Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hey, hey, hey. I'll let you Okay, let's call this meeting. Hazel plenty fish in order to order. First house item of business is a roll call.

Oh, thanks. Williams here. True here. Coleman here. Aser here. Sprayberry rinky blood here. Confirm that as of the quorum. Next item of business is a pro presentation and approval of minutes of February 12th, 2026. I move that we approve the minutes as provided. Second. No corrections. No questions. Have a motion and second to approve the minutes as presented. All in favor? I I I'm going to abstain. Thank you, Debbie. Uh, no public forum. No old business. None.

Under new business, we have a public hearing for a vacation for the minimum pad elevation the A&K addition of final plat located at 8600 Southwest Street in our area of influence. Protect the rights of all parties involved and in order to create an opportunity for everyone to speak their opinions and present information. The Hazel Pling Commission follows a specific procedure in reaching a decision. A copy is provided available by the door. We now formally open the public hearing to consider the proposed vacation of the minimum pad elevation table for property journal located at 8600 Southwest Street. Do members of planning commission have a conflict of interest in this case? No.

No. Any members received any written or electronic communications on this matter? No. No. No. Staff receiving communication only. What's in the staff report? Anybody here from the county to present?

Are you presenting it?

Yes. So, the subject site, generally known as 8600 Southwest Street, is located in our area of influence approximately a/4 mile north of 87th Street along the east side of Southwest Street. It's currently developed with a single family home, and it was platted as the A&K addition to Cedric County through our planning commission back in August of 2025. All properties around it are zoned are rural residential and either developed as such or used as agricultural. The applicant is requesting a vacation of the minimum pad elevation table. Um this table prescribes the required elevations for lowest open listings to all structures on this property. We'll also be vacating the last sentence of the owner certificate and dedication that references this minimum pad elevation table and pictures of those are attached in your staff report. So, the minimum pad elevation is a requirement of our subdivision regulations for all plats near floodways or areas with inadequate drainage. However, since we've adopted this requirement, um most of our plats have been submitted regardless if they're actually required to have a minimum pad elevation table. But they are vacating this table because the builder of the single family home constructed it just a half foot too low from the elevation prescribed in the table. um it is still 1 and a half ft above the base flood elevation. So Cedric County um agreed to allow it to remain at this elevation provided that the minimum pad is vacated from the plat. So upon approval of this vacation, the single family home will be in conformance with Centry County's request. The public hearing was published on March 5th. The staff report does say May 5th, but it was published in March. Um, and I have received twoformational requests for this, both from neighbors, and neither had any comments or concerns.

No utilities had any comments or objections either. And so based on this information, staff is recommending approval. The applicant and their agent is here tonight to answer any questions. Any questions for staff? No. Y no. Um, couple of questions. Uh, does removing it create any future um flood plane reliability issues? This property is not in the flood plane. Okay. And and would removing this requirement create any insurability issues? I would have to research that answer.

So my question is along a similar line. I get that that is too low. I get that a foot above is still central county requirements and this is a foot and a half. two foot of city witchaw or whatever is ancode. My issue with vacating the minimum pad altogether is it removes it from the face of the plat. Which means if this structure gets wiped out by whatever natural tornado, flood, whatever, and they rebuild it, it should go back at the minimum pad elevation that is required or at least where it was. This would allow them to put it two foot low and we'd have no recourse and they would have no understanding if they sold it to someone else that that was a requirement that should have been on if it wasn't. I think I I get why this was brought in this way. I think the more appropriate way to do it would be to modify the face of the plat with the correct elevation that it is now so that this structure and any future structures either in that same place or anywhere else on the property would meet that same elevation and not just be open to whatever interpretation happens at the time. I I was hoping to ask someone from Sedwick County that presented this, but since you're presenting it, I'm sorry that falls to you and I don't know that you have an answer for that.

I do not. Um, if if we do agree to vacate it, I would ask that we vacate it and replace it with the appropriate elevation with the appropriate documentation certifying that elevation by a surveyor or engineer that would make sure that that elevation is correct rather than just leaving it off. all together. I don't know if anybody else has thoughts about that or not, but that's where my head is at. I don't I don't think that trying to stop this is is the right move. I think we should try to help out the way we can. I think the elevation is appropriate, but I don't like just wiping it out and leaving it blank for the future, not knowing how long or how long that's going to be sitting out there with no information. And so I don't know if there's any other discussion.

