Good evening.

Welcome to the Planning Commission meeting on February 23rd.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

As we begin our meeting this evening, we'll take a moment to acknowledge that we have a quorum of planning commissioners present with seven of nine commissioners in attendance.

Chair Wayne Janner and Commissioner Corcoran are unable to attend this evening.

Thanks to everyone in the chamber for attending this evening's meeting.

Planning commission meetings are an important part of the process for interpreting and applying the city's comprehensive plan and unified development ordinance.

It's important that our meetings are conducted with dignity and respect that applies to every person in attendance.

We strive to provide an atmosphere where the ideas and opinions of all participants are held in the highest regard.

Finally, the actions on the issues we discussed this evening are ultimately under the responsibility of the city council.

As a planning commission, we're here to help the council as our elected representatives to be fully informed to make the best choices for our city.

By statute, the planning commission strives to not engage with any party on the issues on our agenda prior to our meeting.

Should that interaction take place as a result of a business relationship or other interaction referred to as ex parte communication, commissioners will report that interaction when we reach the night item on the agenda.

We now move to the consent agenda.

And this evening we have three items on our consent.

Commissioners, do we need to pull any items for additional information or questions of staff?

Seeing none, I will entertain a motion on the consent agenda.

Mr.

Chairman, I would move for the approval of the consent agenda.

Thank you, Commissioner Bergita.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Chapman.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

That motion passes 7 to 0.

This evening we have three scheduled public hearings.

The first public hearing is a request for approval of a rezoning with a preliminary site development plan and the final plat for Dillon's at Sunnybrook, located southwest of College Boulevard and South Valley Road.

Mr.

Jury will present the case.

Good evening, Mr.

Jury.

Thank you, Planning Commission.

Good evening.

Nathan Jerry Senior Planner.

Before you tonight is a request to approve the rezoning with a preliminary plan and also a final plat, as mentioned, for the Dillons at Sunnybrook Development.

This uh subject 14-acre property is located at College Boulevard on the south side and just west of the Sunnybrook uh shops at Sunnybrook uh and east of the future Sunnybrook Boulevard extension.

Uh this site is currently used as farmland and slopes down to the south.

The site was zoned to the BP or the business park zoning district back in 1998 as part of the overall Sunnybrook uh development.

Uh the site is largely surrounded by the BP zoning uh with residential zoning to the north for the Meadow Lane elementary school.

Dillons is requesting to rezone to the C2 or the community commercial district uh to allow the grocery store with gas sales use.

Uh the C2 district generally allows retail and service type uses in addition to the office uses currently allowed in the BP district.

Um staff is supportive of this request, but for continuity reasons, um, we do recommend carrying forward some of the same use restrictions that are found in the Sunnybrook development and Dylan's is agreeable uh with this uh list of uses.

The Plan Olatha future land use map does designate the site as an employment area.

Uh the employment area does um is envisioned uh predominantly for office and other high employment uses.

Um complementary retail and service uses can be carefully integrated to serve this area.

Um the C2 district aligns with that designation as it does allow for the complementary retail and service uses as envisioned and is limited to the area uh adjacent to that existing commercial uh center.

Uh this request also aligns with several comp plan policies, including creating a hierarchy of commercial activity centers, uh providing a mixture of complementary land uses as well as um uh providing and maintaining a balance of uh jobs and housing.

For the proposal itself, the Dillon's development includes a nearly 100,000 square foot grocery store with a 14-pump gas station along college.

The creme de la Creme daycare development just to the south of the site, partially off-screen there, will actually extend 113th Street and Sunnybrook to the south west corner of the site.

From there, Dillon's will extend Sunnybrook all the way up to college and also install the required turn lanes on college.

A limited access drive is shown on college, and three driveways are proposed on Sunnybrook.

Pedestrian paths do connect both to college and Sunnybrook Boulevard.

And there is a pedestrian amenity feature just on the west side of the building.

The loading docks and trash compactor back of house service area is to the rear of the building, just facing Sunnybrook Boulevard there.

Also, additional landscaping is provided along the rear to the back of the building to help screen and soften those back of house operations.

The grocery store is predominantly clad in high-quality brick, stone, and architectural masonry units.

Also, there will be quality metal panic paneling used as accent at that main store entrance.

All four sides of the building do have articulation exceeding our UDO requirements, as well as the front elevation also exceeds the minimum glass requirements.

Um for their attendant are clad with the same stone and uh color uh as the grocery store meeting UDO standards for that.

Uh this request does include the final plat for the Sunnybrook Business Park fourth plat.

Um, and this does include the one lot for Dillon's as well as all right-of-way and easements uh dedications needed to accommodate this project.

Regarding the waivers, uh, the applicant is requesting the four waivers, and in essence, uh Steph has worked closely with applicant to understand the reasons for these waivers, um, understand the constraints of the building and the use itself as well.

