrounding it is institutional but it is definitely not industrial zone and not heavy commercial zoned.
Commissioner DeSeure stated if we have a tower that is less than a ½ mile away, but yet it doesn’t give the petitioner quite the quality of service that they want to provide but it allows them to co-locate and provide additional service, would that not be an option for us to consider? Casey Boudreau stated one of the difficulty with cell tower communication issues is you always get all the information for that one particular location. We never have the information for all the other possible locations as to what you can do with two towers at
60 ft. at two different locations.
Commissioner Miller stated I understand we have a staff recommendation for denial and a
Planning and Zoning Commission who unanimously voted to deny this petition. I have generally sided with the location of cell towers because I think they’re important, but on this particular case I don’t see any compelling reason to override both those bodies.
Action: Commissioner Miller made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Mendez, for denial of Special Use Petition #SP-2005-45 and to instruct staff to come back with a statement of denial with the appropriate reasons.
May 25, 2006

Commissioner Mitchell stated this is very difficult for me. I’d like to see good things for
First Baptist Church. There isn’t compelling reason to override this. There might’ve been an opportunity if you’d listened to staff and provided the kind information they requested.
Commissioner Barnes stated for the record, it’s not about overriding staff or overriding the
Planning and Zoning Committee. We are Commissioners and it is our job to do what it is and not to rubber stamp a Planning and Zoning Committee. It is not our job to rubber stamp staff. That’s not going to stand up when you put that in writing saying I just followed along with the Planning and Zoning staff and the staff. That’s not going to stand up legally in court. You’re here in a quasi judicial stance and you are required to make a decision based on what’s best for this community. When we don’t do that, then we fail.
Roll call was taken and there were seven “Ayes,” DeSeure, Miller, Mendez, Mitchell,
Pettey, Cooley, Gilstrap. Commissioner Barnes voted no.
ITEM NO. 2 – 060046…SPECIAL USE PERMIT #SP-2005-46 – SELECTIVE SITE
CONSULTANTS, INC. – ROBERT M. HERLIHY
SYNOPSIS: Special Use Permit for a 150’, three carrier monopole communications tower for T-Mobile at 2800 South 55 th
Street. This is for a 150 foot tall monopole for a cellular tower with one carrier designated for this tower. The tower could contain a second and third carrier. Plans indicate that the proposed tower will contain 1 to 3 external antenna arrays.
The Planning Commission voted 8 to 0 (Planning Commissioner Walker was not in the room for the hearing on this application) to recommend approval of Special Permit Petition
#SP-2005-46, subject to a stealth tower similar to SP-2005-45 being mandated.
Action: Commissioner Pettey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Mitchell, for approval of Special Use Petition #SP-2005-46, subject to a stealth tower similar to #SP-2005-45 being mandated. Roll call was taken and there were eight “Ayes,” DeSeure, Barnes, Miller, Mendez, Mitchell,
Pettey, Cooley, Gilstrap.
May 25, 2006

ITEM NO. 3 – 050053…SPECIAL USE PERMIT #SP-2006-14 – CURTIS HOLLAND
– AGENT FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS LLC
SYNOPSIS: Special Use Permit for a 150’ telecommunications tower and associated land equipment at 12320 Parallel Parkway. The request for this special use permit has been made by Curtis Holland on behalf of Cingular Wireless. The property is home to Piper
Parkway Baptist Church. The Planning Commission voted 9 to 0 to recommend approval of
Special Permit Petition #SP-2006-14, subject to:
1) The applicant shall pave a path to the tower compound for access after it is constructed. If the church prefers to have another access during construction phase,
Cingular can submit for a right-of-way work permit through the Public Works
Department. If that permit is granted, Cingular is responsible for the replacement and cleaning of all streets, curbs, and landscaping destroyed during construction.
2) The applicant shall provide a location for a third carrier on the tower.
3) The applicant shall submit a landscape plan that softens the impact of the tower and its compound.
4) The applicant shall work with staff to design and construct a compound structure that adequately screens the equipment and that architecturally fits within the context of the church campus. The applicant shall work with staff to construct a fencing system that fits the context of the church campus and adequately screens the equipment.
Public Works comments:
A) Items that require plan revision or additional documentation: none
B) Items that may be resolved by condition of approval (stipulation):
1) A second access to the site is unwarranted; access to the tower must be provided
through the existing driveway to the church parking.
C) Comments-advance information relative to construction plan review or other information that the developer may wish to consider, but are not conditions of plan approval, and need not be in the final staff write up:
1) No landscape buffer is proposed.
May 25, 2006