You bring up some good points and and this is our area of influence. So they're bringing this to us as a courtesy. So, I I don't I'm not trying to take control of their process, but I think it's possible they haven't thought it through or I at least would like a little more explanation on it, but I don't want to hold up their process by waiting for that answer either. So,

I agree. I I think at the very minimum we should just set the minimum height to be what it is now. Um not remove it all together. And that's at the very minimum. Um, but if there's some way to write an exception for this time so that if they ever do have to rebuild it has to go back to the the standard, then that would be a better choice. Any other questions for staff? Um, are the applicant or their agent present? Yes. Would they like to speak?

Good evening. I'm Dan Garber with Garber Surveying Service, 2908 North Palm Street in Hutchinson, and we were notified that uh they needed an elevation certificate and found that the pad was half a foot too low. What would normally happen if you vacate if you vacate this minimum pad elevation, if the house were destroyed with a tornado or some something like that and they needed to rebuild, they would have to come in for a building permit. And that's where they would have to build it up to the twoft requirement. Again, not if there's a plat with it's been approved. No, the county regulation would take precedence over the plat.

But if it's been vacated, then there is no twoft requirement. I think that's that's the whole problem. Also, the county is a one foot requirement. Correct. County is two foot. Hazesville, I think, is one. Most of the county, everybody around is one foot, but a couple years ago, Witchah went to two foot or Soviet county went to two feet. Okay. So, even though that's their requirement, they're fine with dropping it by half a foot. That was their recommendation to and I don't disagree with that. My question is with the appropriate procedure to go through and not leave it up to future interpretation. And I and I don't doubt that what you're telling me is correct, but

relying on whoever's filling out the building permit in the future is not necessarily what I would like to do if this if there's a better way to do it. If if you wanted to grant a variance from the minimum pad elevation, go down to the existing elevation. I think I think that'd be appropriate, too. But then that leaves the face of the plat being incorrect. And if somebody came in later and said, "Well, your house is a foot low or half a foot low." that creates a different problem. I'd like to update the face of the plat with the appropriate elevation and that way everybody is on the same page now and moving forward. Do you disagree with any of that process that I'm describing?

No, I mean that's that's one other way to do it. It was just a more expensive way to do it if we were going to have to do a replat. No, I'm not I'm not saying replat. I'm saying a scribner's error correction filed with the plat that says this is what it used to be. Here's the paperwork that says what it is now and be done with it. Just do an affidavit for scriptures there. Yeah. I mean, if that would satisfy you, you people, we're

and ultimately it's not going to come down to us. I would just like to make the recommendation so that when the county hears this, they know that in our opinion, there is more to be done here than just vacating it from the face of the plot. I think I need to clarify that because this is a vacation in our area of influence, it only sees our planning commission and our city council. It won't be taken to Cedric County. It doesn't go to the county after at all. No. Okay. Then I very much think that we should address it. They require a motion eventually. Yeah. When we get there, but we're not there yet. Any other discussion from you? I don't have any. Okay. Any other questions?

Stand for questions. Thank you. Thank you. Any other member of the public wish to speak? Seeing none, public comment is now closed for planning commission action. Floor is open to commissioner comments. Any comments or a motion? I'll move that we Tim. Yeah,

I agree. I would I agree with you. I would like that uh something in writing that from us that um gives our opinion on that just uh just so it's it's recorded. Yeah. And it's got to go in front of council. So, we need to make sure that they understand it, too. Yeah. Sorry, Brandon. Go ahead. It's okay. Um I I think at this time I would move that we recommend against um unless or until they can resubmit it uh with those providers.

That's a perfectly valid motion. My only caveat would be I think there's a way to do it that allows it to be vacated, but replacing it with the appropriate information. Um If if you're willing to I'm fully willing to do it. modify your motion. I I'm just trying to get that in there. I'm not sure how to how to put that together.