Um, and we are supportive of three of the four uh requested waivers.

Um, first, uh the one on your screen, the C2 district does limit building footprint to a maximum of 85,000 square feet.

Uh the applicant is uh requesting to allow up to a hundred thousand square foot.

Um, this maximum building footprint does uh help break up large format buildings and encourage smaller, more pedestrian scale architecture.

To offset this request, the building will be broken up with four-sided architecture, exceeding UDO requirements.

In addition, there is that pedestrian amenity feature on the west side facing Sunnybrook that helps create a more welcoming pedestrian entrance to this development as well.

Regarding uh the second waiver, commercial buildings do have to provide a minimum of 25% glass on all primary facades.

Uh this site does face three streets, so there are three primary facades.

Um Dillon's is requesting to reduce this requirement on the west and south elevations to accommodate their back of house operations.

And this would allow their customer area to remain front and center with the back of house pretty much on the periphery for their freezers, uh storage and deli areas as well.

The in lieu of this requirement, uh the north and east elevations do exceed glass requirements.

Detailed brick work is provided on all four elevations and simulated brick windows are provided on that west sunnybrook boulevard facing elevation as well.

Uh the in addition, all uh fourth facades also meet or exceed, I should say, uh class one and two material requirements.

Uh the third waiver, uh commercial building standards prohibit loading docks from facing a public street.

Uh Dylan's explored alternative layouts to try and comply, but these alternatives did hinder truck turning movements and pushed internal traffic cloffic conflicts uh closer to Sunnybrook uh boulevard.

Uh the loading docks will be visible from Sunnybrook through that uh the access point on Sunybrook.

Um but landscape berms and uh masonry screen wall have been added to reduce visibility from this collector street.

Uh in addition, the docks are set back nearly 250 feet from the street, and staff is supportive of uh this waiver and the first uh all the first three waivers, I should say.

Um regarding the fourth waiver, UDO does require uh trash compactors and trash areas to be screened from public view on all four sides uh with a gate allowed on the fourth side.

Um the uh proposed trash compactor will be visible from Sunnybrook and from future development across the street.

Uh this has been the standard for all you all development in Olatha since the UDO was updated back in 2009.

Um while Dillons does state that the required enclosure and gate will hamper truck movement and may be frequently damaged.

There are similar developments in Olatha that do comply with this standard.

Um staff does recommend that Dillons complies with uh the city's standard trash enclosure requirement.

Uh neighborhood meeting was held uh in January with 17 attendees.

At this meeting, discussion centered really around four main topics regarding stormwater.

The first topic, uh, this development complies with Title 17.

Uh stormwater interceptors will be installed to catch debris before it goes into the the shared uh Sunnybrook area's regional stormwater detention system.

Uh in response to the neighborhood landscaping was added to that south uh rear uh side of the building and uh around the loading dock area to help soften that uh back of house area.

Um lighting uh will actually will be reviewed with um final development plan like any other uh development, um, and we'll make sure uh that it's taken care of to meet UDO standards there.

Uh in terms of the screening and noise um discussion at the neighborhood meeting, uh loading dock area is mostly screened with a masonry wall and landscape berm, as I mentioned, but staff does not support that trage trash enclosure waiver as previously stated.

Uh the applicant did send the required certified mail and posted the sign on site.

Um staff did receive correspondence from three individuals, uh, two who are really just interested in the project, and one um with comments regarding the stormwater and the regional detention system.

Uh in summary, this request does meet the golden criteria and the policies and goals of the comprehensive plan as outlined in the staff report.

Um staff recommends approval of the rezoning with just the one stipulation to limit certain uses and maintain continuity with the Sunnybrook area.

Um and Dylan's is uh agreeable to that step.

Uh regarding the preliminary development plan, uh staff does recommend five stipulations.

The first three are regarding uh the waiver requests.

Um the fourth is to screen the trash area as required by UDO, and the last just being our standard screening stipulation.

Um Dylan's is agreeable with uh four of these five with just the the number four being the one in uh consideration.

Um staff also recommends approval of the final plat with no stipulations.

Um before you tonight, planning commission, um, there are two actions.

Uh one is the rezoning with a preliminary development plan, um, and you'll make a recommendation on that uh as well as the final plat, um and you can approve or deny that tonight.

Um this will all be heard and considered at the March 17th City Council agenda, and I will stand for any questions.

Uh also Marvin Brownwood Pickering firm is available for uh any questions, and he does have a brief presentation as well.

Thank you, Mr.

Jury.

Do any of the commissioners have questions for staff?

Commissioner Toronis.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

Jury, thank you for your presentation.

It flowed well, and I was able to follow through very well.

I have a well, first of all, this is definitely need in Western Olatha.

It's very exciting.