Action: Commissioner Pettey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Mitchell, for approval of Special Use Petition #SP-2006-14, subject to stipulations. Roll call was taken and there were eight “Ayes,” DeSeure,
Barnes, Miller, Mendez, Mitchell, Pettey, Cooley, Gilstrap.
PLAN REVIEW PETITIONS
ITEM NO. 1 – 060103…SPECIAL USE PERMIT #PR-2006-15 – ARNIE TULLOCH,
SHAFER KLINE AND WARREN, INC .
SYNOPSIS: Preliminary and Final Plan Review for a medical facility for Children’s
Mercy Hospital at 4313 State Avenue. The Children’s Mercy Hospital is seeking approval of a preliminary and final development plan for a 17,500 square foot medical facility. The project will entail demolition of the old Payless Shoe Store and redeveloping this site for the medical center use. The Planning Commission voted 9 to 0 to recommend approval of Plan
Review Petition #PR-2006-15, subject to the equipment enclosure shall be painted the same color as the roof.
Action: Commissioner Pettey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Mitchell, for approval of Special Use Petition #PR-2006-15, subject to the stipulation.
Roll call was taken and there were eight “Ayes,” DeSeure,
Barnes, Miller, Mendez, Mitchell, Pettey, Cooley, Gilstrap.
MISCELLANEOUS-PLANNING AND ZONING
ITEM NO. 1 – 060006…ORDINANCE
SYNOPSIS: An ordinance relating to zoning, Overlay District; amending Chapter 27 of the 1988 Code Ordinances, City of Kansas City, Kansas by adding a new Overlay District for commercial design guidelines to Chapter 27.
Action: ORDINANCE NO. O-50-06, “An ordinance relating to zoning, Overlay
Districts; amending Chapter 27 of the 1988 Code of Ordinances, City of
Kansas City, Kansas, by adding a new Overlay District for commercial design guidelines to Chapter 27.” Commissioner Pettey made a motion,
May 25, 2006

seconded by Commissioner Mitchell, to adopt the ordinance. Roll call was taken and there were eight “Ayes,” DeSeure, Barnes, Miller, Mendez,
Mitchell, Pettey, Cooley, Gilstrap.
ITEM NO. 2 – 030127…ORDINANCE
SYNOPSIS: An ordinance rezoning property at 225 and 239 North 78 th
Street and 7706 and 7742 Riverview Avenue (#2734) from R-1 Single Family District to CP-3 Planned
Commercial, CP-O Planned Non-Retail Business and CP-2 Planned General Business
Districts.
Action: ORDINANCE NO. O-51-06, “An ordinance rezoning property hereinafter described, located at approximately 225 and 239 North 78 th
Street and 7706 and 7742 Riverview Avenue in Kansas City, Kansas, by changing the same from its present zoning of R-1 Single Family District to CP-3 Planned
Commercial, CP-O Planned Non Retail Business and CP-2 Planned General
Business Districts.” Commissioner Pettey made a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Mitchell, to adopt the ordinance. Roll call was taken and there were eight “Ayes,” DeSeure, Barnes, Miller, Mendez, Mitchell, Pettey,
Cooley, Gilstrap.
ITEM NO. 3 – 040313…ORDINANCE
SYNOPSIS: vacating a street (#S-2004-13) at approximately 4700 North 93 rd
Street.
Action: ORDINANCE NO. O-52-06, “An ordinance vacating part of the Southeast quarter of Section 13, Township 10, range 23, Wyandotte County, Kansas, described as follows: commencing at the Southwest corner of said Southwest quarter; thence North 01 40’13” West along the West line thereof 670.20 feet to the southwest corner of “Stable T farm Estates”, a subdivision in
Wyandotte County, Kansas; thence North 87 31’32: East along the South line of said subdivision 1102.34 feet to the point of beginning; thence continue north 87 31’32” east along said south line and the extension thereof 251.08
May 25, 2006

feet to the Westerly right-of-way line of North 93 rd
street; thence
Southeasterly along said Westerly right-of-way line along a curve to the right having a back tangent of South 12 19’39” East, a radius of 1216.20 feet and an arc distance of 215.46 feet; thence South 02 09’47” East along said
Westerly right-of-way line 386.31 feet; thence North 18 57’00” West 165.79 feet; thence North 05 04”00” West 190.60 feet; thence South 89 36’00” West
100.50 feet; thence North 26 10’00” West 270.64 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.50 acres, more or less.” Commissioner Pettey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell, to adopt the ordinance. Roll call was taken and there were eight “Ayes,” DeSeure,
Barnes, Miller, Mendez, Mitchell, Pettey, Cooley, Gilstrap.
NON-CONSENT AGENDA
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION
ITEM NO. 1 – 060028…CHANGE OF ZONE PETITION #2878 – BARTLETT AND
WEST ENGINEERS, INC.
SYNOPSIS: Change of Zone from R-1 Single Family District to RP-4 Planned Garden
Apartment District for townhomes and low-rise multi-family elderly housing at 1700 North
82 nd
Street. The proposal is to build 96 senior housing units utilizing federal low income housing tax credits. The project will remove the existing greenhousse structure, modify the current pond and build the 96 housing units around what amounts to two loop streets. They are building a very nice clubhouse, although the building architecture of the housing units is less than desirable. The Planning Commission voted 8 to 1 to recommend approval of
Change of Zone Petition #2878, subject to:
1. The motion sensor lighting resolves the primary safety issue with the design.
2. The snout houses remain unattractive and would not be considered at this density in any other location or in a conventionally financed project. The backs of the units though fairly bland remain the most attractive side of the units.
May 25, 2006