I I'm a little unsure also, but what I would guess is a motion to approve the vacation with the caveat that it also be replaced with the appropriate elevation at the pad's current elevation. and all the documentation recorded to support that elevation recorded with the plat as an as a correction to the face of the plat. Does that address the issue of if the house is demolished for some reason?

Because it'll be on the face of the plat and filed with the plat. So, if you pull the plaque, you pull the information that goes with it. And there'll be a note on the face of the plaque that says, for lack of a better term, hey, there's other stuff here that you need to pull to then I I would accept or I would adopt that motion. So, my motion would be to approve this um with the proviso that they record the correct elevation on the face of the plat as a revision. As a revision. Yeah. Okay. Is there a second? I'll second. Have a motion and second. Uh, question. Williams. Yes. Drew. Hi. Asure. Yes.

Rinky. Abstain. Blood. I Coleman. Coleman. Don't leave me out. Yes. Sorry. Thank you. Next item of business is the public hearing for the vacation of a portion utility easement generally located at 300 North Kane Drive. We now formally open the public hearing to consider the proposed vacation of a portion of a utility easement generally located at 300 North Kane Drive. Any members have of the planning commission have a conflict of interest in this case? I do. You do? Thank you. Anybody else? No.

No. Any members received any written or electronic communication on this matter? No. No. Sorry. Sorry to go back. I was on the wrong one. I apologize. Okay. So, you I had no conflict with this one. Okay. Sorry. Um, staff received a written communication only. What's in the staff report?

Staff, please present. paper. So, this property is generally known as 300 North Kane and it's located approximately 100 ft north of 71st Street and 100 ft east of South Broadway along the northeast side of Kain Drive. It's currently developed with a landscape contractor's office and accessory buildings. It was platted in 1994 and there's no other known zoning cases associated with it. Um it's in a very mixed neighborhood. Um along the same street it's all industrial and developed as industrial but to the north is SF15 with single family homes and same to the east it is SF with single family homes. The applicant is requesting this vacation of just a portion of the platted utility easement on the east side of their property and they're requesting it to come into conformance with our city code um following a notice of zoning violation sent January 5th, 2026. So the portion of the portion to be vacated is just the part that is in violation of the zoning code. The rest of the easement is planned to stay. The applica applicant is in violation of city code because they constructed a series of open storage bins and an enclosed accessory building in their utility easement. Neither were constructed and associated with building permits. The open storage bins are made entirely out of pre-cast concrete and are not enclosed and thus do not have roofs. And the accessory building was built with the same blocks, but has been enclosed with the fabric hoop roof structure. Because these storage bins are not enclosed, they're actually considered fences, not buildings. So, they can

remain in the easement without being in violation. But that hoop enclosed structure will be considered is considered a building and cannot be located in an easement according to our city code. So, upon approval of this vacation, the applicant's accessory building would be clear of the utility easement and no longer in violation. The public hearing notice was published on March 5th and there has been no comment received. Everg did have a opposition to the vacation request. They were the only utility company, but um they do have a line running north and south in the easement that can't be relocated due to it feeding the other properties in the area. So they are in opposition, but they don't have any issues with the accessory building remaining in the easement, provided that any future access would mean the building would be removed at the expense of the property owner. Because the EverG has a objection to the vacation request, staff is recommending denial because staff for sees some negative impacts to the applicant and adjacent property owners due to the opposition of you of Everg, the location of EverG's utilities, and the high cost that comes with relocation. So, we recommend that utility easement remains as platted to ensure proper access. So upon denial of the vacation, the accessory building will remain in violation of city code and they will need to make a plan to remove or relocate the building upon request by EverG or any other utility company. The applicant is here today if you have any questions.

Few questions for staff. I have one clarification. the the building that is in question. Is it the the white building with the fabric? Is that the only building that's in question? Yes, the one with the concrete blocks and the in the hoop covering. That is the building in in violation. It appears that there is a storage type building to the north of that. Is that not in violation at all? No, it's outside the Okay. It may not be on that property. I couldn't get out of the car. So, okay.

But it's just the white building or the white construction. Yes, just the beautiful building. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff?

The applicant, other agent present and like to speak. We understand that the the uh vacation will not be accepted. We just want our building to be able to or our hoop shed to be able to stay there. Um and if EverG ever needs access to that, then we would remove it, you know, upon them asking for us. So, we're just trying to uh stay in good terms with Kayn and and uh that way the building's fine and then if they need access to it, we'll tear it down at that point if that's okay.