We're getting that opportunity, and it's uh very, very much needed.

Having said that, help me understand the letter, the waiver request letter.

Was Dillon's Dylan's was required to reduce the square footage.

And if so, uh will this prohibit Dillon's becoming a super center store?

What I'm after is I'm hoping that we're going to get all the benefits of that store.

Um cafeteria, pharmacy, uh, the gas station.

I saw the name in front of the Dillons, it said marketplace.

Is that a reduction in that store by Dillons?

It's not going to be a super Dillon's.

So uh the applicant might be able to speak a little bit to that.

Um but I I will say, yeah, within that waiver request, um, they did mention that their typical store is a little bit larger than this.

Um but uh between the site constraints um of where Sunnybrook Boulevard needs to land, um maximum or minimum parking.

Um they're they're fitting out the site about as much as they can.

Um there is quite a bit of a grade change from north to south.

I think it drops like 20 feet or so.

So they're they're doing a lot of work to to get this to fit within the bounds of the property um that they have.

And so I I don't think it was it might be a little bit of a reduction from their current or their typical larger footprint store, um, but I'm I'll let the applicant speak to if it was more about the site constraints than anything else.

We got to have a bakery too.

Yeah.

Okay, well, thank you.

Any additional Commissioner Sealing?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and thank you, Mr.

Jury, for your presentation.

As far as the overhead doors are concerned, can you walk me through what the landscaping looks like to screen those?

Yeah.

So uh yes, um the loading docks will face Sonnybrook Boulevard right there.

Um there is the landscape berm, like a three-foot um four-foot-tall um berm that uh will be placed on either side of that drive aisle to help reduce that uh visual as well as uh landscaping on top of that berm that will add additional height in addition to the the uh masonry screen wall that's located just on the south side of that loading dock.

Um I will I will mention that the space between the two berms um will remain visible.

Um but there are restrictions for site triangle issues that they can't they can't put trees all the way up to the edge of the curb as that would create a traffic conflict and site visibility.

And to the south, if you're looking from 113th Street north, what does that landscaping look like?

Let me clear that out.

Yeah, so there's that screen wall that goes right there.

Um they're showing some additional uh evergreens along there as well as our standard uh street trees.

And there's okay, so trees, trees along 113th, and then some standard landscaping and a center block wall.

Got it.

Okay.

As far as Sunnybrook Boulevard is concerned, is that going to be four-lane or two-lane?

I believe that's a two-lane one each direction.

So when trucks are coming to the loading dock, I'm assuming will they have room to back in or will they have to stop traffic on Sunnybrook to back into the loading docks?

Um they they can m make all their turning movements on site.

They can make the turning movements within the part of their site restrictions that they've they they made sure that they could make everything on-site and don't have to block in.

So Sunnybrook will be able to flow.

Free flow.

Yep.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

I appreciate it.

Commissioner Chapman.

Thank you, Chair.

Mr.

Jury, a couple of questions.

I want to follow up on um Commissioner Taroni's question regarding the size.

Am I correct that they originally were proposing a 123,000 square foot facility?

No, they never brought that forward to us, um, but they uh that they did mention that that was their typical size.

Um they might have taken that into consideration prior to all that the applicant speak to that.

So what actually came to you was the 100,000 square foot facility.

Okay, thank you.

And then my my second question regarding the trash compactors.

Are you able to bring up the screen so we can I'm curious to see exactly where these trash compactors are going to be located and regarding their concerns about it being screened off the way that uh we are asking them to do it.

This this item.

Is that what you're asking for?

Trash compactors?

Yes.

A trash compactor is located right next to the loading dock right there.

And we have a re a retaining wall there, do we not?

Uh yeah, screen like a screen wall.

They'll act as a screen.

Yeah.

Okay.

And so we're asking that to be enclosed all the way on all four sides?

Correct.

Per UDO.

Okay.

And they would like to have what the west facing part of the compactor open?

Yeah, the west facing um there and partially north.

Is that trash compactor going to be visible at all from Sunnybrook?

Yeah, it it will be visible along with the loading docks.

Um there's kind of here's kind of some site views into that.

So you can see from there all the way down to there.

There's kind of a site triangle there that you can view into the site.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Any additional questions for staff.

Said the applicant has a presentation this evening.

Mr.

Rocus.

Go ahead and welcome Mr.

Rocus to the stand.

Please state your name and address for the record, please.

Just a second.

Hello, my name is Marvin Brown.

I'm with Pickering Firm.

I'm here representing Dillon's for this development, civil engineer and um project manager on that side.

Um I want to thank uh Mr.

Jury for walking through this development.

A lot of the things that I have to um say he already mentioned, and I appreciate your um consideration of this development.

Dylans is quite excited to come to Olatha.