5.
3.
4.
Safe rooms must be provided in every residence. This is critical. As was experienced in Leavenworth County last month, sometimes the storms arrive and pass before tornado sirens are able to be sounded.
The Planning staff continues to have concerns with the overall appearance of the project though good strides have been made recently in turning or combining 12 of the 96 garages/driveways.
This project would not be recommended for approval under most circumstances even with the modifications! Given the apparent neighborhood support to eliminate the greenhouse, the poor design is apparently not an important issue in this location that it would be in the rest of the City.
6. 3-4’ tall landscape berms should be provided along 82 nd
Street to screen the backs of the units facing 82 nd
Street. A landscape plan for those berms can be submitted with the final plat.
George Hopper, 7040 Southwest Fountaindale Road, Topeka Kansas
, stated we’re proposing to have our zoning passed. We have 96 unit senior single family complex to be built at this location and request that zoning change. Commissioner Miller asked is this a required age restricted facility. George Hopper stated 55 years and older.
Commissioner Pettey asked on the income tax credits, what’s the percentage of units that will be at market rate? George Hopper stated there are no market rate units in this complex. They will all be affordable units for tax credits.
Commissioner Gilstrap asked is there anyone in favor or opposition?
Ruth Lindsey, 8300 New Jersey, stated I’m not against this issue, I’m a neighbor of the complex. The pond is in my backyard and have question as to information being provided to the people who live in the community. When this started we were promised that we would see all kind of information and how they were going to deal with the water. The water is a problem and the dam needs to be fixed and it comes into the yards of the people who are on the neighboring properties on the south of the pond. I just want to have
May 25, 2006

information available to us of what they’re doing to correct all of this and I’m not seeing that forth coming. Rob Richardson stated the storm water details will be done in detail at the time the final plat is prepared. Those are still forthcoming. They have the ability to and intent to meet our ordinances that would correct and remedy that problem.
Don Cochran, 8309 Wood, asked what has been determined on the tornado shelters? That was one of the recommendations of the Planning Board. I am wondering about the safe room and the ecstatics.
Douglas Wood, 8220 New Jersey, stated I just want to say on behalf of Weed Hut, we’ve had this green house and it’s been abandoned for a while. I speak on behalf of the neighborhood. We just want something done and a lot of people call this an eyesore. We welcome them and it’s a win win situation for everyone in terms of the seniors and for the neighborhood. We have a good bunch of people coming into the neighborhood and I want to speak in favor of it.
George Hopper stated we have every intent to comply with the drainage and make sure it is correct in the area. At the Planning and Zoning meeting, it was approved with the stipulation of the individual safe rooms of which we have indicated and complied that we agree with that and we’ll comply with that. On the ecstatics, we followed the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The comments on the ecstatic, there are no recommendation except for the ones we’ve agreed to as far as lighting and we’ve also turned some of the garages around to the side entrance.
Action: Commissioner DeSeure made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Pettey, for approval of Change of Zone Petition #2878, subject to the stipulations.
Roll call was taken and there were eight “Ayes,” DeSeure,
Barnes, Miller, Mendez, Mitchell, Pettey, Cooley, Gilstrap.
May 25, 2006

SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
ITEM NO. 1 – 990352…SPECIAL USE PETITION #SP-2006-15 – MICHAEL
DODSON FOR DODSON ENTERPRISES
SYNOPSIS: Special Use Permit for a home occupation special use permit for a t-shirt printing business at 2209 South 38 th
Street. This is a request to renew a home occupation special use permit for a business silk screening t-shirts, that has been in operation at this location for some 14 years. We are aware of no complaints and saw no physical evidence of any non-residential occupancy. The Planning Commission voted 8 to 1 to recommend approval of Special Permit Petition #SP-2006-15, subject to:
1.
2.
3.
A two-year approval period.
No employees other than members of the immediate family residing on the premises.
No signs and no indication outside the residence of non-residential use.
4. No advertising that includes the address of the residence.
5.
Action:
The recommendation of the Fire Department with respect to storage and use of paints and thinners. Updated information should be submitted to the staff for the
Fire Department.
Commissioner Pettey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Mendez, for approval of Special Use Petition #SP-2006-15, subject to the stipulations. Roll call was taken and there were eight “Ayes,” DeSeure,
Barnes, Miller, Mendez, Mitchell, Pettey, Cooley, Gilstrap.
MAYOR PRO TEM GILSTRAP
ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 8:55 P.M.
May 25, 2006
Tom G. Roberts, CMC
Unified Government Clerk tdw
May 25, 2006