Okay. Thank you. Now it's time for a member of the public to speak. Hearing none comment is now closed for planning commission action. The floor is open to commissioner's comments. So instead of a vacation, why wouldn't we just do a variance with an exception that they would move it upon need? That was exactly my question. That's well that's question for staff. Okay. Question for staff. We can ask staff why. Can you repeat the question?

Uh instead of the vacate, why would we not just do a variance with the exception that they would be required to move upon utility need? This is a process we've gone through when we have a building in a utility easement. um we go through the vacation process and we did have one last year that had the same result and we ended up denying with the condition that they have to remove it if a utility company ever asks for it to be removed. So if we deny this right now, it doesn't mean he has to move the building right now, but we can just deny it with that proviso that if asked he has to move it. Yes. But if we deny it, he's still

he's in violation. Yeah, he's still in violation. Um, but we won't act on the violation because the utility companies that are in the in the utility easement have agreed to leave that it's fine that that it's long that the building is fine where it is as long as it can be removed when they need it removed and that all expenses associated with that would be the the property owners. So, you won't go pursue the violation as long as says it's okay for now. Yeah.

Right. Yeah, the other thing is it's not just Evergy. If if another utility for whatever reason needs to get in there to serve an adjacent property or whatever, that is still an easement dedicated for utilities and if they need to use it, then that would trigger needing to move that too and it seems like he understands that. So, yeah. Okay.

Is there a timeline for how quickly he would have to move it? I've been under the impress I've been told that utility companies have the infrastructure themselves to remove buildings if property owners do not do it. Um and from a conversation earlier today with um Cameron um he was told by EverG that he would get three or four days notice that they'd be in the utility easement and that he would need to remove the building. So he'd have three to four days to take it down and if he doesn't they would do it themselves. And to be clear that's just the roof portion. All of the concrete blocks are technically fenced and don't have to be moved or are not in violation.

Yes. Okay. So, so let me get this straight. I don't want to beat a dent of course, but if we deny this and say, "Okay, the building is going to stay. It's going to be in violation. We're not going to act on it. That's cool." Um, the only thing that's making it a violation is that has this hoop roof on it. Correct. And and if the utility company say, "Well, we need to move the building." and he just goes takes off the roof, it's no longer a violation.

All of the concrete blocks, I believe, would have to be removed because we allow fences to be in easements because they are generally smaller and easier to remove by utility companies if they need to. Um, and because the concrete blocks don't have a roof over them, we do consider them fences. um that code that allows fences to be in easements usually gives working clearance around certain parts, but it does have a line in there that says these fences will be and can be removed by utility companies at property owner expense. Okay. Any other discussion?

I I still don't like leaving it open as a code violation. I would rather leave it as a variance to utility access based on the comments that we've had. Well, this is what staff has brought us. So, I know I would deny and recommend a Well, we can put right in the denial that we um are denying it, but we're also agreeing not to act on it. So, that pretty much makes the variance. What's your concern with it? Just so we're clear.

I mean, because if we leave an open co code violation, that means anybody could come at any time. I know even if the utility company didn't come say that there was an issue and they need it in there, the city could enforce code. I mean, that is the city's right at any point. But if we don't really have an issue, I don't understand. When we also have this on file as being addressed and this is how it was addressed by city staff. If it if that suffices, I'm good with that. I just don't know why we'd leave it open. It's like this is the if this if this covers it, I'm good with that. This is the paperwork that shows that the property owner did go through the process to correct the violation. Okay. Now, I'm good with it as long as it's recorded and documented. Okay.

I just don't want to leave the property owner in alert. Yeah, I understand. Seems like he understands the process and what it's going to take if it comes to a motion. Um I move that we recommend the denial of um this particular item due to the objection from EverG and the need to preserve the platinum utility easement for current and future utility access. And note that the existing structure remains at the property at the I'm sorry at the property owner's risk and subject to future enforcement or removal if required by utility providers. I think that covers it all.

There second. I'll second. Okay. A motion and second question. Williams. I. True. Hi. Coleman. I. Asia. Yes. Rinky. Yes. Blood.