I guess um for the most part, we just want to um talk about just the one difference we have with staff um regarding one of the waivers we're requesting with the trash compactor.

Um I'll quickly go to our screening view right here of that compactor.

Um just to mention a few of the things that we did, trying to make sure um while we're considering the truck movements and the potential of damage inside the truck dock area.

We also were trying to make sure the public face of this along Sunnybrook Boulevard would be as um good as possible.

So we oriented this driveway at the um southeast corner as much as southwest corner, I mean as much as we could to the north to limit any um possible views of passing traffic into the site.

Um we do not um believe that anything inside the dock area would be able to be seen by a normal car unless they're pretty much stopped at at our driveway.

So um with the restraints that we have for site triangles at that intersection, we um added as much landscaping as possible around this drive entrance.

And also um we made sure that um we screen this dock wall as much as possible along the south side to just limit any possible views with into that area.

Um that dock wall extends well beyond uh standard truck um by a decent distance and um the compactor is kind of well into the corner of that area.

So I'm happy to answer any questions about that particular item.

Um and also any of the other items that Mr.

Jury went over.

Um I did hear mention of the size of the store.

I just wanted to um say that um the 99s um thousand square foot um marketplace store, the marketplace is the um upper end of the um Dillon's um development.

There just happens to be a prototype for a potentially larger one.

But this is the size that fits on this site, and that's what we went with.

I think it would be a very much a full service store, more so than you would.

Should have a little bit more in this location and hope to serve the community well.

But with that being said, if you have any questions about the waivers, I'm happy to answer.

And we also have some members of the architecture and the store team here if you have any um additional questions.

Um for that part of development.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Brown.

Uh Commissioner, do we have any questions for the applicant?

Ms.

Lynn.

Um, Chair.

The uh store pickup, the grocery pickup area.

Are they meant to exit past the dock area?

Or I mean I'm guessing ultimately they shouldn't, but I mean are they able to?

Yes.

Well, they're able to, but the intended direction is similar to the pharmacy pickup of them going back north towards the parking lot and up to College Boulevard.

Okay.

Thank you.

I guess I would have a follow-up question for staff, and maybe this would come later.

But I I wonder if the landscaping that is around that entrance would um impede the view of the traffic given the curvature of the road.

We'd be happy to have staff come up and address the landscape as pertains to the visibility coming around that.

Especially for cars.

For I mean, I I'm guessing any trucks would be able to see over that landscaping.

Yeah, yeah, we will make sure at time of final.

We don't have species exactly lined out at this time at this stage, but at final plan, we make sure that all the intersections um comply with site triangle distance for visibility reasons, safety.

Um so that's definitely one thing that we're to be able to see around them.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Any additional questions for the applicant?

Commissioner Bergita.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I just want to try to understand a little bit more why why you want the waiver in terms of having the trash compactor back there.

You mentioned trucks backing into the area.

Is the main concern safety or damp property damages?

Because it doesn't, from my perspective, it doesn't seem like a big deal to put up a gate in front of it or something like that.

Yeah.

Um, main concern is actually kind of both safety and property damage, just because of the way we oriented it.

And I'll mention this um a lot of development, you'll see the um trash compact outside of the truck dock area, so you don't have a conflict to move in, but we believe this provides better screening to have it inside behind that taller wall to screen that compactor from a lot of the views, but um the one conflict that can happen is with the truck movements backing into there and the compactor getting picked up that we don't want to restrict the movements too much as it could cause issues um with damage and um potential pinch points back there.

Um so that is the main consideration.

Thank you.

Any additional questions?

If not, I will uh now open the public hearing.

However, no one has signed up to speak.

So I will call for a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

Thank you, Commissioner Toronto.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Commissioner Brown, thank you.

Uh all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

The public hearing is now closed.

Uh Commissioners, uh, any additional discussion needed for this item.

If not, I'll entertain on item RZ25-3002 or 0020.

Mr.

Chair.

I make a motion that we approve.

RZ 25-002 as stipulated by staff.

Thank you, Commissioner Tornes.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Chapman.

Uh Ms.

Will, please take a roll call vote.

Commissioner Chapman.

Yes.

Commissioner Sealing?

Yes.

Commissioner Lynn?

Yes.

Commissioner Brown.

Yes.

Commissioner Toronas?

Yes.

Commissioner Bergita?

Yes.

Chair Breen?

Yes.

That motion passes seven to zero.

Thank you, Ms.

Will.

And then we do have a second item to make a motion on with this case, which is FP 25-0043.

Do I have a motion on this item?

Mr.

Chair, I'll move we approve FP25-0043 as stipulated by staff.

Thank you, Commissioner Chapman.

Do I have a second?

I'll second that.

Commissioner Brown, thank you.

Ms.

Will, please take another roll call vote.

Commissioner Brown.

Yes.

