METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 13, 2000 The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was held Thursday, April 13, 2000, at 12:00 noon, in the Planning Department Conference Room, 10th Floor, City Hall, 455 North Main, Wichita, Kansas. The following members were present: Frank Garofalo, Chair; James Barfield (late arrival); Bud Hentzen; Bill Johnson (late arrival); Richard Lopez; Ron Marnell (late arrival); John W. McKay, Jr., (late arrival); Jerry Michaelis; Susan Osborne-Howes (late arrival); George Platt; Harold Warner, Jr.; and Ray Warren. Chris Carraher and Deanna Wheeler were not present. Staff members present were Marvin S. Krout, Secretary; Dale Miller, Assistant Secretary; Donna Goltry, Principal Planner; Scott Knebel, Senior Planner; Barry Carroll, Assoicate Planner, and Karen Wold, Recording Secretary. 1. Presentation on Hilltop Neighborhood Revitalization Plan RAY ONTIVEROS, Planning staff, presented a summary of the Hilltop Neighborhood Plan, and held a question and answer session following. Dennis Hesselbarth, Pastor of the Free Urban Church was in attendance, and also responded to questions by the Commissioners. The main points are summarized below: 1. A neighborhood “Park” Assessment was conducted by the consultants 2. There are nine major goals in the plan: 1. Preserve community policing 2. Preserve community garden and park 3. Add programs for youth 4. Add tenant screening and strengthen code enforcement 5. Add more parks and street lights 6. Remove barriers to home buying 7. Remove abandoned houses 8. Keep out drugs 9. Keep out slum landlords 3. Most goals relate to improving existing undesirable conditions -- not to new development 4. A recommendation shown on the future plan map shows the removal of the separation between Hilltop Manor Coop Association area and single-family homes and the creation of a new Greenway 5. New Parks are shown on the map 6. New streets and cul-de-sacs are proposed as shown on the map with the exception of no through street being built to the north of the Activity Center Community Feedback 7. Neighborhood stakeholders want to stress the severity of conditions and urgency for action 8. There is a strong desire to eliminate the poorest housing through stronger code enforcement; improve the streets and add parking 9. Residents want the City to make it easier for individuals to build and rehabilitate housing in area 10. Homeowners need to find ways to get loans for property improvements - lenders 11. Do not put in streets which cut through Friendship Park (To the north of the activity center) --------------------------------------------------------------- Osborne-Howes arrived at the meeting at 12:40 p.m. 2. Reconsideration of S/D 99-63 - One-Step Final Plat of S AND D EQUIPMENT ADDITION, located north of Douglas Avenue, on the west side of West Street. A. It appears that existing municipal services are available to serve this site. The applicant shall plat an additional 4-ft of utility easement to conform with the standard 20-ft utility easement. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for any guarantees or easements. A guarantee for the extension of storm sewer is required. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. D. The applicant shall provide a Restrictive Covenant stating that upon the platting of the adjoining lot to the south, the southernmost access opening shall be relocated to be centered along the south property line, unless the proposed use of the property to the south consists of a drive-through bank, drive-through restaurant, convenience store, gas station or other similar high-volume, traffic-generating use. E. The MAPC Chair should be revised to reference “Frank Garofalo”. F. This property is within a zone identified by the City Engineers’ office as likely to have groundwater at some or all times within 10 feet of the ground surface elevation. Building with specially engineered foundations or with the lowest floor opening above groundwater is recommended, and owners seeking building permits on this property will be similarly advised. More detailed information on recorded groundwater elevations in the vicinity of this property is available in the City Engineers’ office. G. The final plat tracing shall reference a tie point to a section corner. H. The name of the owner of the property indicated in the platting binder must correspond with the owner’s name on the plat. I. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. J. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) K. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. L. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. M. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements [specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147] for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. N. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. O. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. P. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. Q. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. R. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in Release 13 version of AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. STRAHL “This is the reconsideration of the S & D Equipment Addition, located north of Douglas on the west side of West Street. It encompasses just under one acre, and there was a zone change to ‘LC’ Limited Commercial that was approved by the City Council in July of 1999, subject to replatting. The plat was approved by the MAPC in October 1999 and the City Council just recently sent the plat back to you for reconsideration, based on the issue of access. You may recall that this plat was previously approved by this body, subject to the applicant providing a letter to the Planning staff, indicating that he may agree to future shared access with the adjoining property to the south, located right here (indicating). Although the plat was approved with the southernmost opening required to be along the property line, (indicating) right here, the current proposal by the applicant is for the access opening to be located approximately 24 feet north of that southern property line. That is based on an existing KG&E power pole and gas regulator that they are trying to avoid relocating at this time. The Planning staff recommended that a joint access to the south be required when the property to the south is rezoned and redeveloped in order to reduce the number of driveways along West Street in accordance with both the subdivision regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. Now, the property to the south is a vacant lot with approximately 120 feet of frontage and if there are no provisions to require joint access to the south, then an additional commercial driveway on West Street would be inevitable when that southern property is zoned to a commercial use. So we have had recent discussions with the applicant, and the applicant has agreed to relocate their proposed access to be centered on the south property line upon the platting of the property to the south. So the access would be centered right there along the south property line and the relocation would not be required if the use to the south was a drive-through bank, a drive- through restaurant, a convenience store, a gas station, or other similar high-volume traffic-generating uses. The applicant was concerned about incompatible use to the south that would pose problems with his circulation. The other condition would be the cost of the relocation of the drive-way in addition to the utility equipment located right there which would be incurred by the property-owner to the south.” GAROFALO “Are there any questions of Neil?” PLATT “Back up, and tell us again exactly what we approved?” STRAHL “Okay. You had approved one access point along the south property line with the applicant providing a letter to the Planning staff saying that he ‘may’ agree to a future cross-lot access agreement with the property to the south.” WARREN “He said he would look with favor.” STRAHL “Yes, look with favor.” LOPEZ “And the City Council referred it back to us for what reason again?” STRAHL “Well, Planning staff again recommended that cross-lot access agreement be required instead of the possibility.” LOPEZ “Okay, then you stated that that utility pole and the utilities are on the north side of the property line?” STRAHL “They would be located right here (indicating).” LOPEZ “They are located there right now?” STRAHL “Yes.” LOPEZ “So the property owner on the south side would be required to pay for the relocation of the property lines on the north side? Is that what you said?” STRAHL “Upon the platting of the property to the south, the relocation of the driveway and the relocation of the utilities would have to be incurred by the property owner to the south, yes.” LOPEZ “Are the utilities on the north benefiting the south property?” KROUT “There is a shared access drive.” LOPEZ “But the north property owner will also benefit from it, won’t they?” KROUT “They will already have an access drive to the north.” LOPEZ “And utilities.” KROUT “Yes, they have utilities.” LOPEZ “But they don’t want to share in the cost of moving them as a condition of agreeing to the shared access? Is that what I am hearing?” KROUT “No. They would have come back and asked you to vacate or change the access control so that they could build a drive-way 24 feet to the north, and we are saying that rather than have it on the south property line, it would be preferable to let them go ahead and build it where they want to now, and then when the property owner to the south comes in and wants to a drive, the driveway would be relocated to the south and that the owner to the south would bear the cost of relocating any utilities as part of that driveway construction.” LOPEZ “If I an understanding this correctly, the property that is requesting the zoning now will have a driveway north of where we are talking about, but if a tenant to the south comes in and requests a driveway that the property owners to the north is actually going to agree to close their existing driveway and do a shared driveway? They are going to agree to that?” STRAHL “Yes.” LOPEZ “They aren’t going to come back here and talk about a hardship and financial burden and all of that?” STRAHL “That would be a condition of the plat.” GAROFALO “Who would share the cost of relocating the driveway? Would they share it?” KROUT “The property owner to the south has to build a driveway anyway, so he may as well build it as a shared driveway.” MICHAELIS “Well, he is going to have to pay for utilities to put them in a new location, too.” GAROFALO “Yes, he will have to pay for the utility relocation.” MICHAELIS “There will be some due diligence on that property.” LOPEZ “If you’ve got another access open, you nullify the whole thing, right?” KROUT “That’s right. If you approve a plat to the south someday in the future and he says ‘I don’t want a joint opening, I want my own access opening, and I don’t want to put it there’, then that will be your decision when that plat comes in.” PLATT “I am still not clear. Did we or didn’t we approve the access on the north property line?” STRAHL “Yes. There also was a joint-access along the north property line, yes.” PLATT “And that has nothing to do with the discussion on the south, so there will be two accesses?” STRAHL “Yes.” GAROFALO “There will be two accesses, then. One north and one south?” STRAHL “Correct.” GAROFALO “And that was okay with Traffic Engineering?” KROUT “Traffic Engineering agreed with our initial recommendation that this be a driveway on the south end that will be shared with the lot on the south in the future. But I think we are saying that we agree to a compromise on this issue.” LOPEZ “The compromise being?” KROUT “That they can actually build a driveway for themselves a little bit north of where it was originally identified and that they will share an access unless there are certain uses that develop to the south.” LOPEZ “And if the utility lines need to be relocated, they share in the cost?” KROUT “We haven’t said that. You might want to talk to the applicant’s agent about that.” MICHAELIS “Neil, l guess, for clarification, would you explain it to me, because the way I recall it, at Subdivision we had this discussion and we approved it with the driveway where it is. At MAPC, we approved it with the driveway where it is. Now, from there it goes to the City Council. The Traffic Engineer sat here and was okay with it at Subdivision and everything else. What transpired between then and City Council that was different to warrant this coming back. I don’t understand how it came back. If you could explain it.” KROUT “Probably I need to answer that question. A year ago, we had a workshop. Maybe some of you weren’t on the Planning Commission at the time, but we had a workshop on access management. We brought in a professor from Texas. He sent excerpts of the study and workshop that he did with you. I think we have a video if anyone wants to take it home and watch it, and we have pointed out from time to time that the Comprehensive Plan and the Subdivision regulations call for joint access and the sharing of access and driveways in this manner. We also have a City Council who told us, over a year ago that they wanted us to do a better job with access management. We had two cases, this case and the next week following it, actually it was this last Tuesday, we had another case which was similar at 55th and Broadway. Some of you will remember that case where we again asked for that property owner to share his access with the properties to the north and west and he didn’t want to do that. We didn’t make him do that, so I felt like here we have two classic issues where the Planning Commission is not paying attention to your Subdivision Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan and if we have on our work plan that we are going to continue to develop guidelines in this area, but if we are not going to pay any attention to it at all, it doesn’t make sense for us to spend any more time on it. So I felt like this was an appropriate time to bring the issue to the City Council’s attention and see whether they cared or not. They cared enough to send it back to you for reconsideration. The second case, when we told the applicant we were going to ask them to do the same thing at 55th and Broadway, they came in and we negotiated an agreement on that before the City Council meeting where that owner who owns the property to the north and the west corner lot agreed that he would put a covenant down on those properties to the north and west that those properties would be permitted cross-lot access for this corner lot to