Yes. Item C, public hearing for conditional use request to allow vehicle storage yard and light industrial district generally located at 500 ft south 500 ft east of South Broadway Avenue along the north side of East EMTT Avenue. We now formally open the public hearing to consider proposed conditional use request to allow vehicle storage yard in the light industrial district. Any members of the planning commission have a conflict of interest in this case?

I do. Anybody else? No. Thank you. Any members receive your written or electronic communication on this matter? No. Your staff receiving your written or electronic communication? Tell me what's in the staff report.

Staff, please present. So, the applicant is requesting a conditional use to allow vehicle storage yard on a property generally located on the north side of East EMTT Avenue. Um, the site was platted as the Hazesville Industrial Park in 1978 and is currently developed with a gravel parking lot outdoor storage area. There's no other known zoning cases associated with the property. Um, however, the applicant has submitted two other conditional use requests for a vehicle storage yard in this same area of EMT Avenue um, with the city. One of these requests was withdrawn by the applicant and the other was approved in June 20 on June 9th, 2025. Um, the sale of that property um, was contingent on the approval of the conditional use, but it did not go through. This subject site has access to East EMTT Avenue, a two-lane paved road, but it's not connected to city sewer or water. Access is available, though. All surrounding properties are zoned light industrial. Um, property to the north is undeveloped, to the south, it is used for construction, sales, and service. To the east vehicle repair, and to the west a single family home. The applicant is requesting this conditional use for a vehicle storage yard um for the property to be used for the personal storage and repair of the applicant's semi-truckss um for his trucking company. Um he'll be per purchasing the property contingent on the approval of this conditional use. Currently, they are operating their trucking trucking company out of their personal residence in the unincorporated Cedric County. Um they're planning to relocate their business to this property um due to a zoning violation from Cedric County. um concerning the amount of semi-truckss that are on their personal residence. The public hearing notice was published

on March 5th and one comment was received by staff by a neighbor at 7474 and 7470 South Broadway just to the west. Um after hearing what the conditional use was for, the property owner quote unquote said I think that's a great spot for him. The requested conditional use is in conformance with our comprehensive plan. The land use map has it dedicated for commercial mixed uses and so this vehicle storage are falls under that designation. For findings in our analysis section, we don't see any effect on access, traffic load, traffic flow, noise, light, or order or odor due to the existing uses in the neighborhood. For screening, it will be required to screen the commercial vehicles from view of the public rideway. Um, there is an existing chain link fence and gate on the property that has plastic slats. This will satisfy that requirement as long as those plastic slats are maintained. They're not proposing a building, so there will be no off- streetet parking required. There's also no concern for public health and safety considering the existing uses in the neighborhood as well. The facility and lot size is adequate for what they're proposing. There will be no signs at this time. um landscaping has been waved and the applicant will be required to submit a business license in order to operate at this location after the conditional use is approved. Based on all this information, planning staff recommends that the conditional use request be approved following with the following conditions. We need a detailed site plan that shows how the property will be used in detail including the outdoor storage areas, access to the property, fence site location and material. Um, we'll also require that the site comply with the

special use conditions for vehicle storage yard. That is the fact that it needs to be screened and the vehicles need to be stored on an all- weather surface, both of which are currently existing at the property. And the third condition is that the storage of inoperable vehicles is not allowed. The agent for the applicant is here tonight for any questions. Any questions for staff? Yeah. Um, No. How does how does staff uh define and enforce specifically enforce inoperable vehicles? I mean, how do we know the difference between a truck that runs and a truck that doesn't if it's just a truck sitting there?

One of them is if it has visible parts missing, it'll be considered a nuisance automobile. It can be um abaded through the nuisance process. The other is how long the vehicle's been on the property. I forget the exact amount, but I think it's 45 days. Is that something we're going to patrol? We have in the past for properties that we've noticed vehicles have not been moving. We have noted we have noted what vehicles have been on the property at date A and if they've still been there 45 days or whatever the requirement is. It's mostly an aesthetics concern. We don't want it to look like a junkyard. We don't want them to be a junkyard.