Commissioner Toronas.

Yes.

Commissioner Brigida.

Yes.

Commissioner Chapman.

Yes.

Commissioner Sealing?

Yes.

Commissioner Lynn?

Yes.

Chair Breen?

Yes.

That motion passes 7 to 0.

All right.

Thank you.

For our second public hearing this evening is a request for approval on a special use permit for a telecommunications monopole located south of 151st Street and west of Redbird Street.

Ms.

Hollinsworth will present the case.

Good evening, Ms.

Hollinsworth.

All right.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Kim Hollingsworth, Planning and Development Manager here to provide a brief presentation on the special use permit request for a telecommunications facility and the associated support for multiple wireless carriers.

Just before I jump into this reminder that the city's review of telecommunications facilities are regulated by federal law, state statute, and the UDL.

So I'll walk you through some of that.

So this site is located west of Old 56 Highway, and we are south of 151st Street within the Mather West Business Park, which as you can see is currently under construction.

The future land use map of Plan Olatha designates this property as an employment area.

And you can see surrounding that is an additional employment area.

This is also supported by the plan's policy for a service provider coordination to ensure access to a reliable wireless communication services throughout the city.

So zoning, the property is located within the M2 district, which extends further to the south into the I-35 logistics park as well.

To the north is R1 zoning for the Oak Run neighborhood.

The request is to allow 143-foot-tall monopole support structure southwest of the Mather West Mather West Business Park property.

There are going to be buildings constructed north of this.

Then you will have the parking area, and this will have landscaping all throughout here as that development comes in in the very near future.

An additional thing, there would be a fenced area around it.

I'm going to go to a closer-in view so you can see that.

So this whole facility is fenced for all that ground mounted equipment.

And we also looked at making sure that as this is placed, there's truck turning capabilities into the back of this future building, that there's enough distance between those as well.

So on the elevation view, you can see right now the proposed antenna right here is that one.

And then there's two future potential antennas that would be placed on this monopole.

And this is a sector mounting style of antenna.

That's to accommodate the latest in wireless technologies.

There is one deviation request here.

It's for a setback.

So the UDL requires that the tower is set back half the height of the tower.

So this case it'd be 71 and a half feet from all property lines.

To the east, uh there's a request to have that distance reduced to 40 feet.

As you can see here, this is a property line.

And so the applicant did submit justification.

We looked at that against the UDO criteria.

And staff is supportive of this deviation request as we've outlined in our staff report.

This setback is internal to the development and it maintains the required detention and tree preservation that's located to the west of this area of the property.

And the building just to the east, right in this area, will be unoccupied self-storage units.

So the applicant did meet all public noticing requirements.

Today we did receive two letters of correspondence that were passed along to you ahead of tonight's meeting.

The letters provided feedback on property values, health, and the environment.

So we pass those along to you ahead of this evening for you to review.

Staff recommends approval of this application as it meets all UDO requirements with the following stipulations as listed.

And this application will be considered at the March 17th City Council meeting.

The applicant team is here.

Uh does not have a presentation this evening, but would like to make a few remarks to you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Hollinsworth.

Question is do we have any questions for staff?

Thank you, Chair.

Ms.

Hollinsworth, just a quick question.

Do we have any other 143-foot monopoles in the city?

I don't know about specific 143.

How about 100 feet?

We allow 150.

We have several that are right at that upper threshold of 150 feet.

We do have a requirement that if you are in a residential zoning district, you max out at 120.

But a lot of these end up in commercial or industrial areas.

We get a mix of where they're located, but there's probably a lot at 150 feet tall.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any additional questions for staff?

Hearing none, I'll invite the applicant up for a few comments.

Good evening.

Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

My name's Paul Greeley.

And I'm here with uh Larry Lauk and uh Mr.

Mather.

Uh we're the development team on this project, and uh just appreciate being here tonight.

And we're aware of the letters that you received this afternoon.

Those were uh just today, so um uh curious if you want to talk about those or have some concerns, because we certainly uh would like to talk about those if you want to get into it.

And uh and just generally right now is uh almost everything that was mentioned in those letters is uh has already been addressed by the state through uh KSA 66-2019, which was is one of the sections that was mentioned in the staff report, and um are things that the state has said local government should not consider uh when uh looking at cell tower applications.

So we can talk more about that if you'd like later.

Um certainly uh I know you have a couple people speaking tonight as well, so like to hear their comments and just have an opportunity to rebut on those later.

But we uh will defer uh the staff uh we agree with the staff's report uh recommending uh to approve this, and uh we uh support that recommendation, of course, and the conditions that they've recommended and ask that you approve this application.

Great.

Uh available for questions.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Keely.

Any questions for the applicant?

Seeing none, I will uh open the public hearing.

And this evening we have two individuals who have signed up to speak.

