METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2000 The regular meeting of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission was held Thursday, February 24, 2000, at 12:00 p.m. in the Planning Department Conference Room, 10th Floor, City Hall, 455 North Main street, Wichita, Kansas. The following members were present: Frank Garofalo, Chair; James Barfield (late arrival); Chris Carraher; Bud Hentzen; Bill Johnson; Richard Lopez; Jerry Michaelis; John W. McKay, Jr.; Susan Osborne-Howes; George Platt (late arrival); Harold Warner; Ray Warren; and Deanna Wheeler (late arrival). Ron Marnell was not present. Staff members present were Marvin S. Krout, Secretary; Dale Miller, Assistant Secretary, Donna Goltry, Principal Planner, Neil Strahl, Senior Planner, Scott Knebel, Senior Planner, Lisa Verts, Senior Planner, Barry Carroll, Associate Planner and Karen Wolf, Recording Secretary. 1. Public Agenda: James Mendenhall to speak on building a new runway to promote economic development. GAROFALO "We will call the meeting to order. The first item we have on the agenda is a public agenda item. Mr. Mendenhall." JAMES MENDENHALL "I live in the 500 block on South Bluff. There is no particular timing to this appearance. This is part of a long going on process, but since you are deciding on the planning documents for the future growth, I felt that it was important that you know about this project and the chances that it may be successful. Here is a map (indicating) and here is the explanation for this. Basically, it involves an industrial park, a new runway, and it will really benefit Wichita. It will bring on more than 1,000 jobs, it could attract some major companies and it could make Wichita a major distribution hub for the nation. I don't have any more to say. If you have an specific questions you have my phone number and I would encourage you to call me and I will explain the details of this. It is still early and somewhat speculative, so you might want to keep this somewhat private so it won't get out of hand with speculation." GAROFALO "Mr. Mendenhall, you do have five minutes if you want to expand a little bit. What I would ask of you is if you could explain the map to us a little bit." MENDENHALL "That would be fine. If you look on the map, the proposal involves a runway beginning at the end of the existing eastern runway, going southwest for four miles with a runway, a taxiway, which will be heavy duty in weight and with a required greater separation between the runway and the taxiway of the future. At 135th Street, there will be a taxiway overpass, which will be smaller than the overpass of the runway and taxiway combined over Maize. At 135th, it will extend west and go to 167th Street West feasibly. At that point, it is possible to turn north and with the addition of a taxiway overpass over Kellogg, could extend all the way to 21st Street North. This would create a 30 to 35 square mile industrial park with related area to the south of MacArthur to the northwest of K- 42 and to the east of either 167th or 183rd. That represents the flight path area and is also very important because if you are going to have night time cargo airplanes coming in, you need to preserve this area to avoid problems with noise pollution. That right now is keeping other cities from expanding their operations, including Memphis, where the hub of Federal Express is. The area marked 'TP-4' and '1,2,3' represents a proposed theme park, an actual buffer for the housing on Kellogg between 119th and Maize. This would involve a theme park featuring and showcasing manufacturing rides on the square mile or two square miles along Kellogg. In 'TP-2' to the south, there would be a horse equestrian area for show horses, show cattle and for a new agricultural focus to the airport cargo hub. To the right of that, 'TP-3' would be general recreation--ballparks, trails, and those trails would extend up along the Cowskin Creek. I am proposing a trail along the Cowskin Creek on the east side that would be sufficient for golf carts. So the three golf courses could all be combined with off-the-road trails with the intention of bringing in a world-class golf tournament. As you can see, between 119th and 135th the trails return back to the theme park, creating a circle of recreational trails. The object of having so many different recreational venues is a target of having a Paris-type air show come to Wichita. That is about as bold as any other part of this project, but it is not unreasonable for us to think like that. I think that would be a good long-term goal for the City. The hanger and cargo hub between Maize and 135th, centered on 119th would be two miles wide. One hundred nineteenth Street would be closed and these would be the new hanger, warehouse and cargo areas, including service for the super jumbo jets. The aim of this is to become a cargo hub. I don't want it to become a traditional hub where we have a specific airline dominating, but rather be a class-type hub where we specifically deal with the jumbo and super jumbo airlines of all of the airline companies. By doing this, we will attract a great deal of trans-continental business, direct flights from Tokyo and Europe, and we will become a redistribution center because an east or west- coast flight could unload in Wichita for the opposite coast. It could reload onto regional airlines and the regional airlines could fly that freight directly to the direct cities on either coast. So we would re-distribute materials in two directions. Basically nothing here is not admitted already. There is no brain surgery, it is all existing technology. It is just a matter of configuring it so that we can grow for the future fifty years. It will require a lot of the zoning issues because most of this land will have to be acquired through cooperative agreements and some of it through eminent domain right-of-way. I would ask, if nothing else, that the Planning Commission would consider how a public-private partnership might be put together and possibly a task force to examine how it would operate and what role you would play. That concludes my presentation unless you have specific questions. I am sure you have many." MCKAY "My only question is has this been run by the Airport Authority Advisory Committee or anything?" KROUT "James did make a presentation at the Airport Board before he came here. Maybe you could tell the Planning Commission what kind of reaction you got there." MENDENHALL "Well, they dissolved the Board. I don't know if that means it was a success or not. No, this was probably their last item. They are now considering this and since they is now a City entity, it will be more complicated and there are a lot more people involved and issues involved. There is a lot of interest right now in financing this, but most of that comes from Japan and Germany. I think this should be Wichita owned and operated, and a lot of this should be built to lease. That is the warehouse of the future. I anticipate three one million square feet distribution centers and hangers with 7 story tall doors and the ability to take a 300 foot wide airplane wing span. In the future, they will be bigger than that. That is all I can really tell you right now. But our biggest bonus is a chance that Boeing might put some of their production facilities here. Nowhere in the United States are there any airports able to handle the planes they are projecting to build; the 777 is coming in a million plus now and before long they will be way bigger than that. Wheeler arrived at the meeting at 1:12 p.m. The first customers, surprisingly or not, are not passengers, but cargo haulers. So everybody wants a big truck that will be able to fly point to point and maybe never see passengers. If we position ourselves for that big truck, we become an air cargo distribution center, capitalizing on our geography when there is every reason to believe that we will become what seems almost unfeasible, we will become a major, major hub in the United States air system. We will be a reliever for Denver, for St. Louis and Chicago. Last week, three of those airports were closed because of snow and we were in the 60s and clear. So we have a very good chance and opportunity for a major location here, but it is not easy to put together and like I said, I would like to request you to examine a public/private partnership and a potential task force to examine this. Other parts of the City will also examine it during their normal processes. I hope to come back to you later with some zoning issues. Right now, this is just awareness." KROUT "Are there any marketing materials to talk about what the projection is for air freight? Thirty square miles, I am calculating, is about 200 million square feet of space that will be developed someday. Where is that market? Are there projections to talk about how the market is changing and how air freight is the core of this? Are there some industry papers that you have read that lead you to think that something of this size can really happen?" MENDENHALL "Yes. Not only papers, but in studying the Denver airport and how they moved theirs along, studying that several airports now are looking for air freight and air cargo as their new salvation. The past president of the American Logistics Association in Chicago has explained how important we would be for a reliever for Denver. Airports right now, like Dallas, for example, they opened up reaching full capacity the day they opened. And there have been very few airports built. Yes, there are many projections that say that the Amazon.com companies, the Fed Ex's, the American Expresses are all going international in scope, and geography is still the great physical truth. Location is very important. All of these companies are trying to locate at airport sites because of the importance of night-time cargo distribution and air freight. Yes, there are lots of papers stating that this is a very viable logistics undertaking, especially if you were to build new. One of the unique aspects of this project is the heavy-duty runway. You may see that mentioned several places. The FAA and Boeing are partners now to develop new specifications for heavy-duty runways. Maybe half of the runways in the United States are below par right now. That includes medium and large size, as is mentioned in here. The issue is that if we can build a heavy-duty runway for the million plus pound airplanes, which secretly also require greater separation between the runway and the taxiway, then we will be able to open up as a first demonstration runway using this new FAA specification for pavement. That means that we could likely qualify for grants to pay for the entire runway and while we are up and operating, other airports will have to actually dig up entire stretches of runway or taxiway to rebuild them. So while they are having down time, we will be up and running and in a 'just in time' environment. That is very, very important. You cannot afford to have downtime and yet other airports will have downtime. We will be able to plan around that down time. Does that answer your question good enough?" KROUT "Yes." Barfield arrived at 1:18 p.m. MENDENHALL "I will have more information later. I am moving to the place where a feasibility study is conducted and I am very confident that that feasibility study will prove out all I am saying." GAROFALO "Are there any other questions?" Platt arrived at 1:20 p.m. JOHNSON "In this conceptional drawing we have here, it shows a new runway that starts just west of Hoover and goes to 135th Street. " MENDENHALL "Yes. From the end of the eastern runway, the south tip of the eastern runway." JOHNSON "Okay. The only thing, and I think it is nice to think this way, but I guess I am curious as to how often a big plane could land on an east-west runway in Wichita?" MENDENHALL "In Wichita?" JOHNSON "With a cross-wind." MENDENHALL "The cross-wind is not as important in the super jumbo jets. They can take a lot bigger cross-wind than the medium or small sized airplanes. We have not really had many significant days where we have had to close down the airport because of winds. While this is a cross-wind runway, the same identical type of structure exists in Kansas City, in Topeka and in at least three other smaller airports within the State of Kansas, so it is not a big issue to be a cross-wind runway. We still have the existing runways that can be used. Even if we were to say, close down 2 days out of 365, the amount of money that we would make by operating the other 363 would make it well worth the effort. I just don't think we are going to have to close down for wind." JOHNSON "I was just curious at why it wasn't looked at to maybe going more north-south." MENDENHALL "Well, we don't have an option of putting it anywhere else. There are some places, if you look at airport and think about other cities' airports, all of them are surrounded. This airport is completely surrounded except for one half mile section between the sensitive wetlands and K-42, which happens to go to the southwest. It is almost like a miracle that these elements would come together and allow us to penetrate that half-mile and continue it for the entire four miles. I did not set out to do a four-mile, that is just a Point A, Point B result. But with a four-mile runway, you have lots of advantages. When you land, you know how the flaps go down, the brakes down on and suddenly you are up like this in the seat? That is because the runway is too short and you have to stop. With our runway, we would not have that problem. We could offer increased safety in an enormous amount, but we can't really say we are safe because all airports are safe. We would normally be noticed as being a safe runway, extremely safe." JOHNSON "Thank you." GAROFALO "Are there any other questions or comments? Okay, thank you, Mr. Mendenhall." ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Review of MAPC annual report for 1999 KROUT "Commissioners, we have provided this draft to the Chair, who reviewed it, and there are a couple of omissions and we need to make a change for Commissioner Barfield, but other than that, I think we can entertain any comments or questions. We need to try to get this to the City Manager's office by the first of March." GAROFALO "Does anyone have any comments?" HENTZEN "Mr. Chairman, I may be insignificant to this board, but my name is not on the report. But first of all, I want to object to some of the information you have included in there. I don't think it makes any difference how many people are black or Hispanic or this or that or the other thing. Maybe we should just include our religion, our height or our weight. I think it is a mistake. We are supposed to be thinking about planning and zoning items as citizens of this county. I also would like to ask for some clarification on the consecutive years served. I read the City Ordinance on the appointment of City appointees to this Commission and it clearly says eight consecutive years. The County, I don't think, has that resolution. At least I don't know that they do. But what I want to ask is does the City have a resolution that they are going to follow for appointments to this board, and if not, why not? I would like to have that clarified." GAROFALO "Bud, do you mean in reference to the eight year?" GAROFALO "I'm not sure. Do you know anything about that Marvin?" KROUT "I know that the City Council Ordinance does contain that kind of language. I know there has been some discussion with regard to Susan's appointment and Richard's appointment. I can't answer directly how the City Council arrived at the decisions that they did. Joe Lang isn't able to be here this afternoon, so we could ask him to report to you about that at your next meeting. Is that the pleasure of the Commission?" GAROFALO "To have Joe Lang talk about the City Ordinance regarding the appointments. As far as length and service. Bud was asking that question." MCKAY "Isn't that just their policy? The City has one policy and the County has a different one." HENTZEN "I'm sorry I didn't bring the resolution. I do have a copy of it. I am pretty sure I did not bring it, but it specifically says that. I will tell you what I think is happening. In the same resolution, it has a following paragraph somewhere in the resolution that says that the current members who are appointed may serve until their replacements are named. That appears to be what the people that have appointed Susan and Richard both have decided to do." KROUT "I believe that is right." HENTZEN "I am pretty sure that is right. But what I want to say is what is the Resolution for if they don't want to follow it and they just manipulate it?" KROUT "We will pass that message on to the City Council through the minutes, and then we probably don't need to have Joe Lang respond." GAROFALO "I guess we need to adjust this to include that." KROUT "Yes, we will correct that." CARRAHER "I would have to echo my colleague's sentiments in regards to the paragraph with regards to the race. I find it insignificant to anything that we do. I guess I kind of resent that I am assumed to be in one of these groups because I am not a white male, I am not an Hispanic male, I am not a black male, and the last time I checked, I am not a female. But all joking aside, I really feel that this serves no purpose at all. It is what we bring a table on the inside that counts. I just don't feel that this adds anything of significance to the report. I would, quite frankly, like to have it taken out of the report." KROUT "I believe it is a requirement. Barry, you put these together for years, isn't it part of the standard requirement that the Council has for all boards?" BARRY CARROLL "I believe it is." KROUT "We can pass on that you don't think we ought to have that requirement in the future, but I think they have required us to provide that information to them." CARRAHER "Okay. Then I would have to ask that you would take me off of the white male list and put me down officially as mulatto. Seriously. I am quite serious. If we are going to have this labeling of people, at least let me have the dignity of having a choice." KROUT "Sure. Is that the term that you want to use?" CARRAHER "Exactly. That's M-U-L-A-T-T-O." KROUT "Okay." CARRAHER "Thank you." GAROFALO "Are there any other comments or corrections?" BARFIELD "The only other correction, sir, is that it states there that there, and it has already been brought to my attention that it has been corrected officially, but it says 11 members are white males and 1 Hispanic, so I guess I am white all of a sudden." GAROFALO "We left James out altogether." MCKAY "James, they have only had a year to put this together, what do you expect?" WHEELER "I guess I am just curious, whose requirement is that? I thought it was inappropriate on applications and all of that for us to distinguish." KROUT "I think the City Council was just looking to see what kind of demographics they have on all of their boards. They asked us for some demographic profiles of their City Council districts as they have been in the process of thinking about who to appoint to the new District Advisory Boards, and I think it just gives them information on whether or not all parts of the community are represented." CARRAHER "You just stated that you believe that the City wants to know the demographics on the board, but my question still is raised, is that a rule?" KROUT "Barry, do you know where the requirements come from? The old CPO office?" CARROLL "It was an Administrative Regulation of the City. I would have to look under the specific regulations." KROUT "If Barry has some time this afternoon, he can try to research that and we will get back to you with an answer on where exactly that requirement is. I think it is the City Manager's Administrative Regulation." CARRAHER "I would say until such time that that point is proven, that we kind of hold that paragraph aside." KROUT "Okay." GAROFALO "Does anyone else want to comment on the report? I guess not. Why don't we just hold off until we hear back on this? Then we can take action one way or the other, make a change or whatever." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. Set date for next workshop on Comprehensive Plan KROUT "First of all, if you saw my note, you saw that Bill Johnson contacted me and suggested that it would be interesting and informative to have discussion about systems buildings. He offered to set up a MAPC workshop at the Mid-Continent Industrial park regarding building products, and I think he has an officer from the national organization who happens to be in at that time and make the time available to make a presentation and answer questions. I thought that since this issue about metal buildings comes up from time to time, I think it would be useful and interesting for us to take advantage of that offer and have that workshop. I think there are some other people, probably, in City Hall, the Preservation Board, for example who might benefit from that. My original thought was that we could meet in the early afternoon, and I did check with some of the Planning Commissioners and early afternoon was not a good time, so the suggestion was later in the afternoon. That is why I identified the possibility of 3:30. The thought was to go on from there and talk about the Comprehensive Plan, and if the discussion got extended enough, then we could order pizza at the office there and continue on until we get to a stopping point. If you would still like to do that, I think we could. I haven't had a change to talk to you yet about the Comprehensive Plan and the discussions with the City Council and County Commission, but they have both indicated an interest in this idea of an advisory committee to further discuss the Comprehensive Plan. But whatever they decide or whatever you decide in that regard, I think it would be useful for you to have at least one more workshop and try to iron out some of these issues. I think it is useful for people in the community to know, for instance, that you have already taken rental inspection off of the table as an issue. So whatever we do in the future, we probably won't have to have focus on that discussion of rental inspection programs. I think that there are probably some other areas where it would be worthwhile to have a workshop and go through some other lingering issues. I know Commissioner Hentzen had some that he wanted to try to bring this to a decision point, and there are probably some others. So it is my suggestion that you go ahead and have that Tuesday late afternoon/early evening workshop to talk about metal buildings and the Comprehensive Plan." PLATT "If we do this, would it be necessary then, every time we get a zoning case involving a metal building, to say that we have been lobbied about it?" KROUT "No." GAROFALO "What about the Tuesday session?" Discussion here by most of the Commissioners. WARREN "Where are you suggesting that be?" KROUT "Next Tuesday afternoon." JOHNSON "There will also be an architect that is going to make a presentation. A local architect that has designed a lot of structures all over the United States. He is going to be out of town Monday but will be available Tuesday." KROUT "I think when he is in we ought to take advantage of it. Whoever can make it, can make it." JOHNSON "And there could be some video things or stuff that they are supposed to bring that they could possibly leave, if somebody wants to look at it later." WARREN "Mr. Chair, I think that since these are two such distinctive separate issues that they ought to be separated. I don't know that combining those two things are in the best interest of either one of them." GAROFALO "I guess the thought was to avoid another meeting." WARREN "I don't know that we want to be going into the night, though. We have pretty much tried to avoid those, too." KROUT "Is that the consensus of the Commission? That you would just maybe take advantage of the metal building discussion and do that separately next Tuesday, whoever can make it?" GAROFALO "We are talking about 3:30 and going into the evening. But that wouldn't be the case if we just heard the metal building discussion." MICHAELIS "I think I would tend to agree with that, especially after the article in the paper this morning and realizing that we are nowhere close to being done with the Comprehensive Plan. I think we ought to just wait on that until we know what we are going to do." WARREN "Me, too." GAROFALO "On the Comp Plan. Then have a separate session on that?" MICHAELIS "Yeah, and I don't think we ought to discuss that anymore until we know what we are doing." WARNER "I have a question on the Comp Plan, too. Is it now our responsibility to come to a conclusion of this thing and then present it to a 30 member committee to review, change and then have it come back to us? Is that what is going to happen now?" GAROFALO "I wasn't at the session that the City Council had, Marvin was. Maybe he can explain what they were saying." KROUT "I think it is still being discussed. Both the City Council and the County Commission didn't have this as an action item. It was just a in a Council workshop, so they didn't take any action. But I think that the idea is to have a group; some of you were on