Okay. the previous conditional use was contingent upon that sale. If that sale doesn't happen, does that conditional use go away? I'd have to look at our code. I think if it's not enacted on the property within about a year, the conditional use is null and void. Okay. But currently on the property that we approved June 9th, you can't operate a vehicle storage right there. Okay. And the all weather surface, this gravel meets that. Yes. And we're sticking with that because that's what's existing, not because that's what we required on the last one.

It is what's required and it was it's a special use condition for the vehicle storage yard that you have to have an all weather surface and an all weather surface is gravel. So it's required and it's existing. Okay. Any other questions for staff? The applicant's agent wish to speak.

Yeah, this is the same person that we had last year and um I think some of the conditions were probably out of reach for him, but I was thinking we got approval, full approval last year. Okay. I thought you said it got denied on the second round, but approve.

Okay. So, we just found another lot that fit the criteria better um across the street with everything he needed already and it was already in use for the same purpose. So, it's the reason why we decided to pursue that lot and get him up good with the county with where he's with where he's at currently. So, it would only be like three to four trucks and he does not plan on having any kind of repair service or anything like that there. And he's planning on putting a fresh load of caging any rock gravel down before he moves in. Thank you. Any member of the public wish to speak?

I do. My name is Jeff Blood, managing member of GEB, own property on Emmen Avenue. Uh just want to make sure that it's very clear that this is this conditional use is required to have an all weather surface and not a hard surface. So that's where I want to become very very clear because the previous conditional use was required as a hard surface not an all weather surface. So changes things. Just wanted to make sure that's very clear. Anybody else from the public? Anybody wish to respond to comments that were made?

Any questions for the applicant from the commission? None here. None. Public comment is now closed for planning commission action. The floor is open. Commissioner's comments

and and just to Jeff's um comment, uh the all weather service would include the grip. I take it right. Yeah. And I think my understanding is, and correct me if I'm wrong, that issue is whether or not the last iteration of this was a hard surface or an all-weather surface. Correct. Correct. It was very clearly stated it had to be a hard surface, concrete or asphalt, but it's this one that's going to take, right? Correct. Yeah. I just want to make sure it's all good. I just want to make sure that it's very clearly noted that way.

Any other questions or discussion? I have a motion, please. I move that we recommend the approval of this item um for vehicle storage yard subject to staff's recommended conditions. A second. Have a motion and a second. Question. Williams. I troo. Coleman. I guess Ricky.

Hi. Item D, under new business, public hearing for conditional use request to allow a wireless antenna tower in light industrial district generally located quarter mile east of South Broadway Avenue and a/4 mile south of East 71st Street along the east side of South Perner. not formally open the public hearing and consider proposed conditional use to allow wireless antenna tower in the light industrial district. Any members of planning commission have a conflict of interest in this case? I do. Anybody else? No.

Any members received any written or electronic communication in this matter? No. Staff receiving your written electronic communication? Yes. Our city engineer got comments back to us after we published the public hearing or not the public hearing but after we published the staff report. So her comments are in a separate paper on your stands up there with you.

Staff please. So, the public works department for the city is requesting a conditional use to allow a 60- foot tall wireless antenna tower in the light industrial district. The subject site is generally generally located a quarter mile east of South Broadway and a/4 mile south of East 71st Street along the south side of Kerner. It's platted as reserve A to the Grand Avenue Industrial Park third edition and dedicated for utilities, drainage, landscaping, and open space. It's currently developed with a storm water detention pond and one of the city's storm water pump stations is on the lot as well. There's no other zoning cases associated with the property. All the surrounding properties are zoned light industrial and developed as such. The public works department is requesting this conditional use um to assist their census meter system that they use with the water department. Um, currently the water department only has one antenna and it's located on the cell, not the cell tower, it's located on the water tower on the west side of town. So, this would give the public works department a new tower and new connection on the east side of town. It'll be constructed on the northeast corner of the subject site just southwest of that storm water pump station. Per the city code, they have to get this conditional use approved in order to build a wireless antenna tower because it's considered a wireless communication facility. They will also have to submit a wireless communication facility application with the city in order to construct it. The public hearing notice was published on March 5th.