Uh when I call your name, please uh come over to the podium, uh state your name and address for the record, uh, and you'll be given five minutes to speak.

So first up this evening is Ashley Taylor.

I have a question.

Am I allowed to ask them questions?

Uh it is not a QA session.

It's just a forum for you to voice your your thoughts and and make comments, but it is it's not a venue to engage.

Okay.

Well, I've submitted my letter.

I might just five minutes off.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh next up is Amir Noyri.

Nayuri.

Apologies.

All right.

Good evening.

Um again, my name is Amir Nayri.

Uh I live at 25119 West 150th Terrace.

Uh thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight.

Uh I'm here to respectfully oppose the proposed cell tower plan near my home in our neighborhood.

Uh my concerns fall into two main uh areas, potential health impacts and the effect on home values and neighborhood character.

First, health and safety.

I want to be clear, I'm not anti-technology.

Like everyone here, my family depends on reliable cell service, but proximity matters.

This tower will be placed extremely close to homes where families live, children's play children play, and people spend most of their time.

While federal guidelines set exposure limits, many medical and scientific professions, professionals acknowledge that long-term low-level exposure to radio frequency radiation has not been conclusively studied, especially for children.

Children's bodies are still developing, their skulls are thinner, and they will experience far longer lifetime exposure than adults.

This is ongoing scientific this ongoing, there is ongoing, excuse me.

There's ongoing scientific debate, and even the World Health Organization has classified radio frequency radiation as a possible carcinogen.

That word possible should matter to us as policymakers and residents.

When there is uncertainty around long-term health effects, especially involving families and children, it is reasonable to apply the precautionary principle.

If harm is plausible and alternatives exist, we should error on the side of caution.

At a minimum, residents deserve a greater setbacks from home, greater setbacks from homes, schools, and parks.

Placing this tower so close to where people live forces family to assume a risk that they did not choose.

Second, property values.

And neighborhood impact.

For most families, their home is their largest financial investment.

Numerous real estate professionals and homeowner experiences show that property properties located near visible cell towers often face reduced buyer interest, longer time on the market, and lower sales price.

Some studies show anywhere from five to twenty percent reduction in home value.

Even the perception of health risk can affect market value.

And perception absolutely matters in real estate.

If this tower is built, there are well over a hundred homes within 1,500 feet of the tower.

Those homeowners will near it will bear a financial burden that others in the cities in the city do not.

Their equity may decline decline through no fault of their own, and they will have no way to recover that loss.

That's not equitable, and it's not fair.

Beyond value, there's also quality of life.

Towers change vision of the visual character of a neighborhood.

They introduce industrial infrastructure into the residential spaces, often with noise from equipment, maintenance traffic, and nighttime lighting.

These impacts are permanent while the benefits largely accrue to private carriers.

I respectfully ask this commission to consider this question.

Would you want this structure next to your own home and your children or your children's school?

We are not asking the city to stop progress or eliminate wireless service.

We are asking for smarter placement, greater buffer from greater buffers from homes, and genuine consideration of residents' concerns.

Other cities have successfully required towers to be placed in commercial or industrial zones or co-located on existing structures farther from neighborhoods.

In closing, this decision will affect families for decades, not just signal coverage maps.

Once the tower is built, it cannot easily be undone.

I urge you to slow down, listen to the residents most impacted, and choose a path that protects health, preserves property value, and respects the people who call this neighborhood home.

Thank you for your time and your service to our community.

Thank you, Mayor.

That concludes our speakers that have signed up this evening.

Do I have a motion to close the public hearing?

So moved.

Thank you, Commissioner Toronto.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms.

Lynn.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The public hearing is now closed.

Commissioners, is there any additional discussion needed for this item?

Commissioner Seely.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

For Ms.

Hollingsworth, just a couple quick questions and for the benefit of the folks in the room and people listening online.

And thank you, sir, for your comments.

I appreciate you being here, exercising your right to speak.

But I think it's important that folks know that pursuant to KSA 66-2019, there's certain things that we're restricted from reviewing when considering this application.

One of them is being to evaluate the availability of other potential locations, correct?

Yeah.

That is a piece of it.

And then the other one would be to impose environmental testing or compliance measures for radio frequencies.

Correct?

Yeah.

Yeah.

And Kim Heiser, Planning Development Manager, I'll address that one more specifically.

And then the other thing we can't do is reject an application and whole or part based on perceived or alleged environmental effects of radio frequency emissions.

That's the one I'm going to answer to you.

So the Federal Telecommunications Act and the State Statute prohibits local governments from scrutinizing applications based on health or environmental environmental concerns and impacts of radio frequency emissions, because those are regulated at the federal level.

So as long as they comply with FCC regulations, that is permitted.

So that's why staff doesn't review it and it's not part of this special use permit process.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Any additional questions for staff of the applicant?