the Planning Commission back in 1992-93 when we went through this process before and we had an advisory group that included the Advance Plans Committee of the Planning Commission plus a larger group. So the idea is not just sending it to some other group and then back to the Planning Commission, but the Planning Commissioners would be participating in a dialog with other citizens in an informal setting where issues could be discussed in more detail." MCKAY "Then why did we spend three nights getting ridiculed and then do this? It is going to be the same situation. It is going to be loaded one way or the other." WARNER "It will be the same people." MCKAY "It is going to be the same people, the same people against, the same people for, the same controversy is going to be there." KROUT "Well, John, you participated last time." MCKAY "And it was an exercise in futility the first time. That's the reason why I really thought we were getting ahead this time because we had 400 people on the last committee. From one meeting to the next, the groups couldn't even agree. And Marvin, you know that as well as I do." KROUT "All I know is that the committee came up with a recommendation. They brought it to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission made relatively few changes. Then, after the homebuilders tried to rewrite the plan, we went back and made a few more changes and the City Council and County Commission approved it. I think that was…." MCKAY "How long did that process take, Marvin?" KROUT "It took quite a while." MCKAY "Two and a half years. I got on the Planning Commission in 1991 and they had just started it. When did we finally approve it?" KROUT "But that is partly because we started at the beginning the process of setting up that committee, as opposed to having a product to be able to review, which is where we are now. I guess I should say that if the Planning Commission has some opinions about this idea of an Advisory Committee, this is probably a good time for you to express those, and we will provide that information back to the City Council and the County Commission before they take any actions." GAROFALO "We are not being asked to either agree or disagree, and I think we can, as a Commission, proceed however we want to proceed and ignore the other." OSBORNE-HOWES "I just remember that for the 1993 plan, we did have that group and they did meet for a long period of time, because I remember being on the Advance Plans Committee and I was part of that. Really, we spent no longer on that we have spent on this one. This thing has been a two year process, too. But I do remember everyone reaching some kind of consensus at the end, and when it came to the Planning Commission as a whole, there was some discussion back and forth about it, but I think there was a unanimous vote on it. We had a public hearing, and if I remember it correctly, it was like no one came to the public hearing. There were one or two people who were basically saying it is a reasonable consensus, as opposed to the last group of three public hearings that we had that had, 700 to 800 people at it. It just seems to me that we would have been better served to have had this advisory council. I have said that. I have gone on record a couple of times saying it. I guess my question is, and I wasn't there either: did the City say this or City/County? And are they saying that before they look at the plan they want to hear back, or are they considering hearing back from this advisory committee before they proceed?" KROUT "That is what they are considering, and both the City Council and the County Commission talked about it Tuesday, but they haven't made any decisions about it or about exactly how it will be structured, or how much time it would take. That was a concern to at least one Commissioner." OSBORNE-HOWES "There must be some feeling like 'let's just and get it over with and send it to someone else'. But the plan itself, obviously there are still disagreement about it. We are basically handing something in that we haven't reached consensus on. Obviously, there is still disagreement about it. We are basically handing in something that we haven't reached consensus on and we are handing it to the elected officials. We could say to them 'this is your baby now and you do what you want with it', but that puts them in a untenable situation. I guess I can understand wherever this idea came from about the Advisory Committee. Maybe it came from somebody who paid attention to how we did it the last time. That seemed to work. I don't know." WARREN "Well, I have had a couple of calls from fellow Commissioners on this subject, and the conclusion is that somebody of authority doesn't like this document that is now in print. Had they been in favor, they would be before the City Council now and the County Commission. No doubt about it. As far as what you said, Susan, that there is lack of consensus, I don't see that. I think there is consensus on this board. Now, it doesn't measure up to what some people here think it ought to be, that is true. But I am like John, I don't think listening to another 400 people, 30 people or 20 people is going to bring us any closer to consensus than we are right now. We can prolong the agony of this thing as long as we want to, but I don't think it is going to have any net effect to take this any longer and string it out. I don't think any new information is going to be surfacing that we haven't already heard many, many, many times before." HENTZEN "Mr. Chair, over the past 6 months or so, we have spent a lot of time meeting, and not until this morning in the paper, did anybody ever say a word about an Advisory Council. I wish that we had been told that was what was going to happen. As I read the paper this morning, it was truly alarming. Two names were mentioned. I think Marvin Krout and Elizabeth Bishop were mentioned. I have heard what they think, and I don't need another 6 months to find out what they think. So, let's don't rush a vote, but I think we ought to say to the Commission, at a comfortable time, and that might be in four weeks, or six weeks or whatever, this is what we think is right. This is the consensus of the group. I don't mind, Susan, if they have to say 'they really put it on our backs', because they have the final decision. If they don't want it on their backs, they can relinquish the final decision." GAROFALO "Are there any other comments at this point?" PLATT "I don't think there is any question that the draft in front of us represents a consensus of the majority of members of this Commission. It seems to me that there is very little to be gained from sitting around waiting longer. I would think that the people who support this current draft ought to be proposing we adopt it and send it on. It seems to me that the majority has the responsibility to take some leadership here, and that it is not those of us who oppose the plan who have to take the leadership. I have heard nothing but talking about wanting to put it off: 'let's wait a few weeks'. Why wait?" WHEELER "Well, I guess, just from where I sat, I attended the County workshop and during that workshop, they had requested to have some dialog with us, which I assumed at that time would be in the form of the workshop. In our last meeting, Marvin said he would get with them and schedule a workshop. And he was going to check with the City Council and see if they wanted to do the same workshop or two workshops. So I guess that is where I am coming from. I thought we were going to come here today and hear about scheduling a joint workshop or two separate workshops and have some dialog and then we would be in a position to schedule from there. Now, I had a rather hectic morning, so I actually haven't read the newspaper, nor do I always take everything in there as happening on this Planning Commission. I would hope everyone wouldn't. So I guess I am looking to Marvin to tell us where the heck we are." KROUT "All I can tell you is that they did not take action, but I think that they it seemed favorable towards moving in this direction of further dialog with a larger task force or committee, rather than coming back to you and having the direct MAPC/governing body workshops that we talked about earlier." WHEELER "So, at this point, they have formally told you that they do not want workshops with this Planning Commission?" KROUT "No. They haven't said that, but they have kind of moved the discussion in another direction." WHEELER "I guess I am curious. Have the City Council and County Commission received full documentation of the 14 stakeholder meetings and the much broader groups of things that have occurred over the past two years with this dialog?" KROUT "Yes. I think even when we had orientation with the new City Council and County Commission members that we provided them with that information. They may not be able to find it in their offices, but we provided it." GAROFALO "I might say, just for whatever it is worth, that I had a brief conversation with the Mayor about a week ago, and there is no question in my mind, and he left the impression with me that he thinks that some sort of a compromise needs to be worked out. What they came up with Tuesday may be what he is thinking about. I don't know. He didn't mention anything about a committee to me. But I only had about a 3 to 4 minute conversation with him." MICHAELIS "I just want to make a comment that I really kind of agree with Deanna. I would like to see us set up a joint meeting. We did it once and we did it right here, and it seemed to work very well with the City Council and County Commission. If we can all set there across the room and look each other in the eye and say 'we need to do more work on this', then let's do more work on this. But just to do it to be doing it, I don't know if it is really the thing. I would like to have them sit down and tell us that they are satisfied with it and what they aren't satisfied with. I don't think that is too much to ask, because we have spent a lot of time on this and we have put a lot of effort into it. If they aren't happy with it, then they need to tell us that." LOPEZ "I have a question. Since Marvin made the statement that they moved the discussion away from the meeting with us in another direction, in one sense isn't that validating the fact that the Planning Commission's business is done on this then, and they will take it to another committee?" KROUT "In laying out an option for an advisory committee, my suggestion was that it be a committee that includes the Advance Plans Committee like the last one that we had." WARNER "Then it was your suggestion to the City Council that we have an advisory committee? It wasn't their thought?" KROUT "Yes." WARNER "That's what I thought." WARREN "Mr. Chair, this suggestion that you thought you understood from the mayor, I think it is a little unfair to paint this thing with a big, broad brush and say 'we think there ought to be some moderation or some agreement in here. We are talking about 100 subjects. I want to know specifically where he thinks we ought to modify a position. Where specifically? And then we can get down and probably do it in a few minutes. This whole thing of saying this 100 points that we have been working on now for a year and a half that we ought to make some concessions, concessions where? What does he want us to concede?" GAROFALO "I might mention that he also mentioned that he was upset about the criticisms that were cast upon some of us on the Planning Commission during the public hearings. I'll tell you what. If you want me to, I will be glad to go to him, and I would be glad to go to Commissioner Winters, and just ask them straightaway for meetings, if that is what we want. If not, we can proceed on our own as Commissioner Platt suggested." WARREN "Commissioner Warner has made a point here. It may be that if this Commission is going to be heard, then we are going to have to have two representatives go to the City Council and to the County Commission, not only Marvin Krout, but somebody that brings what the majority of this Commission feels. I don't think that majority is being represented before either one of those groups at all." GAROFALO "Okay. We can sell 3 or 4, or however many wants to go, and we will set up a meeting with them if that is the consensus of the majority opinion, then we will try to do that." WARREN "I am with Commissioner Platt. I think we ought to set a date. I think we ought to take the leadership to do so, and I think we ought to get it out of here and submit it to those bodies, which will either reject it or approve it one way or the