be able to share access and use the driveways and properties to the north and the west. Again, that was a little bit of a compromise, but we felt like that accomplished what we were trying to achieve in the Subdivision regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. So I took it on myself to say that this was a policy issue. I thought that the Planning Commission was not paying a lot of attention to it and it would be their decision because it is not an issue of dedicating streets, it is an issue of design of the plat, and that is something that the Planning Commission is responsible for, but it is something that I asked for them to send back to you so you could take another look at it.” MICHAELIS “I think it may help, in the future, then, if part of the Comprehensive Plan or part of the regulations was if we could come up with a list of streets or a map layout where this is going to be pretty much a rule, because I don’t think we can just say carte blanche everywhere in the City that this is going to be applicable. Is that a possibility?” KROUT “Well, I think that is what Jamsheed is going to try to work on as soon as he gets staffed up is to try to develop some more details about where and what circumstances are more appropriate, to give developers a little better idea about when they can expect this, but we are expecting West Street to be one of the highest traffic volume streets in the City in the future in this area between Kellogg and Central with over 30,000 cars per day. So this is one of those areas where special attention does need to be taken.” MICHAELIS “I just want to continue my question. If the City Council wanted to right now they could say ‘okay, Marvin, we think what you are wanting to do here is correct and we are just going to go ahead and pass it’, they could do that, can’t they?” KROUT “Well, I guess I will go on record as saying ‘no, I don’t think so’. I think it would be beyond their jurisdiction to require something that is in Chapter 7 in the Subdivision regulations that the Planning Commission has agreed with. Their limitations, by statute, are to accept or reject dedications of land right-of-way. They also, according to our Subdivision regulations, and some might argue with this, but they have the ability to waive improvement requirements. This is neither one of those, so this is the Planning Commission’s jurisdiction and if you said today, ‘I know you have worked this out, but we don’t want to accept this agreement’, I think that that is the end of it. I don’t think the City Council really has the authority to override you when it comes to this issue. They could accept the agreement, but I don’t think they could override you.” WARREN “In Section 7 of the Subdivision Regulations, in part it says ‘the number of permitted access points shall be permitted by the Planning Commission, based on the recommendations of the City Engineer and the jurisdiction of the Planning staff’. In other words, our recommendation, according to this thing, is limited to what the engineer said and what the staff said. I think it needs to read ‘and consideration of the applicant’s circumstances. I think that is what you are saying, Jerry. We periodically have circumstances. This is a case where circumstantially the guy had no control over that land to the south of him, and yet we were asking him to share an opening. The actual motion that was made was we said ‘the Planning Commission approves the plat, subject to the applicant providing a document to MAPD stating that he would look with favor on a request for a joint- access easement from the adjoining property owner to the south’. I think we were recognizing there that we want him to do that, understanding that he has no control over that land to the south of him, and therefore can’t really agree to the joint access. Those were are our reasons, and to assume that the Planning Commission is going to be limited today, tomorrow, and in the future to the recommendation of the Engineer and the Planning Staff with no other consideration, I think is ridiculous. I think we should have other options dealing with special circumstances.” JOHNSON “Marvin, if this was done the way you wanted it done, and the owner that has the plat in front of us today agrees to a cross-lot agreement, that doesn’t mean that that driveway has to be moved though, either, does it? If they could work out something where the drive-way could stay where it is and not move a pole, not do anything, as long as they are not adding another driveway.” KROUT “I am not sure how you have the language drafted, but I suppose it is possible that this existing driveway 24 feet to the north could be a shared driveway. I will leave that as an option. It is more likely that this owner might be interested in seeing the driveway moved to the south.” JOHNSON “That would be up to him and the property-owner to the south versus us putting a requirement that automatically kicks in and you have to spend ‘X’ number of dollars to move it when it might work where it is. That is the only thing I have to say.” MICHAELIS “Good point.” WARNER “If we are requiring it to do it as it was passed, wouldn’t he have to be on the north property line and move the poles anyway?” KROUT “That’s right.” WARNER “We have already compromised.” KROUT “Yeah, and I don’t think anyone realized, including the applicant at the time, that as it was approved by the Planning Commission originally, it is not the way he has it planned and the way he brought up his landscape plan, and he will probably be back to you asking to vacate access control if we didn’t stop him for this reason and then realize, as we are looking at his landscape plan that he had another problem.” WARREN “I didn’t hear the question, what was it?” WARNER “What we approved originally was that he was to put his access on the south property line, which would mean that he would have to move the utilities and whatever he is trying to avoid doing now, right?” GAROFALO “And that was agreed to at the Subdivision Committee meeting?” WARNER “Yeah, and I don’t see what, other than the agreement for a joint access what staff is asking is out of line at all. If he did what we voted for him to do, he has to put it on the south line and he has to move that stuff.” WARREN “I think he has agreed to that.” WARNER “He didn’t agree to it or he would have moved it over.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Has he agreed to this? Oh, okay.” GAROFALO “He apparently has agreed to it now, after you have gotten together. Okay, let’s hear from the applicant’s agent.” BOB KAPLAN “I am here for the applicant. Let me make one thing clear. I will be very quick. In the first place, it is my opinion that platting jurisdiction is with the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission. The City Council has no legal authority whatsoever to invoke their jurisdiction over plats. That is final at this level. It is one of the few instances where you have final jurisdictions over platting. That is by State statutes. I told the City Council Tuesday or whenever this matter was up, that in my opinion, there was no authority for the City Council to refer this matter back. They cannot do that. They can accept dedications; they can deny dedications; they can modify dedications with an explanation to the Planning Commission. That is all they can do under the statutes. Mr. Rebenstorf disagrees with me. He told the City Council they could refer it back, and they did. I was going to appeal the decision and Mr. Krout and his staff came to me with this agreement, which is actually advantageous to my client. Because if we do relocate the driveway, the utilities, the pole; if we do all of that, we have no expense. Whether or not the City can do what they are doing to the south property owner, I don’t know, and I don’t care because it is not my problem. My guy puts the driveway to the north, avoids the relocation as Commissioner Warner suggested. It is consistent with the original motion that was made to approve it by Commissioner Warren that we wouldn’t have to share it if we had these high-traffic density uses and we have identified those. So we are happy with it, and we are going to ask you to approve it. I am satisfied. I don’t appeal the case. My client moves forward with his building. He has been trying to get this done since July of 1999. Yes, we are in agreement with it, and I would ask that you approve it, but as a matter of record, if the City Council does this again, in a case in which I am involved, I will probably appeal it because this is your jurisdiction, it is not City Council jurisdiction.” HENTZEN “Mr. Kaplan, could you state what you have agreed to? Not any justification, just what is it?” KAPLAN “All right. The plat will be approved as presented and as you previously approved it with one additional condition. The additional condition, which is the subject of the agreement, Bud, is this: That if the south property is developed and if that development does not take the form of a service station, a convenience store, a drive-in restaurant, a bank, or a similar high traffic generator, we will agree to relocate the driveway, splitting the property line on the south and share the driveway with the south property developer, but at no expense to my client for the relocation of the driveway, the reconstruction of the driveway, or the relocation of the two utilities, the gas regulator and the power pole. I find that acceptable and actually, advantageous.” KROUT “The other change to the plan is that we are expanding where you can put your access control on the south end so that you can move that driveway.” KAPLAN “That is correct. We are not being required to locate it on the property line, so we do not have the expense of relocating the appurtenances. So my guy likes it.” GAROFALO “Let me ask you this. Has the south property owner been talked with on this?” KAPLAN “Not by me.” KROUT “He will have to come in for zoning first, and then he will have to plat the property. Then we will get to have this discussion all over again.” MICHAELIS “Can we require those kind of restrictions on him without his knowing about it?” KROUT “It will be your choice and it will be up to the applicant and you, or whoever is on the Planning Commission at the time to decide what is the appropriate way to treat that property to the south. You may decide that even though we have this agreement that that property owner to the south is entitled to his own access point and we are not going to do this. That is a separate decision.” MICHAELIS “So we can look at it at that time and it wouldn’t be tied to this. Okay.” KROUT “What we are trying to do with these incremental development, separate ownerships over time is to keep options open for the future.” LOPEZ “If I heard you correctly, you agreed to the modified language which would be the relocation of the driveway to the south shared and the relocation of the utilities. The portion that would be on your client’s property would cost him nothing? That is what you are agreeing to?” KAPLAN “Correct.” LOPEZ “Okay. That’s all.” PLATT “You used the word ‘shared’ on the driveway.” LOPEZ “Yeah, but I said the shared part to the north and the cost of the utility. It won’t cost them anything.” PLATT “The driveway, too, not just the utilities?” LOPEZ “Yeah.” HENTZEN “May I ask staff, do you accept this recommendation?” KROUT “Yes. We are in agreement.” HENTZEN “Okay, then.” GAROFALO “Is there anyone else here to speak on this item? Okay.” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the modified language be accepted as recommended by staff, allowing the driveway to be moved 24 feet to the north of where it is currently shown on the plat. MICHAELIS moved JOHNSON seconded the motion. KROUT “We are asking him to file this agreement, too.” LOPEZ “This agreement, as I understand it, is passing the economic burden on to the property owner to the south who knows nothing about this now.” MICHAELIS “Not necessarily. That decision will come whenever that property comes up for platting. They may not even want an access on the north. They may be happy with one access.” LOPEZ “That’s avoiding the issue of joint access altogether, then.” MICHAELIS “Then we wouldn’t need it.” LOPEZ “What, the joint access or the issue that we are trying to deal with on major arterials and limiting the number of accesses.” MICHAELIS “Well, we are accomplishing what staff wants to accomplish and we are accomplishing what the applicant wants to accomplish. I don’t see the problem.” GAROFALO “I just want to make sure that the property owner on the south, at some point will have some say about it.” MICHAELIS “He will.” GAROFALO “If he will, then that makes me happy.” HENTZEN “Before we take a vote on this, Mr. Chair, I would like to say something to the Commission. I have decided that we are a very mobile society. We have lots of cars, and we are going to have more. Normally, everything that comes up here dealing with cars, and I think there is a salvage operation on our agenda today dealing with old cars; or car lots, or anything else like that, but what I am thinking about is that I personally see an advantage to having a decent access management. The Traffic Engineers and those that are trained in it should be able to tell us what the best thing is to do. And we should listen to them if we can. It is not an issue of denying people the right to their property or anything like that, but I am just saying that this access management, I think, is a good part of the Transportation Plan. So I just want you to know that, that I am not going to quibble very long about shared driveways or access roads, but I think we have to follow a good access management plan, or we are going to be in deep trouble.” PLATT “I want to be clear on the motion. Is there anything in the motion that says that when the property owners to the south want to replat, that the property owners to the south will be responsible for moving all of the utilities and paying for both sides of the joint access drive?” MICHAELIS “I don’t want to make that part of the motion. I want to leave that up to that individual at that time.” KROUT “You can’t put any burden from this plat onto someone else’s property.” PLATT “Okay. I just wanted to be sure.” GAROFALO “Is there any other discussion?” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried with 10 votes in favor. There was no opposition. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Case No. CU-568 - Jim Lattin and Donna Lattin (owner); Terra Tech Land Surveying, Inc. c/o Michelle Goodrich (agent) request Conditional Use to allow warehouse, self-service storage on property described as: That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 28 South, Range 1 East of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Sedgwick County, Kansas, lying East of K-15 Highway Right-Of-Way, EXCEPT the following described tracts: Beginning at a point 545 feet South of the Northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 28 South, Range 1 East of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Sedgwick County, Kansas; thence with an angle to the right of 90?, 327.06 feet more or less to the Easterly Right-of-Way of K-15 Highway; thence Southeasterly along said Right-of-Way to a point 295 feet South of the Point of Beginning; thence East 263.7 feet more or less, to the East line of said Southeast Quarter; thence North 295 feet to the Place of Beginning. AND Beginning at a point 840 feet South of the Northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 28 South, Range 1 East of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Sedgwick County, Kansas; thence South on Section line 981.27 feet; thence with a deflection angle to the left of 77?37’30” for a distance of 51.47 feet to the Easterly Right-of-Way of new state Highway K-15; thence Northwesterly along said Right-of-Way to a point perpendicular from point of beginning; thence East 263.7 feet to Place of Beginning. AND Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 28 South, Range 1 East of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Sedgwick County, Kansas; thence South 216 feet; thence West at right angles to the East line of said Southeast Quarter, 368.3 more or less to the Easterly line of K-15 Highway; thence Northwesterly along said K-15 Highway, 219.4 feet more or less to the North line of said Southeast Quarter; thence East 445 feet more or less to the Place of Beginning. AND EXCEPT The East 40 feet thereof taken for road. AND That part taken for Highway Right-of-Way in Condemnation Case #A-78971, Deed Book 1396 at Page 169 and Deed Book 1407 at Page 271. Generally located north of 63rd Street South, between Oliver and K-15. DONNA GOLTRY, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. She reviewed the following staff report and the addendum. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting that a 2.5-acre tract of property zoned “LC” Limited Commercial” be approved for a “Conditional Use” for warehouse, self-service storage. The application area is located north of Derby, along the frontage road on the eastern side of K-15. The property also has frontage on Oliver. The owners live on the property in a single-family dwelling, that is zoned “LC” and is included within the boundary of the requested “Conditional Use”. Several properties in the vicinity of the proposed mini-warehouse area are used in a similar manner. The property directly across the street to the north is zoned “LI” Limited Industrial and has mini-storage. The property to the north of this site is zoned “OW” Office Warehouse and has outdoor storage. Another property approximately ¼ mile to the southwest, DP- 223 Kuhn Co. Commercial C.U.P., also has warehouse, self-storage and outdoor storage of trailers, boats and RVs. Additional commercial activities in the vicinity include construction sales and service businesses, specializing in overhead doors and in dry stripping of wood. In addition to the commercial uses, there are residences scattered in the triangular tract of land that is situated between K- 15 and Oliver, extending from 55th Street South to 63rd Street South. The land to the east of Oliver is in agricultural use, but likely to develop soon with the recent relocation of the major arterial from Oliver to the new “Buckner”. It has been approved for “B-5” Restricted Commercial Warehousing and Limited Manufacturing District by the City of Derby. The land west of K-15 from the application area is in agricultural use. The property is within the Derby Zoning Area of Influence. The corporate boundaries of Derby have been extended to the land directly across Oliver from the application area. Additionally, the application area is located in Airport Overlay District III South (“A-O III-S”). The intent of the Airport Overlay District is to ensure a compatible relationship between McConnell Air Force base operations and land uses in the vicinity of the base. This is done by reducing, to a minimum, the kind of land uses that could potentially concentrate large numbers of people underneath the runway takeoff and approach paths, where aircraft accidents are most likely to occur. Warehouse, self-service storage, is one of the uses permitted in this area because it generates a relatively low volume of customers at any given time. The applicant will need to comply with the special restrictions in the Unified Zoning Code, including providing a minimum of five off-street parking spaces, to be increased on the basis of one space for each 8,000 square feet of floor area plus one space per employee. All drives, parking, loading and circulation areas are to be paved. The restrictions also cover the directing of lighting toward the use and away from other property, prohibiting outside storage unless the property has the correct zoning for this use, prohibiting garage sales and repairing of vehicles and equipment, limiting signage to one per arterial frontage not exceeding twenty feet in height nor 50 square feet in size and not projecting over the right-of-way, policing the area for trash and debris, and limiting maximum lot coverage to no more than 45 percent of the lot area. A resident manager is required on the site and is responsible for maintaining the operation in conformance with the conditions of approval. The site plan shows two mini-storage unit buildings. A single row of 15 storage units is situated with a solid wall along K- 15 to screen the door openings from direct view. The other building is double-loaded with 42 storage spaces to the east. The applicant proposes that the residence on the northeast of the property be used for the resident manager required by the “Conditional Use”. CASE HISTORY: The property is unplatted. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: “LI” Limited Industrial Warehouse, self-service, construction service business EAST: “RR” Rural Residential Agricultural SOUTH: “LI” Limited Industrial Construction sales and service WEST: “RR” Rural Residential Agricultural PUBLIC SERVICES: The site has access to K-15 via the frontage road that extends to 55th Street North. Traffic counts are not available for the frontage road, but 1995 traffic volumes along K-15 at 55th Street South were 20,940 ADTs. Estimated traffic volume for 2020 for K-15 was 22,752 ADTs, but this is reflective of traffic on K-15, not on the frontage road. Rural water is available from Rural Water District #3. Public sewer is not available currently, although it might become available due to the significant amount of development projected to occur in the area to the east of the site that might result in sewer line extensions by the City of Derby. The applicant will have to obtain approval and permits for on- site facilities from the Health Department. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The “Sedgwick County Development Guide” of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this property as “low density residential,” and as being on the edge of the Derby Small City Growth Area. Derby’s Comprehensive Plan Update 1995-2010 recommends this area as “Suburban” and also is on the edge of Derby’s urbanizing area. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the existence of similar activities in the vicinity of application area, the compatibility of this use with the “A-O III-S” land use restrictions, and the information available prior to the public hearing, Staff recommends the application be APPROVED, subject to platting within one year and subject to the following conditions: 1. The uses on this property shall be limited to warehouse, self-service storage and those uses permitted in both the “LC” Limited Commercial District AND the “A-O III-S” Airport Overlay District. The applicant shall comply with the conditions specified in Section III-D.6.y of the Unified Zoning Code. 2. The property shall be developed in general conformance with the site plan, attached hereto and made a part of this application. 3. A Landscape Plan for the property shall be developed that includes a landscape street yard along the western property line. This shall consist of a landscaped area of 5,000 square feet with 10 shade trees, 2-inch caliper at time of installation, or equivalent. Two ornamental trees, 1-inch caliper, or ten (10) shrubs, two-gallon and 18” high at time of installation, would be equivalent to one shade tree. Shrubs can be used to substitute for up to one-third of the total shade tree requirement. 4. A six-to-eight foot tall screening fence, constructed to prevent the passage of light and debris, shall be erected along the perimeter of the project at the required setback line wherever the buildings do not provide the necessary screening along K-15 and Oliver. Said fence shall be constructed of either brick, stone, architectural tile, masonry, wood or other similar material (not including woven wire). 5. Signage shall be limited to one per arterial street frontage. Signs shall not exceed twenty feet in height nor exceed fifty square feet in gross surface area. Signs shall not project over the public right-of-way. No portable signs, bright colored fences, string-type banners, pennants, or lights shall be permitted. 6. A resident manager shall be required to live on this tract. This manager shall be responsible for maintaining the operation of the facility in conformance with the conditions of approval. In the event the existing residence is no longer used for this purpose, a separate resident manager facility shall be provided on-site. 7. Any violation of the conditions of approval shall render the “Conditional Use” permit null and void. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The zoning to the north and south is zoned “LI” Limited Industrial and is developed with similar mini-storage uses, outdoor storage, and construction sales and service businesses, interspersed with residences. The area west of K-15 is agricultural; the area to the southwest is another similar business to that proposed by the applicant. The area to the east is vacant (agricultural) but has been approved for B-5” Restricted Commercial Warehousing and Limited Manufacturing District. It is anticipated that it will be developed in the future, particularly with the recent relocation of Oliver eastward, improved to county two-lane arterial standards. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The property has been used as “LC” Limited Commercial without approval of the “Conditional Use”. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The “Conditional Use” would not be expected to generate detrimental effects on surrounding properties since it would be similar in character to existing uses in the vicinity. 4. Length of time the subject property has remained vacant as zoned: The property has been zoned “LC” Limited Commercial, but occupied on the northeast corner by a residence. The occupants of the residence own the entire tract and intend to operate the mini-storage business. 5. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and Policies: The requested change in zoning classification is not in conformance with the “Sedgwick County Development Guide,” which identifies the area for “low density residential”, despite the presence of existing business of similar character nearby. It is in conformance with use restrictions for Airport Overlay District III-3. Derby’s Comprehensive Plan identifies the area as “Suburban”, but the approval of “B-5” zoning across Oliver indicates a policy of non-residential use nearby. 6. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The projected impact on community facilities is minimal due to the low volume of potential water usage and sewage disposal requirements generated by the proposed use. Traffic volume increases also would be minimal. The Derby Planning Commission met on this case on March 23, 2000. It voted to approve the request (8-0), with the following changes to Staff recommendations: That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 28 South, Range 1 East of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Sedgwick County, Kansas, lying East of K-15 Highway Right-of-Way, EXCEPT the following described tracts: 1) Wood not be allowed as a possible screening material in condition #4 and instead screening be achieved through the use of wrought iron and shrubbery as proposed by the applicant and 2) Condition #3 be amended to include the additional sentence regarding review and approval of a landscape plan by the Director of Planning (MAPD). The applicant proposed to shift the storage units farther to the south of the site in order to utilize the site more efficiently, and to place wrought iron fencing in combination with shrubbery along the northern and eastern edges of the concrete drives around the storage units. A copy of the revised site plan is attached. Based on the recommendations of the Derby Planning Commission, Staff has revised our recommendation as follows: Based on the existence of similar activities in the vicinity of application area, the compatibility of this use with the “A-O III-S” land use restrictions, and the information available prior to the public hearing, Staff recommends the application be APPROVED, subject to platting within one year and subject to the following conditions: 1. The uses on this property shall be limited to warehouse, self-service storage and those uses permitted in both the “LC” Limited Commercial District AND the “A-O III-S” Airport Overlay District. The applicant shall comply with the conditions specified in Section III-D.6.y of the Unified Zoning Code. 2. The property shall be developed in general conformance with the site plan, attached hereto and made a part of this application. 3. A Landscape Plan for the property shall be developed that includes a landscape street yard along the western property line. This shall consist of a landscaped area of 5,000 square feet with 10 shade trees, 2-inch caliper at time of installation, or equivalent. Two ornamental trees, 1-inch caliper, or ten (10) shrubs, two-gallon and 18” high at time of installation, would be equivalent to one shade tree. Shrubs can be used to substitute for up to one-third of the total shade tree requirement. The Landscape Plan shall be submitted for approval to the MAPD Director of Planning prior to construction of the buildings. 