We had oneformational request received from staff and this was from American Tower um a representative for Spectra site communications. They reached out for some additional information but they did not indicate an opinion. Spectra site owns a tower just 500 ft south of the subject site. So they were included in the notification radius. The proposed conditional use is generally in conformance with our comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan and land use map dedicate this for heavy and light industrial uses and antenna towers are best suited for sites dedicated for public and semi-public uses. But considering the site's constraints as a reserve, um the proposed use complies with the overall spirit intent and intent of the zoning regulations because the constraints as a reserve makes it unusable for proper industrial development. There were no comments submitted from utilities or Cedric County and within our findings, we see no impact due to existing conditions and access needs for access, traffic load, traffic flow, noise, light or odor. The applicant doesn't have plans to screen the facility at this time. So, the planning commission will have to authorize an exemption from the specific requirements of appendix E to allow the facility to be constructed without any screening or fencing. That exemption has been incorporated into staff's recommendation. There will be no parking for this facility and no services will be needed. We also don't see an effect to the public health or safety. The site is of adequate size. There shall be no signage at this time. Um and there are no other considerations that we considered. But based on this information, we are recommending approval of the conditional use um with the following condition that the facility will be exempt from the screening requirements of appendix

E505G1A of the zoning regulations. And that specific line is in your staff report. Any questions for staff?

Is there another fence around the bottom of this tower somewhere that there's a fence around the storm water pump station? Yeah, but they're not proposing one around the bottom of the tower right now.

So, I get that not screening a tower is it makes perfect sense. screening the bottom six feet of a 100 foot tower or whatever it's going to be is ridiculous. But keeping someone from climbing the tower is a real concern. So is this tower constructed in such a way and I don't know that I can tell from the drawing constructed in such a way that it's not easily climbable. I would think that most of them would be for liability. I've dealt with a lot of antenna towers. Okay. Okay. That that's my real concern there. And if if there's no plan for a screening fence,

I that was my other question. Okay. Okay. I'm not aware if it's specifically designed to not be climbed. Okay. Um if we're worried about that, we could change the exemption to where they are just exempt from it being a solid screening and they just have to install some sort of fence but not make it not visible from the public right ofway. Okay. Uh any other questions for staff? know you are the applicant's agent at this point, right? So, now it's time for members of the public to speak. I have uh James B.

Uh yeah, my name is uh James B and I own the property right next to where the location is. Got several questions. Uh number one, I don't I have no clue how big this tower is going to be. Number uh number two, it's uh that whole area is a retention pond for the drainage for that area. And there's times that retention pond has three feet of water in it. How are you going to put a tower in three feet of water in a retention pond?

My other issue is you have another tower 500 ft away from the location that you're talking about here. you know, if it's an RF um um transmitter, you should be able to put it on that tower and not have any issues at all. Um we I do have u concerns about RF. Uh you're not supposed to put RF within 1500 feet of a of a residence or you know, another uh a business or whatever. uh because of the you know the radiation that comes off of that um I would be uh my building would be you know within two or 300 ft of it let alone 1500 ft. So that you know those are my main concerns. Um like I said we had no information how big this tire was going to be or anything else. So, you know, I'm really kind of left in the dark as to what it is other than I know it's a U does, you know, transmit RF radiation.

Okay. Thank you. Oh, yeah. And uh I'm sure that's not going to help my property values or anybody else's in the area as well. Okay. Thanks. because uh if you look anywhere online uh your property values typically drop 30% just because of an antenna being put up.

No other members of the public.

No, I've got my name is still Jeff Blood. I'm managing member of GE. We own property direct directly to the east of this property. Uh, a couple of questions that weren't noted or weren't stated on the paperwork was base elevation of the tower and encroachment within the drainage ement. So, if it's going to stay within the four flags that are there, does a 60oot tower have to be at a 100redyear storm, a 200-year storm, what base mark elevation is going to be used? And then will that in turn encroach on that draining geese? And then the the other one was just a statement saying the and I think we've already covered it about the the fencing uh just the liability the city liability to have a non-offence around a tower is kind of it concerns me.

Thank you. Uh staff wish to respond to those questions. The tower is going to be 60 ft tall. Excuse me.