Commissioner Toronto.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

It's just a comment I have.

Just we remind the uh the app the uh person that spoke that ours is just a recommendation.

Ultimately it's up to the city council.

But having said that, um please know that our the city staff did an excellent job in providing the details.

Uh so we know what we are voting on at least.

Uh but again, it is up to the city council to make that final determination.

Thank you.

Thanks, Commissioner Toronto.

Commissioner Burgita.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Kim or Ms.

Hollingsworth, would you be able to pull up the map again that showed the neighborhood from the structure?

Yeah, absolutely.

All right.

Here you go.

Do we know how close or how far away is the closest residential structure from the proposed poll?

I do.

So if you are measuring from the poll up this direction, that is 675 feet approximately to the closest residential structure.

And throughout the city, we currently have multiple polls that are with houses closer than that to the polls.

Yeah.

So they are allowed in residential.

This is an in an industrial district.

Um so it is set back way further than it is required to be in this industrial district.

Um when you get to residential, the setbacks do increase, but we see them throughout residential districts within residential neighborhoods on school properties, um, religious facility properties.

It's pretty common that you see them closer to neighborhoods.

And then when Oak Run was uh built, the neighborhood was built, was the zoning to the south of 151st was it industrial at the time or was it rezoned after the other?

I believe it was.

Um I know at least I-35 logistics park was zoned that way at the time.

Um yes, M2 came in in 1988.

So it that district that's in place for this Mather West business park has been there for quite some time.

Okay.

And then the max uh for residential neighborhood is 120 feet.

Did I hear you correctly?

Yeah, as far as tower height.

Yeah, and then the setback in residential is 120 feet, the same height as the tower.

And then this might be a better question for the applicant.

Um, but is there a major difference in terms of the economic value of the poll if it's 143 feet as opposed to 120 feet or anything like that?

Yeah, I I mean I know this meets all UDO requirements, and that's gonna affect its range.

That's probably not the right term.

Um so I'll let the applicant chime into that.

Uh Paul Greeley again, the applicant.

Um that height was arrived at through our uh work with the uh FAA because of the near nearby airport.

And um they have some very interest much interest in this.

And uh we actually started out at 150 feet, I think, with the FAA, and they said they couldn't approve that.

So we lowered it, and then they uh and you've I think you have received that documentation that uh that that's pretty much how we arrived at that height.

If you were to um reduce its height 23 feet, would that negatively affect your ability to market it to carriers or anything like that?

Yes.

If I I'm sorry.

Um Larry Lauk was selected as a consultant.

Um when you lower the height, you lower the coverage that the antennas can make it in an area.

So ATT really wanted 150.

Uh they've agreed to go down to 143.

But when you keep lowering towers, you're lowering the availability of other carriers to co-locate on that tower.

So if we went to say 120, the next highest your antenna center lines, what we call them is 105 feet.

And that's really getting low in order to cover uh a good sized area in order for the carriers to basically cover enough what we would call minutes of use or people using their phone in order for them to make, I guess, money off the poll by the installation of of their uh facilities.

So I don't know if that did that answer your question.

It does.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any additional questions for staff or the applicant?

If not, I will entertain a motion for item SU25-3007.

Mr.

Chair, make a motion that we approve SU 25-0007 as recommended by staff.

Thanks, Commissioner Toronto.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Brown.

Ms.

Will, please take a roll call vote.

Commissioner Lynn?

Yes.

Commissioner Brown?

Yes.

Commissioner Torones?

Yes.

Commissioner Brigida.

Yes.

Commissioner Chapman?

Yes.

Commissioner Steeling?

Yes.

Chair Breen?

Yes.

That motion passes seven to zero.

Thank you, Ms.

Will.

We will move on to our third public hearing, which is a request for approval of a rezoning and preliminary site development plan for the Olatha Animal Care Campus, located northwest of Santa Fe Street and Ridgeview Road.

Mr.

Jr.

will present the case.

Welcome back, Mr.

Jury.

Thank you.

Thank you, Planning Commission.

There it goes.

Nathan Jerry, senior planner, still.

Before you tonight is city's request to approve a rezoning with a preliminary plan for the animal uh Aletha's animal care campus.

This item was continued from the August uh Planning Commission just last year.

Um since then, the scope of the project was refined and is now back before you guys for review.

Uh this property uh subject uh site is seven acres in size, located northwest of Santa Fe and Ridgeview, uh just to the west of Quick Trip.

Uh this project is on the former Sutherlands and Jiffy Lube uh properties.

Um the city has outgrown uh the current animal care facility located at the public safety campus off of Old 56 in Harrison.

Um this new new facility we're will replace that, and it is part of the city's capital improvement plan.

Uh the site was zoned to the MP2 and the C3 districts back in the 1970s.