4. A six-to-eight foot tall screening fence, constructed to prevent the passage of light and debris, shall be erected along the perimeter of the project at the required setback line wherever the buildings do not provide the necessary screening along K-15 and Oliver. Said fence shall be constructed of either brick, stone, architectural tile, masonry, wood, or other similar material (not including wood or woven wire), or wrought iron combined with landscape shrubbery. 5. Signage shall be limited to one per arterial street frontage. Signs shall not exceed twenty feet in height nor exceed fifty square feet in gross surface area. Signs shall not project over the public right-of-way. No portable signs, bright colored fences, string-type banners, pennants, or lights shall be permitted. 6. A resident manager shall be required to live on this tract. This manager shall be responsible for maintaining the operation of the facility in conformance with the conditions of approval. In the event the existing residence is no longer used for this purpose, a separate resident manager facility shall be provided on-site. 7. Any violation of the conditions of approval shall render the “Conditional Use” permit null and void. GOLTRY “This case was deferred from the March 30 meeting. The applicants have applied for this application to build two small mini-warehouse buildings on their existing 2.85 acres tract that has their house on it. Their house is going to be located in the eastern corner and the storage down in here (indicating). It is compatible with some of the surrounding land uses. We have mini-storage warehouses in this tract (pointing to the tract to the north). We have some more types of outdoor storage units in this tract (next tract to the north) and then when you get into this neighborhood (farther north), you have a scattering of residential units. This area also lies within Airport Overlay District No. 3 south, which restricts the intensity of development that is used if it would result in a lot of people being present at any given time. That means that uses that would generate a lot of customers for commercial uses or residential uses that would generate a lot of people living in the area are not allowed. Mini- warehouse storage units are a very good use for the airport overlay districts. At the Derby Planning Commission meeting on March 23, they reviewed the recommendation of MAPD staff and they made some suggested changes. If you will refer to it in your packets, the first two pages you have received are an addendum that I provided you with last time that incorporates the changes requested by Derby to our original set of recommendations. I will just briefly highlight those. That is that they not be allowed to use wood as a screening material and that their screening be allowed to be around the perimeter of their project rather than along the building setback lines so that since their mini- warehouse storage units won’t occupy the entire 2.5 acres, they will be screening the area that is occupied by it. They will be screening it with a combination of the backs of the storage unit buildings and wrought iron, as I understand it. The other changes, they wanted us to tighten up a little bit on how we would approve the landscaping plans. That is because the County does not have a landscape ordinance, but Derby had specifically requested that we include landscape requirements on this plan since it would fall kind of outside either one’s jurisdiction.” GAROFALO “Donna, before you go to the slides, in Condition No. 4 in the staff report on Page 4, the wood would have to be…or would we have to take that whole last sentence out?” GOLTRY “If you can look at the page (that looks like the memo) you can see where I have stricken some of the words out of Condition No. 4. I have stricken the phrase ‘at the required setback line’ to address the issue that the screening would be….” GAROFALO “That did address it?” GOLTRY “Yes, there, and I have also stricken the word ‘wood’.” GAROFALO “That is fine. That is what I was getting at.” BARFIELD “I have a question on that. In making that change, is that consistent with what is presently there? You made mention of the fact that there are other self-storage units already there.” GOLTRY “Is it consistent with other self-storage units in the area? I can say that there is not a consistency between the other self-storage units in the area. For instance, Kuhn, which is southwest across K-15 has concrete screening walls around the perimeter of their project. The property immediately to the north is oriented so that the backs of the buildings are along K-15. It provides the screening in that manner. The property to the north has only a chain-link fence at this time and I have heard comments from both Derby and from other people that, possibly, it is not in compliance with what it was supposed to have been at the time of development. But that is really outside the scope of this for me to investigate as part of this case; just to point out that ‘yes, there is a variety of styles of screening that are being used’. And this won’t be the most rigorous, but it certainly will be nice-looking. There was a site plan presented at the Derby Planning Commission. Their revised site plan, which slides the units south a little bit further to the south property line and shows the concrete areas where the screening would be accomplished around the perimeter of the site is the one that has also been attached to the memo you were provided last time. Are there any additional questions?” HENTZEN “What is the current zoning?” GOLTRY “ ‘LC’ Limited Commercial.” HENTZEN “It is ‘LC’ where that house is?” GOLTRY “Yes, it is.” HENTZEN “How many units will there be?” GOLTRY “I believe it was 42 units.” HENTZEN “I wanted to ask you about that requirement that the resident manager has to be there. At what level of units do you decide that?” GOLTRY “I believe that it is just for any of the ‘LC’ or ‘GO’ mini-storage units in the Zoning Code.” HENTZEN “I imagine the owners of that house are the owners proposing this.” GOLTRY “Yes, they area.” HENTZEN “What if they get old and don’t want to run it any more and want to sell the storage units? Are we going to require a resident manager there?” GOLTRY “That would be typical. That is what we have required in the other ‘LC’ storage units that are Conditional Use.” HENTZEN “And is that attached to the zoning?” GOLTRY “To the Conditional Use. It is part of the Conditional Use application.” HENTZEN “Aren’t there quite a few storage units that don’t have resident managers?” GOLTRY “A lot of them would be zoned ‘GC’ General Commercial.” KROUT “I think in the heavier zoning districts General Commercial and Industrial it is not permitted, years ago, I think before my time, a decision was made to say ‘maybe we can allow mini-warehouses in Office and Commercial districts but subject to conditional use and review them one a time because they generally are going to be closer to residential areas. One of the standard conditions of approval that was suggested in the ordinance is that there be a resident manager. I think that is because sometimes these uses tend to get out of hand if they are not managed by someone who is on the property. There has been everything from rock bands to contraband, and everything in between. There have been people living in them sometimes. So if they were going to be in the lighter districts near to residential, the idea was that they would have resident managers. So as a standard condition, the way it could be, someone would have to get a variance from the BZA if they want to waive that requirement, according to the ordinance. I think there are some good reasons for it but if they felt like they couldn’t live with that condition they could have asked for General Commercial or Industrial zoning. I think, though, that there is some good reason for there to be a resident manager with these uses.” HENTZEN “Well, if they are stringent enough, they will never know what goes on there.” GOLTRY “Condition ‘Y’ is the Conditional Use requirements for mini-warehouses and in ‘Y’ No. 17 it says ‘a resident manager shall be required on site and shall be responsible for maintaining the operation of the facility in conformance with the conditions of approval’. That is required for all mini-storage warehouses in either ‘GO’ or ‘LC’.” LOPEZ “On your revised drawing here, on the screening fence requirement, where is it indicated where the screening fence would be?” GOLTRY “Where would it be located? It would be located along the edge of the concrete where the concrete interfaces with the yard area.” LOPEZ “Right here? It would be required all along that area?” GOLTRY “Yes.” LOPEZ “All sides?” GOLTRY “Yes. Actually, I think that they would definitely need to screen on the north part and on the south part where they have visibility to their overhead doors, and then maybe a little bit more, but they wanted to go ahead and put the wrought iron fence all the way around for security reasons.” GAROFALO “Okay. Donna do you have more to present?” GOLTRY “No, just questions.” GAROFALO “Okay, let’s hear from the applicant or agent then.” Marnell arrived at 1:20 p.m. MICHELLE GOODRICH “I am with Terre Tech Land Surveying for the applicant. I would like to clarify that screening comment on the wrought iron fence. That is called out to be on the north and east sides of the concrete. We are not going to horseshoe it around it around to the south side. The east side would extend down until it intersected the south property line. I believe the applicant is just going to have a regular boundary line fence, probably a 6 foot privacy fence along that south side.” LOPEZ “That is a probability, not an assurance?” GOODRICH “Well, see, Derby says they don’t want wood, but they haven’t addressed the south property line.” LOPEZ “And you are addressing the south property line. It is understood right now that it is going to follow that concrete.” GOODRICH “The staff comments say that it follows the north and east boundary lines. It is on the first page. It says ‘to place wrought iron fencing in combination with shrubbery along the north and eastern edges of the concrete drives around storage units’. That is what we agreed to at the Derby Planning Commission meeting. Evidently there is a problem with the south neighbor. We really want more than wrought iron to separate us from the south neighbor as far as screening goes.” WARREN “It would see to me that Item No. 4 doesn’t require wrought iron, it simply gives it as an option. It looks to me like that said fence shall be structured in either brick, stone, architectural style, masonry or other similar material or wrought iron combined with landscaped shrubbery. It looks to me like all of those are options.” GOODRICH “Except at the meeting in Derby, they said absolutely no wood for screening.” WARREN “I understand. Excluding wood and woven wire, but anything else is all right.” GOODRICH “But also, the only lines that were addressed at Derby were on the north and on the east. So we are saying that we do want to do wrought iron on the north and the east with shrubbery, and that is going to look real nice, but we would like to provide a little more screening from that south adjoiner. We would like to go with a 6 foot privacy fence.” GAROFALO “You are in agreement with all of the other conditions?” GOODRICH “Yes, we are.” GAROFALO “Okay. Are you finished? Okay. Are there any other questions? Is there anyone else to speak in support of this Conditional Use permit, other than the applicant? Is there anyone here to speak in opposition? Okay, then we will take it back to the Commission.” MOTION: Having considered the factors as contained in Policy Statement No. 10; taking into consideration the staff findings (The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The zoning to the north and south is zoned “LI” Limited Industrial and is developed with similar mini-storage uses, outdoor storage, and construction sales and service businesses, interspersed with residences. The area west of K-15 is agricultural; the area to the southwest is another similar business to that proposed by the applicant. The area to the east is vacant (agricultural) but has been approved for B-5” Restricted Commercial Warehousing and Limited Manufacturing District. It is anticipated that it will be developed in the future, particularly with the recent relocation of Oliver eastward, improved to county two-lane arterial standards. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The property has been used as “LC” Limited Commercial without approval of the “Conditional Use”. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The “Conditional Use” would not be expected to generate detrimental effects on surrounding properties since it would be similar in character to existing uses in the vicinity. Length of time the subject property has remained vacant as zoned: The property has been zoned “LC” Limited Commercial, but occupied on the northeast corner by a residence. The occupants of the residence own the entire tract and intend to operate the mini-storage business. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and Policies: The requested change in zoning classification is not in conformance with the “Sedgwick County Development Guide,” which identifies the area for “low density residential”, despite the presence of existing business of similar character nearby. It is in conformance with use restrictions for Airport Overlay District III-3. Derby’s Comprehensive Plan identifies the area as “Suburban”, but the approval of “B-5” zoning across Oliver indicates a policy of non-residential use nearby. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The projected impact on community facilities is minimal due to the low volume of potential water usage and sewage disposal requirements generated by the proposed use. Traffic volume increases also would be minimal.) I move that we recommend to the governing body that the request be approved, subject to the following: 1. The uses on this property shall be limited to warehouse, self-service storage and those uses permitted in both the “LC” Limited Commercial District AND the “A-O III-S” Airport Overlay District. The applicant shall comply with the conditions specified in Section III-D.6.y of the Unified Zoning Code. 2. The property shall be developed in general conformance with the site plan, attached hereto and made a part of this application. 3. A Landscape Plan for the property shall be developed that includes a landscape street yard along the western property line. This shall consist of a landscaped area of 5,000 square feet with 10 shade trees, 2-inch caliper at time of installation, or equivalent. Two ornamental trees, 1-inch caliper, or ten (10) shrubs, two-gallon and 18” high at time of installation, would be equivalent to one shade tree. Shrubs can be used to substitute for up to one-third of the total shade tree requirement. The Landscape Plan shall be submitted for approval to the MAPD Director of Planning prior to construction of the buildings. 