other." GAROFALO "Well, then, if we go in that direction, we don't need meetings with them." WARREN "I would like to see a straw vote from this group about that very subject. Are we ready to turn this thing loose and send it in, and maybe if they don't like it they can give it to another group to resolve?" GAROFALO "Do you want to make that a motion?" WARREN "I'd rather see a straw vote. I don't want to make a motion." WHEELER "I would just like to verify whether the workshops with the governing bodies are viable or not. Those were verbalized, I was present when those were, and I guess I would not support advisory boards or other forms of things since they requested that, or at least the County did, until we have an official word from them of whether they want to do that. I don't mind moving forward, but if there are groups that have issues, we have heard thousands of issues, we have heard from thousands of people, and it was very unfortunate that through the process this community was divided and at times not fully informed on the ramifications of several scenarios. We spent tremendous staff time developing two scenarios that this Commission was not in total support of, but that is where we are. So, I think if we go forward, it behooves whoever gets involved to hear all of the education process that we went through, not just a summary report." MCKAY "In reference to the workshop or meeting that was held Tuesday, I have talked to two to three of the County Commissioners that didn't even know that this recommendation was coming down until after the City Council had acted upon it. They were calling me, asking me if I knew what was going on, if we had recommended it from this group. I said I knew nothing about it. My opinion is that if we go to a group, we are starting at ground zero again, and what will end up happening is that the people that know what is going on that have spent endless hours either working on it and trying to work on it and having within our group discussion, criticism of each other, but at least we came up with a document. It is very evident that Marvin doesn't like it. It is very evident that he wants his conservation plan and he is not going to settle for anything less. This is just a ploy to get what he wants. If that is the route that the City Council wants to go and hinder this City for growth, I hear constantly economic development, economical development, and I know of three major infill projects right now that are going to bring a lot of money into town, but nobody ever talks about that. I thought I would never sit here and say this, but I am saying it because I really feel that that is the whole thing. Until Marvin gets what he wants, this is going to be it." WARREN "Mr. Chair, I know that Commissioner Marnell called you, because he told me he did. He called me and asked me to convey his sentiments on this, and one of them was that he felt very slighted that it hasn't been expressed fully that this is a compromise document. There have been a number of compromises in this document. It isn't what it is portrayed to be, all one way or all the other. That was his consensus. I'm sure he told you the same thing." GAROFALO "Right. He also said that he was ready to move." HENTZEN "Whatever we do, as we progress on this thing, if we can, let's keep our doors open to the City Council and the County Commission. Let's don't draw a line in the sand with those people. They are good people, and they are reasonable people. I would like to see us quit having meeting to where we are verbally abused for 9 hours in a row, but let's proceed with what the consensus of this board is and share it with them." BARFIELD "I think, basically, we must realize that we are dealing with controversial issues and controversial topics. There is an elected body. There are going to be certain members of the City Council and probably the County Commission that are going to play politics with this until they can see which way the wind is blowing. The best move for us, I think, would be for us to set up a workshop with the City Council members. That way, we could do as Mr. Warren suggests, find out exactly what areas of this plan the City Council, the Mayor or the County Commission has problems with, and that would give us a direction as to which way to go." MOTION: That the Planning Commission formally request a workshop with the City Council and the County Commission to discuss this sometime within the next three weeks. WHEELER moved MICHAELIS seconded the motion. WARREN "Well, in your opinion, Deanna, would that probably negate the appointment of this other committee until such time as we had the opportunity to visit with them." WHEELER "I don't know anything about this other committee until someone officially tells me about it. My suggestion is that we have either those individual workshops or joint workshops. It really doesn't matter to me." WARREN "I guess I am wondering how this other committee is going to fit in. Who is going to appoint it?" WHEELER "If they decide to appoint some advisory or another task force or something else, I guess that is their choice." GAROFALO "No matter what we do, they could go ahead and still do that. That is my opinion." OSBORNE-HOWES "It sounds like a request for a meeting with the elected officials makes sense to me. I am really hoping…I know that we have listened to 3 hearings with a lot of people talking to us, and I just don't want us to disintegrate like what I am hearing. I understand that that is what is happening to us, but I think to point fingers and say that it is Marvin's fault that we have gotten this amount of comment and that elected officials are hearing some heat over it is really not fair and it doesn't speak well for us. So I guess what I am asking is that we sort of move on in a more positive manner. I really enjoy serving with all of you. We disagree on some things. I just think we need to behave better. We all have to work with each other." GAROFALO "Any other comments? We have a motion, does everyone understand the motion? It is to request meetings with the City Council and the County Commission." VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried with 13 votes in favor. No opposition. GAROFALO "Okay, then we will make a formal request. Maybe by letter and I will sign it." KROUT "And about the workshop next Tuesday." GAROFALO "Oh, yeah. How many can make the meeting on Tuesday at 3:30? Everyone who can make it raise their hand. We have enough." KROUT "We will send a notice out to you to tell you where it is located." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Item taken out of order: OFF-THE-AGENDA ITEM GAROFALO "We have a notice here on Z-3340, which is not actually on the agenda for today, but apparently at some point was supposed to be or going to be, but it has been deferred until the Thursday, March 16, 2000 meeting." KROUT "It is a request for commercial zoning and a C.U.P. on large tracts of lands north of Kellogg between 143rd and 127th Street. If anyone didn't get the postponement notice, this is just to tell you that that case has been postponed until March 16." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. Subdivision Committee items 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, 4/5, 4/6, 4/8, 4/9, 4/11 and 4/12 were approved subject to the Subdivision Committee recommendations. MCKAY moved, LOPEZ seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. 4/1. S/D 99-79 - Final Plat of NORTHRIDGE HEIGHTS ADDITION, located on the northwest corner of US 254 (61st Street North) and Rock Road. A. Since sanitary sewer is unavailable to serve this property, the applicant shall contact the Environmental Health Division of the Health Department to find out what tests may be necessary and what standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage facilities. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval. Standard soil testing is required. B. The site is currently served by a Rural Water District. The applicant shall contact the water district to determine the ability of this property being platted to connect to their water line and submit a letter from the water district regarding any requirements. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. D. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The boundaries of the Floodway Reserves need to be revised. Drainage easements located at the northwest corner of Lot 2, Block A, and in Lots 7,8,9,10, Block A need to be denoted as Floodway Reserve easements. Minimum building pad should be referenced in the plattor's text. The location and elevation of benchmarks are required. E. The MAPC certification shall be revised to reference "Northridge Heights". F. County Engineering should comment on the access controls. Complete access control has been dedicated along the site's frontage to K-254. One opening has been platted along Rock Road. The access controls are approved. G. 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. H. The Applicant shall provide a guarantee for the installation of the interior streets. The streets shall be constructed to a 36-foot rock road suburban standard. I. County Fire needs to comment on the acceptability of the proposed street names. The street names are acceptable. J. A contingent dedication of right-of-way should be platted for Chippewa extending to the west line of the plat to provide potential street connection to the adjoining unplatted property. As requested, the right-of-way dedication has been platted. K. The plattor's text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. L. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) M. The applicant's engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary's signature. N. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. O. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements [specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147] for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant's responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. P. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. Q. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. R. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. S. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. T. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in Release 13 version of AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 4/2. S/D 98-102 - Revised Final Plat of WOODLAND GLEN ADDITION, located north, on the east side of Woodland Avenue. A. Municipal services are available to serve the site. City Engineering needs to indicate if any guarantees or easements are needed. No guarantees are 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. 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. E. The County Commissioner's signature block may be eliminated. F. 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. G. 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.) H. 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. I. 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. J. 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. K. 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. L. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. M. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. N. 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. O. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 4/3. S/D 99-61 - Final Plat of FIRST ADDITION TO BENTLEY FARMS, located on the southwest corner of 101st Street North and 103rd West. A. Since neither municipal water nor sanitary sewer is available to serve this property, the applicant shall contact the Environmental Health Division of the Health Department to find out what tests may be necessary and what standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage facilities and water wells. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval. A restrictive covenant shall be provided restricting the location of the septic system on Lot 1, Block 2. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan should include calculations and contours, and denote elevation of existing drainage structures. The proposed drainage detention appears to have no flow outlets. D. County Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. Complete access control is required along 103rd St. West for Lot 5, Block 1 at the intersection. This lot may have one opening along 101st St. North to be located within the west 75 feet of the property. The final plat has denoted the requested access controls. E. County Fire needs to approve street names for the proposed interior streets. County Fire has approved the names Mariah (for the through street), Mariah Place for the loop street, and Chinook for the connection to the southwest. The final plat has denoted the requested street names. F. The Applicant shall provide a guarantee for the installation of the proposed interior streets to the suburban street standard. G. County Engineering needs to comment on the need for improvements to perimeter streets. No improvements are required. H. The instrument submitted establishing the Derby Oil pipeline appears to indicate that the pipeline is encumbering this plat. If so, it shall be shown and subject to the standard pipeline conditions. 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. Southwestern Bell and KGE have requested additional easements which have been denoted on the final plat. 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. S. County Engineering has requested a 25 foot utility easement adjoining a 25 foot pedestrian easement at the southwestern line of the plat. The requested utility easement has been platted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4/4. S/D 99-90 - Final Plat of CHANG & ARENSBERG ADDITION, located south of Kellogg, east side of Hillside. A. Existing sanitary sewer and municipal water are available to serve this site. City Engineering needs to indicate the need for any guarantees. No guarantees are 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. Parking lot detention will be required as part of site development. D. In accordance with the zone change, a cross-lot circulation agreement is required with the adjoining property to the north. E. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. In accordance with the zone change, the final plat has denoted complete access control along Hillside. F. It is requested that the final plat tracing reference tie points to a section corner. G. 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. H. 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. I. 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.) J. 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. K. 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. L. 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. M. 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. N. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. O. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. P. 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. Southwestern Bell and KGE request additional easements which have been denoted on the final plat. Q. 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4/5. S/D 00-14 - One-Step Final Plat of FIVE STAR ADDITION, located on the north side of Central, East of Oliver. A. Municipal services are available to serve the site. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for guarantees or easements. No guarantees are 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. Improvements will be required at the time of site development. D. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat proposes three access openings along Central. The Conditional Use approval for the car wash (Lot 1) permitted two openings. Distances should be shown for all segments of access control. Traffic Engieering has approved three access openings. E. The Applicant shall guarantee the closure of any driveway openings being located in areas of complete access control or that exceed the number of allowed openings. A restrictive covenant shall be provided which permits the openings within Lot 2 to be retained until the site is developed with a nonresidential use, at which time one access opening shall be closed. F. The land being platted includes additional land that is not referenced in the legal description in the platting binder. The platting binder must include information on the entire property being platted. G. As required by the Sidewalk ordinance, a sidewalk shall be provided along Old Manor Road. H. 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. I. 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.) J. 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. K. 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. L. 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. M. 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. N. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. O. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. P. 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. Q. 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 4/6. S/D 00-01 - One-step final Plat of LUDLUM 1ST ADDITION, located on the east side of 375th street West, North of 31st Street South. A. Since neither municipal water nor sanitary sewer is available to serve this property, the applicant shall contact the Environmental Health Division of the Health Department to find out what tests may be necessary and what standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage facilities and water wells. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval. No Health Department approval is required per Item B. B. Sewer and water services will be provided from Cheney; and the Applicant shall submit a letter to that effect. C. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. D. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The Floodway easement needs to be relabeled as a Floodway Reserve. The limits of the Floodway Reserve need to be labeled and dimensioned. The lowest floor or minimum building elevations need to be established as applicable. A HEC Quick-2 flood study run needs to be completed; which may require the revision of the floodway boundaries. A floodway reserve easement needs to be provided. E. The plat proposes one access opening per lot along 375th St. West. The plattor's text shall reference "one opening per lot" and denote access controls as being dedicated to the appropriate governing body. F. Lot line dimensions need to revised for the north and south lines of Lot 1 and along the southerly line of Lot 2. G. The owner's certificate shall reference the language "platted into lots" and include a signature line. H. The notary acknowledgment shall reference the owner's name. I. The Chairman of the County Commissioners needs to be revised to read "Thomas G. Winters". J. The sentence regarding easements in the County Commissioners' certificate needs to be eliminated. K. The language "at _____ a.m – p.m." needs to be added to the signature block of the Register of Deeds. L. 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. M. The MAPC signature block should be revised to reference "Francis S. Garofalo" as the MAPC Chairman. N. The legal description needs to be revised to accurately portray the land being platted. The distances on the drawing need to correspond with those denoted within the legal description. O. 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.) P. 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. Q. 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. R. 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. S. 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. T. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. U. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. V. 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. W. 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4/8. S/D 00-18 - One-step Final Plat of ROONEYS' FIRST ADDITION, located west of Tyler Road, south of 87th Street South. A. Since neither municipal water nor sanitary sewer is available to serve this property, the applicant shall contact the Environmental Health Division of the Health Department to find out what tests may be necessary and what standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage facilities and water wells. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval. The water well easement shall be increased per County Health Department regulations. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The drainage plan is approved. A Floodway Reserve is required along the south lot line and on the east lot line. D. County Engineering and County Fire Department needs to comment on the access to this property. The plat proposes access through an existing 50-ft private street which currently serves three lots. The Subdivision regulations limit private streets to serving no more than three lots. Approval of the proposed plat would require a modification from the Subdivision regulations. An ingress/egress easement needs to be established by separate instrument which includes this lot. County Fire Department has approved the site for a 24' wide access road. The Subdivision Committee have the approved the access road for four total lots. E. The plattor's text shall note the creation of the floodway reserve in addition to referencing the standard floodway language. F. For those reserves being platted for floodway purposes, the required covenant which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves shall grant, to the appropriate governing body, the authority to maintain the reserves in the event the owner fails to do so. The covenant shall provide for the cost of such maintenance to be charged back to the owner by the governing body. G. 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. H. 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. I. 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.) J. 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. K. 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. L. 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. M. 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. N. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. O. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. P. 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. Q. 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 4/9. S/D 00-19 - One-Step final plat of OGDON FIRST ADDITION, located north of 45th Street North, west side of Ridge. A. Since neither municipal water nor sanitary sewer is available to serve this property, the applicant shall contact the Environmental Health Division of the Health Department to find out what tests may be necessary and what standards are to be met for approval of on-site sewerage facilities and water wells. A memorandum shall be obtained specifying approval. Standard soil testing is required. A topographical plan is requested. B. If improvements are guaranteed by petition, a notarized certificate listing the petitions shall be submitted to the Planning department for recording. C. County Engineering needs to comment on the status of the applicant's drainage plan. The plat needs to reference minimum building pads or lowest openings. The boundaries of the floodway reserve need to be revised to match the FEMA map. D. The location and elevation of benchmarks is required. E. The dimensions of the lots need to be corrected. F. This property is within a zone identified by the City Engineers' office as likely o 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. County Engineering should comment on the need for additional right-of-way. The Applicant shall dedicate 20 feet of additional right-of-way. H. The site is located within three miles of Wichita and City Council approval is required. The appropriate signature block should be included on the final plat tracing. I. The plattor's text shall note the creation of the floodway reserve in addition to referencing the standard floodway language. J. If platted, the building setback may be a minimum of 25 feet to conform with the SF-20 District zoning standards. K. The southeast tie point shall be revised to reference "1W". L. The northwest tie point shall be revised to reference the "SE ¼". M. The lot depth exceeds it width by a factor of more than 2.5, in violation of the Subdivision regulations. A modification has been approved by the Subdivision Committee. N. For those reserves being platted for floodway purposes, the required covenant which provides for ownership and maintenance of the reserves shall grant, to the appropriate governing body, the authority to maintain the reserves in the event the owner fails to do so. The covenant shall provide for the cost of such maintenance to be charged back to the owner by the governing body. O. The plattor's text shall include language that a drainage plan has been developed for the plat and that all drainage easements, rights-of-way, or reserves shall remain at established grades or as modified with the approval of the applicable City or County Engineer, and unobstructed to allow for the conveyance of stormwater. P. The applicant shall install or guarantee the installation of all utilities and facilities which are applicable and described in Article 8 of the MAPC Subdivision Regulations. (Water service and fire hydrants required by Article 8 for fire protection shall be as per the direction and approval of the Chief of the Fire Department.) Q. The applicant's engineer is advised that the Register of Deeds is requiring the name(s) of the notary public, who acknowledges the signatures on this plat, to be printed beneath the notary's signature. R. To receive mail delivery without delay, and to avoid unnecessary expense, the applicant is advised of the necessity to meet with the U.S. Postal Service Growth Management Coordinator (phone 316-729-0102) prior to development of the plat so that the type of delivery, and the tentative mailbox locations can be determined. S. The applicant is advised that various State and Federal requirements [specifically but not limited to the Army Corps of Engineers, Kanopolis Project Office, Rt. 1, Box 317, Valley Center, KS 67147] for the control of soil and wind erosion and the protection of wetlands may impact how this site can be developed. It is the applicant's responsibility to contact all appropriate agencies to determine any such requirements. T. The owner of the subdivision should be aware of the fact that the development of any subdivision greater than five (5) acres in size may require an NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka. Further, on all construction sites, the City of Wichita requires that best management practices be used to reduce pollutant loadings in storm water runoffs. U. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. V. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. W. The representatives from the utility companies should be prepared to comment on the need for any additional utility easements to be platted on this property. X. The applicant is reminded that a disk shall be submitted with the final plat tracing to the Planning Department detailing this plat in digital format in AutoCAD. This will be used by the City and County GIS Department. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4/11. D-1781 - Dedication of a Utility Easement from O.L. and Joan Eck, for property generally located south of Pawnee, on the east side of Meridian. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Ten (10) feet on either side of the following described centerline: Commencing at the northeast corner of Lot 1, Meridian Center Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas; thence north 143.20 feet along the east line of said Lot 1, Block 1, First Addition to Southwest Village, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas, to a point of beginning; thence S89° 59'04" W for a distance of 220.77 feet. PURPOSE OF DEDICATION: As a requirement of a Lot Split (L/S-1013), this utility easement is being dedicated to allow construction and maintenance of public utilities. Planning Staff recommends the granting of this dedication be accepted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4/12. D-1782 - Dedication of Street Right-of-Way from O.L. and Joan Eck, for property generally located south of Pawnee, on the east side of Meridian. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Commencing at the northwest corner of Lot 1, Meridian Center Addition to Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas; thence north 4.41 feet along the west line of Lot 1, Block 1, First Addition to Southwest Village, Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas; to a point of beginning; thence north a distance of 149.91 feet along the west line of said Lot 1, thence east a distance of 25 feet along the north line of Lot 1; thence south a distance of 50.06 feet parallel to the west line of Lot 1; thence 13° 59'09" W a distance of 103.07 feet to the point of beginning. PURPOSE OF DEDICATION: As a requirement of a Lot Split (L/S-1013), City Engineering requested additional street right-of-way. Planning Staff recommends the granting of this dedication be accepted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Item taken out of order: 4/7. S/D 00-16 - One-Step Final Plat of STONEBOROUGH 3RD ADDITION, located on the northwest corner of 55th Street South and Broadway. A. Existing municipal services are available to serve the site. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for guarantees or easements. A drainage guarantee 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. A drainage guarantee is required. E. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the access controls and the need for alignment of the opening on 55th St. South with the opening to the south. The plat proposes one access opening on Broadway along the north property line and one access opening on 55th St. South along the west property line. Distances shall be shown for all segments of access control. Traffic Engineering has approved the access controls. E. 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. F. 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. G. If platted, the building setback may be a minimum of 20 feet, to conform with the GC District zoning requirement. H. 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. I. 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.) J. 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. K. 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. L. 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. M. 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. N. Perimeter closure computations shall be submitted with the final plat tracing. O. Recording of the plat within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council and/or County Commission. P. 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. Southwestern Bell requests additional easements. Q. 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. GAROFALO "My question is on Item D. That is why I pulled this one." NEIL STRAHL, Planning staff "Item D regards the access to the site. The applicant proposed two openings, one opening along the north line of the site and one opening along the south line, along the western property line. Both of those openings were approved by Traffic Engineering." GAROFALO "They were? Okay." KROUT "Did the Subdivision Committee recommend the cross-lot access, and did the applicant accept that?" STRAHL "No." KROUT "Could you go into discussion? I'm sorry, I assumed that they had." STRAHL "Staff had requested a cross-lot access agreement with properties to the north and west. As you can see by the zoning map, both of those properties, the surrounding area, are zoned 'GC' General Commercial. Staff had requested a cross-lot access agreement to minimize the openings along the perimeter streets and traffic conflicts. The applicant did plat the openings along the outer edges to allow for shared accesses. Again, there would be an opening right here, an opening on the south portion of the site right here. So there would be an opportunity for joint access in the future, but the Subdivision Committee did not require a cross-lot access be provided at this time for future access." GAROFALO "Okay. Any other questions on that one?" KROUT "I guess for the record, the Subdivision Committee could explain their reasoning for it, since this is something that both in the Comprehensive Plan and in the Subdivision Regulations we are trying to encourage shared access and small lots to be able to be collected. Is that a railroad or drainage area over to the west?" STRAHL "It is a drainage area to the west, yes." MCKAY "I was under the impression on this one that at the time of the development, the applicant didn't oppose that because there was no future development at this point. They didn't want to do it at this point in time. But they wouldn't disagree to do it at time of development, isn't that right?" KROUT "How do you accomplish it if you don't get the instrument at the time of platting?" MCKAY "Could we hear from the applicant on this?" MARK SAVOY "I am with Savoy, Ruggles and Bohm, representing the applicant. We placed the access control in position. We did that for two reasons. One to stay as far away from the intersection as possible, and the second was to leave the option open to possibly work with adjoiners. The people that are trying to buy this property have an unusual parking layout, for starters. They have a drive-up window; this is a Walgreen's, so they have some traffic conflicts that they don't really like just throw into the wind to anybody that is next door to them. Since they don't even know who would be next door, they kind of hate to sign just an open agreement and preferred to have the option of letting someone come to them when there was a need for joint access. If it became necessary." WARREN "Under your original proposal Mark, now what access were you asking for here? Can you show us up there?" SAVOY "It is just exactly what Neil just stated. One opening at the north end of the property and one opening on the west end down here. If there are any of you that are familiar with this site, there is an open ditch along here that is being filled with a box structure and the driveway will go over that ditch, or over the box. You won't see a ditch in front of this property any longer." MICHAELIS "Marvin, is this something that if we didn't require it on this plat but on the next one that comes in for the lot on the north, we require it there and they agree to it, isn't that the same thing?" KROUT "No, because I think the important thing is to get both owners to agree to it, and if this owner doesn't agree to it, then there is no way to make them try work things out in the future." MICHAELIS "Well, you might have a problem in the future. If somebody comes in from the north, even though he agrees to it and they say 'no, they aren't going to, then you are still back to the same problem." KROUT "It is real difficult as opposed to the C.U.P. where you have one owner and he is platting it all at one time. When you know development is going to be sequential, I think what the Comprehensive Plan suggests is that you still have some responsibility for trying to work these things through and keep the options open for that to happen in the future. Unless you start with this one, I don't think you have any options left in the future." WARREN "What we have done in the past on that though, if you decide that, is to take that access over to the property line. Then if another wants to come in and you can work out a deal with them you can, but you don't mandate them to have a shared driveway when you don't have people that maybe can agree." KROUT "Well, when you say 'we', Commissioner, who are you talking about?" WARREN "Well, if we allow this on his property alone, clear over on the property line, I don't know, Mark, if that will work." KROUT "That is where you are putting it." SAVOY "That is what we are trying to do." WARREN "You are trying to put it on the property line. Okay. This other one that I am looking at there is an additional one then?" SAVOY "We just have two openings. One on the east line and one on the south line." WARREN "Okay. And you are agreeing to put it all the way?" SAVOY "Yeah, the access control shoved clear to the north and clear to the west. The allowed opening." GAROFALO "Okay, are there any other questions? Okay, thank you." WARREN "Do you need a motion on this?" GAROFALO "Yeah." MCKAY "As a member of the Subdivision Committee, I don't actually have a problem with keeping in Requirement D." WARREN "In keeping it?" GAROFALO "I don't think it says anything about that here." WARREN "Item D provides for the joint access, doesn't it? I don't have that in front of me now." MCKAY "Which one are we talking about?" GAROFALO "We are talking about Item D. My question was only about the two accesses." MCKAY "That isn't what Marvin was talking about. He was talking about the cross-lot." KROUT "I guess you took the cross-lot access question out of the staff report because of the Subdivision Committee recommendation." STRAHL "Right." KROUT "Go back to the zoning slide. I guess my feeling is that if was all coming in as a C.U.P. and it was going to be three or four lots instead of two lots, you would have required joint opening and cross-lot access. That is a standard requirement. Now, I know it is not a C.U.P., but what we are trying to do is get well-planned developments. We know there is going to be commercial development on the rest of that corner, and what we are trying to do is keep the corners with a minimum number of obstructions and openings. I guess, yes, this can develop with an opening to the west and an opening to the north, but there