Um it's surrounded by commercial zoning to the south as well as the east.

Um site is also buffered from uh residential zoning uh by that rate the BNSF raised railroad uh to the north.

Uh the city is requesting to rezone uh to the C3 Regional Center District uh to allow the animal care facility um project and the redevelopment of two future commercial pad sites just along Santa Fe.

Uh this request aligns with the plan Olatha future land use designation of of this site as a commercial corridor, um, which uh per plan Olatha is a corridor that really accommodates a full range of commercial uses and includes auto-oriented uses currently.

Um, but it does have the opportunity to be transformed over time into a corridor that is more walkable.

Um the C3 district allows for a full range of commercial uses, and staff does recommend limiting some of those um uses that are um more auto-oriented and other uses the to help transform Santa Fe uh into uh the desired and envisioned uh corridor um per the plan Olatha.

Uh additionally, the request does align with several comp plan policies, including transforming Santa Fe corridor, uh providing a well-designed public space, and reinvesting in existing commercial areas.

Uh for the proposed site plan, um the project will use the existing uh drive off of Santa Fe and will maintain that through uh with the as it is a shared access drive with QuickTrip.

Um the proposed 26 uh thousand square foot building does have two public entrances leading to the parking lot.

Uh employee parking will be uh just to the side there with uh some outdoor kennels uh to the rear.

Uh landscaping will be provided throughout as required um by city standards.

Uh regarding lots two and three, uh concept buildings were shown at this time along Santa Fe with access uh internal off that central uh drive.

Uh the uh staff does recommend uh that there is a stipulation that a revised preliminary plan come back through before planning commission um for uh those lots after end users are identified in the future.

The proposed building is predominantly clad with class one brick and glass with architectural metal paneling um masonry units and uh Nitjaha uh cement boards as accent materials.

Um articulation is provided along the roof line and building foundation as required by uh building design standards.

Um there is also that welcoming uh pedestrian entrance with limestone boulders as you see in the picture here at the at that main entrance.

Uh neighborhood meeting was held in July last year with just two attendees uh asking some general questions about the scope of the project and facility operations.

Um public notice requirements have been met, and uh all re-notice requirements were met uh following that uh continuance from August.

Um staff did receive correspondence from one uh individual who is just generally interested in the property.

Uh in summary, staff does uh recommend approval um for the rezoning as the request meets the golden criteria and policies and goals of the comp plan as outlined in the staff report.

Um and this recommendation includes the one step um for the uh use restrictions to uh limit uh and allow this property to redevelop as envisioned in the comp plan.

Um also staff does recommend approval of the preliminary development plan uh with just that one stipulation for lots two and three to come back through.

Uh this item will be considered at the uh March 17th City Council.

And with that, I'll stand for any questions.

And I believe Mike Cerna and the development team is here for any questions as well.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Jury.

Commissioners, do we have any questions for staff?

Ms.

Lynn.

Um Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um just a quick question.

Is there any concern about the noise from the dogs and the approxim proximity to the um the apartments that are behind it?

So the BNSF railroad, I mean that's a 20, 25 foot tall wall that provides substantial noise buffering, um, uh, plus the railroad's a little loud itself.

Um but then there will also be uh all the uh evergreens and trees that are located on the railroad property itself that will also be um retained, um, not touched, and those will help provide some year-round noise dampening effect as well.

Okay, so there are trees lining that wall, so that would buffer some of that sound from being bounced.

Yeah, and there's sunshades too on top of uh most of the the outdoor runs that will help limit some of the vertical noise too.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks, Commissioner Lynn.

Any additional questions for staff for the applicant?

All right.

I will open the public hearing.

Um however, no one has signed up to speak this evening, so I will take a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

Thank you, Commissioner Chapman.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Sealing.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Public hearings now closed.

Uh commissioners will open up for discussion.

Uh any additional conversation needed on this item.

If not, I will entertain a motion on RZ25-3008.

Mr.

Chair, I move to approve RZ25-0008 as stipulated by staff.

Thank you, Commissioner Sealing.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Chapman.

Ms.

Will, will you please take a roll call vote?

Commissioner Brighida.

Yes.

Commissioner Chapman?

Yes.

Commissioner Sealing?

Yes.

Commissioner Lynn?

Yes.

Commissioner Brown?

Yes.

Commissioner Toronto's?

Yes.

Chair Breed?

Yes.

That motion passes seven to zero.

All right.

That concludes our agenda this evening.

Um turn to staff for any announcements prior to adjournment.

We will see all of you on Monday, March 2nd for our workshop or joint workshop with the City Council.

At this time, we do not have any items tracking to the March 9th planing commission meeting, so we'll confirm ahead of time if that will in fact be canceled.

And that's all I have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you all for attending this evening's meeting.

We are adjourned.