4. A six-to-eight foot tall screening fence, constructed to prevent the passage of light and debris, shall be erected along the perimeter of the project wherever the buildings do not provide the necessary screening along K-15 and Oliver. Said fence shall be constructed of either brick, stone, architectural tile, masonry, or other similar material (not including wood or woven wire), or wrought iron combined with landscape shrubbery. 5. Signage shall be limited to one per arterial street frontage. Signs shall not exceed twenty feet in height nor exceed fifty square feet in gross surface area. Signs shall not project over the public right-of-way. No portable signs, bright colored fences, string-type banners, pennants, or lights shall be permitted. 6. A resident manager shall be required to live on this tract. This manager shall be responsible for maintaining the operation of the facility in conformance with the conditions of approval. In the event the existing residence is no longer used for this purpose, a separate resident manager facility shall be provided on-site. 7. Any violation of the conditions of approval shall render the “Conditional Use” permit null and void. WARREN moved, MARNELL seconded the motion. KROUT “What do you intend unable to hear question WARREN “I think all of that is in the staff comments, isn’t it?” BARFIELD “No, she is talking about some privacy fence.” JOHNSON “When we get into discussion, I was going to go back to that.” BARFIELD “Okay.” KROUT “We need to get the applicant and the staff’s attention. Is the applicant saying that they want the ability to build a fence on the south property line?” GOODRICH “Yes.” KROUT “And when you said ‘subject to staff comments’, the MAPD recommendation allowed a wood fence, but you have the Derby Planning Commission suggesting that wood fences be prohibited, so we just need you to be clear as to what your intention is.” GAROFALO “But she took out wood in the condition here.” WARREN “On the north and east side. And I think what you are saying is do we want to allow wood in opposition to Derby’s position?” KROUT “Right. I just want to make sure that we are clear on what your intention is.” JOHNSON “But there is not a requirement on the south.” MARNELL “It is only required on the north and east.” JOHNSON “And that is what we are dealing with and they have agreed not to put wood there, so we are going along with what Derby said.” KROUT “Derby doesn’t mind if there is a wood fence along the south?” GOLTRY “I wouldn’t say that I know the answer to that question because it is very hard to know the answer to what they would say. What I can say is that Derby did not envision the need for the screening fence along the south line at the time because at the time the plan had the buildings a little bit further to the north. So I am not sure that Derby thought through whether or not there would be a fence on the south line that would be wood. Maybe Michelle has some minutes or can speak more to that. I just don’t want to put words in Derby’s mouth.” WARREN “Marvin if we went with staff comments and we have stricken wood in the required areas, it is not unable to hear. McKay arrived at 1:30 p.m. MICHAELIS “Your motion just says approve subject to staff comments.” WARREN “I think we are covered like it is now.” GAROFALO “Let me ask this question. Where does it state north and east? On which page?” GOLTRY “It is right up here on the first page of the addendum. The northern and eastern edges of the concrete drives around the storage units.” GAROFALO “Oh, along the northern and eastern. Okay, I see.” MICHAELIS “And that is what Derby had approved, as long as it wasn’t wood. So there is no reason for us to add anything to it.” JOHNSON “And if there is not a requirement on the south, anybody ought to be able to put up what kind of fence they want.” BARFIELD “When I look at this, it says…it talks about the use of wrought iron as proposed by the applicant. Now, the question is, did the initial proposal by the applicant include this privacy fence?” KROUT “Michelle, do you think that the Derby Planning Commission understood that you wanted to put a privacy fence on the south property line and that they were objecting to that?” GOODRICH “The only reason we were screening was to screen from the street, and they only asked for screening along the frontage road for K-15 and Oliver. That is what we did was just to reduce it down inside the lot on those two lines that face the Frontage Road for K-15 and Oliver. Now the south property line is heavily planted right now. It has a lot of shrubbery and things like that. The fence that is there is not on the property line. The owner wants to rebuild the fence and put it on the property line. The way the neighbor uses his yard isn’t one that you would want to look at all of the time. So they want to put a better fence there. I would think that the only reason that you would screen would be if we were ‘LC’ and that was residential. But both properties are ‘LC’, so screening isn’t required between those two uses.” KROUT “So you don’t think Derby had an objection to use of wood?” GOODRICH “No. And the only reason I brought this up was because it was commented here that we would wrap the wrought iron fence on all three sides and we never agreed to that.” LOPEZ “Okay, so you are going to along the northern and eastern edge of the concrete drive around the storage unit?” GOODRICH “Wherever there is not a storage unit, there will be a fence. Until you get down to the southeast corner of the place that is being used for warehouse, we would just continue that line, extend it until it met the south property line.” LOPEZ “You would extend the wrought iron line to south property line?” GOODRICH “Yes. And then it would be a solid fence made out of wood.” GAROFALO “Donna, could you get the site plan back up on the screen? Let’s use the laser and show exactly where the fences are going to be.” LOPEZ “I called the question to end this discussion so we could vote on the motion.” GOODRICH “We don’t have the revised site plan on the slides.” GAROFALO “Oh, you don’t? Okay.” GOLTRY “This is the revised site plan. (Holding up paper) It was attached to your handout.” MOTION: That the question be called. LOPEZ moved, JOHNSON seconded the motion. VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried with 11 votes in favor. There was no opposition. MCKAY “I would like for the record to show that I got here late and did not vote on this issue.” --------------------------------------------------------------------- 4a. Case No. Z-3361 - Storage Pro LLC c/o Bruce Riddle (Owner/Applicant); Baughman Company PA c/o Russ Ewy (Agent) request zone change from “MF-18” Multi-Family Residential on the new parcel; and 4b. Case No. DP-59 Amendment #6 - Storage Pro LLC c/o Bruce Riddle (Owner/Applicant); Baughman Company PA c/o Russ Ewy (Agent) request the amendment to create a new parcel (Farmington Square CUP). SCOTT KNEBEL, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. He reviewed the following staff report: BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Farmington Square CUP to create a new parcel, Parcel 10, from the western 7.04 acres of Parcel 1 of the existing CUP. The new Parcel 10 is proposed for a zone change from “MF-18” Multi-Family Residential to “GC” General Commercial to permit self-service storage warehouse uses on the west 260 feet of the parcel and the uses permitted on Parcel 1 for the entire new parcel. The applicant indicated that “GC” General Commercial zoning was requested for the entire new parcel to permit expansion of the self-service storage warehouse use in the future through another CUP amendment. Self-service storage warehouse is permitted with a Conditional Use (or CUP amendment) in the “GO” General Office and “LC” Limited Commercial districts, but only if the site has direct access to an arterial street. The “GC” General Commercial district is the first district which permits self-service storage warehouse for sites such as the subject property that do not have direct access to an arterial street. The applicant submitted a site plan (attached) for the proposed self-service storage warehouse development. The site plan shows a self-service storage warehouse facility consisting of 12 storage buildings and an office/residence building. The site plan also shows a “surface parking” area, which is presumably intended for long-term outdoor storage of vehicles and equipment. Access to the site is shown from Shade, an extra-wide local street that intersects with Ridge approximately 360 feet west of the entrance to the facility. The facility is shown to entirely enclosed (except for a 25 foot gap north of the office on the west property line) by a combination of the exterior walls for the storage buildings, a concrete fence filling the gaps between the building walls, and a wrought iron fence and gate along the south line of the enclosed area. The site plan shows a landscaped buffer along the frontage of Shade. The site plan does not indicate how any future expansion of the self-service storage warehouse facility would be sited on the new parcel. The applicant also submitted building elevations (attached) for the proposed self-service storage warehouse development. The building elevations indicate that all building exteriors will share the same predominate earth-tone color, texture, and exterior building material. The exterior building materials are apparently brick, wood, and metal for the office/residence building and metal for the storage buildings. The building elevations do not include a rear elevation of the storage buildings or any information regarding common exterior building materials proposed to be used on the storage building walls and the masonry wall, which will serve in combination as the perimeter fencing for the development. The building elevations also do not indicate the proposed height of the buildings. The surrounding area is predominately developed with multi-family residential uses with single family residential and commercial uses also in the area. The most directly impacted properties by the proposed development are several apartment complexes on property zoned “TF-3” Two-Family Residential located to the south and single family residences owned by the City of Wichita and operated as public housing on property zoned “SF-6” Single Family Residential located to the north. West of the subject property is vacant property that is currently zoned “MF-18” Multi-Family Residential with a zoning change to “LC” Limited Commercial that is pending the completion of the conditions of approval (primarily the vacation of access control). East of the subject property is vacant property zoned “MF-18” Multi-Family Residential. The adjoining property to the south, east, and west of the subject property is also within the Farmington Square CUP. To limit the impact of the proposal on surrounding properties, planning staff recommends that the site be developed in accordance with the development standards in the Unified Zoning Code for self-service storage warehouses in the “GO” and “LC” districts. Planning staff also recommends that approval be subject to review and approval of a revised site plan and building elevations. To preserve options for review of future development at this site, planning staff recommends that the zone change to “GC” General Commercial be limited to the site of the proposed self-service storage warehouse (approximately the west 260 feet of the new parcel). The property is currently platted, and replatting is not recommended by planning staff. CASE HISTORY: The subject property is platted as Lot 2, Woodland Heights 2nd Addition, which was recorded April 4, 1985. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: “SF-6” Single Family SOUTH: “TF-3” Multi-Family EAST: “MF-18” Vacant WEST: “MF-18” (“LC” Pending) Vacant PUBLIC SERVICES: This site has access to Shade, an extra-wide two-lane local street. Traffic volumes are not available for Shade. Municipal services are available to this site. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the general location as appropriate for “High-Density Residential” development. The Commercial Locational Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that commercial sites should be located adjacent to arterials and should have site design features which limit noise, lighting, and other activity from adversely impacting surrounding residential areas. The Unified Zone Code contains development standards for self-service storage warehouses located in the “GO” and “LC” districts to which the subject property is recommended to be held. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon information available prior to the public hearing, planning staff recommends that the request be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a legal description for the property to be changed to the “GC” General Commercial zoning district that includes approximately the west 260 feet of Parcel 10. 2. Self-service storage warehouse uses on Parcel 10 shall be developed in accordance with Section III-D.6.y of the Unified Zoning Code, with the exception of Section III-D.6.y(1) and Section III-D.6.y.(2). 3. General Provision #18 shall be amended to add Parcel 10 to the list of parcels which are required to comply with the Landscape Ordinance. Additionally, a minimum 15-foot landscape buffer shall be provided along the south, east, and north perimeter of the self-service storage warehouse facility. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit on Parcel 10, a revised site plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning. The revised site plan shall indicate type and location of perimeter enclosure materials, which shall entirely enclose the self-service storage warehouse facility. The site plan also shall indicate the size and location of the landscape buffer areas. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit on Parcel 10, revised building elevations shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning. The revised building elevations shall indicate the wall and roof materials and colors and the building and wall heights. Additionally, the exterior walls of the storage buildings used to enclose the perimeter of the facility shall be of a stamped-brick pattern or similar architectural treatment and shall be of the same texture, color, and appearance as the masonry wall that encloses the gaps between the storage buildings. 