would be much more efficient circulation if you required of this lot what you would require in any C.U.P. When you have a C.U.P., you almost never have any idea but what the lots are going to be, how they are going to be developed, if it is going to be developed to the west, so I don't see that this is really a different situation than what you apply to C.U.P.s all of the time." MCKAY "Is the ownership of all of this pink area the same. The ownership clear around this piece of subject property the same owner?" SAVOY "No, sir, it is not. The ownership is kind of jumbled up. There is not a specific use to go on any of the adjacent property at the present time either. That was part of the problem with the people wanting to buy this, not having any idea who they were sharing a drive with. Was it going to be a Wendy's, a McDonald's?" MCKAY "Do they have a user on this piece?" SAVOY "Walgreens." MOTION: That the plat be approved, subject to Subdivision Committee recommendations. WARREN moved, HENTZEN seconded the motion. MCKAY "Marvin, your concern is the cross-lot and not the entrance?" KROUT "Right." MCKAY "And what the applicant was saying was they didn't know what was going in there, so they didn't want to use the same driveway, which is two different subjects." KROUT "Well, if you are allowing cross-lot access, then that does mean that you are allowing that lot to the north or the west to also permit that driveway." MCKAY "But are we going to limit, when that develops, those people to have driveway?" KROUT "I think that depends on what they come in with; what kind of use it is and whether or not it makes sense to separate them." WARREN "Can we ask the applicant if he would accept a cross-lot agreement? That wouldn't include the drive?" SAVOY "We had asked to not have to do that. That is why the Subdivision removed it." WARREN "Okay." GAROFALO "Is there any other discussion? Okay, we will vote." VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion carried with 13 votes in favor. There was no opposition. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 4/10. S/D 00-21 – One-Step Final Plat of LORAC FIRST ADDITION, located on the north side of Harry, east side of St. Louis. A. Municipal services appear to be available to serve this site. City Engineering needs to comment on the need for guarantees or easements. A 20-ft utility easement shall be dedicated to cover the existing sanitary sewer line. A hold harmless agreement shall be provided. 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. City Engineering needs to comment on the access controls. The plat proposes three access openings along St. Francis, three access openings along Santa Fe, and two openings along Harry. In accordance with the Protective Overlay, the Applicant shall guarantee the closure of the westernmost driveway opening along Harry. Distances should be shown for all segments of access control. Two access openings along St. Francis and two openings along Santa Fe have been approved. E. The County Surveyor has requested additional boundary measurements. F. The legal description in the plattor's text needs to reference the "Perrys" Addition in addition to the section, township and range. G. The Applicant is reminded of the screening requirements of the Unified Zoning Code and the Landscape Ordinance along the north, east and west property lines. H. Traffic Engineering needs to comment on the need for additional right-of-way along Harry. Engineering requests the dedication of an additional 20-ft of right-of-way. The portion of that dedication over the existing structures may be a contingent dedication. The plattor's text shall state that this dedication would be contingent upon removal of the existing structures. I. The final plat tracing should reference a tie point to a section corner. 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. 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 Department. GAROFALO "I just wanted to question, and I suppose Engineering has approved these two access openings along St. Francis and two on Santa Fe? I was just questioning the four accesses? STRAHL "The original proposal was three access openings along each street to the east and west, so that was reduced down to two by Traffic Engineering." GAROFALO "Two where?" STRAHL "Two on each side." GAROFALO "And the request was for three on each side?" STRAHL "Originally, yes." GAROFALO "Okay. That seems like an awful lot to me. Go ahead." WARREN "My concern was, and I don't know if it is in here or not. I haven't had enough of a chance to look at this. Is that 15-foot requirement in staff comments, do you know? That 15 foot off of the frontage, extra dedication of the street right-of-way?' STRAHL "That was Item H." WARREN "That was a comment made by Vicki, if you remember. She wanted 15-foot street right-of-way off of Harry. I guess it is not in here." STRAHL "It is Item H. It is 20 foot of additional right-of-way." WARREN "Oh, 20 foot. Yeah, the dedication of an additional 20 foot. Okay. That is what I object to. Because if you take that 20 foot, it goes into that building about 10 foot, and I asked the City Engineer if there was any plan, anything she saw in the future that is going to widen Harry Street, and her answer was no. They don't have anything planned at all for the widening of Harry Street. I asked if they were to do that, how would they get the rest of that land. She said they would have to buy it. So, in other words, what I heard was because these people, who want to use their land in a very legitimate way, are asking for a permit. We are going to take their 20 foot. Everybody else they are going to have to buy. I don't like that. I just don't think that requirement should be there. In the first place, what they are doing with their land is not going to create a need for that 20-foot. So if the need for the 20-foot is there, it is a City need. It is not anything they are going to do to create that need. So, I object to that 20-foot right of way. First, it is going to put those buildings in some kind of non-conforming use and that could give them all kinds of problems in the future." STRAHL "The 20-foot additional right-of-way is required because the Subdivision regulations require a 50-foot half- street right of way along arterials. That is the reason for that requirement." WARREN "I'm sure if we were planning a brand-new subdivision that would come in to play, but to come along and take 20 foot of his or her street, whoever this is…." KROUT "As I understand the wording of this though, I don't think it puts the buildings in jeopardy because it says that the buildings would be under a contingent dedication and the City couldn't require that to be dedicated unless the owner was agreeing in one way or another to condemnation or voluntarily to take down that building." WARREN "What good would it be then? You mean that it would be after the building was torn down?" STRAHL "Yes. The contingent dedication is triggered after the buildings would be removed and the right-of-way would be imposed." WARREN "If they came along and decided to put that street through prior to that happening, are you saying that they would pay for their building, if they decided to widen that street?" KROUT "If they had to take the building in order to widen it, yes, but if they only need maybe a portion of it—but as long as they don't need the building, they wouldn't take the building." WARREN "I think where there is no 'construction occasion', and that is something I read in that court case, we have no envision of widening that street, I think it is wrong to take that land." GAROFALO "Okay. But Ray (Warren), you did vote for it in the Subdivision." WARREN "And I made that same thing clear. I didn't want to stop the project. I am not going to vote against it as a project, I am just saying that that is wrong to take those folks' land away from them." GAROFALO "Is there any other discussion on this item? If not, we can have a motion." MOTION: That the Planning Commission recommend to the governing body that the request be approved. MCKAY moved, LOPEZ seconded the motion, and it carried with 12 votes in favor. Warren opposed. Marnell was not present. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5. DR 00-04 - Request for a Street Name Designation from Oliver to Buckner. Wichita/Sedgwick County Addressing Committee, 455 North Main Street, Wichita, KS 67202 LOCATION: Oliver between 55th St. South and 63rd St. South LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Oliver Street as platted in the Stone Creek Addition REASON FOR REQUEST: The adjoining subdivision of Stone Creek is being replatted and will be using the name Buckner. CURRENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential GAROFALO "Is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak on this agenda item, which is a request for a street name designation from Oliver to Buckner near Derby?" MCKAY "Is that 55th Street South, Sir?" GAROFALO "Oliver between 55th Street South and 63rd Street South." MCKAY "I just wanted to make sure, because we are not going to change the name of Oliver north of 55th Street." GAROFALO "I don't think so. Do we need a presentation on this, or can we just vote on it?" WARREN "For those who aren't familiar with it, I might say that this is a brand-new road. It was just now cut in." KROUT "And the County put Oliver signs on the new road, and all of the people on existing Oliver started calling us saying 'what are you going to name our street. We have had addresses on it for years and years. County Public Works just assumed that that was going to be Oliver, and now I guess we have convinced them that that is probably not a good idea. We did send notices to those people on existing Oliver to let them have input, but I guess they feel like the process is working." WARREN "Well, old Oliver just goes down there now and dies. It is cul-de-saced or some kind of turn-around at the end of old Oliver." WHEELER "But Oliver still exists to some point." KROUT "It does exist and there are properties that will front on it." WHEELER "Does this affect Derby or do we have Derby's input on this?" KROUT "We have Derby's input. Derby named the street through their city, including north 53rd Street. They already named it Buckner. So it wouldn't have made sense, from that standpoint to have a street that changed names in the middle." GAROFALO "And it aligns with Buckner down in Derby." KROUT "Right." MCKAY "Well, Oliver will still be a street there, but it is not the new street. So there will still be an Oliver and a Buckner running parallel to each other for quite a ways." GAROFALO "I don't think we need any further explanation." MOTION: That the Planning Commission approve the name change. MCKAY moved CARRAHER seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously (13-0). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Case No. CU-566 – Charles and Mary Starks (Owner/Applicant); Divine Towers International and Ferris Consulting c/o Greg Ferris (Agents) request a Conditional Use to permit a commercial communication tower on property described as: A tract of land in the Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 27 South, Range 2 East of the 6th P.M., Sedgwick County, Kansas, being described as follows: Commencing at the NE corner of said NE1/4; thence S 00 degrees W for a distance of 604.81 feet; thence N 90 degrees W for a distance of 60 feet; thence S 00 degrees W for a distance of 40 feet; thence S 90 degrees E for a distance of 60 feet; thence N 00 degrees E for a distance of 40 feet to the point of beginning. Generally located approximately 700 feet south of Kellogg on the west side of 159th Street East. SCOTT KNEBEL, Planning staff, pointed out land use and zoning; and showed slides of the general area. He reviewed the following staff report: BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a Conditional Use to permit the construction of a 150-foot commercial communications monopole for use by AT&T Wireless Services. The monopole will be sited on a 2,400 square foot area located approximately 700 feet south of Kellogg on the west side of 159th Street East. Access to the site is to be from 159th Street East. The applicant's site plan (attached) depicts a 60-foot by 40-foot compound enclosed by a chain link fence. Within the enclosure would be the monopole and an equipment shelter. The monopole would be constructed so as to be able to accommodate up to three carriers. The site is apparently within the floodway fringe of Four Mile Creek. Most of the property surrounding the site is undeveloped. The nearest developed properties are commercial properties along Kellogg on the east side of 159th Street East in Butler County. The nearest property developed with residential uses is a single-family residence located approximately 1,100 feet to the south on the east side of 159th Street East in Butler County. On the west side of 159th Street East in Sedgwick County, property to the north, south, and west of the site is zoned "SF-20" Single Family Residential and is used for agriculture. The applicant's justification for the request (attached) indicates this site is necessary for AT&T Wireless Services to provide continuous coverage northwest of the city around K-96 and Ridge. The closest existing towers are between 1.9 and 2.5 miles east of the site, and AT&T Wireless Services is co-locating on one those towers. Since this is a largely undeveloped area, there are not any buildings of sufficient height which might provide alternative support structures on which to locate antennas. The applicant states that the 150-foot height is needed to achieve coverage targets, but that a height of 120 feet will satisfy immediate coverage needs while increasing the chance that additional sites will be needed in the future. According to a letter from an aviation consultant, this site complies with the Federal Aviation Administration hazard standards, and should not be a hazard for aircraft. There currently is a commercial communication tower study ongoing by the city and county. The study is focusing on possible alternatives to the construction of new tower structures. Due to the undeveloped nature of the property in the vicinity of this site, none of the study's alternatives to new towers is likely to be applicable in this case. The study also proposes design guidelines for new commercial communication towers, and staff's recommended conditions of approval regarding landscaping, glare reduction, and lighting are intended to bring the proposed new tower into general compliance with the proposed design guidelines. In addition, staff recommends approving the tower for only 120 feet to lessen its negative visual impact. Coverage plots submitted by the applicant (attached) indicate that 120 feet will provide sufficient coverage to currently developed areas. Even with a 150 foot tower, additional towers likely will be needed to the northwest and southwest of the site in the future to provide coverage to properties in the area as they develop. To preserve future options for additional users at this site, however, staff also recommends that the tower be designed and constructed to permit future height extensions of up to 30 feet. CASE HISTORY: The site is unplatted. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: "SF-20" Agriculture SOUTH: "SF-20" Agriculture EAST: Butler Co. Outdoor vehicle and equipment sales; warehousing WEST: "SF-20" Agriculture PUBLIC SERVICES: No municipally supplied public services are required. The site has access to 159th Street East, a two-lane paved section-line road with 1997 traffic volumes of approximately 200 vehicles per day. The proposed 2030 Transportation Plan estimates that traffic volumes on 159th Street East will increase to 1,900 vehicles per day. CONFORMANCE TO PLANS/POLICIES: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for "Low Density Residential" development. However, the proposed update to the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for "Commercial" development. Given the updated indications of appropriate future development, this site generally conforms to the updated Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan does not speak specifically to telephone or cellular phone service, however there is a statement indicating the need to provide the highest quality utility services to the public at a reasonable cost. Section III.D.6.g of the zoning code lists five conditions that commercial communications towers are subject to meeting: unobtrusive paint scheme, no nighttime lighting of the tower except for aircraft warning lighting, no advertising, demonstrate that an effort has been made to co-locate on an existing tower, and willingness to provide space for other communication towers. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon information available prior to the public hearings, planning staff recommends that the request be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: A. All requirements of Section III.D.6.g. of the Unified Zoning Code shall be met. B. The site shall be developed in general conformance with the approved site plan. All improvements shall be completed before the facility becomes operational. C. The applicant shall receive the necessary approvals from the County Engineer for construction in or removal of the site from the floodway fringe. D. Removal of existing trees in and around the site shall be limited to the access easement, the enclosure area, and 5 feet outside the enclosure area. All removed trees shall be replaced with a like number of new trees in conformance with a landscape plan to be submitted and approved by the Director of Planning. E. The support structure shall be a "monopole" design that is silver or gray or a similar unobtrusive color with a matte finish to minimize glare. F. There shall be no lighting of or on the monopole. G. The monopole shall not exceed 120 feet in height to lessen its negative visual impact. H. The monopole and its foundation shall be designed and constructed in such a manner that permits future height extensions of up to 30 feet. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. The zoning, uses and character of the neighborhood: Most of the land adjacent to the site is currently used for agriculture and is zoned "SF-20" Single Family Residential. The nearest developed properties are commercial properties along Kellogg east of 159th Street East in Butler County. The character of the land is agricultural, with urban development approaching from the north, east, and west. 2. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted: The site is zoned "SF-20" Single-family Residential. Commercial communication towers are uses that may be permitted, subject to conditions, in this district. The site could be developed with single family residences if a commercial communications tower is not constructed. 3. Extent to which removal of the restrictions will detrimentally affect nearby property: The site is currently undeveloped. The closest developed properties are located along Kellogg on the east side of 159th Street East in Butler County. No evidence has been presented to date that the construction of a monopole will detrimentally affect nearby property to a greater degree than will the development of the property with commercial uses, which is indicated by the Comprehensive Plan as being the appropriate future development for the site. The only impact to be noted at the time this report was prepared is the visual impact of a monopole. 4. Conformance of the requested change to the adopted or recognized Comprehensive Plan: The Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for "Low Density Residential" development. However, the proposed update to the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for "Commercial" development. Given the updated indications of appropriate future development, this site generally conforms to the updated Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan does not speak specifically to telephone or cellular phone service, however there is a statement indicating the need to provide the highest quality utility services to the public at a reasonable cost. 5. Impact of the proposed development on community facilities: No impacts have been identified, as municipally supplied services are not required. KNEBEL "The applicant has submitted a site plan which indicates that the tower would be enclosed in a 60 foot x 40 foot compound with a chain link fence and would be surrounded by existing trees to the west and to the south. The other issue is that this property is apparently either within the 100-year or the 500-year floodway fringe of Four Mile Creek, which is right here (indicating). It was difficult to tell on the FEMA maps exactly where it is without doing some survey work. Most of the property surrounding this site (indicating) is undeveloped. The applicant has requested this site to provide PCS phone service to the areas along Kellogg and Interstate 35. There are no towers or other tall structures within the general vicinity. The closest ones are 2 or 2-1/2 miles away. One of the applicants, AT&T wireless service, will be using one of those sites. The applicant has requested 150-foot monopole, but has indicated that 120 feet would provide the coverage needs, but would also increase the chances that an additional tower in the area would be needed. As I am sure everybody is aware, there is a study going on and has been for several months regarding commercial communication towers. There are some proposed guidelines for the design of such facilities in this plan that will be coming to you in the future. The staff recommendations reflect those proposed design guidelines in addition to recommending 120-foot height, rather than 150 foot. The area is identified in the existing Comprehensive Plan as being low density residential, but the proposed Comprehensive Plan, which is in the discussion stage, indicates that this area in the future would be appropriate for commercial development. Staff is recommending approval of this, subject to some conditions. There are a number of requirements in the Unified Zoning Code regarding lighting, painting, etc., that we are recommending. We are recommending that the site be developed in compliance with the site plan that has been submitted; that the applicant demonstrate that the site is or has or will be removed from the floodway fringe; that the trees that are removed from the site be replaced with a like number of trees based on a landscape plan; that the monopole be silver or gray or some other unobtrusive color with a matte finish to minimize glare; that there not be lighting; and then, as I mentioned before that the monopole be 120 feet with the possibility to extend 30 feet. The applicant and a neighboring property owner have been discussing this for the last couple of hours, so it is probably best to hear from them unless people don't understand some of the things that are in the staff report." GAROFALO "Scott, I have a question, and I think maybe you covered it but I wasn't paying attention at that time. On Page 2, I think there is an error there." KNEBEL "There is an error on Page 2, that is correct." GAROFALO "So it would provide coverage where?" KNEBEL "It provides coverage to the east of the City along I-135 and Kellogg. You will see the staff report that has that same sentence in it in a couple of items." GAROFALO "Are there any other questions of Scott? Okay, if not, then we will hear from the applicant." GREG FERRIS "I am a representative of AT&T Wireless and Divine Tower International, who are proposing this site. You will recall, several weeks ago we were here on three other towers. This tower and one other tower that you will be hearing later is the conclusion of the AT&T build-out for the Wichita-Sedgwick County area. Out of 40 sites in Sedgwick County area. Out of 40 sites in Sedgwick County, 35 of those sites were on either existing buildings or existing monopoles or existing towers. As the staff has cited, there is nothing in this area for us to be able to provide continuous coverage along Kellogg and along the Turnpike and into the residential areas that are adjacent to those. This is a very important tower in the AT&T system. At the time we were here 3 weeks ago, this tower was actually proposed at that time. I will show you where we had originally planned to put that. (Indicating) It was in this area down in here. The property owner to the east in Butler County and some property owners to the west did not like that site, staff did not like that site and asked us to move this site closer to Kellogg. You can see that we have accomplished that goal. We concur with the findings of staff with the exception of the height and I will go into that real briefly. You will have in your backup information; some plots that the 150-foot tower covers the Turnpike where the 120-foot tower does not. Staff is also recommending that we build a 120-foot tower with a 30-foot extension. A possibility at a later date. We believe that that is prudent because that is why we recommended a 150-foot tower in the first place. This is an area on the outlying fringes of the community. It is a very highly developing area. There will be a grea