60 feet tall. Um from the spec sheet I was given, it's going to be 51 in across at the base. and it will be located um where that gravel driveway is. So it should and almost immediately next to that pump station. So it should be clear of the detention pond and shouldn't have to worry about that. Right next to the asphalt driveway. Yes. Okay. So that is right that's right next to our property from our building 10 ft from where he's at 12 hours a day. Okay.

I'm not sure about the base flood elevation. Okay. And the reserve that I'm looking at doesn't have any drainage easements on it, but extension of those other two would make this clear of it. Um, any other questions?

Public comments is now closed for planning commission action. The floor is open to commissioner comments. I was wondering um gentleman brought up the or someone brought up the um the tower that's already there or some structure that's already there. Um has the city considered attaching to that or is that even possible? The option was given to public works but they did not explore it that I'm aware of. Okay, thank you.

And and can you tell me exactly what what type of transmission is going to be on this tower? I unfortunately don't know that information. Is it is it cell phone? Is it public service radio? Is it you know it's for their census meter system which works with the water department? Um that answers my question. So this could be just receiving not transmitting possibly. Yeah. And that's most likely what it is if if it's for meters. Can you enlighten the rest of this?

Oh, so um water meters, electric meters, they all now can can transmit instead of having to have somebody go out and physically read them. So they're all transmitting and you need some elevation to be able to receive those signals. So you get up in the air 60 ft above everything and you can pick up all the signals from around town um or at least it's half a town. Yeah. Collect all that data. So, it's not necessarily RF going out. It's more RF being received and you just need some height and elevation for that. If it was RF going out, the taper would likely be a lot higher and more powerful. Okay. Because 60 ft is much more than I have in my backyard. Do you have one of these in your backyard? I have. Yeah. My ham radio operator, so I have a tower.

Can I ask you about how easy yours is to climb? Well, mine's a lot smaller and would not support my weight. It's mounted up the side of my house. So the four foot square at the bottom or just over four feet. Yeah, mine mine I think it's two foot square at the bottom. Okay. Um so it's much smaller. Um and this is a amateur radio. So yeah, I could easily climb mine but commercial towers usually have anti- climb mechanisms and that will be part of my motion. Okay, which is ready. Any more discussion

or questions? So, so the city was given so the city decided not to explore the other tower. Was it cost prohibitive? Is that the reasoning? I wasn't given an explanation. I gave options. I gave that as an option and they chose this one. Okay. Is this just because it's owned by the city at that point? I can't answer that question. I'd like to understand that. Should we require a security fence around it?

Well, that that was my concern. I mean, the thing's only 4 foot square at the bottom, so it's not going to be a lot of fence, but something deterring someone from climbing it would be better than nothing in my opinion, but at this point, whoever is going to make the motion can either include that or not. I have a motion that'll address that. Okay. I move that we recommend the approval of CO 2026. 01 for a wireless antenna tower subject to staff's recommended conditions with the exemption from screening requirement as proposed requiring an anti-climb safety measure um or measures to prevent unauthorized access and requiring documentation of compliance with all applicable FCC regulations regarding radio frequency emissions

anybody I'll Second. I have a motion and second. Question. Williams. Yes. Let me remind you this is uh we're in the middle of a vote. So in public comment is closed. Question. It didn't help to come. Big waste of time. Williams. Yes. Troop. Hi. Coleman. Yes. Asia. Yes. Rinky abstain. Blood.

Abstain. Item E, public hearing, consider amending the and restarting restating the zoning regulations. So staff is initiating some amendments to the zoning regulations in an effort to modernize and codify our practices and encourage the development of more housing and smart growth. The intent of these amendments is to achieve the goals of our comprehensive plan of streamlining development, diversifying housing options, and capitalizing on existing infrastructure as well as supporting new and existing businesses. The public hearing was scheduled um tonight to consider amending and restating the zoning regulations. However, the amendments are not finalized and as such, staff is requesting the item be tabled until the next regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, April 9th.

Is there a motion to that effect? I move that we table this until set time. Second. Motion second. All in favor? I I I those opposed. No correspondence. No. Any off agenda? Next meeting is April 9th where we will have a public hearing. Thank you. April second. April 9th. Okay. Have a motion second to adjurnn. All in favor? I I I those opposed. Thank you.