6. The proposed uses for Parcel 10 shall be amended to permit a vehicle storage yard on the west 260 feet of the parcel. 7. Outdoor speakers and sound amplification systems shall not be permitted on Parcel 10. 8. General Provision #1 shall be amended to add Parcel 10 to the excepted parcels. 9. The development of this property shall proceed in accordance with the development plan as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and approved by the Governing Body, and any substantial deviation of the plan, as determined by the Zoning Administrator and the Director of Planning, shall constitute a violation of the building permit authorizing construction of the proposed development. 10. Any major changes in this development plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and to the Governing Body for their consideration. 11. Prior to publishing the resolution or ordinance establishing the zone change, the applicant(s) shall record a document with the Register of Deeds indicating that this tract (referenced as DP-59) includes special conditions for development on this property. 12. The applicant shall submit 4 revised copies of the C.U.P. to the Metropolitan Area Planning Department within 30 days after approval of this amendment by the Governing Body, or the request shall be considered denied and closed. The staff’s recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The surrounding area is predominately developed with multi- family residential uses with single family residential and commercial uses also in the area. The most directly impacted properties by the proposed development are several apartment complexes on property zoned “TF-3” Two-Family Residential located to the south and single family residences owned by the City of Wichita and operated as public housing on property zoned “SF-6” Single Family Residential located to the north. West of the subject property is vacant property that is currently zoned “MF-18” Multi-Family Residential with a zoning change to “LC” Limited Commercial that is pending the completion of the conditions of approval (primarily the vacation of access control). East of the subject property is vacant property zoned “MF-18” Multi-Family Residential. The adjoining property to the south, east, and west of the subject property is also within the Farmington Square CUP. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The property is zoned “MF-18” Multi- Family Residential and could be developed for multi-family use; however, the site has remained undeveloped for over 15 years since it was zoned “MF18” Multi-Family Residential. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Any detrimental affects on properties from lighting, noise, and other factors should be mitigated by the requirements of the Unified Zoning Code and the Landscape Ordinance and the recommended conditions of approval for the CUP. 4. Conformance of the requested change to adopted or recognized Plans/Policies: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the general location as appropriate for “High-Density Residential” development. The Commercial Locational Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that commercial sites should be located adjacent to arterials and should have site design features which limit noise, lighting, and other activity from adversely impacting surrounding residential areas. While not adjacent to an arterial, the site will be subject to development standards which should mitigate the impacts of noise, lighting, and other activity. The Unified Zone Code contains development standards for self-service storage warehouses located in the “GO” and “LC” districts to which the subject property is recommended to be held. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The use of this property should have limited impact on community facilities. WARNER “I need to step down on this case. My nephew is involved in it.” GAROFALO “Okay. Let the record show that Commissioner Warner is abstaining.” KNEBEL “The site plan on this shows that the site will have 12 storage buildings, most of which will run north to south with the exception of the one up at the north property line, and then an office and resident manager on the south line with access to Shade and parking, etc., in that area. The perimeter of the site is proposed to be entirely enclosed, either with the exterior of the self-storage building walls or with a masonry wall, which would fill the gaps between those, on three sides, and with wrought iron across the front. The applicant also submitted some building elevations. Here, on the left, it shows the proposed look for the office and residence, and on the right is the proposed look for the self-service storage warehouses. These elevations we received don’t show us what the rear of the buildings would look like and since those are going to be a major portion of the visual impact of the site, staff is recommending that additional building elevations be provided that show the rear walls. The site is primarily in a residential area although there are some commercial properties along the intersection of Central and Ridge and all along Central at that point. The Planning staff is recommending approval of this. We are recommending that it be developed in accordance with the self- service storage warehouse standards for the General Office and Limited Commercial district. We are also recommending that a revised site plan and revised building elevations be approved by the Planning Director prior to the site being developed. The applicant has also requested General Commercial zoning for the entire parcel here, yet the site plan proposes self-service storage warehouse only on the west 260 feet. So Planning staff is also recommending that the General Commercial zoning only be approved for the portion of the parcel for which the use is intended. I believe the applicant is agreement with that. I will let them speak to that. I am available for questions.” GAROFALO “The question I have is on Condition 6 on Page 4. That relates to a statement on Page 2 in the third paragraph, doesn’t it?” KNEBEL “Yes.” GAROFALO “It does relate to that. Okay. And we definitely are talking about outside storage, right?” KNEBEL “That is correct. On the site plan there is an area here that Commissioner Garofalo is referring to that the applicant wishes to do some outdoor storage here in that portion.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions?” OSBORNE-HOWES “Just a quick question. Condition No. 7 has to do with outdoor speakers, that they not be permitted in Parcel 10. This whole area is Parcel 10. Do any of the other parcels allow them?” KNEBEL “No. It is not specifically excluded from any of the other parcels.” BARFIELD “I don’t see anything here about screening on this.” KNEBEL “Actually I failed to mention that. Condition of approval No. 3 refers to a recommended landscape buffer along the three sides of the property, the east, south and north sides, of 15 feet.” GAROFALO “Essentially, this site is right in where there is residential all around?” KNEBEL “Well, there is residential on three sides, yes, and there is residential zoning on the east side, which is vacant, as well.” GAROFALO “It is a vacant lot, but I mean that is what separates the housing from the vacant lot? It says here ‘on the east vacant, and on the west vacant.” KNEBEL “Right. Well, actually the west is vacant commercial zoning along Ridge Road. That Parcel 2 on the CUP is zoned ‘LC’ to the west.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Then we will hear from the applicant or agent.” RUSS EWY “I am from the Baughman Company, agent for the applicant. As Scott mentioned, we are in agreement with staff comments and are in agreement with refining our application area to simply the west 260 feet of that site. I would be more than happy to answer any questions you have.” OSBORNE-HOWES “To the north of that site, where exactly is the single-family? I have driven by and I am pretty familiar with it, but how far away is that?” EWY “I believe there is a single-family development here, owned by the City of Wichita, beyond this street and beyond the drainage channel, the open ditch that runs through here.” OSBORNE-HOWES “That is pretty close to outdoor storage.” EWY “As you are aware from reviewing most of these self-storage areas, there is a market or need for the storage of RVs in particular, so I don’t think we are looking at stockpiling a lot of materials that will be anything short of recreational vehicles or perhaps a boat. Things of that nature. We will be screened as in other self-storage warehouse developments. That area for outdoor storage tends to be centered in the property with the view on the outside screened by other storage buildings, as in this case.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Help me out. I don’t see it in the center of the property.” KROUT “Do you mean the site plan back-up?’ OSBORNE-HOWES “Yeah.” EWY (Indicating) “The storage area will be right in here. The surface parking.” OSBORNE-HOWES “That is not exactly centering it.” EWY “Not centering it, but it will be screened from outside view to the north by this building here and by this building here and by this structure here, and by the wall that will be in here.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Will those buildings be higher than the RVs?” EWY “Yes. Approximately 10-12 feet at the peak of the roof line, yes.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Well, RVs can be a lot taller than that. There is no specification is there, in here, on the height of these?” KROUT “No, we don’t have requirements on height, but if you are at ground level to the north and you are at 5 feet tall and you have a building that is 10 feet tall and then you have another 40 or 50 feet before the first of the RV’s, I think there is a plane of vision, and I think the buildings should effectively screen the outside storage.” WARREN “In an effort to try to do what Susan is saying here, do you think there would be objection to those buildings that are in the center to be moved further north and then bring those mobile homes right into the center?” EWY “I think we would be able to work with the site plan to meet that goal.” WARREN “Put them centered on that lot as opposed to….” EWY “Right. Rework the site.” MICHAELIS “Just shove those three up to the north.” EWY “Right. As staff mentioned, there will be a secondary review of the revised site plan by Marvin.” OSBORNE-HOWES “Well, would you be willing to offer that?” EWY “Yes.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Okay. Is there anyone else here to speak on this item other than the applicant or agent? Is there anyone here to speak in opposition?” LAUREN MIRITELLO “I happen to be a resident of Western Hills which is in the building right on the corner of Shade and Par Lane. The two complexes that are on the south end, which would be Western Hills and Georgetown Courts do not have any sidewalks at all on the complexes. People sometimes like to go for walks for exercising. They like to sometimes go bicycle riding, they walk their children in carriages and they do it out in the street. Many times they go around Par Lane and Shade. I can see where this is going to be an increase in the amount of traffic on Shade and I was wondering if there is a way, if they could put the entrance at a different area instead of off of Shade. Can they bring it in on the back end of Winterset? Or off of Ridge?” GAROFALO “Excuse me, Ma’am. Scott, would you put the map back up there so we can better understand what she is talking about? Maybe you could point out, Scott, with the laser exactly what she is talking about. Or maybe she can.” MIRITELLO “Okay. Is this Shade? Okay. This is Par. I live right in Western Hills, which is right up there (indicating). See, there are no sidewalks around there, so people would be walking out in the street. It is a wide enough street now, Shade, but when you start having now increased vehicular traffic, you can have small trucks, you can have other trucks, you know. And now they can use it for a storage area, too. As it is it is kind of dangerous the way people come down there 25 to 30 miles an hour, which they shouldn’t, but they do. That would be an increased amount of traffic here.” GAROFALO “You are proposing a different entrance?” MIRITELLO “If it would be possible, yeah.” GAROFALO “Where would you propose the entrance to be?” MIRITELLO “Well, I understand that they don’t own the parcel on Ridge and that is difficult, but I understand that he owns the rest of it, the other parcels, so why couldn’t they have an entrance from an end over on this end, which would be like from around this end (indicating)? There wouldn’t be any homes in that area. So something like that? I would say that at the corner, the intersection of Ridge, too, and Shade, the traffic is really horrible as it is now. There are accidents there. A recommendation, that possibly a study could be done to put in a center lane or a traffic light. That is all I have.” GAROFALO “Okay. Are there any questions of the speaker? Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak in opposition? Okay, the applicant or agent has two minutes for rebuttal.” EWY “Well, to address the lady’s concerns. First, concerning the amount of traffic that this site will generate, I think we have worked with staff or have limited this proposed development to a relatively small set of storage units. I think, with the understanding that the original Parcel 1, which extends currently in this configuration, and has existed in that configuration since basically 1984, permits upwards of 360 some multi-family units, which would obviously generate a substantial amount of traffic above and beyond what this storage unit is going to generate. With the concern about traffic at the intersection of Shade and Ridge Road, when Parcel 2 was zoned for commercial purposes and the CUP amended, two or three years ago, one of the requirements on that property was to install and guarantee a left-turn lane into the property. That has been accomplished also. Our office put together that paving petition, so I think once Parcel 2 and the rest of this CUP winds up developing, you are going to find that there is already traffic improvements waiting to be installed. I would be more than happy to answer any other questions that you may have.” BARFIELD “How many units are we talking about?” EWY “The number of units hasn’t been laid out. The number of buildings, there are going to be just over 40,000 square feet of building coverage. The individual units, whether they be 8-foot closet-type units or the traditional 10-foot storage garages has yet to be determined.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Thanks, Russ. We will take it back to the Commission then.” MOTION: Having considered the factors as contained in Policy Statement No. 10; taking into consideration the staff findings (The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The surrounding area is predominately developed with multi-family residential uses with single family residential and commercial uses also in the area. The most directly impacted properties by the proposed development are several apartment complexes on property zoned “TF-3” Two-Family Residential located to the south and single family residences owned by the City of Wichita and operated as public housing on property zoned “SF-6” Single Family Residential located to the north. West of the subject property is vacant property that is currently zoned “MF-18” Multi-Family Residential with a zoning change to “LC” Limited Commercial that is pending the completion of the conditions of approval (primarily the vacation of access control). East of the subject property is vacant property zoned “MF-18” Multi-Family Residential. The adjoining property to the south, east, and west of the subject property is also within the Farmington Square CUP. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The property is zoned “MF-18” Multi-Family Residential and could be developed for multi-family use; however, the site has remained undeveloped for over 15 years since it was zoned “MF18” Multi-Family Residential. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Any detrimental affects on properties from lighting, noise, and other factors should be mitigated by the requirements of the Unified Zoning Code and the Landscape Ordinance and the recommended conditions of approval for the CUP. Conformance of the requested change to adopted or recognized Plans/Policies: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the general location as appropriate for “High-Density Residential” development. The Commercial Locational Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that commercial sites should be located adjacent to arterials and should have site design features which limit noise, lighting, and other activity from adversely impacting surrounding residential areas. While not adjacent to an arterial, the site will be subject to development standards which should mitigate the impacts of noise, lighting, and other activity. The Unified Zone Code contains development standards for self-service storage warehouses located in the “GO” and “LC” districts to which the subject property is recommended to be held. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: The use of this property should have limited impact on community facilities.) I move that we recommend to the governing body that the request be approved, subject to the following: 1. The applicant shall submit a legal description for the property to be changed to the “GC” General Commercial zoning district that includes approximately the west 260 feet of Parcel 10. 2. Self-service storage warehouse uses on Parcel 10 shall be developed in accordance with Section III-D.6.y of the Unified Zoning Code, with the exception of Section III-D.6.y(1) and Section III-D.6.y.(2). 3. General Provision #18 shall be amended to add Parcel 10 to the list of parcels which are required to comply with the Landscape Ordinance. Additionally, a minimum 15-foot landscape buffer shall be provided along the south, east, and north perimeter of the self-service storage warehouse facility. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit on Parcel 10, a revised site plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning. The revised site plan shall indicate type and location of perimeter enclosure materials, which shall entirely enclose the self-service storage warehouse facility. The site plan also shall indicate the size and location of the landscape buffer areas. The site plan shall also locate the vehicle storage yard in the approximate center of the site. The site shall be developed in general conformance with the approved site plan. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit on Parcel 10, revised building elevations shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning. The revised building elevations shall indicate the wall and roof materials and colors and the building and wall heights. Additionally, the exterior walls of the storage buildings used to enclose the perimeter of the facility shall be of a stamped-brick pattern or similar architectural treatment and shall be of the same texture, color, and appearance as the masonry wall that encloses the gaps between the storage buildings. 6. The proposed uses for Parcel 10 shall be amended to permit a vehicle storage yard on the west 260 feet of the parcel. 7. Outdoor speakers and sound amplification systems shall not be permitted on Parcel 10. 8. General Provision #1 shall be amended to add Parcel 10 to the excepted parcels. 9. The development of this property shall proceed in accordance with the development plan as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and approved by the Governing Body, and any substantial deviation of the plan, as determined by the Zoning Administrator and the Director of Planning, shall constitute a violation of the building permit authorizing construction of the proposed development. 10. Any major changes in this development plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and to the Governing Body for their consideration. 11. Prior to publishing the resolution or ordinance establishing the zone change, the applicant(s) shall record a document with the Register Deeds indicating that this tract (referenced as DP-59) includes special conditions for development on this property. 12. The applicant shall submit 4 revised copies of the C.U.P. to the Metropolitan Area Planning Department within 30 days after approval of this amendment by the Governing Body, or the request shall be considered denied and closed. WARREN moved, HENTZEN seconded the motion. GAROFALO “Is there any discussion?” VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried with 11 votes in favor. There was no opposition. Warner abstained. Wheeler and Carraher were not present. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Approval of February 10, 2000 MAPC meeting minutes GAROFALO “Do we have any changes, corrections or additions on these?” MOTION: That the Planning Commission approve the minutes of February 10, 2000 as submitted. OSBORNE-HOWES moved, WARNER seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (12-0). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK GAROFALO, Chair, read the following zoning procedural statement which is applicable to all City of Wichita zoning cases: Before we begin the agenda, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome members of the public to this meeting of the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission. Copies of the agenda for today's meeting, the public hearing procedure, and copies of staff reports on zoning items are available at the table nearest to the audience. The Commission's bylaws limit the applicant on a zoning or subdivision application and his or her representative(s) to a total of ten minutes of speaking time at the start of the hearing on that item, plus up to two minutes at the conclusion of that hearing. All other persons wishing to speak on agenda items are limited to five minutes per person. However, if they feel that it is needed and justified, the Commission may extend these times by a majority vote. All speakers are requested to state your name and address for the record when beginning to speak. When you are done speaking, please write your name and address, and the case number, on the sheet provided at the table nearest to the audience. This will enable staff to notify you if there are any additional proceedings concerning that item. Please note that all written and visual materials you present to the Commission will be retained by the Secretary as part of the official record. If you are not speaking, but you wish to be notified about future proceedings on a particular case, please sign in on that same sheet. The Planning Commission is interested in hearing the views of all persons who wish to express themselves on our agenda items. However, we ask all speakers to please be as concise as possible, and to please avoid long repetitions of facts or opinions which have already been stated. For your information, the Wichita City Council has adopted a policy for all City zoning items, which is also available at the table with the other materials. They rely on the written record of the Planning Commission hearings and do not conduct their own additional public hearings on these items. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ GAROFALO “Is there anyone here to speak on any of the Subdivision items? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission.” 6. Subdivision Committee items 6/1, 6/2, 6/3, 6/4 and 6/5 were approved subject to the Subdivision Committee recommendations. JOHNSON moved, PLATT seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (12-0). 6/1. One-step final plat of VAN HORN ADDITION, located on the west side of 119th Street West, South of 21st Street North. A. Prior to this plat being scheduled for City Council review, the Applicant shall submit a request for annexation. B. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for any guarantees or easements. The applicant shall guarantee the extension of City water and sanitary sewer to serve the lots being platted. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. D. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. E. The applicant shall guarantee the installation of the private drive to an all-weather surface. F. A definite location needs to be platted for the water line easement on Lot 3 and the west line of the drainage easement on Lot 3. G. The contingent street dedication adjoining the plat to the south will be required to be utilized to provide two points of access for City Fire Department and needs to be constructed to an all-weather surface. H. City Fire Department requests that “Westport” be designated as a name for the private drive. I. The Applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. J. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. K. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) L. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. M. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. N. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. O. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. P. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. Q. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. R. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. KGE has requested additional utilities which have been denoted on the final plat. S. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Departments. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/2. SUB 2000-20 - One-step final plat of BAHA’I ADDITION, located West side of Amidon, North of 32nd St. North. A. The applicant shall provide a guarantee for the extension of sanitary sewer. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. City Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant’s drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. D. The applicant is reminded that a platting binder is required with the final plat. Approval of this plat will be subject to submittal of this binder and any relevant conditions found by such a review. E. The plattor’s text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. F. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) G. The applicant’s engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary’s signature. H. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (Phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. I. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements (specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147) for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. J. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. K. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. L. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. M. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. N. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/3. DED 2000-05 - Dedication of a Utility Easement from Heath J. Kintzel, for property generally located south of Lincoln and west of Oliver. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That portion of Lot 40, Block C, Hilltop Manor, a replat of part of Hilltop Manor Second Addition, lying east of and adjacent to the platted 16-foot easement. PURPOSE OF DEDICATION: As a requirement of a Lot Split No. 1031, the Utility Easement is being dedicated for construction and maintenance of public utilities. Planning Staff recommends the granting of this dedication be accepted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6/4. DED 2000-05 - Dedication of a Utility Easement from Robert Huffman, for property generally located south of 61st Street North, west of Seneca. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The north 10 feet of the south 10 feet and the west 10 feet, of Lot 104, Van View Addition. PURPOSE OF DEDICATION: As a requirement of a Lot Split No. 1036, the Utility Easement is being dedicated for construction and maintenance of public utilities. Planning Staff recommends the granting of this dedication be accepted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/5. DED 2000-07 - Dedication of Street Right-of-Way from Robert Huffman, for property generally located south of 61st Street North, west of Seneca. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The east ten feet of Lot 104, Van View Addition. PURPOSE OF DEDICATION: As a requirement of a Lot Split No. 1036, the ten-foot street right-of-way is being dedicated for Sullivan Avenue. Planning Staff recommends the granting of this dedication be accepted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LISA VAN DE WATER, Planning staff, “Agenda Items 7/1, 7/2, and 7/3 were approved by the Subdivision Committee last week. I have no further comments on these requests, but I would answer any questions that the Commission might have.” JOHNSON “I would like for the record to show that I am going to abstain on Item 7/2.” GAROFALO “Okay. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on any of these items? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission.” MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that items 7/1 and 7/3 be approved. MCKAY moved, LOPEZ seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (12-0). MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that Item 7/2 be approved.MCKAY moved, WARREN seconded the motion, and it carried with 11 votes in favor. Johnson abstained. 7/1. VAC 2000-00002 - Two Days properties, LLC, c/o Douglas Day, request to vacate portions of two 8-foot utility easements on property described as: The south 8 feet of Lot 1 and the north 8 feet of Lot 2, Ralls 3rd Addition, Wichita, Kansas, located north of Harry Street and east of Terrace Drive. The applicant is requesting to vacate two 8-foot utility easements for the future development of Lots 1 and 2, Ralls 3rd Addition. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time March 21, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described utility easements, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of the two easements described in the petition should be approved. The Subdivision Committee recommends approval. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7/2. VAC 2000-00003 - Henry & Madeline Jacobs; R&D Enterprises, c/o Rob Jacobs request to vacate a 20-foot utility easement, described as: A utility easement being 10 feet each side of a line beginning at a point 1’N and 13.78’W of the NE corner of Lot 2, Jabob’s Addition, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, thence west parallel with the north line of said Lot 2, a distance of 97.45;’ to the west line of said easement. Generally located east of Dougherty and north of Central. The applicant is requesting to vacate a dead-end utility easement and convert the existing public sewer line to a private line. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 4. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time March 21, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 5. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described utility easement, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 6. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of a portion of a utility easement described in the petition should be approved. The Subdivision Committee recommends approval. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 7/3. VAC 2000-00004 - RK Properties, LLC, c/o Ray Koenig, request to vacate street right-of-way, described as: The north 10 feet of Lot 1, Block A, American Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, generally located west of Oliver (Dellrose Avenue) on the south side of Douglas. The applicant is requesting to vacate street right-of-way along Douglas Avenue to allow for required parking in the vacated area. The applicant is currently using this area for parking. The applicant will dedicate contingent street right-of- way for the area vacated. Based upon the information available prior to the public hearing, staff recommends the MAPC make the following findings and recommendation to the City Council: A. That after being duly and fully informed as to fully understand the true nature of this petition and the propriety of granting the same, the MAPC makes the following findings: 1. That due and legal notice has been given by publication as required by law, by publication in the Daily Reporter of notice of this vacation proceeding one time March 21, 2000, which was at least 20 days prior to this public hearing. 2. That no private rights will be injured or endangered by the vacation of the above-described street right-of-way, and the public will suffer no loss or inconvenience thereby. 3. In justice to the petitioner(s), the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. B. Therefore, the vacation of a portion of street right-of-way described in the petition should be approved, subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall dedicate contingent street right-of-way for the vacated right-of-way. The Subdivision Committee recommends approval, subject to: 1. The applicant shall dedicate contingent street right-of-way for the vacated right-of-way. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ZONING: 8. Case No. ZON2000-00006 - Brant Investment c/o Larry Hackney (Owner/Applicant) request zone change from “MF- 29” Multi-Family Residential to “OW” Office Warehouse on property described as: Lots 13,15,17 & 19, on Dayton Avenue, Lawrence’s 7th Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Generally located south of Kellogg and west of Seneca (1117 & 1121 W. Dayton). SCOTT KNEBEL, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. He reviewed the following staff report: BACKGROUND: The applicant requests a zone change from “MF-29” Multi-Family Residential to “OW” Office Warehouse on a 0.32 acre platted tract located south of Kellogg and west of Seneca (1117 & 1121 W. Dayton). The applicant proposes to convert the single-family residence at 1117 W. Dayton into an office and to construct a 2,000 to 3,000 square foot warehouse in the rear yard of both addresses for use by an electrical contracting business owned by the applicant. Access to the site would be from a paved alley running north from Dayton and parallel to Seneca. The applicant has indicated that he has an informal agreement with the adjoining commercial property to the east for access across their property to Seneca. The surrounding area is primarily developed with single-family residences. The only commercial business in the immediate area is adjacent to the subject property to the east. Property to the north, south, and west of the site is zoned “MF-29” Multi-Family Residential and is developed primarily with single-family residences with a few duplexes interspersed. Property to the east of the site is zoned “LC” Limited Commercial and is developed with a tavern (Old English Pub). Off-street parking requirements in the Unified Zoning Code are 1 space per 250 square feet of office area and 1 space per 1,000 square feet of warehouse area. The applicant has indicated that he has an informal agreement with the adjoining commercial property to the east for off-site parking. Without a variance, the Unified Zoning Code permits no more than 50% of the required parking to be located off-site. Screening requirements in the Unified Zoning Code are decorative fencing, evergreen vegetation, or landscaped earth berms where adjacent to or across the street from residential zoning districts. In addition to screening, the Landscape Ordinance requires buffer tree planting along rear and side boundaries where adjacent to residential zoning districts. CASE HISTORY: The site is in Lawrence’s 7th Addition, which was platted April 25, 1887. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: “MF-29” Single-Family; Multi-Family SOUTH: “MF-29” Single-Family; Multi-Family EAST: “LC” Tavern/Drinking Establishment WEST: “MF-29” Single-Family; Multi-Family PUBLIC SERVICES: The site has frontage to Dayton, a two-lane paved local street that accesses Seneca (a four-lane arterial) ½ block to the east. Current traffic volumes on Seneca are approximately 19,000 vehicles per day. The 2030 Transportation Plan estimates the volumes will increase to approximately 25,000 vehicles per day. The site is currently served with municipal water and sewer. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for “High-Density Residential” development. The Commercial Locational Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that commercial sites should be located adjacent to arterials and should have site design features which limit noise, lighting, and other activity from adversely impacting surrounding residential areas. The proposed zone change does not adhere to either the Land Use Guide or the Commercial Locational Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon information available prior to the public hearings, planning staff recommends that the request be DENIED. However, if in the opinion of the Planning Commission the application should be approved, planning staff recommends that the approval be subject replatting and the following conditions of a Protective Overlay: 1. The zone change to “OW” Office Warehouse shall apply only to that portion of the application area to be used for commercial purposes. Any portion of the application area to be used for residential purposes shall be excluded from the “OW” Office Warehouse zoning lot. The applicant shall submit a revised legal description of the “OW” Office Warehouse zoning lot that excludes that portion of the application area to be used for residential purposes. 2. Only the following uses shall be permitted on the zoning lot: construction sales and service; office, general; and warehousing. 3. The warehouse building shall be setback at least 20 feet from the east property line to provide a loading and parking area. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: The surrounding area is primarily developed with single-family residences. The only commercial business in the immediate area is adjacent to the subject property to the east. Property to the north, south, and west of the site is zoned “MF-29” Multi-Family Residential and is developed primarily with single-family residences with a few duplexes interspersed. Property to the east of the site is zoned “LC” Limited Commercial and is developed with a tavern (Old English Pub). 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The site is zoned “MF-29” Multi- Family Residential and is currently developed with viable residential uses. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: Introducing commercial uses into a neighborhood that is used for residential purposes has the potential to cause a decline in the desirability of neighboring properties for residential use and could result in declining residential property values from nuisances such as lighting, noise, odor, etc. from the commercial uses. 4. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan and policies: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for “High-Density Residential” development. The Commercial Locational Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that commercial sites should be located adjacent to arterials and should have site design features which limit noise, lighting, and other activity from adversely impacting surrounding residential areas. The proposed zone change does not adhere to either the Land Use Guide or the Commercial Locational Guidelines. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: Community facilities should not be adversely impacted. KNEBEL “The applicant proposes to convert the single-family house which is located on the east of the site to an office and to construct a 2,000 to 3,000 square foot warehouse building behind the two single-family residences. The purpose of the warehouse and office would be to support an electrical contracting business owned by the applicant. The access to the site would be from Dayton to a paved alley which runs between this single-family here (indicating) and the commercial zoning that is located along Seneca. The applicant has indicated that he has an informal agreement with that commercial business for access across that site in instances where the alley would not provide sufficient access. There is an existing commercial business located east of the proposed warehouse building. The lot immediately south of the property is vacant and there are residences kind of southwest and to the west. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the area proposed for rezoning basically should conform to the zoning that is in the area now, which is high-density residential. The commercial locational guidelines indicate that commercial sites should be located adjacent to arterials and should have site design features which limit the adverse impacts on surrounding residential properties. The proposal before you today doesn’t comply with either of those, the guidelines nor the Land Use Guide. Based on that, the Planning staff is recommending denial of the application, however, in the event that the Planning Commission feels that it is prudent to approve this application, we have recommended some conditions upon which the approval should be subject. One of those is the condition of replatting in order to get a lot here that reflects what is intended on the site. Basically it is intended that the north half of the western two lots would continue to be a residence and would remain ‘MF-29’. The remainder of the property would become Office Warehouse and would have an office on the north fronting Dayton and then a warehouse in the rear. Basically you would plat the property so that you would have two lots, one for the residence and one for the office and warehouse. The uses also are recommended to be restricted to construction sales and service, office and warehousing and then also the warehouse would be set back 20 feet from the east property line to provide a loading area and a parking area that would provide sufficient access using the alley as the access point. I am available for questions.” BARFIELD “What is the square in red on the slide?” KNEBEL “It is the Old English Pub. It is a tavern.” BARFIELD “So this would be back to the west of that?” KNEBEL “Yes, it would be immediately west of that across a paved alley.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions of Scott?” LOPEZ “Would there be screening between Office Warehouse and residential?” KNEBEL “Right. I didn’t mention that, but it is located in the ‘background’ section of the staff report that screening consisting of decorative fencing, evergreen vegetation or landscape berms would be required and then you would also be required to provide fencing where you are immediately adjacent.” LOPEZ “It wouldn’t be masonry?” KNEBEL “Well, no, that is not required, but it would be required to be solid, yes.” LOPEZ “Solid, but in this case, solid doesn’t mean masonry.” KNEBEL “Right. We have not recommended that, but it could be a requirement, yes.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions of Scott?” MCKAY “Couldn’t this be taken care of with a Conditional Use permit?” KROUT “Are you asking if you could do an Office Warehouse by Conditional Use in a residential district? No.” MCKAY “You can’t do a Conditional Use. Okay.” OSBORNE-HOWES “But you recommend denial?” KNEBEL “That is correct.” KROUT “Did you mention the District Advisory Board meeting?” KNEBEL “I did not. I overlooked that. The District Advisory Board did hear this case and they had a consensus of approval and then the Conditions that they would like to see are basically the same as what are listed here if the Planning Commission decides to approve the case.” KROUT “Are you aware of this letter that just got circulated from the applicant?” KNEBEL “Yes, I do have a copy of that.” GAROFALO “Are there any other questions? Okay, then, we will hear from the applicant or agent.” LARRY HACKNEY “I am the owner of the two properties and the owner of Hackney Electric Company, the busine